@westside-steve said:

First of course iraq is powerful enough to attack a neighbor.

They did it in Kuwait and believed they were justified in doing so.

It was the United States that kicked their ass then.

And that is the reason our ex pal hated the USA and 1 way they could retaliate was to switch to the euro.

Perhaps you didn't know that oil is the commodity that backs the US dollar.

Which, by the way, is 1 of the main reasons for the spike in gasoline prices.

When the dollar is devalued the price shoots up.

WSS

When Iraq invaded Iraq we were kicked their butt and sent them back to IRaq. We did not stop by to rebuilt or things like that. If the aim was to oust Saddam then we did it and should have come back. The lost more lives after the war than during. And that is wrong.

I dont get why dollar getting de-valued is reason for us to attack Iraq. If every country in the world decides to switch trading from dollars to euro (hypothetical, of-course) then are we going to invade all the countries or warn them?

I heard those same arguments before the war started, and considering the absolute proof we supposedly had of all these weapons of mass destruction I long since gave on believing that most of that BS wasn't at least partly falsified to encourage us to attack.

@sadbrownsfan said:

I thought that Iraq was only allowed to trade oil for food. Also it wouldn't have had that much effect unless, opec would have done the same.

I think it's clear that the oil for food program was pretty much a sham. When it wasn't being ignored out right, the regime was taking the money to bolster the army and build palaces.

When so many other countries are more interested in the oil than the sanctions they will be nearly impossible to enforce.

Even after Saddam Admitted to having a whole list of weapons they then lead the UN inspectors around by the dick.

And I admit he may have been bluffing in the first place.

Probably a poor choice.

Speaking of sanctions, how are they doing in Iran?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

First of course iraq is powerful enough to attack a neighbor.

They did it in Kuwait and believed they were justified in doing so.

It was the United States that kicked their ass then.

And that is the reason our ex pal hated the USA and 1 way they could retaliate was to switch to the euro.

Perhaps you didn't know that oil is the commodity that backs the US dollar.

Which, by the way, is 1 of the main reasons for the spike in gasoline prices.

When the dollar is devalued the price shoots up.

WSS

I thought that Iraq was only allowed to trade oil for food. Also it wouldn't have had that much effect unless, opec would have done the same.

WSS

@brownindian said:

As far as Iraq switching to Euro - What global catastrophe could fall out of that? I'm not aware of how this will be bad for the world. If you could explain more on that I would listen gladly. Without much information all I can say is - The Iraqi people have the right to chose if they want to follow the dollar or Euro or Yen.

First of course iraq is powerful enough to attack a neighbor.

They did it in Kuwait and believed they were justified in doing so.

It was the United States that kicked their ass then.

And that is the reason our ex pal hated the USA and 1 way they could retaliate was to switch to the euro.

Perhaps you didn't know that oil is the commodity that backs the US dollar.

Which, by the way, is 1 of the main reasons for the spike in gasoline prices.

When the dollar is devalued the price shoots up.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

First of all I think that number is probably wrong.

And I mean really wrong not just off by a few 100.

And if a war is to be fought I'd prefer it were for economic reasons that may benefit the United States than for nothing.

WSS

It depends on who you believe reporting the number of iraqi civilian deaths, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321

@badnewsbrowns said:

Pull out of Afghanistan?

There's a never ending supply of opium to pull out there those silly Taliban's banned the stuff, so we had to go take over.

You guys on here go back and forth over this silly shit like it actually matters.

Arguing politics is about as silly as arguing professional wrestling, our Government is corrupt as shit.

Any politician that would actually do something about it either gets framed, their plane mysteriously crashes or they take one to the head.

Our President whether it be Republican or Democrat works for the bankers.

spot on sir.

There's a never ending supply of opium to pull out there those silly Taliban's banned the stuff, so we had to go take over.

You guys on here go back and forth over this silly shit like it actually matters.

Arguing politics is about as silly as arguing professional wrestling, our Government is corrupt as shit.

Any politician that would actually do something about it either gets framed, their plane mysteriously crashes or they take one to the head.

Our President whether it be Republican or Democrat works for the bankers.

@westside-steve said:

Heck posed a question in another thread which I think I may have gotten lost in the mire.

if I recall correctly he wondered if we might not be better off had we left Iraq alone and concentrated the shock and awe and regime change in Afghanistan

Regardless of which President is running the show can anyone give me any reason to waste time in Afghanistan at all?

Also keep in mind that had we left Iraq alone they would have almost immediately switched from the U s dollar to the euro as the currency for their oil.

Also according to the same report that said the stock piles of weapons we suspected probably did not exist, that they would vigorously have started back on the path to a nuclear weapon.

Let's pretend that there are no party politics involved.

Does any of that seem like a good idea?

WSS

Leaving aside the party politics as you suggested; The reason to leave Iraq is simple. Why? Saddam was not strong enough to attack any country. The sanctions were already hurting the Iraqis economically.

In hindsight: The amount of money spent on Iraq as well as the lives lost - both American and Iraqi could have been avoided. Thoe numbers are staggering enough which warrants that we should have shown restraint.

As far as Iraq switching to Euro - What global catastrophe could fall out of that? I'm not aware of how this will be bad for the world. If you could explain more on that I would listen gladly. Without much information all I can say is - The Iraqi people have the right to chose if they want to follow the dollar or Euro or Yen.

They would have been outraged, it would dominate the media.

But, Obamao spikes the football over bin laden... it's a claim to fame.

They use opposite approaches whenever it benefits them politically.

Just greed and emotionalism. Not one iota of principle or honor.

The examples of this filth are everywhere.

@sadbrownsfan said:

Don't think that really validates a war that has over a million casualties(estimated civilian deaths).

First of all I think that number is probably wrong.

And I mean really wrong not just off by a few 100.

And if a war is to be fought I'd prefer it were for economic reasons that may benefit the United States than for nothing.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Oh I think those sanctions would have been overlooked quickly, they were almost toothless even in the day . There was nothing the French wanted more than the oil and to have it sold in Euros.

WSS

Don't think that really validates a war that has over a million casualties(estimated civilian deaths).

WSS

Could Iraq if left alone, be producing a nuclear weapon? Doubtful, not b/c of they didn't want to, but more of the fact that the sanctions would never have been lifted.

(No offense to any veterans) Looking back at it with 20/20 hindsight do you think it was worth it?

WSS