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
They went in there for oil, or at least australia did, our defence minister said so.


That might be why he said Australia went to war but the US has some of the worlds largest untapped oil reserves down in the Gulf of Mexico and up in Alaska. Pumping that ourselves would be much cheaper and easier to do if that is what the US was after. Though I will concede that Iraq does have a lot of oil that can now be traded freely with Australia.
 
Yes it it. Take a look back at my previous post. It looks like I was in the middle of editing it still when you posted your response.

Anyways, the protests that have been happening in Iran would not have been possible under the Police State because Saddam's grip on the government and military elite was too strong. If we went for Iran, Iraq's people would not have been able to protest without being shot.

Being able to protest without fear of being shot is only a luxury in some areas. Exactly how it was before we invaded.
 
Being able to protest without fear of being shot is only a luxury in some areas. Exactly how it was before we invaded.

And how it is now. I seem too recall hearing about several protesters staging Bush bash rallies without a problem or were you referring to the University of Florida teaser incident?
 
And how it is now. I seem too recall hearing about several protesters staging Bush bash rallies without a problem or were you referring to the University of Florida teaser incident?

People in the Middle East have always been able to stage Bush bash rallies :lol: Its the popular thing to do. And you're trying to take credit for that...? :crazyeye:
 
Reminds me of a joke Reagan once told...

An American is talking to a Soviet and says "Living in America is great! If I don't like how the country is being run I can walk right into the Oval Office, pound on the desk and say, 'Mr. President, I don't like the way your running America'".

The Soviet citizen then replies, "Well I can do that too."
The American says "Really?".

"Of course", continues the Soviet, "I can walk right into the Kremlin, pound on Brezhnev's desk and tell him that 'I don't like the way the President is running America!'".
 
So both Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't collaborate on operations or plan attacks together against us. What was the threat and why was the connection sold as one? Cheney said that success in Iraq would be a blow to "...base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The meeting in Prague that Cheney alleges? Shot down. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a finding that said that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no links. When George Tenet was interviewd on 60 minutes, he said that the Bush administration "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Finally, this is what the 9/11 comission says; "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

British and Isreali intelligence would agree. Many of these reports also backed up the fact that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were at ideological odds with one another. Yet the Bush administration continued to reiterate otherwise, saying they had long standing, developed relationships, with Iraq providing all kinds of weapons, training, and assistance.
 
While they were at odd somewhat ideologically, they both did share a common enemy. The United States. Also, proof of the tie that formed after 9/11 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.


On this PBS web page in 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. ..."

As well as this site that talks about how Salman Pak was home to special weapons facilities. Link.


And one 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.
 
Nope. I'm saying everybody puffed the evidence when there wasn't much there there. Only Bush decided to back his puffery with thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

If Al Gore was elected, he would have done the same thing.

The Clinton administration was trying to do it aswell.
 
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story"
Turns out those mobile labs were provided by CHALABIs brother in LAW.
when confronted with this damming information chalabi plainly said we are in bagdad now and thats whats important.

EDIT: And we wonder why we werent greeted with flowers and dancing (also provided by chalabi which seriously jepodised the post war planning. Frankly SF should have arranged an "accident" for chalabi though we have enough enemies in Iraq already)

We always could have extradited Chalabi to Jordan, where he is a wanted criminal.

Then again, how much money did we give Chalabi's terrorist organization in the Iraq Liberation Act?
 
I was referring to the medias and liberals tendency to say the evidence Bush used to justify war with Iraq was faulty even though it was much the same thing that Clinton used. Funny thing is when something like that is brought up, the information is magically correct.

Funny is the fact that conservatives called Clinton on his lies in 1998, and then called Bush on the same exact lies in 2002. The liberals and neocons ate it up though.
 
Why are republicans NOW crying that Clinton didnt do enough ? when back then they were decrying that Clinton was breaking the miitary and constantly war mongering ?

After Desert Fox Zinni then US commander in the mid east re-evaluated the situation and recommended containment as well as easing of sanctions.

EDIT: besides Desert fox was only 400 Missles and 600 Bombs.

More to the Iraq Liberation Act than simply Desert Fox.
 
The thing is, Saddam actually was using using chemicals at the time of Clinton's speech, so there wasn't really much to fabricate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

And Clinton didn't imply (as Bush did) that the American people were on the brink of destruction because of the presence of the weapons, but instead that they posed a huge threat to Saddam's people and to Iraq's neighbors.

Clinton acted more appropriately with his airstrikes than did Bush with his decision to go Napoleon against Saddam.

Clinton was in office in 1988?

Then again the incident in Halabja was considered inconclusive as to wether the agents used in the attack were from Iraq or Iran.

Also, the Kurds had joined in armed conflict on the side of Iran, thus the argument that he was bomming his own people was flawed.
 
I appreciate your interest in this topic angrybellsprout, but could you please start edditing new comments to your last post if no one has posted after the post. Chain Posting can confuse some forum goers sometimes because all they can see is an entire page of unbroken posts by a single person.

BTW. You can click on quote in the post you want to make a comment about, copy the text, and then click on edit on your last post and paste the quote in that way. It takes up a lot less space because your signature and the date on top aren't repeated several times.
 
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.
This'll be quick then.

Proof of that ties were formed after 9/11 between Iraq and Al Queda can be found in this article about Al Zarqawi.
I haven't bothered to check, but if you've got anything about Al'Q in Iraq before the invasion i'd be surprised (and see below). Anything about them having Iraqi operations now is hardly going to amaze anyone.
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.
I've discussed Salman Pak before, following someone else mentioning it. Imagine my surprise when I researched the place and found it was Saddam's anti terrorism training camp. I have yet to see anything substantial to suggest it was training terrorists. Quite the reverse in fact.
Fox News Story about the 500 WMDs being discovered in Iraq since 2003
Oh, so this is a joke post is it? Or are we still expected to consider rusty antiques from the Iran-Iraq war a threat to global security?
Washington Post article about how media is ignoring earlier reporting about the threat posed by Saddam
Media behaviour is not relevant in this context.
ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq
Ever seen that picture of a beaming Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Meetings prove nothing.

Pitiful.
 
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up Ansar Al-Islam, which was a key point in the lies of Bush/Clinton. That organization was a terrorist organization in Iraq, that was deep in Kurdish territory and near the Iranian border. Saddam did what he could to quash the terrorists, but the no fly zones weren't very conducisve towards those ends.
 
Here is another article about a 500-ton uranium stockpile Saddam had.
Lmao.

I've researched the Tuwaitha facility as well. There was a quantity of uranium stored at the facility under IAEA seals and subject to routine insection by that body between the end of the first gulf war and the point the inspectors were forced to leave.

The quantity was nothing like 500 tons. (1.77 tons off the top of my head.)

Everybody and their grandmother knew it was there.

Far from being a weapons threat, it wasn't considered serious enough for it to be required to be removed from Iraq by the pre-war ultimatum.
 
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up Ansar Al-Islam, which was a key point in the lies of Bush/Clinton. That organization was a terrorist organization in Iraq, that was deep in Kurdish territory and near the Iranian border. Saddam did what he could to quash the terrorists, but the no fly zones weren't very conducisve towards those ends.
May as well round off with:

Hey, you mean the ILLEGAL no fly zones? The ones that broke the cease fire agreement?
 
You seem to forget the cornerstone of American forgien policy.

Might makes right, thus there is nothing illegal about randomly bombing countries that can't hit you back.
 
Ah, yes, and there's also nothing illegal about torture if you call it something else. god bless the USA.
 
Top Bottom