Why America Really Invaded Iraq

[philmoore]

So who do you believe, the Bush administration?

[garo]

"Preparedness" is one thing and using Sep 11 as an excuse to attack a country is another. (Since every country does it, I bet Iraq had plans to invade and occupy the US as part of their "preparedness" ) One of the things I admire the most in the US is freedom of information. So even though most mass media outlets and the administration are trying to sweep the facts under the carpet, it is now well known that the plans to invade Iraq were more than just preparedness. One just has to know where to look and internal Bush administration memos (as opposed to what they state publicly to the media) are a good indicator of what they were thinking/planning.

I am surprised that you are "sorry to hear" that I believe the media in matters of world information. As Phil points out, who else to believe? Who do you believe? I agree that the NYT did not exactly cover itself up with glory in its coverage of the Iraq war. But it does do "real" stories once in a while. After all it is the paper of record in the US
I do find some non-US media rather more objective. In any case, it helps to have several points of view before I make up my mind.

I would urge you to read the article linked above. I would like to hear your comments after you read it.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by jasong

All I've got to say about the article is that what some people think of as horse crap others think of as healthy fertilizer. Jews dominate our politics because the Judeo-Christian God is showing them favor at the moment.

Side with them, or don't side with them, as long as we don't directly oppose Israel and don't forget our God we will stay the economic and military power that we are. It's when we forget our roots and the Christianity based morality of this country's forefathers that we will be destroyed. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and I hope I'm dead by then.

My biggest concern is the fact that George Bush won't own up to what's going on. Shouldn't these policies be publicly acknowledged as the result of righteous inquirement? It doesn't make any sense to me.

According to modern day Biblical prophecy the U.S is the Israel referred to and Britain the Judah
Mally

I believe Nash's equilibrium theory is being used.
It is after all, like a game.


I wonder what Payam thinks?

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by jasong

...the Iraqi people were being abused by a small minority and he wanted to incorporate permanent change according to what the Iraqis wanted for themselves, whatever that may be. Those people needed help, and the fact that that involves military action is unfortunate and sad. But...

There are no buts jasong, you are either a Christian as you claim or you are not. And if you are a Christian, where do you get off justifying the murder of innocent civilians in the name of some hypocritical, lying politician who just happens to have a big box of toy soldiers to play with?
It is never acceptable, legally or morally to use violence to achieve your own ends. Going down that road leads to 9/11 and the like. They were just people like you and me who chose to use violence to achieve their own ends, and there is absolutely no justification for it, ever. If the only way that you can prove you are right is to punch the other guy’s lights out, then you are wrong.

As for "improving" their situation, there are many countries throughout the world where men are allowed to marry more than one wife. In my country bigamy is illegal. In Pakistan, a woman who gives birth outside of wedlock is stoned to death. They dig a hole in the ground, stand her in it and bury her up to her neck in sand. Then people throw rocks at her head until she is dead. The father of her baby suffers no penalty whatsoever. He is not tried in court, ostracised by the community or excommunicated from his religion. He is not guilty of a thing. But the woman who bore his child is judicially murdered in what we would consider to be a particularly cruel and barbaric fashion. In Saudi Arabia it is common for judicial execution to be carried out by beheading with a sword, and this is often done for acts that we would not consider a crime. You may recall the TV programme, “Death of a Princess”. She was beheaded for having a relationship with a man who was not a member of a Royal family. What would have happened in Britain if Princess Diana had been similarly beheaded for having an affair with James Hewitt?
The point of these examples is that the moral and legal code of many countries varies quite substantially from our own. If the people of Pakistan came to your country and told you that you should be stoning to death un-married mothers, or if the people of Saudi Arabia told Britain that they should have beheaded Princess Diana, then I dare say that in both cases they would have been told them to go back to their own country and mind their own business. So what is it that gives us, you, or anyone else the right to declare the legal or moral code of another country to be wrong?
The answer is obviously that no one has that right. There is no such thing as a universal legal or moral code. There is more than one definition of right and wrong, and it is for each country to decide for themselves their own definition by which they live and die by the grace of their own God. And no one else has the right to interfere, or to use violence to “improve” the situation according to their own view of right and wrong.

[BWetter246]

i believe that bin laden is already captured and probably dead. They can't go to the public with this because muslims living in the US will riot and make him a mayter. So, the next best thing that they could get was their president. I dont think oil had so much to play in this situation considering we can get oil from alot of other countries or even tap into our own oil up in Alaska.

[Paulie]

Originally Posted by Euler1973

My theory is a lot simpler ; after 9/11, Bush went for the Taliban in Afghanistan - failed to capture bin Laden and realising that he had an election to prepare for, needed to save face. He looked for the nearest piece of unfinished business and that was Hussein...

Problem with that is the first WEEK in 2001 after George was inaugrated, he was already talking about Sadam. Read either Richard Clarke's or Paul O'Neil'ss books, they go into quite a bit of detail. Sadam was finished, and the sanctions were killing his people. He was "In a box".

The simple version is this: Boys want go to Baghdad, real men want to go to TERHAN. It's all about the small penis but if I wave it in the air enough it will look bigger Neo-Con agenda.

George hasn't a clue, probably has someone tie his shoes. But he's a good little puppet though, gets to prance around and pretend he has a larger one than Clinton, which makes him feel proud.

Look into PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Look into all the players, it's like a bad 80's movie, all the same convicted criminals who subverted the constitution by funding death squads in central america with arms and drug sales. Look into the whole Bush family/Bin Laden family ties that go back for decades (Arbusto, aka El Busto, Bush's first of many failures (0-4 as I recall off hand) in business, was funded by the Bin Laden group.) Look into the Bin Laden airplane flying around post 9/11, the only plane in the sky, picking up people then taking them out of the country BEFORE being interviewed by the FBI. Look at how they are trying to spend the government into total bankruptcy, because they want to drown it in the bathtub. I could go on and on...

Sigh... the whole thing makes me so upset....

[Paulie]

Originally Posted by BWetter246

i believe that bin laden is already captured and probably dead. They can't go to the public with this because muslims living in the US will riot and make him a mayter. So, the next best thing that they could get was their president. I dont think oil had so much to play in this situation considering we can get oil from alot of other countries or even tap into our own oil up in Alaska.

Osama is a SAUDI! So were 15 of the 9/11 hijackers. The remaining 4 came from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.

WTF did the President of **Secular** Iraq have to do with our once CIA funded operative Osama????

BWetter, seriously, you need to stop watching Fox, and go read some books!

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by BWetter246

I dont think oil had so much to play in this situation considering we can get oil from alot of other countries

... which makes us dependent on the oil-exporting countries (we have to get oil from other countries -- the oil in the US can satisfy less than half our needs!), which means that we have to (according to our current administration) wage war to show them who's boss and keep them in line.

or even tap into our own oil up in Alaska.

There's only a measly amount (< 1% or so of our needs) that hasn't already been tapped. Aren't you aware we've already been producing oil from Alaska for 30 years?

Of course, a rational US leadership would try to get this country weaned off oil and onto non-CO2-emitting renewable energy sources just as fast as possible, but when your country's run by people who expect God to end the world within the next generation and take all conservatves to Heaven, then what you get is short-sighted policy.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... but when your country's run by people who expect God to end the world within the next generation and take all conservatves to Heaven, then what you get is short-sighted policy.

You would like to think that this comes straight from the department for the blindingly obvious. Unfortunately, it needs to be said. Three cheers for cheesehead!

[VJS]

I think people are not talking about one major point when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Why did the US go to war in Iraq oil plain and simple oil, is it a vaild reason... wars have been faut over much less.

Anyways major reason why... China

If the oil pipelines are not flowing 100% with moves to drill for future sources other countries such as China may start flexing their muscles. Ask yourself one question when there is talk about the US beading the war drum, how would another country like China, North Korea, even Sudan or Zimbabwe conduct a Iraq invasion?

The above arguement is also my pro stance on stem cell reasearch. Sure BUsh is too "moral/religous/etc" to agree with stem cell research. But doesn't he think that the EU or US/Canada can conduct Stem cell research in a more humane fashion than other countries.

Let me put this guy in