Why did we invade Iraq in your own words

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: M11293
I also believe that leaving immediately would create even more problems.

More problems for who?

 

[M11293]

More problems for Iraq as a nation-state and the Middle East as a whole.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
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.

Bingo, plus good PR for Bush after 9/11, and to appease his neoconartist advisers and the Israeli and Jewish Lobby. Also, his Saudi pals were getting nervous about an increasingly neurotic Saddam- he had to go.

Stabilized energy supply= stabilized prices and no worry during Bushies term about $5/gal. gas

 

[eunsang]

because bush was power tripping?

bush's excuse was WMD and democracy...

we're still in war b/c nothing has resolved in Iraq... and maybe bush forgot that we are still in war??

 

[BMW540I6speed]

This late in the game, who gives a crap if George Bush lied or not? It's like arguing over whether diarrhea was liquid or solid: it's still sh!t.

Do I think George W. Bush knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction or any significant indication of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda? No. Given the information to which we are privy, we can't possibly know.

Do I think George W. Bush didn't particularly care about the justification to go to war, that he was looking to establish himself as a War President so he could prance around like some kind of tough warrior for "freedom" , "liberty" & "The fight against evil", even though he never has and never will be such a person? Yes. I think the rapidly shifting justifications at every turn is strong enough evidence for that.

The bottom line is that even if all of the rationalizations for the war were accurate, it was still an insanely stupid idea given its purported aims.Those who said so were and are correct, and those who aren't are simply either blind or don't have the intellectual/moral courage to admit that they f*cked this one up.

So knock it off with the "Bush lied!" crap. All people do by pushing this point is give phoney right-wing instapundits an opening to play the "absolute proof" game. The only fact that matters is that George Bush consciously and recklessly embroiled us in the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the country (it's even worse than Vietnam because this time, we should have had the benefit of history upon which to reflect), even if the guy believed every single justification he spouted.

It was still a stupid idea, and history will judge him and the rest of the fools who not only supported it, but even worse, are presently advocating for its escalation and expansion without regard for the steadily worsening consequences.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sunzt
To accomplish the goal of PNAC

That's a much simpler way of of putting it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
This late in the game, who gives a crap if George Bush lied or not?

me

and, I would hope, every other American citizen.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
This late in the game, who gives a crap if George Bush lied or not?

I won't care as soon as they try him and his entire administration for the murder of every American killed in his illegal war and for treason for betraying his oath of office and shredding the Constitutional rights of all American citizens and violating the rights of Americans and others under the Genevea Conventions.

I'm willing to forego standing them before a firing squad. An all expenses paid vacation to the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton and free passes on the waterboard ride should be sufficient.

 

[Aquila76]

I think Bush thought it would be an 'in-and-out' well-supported invasion (by the American public and the Iraqi civilians) like Afghanistan and tried to 'one-up' his Dad's failed attempt to get Saddam. However, he underestimated the resistance that we would face - in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't hear about all the stuff still happening in Afghanistan because Iraq is the higher controversial media-ratings-scoring war zone.

We're still there because if we leave now, it would become a massive terrorist republic. As much as I'd like to see our troops get out of there, I just don't see that happening for a long time. The Iraqi army just isn't ready, and they have also been infiltrated and some servicemen corrupted by various terrorist cells. I think Iraq is going to end up a lot like Colombia; a haven for corruption and militants with basically no way to 'fix' it.

 

[CKent]

Because it's a just war... even though we went against the UN.

Oh wait, no, I got it... to save lives! Even though thousands of our boys and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died...

Wait a minute! To protect our freedoms! Er... despite the fact the Patriot Act has stripped them from us and Georgie signs away more of them on an almost daily basis...?

Hrm, why the fsck are we there then? Because stupid people vote their peers into positions of power 🙁

 

[lotush2002]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

I agree, that is the reason why U.S invaded Iraq.

 

[Alistar7]

"- 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. "


That's a nice return, we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, let it drop, then buy low and invade Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, France (just to watch them pee their pants and surrender, we really don't want France), and Canada. By then we will have all made plenty of $$$$$.......


Bush Lied, 573 billion died
(numbers may not be accurate as they are a result of a door to door survey)

I think there was a variety of reasons. The WMD/terror threat should not be so lightly discarded. Russia supplied us with intelligence that Saddam and "unofficial elements" of his regime were in fact planning terrorist attacks against the US and our interests. His regime had no "unofficial elements", read terrorists. After 911 Bush could not afford to have it happen again, especially after he was given clear warning. Remember the cozy relationshp between the Soviet Union and Saddam, they still hold vast quantities of the most secretive of Iraqi intelligence information. It was ferreted out of Iraq and is being safeguarded by Russia. What would Bush have been able to do, politically, if a terrorist attack on the US was carried out and found to be even partly associated with Saddam?
The left AND right would be screaming, "Russia told you this was going to happen, and you did nothing".

Don't forget the certain AQ operative Colin Powell claimed was operating within Iraq. Still think he was wrong, that butthead just set up shop days after we liberated Iraq? He already had a network in place and that would not have possible without Saddams knowledge and approval. Saddams willingness to use WMD and the possibilty he could share materials themselves, or even just information and training was a very real threat.
There was no dissention within the international community, most were convinced he still held WMD. Blix himself on his final report stated there was "vast quantities unaccounted for", and they still are today.

Contrary to popular belief Bush mentioned the freedom of the Iraqi people as a primary reason from day one. I think this was used mostly to get Americans on the bandwagon, and it worked. Freedom, especially from oppression, has a strong place in Americans hearts and minds. For that reason alone I think the majority of Americans would have supported taking Saddam down. If UN sanctions were working it would have not drawn as much support. I think the fact they were so clearly corrupted (10K + Iraqis dying every month from preventable neglect) played a part in our unwillingness to wait any longer.

I'm sure the oil/business/$ was a major motivating factor for Bush and the GOP as well, but I cannot see them starting a war solely for those reasons. More like icing on the cake. With the power they had they could have found much easier and less politically risky ways to make the same money or more.

We were told the Iraqi's would dance in the streets when we gave them their freedom, they did, just as they did when Saddam finally recieved his justice. A shame those who participated in the rampant food for oil corruption and profitied at the expense of the Iraqi people are not being called to account for their actions. Had they done their jobs the US would have had no need to act.

 

[tomywishbone]

Bump.

 

[animalia]

ok, seriously, I don't care anymore.

 

[SSSnail]

Do you know how much money can be made from supporting an army? Do you know who owns these corporation that produce products to support such army? Do you know why we're not in other parts of the world "preserving" democracy?

Just answer some of these simple questions and I'm sure you'll come to conclusion yourself of why we went to war.

 

[envelope man]

WARNING TO ALL POSTERS!!!

ANY COMMENTS AGAINST GEORGE BUSH JR. MAY BE MET WITH RETALIATION FROM THE MODERATORS! POST AT YOUR OWN RISK...FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS NOT AS FREE AS YOU THINK!

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: M11293
Many people will be surprised at what I am saying, but anyway...

The United States, during the Iran/Iraq War, maintained a rather "two-faced" relationship between the two fighting countries. We were openly selling weapons to Iraq and probably secretly selling weapons to Iran; this managed to piss everyone off. Iran was under an unstable government that could never sustain a long relationship with the United States. After our relationship with Iraq dissipated because of the invasion of Kuwait and the threat to Saudi Arabia, we officially lost our "presence" in the Middle East. We no longer had a foothold in the Middle East --a country we could relate with. (This may seem very ironic, but some Iraqi missiles fired at U.S. troops were likely made in the U.S.)

The war in Iraq was and is an attempt to place a democratic state that will favor the U.S. smack dab in the Middle East. Some may branch from this theory and say it was a foothold for oil. Other may say that it was a foothold for democracy in an otherwise very unstable and authoritarian region. The broad picture, for me, is the first, a U.S. presence in the Middle East.

Oh and just for the record, Iraq did have WMDs. How else do you explain 30,000 Kurdish casualties due to nerve agents?

Please comment...

You're basically right on all counts - in fact Iraq's WMDs were supplied by the US, and we continued to funnel money to Iraq after they used them. Notwithstanding that fact, it now seems self-evident that the idea we could establish a US-friendly outpost of democracy in Iraq of all places was childishly optimistic and naive.

*agrees*

Originally posted by: envelope man
WARNING TO ALL POSTERS!!!

ANY COMMENTS AGAINST GEORGE BUSH JR. MAY BE MET WITH RETALIATION FROM THE MODERATORS! POST AT YOUR OWN RISK...FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT AS FREE AS YOU THINK!

There's no right to freedom of speech in the private domain, child.