• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why did we invade Iraq in your own words

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
With the large number of ant-war posters we have on here I would like to see their opinions on why we went to war in Iraq.

So I challenge everyone to post their own personal belief as to why the war in Iraq was started. Please do so in a short concise manor as opposed to long winded dissertations.

I would also like to see everyone?s opinion on why we are still in Iraq after 3 years.
Don?t comment on someone else beliefs until you have posted your own.

My view.
Why we invaded Iraq: We knew that Saddam had a history of using WMD and supporting terrorist. Therefore, in a post 9-11 world it was thought that there was too much danger of Saddam giving WMDs or WMD technology to terrorists who would then use it against us or our allies. Therefore, we invaded Iraq in order to prevent any future support by Saddam of terrorists via money, training or WMDs.

Why we are still there: Although the threat of Saddam is gone, there is still the danger that the country could become a haven for terrorists. Furthermore, we need a strong Iraq to act as a counter balance to Iran and its ideas of spreading its radical Islamic regime.

There you go: nice and simple to understand. How many of you other regular posters are willing to put your own ideas on this out there for everyone to see?
And how many of you will just criticize everyone else?s ideas without offer any of your own?
 
pretty much the opposite of what you said. we invaded for our own benefit, and we're still there for our own benefit, plain and simple.
 
We invaded because we thought we could bring big changes to the Middle East. History will show that America has been largely successful in this respect but not in the manner we envisioned. The face of the Middle East in 2015 will be nothing like it was in 2000--just watch.

I can't say for sure what the new Middle East will look like--in fact no one can at this point.
 
The real reason?

To destabilize the region.

Hard to hold any power over squat when your region is caught up in war or threats of war.
 
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
pretty much the opposite of what you said. we invaded for our own benefit, and we're still there for our own benefit, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Please explain what benefit we gained through the war?
 
I honestly have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but it most certainly was not for any of the stated reasons.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
pretty much the opposite of what you said. we invaded for our own benefit, and we're still there for our own benefit, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Please explain what benefit we gained through the war?
Click to expand...

the only people that know for sure are those in power, not your average us citizen, however - i'm guessing oil played a large part though.
 
Energy

It is THE one thing above all else that drives foreign policy and the reason why we, Canadians, are in Afghanistan (Taliban denied gas rights), and why the US is in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not something new. The leader of a sovereign nation being overthrown for the purpose of securing energy rights has been done before. As recently, prior to Afghanistan and Iraq, as the CIA's False Flag operation to oust the elected leader of Iran shortly after BP (British Petroleum) was going to loose direct access to Iran's vast energy supply. This has been boasted about and admitted to in declassified CIA documents and some of the people involved. It's a known fact and not even up to debate.

It is therefore my opinion that the reasons we are in the Middle East is solely for big business. This is hardly surprising due to the nature of our system of government, which is a Corporatist system.

intresting reading
 
Because Dick Cheney wanted to, for his own wicked interests. Bush is just Dick's puppet. There, I said it.
 
To fulfill the prophesies of the end times and bring about the Apocalypse. So God Told Bush. Amen! Ever notice how Religious😕 Crazies commit foul deeds and say :sun:God told them to? Can't they just admit it was the :evil😀evil talking to them?😛
 
I really can't say what the combination of factors was, but I think it had to do with the following mostly:

- Personal: Bush believed that Saddam had tried to kill his parents, and wanted revenge. He mentioned this in terms of his feelings about going after Saddam.

- Beat his father, who had not removed Saddam. 'GHWB started it, but GWB got the job done'.

- First and foremost, the pressure from 'interests': now that the republicans finally had control, it was 'their time' to act on their beliefs and use US strength somewhere as a large statement to the world in the post-cold war era. The agenda had been well laid out, with all of the right pushing it - the Neocons in PNAC, who Bush had greatly recruited from for nearly all the top positions, pushing it as 'US dominance in the world'; the right-wing economic think tanks viewing Iraq as a sandbox to prove their economic theories, privatizing everything, installing a flat tax, and many other such measures.

- I mentioned privatizing everything: by selling it off cheap to US corporations, i.e., Bush cronies and donors (this was thwarted by the poor situation and Chalabi not getting in).

- Building a base for the US military for launching other actions in the region, replacing the base we needed to give up in Saudi Arabia.

- As a president who had lost the popular vote and had a terrible agenda for the nation, he was on track to become one of the least popular, least notable presidents in history, voted out in a landslide in 2004. A war would greatly improve his public support (at first) and give his presidency a far better theme - defend the nation - than 'steal the nation's wealth'.

- 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.

- I think there was some sincerity in the Neocons' naive theory of spreading democracy for the good of the world. But just as IMO libertarians would be disastrous if they got their hands on any power to implement their policies, the theories did not go as planned.

- WMD: here's my view: I think that they cared about WMD only as an issue they could use to sell the war. I think they thought there might be WMD there, but that is NOT any excuse about an honest mistake - they intentionally twisted, suppressed, misrepresented the evidence for the purpose of selling the war so badly as to demonstrate that they willfully did not want to know any info that there were not any WMD - to the point of refusing the UN inspectors to complete the inspections in a few months, starting the war to prevent the inspections from removing their argument for war, worried no WMD might be found. I think the only other reason they cared was that it'd be easier for them if some were found.

- The competition for Iraqi oil coming with other nations - they did it as a strategic block from nations like China gaining the access to the oil, ensuring the US at least had great access.

If I rank these, I'd put the agenda of the leading right-wing neocons near the top of the reasons, wanting to increase US power in the world by conquering one nation and positioning for action in others in the middle east.
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Because Dick Cheney wanted to, for his own wicked interests. Bush is just Dick's puppet. There, I said it.
Click to expand...

It's true, to a point. Cheney was not alone.
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Because Dick Cheney wanted to, for his own wicked interests. Bush is just Dick's puppet. There, I said it.
Click to expand...
Ooh, you are in trouble! Red Dawn is gonna beat your ass down for that comment! :laugh: Oh wait, he would agree. Nevermind.

😛

OK, I will log off now. That Fiesta Bowl was a hell of a game wasn't it? My team lost but dang, what a ride. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Because Dick Cheney wanted to, for his own wicked interests. Bush is just Dick's puppet. There, I said it.
Click to expand...

It's true, to a point. Cheney was not alone.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting situation - I don't think Bush knows he's their puppet. They manipulate him like a child king. Yes, sir, they say a lot, I'm sure.

They put up with some abuse - 'turd blossom' for Rove - to reassure him as they maintain their positions as the only trusted advisors.

It's a little like when Bush was on the board of directors and 'all he did was tell a few jokes' before they asked him to leave, or the Texas Rangers where others ran the team.

Bush was the public face for the team, grinning and handshaking, and that suited him fine.

Rove clearly recruited Bush for the presidency, and I've heard Bush was never all that excited about it, but he's doing what he can. The right supported him because he was electable - they didn't want another Bob Dole - and he'd play ball (no pun intended from the Rangers) with the radicals. Grover Norquist explained it, saying that the hardcore right wants to change the country radically; and they see no reason not to ride with Bush from the east coast to St. Louis; and while Bush may only go that far while they want to go to the west coast and even Hawaii, no harm in taking advantage of Bush for getting the early part done.
 
A. To provide the US with a strategically located military base(s) from which it could exert influence on the other Middle Eastern countries.

B. To stabilized and secure an energy supply.

The US is still in Iraq becasuse GWB is president and establishes foreign policy.
 
We invaded Iraq to exert influence in an incredibly important strategic region. We got friendly control of Iraq's huge oil reserves, and a base of operations from which to monitor/threaten Iran and Syria. WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with it... that's fairly clear now.

Bush and Co. also (foolishly) thought that by democratizing Iraq, they would provide an example for other countries in the region, and indirectly threaten the regimes of our enemies in the middle east.

We're still there because we don't know what else to do. The strategic interest motivations for our stay in Iraq are pretty much gone (or unattainable which is in effect the same thing) We have a problem that is now impossible to fix. Because of our criminally ignorant leadership, we have the prospect of pulling our troops out now and watching Iraq collapse, or leaving them there and watching it slowly deteriorate and then collapse. Politically the prospect of slow deterioration causes responsiblity to be diffused between lots of different people, and so spreads the blame.

Furthermore, Bush will now try to play off of percieved Democratic weakness on national security by pushing for even more troops in Iraq. Even though experts almost unanimously say that this will not help, when this request is denied or blocked by Democrats he will then be able to blame future problems on their unwillingness to "do what is necessary to win the war".

Note to OP: Saddam did not have a history of supporting terrorists. While he had provided some money and rhetorical support for Palestinians, he was not a significant supporter of terrorist organizations. This is a fact. In addition, Hans Blix contradicted several of our assertions about WMD before the war happened, and said that he had found no evidence of them in Iraq. (although he said it in a pretty weak way).
 
Why we invaded Iraq: Because our leader believe Saddam had WMD and few month later, they believe they were helping the terrorist...
they even when on the media claim this so I know someone tv recorded of all this.
what I think base what our leader said that time before we invade.
Iraq was no threat to us I don't think they are fool to even try it(we kick there ass back in the 90's) and connection with the terrorist? heh, ain't fooling me.
our real war was with those terrorist attacked us.

Why we are still there:
Because our leader put us there made a mess and trying so hard to fix it and they don't wanna look like true a-hole for leaving them just like that like we did before and I've 85% feeling they are in it for the OIL too I won't say 100% because I'm unsure need to do more research.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
pretty much the opposite of what you said. we invaded for our own benefit, and we're still there for our own benefit, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Please explain what benefit we gained through the war?
Click to expand...

The question is "what did people plan to gain through the war." Things obviously did not work out as planned.
 
The War Powers Act submission indicated to Congress why we invaded Iraq... and the draft resolution that couldn't get support in the UN Security Counsel indicated why we invaded Iraq.
So... given we have brilliant men in the seat of power... every one of them is Brilliant... You should be asking that question with a frown.... You should be saying "dang... really.. why DID we invade Iraq?" And... you should be asking it of the folks sitting in that seat of power..
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
With the large number of ant-war posters we have on here I would like to see their opinions on why we went to war in Iraq.

So I challenge everyone to post their own personal belief as to why the war in Iraq was started. Please do so in a short concise manor as opposed to long winded dissertations.

I would also like to see everyone?s opinion on why we are still in Iraq after 3 years.
Don?t comment on someone else beliefs until you have posted your own.

My view.
Why we invaded Iraq: We knew that Saddam had a history of using WMD and supporting terrorist. Therefore, in a post 9-11 world it was thought that there was too much danger of Saddam giving WMDs or WMD technology to terrorists who would then use it against us or our allies. Therefore, we invaded Iraq in order to prevent any future support by Saddam of terrorists via money, training or WMDs.

Why we are still there: Although the threat of Saddam is gone, there is still the danger that the country could become a haven for terrorists. Furthermore, we need a strong Iraq to act as a counter balance to Iran and its ideas of spreading its radical Islamic regime.

There you go: nice and simple to understand. How many of you other regular posters are willing to put your own ideas on this out there for everyone to see?
And how many of you will just criticize everyone else?s ideas without offer any of your own?
Click to expand...


Actually, I agree with you. How well we are doing is a different story.
 
I believe we invaded for one of several reasons: 1) To make sure Saddam did not have and/or could not obtain WMD 2) To secure Iraqi oil 3) To maintain bases/troops in the ME and near the oil 4) To make Israel and the Jewish lobby in DC happy 5) To scare Iran 6) Because Bush had some really stupid advisors who were looking for a war from day one 7) To make the American people believe that Bush was fighting a good fight vs "the terrorists"
 
GWB got tired of SH fvcking with the USA and SH thought we would never get serious on his ass, he expected that he could continue mocking us as he did under Clinton.

Clinton's bomb's (hey, why doesn't anybody ever give Clinton sh1t for attacking these kind and gentle people? And yes, people died for his lies) were meant as a distraction... even people who are totally politically blind can see this.

No wonder SH never took the USA serious... look at that clown Clinton and how he used bombing Iraq when it suited him.

Bush at least showed that there are some people in this country that are not to be messed with and that we do not take orders from France, Germany, or any of the other weak countries that dealt with him under the table despite UN sanctions. I don't know why we let countries like France and Germany preach to us given their messed up histories and disregard for things like "UN Sanctions".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top