View Full Version : why we fight ?
so someone asked me what the war was about . unfortunately i dont think i have a clear definition of whats going down to say . so i answered this "well im not sure why we are there but the other side seems to think its some sort of holy war " . i just got a blank stair from them [ROFL1] . anyway, does anybody really know why we (the united states)are still over in the middle east ??
im sure this will be a good read [Pop]
Why we're still there? I would have thought that would be obvious. Nation building. I don't watch a whole lot of news- mainly because I can access unclassified reports that don't have any spin (just the facts ma'am), but I can tell you that we're still engaging enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation is not secure, and we'd be the biggest dicks on earth if we just left without finishing what we started. Besides, if we left AFG now and just said "fuck it, it's too expensive" then Al Qaeda, Hezbi-Al-Islami, The Haqqani Network, and other terrorist orgs would move right in and it'd be a repeat of 1996-2001 all over again- women being subjugated, harsh Sharia law, and d-bags like Ayman Al Zawahiri (OBL's #2- and probably AQ's #1 guy now) could have free reign, a bigger income, and freely plan attacks on the west, more specifically the US. We want security and safety in the region, but what the policy makers in Washington don't get (but a couple of my former CIA buddies do) is that we can secure, secure, secure 'til we're blue in the face over there, but the real issue is across the border (dare I say it? Pakistan) home to the ISI, who backed the Taliban and refuse to do much of anything against the anti-Coalition forces.
Once we leave the Taliban will attempt to get back into power where they will let any anti-western terrorist come in and learn the tools of the trade. Hell, it was Al Qaeda terror camps where the "muscle hijackers" on 9/11 learned hand to hand combat so they could subdue and intimidate the crew and passengers. It was in Afghanistan where OBL and KSM first discussed the plan to use commercial airliners as weapons against buildings. When you're on the run you can't really plan a whole lot and coordinate a major operation... the misconception was that OBL planned and orchestrated 9/11 in a cave- wrong, he had a compound in Kandahar where he could go where he pleased, when he pleased, and had the full support of the TB gov. If we leave now, it'll turn back into the place where terrorists go to learn the way of Jihad, then when you're laying on a sidewalk in Los Angeles with 3rd degree burns and your life flashing before your eyes after they blow up the Staples center, or in Chicago after they blow up the Sears Tower, or whatever, you'll know we need to finish what we start.
If history is a good teacher, then we should know that it is always better to fight in someone else's country rather than our own. All war creates collateral death and destruction. If war is inevitable, like when someone else attacks us, then take the battleground to them, so they can pay the greater cost in damages.
Besides, I would much rather have our military forces on the front line, overseas rather than depend on domestic, civilian law enforcement fighting with their irregular military forces. Wars should be fought in the field, not in a courtroom.
Just my opinion. [Coffee]
islandermyk
09-02-2011, 11:28
Cold war is over... so I don't think Afghanistan is no longer needed for a strategic spot for the US...
OIL? [Dunno]
Scanker19
09-02-2011, 11:31
So we stay there and continue to bleed blood and money to fight a war aginst a feeling and an emotion. Does anyone here seriously think we will ever be free of terrorist? We won't you can't a culture. Flipthe coin if someone came here and tried to push their values, cilice and way of life on us would you say "sounds reasonable." it would take generations upon generations to change a feeling. Look at racism or anti gay, or another feeling it doesn't go away cause you say it's wrong, but we'll continue to wasted money and lives to convince them other wise. We be better off using that money to secure our boarders here.
I say capitalism. The longer we stay, the better the chances of Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Chili's, etc. opening up stores/restaurants over there. [Coffee]
Scanker19
09-02-2011, 11:32
Cold war is over... so I don't think Afghanistan is no longer needed for a strategic spot for the US...
OIL? [Dunno]
Lithium.
islandermyk
09-02-2011, 11:38
Lithium.
Lithium? Really? [Wow2]
So there's another theory about all this now... Not only are we after your petroleum... by the time we suck all your oil up... we'd have control of materials for making batteries... hhhmmm[NoEvil]
islandermyk
09-02-2011, 11:40
Or are we after their opium poppy? [ROFL1]
Seriously.... there is probably gold over there. The military is there to cover up a serious gold mining operation and to hide the fact the U.S. government is stealing gold from the middle east. Probably part of Obama's plan to fix the economy and get himself re-elected. [Coffee]
islandermyk
09-02-2011, 11:45
That's a good one... What ever happened to them billions of dollars that Sadam stashed away and was found by the US military?
Cold war is over... so I don't think Afghanistan is no longer needed for a strategic spot for the US...
OIL? [Dunno]
Only thing Afghanistan has to do with Oil (since they have almost no oil) is pipelines... a big thing though that was discovered years ago that the rest of the world is finally getting into over there is Copper... look up the Anyak Copper Mine, acquired by China (beat out us and the Germans). That will help their infrastructure so they don't have to rely on heroin so much (poppy is the #1 crop, heroin is the #1 export).
That's a good one... What ever happened to them billions of dollars that Sadam stashed away and was found by the US military?
Didn't George Clooney find that money, or was that gold? Seems like that was a little like Clint Eastwood in Kelly's Hero's.
The idea that 10 soldiers, not to mention 10,000 soldiers, keeping a secret gold mining operation hidden is just plain funny. [ROFL1]
The idea that 10 soldiers, not to mention 10,000 soldiers, keeping a secret gold mining operation hidden is just plain funny. [ROFL1]
I thought so too. That's why I said it. [Coffee]
islandermyk
09-02-2011, 11:55
Only thing Afghanistan has to do with Oil (since they have almost no oil) is pipelines... a big thing though that was discovered years ago that the rest of the world is finally getting into over there is Copper... look up the Anyak Copper Mine, acquired by China (beat out us and the Germans). That will help their infrastructure so they don't have to rely on heroin so much (poppy is the #1 crop, heroin is the #1 export).
Where there is copper... there is GOLD[Tooth]
Didn't George Clooney find that money, or was that gold? Seems like that was a little like Clint Eastwood in Kelly's Hero's.
The idea that 10 soldiers, not to mention 10,000 soldiers, keeping a secret gold mining operation hidden is just plain funny. [ROFL1]
[ROFL1][Beer]
On a serious note... It just sucks how things are being ran here and how we actually allow these freaken asses to make these choices of what is better for us. as a country and nation... but whatever.. who am I to talk [NoEvil]
I pray for our military everyday. It doesn't matter to me if they are in Iraq, Korea, Okinawa, or South Carolina. People in uniform die every day. When you train hard, accidents will happen. If you take up arms against a citizen of the USA, you should be prepared to have your life taken from you regardless of where you are or where you hide.
Good training at the NTC leads to even better prepared soldiers in the sand box. Experienced soldiers from the sand box will defend our nation in the next conflict. Have no doubts, there will be a "next conflict." Defending our nation, means taking the fight to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
God Bless our military members and as the quote from Marcus Luttrell goes; "Once you get me over there...turn your back, close your eyes because I'm gonna frickin' wreck shop."
Good read about it is "inside the revolution" by Joel C Rosenberg
I pray for our military everyday. It doesn't matter to me if they are in Iraq, Korea, Okinawa, or South Carolina. People in uniform die every day. When you train hard, accidents will happen. If you take up arms against a citizen of the USA, you should be prepared to have your life taken from you regardless of where you are or where you hide.
Good training at the NTC leads to even better prepared soldiers in the sand box. Experienced soldiers from the sand box will defend our nation in the next conflict. Have no doubts, there will be a "next conflict." Defending our nation, means taking the fight to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
God Bless our military members and as the quote from Marcus Luttrell goes; "Once you get me over there...turn your back, close your eyes because I'm gonna frickin' wreck shop."
And bless you sir for quoting one of America's most badass fighting men! I pray for our soldiers on two fronts- one for their safety and two so maybe, just maybe the policy makers can untie their hands with the ridiculous ROE. These guys we're fighting don't give a hoot about the Geneva Conventions or rules of war- they execute POWs for crying out loud!
Best quote on fighting terrorism comes from 1998's Denzel great "The Siege":
"You don't fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog."
SA Friday
09-02-2011, 13:39
We are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil. We are in the rest of the middle east because of oil.
No political and geographical stability in the middle east, less or no oil exported. The less oil, the higher the prices of everything petroleum based. The higher the gas, the tighter the economy. Got pretty fricken tight right after the oil companies decided to play the "let's see what the market can take as a price" game, didn't it. Still reeling from it too.
We are there because of oil, period. Does Rowanda or any of the other shit hole countries in Africa that have had a mass genocide within the last couple of years have oil? No. Are we there in-mass stopping the genocides? No.
If you don't think we are so heavily involved in SWA primarily because of oil, you are completely lost. In comparison, ethanol fuel is inefficient. But, some day, we might find it efficient enough for us to stop giving a shit about the middle east and we can stop paying money to the middle east and watch them de-evolve back into a beduin camel riding based society. Sooner would be better IMO.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2011, 13:51
A couple of points:
1. Doesn't anyone remember what happened when we went to Viet Nam and made promises to all the groups that helped us that we would be there for them in the end?
Well, we packed our shit and left early, before finishing the job we could've easily finished. We had an administration then, just as we do now...one that didn't have the will to win the war because they let it be fought in the media. Shitheads like Walter Cronkite and the like were allowed to form the war in the minds of the public and the public didn't like what they were seeing. That's because war is a dirty business and people get killed and shit gets broken. Anyway, we left before finishing what we went there to do and left a lot of allies hangin' out. Then, next thing you know millions of innocent people were killed by the commies, Khmer Rouge and others. If we'd just put the fuckin' smackdown on N Viet Nam and told the Chinese they'd better stock up on SunBlock 1,000,000 if they came across the border things would've turned out differently. Notice the Viet Cong kinda lost their will to fight after having their asses pounded unrelentingly by B-52 bombers for days on end. All of a sudden they wanted to talk peace. We stopped bombing, they talked peace for a bit and then went back to doing what they were doing until we bombed the beejeezus out of them again.
The point being, I'm not necessarily opposed to nation building, especially if it meant bringing a stable democracy or two to that region. What I'm opposed to is sending our warriors over there year after year and then telling them they can't kill people and break stuff. That's just Viet Nam all over again.
2. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I don't really care if I do.
If there's any one thing worth going to war over these days, it's oil. Period.
Oil is required for almost everything we use on a daily basis and there's no replacement for it on the horizon.
We should make sure that everyone that has it, knows our national strategy involves kicking their asses to take it if we can't get it through peaceful means.
OK...3 points.
3. The more Muslims we kill, the better. You never know which one you killed might've grown up to be the next Mohammed Atta, or Nidal Hassan, or Osama bin Laden.
Mick-Boy
09-02-2011, 13:59
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I keep going back because face shooting a jihadi is good clean fun (just make sure to tilt your head down so you don't get brain or skull on your oakleys).
Great points BG... but let me restate this for the hard of seeing: THERE IS NO OIL IN AFGHANISTAN. SA, unfortunately what you said is true- to an extent- because we don't and never will OWN the oil in Iraq... but because we liberated them from the evil Saddam (and I'm not being sarcastic here- the guy was about as bad as Hitler, he just didn't have the resources of the 3rd Reich) we should be entitled to some discounts and no-conditions trade agreements (not able to be canceled). The only thing Afghanistan has to do with oil is the conduit it provides to move oil [pipelines].
I'll say it again, and BG is very right on this- killing these cowards is always a good thing, their hatred is being spread and fostered in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and the list goes on and on... they don't want to negotiate, they refuse to compromise, they can't live in peace and tolerance, and they are very pissed off. The only way to fix the problem is to kill them before they kill us. Plain and simple.
Kill 'em all, let God/Buddah/Allah/Jeebus/Odin/FSM/whoever sort them out.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2011, 14:19
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I keep going back because face shooting a jihadi is good clean fun (just make sure to tilt your head down so you don't get brain or skull on your oakleys).
This is the kind of attitude I want fighting this, or any, war.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2011, 14:23
On a side note:
Back in the early days of the war in Iraq, around fall of 2004, my youngest was a new TACP in the Air Force.
Being the proud father, I printed a very LARGE banner that was about 10' long and hung it on the front wall of my gun shop. The banner read:
My son can direct an Air Strike on your Honor Student!
Most everyone who saw it got a kick out of it because they knew me and my son and understood the joke. But one lady came in and, oh, my...I'm pretty sure her panties are still all twisted up inside you know what. She had a litter of kittens over it. She really got made when I laughed at her and told her to leave.
mcantar18c
09-02-2011, 14:31
If there's any one thing worth going to war over these days, it's oil. Period.
THIS.
If we aren't willing to go to war over oil, the life blood of our economy and our society... what the hell ARE we willing to go to war over?
However....
I've always supported the troops and the mission. That said, I believe we have passed the point of deminishing returns on our investment of lives and treasure in Afghanistan.
"The the place is a shitthole populated by shitheads and when we do leave the country will revert back to the way it's been for centuries." - I know quite a few people that have been over there and some that are still there, and there's not one that would disagree with that statement.
America can offer democracy, civilization, and material progress. If you prefer dictatorship, poverty, and barbarity, then there is nothing we can do for you. We might have been able to save Afghanistan from the Taliban, but we can’t save it from the Afghans.
And I say this as someone who will be there this time next year.
OneGuy67
09-02-2011, 14:50
We are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil. We are in the rest of the middle east because of oil.
No political and geographical stability in the middle east, less or no oil exported. The less oil, the higher the prices of everything petroleum based. The higher the gas, the tighter the economy. Got pretty fricken tight right after the oil companies decided to play the "let's see what the market can take as a price" game, didn't it. Still reeling from it too.
We are there because of oil, period. Does Rowanda or any of the other shit hole countries in Africa that have had a mass genocide within the last couple of years have oil? No. Are we there in-mass stopping the genocides? No.
If you don't think we are so heavily involved in SWA primarily because of oil, you are completely lost. In comparison, ethanol fuel is inefficient. But, some day, we might find it efficient enough for us to stop giving a shit about the middle east and we can stop paying money to the middle east and watch them de-evolve back into a beduin camel riding based society. Sooner would be better IMO.
Forgive me for disagreeing with you on this. As Ronin has pointed out, Afghanistan does not have any oil. Iraq has oil, but since the time we've been actively involved there, the oil we are supposed to be there for, isn't coming here. The cost per barrel continues to fluxuate higher and higher from the time of our invasion. If it was for oil, wouldn't some of that oil be coming here and the price of oil would decrease. In fact, most of the contracts the Iraqi government has gone into regarding oil aren't American companies.
So, using that premise that we invaded for oil, where the hell is the oil?
I truly think we invaded Iraq due to a vendetta on the part of Bush. Call it a personal vendetta if you will, as Saddam had issue with his dad. He was a small dictator in a small country who didn't have WMD's, who couldn't win a war with Iran, who was afraid to fight any other of their neighbors except Kuwait. Once we ousted him, we didn't stop. We ousted the military, who then became the insurgents and we've been trying to fix that mistake ever since.
I disagreed with our invasion, but once we were there and screwed things up, I felt and still feel it was our responsibility to fix what we screwed up. If you wish to call that nation building, then so be it. I call it American values. As Americans, we have a history of fixing, helping, assisting people we were involved in conflict with. Europe, Japan, Korea come to mind. Add Iraq to that list as well.
Just my $.02.
SA Friday
09-02-2011, 14:56
Afghanistan has been an epicenter for madrasa driven himbali sect sunni islam theology. You wanna kill the cancer, you gotta take the patient almost there too. In this case, one of the tumors feeding the spread is that worthless shit hole afghanistan.
It effects the entire geographical area. Can't ignore it. We have to turn it around if we can or we will be fighting its neighbors on both sides; iran and pakistan.
Mick-Boy
09-02-2011, 15:00
"The the place is a shitthole populated by shitheads and when we do leave the country will revert back to the way it's been for centuries."
That is a very true statement.
mcantar18c
09-02-2011, 15:01
I truly think we invaded Iraq due to a vendetta on the part of Bush. Call it a personal vendetta if you will, as Saddam had issue with his dad. He was a small dictator in a small country who didn't have WMD's, who couldn't win a war with Iran, who was afraid to fight any other of their neighbors except Kuwait. Once we ousted him, we didn't stop. We ousted the military, who then became the insurgents and we've been trying to fix that mistake ever since.
No matter the reasons we initially invaded for... Saddam DID have WMDs, COULD have won a war with Iran (or at least drawn one out to be very long and bloody), and WASN'T afraid to invade other countries or do anything really to further his regime.
And call me crazy but... if you take down the leader over a country, but leave a sizable military that supports said leader... it just might come back to bit you in the ass, dontchya think?
Afghanistan has been an epicenter for madrasa driven himbali sect sunni islam theology. You wanna kill the cancer, you gotta take the patient almost there too. In this case, one of the tumors feeding the spread is that worthless shit hole afghanistan.
It effects the entire geographical area. Can't ignore it. We have to turn it around if we can or we will be fighting its neighbors on both sides; iran and pakistan.
Again close- Afghanistan used to be a bustling paradise in Asia- in fact a lot of travel experts would say that Kabul was a diamond in the rough hidden among the hindu kush. That was until Mother Russia came in a fawked that all up. The radical Islamic views we're now so very familiar with (mostly the anti-western view) originated with the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia after oil was discovered in the 1920's. The Kingdom invited us over to help them build their oil empire and in exchange for free trade between our nations we offered military support. Hence why bin Laden hated us, when Iraq invaded Kuwait he offered his Mujahadeen warriors who "defeated" the Soviets (with CIA help) in Afghanistan to protect the kingdom. But they had a better offer, the US Military with over 15 countries in tow. He saw this as an affront to Islam (Satanic non-believers in the Holy Land- and worse they supported Israel), and that was where he drew the line and issued a Fatwa against us. Crock of shit though, because the only ones who can issue a Fatwa are Mufti- and bin Laden was not considered one at all.
OneGuy67
09-02-2011, 15:34
No matter the reasons we initially invaded for... Saddam DID have WMDs, COULD have won a war with Iran (or at least drawn one out to be very long and bloody), and WASN'T afraid to invade other countries or do anything really to further his regime.
And call me crazy but... if you take down the leader over a country, but leave a sizable military that supports said leader... it just might come back to bit you in the ass, dontchya think?
Where were those WMD's? All reports indicate they did not, interviews with Saddam indicate he stated those things to bluff his enemies, nothing concrete has been found. Saddam didn't win a war with Iran; he fought one to a stale mate. There was no land gained by either side. He WAS afraid to go after other countries; he didn't invade Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, all of which have sizeable armies. He invaded Kuwait, a very small country with no military to speak of, to show power to his people. The military didn't truly support him, and many laid down their weapons, left their barracks, and plain old didn't want to fight when we rolled in.
Great points BG... but let me restate this for the hard of seeing: THERE IS NO OIL IN AFGHANISTAN....
Forgive me for disagreeing with you on this. As Ronin has pointed out, Afghanistan does not have any oil. Iraq has oil....
Well, wouldn't an ongoing war over in afganistan be a good reason to keep all of our soldiers there? I think so. It seems to keep the whole oil thing under the radar right? If we wanted to kill those pieces of shit and get it over with, we would have, plain and simple. Everyone in the military knows we have the technology, and the power to do so. So, why are we taking our time? Oil. If we killed em all and said, yep, no more threat. We wouldn't have any reason to be there would we?
These are proven reserves as of two years ago.
Canada had better not screw with us either... [lol]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Oil_Reserves.png/800px-Oil_Reserves.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Oil_Reserves.png)
Also, Iran is the fourth largest oil producer in the world after us. Everyone rather they admit it or not knows what we are there for (oil). They all know we are willing to invade over almost anything to get it, so, who over there is going to go and tell us where to stick it especially while we are over there? They are smart enough to know a big bully when they see one. They either get to give us part of their lunch, or, we will take it.
Well, wouldn't an ongoing war over in afganistan be a good reason to keep all of our soldiers there? I think so. It seems to keep the whole oil thing under the radar right? If we wanted to kill those pieces of shit and get it over with, we would have, plain and simple. Everyone in the military knows we have the technology, and the power to do so. So, why are we taking our time? Oil. If we killed em all and said, yep, no more threat. We wouldn't have any reason to be there would we?
We don't have the technology or ability (with our hands tied the way they are) to just roll over the insurgents in Afghanistan. Insurgency rules: Use their advantages against them to make them disadvantages. Hence why they use such low tech against our troops (seen it first hand). Sure if the White House would just STFU and let us fight the war the way it needs to be- which includes getting rid of any and all media from covering it- then we could win, but we'd anger a lot of people in the process (fight fire with water, not zippo fluid). We're taking our time because fighting an insurgency where you want to win hearts and minds- fighting an enemy that wears no uniform and blends with the local populace- is a time consuming effort. And I really am getting tired of saying this so let's change the font, color and size shall we?
In case you missed it the first 2 times:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO OIL IN AFGHANISTAN!
Bailey Guns
09-02-2011, 16:05
Great points BG... but let me restate this for the hard of seeing: THERE IS NO OIL IN AFGHANISTAN.
Yeah, I know that. Just saying oil is worth going to war over. But that isn't why we went into Iraq.
And it wasn't because Bush had it in for Saddam.
It was because they continually violated the UN no-fly zone and the UN authorized the use of force in Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, because they did have WMD, because they did use them (on the Iranians and the Kurds) and because they would've used them again eventually.
Fight them there or fight them here.
mcantar18c
09-02-2011, 18:21
Where were those WMD's? All reports indicate they did not, interviews with Saddam indicate he stated those things to bluff his enemies, nothing concrete has been found. Saddam didn't win a war with Iran; he fought one to a stale mate. There was no land gained by either side. He WAS afraid to go after other countries; he didn't invade Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, all of which have sizeable armies. He invaded Kuwait, a very small country with no military to speak of, to show power to his people. The military didn't truly support him, and many laid down their weapons, left their barracks, and plain old didn't want to fight when we rolled in.
The reports you saw didn't say there were WMDs. Shockingly (sarcasm), the MSM didn't report them.
Entire Kurdish villages were wiped out with chemical weapons (Halabja Massacre, Anfal Genocide, etc.) by Saddam's regime. Used mustard gas, hydrogen cyanide, sarin, GA (volatile nerve agent), and VX (one of the deadliest chem weapons ever). The coalition troops found numerous NBC manufacturing facilities, including a mobile centrifuge for processing nuclear materials. Even the UN put out resolutions for Saddam's regime to give up his cache of WMDs and cease all further manufacturing, which, surprise, went unheeded.
Would the UN do that if they didn't have them?
How did he use chemical weapons to commit a genocide against the Kurds if he didn't have them?
Why did he have so many manufacturing facilities if he didn't use them?
Don't believe everything you hear from the MSM.
Scanker19
09-02-2011, 18:47
Lithium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
Scanker19
09-02-2011, 18:49
The reports you saw didn't say there were WMDs. Shockingly (sarcasm), the MSM didn't report them.
Entire Kurdish villages were wiped out with chemical weapons (Halabja Massacre, Anfal Genocide, etc.) by Saddam's regime. Used mustard gas, hydrogen cyanide, sarin, GA (volatile nerve agent), and VX (one of the deadliest chem weapons ever). The coalition troops found numerous NBC manufacturing facilities, including a mobile centrifuge for processing nuclear materials. Even the UN put out resolutions for Saddam's regime to give up his cache of WMDs and cease all further manufacturing, which, surprise, went unheeded.
Would the UN do that if they didn't have them?
How did he use chemical weapons to commit a genocide against the Kurds if he didn't have them?
Why did he have so many manufacturing facilities if he didn't use them?
Don't believe everything you hear from the MSM.
Why didn't they say we found them, the whole reason we went there was to find them. To lie? To keep us fighting for what. To cover a lie with a lie is even worse.
OneGuy67
09-02-2011, 19:33
Yeah, I know that. Just saying oil is worth going to war over. But that isn't why we went into Iraq.
And it wasn't because Bush had it in for Saddam.
It was because they continually violated the UN no-fly zone and the UN authorized the use of force in Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, because they did have WMD, because they did use them (on the Iranians and the Kurds) and because they would've used them again eventually.
Again, not to argue, but does that mean we are going to invade all the other countries that have ignored U.N. sanctions? Like Somalia, (the former) Rwanda, and North Korea for example?
As for the WMD's Saddam used on the Kurd's, it was shortly after the first Gulf War when they rose up with our urging (and without our support) that he used them on them. We then sent troops to Northern Iraq to stop it (Operation Provide Comfort; I was assigned to a MP Brigade that was shipped there for that operation. Long story...) and while in Iraq, we haven't found a stockpile of WMD's worth mentioning yet. We found a couple of Foxbat's hidden in the desert and a few relics of things, but no WMD's.
OneGuy67
09-02-2011, 19:36
The reports you saw didn't say there were WMDs. Shockingly (sarcasm), the MSM didn't report them.
Entire Kurdish villages were wiped out with chemical weapons (Halabja Massacre, Anfal Genocide, etc.) by Saddam's regime. Used mustard gas, hydrogen cyanide, sarin, GA (volatile nerve agent), and VX (one of the deadliest chem weapons ever). The coalition troops found numerous NBC manufacturing facilities, including a mobile centrifuge for processing nuclear materials. Even the UN put out resolutions for Saddam's regime to give up his cache of WMDs and cease all further manufacturing, which, surprise, went unheeded.
Would the UN do that if they didn't have them?
How did he use chemical weapons to commit a genocide against the Kurds if he didn't have them?
Why did he have so many manufacturing facilities if he didn't use them?
Don't believe everything you hear from the MSM.
Sorry, should have multi-quoted! See the above statement to attempt to answer your questions about the Kurds and the usage of chemical weapons against them. As for the items found, I can't say. I can tell you what I saw while I was there and what I learned through intel and there weren't any stockpiles found.
I don't believe the MSM; I believe what I heard, saw and experienced while in Iraq...
OneGuy67
09-02-2011, 19:37
Why didn't they say we found them, the whole reason we went there was to find them. To lie? To keep us fighting for what. To cover a lie with a lie is even worse.
I got to learn to read all the way through and multi-quote!
I agree with Jordan on this!
Scanker19
09-02-2011, 21:28
They had SAS, Seal, And other spooks at the Haditha Dam for a few weeks playing frogman etc.... I hope they never found any, I was swimming there.
It was cool to be approached by Seals or who ever they were, and have them ask like giddy kids to get a picture of your tank with them on it. [Beer]
wow so after 4 pages we have come up with ...
oil
gold
lithium
lies
did i miss anything ??
Scanker19
09-03-2011, 08:02
wow so after 4 pages we have come up with ...
oil
gold
lithium
lies
did i miss anything ??
We had to do something with our "extra" money, since our schools are #1 in the world.
We had to do something with our "extra" money, since our schools are #1 in the world.
[ROFL1][LOL][ROFL3][ROFL2][ROFL1][LOL][ROFL3][ROFL2][Beer]
Fight them there or fight them here.
I think Hoser summed it up best.
Some people want to kill Americans.
So let's send some heavily armed and motivated Americans to their backyard and let them take their chances. Otherwise, those people will arm and train until they are ready, and then they will come here to our backyard and kill Americans in "Gun Free Zones."
Mick-Boy
09-03-2011, 17:15
wow so after 4 pages we have come up with ...
oil
gold
lithium
lies
did i miss anything ??
Giving the good news to the Muj is fun. ;)
BushMasterBoy
09-04-2011, 15:02
Some idiots won some sort of election..."the Hydrocarbon Wars"!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.