"George Bush our hero!"

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by chevy
What was the "official" reason to attack Iraq ?
Terrorism ? No (no link with al qaida)
Dictatorship ? No (tenths of other countries could have been attacked)
Petrol ? No
World dominance ? No
Revenge ? No
Internal politics ? No

So what was it that made this attack so urgent ? WMD !

My question: where are the WMD ?

This is one point that has bugged me for a while. Was there a corporate takeover by the al Qaida of all other terrorist organizations? I realize that they are obviously front and center in the minds of most people, and Bush himself would like for you to think of them first when he says "terrorist", but at last count, there are still plenty of other terrorist orgs out there. Are we to assume that Saddam helped NO other Islamic terrorist orgs?

There were a few missles launced by the Iraqi's in the begining. But anyone who thinks that this was about any one singular thing is looking in the wrong place. This war was about a lot of things, some things concerning terrorism, some things concerning Iraq and its adherence to UN resolutions (or lack thereof), some about Saddams dictatorship, some about oil (though not in the simplistic form that many believe so, i.e. Iraqs oil), some about 9/11, and some about Bush himself. This war was about ALL those things. It is a convergence of events and opportunities, that's what this was all about.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by binaryDigit
This is one point that has bugged me for a while. Was there a corporate takeover by the al Qaida of all other terrorist organizations? I realize that they are obviously front and center in the minds of most people, and Bush himself would like for you to think of them first when he says "terrorist", but at last count, there are still plenty of other terrorist orgs out there. Are we to assume that Saddam helped NO other Islamic terrorist orgs?

Of course not, it is widely publicized that Saddam gave a "reward" to Palestinian suicide bombers. It is also extremely likely that he supported other terrorist groups. The US has also been a supporter of terrorism around the world, specifically these last years, a supporter of Islamic terrorists. One doesn't need to look far to find the proof of that. Therefore the support of Islamic terrorism is a weak point to start a war.

There were a few missles launced by the Iraqi's in the begining. But anyone who thinks that this was about any one singular thing is looking in the wrong place. This war was about a lot of things, some things concerning terrorism, some things concerning Iraq and its adherence to UN resolutions (or lack thereof), some about Saddams dictatorship, some about oil (though not in the simplistic form that many believe so, i.e. Iraqs oil), some about 9/11, and some about Bush himself. This war was about ALL those things. It is a convergence of events and opportunities, that's what this was all about.

I would agree with the convergence of opportunities. However, these opportunities were created by GW & Co. not found.

Iraq's adherence to UN resolutions was hardly exemplary but due to increasing pressure, they were complying.

As Chevy stated there are plenty of other dictatorships around the world, some with even worse track records than Saddam's.

The oil issue is one of the most compelling of course, but also one of the most idiotic. In about 20 years the supply of oil will no longer be able to keep up with world demand. Prices will skyrocket and the countries most dependent upon oil imports will of course be driven into the ground. Unless they are willing to colonize oil producing countries or develop alternative sources. The $80 billion that Congress approved for this war, had it been devoted to alternative energy R&D would have ensured the US a leading role in coming technologies. Instead it was spent on destroying Saddam's regime in the hope that a US sympathetic democratic republic would take its place and provide the US with endless amounts of oil at bargain prices. In addition, Iraq's telephone, oil, water and transportation contracts will all be given to American or British companies, therefore ensuring that the US will be paid back for its expenses.

The US rather than furthering democratic republics like its own thru democratic processes at the UN has decided instead to create a neo-colonial world ruled by the might of one rather than the voices of many.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by Ugg
I would agree with the convergence of opportunities. However, these opportunities were created by GW & Co. not found.

Iraq's adherence to UN resolutions was hardly exemplary but due to increasing pressure, they were complying.

The pressure of impending war. Iraq didn't really start to make an effort to comply until after the sword of war was dangled over their infidel heads (sorry, was just at the iraqi information minister site).

As Chevy stated there are plenty of other dictatorships around the world, some with even worse track records than Saddam's.

But my point was that you can't look at any one single thing. It's the context of these things that make the argument. You can't say "well since there are other dictatorships around the world, the war couldn't have been about that". Not soley, no. But given the other issues, this did factor into it. If Iraq were a democratic nation, even with all the other excuses, launching this type of military action would have been extremely difficult (politically).

...
The $80 billion that Congress approved for this war, had it been devoted to alternative energy R&D would have ensured the US a leading role in coming technologies. Instead it was spent on destroying Saddam's regime in the hope that a US sympathetic democratic republic would take its place and provide the US with endless amounts of oil at bargain prices. In addition, Iraq's telephone, oil, water and transportation contracts will all be given to American or British companies, therefore ensuring that the US will be paid back for its expenses.

Again, oil was a minor factor. Any "price" benefits of this would be minor at best. Plus do we risk alienating the other members of OPEC by buying oil at cut rate prices directly from Iraq? Why, to help the airline industry? It surely isn't to help the American consumer. Any price reductions probably wouldn't happen soon enough to be of much use to Bush when the next elections roll around. And they surely wouldn't lead to any major increase in the economy (again, airline sector excluded, and even then, would cheaper gas make up for lost customers due to the war and any subsequent worries of increased terrorist activities). No, the oil argument by itself and in the context of just Iraq makes no sense.

The US rather than furthering democratic republics like its own thru democratic processes at the UN has decided instead to create a neo-colonial world ruled by the might of one rather than the voices of many.

No, the US just did what it and many other countries always do. They make efforts to remove from power those govt's that they are not particularlly fond of at the moment. The difference here is that a direct action was taken vs more subversive/subtle/economic actions. Just like Iraq when Iran was the bad guy.

In the big picture, orgs like the UN don't work. To see this, just look at any countries own govt. How do you expect the world to agree on things when their constituant members can't even agree on their own policies. They do great when everyone happens to agree on something, but in the end, politics and he who carries the biggest stick (either economically or militarily) wins.

[anerki]

This has probably been said ten times before me on this thread but just wanted to get off my mind that I'm absolutely scandalized by what habilis wrote.

For plenty of reasons that have all been mentioned before me I'm sure ... And what the hell is Bush thinking provocing the entire islamitic world by his words about Syria. The us found samples what could've been chemical weapons, sent to the pentagon for investigation. Within two days they know what it is exactly, and how it can be used. That was 8 days ago. Are they really that stupid to think that people just forget about that?

The US is taking on much more than they can handle, than anyone can handle. The arabians know how it feels, they had crusades, and sadly only a minor part of the world knows how the crusades went ... It was a 1000 years ago, but millions of people were killed, one does not forget the past, and history repeats. The crusades were succesful indeed in the beginning, but the Franks realised that they couldn't manage it in the end ... It'll be the same here ...

One thing, I'm happy for all the Iraqi's that they're freed at last, at least SOME good got out of this ...

[anerki]

Originally posted by toast
In military terms, the USA have never failed at invading a country. Even if history shows variable duration (short: Chili, long: Vietnam), variable damage (little: actual Iraq, heavy: hm... Vietnam again), variable support from public opinion (actual conflict is a good example), the USA have never failed, whereas some other superpowers did in the past. The USSR (Afghanistan), but also older powers such as Napoleonian France, Mogul Khans or the Roman Empire did know some military defeats.

The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ... Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't

[Ugg]

The Patriot Act, and the Homeland Security Dept. and the govt's desire to have us spy on one another come from regimes like Botha's South Africa, The Soviet Union, and yes, Hitler's Germany. Unfortunately most Americans don't see that. They only see the above as a way to reign in the excesses of the 70s and 80s. I just hope GW & Co. get kicked out of office before they do irreparable harm to American Freedom and Democracy.

[toast]

Originally posted by anerki
The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ...

True. Important correction to what I wrote: that was the very first US defeat in terms of superpower ruling. Thanks for noticing that.

Originally posted by anerki
Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermann Goerring

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by anerki
The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ... Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't

So do you have any transcripts to support this statement? "We're doing this for the good of those people" who cares if they want it"? Well, that paraphrase would be completely wrong, as far as Bush goes anyway. He says "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if the UN doesn't want it". He's stated all along (rightly or wrongly) that the Iraqi people DID want it. Care to be a bit more specific and a whole lot more accurate?