Why did we go to war in Iraq?

[SinA]

Obviously it wasn't because of any weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't to bring democracy to the impoverished citizens of an oppressive dictator, etc. At this point the reasons for going and the reasons for staying are muddled, not that they were ever very clear.

Sure there are all kinds of complex explanations, but at the end of the day there was some one person with an impetus or goal that they wanted to accomplish. To fight terrorism? For personal revenge? Oil? Financial gain? Or something else entirely?

What is the REAL reason that George Bush, or Dick Cheney, or whoever was the major driving force used as the basis for building a case for the U.S.A to go to war with/in Iraq?

[weekapaugjz]

weapons of ass destruction

[underdog]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Halliburton_logo.svg/250px-Halliburton_logo.svg.png

[Suspect Chin]

Obviously it wasn't because of any weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't to bring democracy to the impoverished citizens of an oppressive dictator, etc. At this point the reasons for going and the reasons for staying are muddled, not that they were ever very clear.

Sure there are all kinds of complex explanations, but at the end of the day there was some one person with an impetus or goal that they wanted to accomplish. To fight terrorism? For personal revenge? Oil? Financial gain? Or something else entirely?

What is the REAL reason that George Bush, or Dick Cheney, or whoever was the major driving force used as the basis for building a case for the U.S.A to go to war with/in Iraq?

Do you expect a one sentence answer?

Hundred of books have been written on this subject and a clear answer is yet to emerge.

[opie's twisted balls]

Because Saddam was a cunt.

Oh, and cause Dick told George redux to.

[Dude!]

this thread is soooo 2004

[Judge Smails]

http://<OBJECT width=425 height=344>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cpP7b2lUxVE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT> (http://<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cpP7b2lUxVE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cpP7b2lUxVE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>)</P>

[SinA]

Do you expect a one sentence answer?

Hundred of books have been written on this subject and a clear answer is yet to emerge.

yes. those books are full of shit. there is a Primum movens, a first cause that is the ultimate root of the network of events and decisions that followed.

how about if I rephrase the question. who was the first person in the administration with the idea? then, what was that person's initial reason?

[keithy_19]

Cause we fucking wanted to. Shit. Stop asking questions.

[keithy_19]

yes. those books are full of shit. there is a Primum movens, a first cause that is the ultimate root of the network of events and decisions that followed.

how about if I rephrase the question. who was the first person in the administration with the idea? then, what was that person's initial reason?

Colin Powel.

[underdog]

yes. those books are full of shit. there is a Primum movens, a first cause that is the ultimate root of the network of events and decisions that followed.

how about if I rephrase the question. who was the first person in the administration with the idea? then, what was that person's initial reason?

It was either Bush to get revenge for his daddy or Cheney and the rest of them for financial gain. Or both.

[opie's twisted balls]

who was the first person in the administration with the idea? then, what was that person's initial reason?
If you want a serious answer I'd go with Cheney as being the first senior member of the administration who brought forward the invasion of Iraq. As for his rational I think its much too simple and transparent to go with the argument of it just being for Halliburton or direct personal gain. I think he had a sincere, but obviously flawed, belief that Iraq was in possession of WMD's and that intelligence would show a connection between the Baath Party, Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and that an invasion was required to prevent future attacks. That said I don't doubt that other factors like being able manipulate access to Iraq's oil supply also played a part in the overall decision to go to war.

[DolaMight]

"excuse my language but in palace#4 there's a goat cheese recipe that will knock your socks off" Richard Cheney blurted January, 2003. Bush was hungry and the rest was history.

[Death Metal Moe]

If you want a serious answer I'd go with Cheney as being the first senior member of the administration who brought forward the invasion of Iraq. As for his rational I think its much too simple and transparent to go with the argument of it just being for Halliburton or direct personal gain. I think he had a sincere, but obviously flawed, belief that Iraq was in possession of WMD's and that intelligence would show a connection between the Baath Party, Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and that an invasion was required to prevent future attacks. That said I don't doubt that other factors like being able manipulate access to Iraq's oil supply also played a part in the overall decision to go to war.

I can agree with this. I would also add that I think a general ignorance on the Middle East and Muslim Extremism was to blame too. The idea that "they're all against us" and that all Muslim extremist organizations probably love each other and work together to kill us. Some do, some actually fight each other and hate each other.

Not to bring it down to these terms, but there was a little 'bomb the brown people and the problem will go away" going on in the administration.

[keithy_19]

Cause we fucking wanted to. Shit. Stop asking questions.

qft

[opie's twisted balls]

I can agree with this. I would also add that I think a general ignorance on the Middle East and Muslim Extremism was to blame too. The idea that "they're all against us" and that all Muslim extremist organizations probably love each other and work together to kill us. Some do, some actually fight each other and hate each other.

Its unfortunate but the ignorance wasn't and still isn't limited just the Middle East or Islamic Extremism but a system lack of understanding of cultures, religions, politics, etc. outside of your own borders. Thats not meant to be a negatively critical comment about the American mindset but just what I've experienced travelling in the US and overseas. Through your education and popular culture like TV Americans are raised with an incredible sense of self pride and internal history but the unfortunate result is a very inward mindset and when having to deal with external threats its usually done reactionary. However, I can't say I can fault that approach when you have organizations like the incredibly effete UN Security Council who's binding resolutions have as much worth as used toilet paper.


Not to bring it down to these terms, but there was a little 'bomb the brown people and the problem will go away" going on in the administration.
Thats not limited to just the Bush 2.0 administration. The "when in doubt bomb brown people living in the desert or jungle" doctrine is shared across party lines.

[A.J.]

Our leaders had tiny penises.

[sr71blackbird]

I also think it was to gain a firm foothold in the middle east and turn Irag into a base of operations which we could use as a staging ground to quell any issues that arise in the region. Obviously if that was the intention that did not happen as predicted. Iraq is the size of Texas.

[yojimbo7248]

Its unfortunate but the ignorance wasn't and still isn't limited just the Middle East or Islamic Extremism but a system lack of understanding of cultures, religions, politics, etc. outside of your own borders.

I completely agree. I also think the Cold War left Americans with the belief that repressive governments have enslaved populations and if you kill the dictators, the people will create a democratic, US-friendly, capitalist system on their own. I used to be involved in DoD Korea planning and it always shocked me when people would propose killing off NK leadership and then just assume N Koreans would form into a peace-loving democratic society. There was no post-conflict planning in many of these proposals. I think W, Cheney, etc. really believed we would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad.

[sailor]

It was either Bush to get revenge for his daddy or Cheney and the rest of them for financial gain. Or both.

exactly.

(ha)

[DiabloSammich]

For the bitches.

[sailor]

For the bitches.

for the nookie.

[DiabloSammich]

for the nookie.


For the Snookie...



http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/12/JERSEY-SHORE-SNOOKIE-PUNCH.jpg

[epo]

Beachfront property.

Oops.

[El Mudo]

I also think it was to gain a firm foothold in the middle east and turn Irag into a base of operations which we could use as a staging ground to quell any issues that arise in the region. Obviously if that was the intention that did not happen as predicted. Iraq is the size of Texas.

No, its roughly the size of California. Texas is bigger.

Iraq- 169,234 sq mi

California- 163,696 sq mi

Texas- 268,820 sq mi

[El Mudo]

I completely agree. I also think the Cold War left Americans with the belief that repressive governments have enslaved populations and if you kill the dictators, the people will create a democratic, US-friendly, capitalist system on their own. I used to be involved in DoD Korea planning and it always shocked me when people would propose killing off NK leadership and then just assume N Koreans would form into a peace-loving democratic society. There was no post-conflict planning in many of these proposals. I think W, Cheney, etc. really believed we would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad.


It wasn't so much the Cold War that left us that idea but this guy

http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/woodrow-wilson.jpg

When you go to war to make the world "safe for democracy" you fundamentally change the nature of what "war" is.

[Death Metal Moe]

Its unfortunate but the ignorance wasn't and still isn't limited just the Middle East or Islamic Extremism but a system lack of understanding of cultures, religions, politics, etc. outside of your own borders. Thats not meant to be a negatively critical comment about the American mindset but just what I've experienced travelling in the US and overseas. Through your education and popular culture like TV Americans are raised with an incredible sense of self pride and internal history but the unfortunate result is a very inward mindset and when having to deal with external threats its usually done reactionary. However, I can't say I can fault that approach when you have organizations like the incredibly effete UN Security Council who's binding resolutions have as much worth as used toilet paper.



Thats not limited to just the Bush 2.0 administration. The "when in doubt bomb brown people living in the desert or jungle" doctrine is shared across party lines.

Oh no, I wasn't dumping on Bush exclusively. We've never overly cared about anyone but ourselves. Just look at our own national news agencies. It's been getting better little by little but for awhile there our 24 hour news channels were all national stories and the "World News" was relegated to a 90 second round up at the top of the hour.

People around the world notice that attitude.

[opie's twisted balls]

I completely agree. I also think the Cold War left Americans with the belief that repressive governments have enslaved populations and if you kill the dictators, the people will create a democratic, US-friendly, capitalist system on their own. I used to be involved in DoD Korea planning and it always shocked me when people would propose killing off NK leadership and then just assume N Koreans would form into a peace-loving democratic society. There was no post-conflict planning in many of these proposals. I think W, Cheney, etc. really believed we would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad.
Yup, its nouveau imperialism. The problem is that our (North American and Western European) version of democracy doesn't translate well to cultures with a deeply rooted theocratic leadership structure like most of Northern Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Lewis Black has a great line about bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan..."what are we going to do, bring them our civics books....here, read this picks....we'll be back in a week, they'll be a test". I think everyone would be much better served if instead of trying to spread democracy the Western world work to expand human rights to the traditionally disenfranchised (mainly women and children) through education, healthcare, etc.


For the bitches.
I really home George Jr. wasn't sitting in The Oval jerking off to pictures of women in burkas.

For the Snookie...



http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/12/JERSEY-SHORE-SNOOKIE-PUNCH.jpg
She needs to rotate her body 90º to the left and keep her forehead on the ground.

[opie's twisted balls]

Just look at our own national news agencies. It's been getting better little by little but for awhile there our 24 hour news channels were all national stories and the "World News" was relegated to a 90 second round up at the top of the hour.

People around the world notice that attitude.
Very true and north of the border it isn't much better. Granted when I watch the local evening news I don't want or need a 15 minute in depth report on current state Kyrgyzstan's sugar beet production but I'd like more then a minute and a half to know what's going on around the world.

[sailor]

Very true and north of the border it isn't much better. Granted when I watch the local evening news I don't want or need a 15 minute in depth report on current state Kyrgyzstan's sugar beet production but I'd like more then a minute and a half to know what's going on around the world.

I want less. Honestly.

[Dude!]

Oh no, I wasn't dumping on Bush exclusively. We've never overly cared about anyone but ourselves. Just look at our own national news agencies. It's been getting better little by little but for awhile there our 24 hour news channels were all national stories and the "World News" was relegated to a 90 second round up at the top of the hour.

People around the world notice that attitude.

apparently you have never
watched a newscast
in paris, rome or beijing

[Death Metal Moe]

apparently you have never
watched a newscast
in paris, rome or beijing

No I haven't, but I was talking about the US. And if other country's news is the same as ours, it doesn't make it a positive thing so I don't understand your "zinger" comment.

[foodcourtdruide]

No I haven't, but I was talking about the US. And if other country's news is the same as ours, it doesn't make it a positive thing so I don't understand your "zinger" comment.

Don't you remember the part of your post where you said all other countries have a perfect news media?

[sr71blackbird]

If we want to influence to world to our way of thinking, we aught to free our people, give everyone the same rights and opportunity to create and amass wealth and protect their freedoms. Until we start doing that, we will never gain a cheering section in the world arena.

[Dude!]

No I haven't, but I was talking about the US. And if other country's news is the same as ours, it doesn't make it a positive thing so I don't understand your "zinger" comment.

that was not a zinger
just to say that it is
not too different anywhere else
people like their news 'local'

[FUNKMAN]

Why did we go to war in Iraq?

i wrack my brains every day over the same question

[SinA]

There are always people who feel that we need to disrupt someone else's way of life in order to protect our own. "We need to defeat the Communists in Korea/Vietnam/Russia/etc" has turned into our "war on terror/fight them there so we don't have to fight them here/spread democracy." In fact, I think that al Qaeda was working under the same basic ideas when they attacked us in 2001.

[DOHO@HOME]

Because we are humans and need to show others our power.
Now we should start our withdrawal process and do more unmaned missions.

[K.C.]

I think the line of thinking (based on what I know of the Neo-Cons) was as follows:

1) We pick Iraq because it is fairly secular for a region of angry, Jew and Christian hating Muslims, and is one of the richer countries in the region in terms of resources, and is positioned perfectly from a strategic point of view.

2) Topple Saddam Hussein...in the aftermath, appease the local factions through the idea of the country being able to finally exploit its resources globally, thus giving them an opportunity to become one of the most influential political and economic forces in the Middle East if they can keep from fighting each other.

3) Establish favorable diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq; also secure the opportunity to use Iraq in any future military endeavors in that region as payment for toppling Hussein.

4) Use Iraq as a proxy to fight hostile Islamic countries through the example of the new Iraq as a political and economic force that is friendly with the West and reaping the benefits...through that example, hopefully it serves to change the politics throughout the region.

I think they also saw a new Iraq as a future battleground for the War on Terror, that would shift the focus of Al Qaeda type groups to attacking Iraq, instead of the U.S., as Iraq would become a bigger threat to that style of Islam in the region after its transformation...that would serve to keep the U.S. homeland safer, by concentrating future terrorist activities on them.


Of course, all of those plans were horribly executed and miscalculated.

[khaxzan]

Obviously it wasn't because of any weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't to bring democracy to the impoverished citizens of an oppressive dictator, etc. At this point the reasons for going and the reasons for staying are muddled, not that they were ever very clear.

Sure there are all kinds of complex explanations, but at the end of the day there was some one person with an impetus or goal that they wanted to accomplish. To fight terrorism? For personal revenge? Oil? Financial gain? Or something else entirely?

What is the REAL reason that George Bush, or Dick Cheney, or whoever was the major driving force used as the basis for building a case for the U.S.A to go to war with/in Iraq?

How else are we going to get rid of all those Pakis?

[khaxzan]

We, as in you guys, since I'm from Canada. Feel free to bash my country after this, you'll only make yourselves look bad.

The war is spreading from the tips of Afgan to the far ends of bloody Palestine!

[khaxzan]

Bloody, as in god damned Palestine, not that I hate Palestine or Isreal, I'm just using it as an example. Then someone will come here and correct me as always then bash the Middle East, not that I care, since I'm from Canada. A country where war is none existant. DRop a feather here and it'll sound like an atomic blast went off.

[underdog]

So we could gang rape a woman in a shipping container.

[furie]

Dick Cheney in '94, predicts the Iraq problems of '07 (http://influks.com/post1525.html)

[Contra]

Didn't anybody see that new documentary Green Zone with Matt Damon? It explains everything!


For the Snookie...



http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/12/JERSEY-SHORE-SNOOKIE-PUNCH.jpg


Nothing like a good hat removal

[Furtherman]

Dick Cheney in '94, predicts the Iraq problems of '07 (http://influks.com/post1525.html)

Oh Dick, remember when you were smart? That's fantastic.

[Dude!]

candidate Obama said that
the savings we would generate
by his withdrawing from Iraq
would pay for health care reform

cheney is a liar
obama is a liar

[Furtherman]

Seven years ago today.

I still remember scratching my head, wondering why were we bombing Baghdad.

[keithy_19]

Seven years ago today.

I still remember scratching my head, wondering why were we bombing Baghdad.

But wasn't it neat to see smoke and explosions at night in a grainy green light?

[Furtherman]

But wasn't it neat to see smoke and explosions at night in a grainy green light?

Oh, of course.

[StanUpshaw]

Ron should have asked Hank Rollins. He makes people think.

[Crispy123]

Ron should have asked Hank Rollins. He makes people think.

I loved him on Sons of Anarchy.

[hanso]

<object width="384" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPbMsRHub78&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPbMsRHub78&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="384" height="313" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Furtherman]

Oil?

for financial gain.

That said I don't doubt that other factors like being able manipulate access to Iraq's oil supply also played a part in the overall decision to go to war.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

:ohmy:

WHAT?!?!

[Dude!]

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

:ohmy:

WHAT?!?!

damn brits went to war
for oil

fortunately, Bush's hands
are clean

[DOHO@HOME]

We were told that Iraq had warewolfs and talking cat's

[hanso]

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

:ohmy:

WHAT?!?!

It's been said that there are also links, maps of oil fields in the Bush energy plan. The part that was sealed.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

:ohmy:

WHAT?!?!

It looks kinda thin, really. Agreed, not a good thing, but...a couple of ministers and companies with oil interests trying to take advantage of circumstances and that somehow translates into a conspiracy at the very top starting at the very beginning - i.e. "why did we go to war"? You should put so much energy searching the internets into what's going on now with your country.

[Furtherman]

We went to war for the oil. Any sovereign country's first rule is to supply it's resources. Doing it under the guise of "spreading democracy" is an insult to our intelligence. I'd rather hear the ugly truth. Unless you know an uglier one.

[StanUpshaw]

Unless you know an uglier one.

Sado bloodlust?

[SonOfSmeagol]

We went to war for the oil. Any sovereign country's first rule is to supply it's resources. Doing it under the guise of "spreading democracy" is an insult to our intelligence. I'd rather hear the ugly truth. Unless you know an uglier one.

Really? That comes across as kind of one-dimensional. But, no doubt that the US has strategic interests in the Middle East - as we should. But, we were not that dependent on Iraqi oil then, nor are we now - low single digits as a percentage I believe.

[Furtherman]

Now is temporary.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Now is temporary.

Actually, it's likely to decrease over time, as the trend is that we're getting less oil as a percentage from the Middle East, I think.

[hanso]

It's been said that there are also links, maps of oil fields in the Bush energy plan. The part that was sealed.

This was stated by a lady lawmaker from what I remember, couldn't say which one as this was a long time ago.

[A.J.]

We went to war for the oil. Any sovereign country's first rule is to supply it's resources. Doing it under the guise of "spreading democracy" is an insult to our intelligence. I'd rather hear the ugly truth. Unless you know an uglier one.

We wanted to make Iran stronger. Take THAT Arabs!

[Furtherman]

Actually, it's likely to decrease over time, as the trend is that we're getting less oil as a percentage from the Middle East, I think.

The oil companies will not let that happen. No matter where it comes from, we'll have to have a strong presence in that area. Through diplomatic ties (puppet regimes) or troops on the ground. We have to keep our country moving. Any other excuse is just that, a lie to tell the people so they don't have to feel they're exploiting that region's people.

[CountryBob]

why did we go to war in Iraq?

For cookies of course!

[SonOfSmeagol]

The oil companies will not let that happen. No matter where it comes from, we'll have to have a strong presence in that area. Through diplomatic ties (puppet regimes) or troops on the ground. We have to keep our country moving. Any other excuse is just that, a lie to tell the people so they don't have to feel they're exploiting that region's people.

Then Libya must really piss you off. With the puppet rebels coming into power by NATO proxy, and all that oil there and stuff.
:innocent:

[Vitamin J]

Explosive ordnance has a shelf life. Have to rotate the stock, ya know?

[Furtherman]

Then Libya must really piss you off. With the puppet rebels coming into power by NATO proxy, and all that oil there and stuff.
:innocent:

Our country will back any revolution that will allow us to get control in there. I don't like that we're involved, but the powers that be demand it, and honestly, we do to.