Why is Iraq of any interest to the United States?

It is not in any zone of critical interest, and a general concern for the middle east has us bogged down with this incredible idea that Iraq is critical to the defense of the United States, it is not. We need to keep our powder dry and our money in the bank.......we do not need a bankrupt nation and more American blood.

Z...you didn't even mention the oil. Greg Palast said that Saddam was about to mess with prices by releasing more oil on the market. At that point in time, oil prices were much higher. You might find this article of interest:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/oil-s-whodunit-moment-coming-with-millions-of-barrels-to-vanish

2seaoat wrote:It is not in any zone of critical interest, and a general concern for the middle east has us bogged down with this incredible idea that Iraq is critical to the defense of the United States, it is not.  We need to keep our powder dry and our money in the bank.......we do not need a bankrupt nation and more American blood.

The issue you are failing to understand is "our word." The nation has already been bankrupted. Do you really think that Obama doubling the national debt from 10 to near 20 trillion will ever get paid off? We gave Iraq our word we would train up their army and SOF. We pulled the plug on the SOF and then removed all aspects of intel sharing with the SOF leadership as they had to go it alone from 2011 onward. I've explained this to you before and you are too stupid to get it. How long will it be that we have no more close allies because they realize "our word" of being an ally is no longer valid? Our word of promises made are only good until the fair weather citizens who want more handouts than being a nation that leads the world. Before America, Europe was in turmoil and we put an end to the fighting there with WWII. Iraq is a crossroads of the ME right now. It is being torn apart because the SHIA and SUNNI are at war with each other. We are caught up in that because Obama is a Shia Muslim supporting Shia causes (Iran) and its proxies, but we also lend aid to Sunnis led nations (Saudi and other Gulf States). When do you think that the Muslims will have had enough of the US playing both ends against the middle just for cheap oil? Our economic world allies are in need of that oil unfortunately and things like the Carter Doctrine promised the Saudis we would ensure they would remain in power and we would protect their golden goose (oil). You're as goofy as the day is long bro.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Z...you didn't even mention the oil.  Greg Palast said that Saddam was about to mess with prices by releasing more oil on the market.  At that point in time, oil prices were much higher.  You might find this article of interest:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/oil-s-whodunit-moment-coming-with-millions-of-barrels-to-vanish

Oil was a big reason for the invasion. They just could not say this out loud. Saddam was also taking about selling oil for currency other than petrodollars. Any country who tries that will have a U.S. aircraft carrier stationed off of their shores in short order.

...and we have found that an aircraft carrier alone cannot even defeat JV teams like ISIS, huh?

.and we have found that an aircraft carrier alone cannot even defeat JV teams like ISIS, huh?




It is not OUR job, it is the people of the country and region's job, and our support air or otherwise should be strictly limited. This is not rocket science and a true conservative cut and ran from the middle east, because we had NO strategic interest in Lebannon........we have zero interest in Iraq.

2seaoat wrote:.and we have found that an aircraft carrier alone cannot even defeat JV teams like ISIS, huh?




It is not OUR job, it is the people of the country and region's job, and our support air or otherwise should be strictly limited.  This is not rocket science and a true conservative cut and ran from the middle east, because we had NO strategic interest in Lebannon........we have zero interest in Iraq.

We gave our WORD. Obviously, your word means nothing.

KarlRove wrote:

2seaoat wrote:It is not in any zone of critical interest, and a general concern for the middle east has us bogged down with this incredible idea that Iraq is critical to the defense of the United States, it is not.  We need to keep our powder dry and our money in the bank.......we do not need a bankrupt nation and more American blood.

The issue you are failing to understand is "our word." The nation has already been bankrupted. Do you really think that Obama doubling the national debt from 10 to near 20 trillion will ever get paid off? We gave Iraq our word we would train up their army and SOF. We pulled the plug on the SOF and then removed all aspects of intel sharing with the SOF leadership as they had to go it alone from 2011 onward.  I've explained this to you before and you are too stupid to get it. How long will it be that we have no more close allies because they realize "our word" of being an ally is no longer valid? Our word of promises made are only good until the fair weather citizens who want more handouts than being a nation that leads the world. Before America, Europe was in turmoil and we put an end to the fighting there with WWII.  Iraq is a crossroads of the ME right now. It is being torn apart because the SHIA and SUNNI are at war with each other. We are caught up in that because Obama is a Shia Muslim supporting Shia causes (Iran) and its proxies, but we also lend aid to Sunnis led nations (Saudi and other Gulf States). When do you think that the Muslims will have had enough of the US playing both ends against the middle just for cheap oil? Our economic world allies are in need of that oil unfortunately and things like the Carter Doctrine promised the Saudis we would ensure they would remain in power and we would protect their golden goose (oil). You're as goofy as the day is long bro.

Our "word"? Bush invaded a sovereign country based on lies. Obama is not the one who ran up the debt...that was Bush...who didn't even include the wars in his budget. The rest of your commentary is complete and utter gibberish..."bro".

The nuke arsenal was declared
By Obama weeks ago. Just another
Sign we are forsaking the nation of Gods
Chosing.

We gave out word and FT I guess your word isn't worth the piss pot it belongs in.

It was the intel the whole world had.
It was the intel that let Hillary vote yes to invading.

It was the intel that many prominent democrats had and voted yes to invade.

We gave our WORD. Obviously, your word means nothing.




Please show me any signed document that said we will supply Iraq young Americans to die for their nation, and bankrupt our treasury. Your silliness would have 50k Americans in Grenada to protect the local medical school....gave our word.....you wasted a decade of your life because you were lied to and the American people were lied to, and now you think we have a duty to screw this country up even more........get real......you screwed the pooch and we the American public were blinded by fear, just what is being attempted this time.....enough.....the three thousand Americans which represent about 2% of our deployment need to come home and let the Saudis and Israelis finance the effort to remove ISIS.....oh that is right.....they are funding them.

2seaoat wrote:.and we have found that an aircraft carrier alone cannot even defeat JV teams like ISIS, huh?




It is not OUR job, it is the people of the country and region's job, and our support air or otherwise should be strictly limited.  This is not rocket science and a true conservative cut and ran from the middle east, because we had NO strategic interest in Lebannon........we have zero interest in Iraq.

Here's the reason. Specifically, whose job is it?

The Saudis funded ISIS early on, they can fund the boots on the ground, which will not be American boots. We killed 100k Iraqis and almost ten years ago created an untenable constitution which guaranteed that we would NEVER be able to extract ourselves from one more arbitrary colonial demarkation of a sovereign nation.......it is now their civil war, not ours. President Bush and the very advisors who are pumping up current Republican candidates made the worst foreign policy decisions in over a hundred years, and rational Americans are NOT going to compound the mistakes. Air support.......logistical support, but in the end the folks will have to solve their own nation's problems.

2seaoat wrote:The Saudis funded ISIS early on, they can fund the boots on the ground, which will not be American boots.  We killed 100k Iraqis and almost ten years ago created an untenable constitution which guaranteed that we would NEVER be able to extract ourselves from one more arbitrary colonial demarkation of a sovereign nation.......it is now their civil war, not ours.  President Bush and the very advisors who are pumping up current Republican candidates made the worst foreign policy decisions in over a hundred years, and rational Americans are NOT going to compound the mistakes.   Air support.......logistical support, but in the end the folks will have to solve their own nation's problems.

The worst decision is semi-retired President Obama's to ignore all his advisors and pull all our troops out of Iraq after the victory even he declared.

The worst decision was the invasion of Iraq in 2003...feel free to try and dispute that fact. You will not win.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The Saudis funded ISIS early on, they can fund the boots on the ground, which will not be American boots.  We killed 100k Iraqis and almost ten years ago created an untenable constitution which guaranteed that we would NEVER be able to extract ourselves from one more arbitrary colonial demarkation of a sovereign nation.......it is now their civil war, not ours.  President Bush and the very advisors who are pumping up current Republican candidates made the worst foreign policy decisions in over a hundred years, and rational Americans are NOT going to compound the mistakes.   Air support.......logistical support, but in the end the folks will have to solve their own nation's problems.

The worst decision is semi-retired President Obama's to ignore all his advisors and pull all our troops out of Iraq after the victory even he declared.

The worst decision George W. Bush made was to invade the stupid country in the first place. Zionist-influenced neocon foreign policy blunder that it was. Whether he knew this outwardly or not, Bush was being lead around by his nose-ring by then Israeli PM Arial Sharon via the neocons here in America.

Thankfully, President Obama reversed this policy in Iraq as best as he could, and has kept the current Israeli PM (the hot-headed Bibi Netanyahu) at arm's length and will allow him no closer. This is why there will be no stampede to make war against Iran while Obama is still in office (thank you, Mr. President!).

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003"  (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)


He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
-  Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

Z you hate to see the list of Dems that agreed with and voted for the war. If it was so bad,
Why didnt they disagree?
Nuf said

And you can take that list to your grave
Knowing that the war was a bipartisan effort