Why did we invade? It's no secret neo-conservatives have had a hard-on for Saddam since the first Gulf War. Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc etc. It's pretty obvious Bush doesn't come up with any solutions, he just asks for opinions from his advisors and picks out what he likes best.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,568
- 29,182
- 146
Ah, so you're probably one of the people that blame Clinton for not attacking Bin Laden. This, after he sent in cruiser missiles to destroy 2 of his training camps. What many of the neocons fail to realize, is that despots and terroristis can be dealt with more clandestinely.
The war solution is pretty outdated, and far less effective these days. Man, look at the wonderful world-wide opinion the Irag invasion has generated for us! (Oh, you probably don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of us anyway. We're the US, we're number 1, that's all the matters...blah blah blah, blind me now...)
Right, becuase France and Germany have no idea what a war is like. What it means to fight a war in your own territory, and how de-stabilizing it can be to not only the nations involved, but the rest of the world. Indeed, there is not one single war in the entire history of France or Germany.
It sounds like you have an instant-opinion generator at your house called AM radio. Perhaps you should turn it off for a little while and allow your brain to form its own logical thoughts.
Except there were inspectors and no WMDs and the 'supporting terrorists' meant giving a bit of cash to the families of killed Palestinians. You're still confusing the reason for the war with the bullshit that was invented to justify it.
What does the US want? Security, wealth and power/influence and in the minds of the architects, Iraq would provide all these. Saddam was a thorn in the US's side, so in their mind removing him and having a free but rabidly pro-US Iraq (after all, on the world stage the US likes nothing more than countries like Britain and Japan - large, free, stable, rich and utterly devoid of backbone) would mean a great deal of influence, support and goodwill towards the US, energy security, plenty of contracts for oil companies, political stability, and a 'halo effect' where this wonder would spread through other countries. A wonderful vision until you consider reality...
I think the other side of the coin is that the alternative was so unattractive to Bush. His presidency would have virtually nothing without Iraq and he'd have betrayed his 'base' and looked impotent.
This whole 'having a big military is dangerous because you have to use it to justify it' issue is why Jefferson said that a standing army was one of the couple most dangeous threats to the nation's freedom.
This whole 'having a big military is dangerous because you have to use it to justify it' issue is why Jefferson said that a standing army was one of the couple most dangeous threats to the nation's freedom.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
Although several posters have skidded around the basic reason, no one has stated it outright:
Bush is an unmitigated moron. And when you combine Bush's complete imbecility with his equally complete arrogance, you have a deadly combination.
Now, take the imbecile of the millenium and put him under the control of right-wing fanatics, and you get a totally predictable outcome: utter chaos.
That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Bush is an unmitigated moron. And when you combine Bush's complete imbecility with his equally complete arrogance, you have a deadly combination.
Now, take the imbecile of the millenium and put him under the control of right-wing fanatics, and you get a totally predictable outcome: utter chaos.
That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Oil and the chance to dispose of one of the many annoying world leaders (Saddam).
This war makes FAR more sense than Vietnam (Lets go bail out the French!). I wish neither happened.
FYI: I never supported going in there (Iraq) in the first place, so my statement above may be biased.
This war makes FAR more sense than Vietnam (Lets go bail out the French!). I wish neither happened.
FYI: I never supported going in there (Iraq) in the first place, so my statement above may be biased.
senseamp
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,195
- 126
We invaded Iraq, because the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq for a decade got into power in Washington. It had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was just an excuse and means to rally support, but it was not the reason.
Just read PNAC publications, straight from the horse's mouth. Those people (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc) got into power, and got their way. They were lucky enough to have a delegating moron in the oval office who just happened to delegate foreign/defense policy to them.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
As far as why we are still in Iraq, it's more of a psychological thing. Basic inability to admit defeat. Wishful thinking. Etc. For us to leave now is to admit that we turned a weak secular dictatorship into a religious warzone that will destabilize the region. It's to admit that we strenghtened Iran and weakened our own foreign policy for nothing. It's to admit that we lost thousands of GIs and hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that was doomed from the start. It's a hard thing to do, much easier to just pass the buck along.
Just read PNAC publications, straight from the horse's mouth. Those people (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc) got into power, and got their way. They were lucky enough to have a delegating moron in the oval office who just happened to delegate foreign/defense policy to them.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
As far as why we are still in Iraq, it's more of a psychological thing. Basic inability to admit defeat. Wishful thinking. Etc. For us to leave now is to admit that we turned a weak secular dictatorship into a religious warzone that will destabilize the region. It's to admit that we strenghtened Iran and weakened our own foreign policy for nothing. It's to admit that we lost thousands of GIs and hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that was doomed from the start. It's a hard thing to do, much easier to just pass the buck along.
Except that he started off in the right direction by going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of course, it was the obvious response, but unlike everything he's done, since then, at least it was the right action.
His 'base' is debased.
Looks aren't always deceiving.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Nobody here has a clue why the US went to war with Iraq and this discussion is not helping to determine this.
Personally, my take is as follows...
Unlike Bush, I have a huge amount of respect for Blair and cannot see him going into Iraq for oil as his nation is working towards kyoto and energy efficient goals. UK also has a very high fuel taxation to reduce consumption of the resource. UK's support of the war from the start and significant involvement is a strong argument against the oil argument made by some people.
If the invasion was for moral reasons, (ie. freeing the Iraqi people) the mission would have started with that case; the WMD just made the UK and US governments look incompetent. They wouldn't have gone through that ridicule for the hell of it; it is painfully obvious there was misinformation and Saddam pushed the limits a little too much. You don't dick around with the superpowers of the world, and even the most rabid anti-war people can agree the man was not cooperating in the least.
Given the evidence and situation at the time, I was a supporter of the Iraq war, I can admit that. Looking back it was a horrible mistake, I am at least man enough to admit that; unlike the other people here who try every minute of the day to justify one of the biggest f*ck ups in history because they refuse to admit they are wrong. The easist way to prove these people wrong is ask them if they support invading Iran or NK...they have WMD, same situation.
Personally, my take is as follows...
Unlike Bush, I have a huge amount of respect for Blair and cannot see him going into Iraq for oil as his nation is working towards kyoto and energy efficient goals. UK also has a very high fuel taxation to reduce consumption of the resource. UK's support of the war from the start and significant involvement is a strong argument against the oil argument made by some people.
If the invasion was for moral reasons, (ie. freeing the Iraqi people) the mission would have started with that case; the WMD just made the UK and US governments look incompetent. They wouldn't have gone through that ridicule for the hell of it; it is painfully obvious there was misinformation and Saddam pushed the limits a little too much. You don't dick around with the superpowers of the world, and even the most rabid anti-war people can agree the man was not cooperating in the least.
Given the evidence and situation at the time, I was a supporter of the Iraq war, I can admit that. Looking back it was a horrible mistake, I am at least man enough to admit that; unlike the other people here who try every minute of the day to justify one of the biggest f*ck ups in history because they refuse to admit they are wrong. The easist way to prove these people wrong is ask them if they support invading Iran or NK...they have WMD, same situation.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,599
- 19
- 81
Why we invaded: Bush Jr wanting revenge for deeds against his father. That, and we could gain a stronghold in the mideast, and in an oil-producing country. Put a US-friendly government in there, and you effectively eliminate the middlemen. It was made easier too thanks to bin Laden and 9/11 - that was a way of getting our foot in the door, so to speak. Once we're in the mideast, well hey, Iraq is in the neighborhood, might as well pay them a visit too.
Hm, just checking up on a map. Iraq, then Afghanistan and Pakistan - they're on opposite sides of Iran. Good places to get strongholds in if you're planning to invade Iran.
And hey, war is just plain ridiculously profitable for people in the right places.
Why we are still there: We still don't have easy access to the oil pumps that still aren't working because of continued violence, which coincidentally began when we started our whole "Shock and Awe" PR stunt. That went over really well. All of the Iraqi's just saw that and though, "Gee, no sense fighting them, they're just too powerful. Ok mighty Americans, we give up!"
Hm, just checking up on a map. Iraq, then Afghanistan and Pakistan - they're on opposite sides of Iran. Good places to get strongholds in if you're planning to invade Iran.
And hey, war is just plain ridiculously profitable for people in the right places.
Why we are still there: We still don't have easy access to the oil pumps that still aren't working because of continued violence, which coincidentally began when we started our whole "Shock and Awe" PR stunt. That went over really well. All of the Iraqi's just saw that and though, "Gee, no sense fighting them, they're just too powerful. Ok mighty Americans, we give up!"
The people of the region seem accustomed to dictatorships, and some degree of tensions between various groups. Somehow, I don't think that a military assault is the best way to convince them that they can resolve their problems peacefully.
We invaded Iraq because our country is led by a bunch of idealists who honestly thought that we would be welcomed with hugs and kisses
Because the PNAC crowd was deeply disappointed when Bush Sr. wisely declined the option, and because 9/11 offered the perfect means to manipulate public opinion. The whole thing is part of a delusional belief in the power of the military to achieve world hegemony. It's not really rational, at all, and it has absolutely nothing to do with spreading democracy. We cheerfully support non-democratic regimes throughout the region and the world, so long as they're willing hegemons...
Cause he threatened my daddy, and I want revenge, and I never developed a plan, just charge in like a frigging idiot, mission accomplished.
Now how the hell do I get out of here?
Now how the hell do I get out of here?
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,352
- 11
- 0
We invaded Iraq because a certain group of people were deadset at the beginning of the "election" win of Bush Jr. Sept. 11 was used as a reason for the invasion because the OMG terrorists might come get you. Remember that this was in spite of the aluminum tubes debacle, the yellow cake debacle, and the Wilson mess. Where there's war, there's money to be made.
MAW1082
Senior member
- Jun 17, 2003
- 510
- 7
- 81
We invaded Iraq because Bush believed or wanted us to believe this:
" Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " -George W Bush State Of Union 2003 cited from WhiteHouse.gov
" Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " -George W Bush State Of Union 2003 cited from WhiteHouse.gov
If you have to ask why Bush invaded Iraq, without observing what has happened afterwards and not comprehending the truth through the B.S., then you must be a member of the Republican Party. And if that sounds like an insult, ask yourself why!
Quote:
"- Let's not forget the military industrial complex; just to mention the Carlyle Group alone, cronies as they are, I recently read they were the #1 arms consortium in the world, the #11 defense contractor, with something like $16B in assets earning a 35% return on investment. War is very profitable to some companies, out of the public trough."
Guess who the members are.
Quote:
"- Let's not forget the military industrial complex; just to mention the Carlyle Group alone, cronies as they are, I recently read they were the #1 arms consortium in the world, the #11 defense contractor, with something like $16B in assets earning a 35% return on investment. War is very profitable to some companies, out of the public trough."
Guess who the members are.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Craig, there is a problem with your whole "Bush would have been a failure with our Iraq" chain of thought. Before we invaded Iraq we had a hugely successful invasion and success in Afghanistan.
It would have been very easy for Bush to sit back and rest on those laurels and pressed for UN inspections etc.
Invading Iraq was not the easy route, it was the hard one. The easy route, as I said, was fighting terror with cruise missiles etc for the next 2 years until the election.
You do realize that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq he would have walked all over Kerry in 2004 and would most likely not have lost as bad in 2006.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter