Would you consider the war in Iraq to be a pre-emptive strike?

J

jamesp

Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Everyone says that we're in Iraq to fight for our freedom. How are the Iraqi's taking away our freedom? I understand we're there to fight the war on terror, but I don't get it? Is this a pre-emptive strike to make sure that the terrorism would never take away our freedoms?
 
The War on Terror is just a smokescreen to grab Iraqi oil.

Iraq was not behind 9/11.
Al-Qaeda does not exist in Iraq.
WMD's - who cares because WE supplied them in the first place.
We turned a blind eye when Saddam wanted to invade Kuwait.
We were cheerleading when Iraq was at war with Iran.
Saddam Hussein was our ally for several years.

Fighting for freedom = pure propaganda.

If there's so much "freedom" in the USA, why is everything about us watched and monitored? Why are Americans discouraged from visiting other countries? Why does the mainstream media feel like propaganda? Why is there so little foreign news? Why are events in Iraq and Afghanistan censored? Why is dissent stifled?
 
It is nothing to do with freedom. it is all about oil. Iraq has it and the US wants to control it, so the Bush administration made up the propaganda that americans would believe.
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. 9/11 was committed by Saudis.
The term pre-emptive strike is another term for starting an illegal war without provocation.
 
A pre-emptive strike is when you attack an enemy because you know he is about to attack you. Historically, most attacks launched under the "pre-emptive" strike doctrine have turned out to be questionable at best. The only really "legitimate" pre-emptive strike in history was arguably the Six-Day War in 1967. While it turns out the Arab states weren't about to attack Israel, their public sabre-rattling was beyond ridiculous and any reasonable person could have concluded they might be about to attack. The anti-Israeli rhetoric of middle eastern governments grew considerably more muted after 1967.

The attack on Iraq was never claimed to be a pre-emptive attack, as the idea that Iraq had forces poised to attack the USA didn't pass the laugh test. It was based on the even more diluted concept that this was a "preventative strike," the claim being that while Iraq was not able to attack the USA, they were secretly trying to acquire the means to do so.

So no, wasn't a pre-emptive attack.

As to why we are staying in Iraq after Saddam was gone and the claimed casus belli was eliminated, who knows. The west has been meddling in the Middle East since the end of the Ottoman Empire in WW1, and it's hard to see how it's benefited anyone except the oil companies.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. The whole "war on terror" thing is just a propaganda device to justify American militarism and foreign adventurism abroad. The fact that it is continuing under Obama, shows how little "change" we can expect.

The only people who can take away our freedoms are in Washington.
 
The war in Iraq was fought because Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to the terms of peace in the first Iraq war. It was fought to take him out of power and replace his government with a peaceful one. It has been a major success on all counts far exceeding expectations.
 
The war in Iraq was fought because Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to the terms of peace in the first Iraq war. It was fought to take him out of power and replace his government with a peaceful one. It has been a major success on all counts far exceeding expectations.
 
Back
Top