Why War in Iraq?

Did the information change your opinion on why the US invaded Iraq?

  • No, I already knew that information and don't think the US went to war for oil.

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • No, I still think the US invaded Iraq for oil.

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • Yes, I no longer think the US went to war for oil.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I already knew that information but still think the US went to war for oil.

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • I am now unsure of what I think and require more information before I make up my mind.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I never knew what to think of this issue and require more information.

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33

FoxURA

Warlord
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
261
Many people have debated this before but I hope to clarify a few issue about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq and that Iraq, while not responsible for 9/11, did have a relationship with Al Quida.

*Please read through all information and watch the video before posting.*

Take a look at the completed final version of the 9/11 Commission report that discusses Al Queda ties with Iraq. You'll find it on page 66 paragraphs 1-3 and p.134 1st full paragraph.


Proof of that ties were formed after 9/11 between Iraq and Al Queda can be found in this article about Al Zarqawi. Link.

Excerpt: Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has been presented both by the Bush administration and the Western media as the mastermind behind the "insurgency" in Iraq, allegedly responsible for the massacres of Iraqi civilians.

Zarqawi is the outside enemy of America. The Bush administration in official statements, including presidential speeches, national security documents, etc. has repeatedly pointed to the need to "go after" Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

"You know, I hate to predict violence, but I just understand the nature of the killers. This guy, Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate -- who was in Baghdad, by the way, prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein -- is still at large in Iraq. And as you might remember, part of his operational plan was to sow violence and discord amongst the various groups in Iraq by cold- blooded killing. And we need to help find Zarqawi so that the people of Iraq can have a more bright -- bright future." (George W. Bush, Press Conference, 1 June 2004)

The official mandate of US and British occupation forces is to fight and win the "war on terrorism" on behalf of the Iraqi people. Zarqawi constitutes Washington's justification for the continued military occupation of Iraq, not to mention the brutal siege of densely populated urban areas directed against "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which is said to be led by Zarqawi."
-------------
On a side note, Zarqawi was killed in Iraq by 2 500lbs bombs dropped by American aircraft.


A PBS web page that has an article about the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak that trained domestic and foreign fighters for the purpose of attacking American interests. Link.

Excerpt:

"To you, then, the likely suspect here is the government of Iraq and Saddam in all this terrorism. And yet we're looking the wrong way?

I assure you, and I'm going to keep assuring you, that all these things are obvious. I don't know why you don't see it. When we were in Iraq, Saddam said all the time, even during the Gulf War, "We will take our revenge at the proper time." He kept telling the people, "Get ready for our revenge."

We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes, to put explosives. How could anybody not think this is not done by Saddam? Even the grouping, those groups were divided into five to six people in the group. How about the training on planes? Some of these groups were taken and trained to drive airplanes at the School of Aviation, northern of Baghdad ... .Everything coincides with what's happening.

In addition to that, we heard in the news about meeting some of those hijackers with the Iraqi intelligence people in Prague, and even getting money to get trained on flying airplanes in the United States from the Iraqi intelligence.

[Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for] Osama bin Laden?

Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.

They're just people.

Yes.

Who clearly wanted to ... or were interested in doing terror, becoming terrorists?

This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world. ..."

A site that talks about how Salman Pak was home to special weapons facilities. Link.


An article about how Al-Zawahiri, the second in command of Al Queda, says in a video that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Link.

Declassified Portion of NGIC report in PDF format about approximately 500 munitions being discovered in Iraq containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas agent. Link

Fox News Story about the 500 WMDs being discovered in Iraq since 2003. Link.

6/22/06
Excerpt: "The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee."

"Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."


Washington Post article about how media is ignoring earlier reporting about the threat posed by Saddam.
Link.
10/25/05
Excerpt: "It Wasn't Just Miller's Story"
"The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.

There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one."

ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq
Link.
dated: 3/23/'06
Excerpt:"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

Speech on YouTube by Al Gore about how HW Bush ignored Iraq's ties with terrorists. Link.
C-Span 9/29/'92

Here is a story about how the New York Times and Washington Post misreported about the 9/11 Commission Reports claim that Iraq had connections with Al Queda.
Link.

Excerpt:Boogie to Baghdad:
What the 9/11 Commission says about Iraq and al Qaeda.

"Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this," Hamilton told reporters. "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

Now, with the release of the commission's final report, it is clear what Hamilton and Cheney were talking about. The final report details a much more extensive set of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda than the earlier staff statement. It also modifies the original "no collaborative relationship" description, now saying there was "no collaborative operational relationship" (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:"
 
None of your poll choices fit for me as I don't believe the Iraq War was purely a war for oil (although it was partially to benefit U.S. oil companies), but it certainly wasn't about WMD or ties to bin Laden.
 
Then what was it about if it wasn't mainly about oil, terrorists, or WMDs? What is the other possibility JollyRoger? The war had to have been about something.
 
Then what was it about if it wasn't mainly about oil, terrorists, or WMDs? What is the other possibility JollyRoger? The war had to have been about something.
KBR profits that benefited the options held on the their parent company by a certain VP comes to mind as one good reason. The desire for special wartime powers, expansion of the unitary executive concept, 6hat empty spot on Mt. Rushmore, a misguided belief that it would result in a permanent Republican majority are others.
 
Then what was it about if it wasn't mainly about oil, terrorists, or WMDs? What is the other possibility JollyRoger? The war had to have been about something.

To further strengthen and consolidate the grip of the Power Elite on Society.
 
Oh... I see what option I forgot! "No that information does not affect my opinion, I am just a conspiracy theorist and it is as simple as that."
 
* He tried to murder my Dad
* Divert terrorists to attack much easier targets outside the US thus preventing another 9/11 on home soil, would be bad PR

Are 2 other reasons that come to mind. Probably because of oil/money though.
 
The war was fought to get the US and allies energy, since we are supposedly running out.

Expect more 'wars' to ensure 'freedom' (ahem...resources) in the future...Many more.

...
 
He tried to murder your dad? What, did he send out the hit squad or something like that or is that simply your way of saying that he is a member of the US Armed Forces?

Come on.... Hasn't anyone at least looked through the information in the first post? No one has even mentioned the information in the articles and YouTube video that I linked to.
 
Oh... I see what option I forgot! "No that information does not affect my opinion, I am just a conspiracy theorist and it is as simple as that."
You also forgot "No, this information didn't change my opinion because I uncritically believe everything the government tells me"
 
He tried to murder your dad? What, did he send out the hit squad or something like that or is that simply your way of saying that he is a member of the US Armed Forces?

Come on.... Hasn't anyone at least looked through the information in the first post? No one has even mentioned the information in the articles and YouTube video that I linked to.

No, that's what Bush said about Saddam at one time I seem to remember.

I'm not really that interested in the articles since they are just clutching at straws trying to justify their atrocious failures and huge porky pies.
 
You also forgot "No, this information didn't change my opinion because I uncritically believe everything the government tells me"

Thats why only one source was from a governmental body and two of the sources were from the Mainstream Media, and the other was from one of the biggest critics of Bush out there, Al Gore.

Tell me honestly, did you even go through the information or did you assume what all the sources might say and just vote?
 
Come on.... Hasn't anyone at least looked through the information in the first post? No one has even mentioned the information in the articles and YouTube video that I linked to.
You're late to the party by a couple of years. You are not going to convince anyone to clap harder because of your links to items that have been rehashed here over and over.
 
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
 
I have yet to see someone actually prove this 'war for oil' propaganda. The line is very useful for pointing out who does not have a clue as to what they are talking about though.

Why not think of some actual reasons for invading Iraq though, irregardless of the fact of believing that they would justify a war or not.

Hussein is perhaps more likely to attack Israel today, compared to the Gulf War. Back then, regime change was not the official policy of the United States. This time, Hussein knows he's a priority. "Even a dictator is not suicidal," President Bush said in September, though a dictator who believes he's going to die may not be a rational actor taking a long view.

Iraq can launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of receiving an order, according to a recent report by the British government. Hussein possesses many fewer Scud missiles than he once did — perhaps as many as 20, which were either hidden from U.N. inspectors during the 1990s or since reassembled from parts. There is also concern that his henchmen may have converted L-29 training jets into unmanned drones able to carry chemical or biological agents. Hussein apparently set down some ground rules for using weapons of mass death during the first Gulf War: Kenneth M. Pollack, author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, reports that Hussein set up a special Scud unit with orders to use chemical or biological weapons in the event of a march on Baghdad.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller101502.asp

The 45-minute claim
The most spectacularly misleading of all the claims in the dossier was the failure of Downing Street to make clear that the relevance of the warning that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. The positioning of the claim meant it could be read that Saddam was capable of launching strategic missiles armed with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons within 45 minutes at targets such as Israel or Cyprus.

Lord Butler was critical of what he charitably refers to as an ambiguity but said he had no evidence this was a deliberate distortion. The Hutton inquiry showed it referred only to battlefield weapons.

Lord Butler makes it clear that the 45-minute claim was based on flaky evidence and praised Brian Jones, from the Ministry of Defence intelligence section, for expressing scepticism as the time.

The source of the 45-minute claim has not yet been identified. Lord Butler said after publication of his report that the information was not even secondhand but third hand, and that the middle man in this trio had since been discredited
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/15/butler_details/index.html


Two other ideas would be:

to surround Iran, with troops in Georgia, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq. There would be a pretty easy way to attack.

to put the US in a position to dump Saudi Arabia as a military post, as people like Osama always talked about the Americans being stationed in Saudi as the biggest reason to declare war on Americans.
 
No, that's what Bush said about Saddam at one time I seem to remember.

I'm not really that interested in the articles since they are just clutching at straws trying to justify their atrocious failures and huge porky pies.

Then why are you posting? The purpose of this thread is to provide information from various sources and then get peoples honest responses to determine just how well they have formed their opinions and if they can stand up to fact. If not than I was hoping people would provide information from a non-biased stand point and try to argue the fact. Not present a bunch of conspiracy theories and refuse to investigate even a little bit so you wouldn't have to be concerned about whether your own personal viewpoints are being challenged. That is the whole purpose of a debate after all.
 
Then why are you posting? The purpose of this thread is to provide information from various sources and then get peoples honest responses to determine just how well they have formed their opinions and if they can stand up to fact. If not than I was hoping people would provide information from a non-biased stand point and try to argue the fact. Not present a bunch of conspiracy theories and refuse to investigate even a little bit so you wouldn't have to be concerned about whether your own personal viewpoints are being challenged. That is the whole purpose of a debate after all.

The best response to your rubbish is this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html
 
Top Bottom