NationStates Jolt Archive

Whatever we are calling it. heres the gist of it. Bush said there were WOMD(weapons of mass destrucstion) but there weren't. But we went to war anyway. We went to war because the president lied. And everyone loved him for it. Now more people are dying because we thought we would try to give them democracy just for the heck of it, to cover up our real reason in the fist place..oil. Sure we produce the most oil, but it isn't enought and we need more.

its a good illustration of why a pre-emptive war on sketchy reasoning isnt all that good an idea.

think we'll remember this next time?

its a good illustration of why a pre-emptive war on sketchy reasoning isnt all that good an idea.

think we'll remember this next time?

probably not. We didn't learn from Vietnam. And oil isn't the only reason we're in Iraq. This is part of it (http://www.newamericancentury.org), but it also has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Notice how Bush was a little *clears throat* friendly (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents.shtml) with the Saudi Prince Abdullah?

Which country do you think is next...ooh maybe i should make a poll.

Top 10 reasons we spontaneously attacked Iraq:
10) Saddam beat George 41 in a round of Texas holdum back in 1996.
9) It's already been 10 years since we started a war.
8) Bush played with his army men one night but accidentally got out Rumsfeld's "Voodoo Army" instead of his usual plastic soldiers.
7) Wanted to show Pootie Poot (Dubya's actual nickname for Russian President Vladimir Putin) that we could still invade a few countries.
6) Forced to invade by aliens from uranus. Bush started laughing at "uranus" for three days.
5) Karl Rove told Bush to.
4) We were running out of cheap labor for Wal Mart.
3) Had record surplus to burn.
2) Wanted to see if the BGM-109 missiles still worked.
1) Cuz they're brown.

WMDs? What WMDs? We went in to liberate the Iraqis! They were a terrorised people! Hell, that brutal dictator even had prisons set up where his thugs would brutalize and torture the unwitting prisoners. It's not like anything like that ever happens under American watch! Especially in prisons like Abu Graebe and concentration camps like Guantanimo Bay!

if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?

we wouldn't have had to pay for the war, W's aproval ratings would be higher and more oil would be pumped out because none of the infostructure would have been damaged from the war and saddam (save for the kurds) didn't have to put up with insurgents

so if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?

WMDs? What WMDs? We went in to liberate the Iraqis! They were a terrorised people! Hell, that brutal dictator even had prisons set up where his thugs would brutalize and torture the unwitting prisoners. It's not like anything like that ever happens under American watch! Especially in prisons like Abu Graebe and concentration camps like Guantanimo Bay!

Let's be fair, WMDs were one of the main reasons for invasion. Liberating the Iraqis was another, but President Bush never really pushed that because he wasn't sure if the people would think that was an acceptable reason. After inaction in Darfur (remember, the genocide started there in spring of 2002, about a year before we invaided Iraq), the President couldn't seriously tell us that he wanted to invaid a country for even partially humanitarian reasons. He did say it in the months before the war, but he didn't stress it. As it turns out, intelligence coming from Iraq was flawed. From what I gather this is because we had either very few or no CIA agents on the ground in Iraq getting information. We relied on informants (Like guys from Ahmed Chalabi's organization. We all know what his ambitions were. Suspicious, suspicious. Makes you wonder why the pentagon trusted him.) and spy satalites for information. This is one of the things Porter Goss complained loudly about prior to getting his current position. Trying to say that George W. Bush lied when he was working with the best intelligence we had at the time is a little unfair. But at the same time we can't ignore the fact that he was wrong. I don't think we can blame him, but we can't ignore it. Instead we should focus our fury towards getting the CIA to recruit real American agents that can get into these Islamic countries and terrorist organizations and get real information.

The humanitarian aspects of the invasion are good and all, but I'd like to see us try and stick with our humanitarian policy and kick some ass where it's needed the most. I have five dollars that says it won't happen unless we invaid North Korea, and in that case the humanitarian aspect will truely be just a favorable side effect of completing our mission.

Oh, and it's been official policy in the United States for a long time to use military force to secure oil sources around the world for potential western use.

if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?

we wouldn't have had to pay for the war, W's aproval ratings would be higher and more oil would be pumped out because none of the infostructure would have been damaged from the war and saddam (save for the kurds) didn't have to put up with insurgents

so if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?

Like the embargo did a lot of good. Foreign military hardware still got into that country and oil still got out. Plus their infrastructure wasn't all that great to begin with. Even if it did do good, you must remember that the United States does not actually control what the UN does. We can't just walk up to the UN and say "Hey, you guys lift that embargo on Iraq or else!". There has to be a vote.

Like the embargo did a lot of good. Foreign military hardware still got into that country and oil still got out. Plus their infrastructure wasn't all that great to begin with. Even if it did do good, you must remember that the United States does not actually control what the UN does. We can't just walk up to the UN and say "Hey, you guys lift that embargo on Iraq or else!". There has to be a vote.

but in sofar as I know from Model UN we were the only ones who supported the embargo after 10 years of failure, so if W was after the oil alone he could have called a vote in the SC and it would have passed and then BAM oil galor at no cost

but in sofar as I know from Model UN we were the only ones who supported the embargo after 10 years of failure, so if W was after the oil alone he could have called a vote in the SC and it would have passed and then BAM oil galor at no cost

Now that you mention it I recall reading something like that.

We still would have had to pay for the oil. Probably less due to increased supply.

Now that you mention it I recall reading something like that.

We still would have had to pay for the oil. Probably less due to increased supply.

just at market price though, with the cost to the US govenrment being nothing

if this was all about the oil and W's ties to the industry lifting the embargo would have been a boon to the industry with no military/political cost - but instead we're trying to save the world

Probably not. We didn't learn from Vietnam. And oil isn't the only reason we're in Iraq. This is part of it (http://www.newamericancentury.org), but it also has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Notice how Bush was a little *clears throat* friendly (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents.shtml) with the Saudi Prince Abdullah?

Which country do you think is next...ooh maybe i should make a poll.

Top 10 reasons we spontaneously attacked Iraq:
10) Saddam beat George 41 in a round of Texas holdum back in 1996.
9) It's already been 10 years since we started a war.
8) Bush played with his army men one night but accidentally got out Rumsfeld's "Voodoo Army" instead of his usual plastic soldiers.
7) Wanted to show Pootie Poot (Dubya's actual nickname for Russian President Vladimir Putin) that we could still invade a few countries.
6) Forced to invade by aliens from uranus. Bush started laughing at "uranus" for three days.
5) Karl Rove told Bush to.
4) We were running out of cheap labor for Wal Mart.
3) Had record surplus to burn.
2) Wanted to see if the BGM-109 missiles still worked.
1) Cuz they're brown.

Logically if racist he would have invade an african country first. Less organised and the racists would have supported him. Besides, as shownby the Darfur conflict, no-one else really cares about Africa.
Anyway it was not spontaneous. Poorly advised, thought-out, prepared and carried out I agree to, but not spontaneous. Rationally it was justified and reasonable, but he has almost screwed so many times it's not funny.
He should have said "Saddam had WMD's, we think he still does, intelligence suggests he does and if not, he's trying to get them. Besides if he doesn't have WMD's, it's not like we kicking a properly and fairly elected government with good civil liberties and an good human rights record."
"He also supports attacks against democracies and western nations, and commited atrocities on a level unseen since WWII. In addition, he has violated UN sanctions repeatedly, and is an threat to any reasonable nation and espicially his own people.

(BTW I care about the Darfur genocide attempt but it seems that no one in Europe does, espcially politicans)

He claimed that the war was to "Free The Iraqi People" after "WMD" and "Link To Al-Quaeda" didn't work.

However, there are tons of countries in worse situations than Iraq. Why aren't we bursting into help Sudan? Because Sudan isn't sitting smack-dab on top of one of the world's largest OIL reserves.

George W Bush is a damn liar and he's fooled half the nation into supporting his war for self-profit at the expense of US soldiers and the Iraqi People. That's right, in the process of 'freeing' them, the US army all but obliterated Iraq and it's people.

if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?

we wouldn't have had to pay for the war, W's aproval ratings would be higher and more oil would be pumped out because none of the infostructure would have been damaged from the war and saddam (save for the kurds) didn't have to put up with insurgents

so if we wanted oil why didn't we just lift the UN embargo?
its never a good idea to lift an embargo. it proves that in the future other countries dont have to worry about an embargo. they will all say we dont have to do jack shit, youll just lift the embargo in 5 years. then were forced to invade countries to get shit done. that means more dead people, and more dead babies.....YOU BABY KILLER!......

commited atrocities on a level unseen since WWII.
is that a bad joke? open your eyes.

He claimed that the war was to "Free The Iraqi People" after "WMD" and "Link To Al-Quaeda" didn't work.

However, there are tons of countries in worse situations than Iraq. Why aren't we bursting into help Sudan? Because Sudan isn't sitting smack-dab on top of one of the world's largest OIL reserves.

George W Bush is a damn liar and he's fooled half the nation into supporting his war for self-profit at the expense of US soldiers and the Iraqi People. That's right, in the process of 'freeing' them, the US army all but obliterated Iraq and it's people.Actually Sudan does have substantial oil reserves. These reserves however are controlled by the Arab government that unofficially condones the work of the ganjaweed (sp?) militia. It is a lack of desire to get on the wrong side of the Sudanese goverment and disrupt access to these reserves that has led to US inaction.

Whatever we are calling it. heres the gist of it. Bush said there were WOMD(weapons of mass destrucstion) but there weren't. But we went to war anyway. We went to war because the president lied. And everyone loved him for it. Now more people are dying because we thought we would try to give them democracy just for the heck of it, to cover up our real reason in the fist place..oil. Sure we produce the most oil, but it isn't enought and we need more.
This has been hashed and re-hashed until now it's little more than pablum. You should try reading something other than the dim-bulbs at "Democracy Now."

1. The best intel we had indicated that Iraq had WMD. Intelligence is an inexact science.

2. We didn't go for the damned oil! Try to get your limited intellect around that small fact. If we were getting any oil out of Iraq, why the hell is gas so friggin' expensive in the US?

3. No nation invades another "just for the heck of it," especially a democracy. The populace would hand the politicans their heads on a plater. I suppose you would rather see Saddam still in power torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis, yes?

You seriously need to read something factual rather than accepting propaganda at face value. Either that or get out from behind your keyboard and find out a bit about the real world.

Bush said there were WOMD(weapons of mass destrucstion) but there weren't.
Actually, if you look carefully at the Duelfer report that's not quite the case. The report notes that there was no "official"(with paper trail) transaction of weapons between Iraq and Syria there were indications of it. Since the only way to determine whether those indications were correct would be to invade Syria and the Bekaa valley, nothing happened beyond that.

He claimed that the war was to "Free The Iraqi People" after "WMD" and "Link To Al-Quaeda" didn't work.

However, there are tons of countries in worse situations than Iraq. Why aren't we bursting into help Sudan? Because Sudan isn't sitting smack-dab on top of one of the world's largest OIL reserves.

I hate to be the one to tell you this chief, but sudan has more oil than texas - its loaded so far as oil is concern (and france and china - SHOCK - are heavily invested in its oil futures and are vetoing every UN SC resolution on the topic - SO WHY DON"T YOU DAMN HIPPIES PROTEST ABOUT THAT???)

George W Bush is a damn liar and he's fooled half the nation into supporting his war for self-profit at the expense of US soldiers and the Iraqi People. That's right, in the process of 'freeing' them, the US army all but obliterated Iraq and it's people.

where exactly does he scratch a profit off of this?

*yawn* not again...

but well, Bush relied on CIA information, the CIA thought there were WMDs, case closed.

Bush is a politician, show me one politicians who's not lying. There are none.

Whatever we are calling it. heres the gist of it. Bush said there were WOMD(weapons of mass destrucstion) but there weren't. But we went to war anyway. We went to war because the president lied. And everyone loved him for it. Now more people are dying because we thought we would try to give them democracy just for the heck of it, to cover up our real reason in the fist place..oil. Sure we produce the most oil, but it isn't enought and we need more.

It's not complicated. Iraq invaded Kuwait, we beat the hell out of them. We could have (and probably should have) deposed Saddam at the end of that war, but instead we let him off with the condition that he allowed unhindered access to UN weapons inspectors. A few years down the road, convinced that the UN is full of hot air (and rightly so), Saddam violates the agreement and kicks them out. Then and there, we had the right to invade Iraq. Even after letting them in again, he didn't give them all the access he was required to. But we didn't seem to think it was worth it to use force until we were reminded the hard way how hateful, corrupt fascists were capable of hurting us. The possibility that he was restricting UN inspectors to hide his weapons added all the more incentive. The cause for going to war had less to do with oil than the cause for opposition. Germany, Russia and France all had huge investments in Iraq's oil with the current regime.

He claimed that the war was to "Free The Iraqi People" after "WMD" and "Link To Al-Quaeda" didn't work.

However, there are tons of countries in worse situations than Iraq. Why aren't we bursting into help Sudan? Because Sudan isn't sitting smack-dab on top of one of the world's largest OIL reserves.

George W Bush is a damn liar and he's fooled half the nation into supporting his war for self-profit at the expense of US soldiers and the Iraqi People. That's right, in the process of 'freeing' them, the US army all but obliterated Iraq and it's people.

Sudan has tons of oil brainiac.

the rest of your post is almost equally as foolish

The more I think about it the less it seems to be about oil. More likely than not, I would wager a fair sum of money that part of the reason why the war was started (you can call it liberation, but its still a war), was probably because he needed the political points. To be seen as a president of action rather than debate.

It appeals to the basic human nature really. By pumping the people with nationalistic sentiment, it becomes easier to have the moral justification to give the beatdown on other nations while still maintaining popular support.

Of course you COULD say that if he wanted popular support he could have done other less risky options like oh, say dealing with the deficit, but here is a key difference. He won the election didn't he? And as far as running candidates go, winning the election is all that matters. Oh, and not getting caught for a criminal scandal that would force an impeachment that is, but thats a different story.

Lets put it in simple terms. By invading Afghanistan, Bush enjoyed a high level of popular support. There probably wasn't anything to hinder his mindset that picking another country to invade (assuming it was a pushover of course, invading say Russia would have had drastic consequences), wouldn't boost his popularity further. Just make sure to put together sufficient justification to your people to get that magic 51% behind you.

Interesting observation: You can have a society of enlightened individuals who have an collective intellect capable of a great many things. But when you turn them into a mob, it becomes reversed. The larger the mob, the further down the collective intellect becomes due to charged emotional states rather than anything else. Proof to the contrary anyone?

The more I think about it the less it seems to be about oil. More likely than not, I would wager a fair sum of money that part of the reason why the war was started (you can call it liberation, but its still a war), was probably because he needed the political points. To be seen as a president of action rather than debate.

It appeals to the basic human nature really. By pumping the people with nationalistic sentiment, it becomes easier to have the moral justification to give the beatdown on other nations while still maintaining popular support.

Of course you COULD say that if he wanted popular support he could have done other less risky options like oh, say dealing with the deficit, but here is a key difference. He won the election didn't he? And as far as running candidates go, winning the election is all that matters. Oh, and not getting caught for a criminal scandal that would force an impeachment that is, but thats a different story.

Lets put it in simple terms. By invading Afghanistan, Bush enjoyed a high level of popular support. There probably wasn't anything to hinder his mindset that picking another country to invade (assuming it was a pushover of course, invading say Russia would have had drastic consequences), wouldn't boost his popularity further. Just make sure to put together sufficient justification to your people to get that magic 51% behind you.

Interesting observation: You can have a society of enlightened individuals who have an collective intellect capable of a great many things. But when you turn them into a mob, it becomes reversed. The larger the mob, the further down the collective intellect becomes due to charged emotional states rather than anything else. Proof to the contrary anyone?

I disagree.

I think the Iraq war cost Bush political points. More importantly, he would have had to know(before the start of the war) that the army on army fighting would be long over by the time elections came around. If there was still fighting(come election time) it would be an insugency type(like we currently have), and that type of conflict is never good politically.

I think that without the Iraq war, he would have coasted to an easy victory. He was enjoying tremendous popularity after Afganistan. The economy was already starting to pick up, and even at its worst, it wasnt all that bad. He had spent money on social programs as well as the war and cut taxes. His political opponents really didnt have anything to throw at him.

People can cry about the deficit, but al long as there are jobs, no one is really going to complain all that effectively. Think about it, what could the dems have said during 2004 if it wasnt for Iraq? And "lying" about WMD and "its all about the oil" and "Haliburton"?

Another war we shouldn't have started(the one now)

We started??? Iraq started this war when they attacked New York and then pointed all of their nucular missiles at us!

We started??? Iraq started this war when they attacked New York and then pointed all of their nucular missiles at us!
Damn those nucular missiles!

just at market price though, with the cost to the US govenrment being nothing

The main problem would have been that there were no American oil companies but several European and Asian ones. And they wouldn't just give up their share to Americans.

1. The best intel we had indicated that Iraq had WMD. Intelligence is an inexact science.
IMO not really a proper argument hence everyone else on this planet knew that there weren't any WMD's. I can't belive American intelligence is SO bad. And you know just as well as I do, that the intelligence they gained wasn't accurate enough to make such claims.

2. We didn't go for the damned oil! Try to get your limited intellect around that small fact. If we were getting any oil out of Iraq, why the hell is gas so friggin' expensive in the US?
You haven't noticed that the oil production in Iraq has faced some major difficulties since the war started? BTW the gas is not going to get any cheaper. Get used to it. Anyway, I'm not saying it's just about oil. Your argument is just very weak.

We started??? Iraq started this war when they attacked New York and then pointed all of their nucular missiles at us!
*rolling my eyes*

sweetheart it wasnt nuculer missles, it was DRONE PLANES full of weaponized anthrax ready to be launched from baghdad at a moments notice. dont you remember doing all those "hide under your desk when the alarms sound" drills?

oh yeah im so glad we went to war to stop THAT.

[/sarcasm]

Whatever we are calling it. heres the gist of it. Bush said there were WOMD(weapons of mass destrucstion) but there weren't. But we went to war anyway. We went to war because the president lied. And everyone loved him for it. Now more people are dying because we thought we would try to give them democracy just for the heck of it, to cover up our real reason in the fist place..oil. Sure we produce the most oil, but it isn't enought and we need more.

(too easy)

1. Not knowing does not equal lying. If I say, "It's gonna rain today," and it does not rain... am I a liar? No, I was simply wrong. It's hilarious that some are not smart enough to know the difference...
2. There is no possible way all of Iraq has been searched
3. In case you haven't noticed, we had another perfectly valid reason for going to Iraq: Saddam Hussein, that bad guy. Remember him?
4. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we have been JUSTIFIED by the successful Iraqi turnout for their first free vote in 50 years. The fact they they turned out in droves -- braving bullets from the friggin' insurgents/terrorists -- show that they wanted freedom. We gave it to them.

Case closed.

This has been hashed and re-hashed until now it's little more than pablum. You should try reading something other than the dim-bulbs at "Democracy Now."

1. The best intel we had indicated that Iraq had WMD. Intelligence is an inexact science.

2. We didn't go for the damned oil! Try to get your limited intellect around that small fact. If we were getting any oil out of Iraq, why the hell is gas so friggin' expensive in the US?

3. No nation invades another "just for the heck of it," especially a democracy. The populace would hand the politicans their heads on a plater. I suppose you would rather see Saddam still in power torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis, yes?

You seriously need to read something factual rather than accepting propaganda at face value. Either that or get out from behind your keyboard and find out a bit about the real world.

I can understand the melodramatic labels of "liar" for Bush... even though he DIDN'T LIE...

what I don't get is this apparent love for Saddam Hussein. One would think that freedom-loving hippies the world over would be thrilled to see Saddam deposed.

And yet there seems to be this group who would love for him to still be in power.

it makes little sense.

We started??? Iraq started this war when they attacked New York and then pointed all of their nucular missiles at us!

:eek:
ummm... Iraq didn't attack New York
:headbang:

I'm getting pretty frickin ticked at liberal propaganda. learn your facts before you get passionate about something. seriously.

THERE WAS GOOD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF WMDs in IRAQ
saddam made many purchases through questionable channels that involved materials that would be of little use to anything BUT WMDs

IT WAS NOT FOR OIL!!!
Cheney actually put himself at great loss by selling all his Haliburton stock so ppl wouldn't question his presidential motives

THE US HAS PLENTY OF OIL
we just choose to use the oil of the rest of the world first so that if we ever come to another World War, we will be adequately supplied and able to cut ties with certain nations without worrying about the political views the oil would cause.

This has been hashed and re-hashed until now it's little more than pablum. You should try reading something other than the dim-bulbs at "Democracy Now."

1. The best intel we had indicated that Iraq had WMD. Intelligence is an inexact science.

2. We didn't go for the damned oil! Try to get your limited intellect around that small fact. If we were getting any oil out of Iraq, why the hell is gas so friggin' expensive in the US?

3. No nation invades another "just for the heck of it," especially a democracy. The populace would hand the politicans their heads on a plater. I suppose you would rather see Saddam still in power torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis, yes?

You seriously need to read something factual rather than accepting propaganda at face value. Either that or get out from behind your keyboard and find out a bit about the real world.


Its odd that none of these goofballs seem terribly concerned about the pit with roughly 1,500 corpses in it in Iraq. One of many. This one had mainly women and children. They were lined up at the edge and shot. I wonder if they were all actually dead when they were buried? I imagine some medial professional checked vital signs first, before bulldozing their bodies under.

I have to imagine they were all tried and convicted first. [sarcasm for those idiots that would think otherwise]

Actually, if you look carefully at the Duelfer report that's not quite the case. The report notes that there was no "official"(with paper trail) transaction of weapons between Iraq and Syria there were indications of it. Since the only way to determine whether those indications were correct would be to invade Syria and the Bekaa valley, nothing happened beyond that.


Dont worry- the people you are trying to reason with will never read or bellieve anything that would support Bush's decisons. They need him to be the bad guy. They need Americans to be evil cowboys. Then they can justify their own self loathing and shortcomings.

IMO not really a proper argument hence everyone else on this planet knew that there weren't any WMD's. I can't belive American intelligence is SO bad. And you know just as well as I do, that the intelligence they gained wasn't accurate enough to make such claims.

You haven't noticed that the oil production in Iraq has faced some major difficulties since the war started? BTW the gas is not going to get any cheaper. Get used to it. Anyway, I'm not saying it's just about oil. Your argument is just very weak.

I want you to be honest:

Do you really think that all of Iraq -- everywhere in Iraq -- has been checked?

Its odd that none of these goofballs seem terribly concerned about the pit with roughly 1,500 corpses in it in Iraq. One of many. This one had mainly women and children. They were lined up at the edge and shot. I wonder if they were all actually dead when they were buried? I imagine some medial professional checked vital signs first, before bulldozing their bodies under.

I have to imagine they were all tried and convicted first. [sarcasm for those idiots that would think otherwise]

But glorious Saddam would never sanction such a thing! It's all lies! Lies, I tell you, LIES! It never happened. By the way, would you mind adjusting my blindfold? It's starting to itch.

I want you to be honest:

Do you really think that all of Iraq -- everywhere in Iraq -- has been checked?
i believe the recent us government report saying that there were no wmd in iraq

:eek:
ummm... Iraq didn't attack New York
:headbang:
umm...
they didnt have nucular weapons pointed at us either

it was humor

Its odd that none of these goofballs seem terribly concerned about the pit with roughly 1,500 corpses in it in Iraq. One of many. This one had mainly women and children. They were lined up at the edge and shot. I wonder if they were all actually dead when they were buried? I imagine some medial professional checked vital signs first, before bulldozing their bodies under.

I have to imagine they were all tried and convicted first. [sarcasm for those idiots that would think otherwise]
so we needed to invade iraq killing ...oh lets be conservative and say 50,000 iraqis, both civilian and military, destroy their infrastructure, throw them into the terror of not know when the next car bomb will explode near them, leave them wondering if the country will dissolve into civil war after we pull out, all to avenge the deaths of 1500 people who were killed WHEN?

it was necessary to spend one american life for each person in that grave because.............

Its odd that none of these goofballs seem terribly concerned about the pit with roughly 1,500 corpses in it in Iraq. One of many. This one had mainly women and children. They were lined up at the edge and shot. I wonder if they were all actually dead when they were buried? I imagine some medial professional checked vital signs first, before bulldozing their bodies under.

I have to imagine they were all tried and convicted first. [sarcasm for those idiots that would think otherwise]

Funny. Last I checked, there were a lot of people dying in Sudan well before the Iraqi horror stories were being marched out. What did they call it? Can't be genocide, nobody wanted to label it as such.

Face it, America has never in recent times, (actually it could be as far back as the time they started that Soviet boogeyman mentality), moved its military forces into another country without some kind of motive that would profit it, directly or indirectly. I bet you that somewhere in the foreign policy, there's a clause for profitability.

America has plenty of blood on its hands. No denying that. Sugercoat the reasons all you want, but there's always been an underlying motive of political or economic benefit.

Certainly other countries have always moved to their own benefit as well, I don't deny this. But what makes it doubly ironic is that no other country to date has hidden their motives behind the veil of 'aiding others' as much as the US did.

Hmm, in fact, it puts me in mind of the context used by the Japanese in the 2nd WW to invade Asia. I think they espoused reasons such as promoting stability and whatnot. Nice words really. But that's all they really were. Words. The actions were something else. I think it was over resources.

And before you jump on me by saying things like how the US would never do the stuff Japan did, I can only agree with you on the specifics. As far as I know, they didn't do things like mass bioweapon experiments on civilians but the broad outlines remain the same. Invading another country on the pretext of nice sounding virtues when the reality is much darker.

Back in Spring 2002, on the eve of this war, three reasons were given to invade Iraq:

1. WMD's (found to be non-existent)
2. Iraq's involvement in 9/11 (found to be non-existent)
3. Iraq was some sort of direct threat to the United States. (found to be false and greatly exaggerated)

No where, on that day, or in the build-up to war, or in any of the three reasons that the American people were given to justify this invasion was it EVER mentioned that ANY of this was about or had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people.

The "liberating Iraqi people" angle was tacked on by this Administration to cover up the fact that not only had each of the three reasons for going to war turned out to be false, but it may have been known that they were false all along.

"liberating the Iraqi people" gives us that feel good angle, kind of like mom's apple pie, or any other untangible ethereal concept. How can anyone NOT want to liberate the Iraqi people? Truly a brilliant piece of cover you ass, p.r. gold, but then again, Rove doesn't get paid to come up with shit that won't sell.

It will never cease to amaze me how the general American public grasped for the "liberating Iraqi people" story like a drowning rat feverishly trying to find a dry branch, and clung to it for dear life, rejecting any and all new evidence about wmd and the like that threatened to destroy their beautiful little dream of "saving the poor Iraqis".

Hey all you "we bombed them to save them" folks, where were you guys back in the 80's when Saddam was actually killing his own people? Characteristically silent, thats where; because back in the 80's it was bad business to criticize Saddam, our ace in the hole against Iran.

But today, it's ever so easy to forget the past, the truth, and even reality, as Wal Mart shoppers everywhere pat themselves and each other on the back over what a swell and splendid job we're doing, saving the Iraqi people, and rushing home to flick on Fox news for more well crafted Administration talking points and lies that let you fall asleep at night, blissfully unaware that half a world away, some of the worst violence to befall the middle east in all of modern times rages unchecked, with no end and no solution in sight.

Yup, we sure saved them, we saved 'em real goooood! Yee haw

i believe the recent us government report saying that there were no wmd in iraq
Um.. the key word here is "recent". Not "before the war started there was an extensive UN and" The entire point is the intelligence at the time said there were WMD. Fortunately, hind sight is 20/20 so anyone who dislikes Bush (fortunately is it considered popular now everyone is on the bandwagon) can claim that he "lied" and "knew that there were no WMD even though no one else did because we know now certainly he knew then"

:headbang:
just a little FYI for the original poster
.this is not a new war
.at the ceasation of hostilities(instigated by iraqs invasion of kuwait) in 1991 the iraqi and US governments signed a CEASE FIRE.
. a ceasefire is not an end to the declaration of war(that would be a peace treaty) a ceasefire literally is nothing more than we are stilll in a state of war, but just not shooting at each other.
. a classic case of ths is north korea who has been in a state of war with the south for over 50 years. they never formally ended the war with any kind of peace treaty but rather a cease fire. hence the DMZ and the US and korean militaries deplaoyed along the border.
.the same situation was occuring in reguards to iraq. US, saudi and kuwati troops were massed along the border for over 12 years, and saddam frequently violated terms of the UN sanctions as well as the terms of his cease fire. the US could have nullified the ceaefire at any time when one of these violations occured instead of waiting so long.
.the reasons for lack of action on the US and it's allies is simple. there had to be political backing to take this kind of action. both the events of sept 11 and saddams well known ties to terrorist organizations coupled with the fact that after 12 years in the UN the iraqi government of saddam had literally run out of political capitol led to this outcome.
.it's interesting to note that in 1998 when then president clinton started (and prematurely stopped) operation desert fox he pointed to much of the same intelligence bush used as well as retaliating for saddams violations of the ceasefire terms, yet strangely there was not a single peep from the people now chanting the "bush lied" mantra because that would mean clinton must have "lied" as well when he believed his intelligence services

have alook at the speech yourselves
American president defends timing and need for strikes

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

The American president said a report by inspectors to the U.N. over the weekend determined that Iraq had failed to fulfill that promise and had instead placed new restrictions on the inspections.

In response, Clinton gave the go ahead for "Operation Desert Fox."

Both directly and indirectly, Clinton addressed the impeachment crisis his presidency is currently facing. He defended the timing of strikes, which his critics have questioned in light of Thursday's scheduled debate and floor vote.

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said earlier that the president made his decision Wednesday morning after reviewing the United Nation's report.

It really took you guys this long to figure out?

just my opinion, but then again i'm always right.



the invasion was never about wmds, or iraqi freedom or oil. it was about an attempt to change the geopolitical balance in the middle east into something more the the americans liking. it was an attempt to begin to change the balance of power in the region toward a different model. it was certainly part of bushes war on terrorism it just didn't have anything directly to do with ties between saddam and terrorists, or saddams likelihood of giving wmds to them. it was the fact that iraq represented the old middle east who had spawned the modern islamist terrorists, and who the bush administration wanted to change, and it was the only regime in the area bush could justify taking out. it was meant to be an example to the rest of the middle east of both american power and political transformation, how effective a demostration remains to be seen.

The main problem would have been that there were no American oil companies but several European and Asian ones. And they wouldn't just give up their share to Americans.

saddam was a ruthless dictator, he'd sell his own mother if he knew he was getting a good deal - he would sell oil to us

so we needed to invade iraq killing ...oh lets be conservative and say 50,000 iraqis, both civilian and military, destroy their infrastructure,

how many civilians would have died by now from saddam if we wern't there?

throw them into the terror of not know when the next car bomb will explode near them,

kinda like not knowing when the secret police are going to kick down you door, rape every member of your family infront of you and then haul you off to be tourtured to death for being suspected of being that guy that looked at uday that one day

leave them wondering if the country will dissolve into civil war after we pull out,

not gonna happen

all to avenge the deaths of 1500 people who were killed WHEN?

that was just one of the mass graves, there are hundreds, possibly thousands

it was necessary to spend one american life for each person in that grave because.............

but is is necessary to send American lives to make sure more Iraqis won't end up in that grave

Funny. Last I checked, there were a lot of people dying in Sudan well before the Iraqi horror stories were being marched out. What did they call it? Can't be genocide, nobody wanted to label it as such.

if by nobody you mean the Bush administration - check the news chief