why we fight ?

[OneGuy67]

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.

[spyder]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[Hoser]

Fight them there or fight them here.

[mcantar18c]

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]

Lithium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...4minerals.html

[Scanker19]

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]

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]

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...