Jump to content

Real Reason America Went To War


Recommended Posts

I've heard many theorys. Some seem normal and possible, while others are partisan conspiracys. Well, here's the main reason America went to war in the middle-east! Bush even thought it was WMDs....

The reason we went to war was not oil. It was not WMD's or Saddam. It had little to do with Iran or Iraq. It had everything to do with Al Quaida. Here's the truth about America and the middle-east vs. Al Quaida.

Al Quaida's main goal was not to harm the United States or western civilizion, but to control the middle-east. Al Quaida planned an attack on the United States, expecting we would counter the attack. But, they believed we would be cowardly enough to run away after a short time. Al Quaida would then pick up the pieces of Afghanistan and others.

Iran was on our side against Al Quaida, of course, Iran was only afraid of Al Quaida. But once we showed our military might and purpose in freeing the middle-east. Thus, they became our enemy.

We were angry with the Saudis because they refused to help us with Al Quaida and then told us to leave their country. We left, brought the tropps to Kuwait, and then started our war path.

We had two main goals. They were to show the Royal family we meant buisness against Al Quaida, and to prove we were not going to let Al Quaida take over. We would not alow Al Quaida to control the middle-east thus Gulf War 2. This truly is the war on terror, the war on Al Quaida!

Bush did not lie, he thought WMDs himself. So, here you go. The USA yet again, saves the fυcking world, and get shιt back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear KalosSkilo,

Bush did not lie, he thought WMDs himself. So, here you go. The USA yet again, saves the fυcking world, and get shιt back
This being the same Al-Qaeda that the US helped fund and abet in the overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan? The ones that were fighting for Islam and Shari'a Law to rule their lands? The ones that the US president(s) had been repeatedly warned about well before they were ever heard of in the media, let alone 9/11? The ones former Pres Clinton halfheartedly tried to kill (including Bin Laden) with a few cruise missile and predator drone strikes?

How does the USA fighting it's former proxy guerillas and illegally invading countries translate into 'saving the world'? (You can also include Charles Taylor in your answer if you like. A former 'brutal dictator' supported and funded by the US, now causing trouble 'in exile'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been watching too much Fox News.

I guess you have not watched enough of it to understand that FOX news conservatives and Bush supporters spend their time attcking liberals and talking about freedom. I speak from an independant reader's and researchers's point of view. I work for no one.

By the way, loniusfleabag, where the hell you been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KalosSkilo,

Without the United States, Western Europe would be speaking German right now
This has been debated on another thread, however it is safe to say that the unbombed industrial capacity of the USA was indeed a crucial element of WWII.
The United States is the most underappreciated country in the world.
The opposite, I should say. The most over-valued, self-inflated and pompous nation in the world.
By the way, loniusfleabag, where the hell you been?
Puter problems. Thanks for thinking of me, though. I couldn't get through on this forum nor KK for a long time. Gave up for a bit, and also am working on a book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the United States, Western Europe would be speaking German right now. The United States is the most underappreciated country in the world.

The Soviet Union really had nothing to do with it, opening up a front in the East forcing Germany to have to split itself across Europe.

Canada and the UK really had nothing to do with it either, actually obtaining their goals on the most crucial day in the war.

United States is certainly under-appreciated compared to the rest of the allies.

What a joke. You've been eating apple pie for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puter problems. Thanks for thinking of me, though. I couldn't get through on this forum nor KK for a long time. Gave up for a bit, and also am working on a book.

Well the site has been improved greatly and the new link is wiredwiredworld.com!

When you are done your book, tell me I will check it out. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran was on our side against Al Quaida, of course, Iran was only afraid of Al Quaida. But once we showed our military might and purpose in freeing the middle-east. Thus, they became our enemy.

Iran has been an enemy of the U.S.A since before their was an Al Qaeda. remember that whole "overthrowing the Shah" business in the '70s?

We had two main goals. They were to show the Royal family we meant buisness against Al Quaida, and to prove we were not going to let Al Quaida take over. We would not alow Al Quaida to control the middle-east thus Gulf War 2. This truly is the war on terror, the war on Al Quaida!

Yeah, you went in to the one country in the Middle East that had no connection with Al Qaeda and was, in fact, headed by a regime on Al Qaeda's hit list (bin Laden considered secular leaders like Saddam to be apostates). The ensuing chaos not only drew more recruits to Al Qaeda, but put them in action against U.S. troops. Bravo. You and me should play Risk sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran was on our side against Al Quaida, of course, Iran was only afraid of Al Quaida. But once we showed our military might and purpose in freeing the middle-east. Thus, they became our enemy.

Iran has been an enemy of the U.S.A since before their was an Al Qaeda. remember that whole "overthrowing the Shah" business in the '70s?

We had two main goals. They were to show the Royal family we meant buisness against Al Quaida, and to prove we were not going to let Al Quaida take over. We would not alow Al Quaida to control the middle-east thus Gulf War 2. This truly is the war on terror, the war on Al Quaida!

Yeah, you went in to the one country in the Middle East that had no connection with Al Qaeda and was, in fact, headed by a regime on Al Qaeda's hit list (bin Laden considered secular leaders like Saddam to be apostates). The ensuing chaos not only drew more recruits to Al Qaeda, but put them in action against U.S. troops. Bravo. You and me should play Risk sometime.

the real reason that the middle east is the site for constast struggle is because 1000 years ago christian crusaders took jerusuelum, and subsequently crusaded for the next 200 years. if we wanna get techinical about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the real reason that the middle east is the site for constast struggle is because 1000 years ago christian crusaders took jerusuelum, and subsequently crusaded for the next 200 years.  if we wanna get techinical about it

They are Islamic radicals that want the Muslims to control everything they had once upon a time. We gave them Stinger missles and other weapons when Afghanistan was fighting against the Soviet Union. We also trained them, so that hurts us now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are Islamic radicals that want the Muslims to control everything they had once upon a time. We gave them Stinger missles and other weapons when Afghanistan was fighting against the Soviet Union. We also trained them, so that hurts us now.

Which has what to do with Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KalosSkilo,

(Or should I say KalosPithecus? j/k)

We gave them Stinger missles and other weapons when Afghanistan was fighting against the Soviet Union.
Do not forget, the Afghanis were primarily fighting an invader, who just happened to be the Soviets. A boon to the US, for they rushed to help the Afghanis, in order to strike a blow (of Vietnam-esque proportions) against their main enemy of the day, but the Afghanis were always fighting to keep Afghanistan under Muslim control and law, however fractious it may have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the United States, Western Europe would be speaking German right now. The United States is the most underappreciated country in the world.

Actually, without the United States western Europe would be speaking Russian. The Soviet Union was doing an admirable job defeating the Nazi war machine long before D-Day. While the minor assistance they received from the west was helpful - it was not decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way all of Western Europe would be repressed and under the rule of a tyrannical dictator whether it had been Hitler or Stalin so one way or another the Europeans have America to thank.

Though its difficult to beleive there are still those who are debating why we went to war and the legalities of it and whether we were lied to.

I mean come on we won the war and that's the most important thing isn't it? Let's all try and focus on the next war which is Iran and should start taking place within a couple of months or so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the United States, Western Europe would be speaking German right now. The United States is the most underappreciated country in the world.

Well, you really seem to be getting slapped around on this comment, but hey, what do you expect???

First of all, even American war historians agree that the war in Europe was lost when Hitler turned on Russia.

It was only a matter of time.

As for the second comment, the USA was VERY appreciated following WWII.

Even during and after the Korean war, appreciation for the USA was quite high throughout most of the world.

But did it ever occur to you that not everyone agrees that Iraq was any sort of "Imminent threat".

Did it occur to you that not everyone was convinced by Bush that Iraq had WMD's, which indeed turned out to not be the case.

Did it occur to you that when Bush changed his story about his reasons for invading, that not everyone believed him??

And when he changed it again, that made matters worse???

And when he did it AGAIN.....

And AGAIN.....

I mean really, how much BS do you expect the world to swallow???

We are NOT collectively Monica Lewinski.

We are NOT all able to swallow on demand.

The USA is a fine nation, with fine people.

Unfortunately, every once in a while it acquires a president who seems to think he needs to "leave his mark" in history, or worse, is infused with a sense of "destiny".

That seems, inevitably, to lead to war.

Why the hell can't they leave their marks by producing a masterpiece of artwork or something benign???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They once controlled Iraq in their large empire, the muslims did. That's what it has to do with Iraq. Also, Iraq is the best geological location tobe in control of.

Yes, Iraq was at one time part of the caliphate. That was, what, a thousand years ago? I sincerly doubt sucj considerations were laid on the table when the U.S. was formulating their plans to attack Iraq. No, i think Occam's razor applies here and the decision to go to war on Iraq (which, by some accounts, pre-dated 9-11) had little or nothing to do with Al Q'aeda.

I mean come on we won the war and that's the most important thing isn't it? Let's all try and focus on the next war which is Iran and should start taking place within a couple of months or so...

Weird. In my book "winning a war" means no more hostilitities and certainly no more casualties. Yet Americans are still dying at a steady rate (the death toll for U.S. service personnel just passed 1,600), Iraqis at an even faster clip, the government is still powerless, forced to depend on U.S. forces for security as they hunker down inside the fortified Green Zone. Hardly what any opbjective observer would call a decisive win.

As for Iran, I wouldn't count on any U.S. military action (at least an invasion) any time soon. To do so would open up a two-front war and further polarize the Islamic world against the U.S. But then, invading Iraq was a stupid idea too and they did that anyway, so we'll just have to see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Iraq is the best geological location tobe in control of.

If you truly mean it is the best geological location to be in control of, you are advocating war based on going where the oil is.

If you mean it is the best geographical location to be in control of, you are advocating invading a country because it will help you control other countries some time in the future.

Either way, you are saying that the US invaded Iraq for strategic reasons to their own benefit, not because of WMD's, Saddam Hussein's tyranny, for the good of the people of Iraq, etc. Finally, I can agree with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, you are saying that the US invaded Iraq for strategic reasons to their own benefit, not because of WMD's, Saddam Hussein's tyranny, for the good of the people of Iraq, etc. Finally, I can agree with you!

What the coalition did and is doing was and is for the good of the free world and the people of the middle east. Keeping Al Quaida from controlling the middle east was and is our main objective. You people cant seem to think outside the obvious and normal chess match and realize that their is a 3D chess match all around you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KalosSkilo, having reread your previous post (about Iraq being the best place to control), I realize I misinterpreted what you meant. My apologies.

As to the US' main objective being to keep Al Quaida from controlling the Middle East, it has been stated again and again that Al Quaida was not involved with the government of Iraq. If the objective was to keep them out of power, I would expect the US to support Saddam Hussein, as he was resistant to Al Quaida. The American action in Iraq has created a boom for Al Quaida, and other fundamentalist Islamic groups, rather than depleting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...