<p>I don't read the news, don't watch the news on tv, and stay away from politics usually. However, I feel that I need to know what's going on in Iraq. So would anyone like to explain to me the situation? The start of the war? All the things going on with Bush? Etc.? Thanks so much.</p>
<p>Let me guess... are you having a college interview this week? hehe:)</p>
<p>Sorry, but it's really a long, long story often clouded by the dark side of the force...</p>
<p>here's CNN's special report on Saddam's recent execution (viewer's discretion advised): <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/saddam.trial/%5B/url%5D">http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/saddam.trial/</a></p>
<p>Regarding the current mission in Iraq (and Afghanistan), everything starts with 9/11 and the subsequent US-led War on Terror. In response to the Jihadist terror attacks on Americal soil in September 11, 2001, America had to do something, and part of its strategy was/is planting freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Since the region is the breeding ground of radical Islam/Jihadism, the US believes that if it can spark a modernization of the Middle East that this dangerous ideology will eventually die out on its own (if indeed this new way of life spreads throughout the region). Strategically, Iraq was a very convenient place to set up shop.</p>
<p>Go to a political forum and ask this question and you'll hear everything you could ever want to know.
Or be dismissed as a n00b.
As far as I know, first there was 9/11, then we dabbled for a while in Afghanistan and somehow ended up attacking Iraq (something about weapons of mass destruction). But then no one found weapons of mass destruction and people started turning against the affair. And now the whole thing is kinda messy. But I don't know too much about it :)</p>
<p>It's a mess (based on a bunch of lies).</p>
<p>Recently, the President decided to send 20000 more troops there, as well as some civilians. I saw it on the news but I'm not entirely sure. Can someone verify it?</p>
<p>i would suggest enlightening yourself if you don't want to get a biased response leaning in any politcal direction...get the facts from a reliable source, not some college forum that always has know it all kids posting about how they think that they have the solution to world affairs.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/angryleft%5B/url%5D">www.cafepress.com/angryleft</a></p>
<p>MORE TREES LESS BUSH! - Brilliantly Stated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a mess (based on a bunch of lies).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>make sure you don't believe all the radical left "bush lied" BS</p>
<p>atomicfusion your right. Americans should not believe "all" of it but rather "most" of it.</p>
<p>Read "From Beirut to Israel"</p>
<p>atomicfusion - it's not only the "radical left", but moderates/centrists and old school Republicans as well - and basically anyone who has objectively looked into this issue.</p>
<p>Prior to the invasion - every claim of WMDs by Bush and his neocon cabal had been debunked or, at the very least, had serious doubts (by intelligence officers) - and yet Cheney and Co. kept stating again and again that there was no doubt that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs (including a nuclear program).</p>
<p>Yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile WMD labs, the forged "Downing Street Memo" documents (the documents, btw, were a horrible forgery - so the fact that they even used it shows how desperate Cheney & Co were in trying to "prove their case), etc. were all debunked or but into serious doubt.</p>
<p>Also - Bush repeatedly associated 9/11 with Iraq (so much so - that at one point over 70% of the US public believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11) and Cheney (even after CIA Director Tenant told him there was zero proof) kept stating that Iraqi agents had met up with members of al Qaeda.</p>
<p>Another ridiculous argument that the administration used was Ansar al Islam - the Kurdish group affiliated with al Qaeda. First of all, Ansar al Islam was a sworn enemy of Saddam. Second, Ansar was under US protection in the "no-fly" zone that existed over Kurdish territory.</p>
<p>Furthermore, seized Iraqi documents showed that Saddam didn't see the US as a threat and rather that he was much more concerned with Iran.</p>
<p>Plus, once it became evident that there were no WMDs - the administration kept changing their rational for going to war - the most misleading one being that Saddam had killed large no of Kurds and Shias (first of all, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the 80s - the US did nothing then; second, Saddam paid retribution on the Shias after they rised up in revolt after Bush the elder, during the Gulf War, had urged them to do so. When they did, Bush the elder, determining that continuing the Gulf War wasn't in the best interest of the US - turned his back on them).</p>
<p>None of the men who attacked us on 9/11 were Iraqis. None of the evidence that the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq invasion turned out to be accurate. I'll be generous and say it was misleading, rather than lying. </p>
<p>Not to say that Saddam Hussein wasn't a potential threat to the U.S., but there are a lot of options between letting the dictator be and bombs away, but the Bush administration chose to pursue bombs away. So now we have removed the dictator, who was an awful, terrible man, but the unintended consequence is that we've destabilized a nation that was previously secular (or at least not fundamentalist), and have created a new safe haven for Islamic fundamentalists who wish death to the west. </p>
<p>It's also important to understand that Iraq was never really just one country, it was three. The British put three warring tribes into one country, and we removed the stabilizing (although bad, nasty) peg, and Iraq has now devolved into civil war, and our soldiers are in the middle of it. </p>
<p>Cooperative Research has a great timeline of events and supporting documentation for those events. </p>
<p>Despite what atomicfusion wrote, I would suggest you read the news that was gathered at the time, and figure out for yourself what you think.</p>
<p>Not to mention that the chemical bombs used in the 80s by Saddam were supplied by U.S. government...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not to mention that the chemical bombs used in the 80s by Saddam were supplied by U.S. government...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes...and?</p>
<p>I was responding to k&s's post.</p>
<p>Read The Economist...it's a (relatively) objective source for intl politics. It seems to me to be less biased than US News, Newsweek, Fox, or CNN...
It does tend to be a bit anti-Bush, but its reporting on the war in Iraq is great.</p>
<p>mochamaven,</p>
<p>Anti-Bush?</p>
<p>The paper endorsed Bush in 2000 and until recently was rather supportive of most of his policies.</p>
<p>Anti-Bush my butt...</p>
<p>As far as the war on the ground is concerned, the Sunni insurgents are being supplied with weapons via Syria & the Shiite insurgents are being supplied by Iran. Recently, the Sunni led insurgents started targeting civilians but mainly suceeded in galvanizing support for the government. They've changed their tactics to attacking the police forces (and are quite successful in infilitrating and killing them). The biggest killers of American troops are IEDs (improvised explosive devices). American troops are absolutely devastating in direct combat so insurgents rarely attack them head on. If any of this is wrong, feel free to correct, but this is correct to my knowledge.</p>