Why did we go over there?

[!Fluffy!]

Perhaps you should read every post before posting yourself. I gave the reason why we are there in post #18, everything I've posted since then has been in response to you.

I did read every post before posting myself.
Your post #18:

Because war is big buisness, and republicans work for the corporations. Haliburtion gets no bid contracts to provide supplies, large contracting companies get no bid contracts to rebuild Iraq (they then sub-contract the work out to local construction companies for much less and get money for nothing), Exxon gets oil, military contractors get money to make weapons, basically the wealthiest people in the country divy up our taxes among themselves.

Is EXACTLY what I was referring to.

Short on facts, long on rhetoric. Why are we there?

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.

 

[dawny0826]

He was a bad guy, we are at war with terrorists and those that harbor and support terrorists, Saddam is a son of a *****, so we took him out. The world is a better place without he and his cronies running things, and will be much better off when fascists like him are dealt with.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Saddam is a son of a *****, so we took him out. The world is a better place without he and his cronies running things, and will be much better off when fascists like him are dealt with.

Ditto that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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,

I would suggest that you read the history of Vietnam war. Not the revisionist histories: the real deal. This was indeed propogated by MANY presidents and NEVER declared as a war.

 

[spacemonkey]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that things in Iraq are better now that Saddam is no longer in power?:biglaugh:

Thats just rediculous, I refuse to continue this conversation.

 

[Bishka]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that things in Iraq are better now that Saddam is no longer in power?:biglaugh:

Thats just rediculous, I refuse to continue this conversation.

For some people it's much better, and just because you can't contribute to a conversation doesn't make it ridiculous.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The only reason US and the willing coalition (actually there is only one the British) were there is to continue to secure and consolidate her control over the middle east (Why? for the black gold there).

The following reasons are created just to fool the world:
(1) To liberate the Iraqi people from the dictator Sadam Hussein
(2) To eliminate the source of terrorists so that these terrorists will not bring another 9/11 to America
(3) To stop Sadam from using his WMD he has made over the years.
(4) To prevent Sadam from making nuclear weapon and WMD which will be used against the democractic free world
(5) To stop the Islamic fundamentalists from becoming dominant power in middle east
(6) To teach the Iraqi people about freedom, democracy, and hence lead a good life, and elect their president like Bush or Kerry (oh no, he did not make it), and have some Enron incidents happening in Iraq as well. Then they can do similar tragedy like Kennedy murder etc.
Shall I go on some more?

 

[doppelganger]

For some people it's much better.

Halliburton and Exxon?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Unfortunately, if you support the President, you MUST support the war. The need for this war is so imbedded into his "reality" of the world and it has become the essential reason for his presidency. As predicted, he will be known as the "War President" by many. I will be glad when Shrub is gone!

 

[Capt. Haddock]

He was a bad guy, we are at war with terrorists and those that harbor and support terrorists, Saddam is a son of a *****, so we took him out. The world is a better place without he and his cronies running things, and will be much better off when fascists like him are dealt with.

Wait, are we at war against terrorists and those who support them, or are we at war against sons of *******?
Either way, a war based on such vaguely defined premises is a war which will last forever and which cannot be won.
Just as there will always be criminals and liars in the world, there will always be terrorists and there will always be sons of *******.
Fighting a permanent war against everybody and anybody we don’t happen to like is a recipe for national suicide.

The Iraqi people have the opportunity to be a free people. And THAT is justification enough for me.

Ja, let’s see when we’re going to fight for the freedom of the Chinese, the Turkmens or the Saudi Arabians. Don't hold your breath.

It’s more than a little disingenuous to believe we are fighting for the “freedom” of Iraqis by removing their dictator at the very same time that we enable dictators elsewhere.

 

[gnomon]

The only reason US and the willing coalition (actually there is only one the British) were there is to continue to secure and consolidate her control over the middle east (Why? for the black gold there).

The following reasons are created just to fool the world:
(1) To liberate the Iraqi people from the dictator Sadam Hussein
(2) To eliminate the source of terrorists so that these terrorists will not bring another 9/11 to America
(3) To stop Sadam from using his WMD he has made over the years.
(4) To prevent Sadam from making nuclear weapon and WMD which will be used against the democractic free world
(5) To stop the Islamic fundamentalists from becoming dominant power in middle east
(6) To teach the Iraqi people about freedom, democracy, and hence lead a good life, and elect their president like Bush or Kerry (oh no, he did not make it), and have some Enron incidents happening in Iraq as well. Then they can do similar tragedy like Kennedy murder etc.
Shall I go on some more?

Actually you need to go on because I've been curious as to what evidence exists that the United States is trying to control the Middle East. Of course this is dependant on how much control you are talking about.

 

[Pardus]

The story i heard was that saddam was going to sell his oil in euros instead of american dollars, and whilst one country doing that isn't a big deal, all of them possibly following suit is.

Something to do with every barrel of oil sold boosting the american economy beyond what it is really capable of.

 

[gnomon]

The story i heard was that saddam was going to sell his oil in euros instead of american dollars, and whilst one country doing that isn't a big deal, all of them possibly following suit is.

Something to do with every barrel of oil sold boosting the american economy beyond what it is really capable of.

That makes more sense.

I think many people mistakenly believe that the U.S. relies on Gulf oil for our own consumption. We don't. But trying to control the largest export market in the world and thereby holding influence on those nations which do import (Eurpean nations, Japan) from the Middle East makes sense.

I'm still trying to learn all of these nuances of this country's foreign policy in the Middle East. Apparently supporting Iraq in their war with Iran was one method to keep either of those nations from gaining control of the Gulf nations. When Saddam overran Kuwait the U.S. shifted policy to contain Iraqi aggression and once again prevent one Middle Eastern nation from controlling the oil market.

Unfortunately, I still don't know enough and I'm not sure if I ever will know everything there is too U.S. foreign policy in that region. Anyone with any good, detailed information would be great. Most people give me oversimplified racial or religious reasons that do not make any sense at all.

 

[gnomon]

It is far simpler. He was a bad guy, we are at war with terrorists and those that harbor and support terrorists, Saddam is a son of a *****, so we took him out. The world is a better place without he and his cronies running things, and will be much better off when fascists like him are dealt with.

We support the Saudi regime. We sell prodigious amounts of military equipment to that regime. Saudi Arabia is guilty of human rights abuses. They are not a democracy. Terrorists are born and raised in that nation. There is a legitimate complaint against the U.S. in supporting the Saudi government. We kiss up to the royal family. They buy property and pursue business ventures inside this country as well as around the world.

If we are in the business of removing SOB's, regimes which are counter to democracy, nations which breed terrorism then why didn't we bomb Riyadh to the ground.

There were and still are many African dictators the world could do without but the Western nations have done nothing. After the turn-tail-and-run actions in Somalia back in the early '90's I don't understand how the United Nations or the United States has any credibility left at all.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

As long as we're on the subject of SOB's, let's not forget our good friend Mr. Niyazov of Turkmenistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyazov

This fine fellow, who has renamed the months of the calendar after himself and his mother, is the Kim Jong Il of Central Asia, and makes Saddam look like a girl scout by comparison.

But he's granted oil and gas concessions to US and European companies, so he's cool.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Actually you need to go on because I've been curious as to what evidence exists that the United States is trying to control the Middle East. Of course this is dependant on how much control you are talking about.

Sure, glad to oblige you since I have some time tonight.
Please do a bit of research and reading on this web page to gain background information:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=1
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=region&regionId=7War is Peace - by Michael Carmichael - 2006-10-06

Then you may try to read some fun article from this web:
http://emperors-clothes.com/iraq-iran.htm

(1) The war in Iraq, especially the real relationship of the US and Iran, now and in recent years.
(2) Indications that the real strategy behind the seeming war on terror is the creation of a continuous line of Islamist states from Saudi Arabia to the former Soviet Central Asian republics.
(3) Does the US establishment have a hostile attitude towards Islam, as many believe? Or does it view Islam as a tool to make the world inhospitable for forces which might seriously challenge domination by the US establishment?​

Then you may enjoy reading the oil empire theory:
(1) Peak Oil http://www.oilempire.us/peakoil.html
(2) 9/11 http://www.oilempire.us/911.html
(3) and the WWIV http://www.oilempire.us/worldwar4.html​

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
--Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

"What's happening with Iraq is not isolated, it's part of a global phenomenon. When we see the installation of U.S. military bases throughout Latin America, when we look at [American interference] in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia and Panama, we have to ask ourselves what's going on.
"Lots of people think it and won't say it, but I will say it: [SIZE=+1]The United States is seeking to control the world. That's why we are seeing the reaction in so many countries.[SIZE=+1]"[/SIZE]
-- Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1980) Adolfo Perez Esquivel
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-01.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whole World Feels Effect of US Intent, Activist Says[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The chief threat to the world today is not Iraq, but the United States, Argentine activist says ​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Timothy Appleby[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Bush administration's drive to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is so aggressive that even before a war has started its repercussions are being felt in every corner of the world, says Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Perez Esquivel.

Nobel Peace Prize recipient Adolfo Perez Esquivel listens to a discussion titled: "A world without wars is possible" during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Sunday, Feb. 3, 2002. (AP Photo/Douglas Engle)
The Argentine, who won the 1980 Peace Prize, views President George W. Bush's plans for attacking Iraq with great alarm. "Bush is setting the world on fire," he said.
Mr. Perez Esquivel, a native of Buenos Aires, is an architect, sculptor and teacher. He won the 1980 prize for his resistance to Argentina's Dirty War against leftist rebels. Imprisoned and tortured, he was freed with help from Amnesty International and the Pope.
At 71, he leads the Latin American human-rights group Servicio, Paz y Justicia, and travels widely on behalf of the antiwar movement. He has been in Toronto and Ottawa under the auspices of the church group KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.
[/FONT]
[/SIZE]



But the neo con may be closer to the truth:
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/neo-cons/index.asp

Iraq​

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases? ​

Move your mouse over the 'x' for details of the permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.4
(Text only version)

And last but not least, go to Anyscientologist posts to find out about the force behind President Bush, an invisible hand of the formidable ALIENS
​

 

[gnomon]

Thanks for the response greatcalgarian. I will admit my hesitancy in looking at some of the sources but will admit that my lack of historical knowledge on the subject does require that I look into them.

If I decide to research something I plan on being thorough and like to start as far back in historical literature as I possibly can so...I guess it will be some time before I feel comfortable giving adequate information on the topic.

Quite a bit of time actually.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Thanks for the response greatcalgarian. I will admit my hesitancy in looking at some of the sources but will admit that my lack of historical knowledge on the subject does require that I look into them.

If I decide to research something I plan on being thorough and like to start as far back in historical literature as I possibly can so...I guess it will be some time before I feel comfortable giving adequate information on the topic.

Quite a bit of time actually.

This is a better place to start learning about historical US foreign policy, and it is recent, not too far back in history.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

Imperial Federation Map of the World, 1886
Source: Royal Geographical Society
Evolving Empire


The development of the US “empire” arguably began in the 18th and 19th centuries with the westward expansion of the seaboard colonies and military campaigns against the indigenous North Americans. What began as continental expansion, however, later turned to seizure of overseas territories, e.g. Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico. Justifications always relied heavily on religious and moral doctrines of superiority, righteousness, and “manifest destiny.” This site looks at the evolution of the US empire through comparisons with other historical empires, and also contains information about US involvement in Latin America, East Asia, Africa and the Middle East. A selection of historical documents and maps, depicting the individual steps of expansion on the North American Continent and beyond, is available as well.

 

[Ciscokid]

Yeah, he sorta went over congresses head if I remember correctly. I'm not sure how that works. That or congress was so ****** when the towers came down that they gave him the go ahead and changed their minds later. They're politicians, they can do that you know.

From what I remember, the Chief Commander of the US army [president] has full power. He doesn't need anyone's permission to go to war. I could be wrong but that's how they explained it in the military.

 

[Ciscokid]

From my perspective I was so angry with whomever attacked us. I had no idea who they were but I entrusted the Bush administration with their "intelligence". I more than happy that we were going to war because I wanted someone to pay.

These days I see things a lot differently. I'm not against war...It's just that I've realized that we went about this the wrong way. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 911.