Why did we go over there?

[quadrophenic_9]

You're talking to the wrong person by the way. She's been against the war from the very start. Trust me, you should have heard the shouting match between her and her dad. You almost seem to be insinuating that Americans like war. Just be more mindful of how you throw around accusations.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Okay excuse me for busting in here without reading all the posts and forgive me if someone has already responded but holy carp, I just can't take the spin here. Are the memories so short? Is it that you weren't there when it happened? You can't Google? What?

I thought most Americans were given the impression Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

No, no, no, no. Show me ANYTHING coming out of GW's mouth saying "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11" before making such broad brush claims. Please.

Then it changed to WMD's, vaguely - the Bush administration still seemed to hint Iraq was involved in 9/11.

When. Where. Links, quotes, anything. It is you who is being vague, not the Bush administration.

Then it changed to helping the Iraqi people who were going to welcome US soldiers with flowers, even in the south where they credit the United States with their suffering as much as they do Saddam Hussein (note the British were installed there pretty quick? Hahaha).

Now it seems to be you're there because... you're there? And if you leave, things could get... hmmm... bad? You know, more so. Or something.

Sure, I'll bite. I guess if one has not an iota of concern for the Iraqi people we could all just shrug our shoulders and walk away. I'd sure like to talk myself into believing nothing bad would happen to all the people who have worked with or been associated with the U.S, all the terrorists and suicide bombers would just go somewhere else, and the Iraqi people would finally be able to live peaceful and prosperous lives. I guess that's one person's idea of justice and honor. Why not just pull out all of our troops tomorrow? Well, maybe I'm the only one here that remembers or has been educated about the Fall of Saigon.

For one thing, tearful women were handing their babies to U.S. soldiers begging them to take them away from there. They knew what to expect.

 

[Bishka]

No, no, no, no. Show me ANYTHING coming out of GW's mouth saying "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11" before making such broad brush claims. Please.

For goodness sakes, give the girl a break. She said 'she thought' that's why. We aren't in Europe and we don't know what they hear from their media over there. It's a simple mistake no need to get up in arms about it.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe that Bush himself really knows why he invaded Iraq.

There was a meeting held in the oval office about whether or not to invade Iraq. Bush, Chaney, and a few of Bush's "yes men" (advisors who never disagree with Bush, like Condoleza Rice, etc.) were there. At some point Chaney said that: "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about our analysis, Cheney said. It's about our response."

Because George Bush is basically an idiot who thinks he's smart, he was impressed by this statement of irrational extremism. And because Bush routinely surrounds himself only with underlings who will never contradict or disagree with him, no one else in the room pointed out the foolishness of Cheney's statement, either. And thus it became known as the "Cheney Doctrine" within the Bush administration, and became the modus operendi for the Bush administration regarding iraq.

Now, if we look a little more closely at this ridiculous statement of Cheney's we would realize that it's complete nonsense. By Cheney's logic, if there is even a one percent chance that we will be invaded by space aliens from another planet, then Cheney is saying that we must prepare ourselves for such an eventuality as though it were an inevitable certainty. This is, of course, patently insane, foolish, irrational, and functionally absurd. But Bush is too stupid to cognate this, and I have to guess that somewhere in Bush's heart he WANTED to hear justification for invading Iraq, so to Bush this nonsense passed as wisdom. And no one in the room bothered to point out how ridiculous this statement was because they all were more interested in being Bush's yes men than they were interested in reason or truth.

But did Cheney know how stupid his own statement was? Good question. Perhaps he was just spouting off to hear the sound of his own self-important words, and there was no one else in the room to point out how nonsensical they were. Or perhaps he knew Bush is an idiot, and that Bush's 'advisors' would say nothing, and so Cheney was planting the justification that he knew Bush was looking for in his head. But if so, why? Why would Chaeney want to invade Iraq?

We're never going to get answers for these questions because Bush is too stupid and egotistical to even recognize that he was duped, and because Cheney is too clever to ever tell us the truth about why he wanted America to invade Iraq. The fact that Halliberton, Cheney's old company, and his cronies, have made billions of dollars from the invasion of Iraq probably has a something to do with it, though.

But in truth I suspect it all has more to do with dumb ego even than it has to do with money. Cheney has loads of money. His friends all have loads of money, too. None of them need any more money. So I think it just comes down to hubris. They did it because they could. They did it because they have that much power, and they did it because we the American people have allowed them to gain that much power. Bush is a moron. I don't think he's even conscious of his own reasoning. Maybe Bush did it because his father didn't. And he (like some adolescent) wanted to differentiate himself from his father by finishing the job his father did not finish in the first Iraq war. Or maybe Bush thinks he got a message from God, to invade Iraq, and to bring democracy and Christianity to the heathen hoards over there (Bush doesn't seem to fully recognize the difference between what he thinks is democracy and his religion). Who knows? My bet is that he doesn't know himself. But he's just an puppet, anyway. That's why the republican party ran him instead of McCain, who would have won the election handily. They knew they couldn't control McCain, and that they could easily control Bush, because Bush is an idiot and a fool.

So asking why Bush invaded Iraq is asking about the wrong person. Better to ask why the republican party, specifically men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Rove why they invaded Iraq. But they aren't going to answer. They're going to throw it back on Bush. That's why they wanted Bush to be their puppet-president in the first place. That's what Bush is for.

 

[Scuba Pete]

There are probably more than a few reasons for the Haliburton War but I will bring out two:

1) We could NOT find Osama. Shrub needed a new scape goat to cover his inability to bring this man to justice.

2) Haliburton was short on cash. Nothing like a made to order war with the Pres in your pocket to rectify this situation.

Both Republicans and Democrats were caught in the Jingoistic ferver and signed a bill stating that War would be the LAST resort. Shrub then jumped on this and made war his absolute FIRST choice and the rest of this history is coated in the blood of our dedicated soldiers, the blood of innocents as well as some blood of truly evil people.

 

[kai]

again we get lots of theories when we already know the reasons were WMDs and regime change, i think the WMD charges was second to regime change to the US! even now there was no WMD bush feels justification in regime change so does Blair

 

[spacemonkey]

again we get lots of theories when we already know the reasons were WMDs and regime change, i think the WMD charges was second to regime change to the US! even now there was no WMD bush feels justification in regime change so does Blair

The WMD's and regime change were the reasons given, that doesn't mean they were the real driving force. Politicians start wars so that the corporations that payed for their campaigns can divy up our tax dollars among themselves.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

again we get lots of theories when we already know the reasons were WMDs and regime change

I think most people can tell the difference between reasons and excuses.

If you want to find the reasons for this war, you can't look at it in isolation. You have to look at it together with every other war this country has fought against some itty-bitty third world countries since the second world war: Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Gulf War I, etc.

The reasons are probably the same.

They tell alcoholics and drug addicts that the first step to recovery is to recognise their addiction. I suppose it works the same way for an addiction to war.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Look. You can choose to believe we invaded Iraq because

A. George W. Bush et al is (stupid, crazy, insecure, on a madman's quest to finish what his father started, in bed with oil companies who want to take control of the Middle East, ____ ) (or fill in the blank), or
B. OUR invasion of Iraq with the help of 40 other countries was predicated upon a series of historial events, the nature and scope of which is easily ascertained by accessing public documents and a cursory review of same:

1.
Since the conclusion of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the US, and the UK remained poor. In the absence of a Security Council consensus that Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire, both the UN and the US enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq (see, Iraq sanctions) throughout the Clinton administration.

2.
The U.S. and the UK patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones that they had declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shi'ites in the south. The no-fly zone was contested however by Iraqi military helicopters and planes on numerous occasions.[11][12] The United States Congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998 (during the Clinton administration) after Iraq had terminated its cooperation with the U.N. in August, which provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" in order to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."[13]

3.
Weapons inspectors had been used to gather information on Iraq's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) program and to enforce the terms of the 1991 cease fire, which forbade Iraq from developing WMD. The information was used in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox, a US and UK bombardment of Iraq in December 1998 (during the Clinton administration) which was precipitated by lack of cooperation between Iraq and the UN weapon inspections team.[15][16]

4.
The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi.[17] Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[18]

Source

 

[!Fluffy!]

==================================================
Also siginificant:
On October 11, 2002, the United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", giving U.S. President George W. Bush the authority, under US law, to attack Iraq if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and abide by previous UN resolutions on human rights, POWs, and terrorism. On November 9, 2002, at the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" if these are not met and reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors that were to report back to the UN Security Council after their inspection should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.

 

[spacemonkey]

Clinton's policy was never that of invasion, take it from someone who participated in Operation Desert Fox http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_fox.htm.

(BTW I love the Faith+1 lyrics in your sig)

 

[!Fluffy!]

Well as to Clinton's intentions that wasn't my point.

BTW I love the Faith+1 lyrics in your sig)

Yeah, they got it from ME

 

[kai]

totally astounding that some people put the blame on Bush,are you trying to tell me that your president can arrange deployment of troops on such a scale invade another country all on his own, and from what i remember saddam was just taking the **** for years, if the Iraqis had grasped freedom by the horns everybody would be patting him on the back.

as for wmds most of the world beleived he had them, saddam was playing and got called its called brinkmanship, he thought he could scare his neighbours and play the UN for fools and he did for years

 

[!Fluffy!]

totally astounding that some people put the blame on Bush,are you trying to tell me that your president can arrange deployment of troops on such a scale invade another country all on his own, and from what i remember saddam was just taking the **** for years, if the Iraqis had grasped freedom by the horns everybody would be patting him on the back.

as for wmds most of the world beleived he had them, saddam was playing and got called its called brinkmanship, he thought he could scare his neighbours and play the UN for fools and he did for years

Yeah, how quickly was THIS forgotten:

THE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT -1998-
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agree following the First Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed in the House [2] and Senate [3] and signed into law by the US President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

 

[gnomon]

I believe the stated reason for the U.S. (and others) invasion of Iraq was that Iraq had violated the cease-fire resolution by maintaining WMD's and continued funding of terrorist organizations (not necessarily Al-Qeada). The cease-fire agreement was pretty clear that Iraq must disable all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons development and destroy any stockpiles of WMD's present at the time the cease-fire was put into place.

It was deemed that Iraq was in material breach of the cease-fire agreement. The United States, without going with the Security Council on determining whether coercion or some other method should be used to deal with Iraq's failure to comply, decided to use military force stating pre-emptive self-defense for it's reason of invasion. This strategy was approved by Congress. Congress gave the President full authority:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Some of the reasons Congress stated for granting the use of military force seem highly debatable. Such as Al-Qaida members within Iraq. The actual existence of WMD's.



Now it seems to rest solely on the claim that Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests. This does not specifically mean Saddam was a threat to the U.S. mainland and population but a threat to our interests abroad. I guess that's where oil, Haliburton, etc. comes into the picture.

I still disagree with the use of military force and subsequent nation building in Iraq. Now if it had been a Security Council decision with China, Russia and other primary members participating due to the reason of Iraq's failure to comply with the cease-fire resolutions. But I disagree with the whole concept of nation building. You would think the horrendous involvement of the U.S. in the affairs of South American nations started by Wilson are lesson enough.


I would expect someone else might be able to provide a much better interpretation. I'm just looking at the "official" reasons. I admit my ignorance on much of the issue.



Last, the Michael Moore version of events has left me completely unimpressed. His claims seem to lack the actual evidence. Of course, I never made it past the halfway mark of his last docoumentary.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The fact remains the acts of the current administration were predicated upon historial events as laid out in posts #29, #30, and #34, specifically numerous UN resolutions and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Clinton Administration) and not in a vacuum as some would have us believe.

 

[spacemonkey]

It's intresting that all of you are posting "regime change" as the reason for invasion because we (the US) are the ones who put that regime into power. Actually it was H.W. Bush that put him in place when he was head of the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld that sold him the weapons that he had.

 

[!Fluffy!]

It's intresting that all of you are posting "regime change" as the reason for invasion because we (the US) are the ones who put that regime into power. Actually it was H.W. Bush that put him in place when he was head of the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld that sold him the weapons that he had.

Again, that's not the point and doesn't go to answering the OP.

"Regime Change" is not the entire reason given by ME or anyone else here, but ONE of the reasons as stated within the Clinton Administration's Iraq Liberation Act as quoted in previous posts, which was supported and enacted by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

It wouldn't be the first time a previously supported regime went sour anyway. Like I said, that wasn't the point of the OP.

If you want to start another thread fine, hopefully it will contain plenty of linked resources.

 

[doppelganger]

The fact remains the acts of the current administration were predicated upon historial events as laid out in posts #29, #30, and #34, specifically numerous UN resolutions and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Clinton Administration) and not in a vacuum as some would have us believe.

And it was still incredibly short-sighted, poorly-planned, poorly executed, expensive, rife with corruption and sold to the public with significant misrepresentations about the "evidence" of WMD, and outright false claims that Sadaam was somehow connected to 9/11. It has turned out be what Bush, Sr. and his advisers had prediced it would be when they choose not to depose Sadaam after the Kuwait war - a religious civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

It has drawn us away from the terrorist strongholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan, distracted from the implentation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations to improve security, cost nearly 3000 U.S. servicemen's lives and tens of thousands more who are seriously injured or maimed, not to mention civilian casualties that may be in the hundreds of thousands. It has destabilized the region, and created a natural ally to the Shi'ia government of Iran.

It was a stupid idea, regardless of who supported it.

 

[!Fluffy!]

And it was still incredibly short-sighted, poorly-planned, poorly executed, expensive, rife with corruption and sold to the public with significant misrepresentations about the "evidence" of WMD, and outright false claims that Sadaam was somehow connected to 9/11. It has turned out be what Bush, Sr. and his advisers had prediced it would be when they choose not to depose Sadaam after the Kuwait war - a religious civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

It has drawn us away from the terrorist strongholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan, distracted from the implentation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations to improve security, cost nearly 3000 U.S. servicemen's lives and tens of thousands more who are seriously injured or maimed, not to mention civilian casualties that may be in the hundreds of thousands. It has destabilized the region, and created a natural ally to the Shi'ia government of Iran.

It was a stupid idea, regardless of who supported it.

Easily enough said, hindsight being 20/20. I find it disengenous the number of left leaning politicians and talking heads who have spent the last several years distancing them from their own historical participation in the events as they unfolded over a period of years.

Be that as it may: the op question regarding why we are there and some of the incredibly biased and uninformed responses have been thoroughly addressed.

The fact remains the acts of the current administration were predicated upon historial events as laid out in posts #29, #30, and #34, specifically numerous UN resolutions and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Clinton Administration) and not in a vacuum as some would have us believe.