[SPasse]

Hi All,

Here is my short version of why we went into Iraq.

1 Yes it was also for the Oil.

2 We are going to have a resource war with China.

3 Bush wanted to go in, knock off the Bath Party & establish bases for the coming military struggle.

4 Justification; who would we be staling the oil from in any case? The "average joe" never sees the oil revenue in any of these countries anyhow. Our companies could go in there and push more money into the Iraq economy that any typical government would.

5 WMDs; you could argue that one interminably.

Could Bush have been more forthright? Give the politics & intellectual realities, probably not.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

Hi All,

Here is my short version of why we went into Iraq.

1 Yes it was also for the Oil.

We went into Iraq as part of our plan to dominate Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the southern Russian Republics around the Caspian Sea. We need to control the entire Middle East and all it's oil. This is spelled out by Progress for the New American Century (PNAC), that cabal of neoconservatives (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Irv Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, etc.) who have been planning this war for the past decade. They were frustrated for eight years because of the Democratic victories in 1992 and 1996. All they needed was a pony to ride back into the White House and they found one in George W. Bush.

2 We are going to have a resource war with China.

The entire world is going to have a resource war. You could say that it has already begun. PNAC recognized this many years ago, which is why they want to dominate the Middle East.

3 Bush wanted to go in, knock off the Bath Party & establish bases for the coming military struggle.

Bush wanted to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the attempt on Poppy's life. Bush thinks he has been chosen by God to lead this "crusade" (his word) against the "evildoers." Cheney & Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq to establish control of the entire region's oil resources. September 11th. was just the excuse they were looking for to realize their plans. On September 17, 2001, the Department of Defense began planning the invasion of Iraq.

4 Justification; who would we be staling the oil from in any case? The "average joe" never sees the oil revenue in any of these countries anyhow. Our companies could go in there and push more money into the Iraq economy that any typical government would.

You're losing me here. Are you saying that we're doing this because we wanted to help Iraq's economy? Haha!

5 WMDs; you could argue that one interminably.

We stopped the UN inspectors from doing their job because we suspected that there might not be any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq. We wanted to make sure that we got to invade regardless of whether Saddam had WMDs or not. That's why we kept trying to tie Saddam to 9/11.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

I wanted to kick off this discussion with simple "bullet points", thanks for expounding on them.

Let me reiterate #4, the Justification Comment.

My point is that from the material perspective of the common person in the Mid East, it really doesn't make any difference if some corrupt prince or one of our oil companies controls the oil recourses. Our oil companies might actually do a better job of growing the local economy. Of course, issues of national pride are a separate issue.

As far as differentiation between whether a particular policy is Chaney's or Bush's, it really doesn't make any difference - We get a "package deal"

Hegemony is a game that all countries play, starting with (insert ancient culture) up to the good old USA. No moral absolutes here, but as a generality, no country has shown more restraint in the use of it's military prowess than the US.

The world has (as always) a set of choices, go down it's present road, or move towards some sort of Star Trek "utopia".

As much as I would love to see a "Star Trek" world come about, my sense of cynicism tells me that is not to be. (At least without another dark age)

By the way, I voted for Bush.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

No moral absolutes here, but as a generality, no country has shown more restraint in the use of it's military prowess than the US.

We have NOT shown restraint. We have just shown MORE RESTRAINT than countries like Britain, Germany and Japan. This is sort of like saying we don't torture as much as Saddam did.

Look at what we did in the Philippines following the Spanish American War. Look at what we (Eisenhower) did in Iran five decades ago because we were afraid Iran was going to nationalize the British oil operations there. We gave them Reza Pahlavi. What a cruel tyrant he turned out to be.

Look at what we have done in Latin America for the past century. Look at how we stole Hawaii for the benefit of American companies there.

I hate to get into this line of discussion because it always ends bad.

Let's just say that we have a lot to regret but not as much as the British!

[SPasse]

Ninong,

Not to belabor a point but, but I did use the words "more restraint".

So I guess that we are at least evolving. (Evolution is not necessarily a straight line process)

No history lesson required, I am pretty much up to speed our "sins of the past"

One might also mention our overall record with Native Americans…

But just for a point of comparison, picture Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons.

Also, you might find this interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ink%5Fcode=xm2

Among his assertions is that we (US Troops) found:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium. (OK, How Enriched?)

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

Could be BS, worth some further investigation though. Not exactly cookie ingredients.

Also, I do find the administrations position on torture reprehensible. And moral issues aside:

1 It doesn't work.

2 It makes us look really bad.

Regards,

Scott

[schrocat]

As far as differentiation between whether a particular policy is Chaney's or Bush's, it really doesn't make any difference - We get a "package deal"

I predict in the future...Bush himself will be testifying on and "asserting" the differences between his and Cheney's "policies".

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

Ninong,

Not to belabor a point but, but I did use the words "more restraint".

I know you did. I just repeated it for emphasis.

Also, you might find this interesting:


Among his assertions is that we (US Troops) found:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium. (OK, How Enriched?)

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

Could be BS, worth some further investigation though. Not exactly cookie ingredients.

EVERYTHING that we found that would REMOTELY bolster the administration's pre-war claims about WMD was revealed by the administration IMMEDIATELY. In some cases, it was revealed before it was even identified, which proved embarrassing when they revised their press release the following day.

David Kay was appointed to investigate and search for Iraq's WMD because he was one of the most vocal hawks in the administration and one of Bush's strongest supporters. He ended his investigation as one of Bush's most vocal critics. He found nothing, or so he says. Nothing!

Also, I do find the administrations position on torture reprehensible. And moral issues aside:

1 It doesn't work.

2 It makes us look really bad.

And it destroys us as a country. The very idea that torture should be open to debate in this administration is unbelievable.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

Our companies could go in there and push more money into the Iraq economy that any typical government would.

Sort of like this?

[schrocat]

Scott,

Just an observation.

I am not lumping you with the "Ok. you got me. we did it for the oil" crowd...

But I'm starting to get a lot of that this last week...

It's a major flip flop IMO considering how much vitrol I've endured from friendly folks wanting to throw anyone who claimed such things (as recently as 6 months ago) under the wheels of the "Michael Moore" bus.

I'm just wondering what circumstances changed that now allow people to consider a premise that was "petty partisan sniping worthy of cranial tinfoil wrapping" in the very recent past...

It would seem the unthinkable is now becoming plausable.

[SPasse]

Schrocat,

I think that if Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he did not need to base so much (if any) of his case on the WMDs argument.

I think that he would have been able to just make any of the following cases to the American people.

1 Sadam is a bad man, sitting on top of the worlds 2nd largest reserve of crude oil. We need to go in and clean house for the economic stability of the industrialized world.

2 Sadam may or may not have WMDs at this moment. Past history has shown that he is working towards possessing them. (I.E. he didn't need to stick out his neck for the "immanent mushroom cloud" justification)

I guess that what I am saying is that he could have been more forthright about why we needed to go into Iraq. IMO I think that he would have been able to get the American to get behind him anyhow. I realize that I am vacillating on issue...

The way that he ended up going about this "campaign" just ended up playing into the hands of the "Air America" crowd.

Now another discussion is the "Bankrupt" energy policy that we have pursued ever since the beginning of the Regan administration. This is not "only" an environmentalist's perspective. IMO, it is in our strategic national interest to encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

I have a business partner that owned a company that designed and manufactured control electronics for solar cells, wind turbines etc. that had a thriving business; right up until Regan killed the Solar/Alternative Energy tax credit. Killing that tax credit was beyond stupid.

Not that we would necessarly do so, but it sure would be nice to be able to tell the entire middle East to "go pound sand". (Pun intended?)

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

The only threat that was new was the nuclear (or, if you prefer, nukular) threat. The Administration needed to convince the American public and the Europeans that Saddam was close to possessing nuclear weapons.

That's why both George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice famously said, "We can't wait for a smoking gun that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

That's why they needed to get the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq so that they could get on with the war that they had been planning for the past decade. They may have genuinely believed that Saddam still possessed a large cache of chemical and biological weapons and they may have genuinely believed that he was close to a nuclear weapons capability but they knew that they didn't have any REAL proof and the fact that the inspectors were coming up empty-handed was frustrating and threatening to their plans.

The event that really tipped things was when the U.N. inspectors showed up for a surprise inspection of Saddam's main palace complex in Baghdad, where EVERYTHING is kept, and found NOTHING. That's the gigantic complex that includes hundreds of buildings and warehouses, etc. That's when Kofi Annan was telling the Administration that it would help it we gave them the exact locations where these weapons could be found. The only problem with that is that the locations we relied on came to Curveball in a dream. We needed to put a halt to the U.N. inspections as fast as possible and get on with the war.

The nuclear threat was the one new threat that really tipped public opinion in favor of the preemptive strike. We had never before launched a major military operation with a preemptive strike against another nation. The Administration needed to convince the American public and the Europeans that Saddam might put one of his nuclear weapons on one of his balsa wood gliders and send it our way, or their way. Or he might stick one in a suitcase and put it on a Pan Am flight or give it to an al-Qaida operative.

I will admit that I was taken in by Colin Powell's little speech before the U.N. He seemed to believe what he was saying. Maybe he did. He's got his former Chief of Staff out there right now on every TV talkshow telling us how they lied to poor Colin. Colin was never one to rock the boat, which is how he got as high as he did. "Go along to get along" has been Colin's theme song ever since his second tour in Vietnam when, as Maj. Powell, he whitewashed his inspection reports. That was quite a feat considering it was the Americal Division.

Getting back to George W. Bush... Some people seemed to think that convincing the American public that Saddam was the bad guy who was trying to force the widow and five children off the ranch was all that was needed for George "John Wayne" Bush to ride to the rescue. Some people still think that way.

[SPasse]

Schrocat,

Something else to consider, propaganda is propaganda, something every administration uses to it's advantage. In other words, crank up the old propaganda machine to buy you as much "time" as possible. Push it until it breaks, fully expecting that it will break.

Now that even the Iraq government is asking us to leave, a quick about face by the administration is certainly possible.

I guess that I am pretty tortured politically; a fiscal conservative and a socially liberal on some issues.

I haven't had an easy time at the ballot box, since I started voting.

Three things that I see as a reoccurring theme:

1 Throwing money at a problem has only a small chance of solving a problem.

2 The American public has neither the stomach for a complex issue nor a protracted military struggle. (with no clear end in sight)

3 If the American people perceive that they have been hoodwinked, you’re a "done deal" politically. (perception is more important than reality)
Hence Bushes's current political difficulties; Lots of People feel hoodwinked.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

I haven't had an easy time at the ballot box, since I started voting.

Three things that I see as a reoccurring theme:

1 Throwing money at a problem has only a small chance of solving a problem.

3 If the American people perceive that they have been hoodwinked, you’re a "done deal" politically. (perception is more important than reality)
Hence Bushes's current political difficulties; Lots of People feel hoodwinked.

Suggested reading: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGBNFTM7H1.DTL

[SPasse]

Ninong,

"We had never before launched a major military operation with a preemptive strike against another nation."

Well, Iraq was an unfinished war. The first Gulf war ended in a cease fire, not an actual settlement. One of the terms of the cease fire was uninhibited right of inspection.

If nothing else, Sadam was really stupid. If he would have not messed with our vision of Middle East hegemony and order, he could have kept his despotic regime. We probably would have turned a blind eye.

I am convinced that there never was an Iraq/Al Keida alliance. Sadam was as afraid of Al Keida as he was of us.

I had an interesting discussion on this subject with a Palestinian friend of mine, discussing the religious "crusade" issues involved here also.

Regards,

Scott

[SPasse]

Ninong,

Lots of good quotes from that article that express much of what I feel:

It's terrible that in this country of so many good people,'' my father had explained, "how an election can come down to the lesser of two evils. You have to vote this time for who will do the least harm. Not the most good, but the least harm.

Pretty hard to improve on that…

The guy's stupid," he said. "Such a disappointment. The worst administration I've ever seen. He just sounds confused. He doesn't sound like he knows what the hell he's doing.

Well I don't like to use words like stupid when discussing the president. Lot of "broad brushing" going on here.

I don't think people, myself included, were clear on how good (Bill) Clinton was with the money,'' he said. "Why wouldn't the Republicans keep going with that? Instead we got tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Who's going to pay for all that? It's just irresponsible. I never thought (Bush) was the brightest guy in the world, but to go from a $300 billion surplus to a $500 billion deficit, or whatever it is, that's just stupid.

Well, this not so cut and dry. Lots of things to talk about here, but a summary would be to say that economic conditions today are the results of years of decisions and other factors. Still, Clinton wasn't totally clueless when it came to economics…

He doesn't blame Bush for believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but he says the mismanagement in the aftermath of the invasion is mind-boggling. Almost 2,100 Americans have been killed and more than 15,000 seriously wounded in Iraq. And now my father and the rest of the family have a personal stake in the war: His grandson, my sister Barbara's son, is a Marine serving near Fallujah.

Also a paragraph that you could spend lots of time discussing…

[i] He (Bush) said, 'I'm going to let Louisiana take care of itself.' You got that woman governor who doesn't know her ass from third base. You got his friend at the head of FEMA and the mayor of New Orleans who didn't know anything. You had Larry, Moe and Curly in there, and he's just waiting.

That is a great one paragraph summary…

And then he goes with that woman for the Supreme Court (Harriet Miers). 'I know in my heart she's a good person' -- what the hell does that got to do with it?

Yup, I'm still scratching my head over that one also.

"I never thought I'd say this, but I wouldn't vote for any Republican, even from Florida," he said. "We got to get the Republicans out and the Democrats in. We got to make sure they control Congress so Bush can't do whatever the hell he wants. You got to get the Democrats in there to knock his brains out so he'll just be a token figurehead.''

He said that in retrospect he should have thought about last year's election in a different way. He said he should have considered that a vote for John Kerry, whom he strongly disliked, was a vote not for an individual but for a Democratic administration. We needed a Democratic administration, he said, to keep in check a Republican Congress.

Well I'm not quite to that point, yet.

But I am a very unhappy, almost life long Republican.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

The Brits are all worked up about Lord Goldsmith invoking the Official Secrets Act against the press there to prevent them from publishing anything more about the minutes of Blair's meeting with Bush back around the time we were attacking Falluja. Reportedly Bush expressed a desire to bomb Al-Jazeera's Qatar headquarters but Blair talked him out of it.

Money quote: "Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?"

(Very interesting comments by a Tory MP who supported the war.)

"It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government's rubbish about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show. Some of us were so innocent as to suppose that the Pentagon had a well-thought-out plan for the removal of the dictator and the introduction of peace."

You can read the rest of it here on his website:

http://www.boris-johnson.com/archive...nd_al-jaz.html

[Ninong]

Is this why we went into Iraq?

Video-WMP

Video-QT

[Poseidon]

That video is rediculous! I can't imagine driving down the road, and having someone open fire on me!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

That video is rediculous! I can't imagine driving down the road, and having someone open fire on me!

Maybe they were tailgaiting? Did you ever think of that? Maybe they deserved it?

What's wrong with you guys? Saddam did much worse things! "Reprehensible and pernicious" things!

Civilian contractors are entitled to let off a little steam every now and then and film it, right? And post it on their website, right? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/27/172747/10

Privatizing the war has worked out so well.

P.S. -- This should give Al-Jazeera something else to run besides the story about the British memo that says Bush wanted to bomb their headquarters in Qatar.

[Ninong]

Just as I suspected. They were tailgating.

The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk. The website states: "This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company." The clips have been removed.

The website also contains a message from Lt Col Spicer, which reads: "I am concerned about media interest in this site and I remind everyone of their contractual obligation not to speak to or assist the media without clearing it with the project management or Aegis London.

"Refrain from posting anything which is detrimental to the company since this could result in the loss or curtailment of our contract with resultant loss for everybody."

Security companies awarded contracts by the US administration in Iraq adopt the same rules for opening fire as the American military. US military vehicles carry a sign warning drivers to keep their distance from the vehicle. The warning which appears in both Arabic and English reads "Danger. Keep back. Authorised to use lethal force." A similar warning is also displayed on the rear of vehicles belonging to Aegis.