Quoted post[/post]]
Quoted post[/post]]
So I'm confused on the whole situation. So we didn't go to Iraq for terrosists? What did we go there for, Saddam, oil, control of that area, or was it terrorism? And if so, why is it that almost every nation is against us on this. I have been trying to figure this out for awhile and have found opinions, not answers. Someone explain this to me so I can take my head out of my ass.
We have official reasons for going to Iraq, and then some speculated "unofficial reasons" for going to Iraq. I happen to believe the unofficial ones too, so bear with me here:
Officially the US tried to connect Saddam to the terrorists. Yes we did. We also tried to connect the 9/11 terrorists with Saudi Arabia (Where they were all from
), Syria, KOREA, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We originally hit on Saudi Arabia (Being that they were all FROM there) but Saudi Arabia decided to play a real nasty game of "Whaddya gonna do about it?" with us, and we backed down. I'm truly disappointed about this, but it happened. We went after Afghanistan and won an unprecedented war in the mountains of Afghanistan - something that NO OTHER invading army had ever been able to accomplish in world history. We didn't "officially" capture Bin Laden (Although I believe we DID and we are waiting for elections to tell everyone) but we did topple the Taliban and it's ruthless tyranny, human rights intolerances and terrorist training tendencies. This one move had made a huge dent in the way that the Middle east produces terrorism.
Iraq was next for official and unofficial reasons as well. Officially:
Saddam Hussein stated on TV that he was going to crush the US. We pleaded to the UN to let us go in and see how serious he was, and the UN denied the notion. They continued with their sanctioned "Weapons Inspectors" (Which is when this became famous). The Weapons inspectors found nothing, but the US had no confidence in their results : Because the CIA and Interpol had both released reports that Iraq HAD the weapons to carry out their threat. Since it was OUR ASSES on the line, we decided wholeheartedly to tell the UN to fuck themselves, and that we were going to go in and get them before they get us.
Unofficially, we all know the Bush family (Oil tycoons) have had it in for OPEC in the 70s (Everything from Cuba to the Bay of Pigs hinged around the Bush oil companies) and that Saddam had been a major thorn in their side for 40 years. We attacked to secure their oil. That doesn't mean "own" it. that means "secure it" so that it's available for capitalist sale (Not cartelling) and that our purchasing needs will always be met. Will the Bush cronies get rich from this ? Oh hell yes. But that can be another thread. This is about Saddam.
One last point: Do not think that "every nation is against us on this". We are out there as a multi-national fighting force. This is NOT a US against Iraq thing, although a lot of people want you to think that. The General of operations out there is Middle Eastern, and he controls forces from Africa, Europe, Japan, Hell - even Turkey, Syria and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has even given troops to the fight (Although I have my own suspicions about that). The US is the largest percentage of available force because we simply have the superior army. Remember: That the US couldn't sell this attack plan to the UN, but they DID sell it to NATO and other friendly countries, after convincing them of the imminent dangers.
And so far - they were RIGHT. No more terrorist activities have occurred since 2001 on US soil. That means that when the Commander in Chief, the Military and the White House said "No more", they meant it.
And that is your non-biased evaluation of what happened.