Let's Try It Again. Why Did Bush Go To War?

[Azadre]

To be truthful, the general consensus before the war was that Saddam -did- have WMDs. There were exactly two people on Earth who doubted this before 2003:

1) Sean Penn
2) me

And I was only 50% confident about that.

I doubted it, because I knew it wasn't true.

 

[Eniotna]

The war was motivated by a fear that the Hussein regime would sponsor anti-American terrorist activities, possibly with Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was, I think, a legitimate fear, at least the first part.

That's BS. Saddam Hussein wasn't a religious guy. He did all his action for himself, for his own power. He didn't care about islamic terrorits and djihad unless it was for his advantage.

To be truthful, the general consensus before the war was that Saddam -did- have WMDs. There were exactly two people on Earth who doubted this before 2003:

1) Sean Penn
2) me

And I was only 50% confident about that.

+ Hans Bliks and a lot of Europeans.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

That's BS. Saddam Hussein wasn't a religious guy. He did all his action for himself, for his own power. He didn't care about islamic terrorits and djihad unless it was for his advantage.

Except here it was for his advantage. The enemy of America is Sadddam's friend.

I'm not saying that Saddam was sponsoring any al-Qaeda activity. I am saying, however, that sponsoring terror was something I would not be surprised if Saddam would have eventually ended up doing, because it simply was in his strategic interest.

 

[Eniotna]

Except here it was for his advantage. The enemy of America is Sadddam's friend.

I'm not saying that Saddam was sponsoring any al-Qaeda activity. I am saying, however, that sponsoring terror was something I would not be surprised if Saddam would have eventually ended up doing, because it simply was in his strategic interest.

He didn't really think he could defeated the US, did he?

There is a lot more support of terrorism is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Gangor]

Except here it was for his advantage. The enemy of America is Sadddam's friend.

I'm not saying that Saddam was sponsoring any al-Qaeda activity. I am saying, however, that sponsoring terror was something I would not be surprised if Saddam would have eventually ended up doing, because it simply was in his strategic interest.

Much as Iran is doing in Iraq, ironically (see recent Time article).

 

[SeleucusNicator]

He didn't really think he could defeated the US, did he?

Saddam has never attempted to defeat America. Rather, he has attempted to wound America to such an extent that America will cease to fight. Vietnam seems to have convinced him that, with enough casualties, America will give up.

Saddam would certainly have liked the United States to get the heck out of the Middle East so he could resume increasing the power of Iraq in that region. Giving WMDs or even just funds to al-Qaeda would be a way of inflicting damage on America and coercing it to pull out of the Middle East.

There is a lot more support of terrorism is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is not a threat to supply terrorists with WMDs, and Pakistan is a very complex situation. Besides, attacking either would lead to serious international problems.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I think anyone seeking a singular reason for the Presiden'ts decision to go to war is simply displaying their inability to view the world as it really is. The President went to Iraq to end the war, not for any one particular reason but for a combination of reasons. You are never going to find one reason because there isn't one reason. There are many reasons and to try to single it down to one shows not only a lack of imagination but single-minded fixation which the President does not possess.

1. Failure to negotiate and implement the original surrender.
2. Firing upon US airships patrolling the no-fly zones.
3. Crimes against the Kurds and Shia in the no-fly zones.
4. Affiliation with terrorist organizations with anti-US objectives
5. Attempted assassination of a President
6. Warmongering with the US
7. Threatening to use terrorist attacks on the US
8. Maintaining skeletal WMD program for rapid re-institution following lifting of sanctions
9. Violating the sanctions
10. Praised 9/11
11. Offered al-Qaeda sanctuary
12. invaded Kuwait for oil
13. invaded Kuwait to extend empire
14. violated agreements with the US and other nations
15. failure to implement cease-fire agreements
16. failure to implement surrender agreements.
17. brutal torture of opposition
18. delusions of grandeur
19. called for terrorist attacks on Israel. - Said: "U.S. is Israel"
20. Kept U.S. in state of war for 13 years, was time to end it.
21. After 9/11 Saddam would be emboldened to support terrorist attacks against the US and allow Iraq to become a safe haven for them. He did, afterall, offer bin Laden to stay in Iraq and agreed to non-agression with them.

the list goes on and on and on and on.

There are dozens of factors that went into the decision. Trying to isolate it to one and saying that that was the reason is an exercise in ignorance.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Moreover, the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2003 does not mean that it ceases to be a threat.

Iraq was, more than anything, a preventive war. The Bush administration feared that the Hussein regime could, in the future, develop WMDs and use them to either blackmail America or supply terrorists. They therefore decided to change the regime.

 

[Eniotna]

Saudi Arabia is not a threat to supply terrorists with WMDs, and Pakistan is a very complex situation. Besides, attacking either would lead to serious international problems.

It still would have been more effective than Iraq.

And do you really think Hussein could have got WMD? The country was starving and poor cause of the embargo.

 

[The Yankee]

The country was poor. He was rich.

Even so, I think we should have had higher priorities then. But of course, we're perfectly happy to keep Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as they are...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

And do you really think Hussein could have got WMD? The country was starving and poor cause of the embargo.

Embargoes do not translate into decreased military budgets, and as such could not guarentee that a nation is not developing WMDs. What embargoes do is simply decrease a nation's GDP; the nation can then simply increase the percentage of the budget going to defense, and, behold, the defense budget is the same.

There are many, many nations (North Kroea, for instance) who let their people starve in order to build expensive weapon systems, so its not like this is a rare thing either.

What I advocate in future Iraq-like cases is an approach I like to call "resource bleeding". It essentially means repeated bombardment of key infrastructure sites, especially those used by the military: bridges, roads, power plants, factories, etc. The regime is forced to waste money rebuilding this infrastructure because it is vital to the survival of the regime and to the survival of the military in a way that civillian sites are not. That money, therefore, is money that the regime cannot then go and spend on WMDs.

Also, its quite clear now that France and others were funding Hussein through Oil-for-Food. If you rely on an embargo, a nation the size of France breaking it is a big blow. If you rely on resource bleeding, you just step up the rate of bombardment to compensate for the increased funds.

 

[Chieftess]

Back in 2000, during a speech just before he was elected, I remember standing in my livingroom watching him on TV, and thinking (almost outloud -- I might've said it too), "You know, there's gonna be another war in Iraq if he's elected.". I pretty much figured it was to just finish Saddam off. (Vendetta)

 

[I am the Future]

sudame was just trying to bluff his way out of war.

probably one of the bigest bluffs in modern history. the US just happened to call him on it. Even though bush thought he was telling the truth.

ohh yeah,

OIL

Bush allso wanted to finish his fathers war.
now just imagine 3 more years of this idiot in office. hope he dosnt decided to lunch a nuke just because he thinks that china might

 

[Nobody]

he should of invaded Sudan in stead. He could of helped more people, it would have been easyer and Sudan was linked to al quida (didn't clinton bomb it to get at them and im sure stright after 9/11 the news said Afganistan and Sudan were the main bases of the baddies)

 

[plustaticman]

sudame was just trying to bluff his way out of war.

probably one of the bigest bluffs in modern history. the US just happened to call him on it. Even though bush thought he was telling the truth.

ohh yeah,

OIL

Bush allso wanted to finish his fathers war.
now just imagine 3 more years of this idiot in office. hope he dosnt decided to lunch a nuke just because he thinks that china might

Oh yeah, I can tell that we definitely made out well on the oil deal, what with the cheapest gasoline prices in recent memory.

Why would degenerate your argument into name calling, it is clear you disagree with him, but make a case, doesn't convince me of your case you calling the opposition stupid.

 

[I am the Future]

but if the opposite realy is stupid then i would have a point.

But Bush went into iraq with the goal of creating an allie to force into cheep oil but since this hasnt been acomplished yet we dot get any oil from iraq instead of less

 

[Ramius75]

Oh yeah, I can tell that we definitely made out well on the oil deal, what with the cheapest gasoline prices in recent memory.

Why would degenerate your argument into name calling, it is clear you disagree with him, but make a case, doesn't convince me of your case you calling the opposition stupid.

Ahem, the oil deal largely benefits his friends and cronies, not the american ppl. halliburton, the saudis family all benefits greatly from this. How much money has the Bush family invested in those ??

 

[plustaticman]

Maybe President Bush did go to war over oil, maybe he didn't. I tend to agree with the earlier post which listed somewhere around 15 reasons. I think that it was more complex than just over oil. Did the administration accuratly assess the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq? Did he really believe there were WMD's or was he lying? Did he believe we would be received as liberators or occupiers? Did he even care? I don't really know because I havn't had the chance to ask him. My opinion however is that the Administration decided on a policy of pre-emption. That is, attack them first, fight them on someone elses territory. At least, when this is all said and done, we will be able to say we did something as opposed to nothing. I tend to subscribe to the belief that it is easy to armchair general things, but probably not so much to actually make the decision and then have to live with it.

Ultimatly the country elected him and gave him the authority to make that decision. If people disagree with him, then they can vote for the opposition. The fact remains, at the end of the day, he is the one who has to live with giving the orders to send soldiers into harms way. To date, the soldiers (people who are actually doing the fighting and are experiencing all this first hand) are re-enlisting in record numbers. So either they enjoy killing so much they are willing to die for the chance to do it, or they believe in the mission enough to keep up the fight.

My opinion, people should see what the vast majority of persons who have been there have to say about it all before developing their opinion. At least that way, they will be most informed if they still feel the plan is stupid.

 

[Red Stranger]

It is the President's job to protect his countrymen. We went to war to make America safer. Did he intentionally highlight the facts that suggest Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities? Yes, but otherwise the public would not be able to see far enough into the future to accept the war. I'll explain this in my next paragraphs.

Ever since the US got involved in this struggle against global extremism, we've seen numerous advances towards peace and unity especially in the Middle East region. Libya has given up its nuclear pursuit, North Korea and Iran has shown efforts to return to negotiation. We see the world come together after the tsunami disaster. Afghanistan and Iraq had elections for the first time in their history. These are all events that came after the liberation of Iraq. But would the public ever expect that this would come true for we went to war? No.

Imagine if our President were to explain to you in 2003 about all these events that will happen, would you believe it? Probably not. Most people do not have experience in politics. Most people do not have a father who have worked for the CIA, so most people are not able to see the good things before they happen. But the President was able to see the good things that would happen as a result of our involvement in Iraq. That's why he had to highlight certain facts (some may call it exaggeration), because otherwise the public would never see far enough into the future to support this.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't care why Bush went to war. I just wanted Saddam out of office.

Right now I'm a happy camper.