Would we have attacked Iraq anyway?

[freeflydrew 0]

I read a document written for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and some others, by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that pretty much spelled out the movement into the middle east, specifically iraq. It was written in 2000. It leads me to believe that we were going into Iraq anyway.
Here's a link to a page describing the document, and there's a link to the pdf from that page.

Please don't respond unless you actually take the time to read this, and use sources to argue any points...

Any thoughts? (but please don't bring up the UN in this thread! )
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

[PhillyKev 0]

Project for New American Century (formally known as The New World Order) was advocating an invasion of Iraq since 1993. Coincidentally we just happened to have "justification" for it shortly after most of the priniples in that organization were appointed to the president's administration.

[billvon 3,118]

If Gore had been elected and 9/11 occurred, we would have still attacked. If either president had not had 9/11 as a way to rally the troops - doubtful that we would have had the support needed for it.

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

If Gore had been elected and 9/11 occurred, we would have still attacked. If either president had not had 9/11 as a way to rally the troops - doubtful that we would have had the support needed for it.

I'm not so sure we had support for it anyway... It seems like "we" went ahead with it regardless. I mean, we obviously had some support, but I think that they could have conjured up the same level of support without 9/11. <--- clearly opinion

I edited this after thinking about it for a little bit

[billvon 3,118]

>So you don't think that we would have attacked had 9/11 not happened?

I think both Gore and Bush would have pushed for invasion, but would not have been able to overcome resistance to it. Bush would have been impeached for lying to congress about WMD's if he didn't have the "but we have to fight terror!" angle to fall back on, for example.

[freeflydrew 0]

i agree with you... It'll be weird with the US having military bases in iraq for years to come, assuming of course that they stay on track with the "plan"

[newsstand 0]

I have heard you say this several times and I wonder what you base it on. Not disputing what you say just curious as to the source.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

i agree with you... It'll be weird with the US having military bases in iraq for years to come, assuming of course that they stay on track with the "plan"

I think you better think about the fact that the govt of Saudi Arabia will most likely fall sometime in the next year IMO. Would you rather have U.S. Forces next door in Iraq when Al Qaeda tries to take over the Oil fields? Think about it.

[billvon 3,118]

>I have heard you say this several times and I wonder what you base
> it on. Not disputing what you say just curious as to the source.

You mean the "Gore would have invaded too" comment? Source is the PNAC and Pollack's book; Gore was a PNAC believer and was one of the bigger hawks in the Clinton adminstration. I think he would likely have held out longer for UN approval, but I think in the end he would have invaded as well.

[newsstand 0]

Thanks.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Quote

i agree with you... It'll be weird with the US having military bases in iraq for years to come, assuming of course that they stay on track with the "plan"

I think you better think about the fact that the govt of Saudi Arabia will most likely fall sometime in the next year IMO. Would you rather have U.S. Forces next door in Iraq when Al Qaeda tries to take over the Oil fields? Think about it.

I have thought about it and still think it'll be weird when people I know, 10 years from now, are still going over to Iraq... So do YOU think they we would have attacked Iraq anyway, having read the info linked above?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I think he would likely have held out longer for UN approval and also not have gotten it, but I think in the end he would have invaded as well.

Completely agree here with the addition in bold.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

i agree with you... It'll be weird with the US having military bases in iraq for years to come, assuming of course that they stay on track with the "plan"

I think you better think about the fact that the govt of Saudi Arabia will most likely fall sometime in the next year IMO. Would you rather have U.S. Forces next door in Iraq when Al Qaeda tries to take over the Oil fields? Think about it.

I have thought about it and still think it'll be weird when people I know, 10 years from now, are still going over to Iraq... So do YOU think they we would have attacked Iraq anyway, having read the info linked above?

Yes I do think an attack on Iraq was inevitable but not necessarily because of PNAC. I believe that anti-Americanism has been brewing in the Middle East for a long time and it was only a matter of time before it happened. I don't think we are done with just invading Iraq. I believe we are going to have a conflict with Iran in the neaar future and even perhaps Egypt because they are involved in assisting in funneling weapons to Hamas and Hezbullah through a network of underground tunnels. It's less ideological and more of a monetary motivation at present.

We now have Putin saying Russia gave the U.S. information Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. We have Iran refusing to allow inspections of their nuclear sites. We have the possibility of the U.S. economy and way of life being destroyed by Al Qaedas attempts to gain control of the oil fields. I'm pretty sure a lot of the ideologs in the U.S. and the world are going to have a major shift in their views when that happens and they are told what is going to need to happen to open those lines back up.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's a speech Kerry made on the Snate floor in Oct. 2002. Decide for yourself what Kerry would have done if he was President.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[freeflydrew 0]

I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I'll respond anyway...

I think we were going into Iraq anyway... that's what i wrote and that's what I think. I never made any specifics on it being Bush, or Gore, or Kerry. I don't think it made a difference.

Edited to add: I also think that 9/11 only added to the justification to go into Iraq... It would have happened either way <--opinion

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I think you better think about the fact that the govt of Saudi Arabia will most likely fall sometime in the next year IMO."

Fact, fact? Is this one of those 'probable facts' that Remi was telling me about recently?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Remster 30]

Probably.

Remster

[nacmacfeegle 0]

You might be right there Rem.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Maybe your thoughts would be more interesting if you commented on substance rather than playing childish word games.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Okay then, keeping it civil and all that, what substance do you have for this suspicion?
Refering to your gloomy forecast for the Saudis, that is, not my sense of humour.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Okay then, keeping it civil and all that, what substance do you have for this suspicion?
Refering to your gloomy forecast for the Saudis, that is, not my sense of humour.

Apparently you missed the IMO at the end of the sentence. Anyone who has done the least bit of research into events within Saudi Arabia and some of the radicals within the Saudi Govt. cannot help but conclude how fragile the House of Saud is and that there is very good reason to believe it will collapse very soon. Do some reading and see if you don't come to the same conclusion.

Just to keep you from being sidetracked with you usual "gotcha" tactic, the above is all my opinion.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Okay the scenario is reasonable, but I reckon we might see an increase in activity in other regions, not necessarily Saudi.

Khazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, and maybe even Turkey. Pipelines being the targets as they are easier to hit, as opposed to the oilwells themselves. Khazakhstan probably has more oil right now than Saudi Arabia, research 'Kashagan' which is a project I worked on recently, (look up Tengiz and Karachaganak also). The Khazak govt has a pretty poor reputation for corruption, and we all know where that leads....

Africa might go off large too, trouble in Nigeria, and the Congo right now, not to mention Sudan, which is already in a mess. Lots of trouble brewing in the far east also, large Muslim pop in places like Myanmar, Indonesia etc, along with oil prospects.

I really have to go, maybe pick this up again next week.

Blues.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 3,118]

>Completely agree here with the addition in bold.

Disagree there. Heck, I think Bush could have gotten UN approval if he was willing to wait the 4-6 weeks that France and Russia were demanding.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

>Completely agree here with the addition in bold.

Disagree there. Heck, I think Bush could have gotten UN approval if he was willing to wait the 4-6 weeks that France and Russia were demanding.

The problem was that there was not one policy in the Admin during the time.
There was one wing that preached unilateralism right from the get go -
Cheney was quite unambiguously outspoken for action without UN or allies
already in summer 2002. The UN track was sought to appease the state
department, and the "moderate" supporters in congress and the US public.
The possibility that the UN track during March03 would lead to agreements
and success put the hard liners in a state of panic - when the French and
Russian thought about shortening the Blix stint to those 6 or so weeks it
was red alert for them and time to push the Pres hard. Why else would a
Secretary of Defense broadly insult exactly those nations that the Secretary
of State is in the process of trying to broker a deal with at the same time.
All that ceratinly didn't reflect well on the one guy who should have had the
reins in his hands and dictated a coherent policy - but instead just sort-of
"floated" with the events and power struggles. Guess that wasn't quite the
"humble nation" thing he once though he could put up with.

T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true