Reasons for war in Iraq 101 (the basics)

LOL at you folks saying we had no right to go into Iraq. You agreed in the war on terror? This means if you are a terrorist.. we are at war with you. Period.
Why go into Iraq you ask ?
Simple.. The most important one is this.. The people there are terrorised on a daily basis. If the fact that this man had children raped , tortured, killed for something that he did that didnt sit well with Sadaam doesnt sound like terrorism to you .. I pray that you are not a parent, or in charge of my country in anyway. Not every American can turn their back on this. Apparently those of you who think we shouldnt have gone to war there think this.. thankfully .. you are not my neighbor *phew* and not my parent *bigger phew*
Secondly the WMD !! Oh wait .. he doesnt have them anymore!! *roleseyes* He just accidentally misplaced them all !
Paaaalease, talk about naive.

Originally posted by shell244
The people there are terrorised on a daily basis. If the fact that this man had children raped , tortured, killed for something that he did
...

That sounds like something the US would do

But you are right. We did in a way, succeed, by removing from power one of the worst, genocidal rulers of all time. Although, we did replaced him with an even worse ruler (United States) :-/ .

Originally posted by shell244

Simple.. The most important one is this.. The people there are terrorised on a daily basis. If the fact that this man had children raped , tortured, killed for something that he did that didnt sit well .....

The reason we went there was for WMD. OK where are they? As far as the people of Iraq, did they appoint us their policeman? I find it very difficult to invade another country when we haven't been attacked. Oh yea - the WMDs - next time let's get the intel right!

See... People say that John Kerry likes to flip flop on issues, but this war has been the biggest flip flopper I've seen.

Why did we go to war with Iraq in the first place? To find WMDs and take them out of Saddam's hands. Did we accomplish that? No. We haven't seen any WMDs yet, over a year later. Now, whether or not there was intelligence failure, miscommunication, etc, etc, the fact remains we have not accomplished the goal of the "war."

Now Shrub would like you to believe that we went to war to free the Iraqi people. Sure, we've ousted Hussein, we're trying to reconstruct Iraq (in our views, mind you, not theirs), but this is not the main reason we went to war. Even though the White House would have you believe it is. I'm not saying it's bad that Saddam is out of power, I'm only saying this freeing people is not what we went there to do. We went there to find WMDs, and probably (no matter how much you say its not true, you can't ever really know the motive) so Shrub could get revenge for his daddy, which by the way is not a justified cause for going to war.

The war in Iraq has gone from ridding Saddam Hussein of WMDs to forcing a democracy onto a group of people who really don't want it. I've been studying a lot of things about war in one of my courses called Peace and War. We learned about Thomas Aquinas, and his definition of a "just war" which I think is a good definition.

Aquinas lays out three things necessary for a just war.
1. That it must be declared by a sovereign athourity (check)
2. That the cause has to be just. (semi-check)
3. That even if those first two are met, the war is not just unless it is declared with the right intention (quasi-check; if Shrub went there cuz of his daddy, the whole thing's a sham. Sucks that we'll never really know)

So what does this convoluted post have to do with anything? The reasons why we are fighting the war now are not the reasons we entered the war. Shrub would like you to believe that they are, but they aren't. Plain and simple. I don't even know if the reasons we're there are enough to let this turn into our generation's Vietnam. I really hope it doesn't go that way.

EDIT: fixed the numbers...

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by Faisca]

History will show Bush to be a knee jerk reactionist who needed to be seen to be tough, for the sake of his political life, rather than truly confront the spectre of fanaticism. Were he the good Christian he claims to be he would have advocated a turn the other cheek policy so removing the agressors support and becoming the victim. By being bigger and tougher than your foe, then going out and killing his innocent children you are asking to be cast as the bad guy. ( this is based on the theory that Iraq was actually a need for blood in revenge for 9/11)