Iraq War

Was it justified? Did Saddam do nothing wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mWJSKhEwjy8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
youtube.com/watch?v=jV5Ggfn9PYM
youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo
youtube.com/watch?v=nN1HOVLf4C0
globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36408.html
informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm
iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

He harbored one of the WTC bombers. That was justification enough for the war.

He did nothing wrong. It was for "Greater Israel".

Total BS war, 9-11 was a inside job, it was another jew war like always.

I thought there was no evidence for a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda

> the good goyim wars
youtube.com/watch?v=mWJSKhEwjy8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

This.

Sadam hated al-Qaeda and terrorists in general.

No it wasn't. It was a pointless war. Saddam kept the country in check. As brutal as his methods were. He would've gassed the fuck out of ISIS and been done with it.

Honest answer? No.
We wanted to end the power vaccuum because it would make W bush not look like a fucking retard and loser. It failed. There was no honest connection between Saddam and 9/11, unlike israel.

Saddam did plenty wrong, but he had no active/fruitful nuclear weapons program, which was the stated reason for that invasion.

It's safe to assume he didn't care much if they blew shit up in the US but he was smart enough to know they were trouble and letting them have a foot hold in Iraq would bring him nothing but problems

"Saddam said that he did not trust the bomber Yasin, who was in Iraqi custody, because his testimony was too "organized." The Pentagon study found that Yasin "was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq."

Fuck you guys. I got an amazing tan in Iraq, damn right it was worth it.

you got BLACKED

youtube.com/watch?v=jV5Ggfn9PYM

I deployed before Obama

youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

besides the tan, do you think you should have been there?

completely unjustified. there were no WMDs, it was all a ruse to continue iraq war 0: the prequel(desert storm/desert shield)which was also started for dubious reasons. Every war after the Civil War has been started for either false or dubious reasons.

The war was literally illegal. The Iraq war was a crime of aggression, which is punishable for death penatly, so that's what Bush should be doing right now, not painting pictures.

With that aside. Has the war been successful? Well, no. It's cost trillions and trillions of dollars. By 2050 the war will have cost tens of trillions with loan interest accounted for. So the war was and is crazy expensive. And all it has done is destabilized the middle east more and created large refugee waves. It also created ISIS for Christ's sake.

Massive, massive failure. It makes me sad that norwegian solider participated. A part of my tax bill going to blowing up shit in the desert. Seriously, this war has benefited nobody but the politcal class, weapons dealers and Israel.

Fuck yeah. It was a job.

How big is your pension?

No pension

LMAO youtube.com/watch?v=nN1HOVLf4C0

Bud whud aboud da Iraq Wur! Wuz id jushdified?!

While the war was sold as a preemptive act to prevent a dangerous regime from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the true reason was a policy of regime change meant to affect a larger change in the region. It failed spectacularly. Interesting enough, with the economic pressures experienced in the middle east after the financial crisis of '08 leading to what is popularly known as the "Arab Spring," the entire Iraq experiment of 2003 may have been accomplished in 2011 without a massive display of military power.

So the whole ordeal ended up weakening a major state in the region which almost culminated in the collapse during the ISIS march of '14, the empowerment of Iran and it's own WMD ambitions, and the whole thing may have been unnecessary to begin with.

This.

George Bush is still no 1 terrorist.

Perpetual failures, but the people shouldn't control foreign policy, just pay for it; multiple ways.

IYWTGDTRH

Saddam is still alive.

Bush had to do something, otherwise the 'strong and powerful' image of him and the United States would be a laughing matter

But there was nothing really.
He couldn't just attack a single cell from Al-Qaeda, because that would even be more laughable
>ha-ha, how did a couple sandnignogs with goats outsmart the USA and parked 2 planes into their buildings, woow the US must be really dumb

So he had to blame a country, he choose Iraq because well.. Sadam doesn't really fit into their circle of friends.
Iraq, not powerful enough (like Saudia-Arabia), to gather all the Muslim countries together and start a boycott/diplomatic crisis/launch oil-prices so high the US will bankrupt themself.
Not weak enough, to make the US look like a laughing matter

>everyone in the US wanted revange, only 10 years later most people regret ever going

So far, the wars have brought nothing good. Chaos ensued, which certain groups took advantage off.
It's easy to grow your terrorist organisation when a country is in chaos, and different parties are fighting for their own good.

Trillions of dollars, close to a million of lives later nothing good came out of it

It only created a vacuum, which even worse groups such as ISIS took advantage off

Then the US realised that it doesn't matter if they stay there 10 years, or 50 years.. they won't be able to fix it. They demolished it and then left, well we know what happenend. ISIS got so big, even Al-Qaeda got scared and it started several other crisises. Refugee crisis/local famine etc etc

Please stop repeating the controlled narrative of your pentagon media. Thank you.

Why do red neck fucks like you always wanna defend the Iraq war? Is it because you served and if could simply justify your actions in murdering those innocent families you'd be able to sleep at night, but in reality can't because you and your manlet friends were dying for kikeland.

No narrative. It's true. Tell me how I'm wrong.

For starters: it never was about WMDs and it never was about spreading democracy. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. You did it for Israel and because Israel wanted them gone. And most likely for the Saudis, too.

>Was it justified?
well, about the only good thing about it is that we listened to the jews who wanted us to fuck up iraq, rather than the jews who wanted us to fuck up iran. if we tried pulling that shit in iran our casualties would have increased a hundredfold.

What's sad is that the people will not actually pay for it. It just can't be paid. America has almost 200 trillion dollars in government debt and unfunded liabilities. The US government spends around 4 trillion annualy and raises 3 trillion of tax revenue each year. This is with a population of 300,000,000. So let's say the US population would double, that would double the revenues and the expenditures, so 8 trillion in spending per year and 6 trillion revenue.

The reality is that none of this will ever be paid for, since nobody will vote for less handouts, less education spending, less spending in general. It will just continue to grow and grow until it can't anymore. And then we see collapse, as has happened with every single fucking empire throughout history. I think we're in the late stages right now with america.

I agree that Israel cheered it on, but I think that's more incidental than causative. The Saudis in fact opposed the war, but reluctantly went along with it once things were underway. Only a couple of weeks before the outbreak of hostilities the Saudis were still trying to sell a plan of assassination instead of invasion.

> but I think that's more incidental than causative.
Absolutely pure coincidence. Just like every key Neocon was Jewish. Also a coincidence. Also a coincidence that the Project for a new American century is an entirely Jewish project. It's all just incidental.

"A giant wave of steel is coming!"
t. CNN on Abrams in Iraq :^)

Saudi Arabia would have wanted Saddam down after he invaded Kuwait in 1991, not in 2003 for no apparent reason.
Saddam was the strongest ally of Saudi Arabia against Iran before the 1991 Gulf War. He was still a semi-ally against Iran even after SA cut its diplomatic ties with Iraq following the Gulf War.
When the US wanted to invade Iraq from their bases in Saudi Arabia, they were denied by the Saudi government. That's why the US closed their bases in Saudi Arabia and moved it to Al-Udeid in Qatar.

Saddam was a CIA asset

Hussein was convicted to death for the murder of 39 people. The USA invaded and killed tens of thousands, and their actions caused ISIS to form and the USA is thus partially responsible for the hundreds of women that were raped on a daily basis, the people that were killed by ISIS and the children that were brainwashed to form the most degenerate type of Muslim.

I'll take Hussein over the past 10 years, thank you very much.

The first one? Yes, justified.
The second? Not so much.

The only crime Saddam committed was not sharing his stargate with the west

I didn't know bin laden played minecraft

There's also the small matter of Saddam wanting to accept payment for oil only in euros and not US dollars. (((Coindidentally))) the same happened in Libya, with Gaddafi wanting to trade oil in Dinars (which were backed by gold). This would have threatened the status of the petrodollar, so a message had to be sent to the rest of the world, resulting in the removal of Saddam and Gaddafi and the installation of Rothschild-style central banking systems.

Saddam was CIA
Saddam was CIA....

globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36408.html

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
...... Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.
...... A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory."

...... Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.

... On to the 1980s, war with Iran,
1990s war with Kuwait,
and then 2003... War with _ history and karma can be so ironic! _ war with Iraq.

You can argue every war is unjustified, at the end of the day people join the military to 'get some'.

Saddam was a cunt. He gassed the marsh Arabs and the Kurds. He and his sons killed people on a whim, in a very Stalinist way. He rolled into Kuwait and held civilians as shields, he tortured Kuwaitis too.
He held that country together and you could argue it isn't really a country any more. But it comes down to this: we told him to back off and he didn't.

I was assuming OP meant Gulf 1 not Gulf 2.

He held his country together, just like Gadhaffi and Assad
All of them told the globalist bankers to fuck off and were anti-Israel surprise surprise

>wrong about so much. Let's start with "Arab Spring"
Soros ~ Tunisia, Libya, Egypt : Arab Spring

F. William Engdahl book 'The Lost Hegemon: Whom the gods would destroy'?

'...By December 2010 Washington was ready to unleash their most ambitious form of spreading radical political Islam.
In Tunisia, using the event of self immolation of the young Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, the CIA, US State Department, George Soros 'Open Society Foundation', Freedom House, NED, and other CIA led NGOs unleashed a wave of of Arab World Colour Revolutions. It was the CIA-and US State Department backed regime change, using Facebook, and deploying youthful activists that Washington had trained months ago...

...The oil rich Islamic World was becoming too independent of British and American Banks, plus oil companies. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Tunisia's Ben Ali and Libya's Gaddafi were combining to create an interest free union of Islamic Banks that potentially threatened the domination of Wall Street. and the City of London.
..China was moving into the region for the first time. Investing billions in Sudan, Iraq, Libya to secure it's oil supplies.

The Muslim Brotherhood Dictatorship that the CIA backed under Mohammed Morsi in Egypt was toppled by a military coup backed by the Egyptian people and financed by Saudi Monarchy.

Libya descended into tribal warfare and it's oil flows dwindled to near extinction as civil war raged.

...ISIS, had been created as a joint project by the CIA and Israeli Mossad, to combine psychotic mercenaries, posing as Jihadist Islamists, gathered from around the world - Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, even China's Turkic Xinjang Province, in what the CIA called Operation Hornet's Nest,
When a Israel journalist noted ISIS stood for Israel Secret Intelligence Services, the Jihadis quickly changed to IS, Islam State, ... a clumsy cover up attempt...'

Read: F. William Engdahl say in his book 'The Lost Hegemon: Whom the gods would destroy'

no, why do you think soldiers suicide rate is so high? because they fought and killed for nothing, for a government who lied to them and told them bullshit.

talk to some of these fags, they were useful idiots that died for literally nothing less than some bullshit and some sand. fuck

> Brits who supplied the gas that killed the Kurds

US accusations of a leader "killing his own people" a recurring theme - "allowing" the US to "protect" the targeted population.

informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

The same story said Iraq's claims that Iran also had used chemical weapons "have not been verified."

Buried in that story by freelancer Trevor Rowe was an intriguing piece of information. Rowe reported the Iraqi forces had attacked Halabja when it "was occupied by Iranian troops. Five thousand Kurdish civilians were reportedly killed."

...the only thing known for certain was that "Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds."

Pelletiere said the gassing occurred during a battle between Iraqis and Iranians.

"Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town ... The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target," he wrote.

The former CIA official revealed that immediately after the battle the US Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.

Both sides used gas at Halabja, Pelletiere suggested.

"The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."

"A War Crime Or an Act of War?" was the way The Times' headline writer neatly summed up Pelletiere's argument.

No doubt, Saddam has mistreated Kurds during his rule. But it's misleading to say, so simply and without context, that he killed his own people by gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja.

The fog of war that enveloped the battle at Halabja in 1988 never really lifted.

That's your own countries fault, pandering to starry eyed teenagers thinking they are protecting freedom and being honourable. The British Army are very up front about what their job is, to kill the enemy.

Churchill Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to
Saddam*.
iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

Churchill believed gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire):
*I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchill's enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to use a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War.
Churchill ..gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. ...gas was used against the Iraqi rebels.

In 1993 Iraqis and Kurds remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, 70 years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale : "If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms.
Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within 45 minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.*
It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation.
Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons;
The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs.
>Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all in Iraq

>Did Saddam do nothing wrong
For this ME ya
You have to remember the ME is not like the West
"Democracy" doesn't do well in Muslim nations, and they almost need someone like Saddam who takes zero shit and will skin his citizens if they disrupt the status quo
They're like chimps who need an alpha to keep them subservient

The US and Europe though tend to want to spread democracy, and republics to places ignorantly forgetting some people are superior to others, and democracy doesnt work for inferior people

His name was Dr. David Kelly

F