The war supporters. What are our troops dying for?

[billvon 3,116]

>Without meaning to be rude or stubborn, where is the proof?

From Paul Wolfowitz, who was discussing how to handle Iraq vs North Korea:

"Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."

There is no question at all that the administration considered oil when they decided to invade Iraq. I think it's also clear that there were other reasons as well (which may have been bad reasons; that's a different discussion) but oil was up there as a consideration.

[Mike111 0]

Good question...


.... erm....

Well saddam trained terrorists, al quaeda which we know despises the West. Theres one threat.

Moreover, maybe there is a hidden factor to - this is a hunch but 1991 we helped kuwait right, well they gave us oil (i think) and this we benefited - saddam , being so radical , could invade or do harm to a country vital to our own national interest - thus if he became too much foa liability to coutnries with whom it suits us to get no with then maybe it was time to go.

Maybe by picking an easy target such as him it might deterr other countries (althogh that hasn't worked, agreed).

There are a few reasons , but are open to discussion/.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Without meaning to be rude or stubborn, where is the proof?

Ok there are a lot of oil reserves in Iraq, and it would seme absurd to argue that that wasn't the cae i agree.... but....

why do it then?

what not attack 5 years before if oil was such a big thing?

Maybe cos of a new president?

You never were rude.

I'll come back to your reply later.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Mike111 0]

never denied it was - was probably just as an important factor as other, but not "the defining" one.

If that makes sense,

(i never normally do)

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Without meaning to be rude or stubborn, where is the proof?

It's been the stated objective of The Project for a New American Century for more than 15 years to invade and set up operations in a middle eastern country so that we have better leverage over their oil reserves. Many members of that group are in the current administration. Not proof, but pretty damn interesting.

Quote

Maybe cos of a new president?

exactly

[Mike111 0]

Ahh so what you are saying (not putting words into your mouth, forgive me if im wrong) ius that they picked on saddam cause he was a easy target (bad resources) and not an ally, and potentially an able target - committed genocide so can "remove him for better".

But if that is the case, why not go for Iran, they have oil and more of an immediate excuse - nuclear weapons!

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

But if that is the case, why not go for Iran, they have oil and more of an immediate excuse - nuclear weapons

because the american government actually realises what a mess they have made, and Iran would be an even bigger mistake

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

But if that is the case, why not go for Iran,

Because we had been systematically bombing Iraq for 12 years after having decimated their military in the Gulf War. They were easy pickins...remember, the mission was accomplished (toppling Iraq that is). Only problem is, they overlooked the fact that when you invade and occupy a country they don't greet you with flowers like they assumed they would. That might work when you liberate a country from foreign occupation, but not when you are the foreign occupier. No matter how bad SH was, he was Iraqi, he was theirs. We aren't.

The really interesting thing is that the majority of anti-war people on here predicted EXACTLY the current situation in Iraq BEFORE the war even started. The war hawks on here all said we were nuts, delusional, stupid, anti-American, whatever. Turns out we just knew how to read a history book or two and recognize similarities.

[Mike111 0]

good point, but , sorry i mean before Iraq - instead of Iraq.

maybe it Was because the president was more moderate and not wanting to blow ISrael off the map.

[shropshire 0]

Because Iraq had been bombed (almost) back to the stoneage over the past, what 10 years...... (since GW1!!) and therefore was in no position to fight back.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Mike111 0]

Well im relatively new so please forgive me if i missed out on that, but agreed, it is a minor vietnam atm.

But im sure the US military are by far smart enough to not make the mistake of going in thinking it woul dbe like that - obviosely things have changed and it is near enough like that, but would they really want to go in and suffer this INTENTIONALLY?

i doubt it. They probably thought it would be ok.

But as we can see, it isn;t. agreed on that.

[ReBirth 0]

google this

"new american century"

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

obviosely things have changed and it is near enough like that, but would they really want to go in and suffer this INTENTIONALLY?

i doubt it. They probably thought it would be ok.

But as we can see, it isn;t. agreed on that.

And now you've exposed the incompetence of this administration. Of course they didn't think it would be like this. However, most of the top brass at the pentagon WARNED them it would be like this, but they ignored them. No idea that doesn't come from themselves is ever considered by them to have any validity. Personally, I don't see that as a good leadership quality.

[Mike111 0]

I think Bush is a lot smarter than you give him credtit for.

Set aside he went to a top US school, he has his wits about him - he may not be glamorous like clinton which everyone seems to vote on (how the fuck did Arnie get gov of Cali???? - yes he is in the bush camp!) - not generalising anyone here at all - so lets not take that the wrong way.

Bush really cant bea dumbass, maybe he has incompetent people below him who fuck things up, btu to be leader of a top party would take some doing would it not?

[ReBirth 0]

No, he's not dumb. But he is naive. He is a tool to the Wolfowitz Kabal. And he is arrogant enough to ignore any dissenting opinion.

Quote

to be leader of a top party would take some doing would it not?

Sure would...by Karl Rove.

[Mike111 0]

I agree he is arrogant - his refusal to cooperate on co2 emissions highlights that, yet the UK PM is just as bad arrogant wise, if not worse!!

I don't know much about Rove, but he seems an important figure to Bush, but im sure Bush would have had to have done certain things to get himself where he was- it couldn't have all been one advisor telling him EVERYTHING or his "incompetence" surely would have shown up far earlier - his previous experience working in the party woul have earned him a reputation , which couldn't have been that bador he wouldn't have been considered.

[ViperPilot 0]

1. Saddam was dishing out millions to fund WMD research, terrorist organizations, etc. True, no direct link to OBL, but where his money goes after being routed through 10 foreign bank accounts, including Swiss and Caymans...hmm. This also plays into the idea that fighting terrorism and its support on foreign soil is much better than fighting it at home.

2. Humanitarian reasons. He was killing off his people, either by torture, plain old murder, or simply running such a corrupt system that people just couldn't keep their lives going.

3. Attempt to establish a democratic state in a region where fundamental Islam is rising (i.e. Iran). Having a stable, democratic state in the region would provide some strength against such a large uprising of a radical Islamic nation (which many want to happen in the greater Middle East).

4. Possibly preserve and make better oil ties in the Middle East (since Saudi is crapping out). However, this is a distant objective considering we have not done anything w/ the oil, as we only get somewhere aroudn 8% of our total oil from the Middle East. And no, I see nothing wrong in having motives to do with energy.

Our troops are fighting for the above, whether they view it that way or not. All four in my opinion are justified and legal. I do believe we need to start pulling out slowly and handing the security situation over more and more to the Iraqi military/police, but whether you think we're there for good or bad, we're in it now and we have to stick it out, finishing what we started. It's completely out of line to say our troops are dying for no reason. They have a reason, they have a cause, and even though some of you may hate Bush, don't disrespect the men and women in the military by saying that they're dying for nothing. That takes disrespect to an entirely different level.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

1. Saddam was dishing out millions to fund WMD research, terrorist organizations, etc. True, no direct link to OBL, but where his money goes after being routed through 10 foreign bank accounts, including Swiss and Caymans...hmm. This also plays into the idea that fighting terrorism and its support on foreign soil is much better than fighting it at home.

According to this administration there is no proof of that what so ever. I am sure if there was any way and I do mean ANY to contact Sadam to OBL and terrorist they would have.

Do you have any proof?

Quote

2. Humanitarian reasons. He was killing off his people, either by torture, plain old murder, or simply running such a corrupt system that people just couldn't keep their lives going.

According to recent polls the Iraqi people we are so called saving don’t agree. Most I think it was 80-90% believe life has gotten worst since we invaded.

Quote

3. Attempt to establish a democratic state in a region where fundamental Islam is rising (i.e. Iran). Having a stable, democratic state in the region would provide some strength against such a large uprising of a radical Islamic nation (which many want to happen in the greater Middle East).

At best Iraq will have a goverment like Iran same majority. That is not a good out come in my book
Also Iraq is not the only place on the planet that injustice have taken place. Much of the world needs democracy.

Quote

Our troops are fighting for the above, whether they view it that way or not. All four in my opinion are justified and legal. I do believe we need to start pulling out slowly and handing the security situation over more and more to the Iraqi military/police, but whether you think we're there for good or bad, we're in it now and we have to stick it out, finishing what we started. It's completely out of line to say our troops are dying for no reason. They have a reason, they have a cause, and even though some of you may hate Bush, don't disrespect the men and women in the military by saying that they're dying for nothing. That takes disrespect to an entirely different level.

I strongly disagree.
I think allowing our troops to get killed for nothing is much worst then specking a truth that might be painful to hear.

If the government would have listened to the people screaming this is blood for oil and not thinking of them as the far left weirdos we would not have wasted so many lives and resources.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

his previous experience working in the party woul have earned him a reputation

His previous experience is one term as governer in Texas. Oh yeah...and having a daddy.

Getting elected has zero to do with your accomplishments and everything to do with politics. Rove is a political mastermind.

[Zenister 0]

because they were ordered to do so...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Why are thousands murdered every year in the US... but we still bring those who have committed the crime to justice.
...etc...

But what we're doing in Iraq right now is akin to sticking a guy in the middle of a whorehouse indefinitely and pouncing on him for solicitation as soon as he touches a woman. It might not be something he would have otherwise done, but we damn near forced him into it. Many of these people who we're killing as terrorists now weren't terrorists before we went and invaded their/their neighbor's sovereign country.

Quote

Why do more than 90% of the military and their families support this war in Iraq...

Honestly? I'm sure many do just because they have to. The alternative is too unpleasant, and the human brain is kinda funny that way.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

No question that about oil?

Where is the proof?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Where is the proof?

Paul Wolfowitz said so. See above.

[kallend 2,148]

Prior to 9/11/01 Bush had no identifiable foreign policy. 9/11 was a Godsend to Bush. He was presented a foreign policy on a platter by the 9/11 terrorists. The invasion of Iraq was an inevitable part of it.

We invaded Iraq because that's all he could think to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Prior to 9/11/01 Bush had no identifiable foreign policy.

Unlike his clear and incontrovertible domestic policy, right? How is that whold SS, medicaire, no child left behind, deficit cutting plan working out?