Reason's for war in Iraq...

Cosmo

Steve Dunne wrote:

i've been saying this for 6 years now (yes, before the war)...

The US (well, the Bush/Cheney regime) went to war with Iraq so Bush would be a war-time president during his re-election campaign.

Case.

Closed.

...
I also believe this was a factor.
The whole 'Mission: Accomplished' thing was a Karl Rove designed photo op. The idea they had was to win an easy war, be greeted as liberators, bring the troops to a massive ticker tape parade in New York and a somber rememberance at Ground Zero on September 11, 2004. Imagine the re-election camapign... Bush in a flight suit... 'Mission: Accomplished' in the background. The Democrats could have fielded a Jesus Christ/Michael Jordan ticket and still would have lost in a landslide.
There was a reason why they wanted to rush to war... to get it all over with before the 2004 Election.
The only obstacle that could derail them... REALITY.

Dustin51

Cosmo wrote:

...
I also believe this was a factor.
The whole 'Mission: Accomplished' thing was a Karl Rove designed photo op. The idea they had was to win an easy war, be greeted as liberators, bring the troops to a massive ticker tape parade in New York and a somber rememberance at Ground Zero on September 11, 2004. Imagine the re-election camapign... Bush in a flight suit... 'Mission: Accomplished' in the background. The Democrats could have fielded a Jesus Christ/Michael Jordan ticket and still would have lost in a landslide.
There was a reason why they wanted to rush to war... to get it all over with before the 2004 Election.
The only obstacle that could derail them... REALITY.

That's an interesting take on it. If all of that had fallen in place his first term wouldve resembled his fathers. Funny how Bush I had all the pieces in place and loses because he had to renige on a promise to not raise taxes, (read my lips, ya'll remember right?) and Bush II does a horrible job and actually wins relection. Probably has more to do with the competition though. Clinton wouldve slayed Bush II if he couldve run a 3rd time. Anyway, interesting take. Thanks.

soulsinging

sponger wrote:

I don't think anybody in Washington was thinking that far ahead. It's known that some intelligence analysts foresaw the sectarian violence and the insurgency, but those predictions were ignored.

damn right they weren't. they were so busy feeding us all bullshit about our impending doom if we didn't go to war NOW that they didn't bother to think anything through.

soulsinging

Steve Dunne wrote:

i've been saying this for 6 years now (yes, before the war)...

The US (well, the Bush/Cheney regime) went to war with Iraq so Bush would be a war-time president during his re-election campaign.

Case.

Closed.

that's pretty much what i wanted to say but couldn't formulate it in my head. we couldnt find bin laden, dubya's ratings were sagging, re-election coming up and a lame president, they wanted that spike crisis gave them during 9/11, so they pick an easy target all-purpose bad guy we already demolished once figuring it would be easy PR. the only sad thing is most people bought it.

i was 100% on board with afghanistan. the second i heard them start talking about iraq i knew we were about to get fucked.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

that's pretty much what i wanted to say but couldn't formulate it in my head. we couldnt find bin laden, dubya's ratings were sagging, re-election coming up and a lame president, they wanted that spike crisis gave them during 9/11, so they pick an easy target all-purpose bad guy we already demolished once figuring it would be easy PR. the only sad thing is most people bought it.

i was 100% on board with afghanistan. the second i heard them start talking about iraq i knew we were about to get fucked.

Afghanistan was a ruse as well. Why would you bomb a country when you are going after an individual?

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

Afghanistan was a ruse as well. Why would you bomb a country when you are going after an individual?

afghanistan did have ties to international terrorism and the taliban regime was crooked as cheney. i was opposed to the taliban long before 9/11. if you were going to make a visible move to combat terrorism, that was a good place to start. the fact that we had the support of the entire world on that one shows it was a sound decision. we were on the verge of international unity to combat terrorism. also, the afghanis DID have a history of democracy and might have been able to build a successful, stable democracy, which would have made it a successful mission. instead, we abandoned it (like we did to iraq in 91) and ended up with 2 clusterfucks instead of one. we would be out of afghan by now if not for iraq. instead, we're stuck in both and we showed that we killed our credibility by expanding from combating terrorism to international bully.

Kel Varnsen

soulsinging wrote:

afghanistan did have ties to international terrorism and the taliban regime was crooked as cheney. i was opposed to the taliban long before 9/11. if you were going to make a visible move to combat terrorism, that was a good place to start. the fact that we had the support of the entire world on that one shows it was a sound decision. we were on the verge of international unity to combat terrorism. also, the afghanis DID have a history of democracy and might have been able to build a successful, stable democracy, which would have made it a successful mission. instead, we abandoned it (like we did to iraq in 91) and ended up with 2 clusterfucks instead of one. we would be out of afghan by now if not for iraq. instead, we're stuck in both and we showed that we killed our credibility by expanding from combating terrorism to international bully.

Exactly, after Al Qaeda moved out of Sudan the Taliban basically asked them if they would like to move their operation to Afghanistan. They offered them things like government offices and cars with government plates in exchange for moving. Seems like state sponsored terrorism to me. It is a damn shame that a huge portion of the US military pulled out since they probably could have done a lot of good, and the Canadians still there could use the support.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

some people laugh when they are confused.

Really how so?

You think the state of mind that lead into the war flip flopped at some point? hehe...around what time would that be then?

I 'm thinking more along the lines of Central America and what happened all over the place down there is more the picture, and what has continued to be, and what will continue to be.

same ol same ol...looks just like a tried (tired) and true prescription for (US) imperialism to me. What do you think?

beachdweller

Dustin51 wrote:

This is a thread to discuss what the real reasons for the Iraq war were and are and how you feel about them.

Does anyone believe we went into Iraq to disarm them because we were afraid they would attack us?

Does anyone think that we went there for humanitarian reasons? Free the people from tyranny and all that…

Are we there to protect financial interests?

If so, then what are the consequences of not protecting those interests?

Assuming the consequences are dire, e.g. China would have a hold on the world market, opec moves further and further from the dollar, our economy collapses…etc etc..just imagine the government believe's the result would be a full economic collapse.

Would you be happier with our government if they were honest about their reasons? (Assuming the haven’t been honest to this point)

Would you still reject the war?

I know I’m making quite a few jumps with my assumptions but I had this debate with a few friends yesterday and came across some interesting answers. I’m curious what the members of this board think.

my observation is that they cherry picked some intelligence to make a case, there were more far reaching reasons for going into Iraq, which started before 9/11, that with each of their pre invasion reasons being disproved and discounted, they would come up with another catch phrase reason for invasion to keep as much heat off them as they can.

Just look at how our western allies have reacted to the iraq war, or if they were with us for a while they are missing in action now.

just the reactions of other countries governments tells the story.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

afghanistan did have ties to international terrorism and the taliban regime was crooked as cheney. i was opposed to the taliban long before 9/11. if you were going to make a visible move to combat terrorism, that was a good place to start. the fact that we had the support of the entire world on that one shows it was a sound decision. we were on the verge of international unity to combat terrorism. also, the afghanis DID have a history of democracy and might have been able to build a successful, stable democracy, which would have made it a successful mission. instead, we abandoned it (like we did to iraq in 91) and ended up with 2 clusterfucks instead of one. we would be out of afghan by now if not for iraq. instead, we're stuck in both and we showed that we killed our credibility by expanding from combating terrorism to international bully.

You say we had the support of the entire world, but a gallup pinternational poll post 9/11, showed the biggest threat to world peace was the United States, according to the majority by a large margin.

As to the histroy of afghanistan...the US has supplied tens of thousands of school textbooks to afghan schools, teaching the more radical side of Islam, in an effort to keep the soviets in a quagmire, much like our vietnam. We've also supplied millions in arms, built extensive tunnel networks, all in the name of fighting communism. Basically using afghanistan as a pawn, while literally tens of thousands of innocents lost their lives in the bloody game.

Washington's stated goals and actual goals are never the same. AS long as the markets open up to forieign business their job is done. history has dozens of examples. That's all they need, access to the resources. What type of gov't they have or how free or well treated the people are is almost irrelevent.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

You say we had the support of the entire world, but a gallup pinternational poll post 9/11, showed the biggest threat to world peace was the United States, according to the majority by a large margin.

As to the histroy of afghanistan...the US has supplied tens of thousands of school textbooks to afghan schools, teaching the more radical side of Islam, in an effort to keep the soviets in a quagmire, much like our vietnam. We've also supplied millions in arms, built extensive tunnel networks, all in the name of fighting communism. Basically using afghanistan as a pawn, while literally tens of thousands of innocents lost their lives in the bloody game.

Washington's stated goals and actual goals are never the same. AS long as the markets open up to forieign business their job is done. history has dozens of examples. That's all they need, access to the resources. What type of gov't they have or how free or well treated the people are is almost irrelevent.

you have a link to that poll? cos ive heard of that result, but i am 99% sure it was after IRAQ, not 9/11. post-9/11, we had pretty strong international support. we had a chance to make a true international effort to truly address terrorism and we blew it.

i am well aware of our involvement in afghanistan and it is shameful. but again, they were harboring terrorists and even if we created them, it was a chance to try and right our wrongs and restore that country to its people. but, again, we blew it.

as to the last post... maybe to an extent. i agree this administration never had good intentions. it's why i regret campaigning against al gore in 2000. had he been elected, we might have had a shot at the first two. but the neocons and their puppet president had their own agenda. i dont think economics was the driving force, but ive no doubt it played a part.

g under p

To me this is what it's ALL ABOUT!

The Price of Oil
(Billy Bragg)


Voices on the radio
Tell us that we're going to war
Those brave men and women in uniform
They want to know what they're fighting for
The generals want to hear the end game
The allies won't approve the plan
But the oil men in the White House
They just don't give a damn

'Cause it's all about the price of oil
It's all about the price of oil
Don't give me no shit about blood, sweat, tears and toil
It's all about the price of oil

Now, I ain't no fan of Saddam Hussein
No, please don't get me wrong
If it's freeing the Iraqi people you're after
Then why have we waited so long ?
Why didn't we sort this out last time ?
Was he less evil then than he is now ?
The stock market holds the answer
To "Why him? Why here? Why now?"

Saddam killed his own people
Just like General Pinochet
And once upon a time both these evil men
Were supported by the USA
To whisper it, even Bin Laden
Once drank from America's cup
Just like that election down in Florida
This shit doesn't all add up

BB....The Price Of Oil

Peace

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

you have a link to that poll? cos ive heard of that result, but i am 99% sure it was after IRAQ, not 9/11. post-9/11, we had pretty strong international support. we had a chance to make a true international effort to truly address terrorism and we blew it.

i am well aware of our involvement in afghanistan and it is shameful. but again, they were harboring terrorists and even if we created them, it was a chance to try and right our wrongs and restore that country to its people. but, again, we blew it.

as to the last post... maybe to an extent. i agree this administration never had good intentions. it's why i regret campaigning against al gore in 2000. had he been elected, we might have had a shot at the first two. but the neocons and their puppet president had their own agenda. i dont think economics was the driving force, but ive no doubt it played a part.

I dont' have the link, it was something i read from CHomsky a while ago. It was gallup international poll of Europeans, but it has changed recently "According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability" while Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. That's from a controversial EU poll and not the Gallup as I had thought. still.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You think the state of mind that lead into the war flip flopped at some point? hehe...around what time would that be then?

I 'm thinking more along the lines of Central America and what happened all over the place down there is more the picture, and what has continued to be, and what will continue to be.

same ol same ol...looks just like a tried (tired) and true prescription for (US) imperialism to me. What do you think?

I think if it were possible to pull the troops out now, it would've happened. Oil money is not worth all of the bad publicity the war has received to this point.

The issue now is leaving behind an unstable country.

For those of you who are distraught over the deaths of Iraqi citizens, or who believe the invasion of Afghanistan was a just cause, the continued occupation of Iraq should be something that you stand behind if your logic is consistent.

The reason being is that the US occupation is most likely preventing an escalation of the civil war which has been claiming most of the civilian iraqi deaths up to this point.

Also, the reason why Al Qaeda and the Taliban were able to control Afghanistan is because of the instability that followed the removal of Soviet communist control over the country.

Urban Hiker

ndv180 wrote:

I subscribe to the theories put forth in chapter 2 of Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse". It's somewhat complicated to explain, but the main reason Sadaam Hussein had to go was that he was playing around with the oil markets by varying Iraq's production of oil and its relation to its quota set forth by OPEC. The neocon crowd wanted to get in there and double production and bust up OPEC. The big oil companies weren't going to allow this to happen and they didn't. Instead, Iraq's production of oil has been cut in half and that is why we see the gas prices we see today and the oil companies and Saudi's are making a killing.

I would definitely keep an eye on and and ear out for the OPEC countries.

I think we're fighting for a different interpretation of freedom.

We're fighting for the freedom of consumers around the world to buy as many products as they can (many being very disposable, way over-packaged and involving oil in their production) and drive their vehicles as much as possible 24/7-365.