Why?

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Azazel
Personally, If Saddam didn't have any WMD, he's the biggest ******* in the world ever, for interfering with weapons' inspectors for the entire 90s, and keeping the sanctions on. He should've let them do their work, as fast as possible, and then he could've got out of the inspections regime, and become very powerful once again.

Wouldn't have made a difference after 9/11 happened.

The Administration would've probably cooked up another reason for invading regardless of whether he was fully compliant with inspections or not.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

All the ruckus about Iraq begun shortly before midterm elections, at a time when Americans wondered why Bin Laden hadn't been founded yet. For a long time, the threat to Iraq (and then the actual war) was a Wag the Dog operation. I personally expect them to "discover" damning evidence of Saddam's HorribleHorribleOMGOMG WMD during the campaign.

Get rid of this paragraph and you have a pretty insightful post there, Spiff.

I think this paragraph ha a lot of truth to it, though not for the reasons stated. What was the main news topic of last summer? Enron, and co, and Bush's own malfeasance in Harken, etc. (of which, despite Ari Flescher's assurances, the Prez was never cleared). It also ut the Democrats on the defensive about defense and allowed the Republicans to pick up a few key Senate positions.

Course, if that was all there was to it, they could have simply let it slide after the inspectors were in. I expect this had more to do with the timing than the motives, since they had been planning on going to war with Iraq since before the Prez was appointed.

[Jack_www]

Re: Why?

Originally posted by carnide_
CNN - Casualties

Is this the way to win the global war on terrorism?

Can someone explain to me the * REAL * reasons to attack Iraq? Terrorism was not one of them, for sure.

Why was Iraq attacked? Afghanistan was a real target for the war on terror, but Iraq?

Because WMD? What WMD?

I remember well that the main reason was the WMD. It appears now that there was no WMDs, but that they had some short of program going, I am not sure if they could rebuild any of their WMD they had before the first gulf war or not. It also appears that Saddam's own people may have trick him into thinking he had WMD's or he wanted to pretend he had them and apear as if he was more then he was.

What I think happened was that Sadam did not have any WMDs. THat he try and did trick the CIA and other intelligence agencies that he had WMDs and that he had the millitary force to defend his country agaisnt the US, and that he could call their bluff. But Bush was not bluffing this time, and Sadam over estimated the strength of his own armed forces.

[Jack_www]

ANd 390 dead for a conflict is very, very low. Just compare this figure with the thousands to millions that dies in past wars the US has fought.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Why?

Originally posted by Jack_www
I remember well that the main reason was the WMD. It appears now that there was no WMDs, but that they had some short of program going,

According to the preliminary report, all Iraq was trying to do was retain the capability to restart a program quickly if another war with Iran broke out. It seems rather clear now that there was quite of a bit of evidence that this was the case and that U.S. intelligence was aware that this may have been the case. The Administration, however, decided to ignore any contradictory evidence that might harm its lust for war.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Jack_www
ANd 390 dead for a conflict is very, very low. Just compare this figure with the thousands to millions that dies in past wars the US has fought.

1 person is too many

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Dissident


1 person is too many

Sadly this unrealistic. When ever US armed forces go they will suffer deaths, what ever the cause because of the dangers that go with the job. They only way to aviod deaths is to use robots, but I dont think they have the technology to do that yet.

[Spec]

Still debating this?! Wikk it ever end?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Spec
Still debating this?! Wikk it ever end?

not until the next war which should occur next year sometime.

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If Saddam admitted to not having any BCN weapons, what would stop Iranians from storming across the border?

Don't forget, the Iraqi army was already weakened, and there's probably no hope of outside help.

Don't forget, Iraq's previous use of chemical weapons didn't stop Iran.

[st_swithin]

Maybe it was the site of the original 01 and the humans really are bent on destroying the machines.

[Whaleboy]

Good TV

[Tripledoc]

I can't believe all the crap. The war was about MONEY. All wars are about money, more precisely the kind of money used in international trade, that is reserve currency.

Now, Saddam had decided in the Year of the Lord 2000, to shift his oil revenues from Dollars to Euros. So what is the problem? Well the problem is that every little country on this God forsaken Earth pays for their oil in Dollars. That is the way it is because that was how it was decided it should be. That means that every measly little nation is willing to accept large quantitites of otherwise totally useless Dollars in exchange for their goods exported to the US, beacuse they need Dollars to buy oil. Since Saddam decided, out of spite, that he was not going to play that particular game anymore, he shifted to Euros. What that meant that suddenly the US Dollar lost a lot of its credibility, since now it was not neccesary to hold Dollars in order to buy oil. Now, if all oil-producing countries decided to follow suit, then the Dollar would be absolutely useless. Therefore the invasion was a message which basicly said that if people will not accept the Dollars as the accepted international form of payment in oil, well then they will simply be invaded. Consider this. If in fact all oil was shifted to Euro payment the European Union could do the same as the federal bank. Just kept on expanding the money supply and laugh all the way to the bank. The Euro would never decline no matter the supply - no the price in oil would rise. See.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Spec
Still debating this?! Wikk it ever end?

Hi Spec !
Glad to see you ? I was recently wondering what was happening to you ! How's the life in your RX7 these last months ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Therefore the invasion was a message which basicly said that if people will not accept the Dollars as the accepted international form of payment in oil, well then they will simply be invaded.

This may very well have entered in the equation, as an element of the fading power of the US, but I hardly think it was a main reason, let alone the only reason.

The supremacy of the dollar is good for the US, but it is much responsibility as well. If they dreaded the Euro so much, they'd have take steps to avoid the creation of the Euro altogether.