[ghost_flash]

Ask Bill C.

[MacGorilla]

No, we went to war to show Iraq what happens when you ignore the wishes of the international community. Of course we ignored the wishes of the international community to do it, but that'll show 'em!

[el chupacabra]

thats easy

to free the iraqis and allow them to have closer to their loved ones lost to the hand of saddam.

if only it could have been for oil my gas would be cheaper

as you can see bush has no plan for our economic goals.

[Spliffdaddy]

It certainly wasn't about the oil.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It certainly wasn't about the oil.

Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrre it wasn't..........

[Spliffdaddy]

i see your point.

(you just hafta look real close)

[Sven G]

You went to war because, sadly, war is a fundamental (i.e., built-in in the (corrupted) system, so to say) mechanism - both for capitalism and "imperialism" - to "expand" the domain of "free" (!?) markets and global control - and so on... (i.e., etc. etc.).

Do you still think that wars are carried on for mostly idealistic purposes?

That's really a little too naive, IMHO...

[angaq0k]

From all the reasons I heard or read, here is a very incomplete compilation.

1) Because Saddam Hussein [i[had[/i] WMDs
2) Because Saddam Hussein does not have WMDs
3) Because Saddam Hussein failed in weakening Iran, therefore, Saddam Hussein was too weak and was worth invading
4) Because Saddam Hussein continuously delayed the UNMOVIC and AIEA inspections
5) Because Saddam Hussein would not accept any more financial "aid" from the U.S.
6) Because Saddam Hussein refused to repay his debt to I.M.F. (connected to the W.T.O. which is controlled by the U.S.)
7) Because Saddam Hussein was sitting on one of the biggest reserves of Oil (and barely able to answer the demand)
8) Because Saddam Hussein was a potential threath to oil markets, and especially, a potential competitor to Saudi Arabia
9) Because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the balance of power in Middle East (see WMDs)
10) Because Saddam Hussein had to be used as an example to the American population that Georges Bush is serious in dealing with "extreme bullies"
11) Because Saddam Hussein gone, Iraq is transforming in a commercial venture, especially for American business interest
12) Because Saddam Hussein gone, Iraq becomes a bridge to develop more commercial ventures, especially for American business interest
13) Because Saddam Hussein is a good adjunct to the rhetoric justifying the racket developed by the security and military corporations of the U.S.
14) Because Saddam Hussein is second best boogeyman available, after Ossama bin Laden, to develop fear in various industrialized countries, especially in the U.S., and therefore, a sense of lack of control, which leads to the necessary delegation of power of the actual U.S. government.

Feel free to add or correct as you please.

[netgear]

We went to war to pre-emptively stop China.

All this talk about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, Israel, Palestinians, etc. is just nonsense.

[Face Ache]

Why did we go to War?

Who cares?

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Who cares?

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

[zachs]

Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.

Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise

Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.

Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"
Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people--Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing

The intelligence is clear.

Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did

Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.

Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.

The United Nations just can't handle this.

Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues

The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.

Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.

Mission accomplished.

Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops--that's wildly off the mark
Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army--Iraqification will work
Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations

The cost to the American taxpayer.

Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can--$50 billion may be on the low side
Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...

Democracy comes to Iraq.

Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast--we're prohibiting political parties
Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement--it's unchangeable
Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution
Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis--How about June 30?
Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections--the ones on November 2

The bottom line.

Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing.

(Source)

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by zachs:
Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.

Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing.

(Source)

When I was a kid, my parents told me: "you will always be outdone".

LOL

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why did we go to War?

Do you want this week's reason?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Do you want this week's reason?

Sure

[zachs]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Sure

"He was a threat because he funded suiciders." --George W. Bush, Press Conference 4/13/2004

[phoenixboy]

Why did we go to War?

this is why...

[angaq0k]

I think we should have this thread become a sticky.

Thoughts?

[Logic]

Originally posted by zachs:
Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.

.......snipped brilliant post.......

Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing.

(Source)

[osiris]

All your oil are belong to us.

[dreilly1]

Actually, all joking aside, you should all really take the time to read the article ghost_flash linked to. It essentially makes a case for war using Bill Clinton's own words, and contends that there were valid reasons to invade Iraq in the late 90's which didn't go away when Bush took office.

I think that the Iraq invasion was the right war, done for all the wrong reasons, and quite possibly at the wrong time. I think the world is a safer place with Saddam out of power, fewer Iraqis will die as a result of the American invasion than would have if Saddam and his sons stayed in power, and the world is better off without keeping up the farce of the "no-fly zones" and the basing of the American and British troops needed to support them in countries that didn't want us there. (Time will tell if the Iraqis let us keep bases there, though...)

But the Bush administration severly mishandled the whole affair and caused permanent damage to our relations with other countries that will have a negative effect long after Bush leaves office, whether that be next year or in 2009. MacGorilla's quote is quite appropriate, but it doesn't take away from the fact that ousting Saddam can be justified, and was justified even before Bush took office. And under different leadership, it would have turned out much better for all parties.

However, here's a thought for you, ghost_flash: perhaps the reason Clinton didn't go into Iraq was that he actually cared about US relations with our neighbors, and wanted to build an international coalition, like Bush I had against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And he would wait until he could get more support, which ultimately never happened, so he never attacked.

It may also explain why Clinton spent so much time at the end of his presidency talking with the Israelis and the Palestinians -- he was not "building a legacy", as many people said, but simply responding to many Arab countries' wishes that the Palestinian issue be settled before any action against Iraq can begin. IIRC, none of the Arab governments particularly liked Saddam, but did not want to do anything about him while the Palestinian issue was still open.

Just a few random thoughts.... Any comments?

[ebuddy]

Some good points made above.

Problem is; Clinton also hurt America's PR by our actions in Yugoslavia. We were viewed as Imperialistic then also. Granted, we had international support of Germany and France, but there were shared interests there. The reason we did not enjoy this same support from Germany and France (often referred as the type of International Community support we're looking for) in Iraq was because France, Russia, and Germany had compelling financial ties to Saddam Hussein. They did not want to jeopardize their meal ticket in Iraq. Several books will be surfacing soon and a rather large investigation is underway that will shake our need to be viewed as "acceptable" by the International community. I'm curious.

I won't say that Clinton desparately wanted peace between Palestine and Israel the last year of his term for "presidential legacy" sake, as this would be like saying Bush dealings with Bandar are an election year attempt to get re-elected. I'm willing to accept that these are things Presidents do as part of their every-day job regardless of it's timing. To say otherwise would be speculatory and juvenile.

In short, every man for himself. It's the painful truth behind our human limitations.