Its become much longer then intended
. Flame me, burn the piece to the ground, ignore it because its too long but here is my view of the wars and process to it.
Since the attack of 9/11 and the speeches of Bush (you\'re with us or against us, it seems im against then) i expected the USA to go to war with iraq (technically continou the war). It surprised me somewhat that afghanistan was attacked first.
When the US gave its ultimatum to the taliban it was my opinion that they didn\'t give the taliban enough time to discuss it. The US seemed eager to retaliate on afghanistan.
Because i doubted the US to win the war easy without it getting into guerilla warfare like russia had to face i was slightly opposed to it. Killing afghanistans because of a terrorist attack didn\'t seem right.
I was wrong though, the northern alliance was a great help to the US. Still however it remains to be seen if afghanistan becomes a stable democratic nation and doesnt plunge again in a war.
Starting to feel relieved and believing Iraq was not second on the retaliaton list my hope was wrong. From the moment the usa wanted the un to look for wmds the iraqis surely had war had been decided upon. Later i heard that bush wanted to attack iraq first when 9/11 had just happened.
When nothing was found despite the US claimed to know locations of wmds yet wasnt very helpfull giving them to the un. Also when blix made a report about the wmds the usa wanted it to be more negative about the wmds, the paper wasn\'t claiming precense of wmds enough.
This strengthened my opinion that the US was only using the wmds as an excuse to go to war wether they were present or not. This isn\'t the first time for the US. In the first gulf war (that i agree with) a whole story was fabricated about kuwait infants brutally being murdered.
Then more reasons were given to go to war, like the unlikely connection between osama bin laden and saddam. Also the intelligence of the us and uk claimed the precense and serious threat of wmds. Later those were at least considered as misleading.
When trying to get a UN resolution for war, the usa presented \'prove\' which seemed far fetched most of the time and could hardly be called proove.
The bribing and threatening of backward countries to a certain vote by giving more or less aid was the lowest act of all.
Then not getting enough support the US decided to go to war anyway, ignoring criticism in most of the world. Again like with afghanistan i feared a guerilla war especially in baghdad, again i was wrong. Still it amazes me that the us soldiers had so little casualties. Perhaps what i hoped for, iraqi soldiers massively surrendering, and came true was the reason for this.
But until now having Iraq under control the US has found almost no wmds they claimed there were. First it was said that the wmds had been moved to syria. Later the many exegarations and flaws in the documents appeared and the american government admitted the wmds probably were not there.
When bagdhad fell clearly the iraqi people were glad to have been liberated. Unfortunately the few that fight the soldiers now could mess up the whole proces and leave iraq not in a much better state. Especially if the american soldiers dont become less triggerhappy. Too many innocent iraqis get unnecisarily get killed. The british soldiers perform better.
Furthermore its a shame and mistake the defence of the usa instead of foreign matters got the task of rebuilding iraq.
The usa seems to be the first to claim responsibility for positive events but with negative events there is much trouble admitting it, most of the time its denied, in other cases no responsability is claimed. Like saying that its not the fault of the us that the soldiers acted like they did, thats something you get in a war. Forgetting the war is caused by the us.
so what is my opinion? With almost no proof I believe there were at most few wmds. Even with wmds i consider Iraq no threat to its neighbours. Nothing is to be gained in israel, and attacking other countries would mean the end of the regime of saddam.
The terrorist connection i don\'t buy. No the only good reason to go to war with iraq would be liberating the iraqis of oppression. But im still opposed, because i believe the cost of the war in human lifes outweighs the cost in lifes when not acting too much.
How high is the death toll by now, adding both iraqis and soldiers? Holland has 1 dead soldier and killed 1 iraqi = 2. Is it thousands? Tens of thousands?
And instead of going to war the usa could have used the money helping people in other nations as well.
Third, war is a very unpredictive chaotic mostly out of control process where most of what comes from it is damaging. The acts of american soldiers is one example of this.
Whatever you think of this war, the usa can\'t continou attacking countries anyway. The economic price is too high. Ruining your economy to retaliate and feel better is plain dumb. And many dictatorial hostile countries with wmds still exist. Iraq was only one of many. Does Saudia arabie have wmds? Its not hostile i know but do they?
Saudy arabia is one of the nations where the usa still supports a dictatorial regime. Most terrorists come from that nation. Strange isnt it, that people living there don\'t like the us?
Why do i think us wanted to attack iraq?
1) extend its influence in the middle east
2) be less dependant of saudi arabia
3) bush wanted to continou where his father left (its personal)
4) to liberate the iraqis
why i don\'t think the war was raged?
for oil, though the us government did talk about letting iraq pay for the war with oil and the american businesses are the main ones rebuilding the country
What else was i wrong about?
I believed Turky to invade northern iraq, fortunately they were wise enough not to even when us asked their help
