U.N. Forces in Iraq...

[Keith75]

As you are all aware the U.S. and it's allies went into Iraq and toppled Sadaam's regime. I am sure that some of you on here are against it and think we should have not gone in there. This is a question targeted to any of you who feel that way.

Why did the U.S. and it's allies decide to go into Iraq?

While I know the answer I am curious weather most of you that are against the war do. I keep hearing people who are against it stating false reasons about why we did it or that we just did it because we didn't like Sadaam's brutal regime.

Keith

[NeoGen]

I might be wrong, but this was the idea I got at the time...

U.S. -> Oil. Saddam was just a decoy to gain the people's support.

Allies -> To stay on U.S.'s buddies list (it has its benefits... and like the saying goes, if you can't beat them, join them)

[Keith75]

I guess I should have clarified. You may be right on the real reason but I mean the reason that was publicized.

It amazes me how many people against the war say we went in there to stop an evil dictator or because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The reason was that he attacked an ally of ours, Kuwait, and then after making agreements for a surrender he kept violating them after being repeatedly warned.

On a side note it seems funny how the media acts like there are so many deaths and things are going so bad over there. I am really amazed at how few allied casualties there have been. I expected tens of thousands of deaths when they initially went in and thought it would take much longer than it has to get things to the point they are now.

Keith

[vaughan]

Oil = Texas Tea as Jed Clampet said in the Beverly Hill Billies.

Its an illegal war and we should not be there, let alone the USA who are there only for the oil. Proof - all the historical artifacts got looted from the Baghdad Museum as soon as the Sadam Regime was toppled but what did the US & Allies protect - the Oil Industry records!

There was a lot of sympathy for the troops here which is understandable. Like no one wants to see their son's and daughters getting killed and wounded just to prop up some stupid country. Let 'em fight their civil war amongst themselves, imo, and we can clean up the oil when they are done fighting.

As I predicted when the coalition of the willing set out on its folly - its another Vietnam. Didn't the world's greatest superpower learn anything in South East Asia? You cannot win a war with such long supply chains, a guerilla war with multiple factions competing for an edge so that each can push its own campaign when the others are busy fighting the USA forces. Sure the USA has far superior weapons and tactical intelligence. None of this is any use against suicide bombers and snipers with one reason for being - martyrdom - to die - to undermine - to create anarchy.

Invest the huge amount of money in continuing the War Machine on alternative energy sources and less dependence on oil then just let the Arabs fight their civil war til they run out of adrenaline. Might take a few thousand years, afterall the Crusades happened a thousand years ago.

When the average American has to pay Australian let alone European petrol prices then they will sit up and listen. They will realise that petrol guzzling 4WDs (or SUVs as they are called in the States) are destined for extinction. Hey, much as it hurts to admit it, I might even have to consider trading in the Ford XR6 Turbo (www.fordxr6turbo.com) for a Toyota Prius :shock:

[Strongbow]

I agree with vaughan!

Although a 'leave them alone' policy might not work!

I know it's outside the Iraqi war, but the US 'war on terror' after the 9/11 tragedy (and it really was a tragedy of the utmost) hasn't really achieved anything (or has it and I just have noticed yet?). If you leave them alone then they just get stronger and will attack again, and again! ...and this might be something that Bush was concerned about regarding Saddam - was he getting too strong? I'm not sure, but he was certainly less of a threat to the U.S. than Osama bin Laden was/is.

So I'm all for leaving them alone for as long as they leave us alone! ...oil, puh! I'm sure the actual costs of the Iraqi war would have been more than enough to acclerate the research of alternative fuels so that they can replace fossil fuels within the next 10 years or so! ...but hey, boys with big toys want to show off!

[Keith75]

Hi vaughan. I am not an avid Iraq war supporter but on the other hand I don't really see it being about oil like alot of others do. We are getting less oil from Iraq now than ever. There is plenty of oil in our own country to keep us going for hundreds of years but we instead like to buy it from the middle East. From what I have seen the majority of the Iraq people are very happy with Saddam being gone and very thankful. If we had done as the people against the war wanted and just let them take over Kuwait who kows what their next target might have been? If Iraq took over France would anyone have cared more? Granted France could wipe the floor with them but my point is that he could have gobbled up countries and gained strength if left unchecked.

As for the Vietnam war we could have easily won that if we had wanted to. We were trying to fight a war with them yet at the same time not make Russia mad. Operation Linebacker II alone caused the North to come to negotiations with us. On top of that on the gournd we only had around 1 million men in the war. If we were serious about it we could have sent over 10 million more and cleaned up in no time. Air though seems to be the best way to wage war in a country like that with the fewest casualties.

Keith