BF2S Forums Why did they invade Iraq?

WMDs, Oil, Saddam was the USA's whipping boy, or any combination of those.

Braddock wrote:

...Oh, that and he 'tried to kill his daddy'!

dem theres fightin words boy.....

1. Neo-con free market experiment
2. Israeli security
3. Hegemony over oil resources
4. Springboard for Iran
5. Defence contracts/revenue
6. Idiocy/Cruelty

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-08-03 03:18:34)

In no way, shape, or form was Iraq "revenge for 9/11" in reality.

Dubya wrote:

QUESTION: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi.

You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived [in Iraq] and — you know, the stir-up-the-hornet’s- nest theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize.

Lies, damn lies, and Bushco-brand lies.

Iraq's been on the agenda for a long time, anybody half-way paying attention could see it.  Clinton took a real laissez-faire approach, backing the UN in doing its thing and making sure the skies stayed clear, while at the same time slowly crawling our European bases methodically eastward.  Iraq had nearly zero conventional force capability on a real-world level or the ability/facilities to create WMD's.  We knew this full well for a long time.  Saddam was also denied surrender deals and exile deals shortly before we invaded.  Like Nagasaki/Hiroshima, we wanted our "shock and awe" show of force.

In this way, I think the PNAC goals in Iraq were 3 parts:

1.  Showcase American military power, and make sure the world was watching...send a strong message to allies and potential hostile states.  "Stand with us and be on the side of the only superpower, stand against us and this may happen to you."

2.  Secure a foothold directly in the Middle East to secure critical oil supplies.  They wanted to shortcut Clinton/Albright's policy of a "slow crawl" through Eastern Europe and just plop right down in the middle instead.

3.  Break the back of the US military apparatus to ensure the transition to a nearly 100% corporate Armed forces.

Their success is mixed. 

Goal #1 has blown up in their face. 

Goal #2 is about a 50/50 chance at the moment. 

Goal #3 is right on schedule...we have exactly 1 combat-ready rated division in our entire armed forces.  Equipment is not being replaced at the rate it is wearing out.  We have 1 in 3 veterans returning with some kind of clinical mental disorder, with a completely backed-up and underfunded VA healthcare system.  Recruiting goals are being met, but due to lowered numbers standards as well as lowerd recruit standards,  1 in 5 recruits now requires a waiver for a criminal record.  War has a strange effect on retention though, raising retention rates for combat arms MOS fields, but lowering them for critical skills such as mechanics, medics, and communications. Retention NCO's are also having some trouble with soldiers deciding to "go private".  Did anyone else watch the Katrina fiasco on TV and wonder "Why isn't the area CRAWLING with National Guard to keep order and facilitate rescues immediately?" 

Meanwhile, 40 to 60% of any given intelligence agency, including the DIS, is for-profit contractors.  Almost 90% of miltary CSS and BSS (service support) is done by for-profit contractors.  The numbers for Blackwater and other private security firms doing law enforcement or combat ops are still classified or obscure in accounting records and hard to pinpoint, but guesses are that "its a lot."

If "regular standing armies are the greatest threat to a free society" then what would corporate for-profit standing armies be?

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-08-03 04:15:16)

Oil pricing control.

hanbbu wrote:

It's obvious. Bush wanted to buy a pony from Iraq, but the government of Iraq didn't allow that. So Bush decided to start a war.

They ate the last piece of pizza.

The Saudis wanted the US garrison out to reduce the heat coming from the more extreme Muslims, and they also wanted Saddam gone so that the risk to their oil would go.

9/11 and to stop any other attacks on the United States.

If the US was not in Iraq cleaning it up gas prices would be from a average of $4.00 a gallon to probably $10 to $15 because they would take advantage of the fact we depend on the oil that is UNDER there ground.

And if they didn't who knows what kind of attacks would have happened next. It was a very good thing that the US did what they did when they did before it got worse.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

hanbbu wrote:

It's obvious. Bush wanted to buy a pony from Iraq, but the government of Iraq didn't allow that. So Bush decided to start a war.

They ate the last piece of pizza.

It is their right to do so as a soveign nation.  The Geneva conventions clearly states in Article CXVII:

Geneva Conventions wrote:

Anyone who is a member or participant in a lawful party may partake in EITHER the last slice of pizza OR the last beer in the pack, but my not, under any circumstance, take both.

If Iraq simply took the last slice of pizza, then they are perfectly within their legal rights.  I believe Bush wanted the last slice AND the beer, which makes this war illegal from the start.

Illegal? LOL so it was legal to hijack planes and crash them into buildings killing and ruining hundreds of lives.

this was to protect us from something like that happening again.

1. to secure worlds oil supply with a US presence in the M.E. in the most destabilizing country in that region that was breaking cease fire agreements after invading Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia.

2. He believed that Iraq had WMDs, was trying to develop WMDs, and was trying to procure WMDs.  He was correct on all three.

3.  Saddam was insane enough to try to assassinate an EX US president, invade Kuwait, shoot missiles at Israel (who stayed out of gulf war), and disregard UN orders.  Saddam obviously would have done even stupider and more dangerous things if left in power to gain weapons and build his military.

4.  Being the President of the US is like being President of the Remedial School of Retarded Youth.  Trying to make the people you lead comprehend reality and understand the reason why you can't just sit around blowing spit bubbles and peeing your pants all day is futile at best.  You will never be popular treating US citizens like educated logical people who understand where the gas in their cars come from and how devastating to the World economy it would be to have it dry up over nite.  Piss and moan about the War all you want but you would piss and moan more when you don't have a job, gas is $9/gallon, and you can't afford to heat or cool your house.

Saddam called him a "Booger Eater", so George went over to Saddam's sand box and kicked sand in his face, and broke all his toys.

RedTwizzler wrote:

I'm torn between dick and hick.

Why settle?  I say both.