Why did the US invade Iraq?

[Flip McWho]

Yeah doesn't help his credability really

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My PoV is the Bushies wanted to have a stronger influence over the Middle East, which has a large share of oil. Iraq was weak from a decade of sanctions and all that BCN stuff made a good excuse.

I see the action as cynical opportunistic. Then again I am pretty much a realist when it comes to international relations.

If it wasn't for Leo's OP that was quite clever I'd say Computers people should be stopped from talking politics.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Again, people who knew a hell of a lot more about Saddam, weapons programs, and Saddam's weapons programs than you, Bush, Blair, and all the posters on this board put together thought Saddam had them.

So shove the

Some actually bought the WMD bs.

bs.

Sorry, NYE, but it was clearly BS. That "experts" bought into it does not alter my view. The Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq for quite some time, but it took them a little while to dig up the justification. It is clear now (and sorry, it was clear at the time) that they cherry-picked information, discarding whatever clashed with their chosen course. The decision was made before the intelligence was ever reviewed. Therefore, the dog-and-pony show w/regard to WMDs was bull****.

I'm sorry you don't like my interpretation.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Because of all the fine Iraqi *****es..

JM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian

Sorry, NYE, but it was clearly BS. That "experts" bought into it does not alter my view. The Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq for quite some time, but it took them a little while to dig up the justification. It is clear now (and sorry, it was clear at the time) that they cherry-picked information, discarding whatever clashed with their chosen course. The decision was made before the intelligence was ever reviewed. Therefore, the dog-and-pony show w/regard to WMDs was bull****.

I'm sorry you don't like my interpretation.

-Arrian

The British military's expert on weapons programmes and disarmament 'bought' into the probability of Saddam having undeclared weapons and weapons programmes?

Why?

Because GWB asked him to?

Get your carts and horses in a row.

Only a fool prior to March 2003 would have been safe in the assumption that Saddam had no CBWs. Now the fool will try to transplant what is 'known' today to that time, and even then there are/were signs of a continuing program (like chemical weapons shells in a recently constructed bunker).

If you want to say that you didn't accept WMDs as a causus belli, fine, but don't be a tool and claim it was obvious that Saddam had no weapons when Hans Blix was saying 1000 tons of chemical weapons were unaccounted for 30 days before the invasion.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, I didn't think Iraq should be invaded over theatre CBWs.

I felt it was a good idea to get rid of a butcher and for real politic reasons (like getting bases out of KSA, and having bases adjacent to Syria and Iran).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, I didn't think Iraq should be invaded over theatre CBWs.

That was the reason I was ambivalent about the invasion to begin with. I saw the case for WMD's as the pretext it was and as such wondered why the administration wouldn't truly fess up to the real reasons for resuming hostilities. Did I thinkthe US legally grounded to go to war, yes and I still do. Do I think they should have? no and I did not back then.

I felt it was a good idea to get rid of a butcher and for real politic reasons (like getting bases out of KSA, and having bases adjacent to Syria and Iran).

While those were all good reasons the precedent of meddling in soveriegn affairs simply because one nation thinks the other nation has bad leadership was an area I was not going to advocate invasion over and presumably if the US administration felt the same as you that this was the real reason they could not afford to voice this view and used the faulty WMD pretext as cover.

All that being said we're there and now need to make sure the resulting Iraqi governement and people represented by that governement are properly taken care of. Charges of we're losing, we've lost etc. do nothing to help that effort.

[Arrian]

Only a fool prior to March 2003 would have been safe in the assumption that Saddam had no CBWs. Now the fool will try to transplant what is 'known' today to that time, and even then there are/were signs of a continuing program (like chemical weapons shells in a recently constructed bunker).

If you want to say that you didn't accept WMDs as a causus belli, fine, but don't be a tool and claim it was obvious that Saddam had no weapons when Hans Blix was saying 1000 tons of chemical weapons were unaccounted for 30 days before the invasion.

Ok, I'll clarify: the WMD that is actually a WMD in my mind is a nuke. You are correct that it was unknowable that Saddam had no more chemical weapons... it seemed likely he had some old stuff kicking around. The basis for using WMD as a casus belli was that Saddam was a threat to the United States... and only via a nuke was he really a threat, so I did focus on that.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Again, people who knew a hell of a lot more about Saddam, weapons programs, and Saddam's weapons programs than you, Bush, Blair, and all the posters on this board put together thought Saddam had them.

And people who knew way more than him said he didn't have them, like Scott Richter. Frankly, I'm as impressed with Mr Suicide as I am with Slowwhand's inability to explain why he thinks 1441 means something.

[chequita guevara]

Anyway, I think the real reason the U.S. invaded Iraq is because the Administration thought it would be an easy victory (which it was) which would demonstrate the power and prestige of the United States, which it did. And then they ****ed it all up beyond even the wildest dreams of those who hoped for the U.S. to **** up. Today, we are weaker, with less prestige, less influence, and less security. Bush has done more to destroy America than all the commies in all of history.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
Again, people who knew a hell of a lot more about Saddam, weapons programs, and Saddam's weapons programs than you, Bush, Blair, and all the posters on this board put together thought Saddam had them.

And people who knew way more than him said he didn't have them, like Scott Richter. Frankly, I'm as impressed with Mr Suicide as I am with Slowwhand's inability to explain why he thinks 1441 means something.

Hans Blix was off base when he said that 1000 tons of CW were unaccounted for?

I see, you'll beleive a guy who's made a new career for himself out of being a public commentator who contradicts himself in each new telling.

I understand. It's more convenient for you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The British military's expert on weapons programmes and disarmament 'bought' into the probability of Saddam having undeclared weapons and weapons programmes?

Have you ever entertained the possibility that the Bushies fed him cherrypicked evidence? Afterall, the CIA slammed him repeatedly about doing such a thing.

[SlowwHand]

Why did the US invade Iraq?

It's all been staged to give Mobius something else to be obnoxious about.

[KrazyHorse]

Sounds like the beginning to a joke.

"Why did the US invade Iraq?"

"To get to the other side"

Hey, might well be true, if the power projection theorists are right.

[SlowwHand]

Why did the chicken cross the road?



To show the armadillo it could be done.