Reasons for particular wars in Middle East

[aball1035]

Will somebody please tell me why the US has soldiers (or is at war) with…

Iraq:
Iran:
Libya:
Afghanistan:
Pakistan:

I’m not looking for “conspiracy” type answers (even if they may be true), but what the US and major media sources say.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Will somebody please tell me why the US has soldiers (or is at war) with…

Iraq: False intel concerning WMD, numerous UN sanctions violations by Saddam’s regime, (my personal reasoning- a “quick little war” to keep focus off the expected long drawn out war in Afghanistan; it didn’t turn out to be “quick”)
Iran: Not in the ME, Not at war, No soldiers there
Libya: Not in the ME, Not at war, overt soldiers there for embassy protection, covert (?) for security concerns
Afghanistan: Not in the ME, Taliban support for AQ and AQ itself
Pakistan: Not in the ME, not at war, don’t think we have overt soldiers there, would assume we have covert soldiers there (guess)

I’m not looking for “conspiracy” type answers (even if they may be true), but what the US and major media sources say.

 

[Formosus]

Iraq: Because of false intel, a chance to exert American dominance in the region and attempt to install a client state to serve our interests in the region (a failed attempt at that).
Iran: Not formally at war, but have sanctions issued because of long standing feuds going back to when the Americans overthrew the elected government in the 50s because they threatened to nationalize Iranian Oil at the expense of US corporations( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax#U.S._role ). Further it was the Cold War and it was either you are with us or against us.
Libya: Not at war anymore, but supported rebels to overthrow a brutal dictator who we supported after he agreed to cooperate with us against terrorism. Before that we did not like him because he refused to cooperate with us.
Afghanistan: At war because they harbored terrorists, who we originally funded to help fight the soviets in the 80s. Further we wanted to support the Northern Alliance who was friendly towards us to have another ally in the region against Iran.
Pakistan: Not at war formally, but have bullied into letting us launch unmanned drone strikes on suspected terrorists resulting in high collateral damage that is unpopular among the people of the country.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Iraq: The US has very few soldiers left in Iraq.
Iran: The US is not at war with Iran although most of the world is concerned with the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Libya: The US is not at war with Libya. The US helped the current Libyan regime gain power.
Afghanistan: The US and an international coalition overthrew the Afghan Taliban regime after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.
Pakistan: The US is not at war with Pakistan. Pakistan officially supports the international war against the Taliban.

 

[Brendan]

Iraq: Because of false intel, a chance to exert American dominance in the region and attempt to install a client state to serve our interests in the region (a failed attempt at that).

What false intel are you referring to?. If you are talking WMD’s there was no false intel. Saddaam had gas, he used it on the Iranians and the Kurds. That has been well documented by the UN

He threated to use it against the coalition forces in Gulf I.

There was no doubt he had it, the question was where was it stored.

If the storage question is the false intel, then you are correct.

 

[Formosus]

What false intel are you referring to?. If you are talking WMD’s there was no false intel. Saddaam had gas, he used it on the Iranians and the Kurds. That has been well documented by the UN

He threated to use it against the coalition forces in Gulf I.

There was no doubt he had it, the question was where was it stored.

If the storage question is the false intel, then you are correct.

Its not a question of storage, the entire story of mobile labs and stockpiles was false and made up by some exile trying to get us to go and take Saddam out. He didn’t have the gas anymore, he used it all. Our sanctions and Clinton’s no fly zone had actually kept Saddam from pursuing his WMD projects. He put up a front that he had WMDs in order to scare the Iranians and hopefully scare us off from attacking him.

Further, we didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with Saddam and his WMDs when he was using them against Iran. We only decided to dislike Saddam after he threatened our “ally” (client state), Kuwait

 

[Robert_Sock]

It’s a war based on culture. Social change is inevitable in the Middle East. It’s not political wars against religion per se, but wars against culture.

 

[epan]

Its not a question of storage, the entire story of mobile labs and stockpiles was false and made up by some exile trying to get us to go and take Saddam out. He didn’t have the gas anymore, he used it all. Our sanctions and Clinton’s no fly zone had actually kept Saddam from pursuing his WMD projects. He put up a front that he had WMDs in order to scare the Iranians and hopefully scare us off from attacking him.

Further, we didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with Saddam and his WMDs when he was using them against Iran. We only decided to dislike Saddam after he threatened our “ally” (client state), Kuwait

Uhmmm… I saw the atropine injectors personally which Iraqi artillery carried, when they surrendered to my unit, and asked to be taken prisoner. They believed that they had neurotoxic shells. Saddam had even fooled his own military.

 

[wanabesaint]

OIL

the only reason for the US to have a military is for defense of the US borders, and as G Washington said, the US should have no relations or agreements with others naitons.

the US is 5% of the worlds population, but consumed 25% of the fossil fuel to sustain a life of luxury…

The first question to ask is, Why does the US taxpayer spend 3 billion a year to maintain the Israel country, to which is against the founding fathers all knowledge and wisdom…
the land was seized from the islamic, and has been a rift since, but recognizes that the marshalll plan needed a financial person, and that was the people of borrowing moneys dealt to set up the financing of the Marshall plan in exchange for the land.

the crisis of the deal is, War stimulates economic growth, and huge profits are made by WAR, to which the US is borrowing money to do, and now has defuncted the US economicly.

borrowing, that which perpetuates borrowing is borrowing of money, would have not been accepted a hundred years ago…

What history fails to acknowledge is, power and wealth is attained by borrowing of money, but it makes Slaves of those that the debt is held agaisnt.
The US, as a nation should have gotten out of debt, the last fifty years, not in, but a great superstition, of ignorance was sold to the people of borrowing was the salvation of the fictional economics, denial of economic depressions.

Some say, the Hussian, that tyrant leader who recieved 40 billion from the US to incite the Iran/Iraq war, was working towards the elimination of the US dollar as the world currency.

the greatest crisis today is the execution of humans across Africa, and the Middle east. current point is the French killing people as it flys over countries, and the bigotry agaisnt the islamic who are merely fighting back to ward of the pilfering and murder of their people, which is being condoned by corrupt governments that suport the pilfering of their own people.

Haiti was pilfered by the French two hundred years ago, and the people of threw off slavery to free themselves, even though the land was ruined by the French…

Today, the US is helping the French to pilfer the People of Africa, the only people standing agaisnt this attrocity is the Islamic the same people that had the land taken from them to incite the state of israel.

absolutely nothing to do with religion, greed of people to attain wealth, and the US taxpayers are paying for it, incited by a bigotry…

Look at Haiti and see what comes by the greed of men, and today, defiant to Catholic faith, people still condon the evil.

few recognize, the Catholic faith was against Socialism, borrowing o f money…

What is good to recognize is the demise of Europe, and why people fleed Europe two and three hundred years ago, is now what the new liberalized Catholic faith condons itself. Why people fleed Europe, the US is now becoming, because people dont know their faith of religion and what it stands against, a mortal sin in itself

the US economicly is defunct, but nobody has the fotitude or logic to admit, today generation is the most failed generation in all of world history, taking a soveirgn nation and making it what it is today, dispised by the poor.

The Catholic faith reconizes, God sides with the poor, if the US is consuming resources at this rate, to pilfer the poor, it has bigger trouble than to war, it has Gods wrath to answer to.

Many dont recognize, the US is a large importer of Food, as well as oil. dependent on other nations to feed the People of the US, to which recognizes world hunger is greater today in the US and world, because of the greed of men to enhance their wealth, while making the US a nation of slaves.
maybe, Mother Tereasa told people what they didnt want to hear, but it was very true.

very few know or educated themselves to the Catholic faith today, a major sin that brings a domination of Godless society, that which Russia and Europe waller in today.

 

[mymamamary]

Me personally, I think that this whole Middle-East conflict is biblical. I think it started when Hagar was expelled by Sarai. The Arabs (Sons of Ishmael) don’t like the Jews (Sons of Isaac) Although they both forget that they BOTH are sons of Abraham literally. This gives me a DOH!! moment

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

The “Bush Lied” accusation is the biggest lie of all. This lie began on July 6, 2003 when Joe Wilson penned his op-ed in the NYT’s called, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa.” In his op-ed, Wilson cites Bush’s State of the Union speech, where he used the infamous 16 words, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” This is the very first time Bush was called a liar and every major liberal news media followed suit.

nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But…what Wilson doesn’t tell us in that op-ed is that when he was sent to Niger by the CIA, a former Prime Minister, Ibrahim Mayaki, told him that yes indeed, an Iraqi delegation tried to buy uranium in 1999. Why did Wilson omit that very important fact about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger? From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, PDF page 53 / 521.

web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

Bush didn’t lie, Joe Wilson did!

 

[Ridgerunner]

He didn’t have the gas anymore, he used it all.

False. The Brits, at Iraq’s request, destroyed Saddam’s last (known) gas stockpiles in 2012. Parenthetically, the Canadians took the yellow cake to Canada for processing into nuclear fuel.

 

[Ridgerunner]

OIL

the US is 5% of the worlds population, but consumed 25% of the fossil fuel to sustain a life of luxury…

.

True as to the percentages, false as to the reason.

The U.S. does use 25% of the fossil fuel consumed in a given year, but it also produces 25% of the world’s goods. It takes energy to produce things. A great deal of U.S. production is shipped to other countries, including food. Food production requires a lot of energy. Without the U.S. economy, the rest of the worlds’ economies would crash as well, a fact well known to everybody.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Many dont recognize, the US is a large importer of Food, as well as oil. dependent on other nations to feed the People of the US, to which recognizes world hunger is greater today in the US and world, because of the greed of men to enhance their wealth, while making the US a nation of slaves. .

No.

The U.S. is a net exporter of food, by a lot. The world is dependent on the U.S. for food, not the other way around. The U.S. is presently a net importer of oil (nearly all from North America, not the Middle East) and is expected to become a net exporter of oil by 2020.

 

[epan]

Its not a question of storage, the entire story of mobile labs and stockpiles was false and made up by some exile trying to get us to go and take Saddam out. He didn’t have the gas anymore, he used it all. Our sanctions and Clinton’s no fly zone had actually kept Saddam from pursuing his WMD projects. He put up a front that he had WMDs in order to scare the Iranians and hopefully scare us off from attacking him.

Further, we didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with Saddam and his WMDs when he was using them against Iran. We only decided to dislike Saddam after he threatened our “ally” (client state), Kuwait

I have several observations:

(1) Any head of state who does not have WMD in the ME is an idiot. So, even if Saddam did not have them, then he did try to create the impression that he had them.

(2) There is much which is not known. I take exception to those who claim to know what was going on there, from an armchair. My boots were on the ground, and on more than one occasion that ground was slick with blood. I witnessed people searching through remains in mass graves, looking for signs of a relative, or spouse, or child. I also, personally, relieved Iraqi regulars of their atropine injectors when they surrendered to us. They believed that they had nerve gas artillery shells.

(3) The Israelis say that they have the evidence of the movement of significant stockpiles of WMD by train, into Syria.

My point, is that you don’t know what you are talking about, any more than I do, when it comes to this. I probably know a lot more than you do, based on first hand experience.

I believe that when it comes to the security and integrity of the US, that every president does his very best, whether you like him or agree with him. He does his best. It is an awesome responsibility, and far beyond my capacity. I support my President, whether I like him (or her), or not.

 

[ahollars]

Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction…

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

 

[ahollars]

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

 

[ahollars]

What false intel? How many of you have never heard of this?

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

Or this?

Munitions Found in Iraq Renew Debate

And if that wasn’t enough…

Syria’s Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam’s Iraq

 

[Formosus]

Whether WMDs existed or not, I still hold that it was not a valid reason to go war. Especially since we didn’t particularly care about Saddam’s militarism when he was on our side in the 80s. The war was never about oil, lies, or WMDS. It was our “you are with us or against us mentality.” You either are friendly towards western business, play by our rules with your military (which if you do we will give you money and weapons no matter how oppressive you are domestically), like Israel and dislike the people we dislike. If a country does all those things, then we love them. Iraq played by our rules in the 80s against Iran, and when they decided to go after our guy (Kuwait) we turned on them. Its as simple as that. To credit GWB with the Iraq war is an understatement. We had been planning a way to get in there and overthrow Saddam since we failed to do so back in the first gulf war.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Me personally, I think that this whole Middle-East conflict is biblical. I think it started when Hagar was expelled by Sarai. The Arabs (Sons of Ishmael) don’t like the Jews (Sons of Isaac) Although they both forget that they BOTH are sons of Abraham literally. This gives me a DOH!! moment

Honestly, I agree with your explanation. I think it is biblical too.

But I do not think the conflict can be rectified by simply saying we are all children of the same man (or God). There are people who do great acts of evil. Even if their ancestor and Creator is the same as ours, that does not mean we should let them do their evil.