A coalition of countries invaded Iraq in 2003, with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and ridding the country of alleged weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure most of you know this.
After Saddam was removed from power, the country was thoroughly checked, and no weapons of mass destruction were found. None.
Sometime last spring, Yahoo! news reported that the Pentagon had admitted to twisting the Iraq data in an "unethical, but not illegal" manner. I couldn't find a link for this, so look it up yourself.
The Downing Street Memo's reveal that Bush had wanted to invade Iraq for many years, was willing to provoke Saddam into aggression, and that the actual war began almost a year before the 2003 invasion.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
So. The government knew that there were no WMD, yet they invaded anyway, costing 3,615 American lives, and up to 785,000 Iraqi civilian lives (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html). It has also cost around $450 billion, and has helped to hurt the dollar in its competition against the Euro.
Yet, we still invaded. Why is this? Could it be that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world?
Think about it: We left Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora to go invade Iraq. Clearly, this is not a fight on terror, as Osama and Saddam were sworn enemies.
We've also changed the reason for the war numerous times. First, it was the WMD. Second, it was "freeing the Iraqi people". Then, it was part of the war on terror.
Allow me to digress for a moment. What is a terrorist organization? Is it an organization with clearly defined borders, set bases, and an easy-to-locate army? No, it is a network of people who use "terror tactics" (hence the name "terrorism") to achieve their goals. Can you really wage a "war" (using tanks, B-52 bombers, etc.) on such an organization, or is it something that you combat using intelligence, spies, etc.? Methinks the latter is more likely.
So, the facts have been laid bare. To those of you who still believe that we should have invaded, please, discuss your views here.
After Saddam was removed from power, the country was thoroughly checked, and no weapons of mass destruction were found. None.
Sometime last spring, Yahoo! news reported that the Pentagon had admitted to twisting the Iraq data in an "unethical, but not illegal" manner. I couldn't find a link for this, so look it up yourself.
The Downing Street Memo's reveal that Bush had wanted to invade Iraq for many years, was willing to provoke Saddam into aggression, and that the actual war began almost a year before the 2003 invasion.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
So. The government knew that there were no WMD, yet they invaded anyway, costing 3,615 American lives, and up to 785,000 Iraqi civilian lives (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html). It has also cost around $450 billion, and has helped to hurt the dollar in its competition against the Euro.
Yet, we still invaded. Why is this? Could it be that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world?
Think about it: We left Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora to go invade Iraq. Clearly, this is not a fight on terror, as Osama and Saddam were sworn enemies.
We've also changed the reason for the war numerous times. First, it was the WMD. Second, it was "freeing the Iraqi people". Then, it was part of the war on terror.
Allow me to digress for a moment. What is a terrorist organization? Is it an organization with clearly defined borders, set bases, and an easy-to-locate army? No, it is a network of people who use "terror tactics" (hence the name "terrorism") to achieve their goals. Can you really wage a "war" (using tanks, B-52 bombers, etc.) on such an organization, or is it something that you combat using intelligence, spies, etc.? Methinks the latter is more likely.
So, the facts have been laid bare. To those of you who still believe that we should have invaded, please, discuss your views here.
