Why did the US invade Iraq?

[razeontherock]

We invaded iraq to kill people and break things.

Don't forget trying out our new toys!

 

[razeontherock]

Sinking ship, and it could get worse, but barring a catastrophe at the polls the ship will probably be steadied, but the question is, is that great big military machine you tax payers pay for going to be economically viable in the near future. Interesting times.

Hasn't been economically viable for 40 years - why stop now? [/Alfred E Newman]

 

[razeontherock]

War is nearly always about money or land. Sometimes it is a distraction from domestic problems. Often it serves several purposes at once.

Iraq was definitely about oil. Saddam Hussein was undercutting the prices set by OPEC. He had to go. It also provided the illusion of vengeance for the attack on the World Trade Center. Let's face it, a reason does not have to be plausible to win the acceptance of those of less than average intelligence who comprise fully half the population.

Ridiculous. Please explain how the US benefited. (We don't even have a call on oil)

 

[underpressure]

Ridiculous. Please explain how the US benefited. (We don't even have a call on oil)

Sometimes its not about gaining wealth for yourselves but making sure a country you have bad history with is not allowed prosper and become serious players.

 

[The Nihilist]

Sometimes its not about gaining wealth for yourselves but making sure a country you have bad history with is not allowed prosper and become serious players.

International trade sanctions, among other things, prevented that for over a decade. Besides, Saddam Hussein was our ally against Iran until the first Gulf War. Your argument doesn't really hold up.

 

[razeontherock]

I think a stronger case could be made for keeping Iran in check.

 

[Gracchus]

Ridiculous. Please explain how the US benefited. (We don't even have a call on oil)

Do you really think anybody who is anybody cares about anything but the bottom line? Nations are just convenient packages of resources to be exploited. Set one nation against another and you can rake in all the money you like. The slaves will be too busy watching "Dancing with the Stars" or the “Superbowl” and swilling watery beer to notice their wallets being raided. The military contracts are pulling in big bucks, OPEC profits are being protected, and the US taxpayers are footing the bills. Where's the downside, and what's not to like? The only people who take damage are those who gladly put themselves and their children on the altar of war. After all, it's the patriotic thing to do.

 

[underpressure]

International trade sanctions, among other things, prevented that for over a decade. Besides, Saddam Hussein was our ally against Iran until the first Gulf War. Your argument doesn't really hold up.

Well they certainly seemed keen to nip Saddam Hussein in the bud so to speak, I can't know the exact thought processes of Bush, and why he seemed so keen to attack then. And yes, I'm fully aware that Iraq and the US were once allys, things soured when Saddam Hussein marched into Kuwait, the US didn't give him permission to do that and the US were never going to allow him to run riot and compromise the power balance in the middle east.

 

[The Nihilist]

Trade sanctions can only get you so far though, when you have a major air base in iran and chinas back yard and can drop bombs within 20 min that REALLY keeps people in check. China is a little farther away but it prevents them from getting oil if we decide we dont want them having it. We give the middle east the illusion that they have control of their own nations but if we decide its no longer in our best interests to supply china with oil and the middle east does not play ball there will be immediate consequences.

China knows this and its why they are pushing hard to expand to south east asia because its the only area we dont control but they are getting dangerously close to australia and we have a huge presense in australia in pine gap. China better mind its p's and q's because if I cant put gas in my plane and if my boss cant put gas in his boat we will be voting for darth vadar 2012.

Alot of people dont seem to understand the lowest common denominator, when stuff gets real, all this tutuing around will end and china NOT the USA will be paying the piper.

Is it just me, or did it just Zeitgeisty in here?

 

[darwinian12345]

Of course going into Iraq was immoral. No one from that country even attacked us, and they knew it, only reason we went in there was our lust for oil and control.

 

[Gracchus]

Alot of people dont seem to understand the lowest common denominator, when stuff gets real, all this tutuing around will end and china NOT the USA will be paying the piper.

Everyone will pay, and far more than anyone wants, because human beings are malicious, murdering, money-grubbing morons.

 

[Autumnleaf]

You will be glad we have that control when china decides to do something crazy, whether its militarily, financially or otherwise. Having stratigic air bases to keep nations we dont want getting too powerful in check is a good thing and you will be glad when your not speaking chineese or when all the land owners in the USA are asian and yoru renting from them working at teh gap (which is already starting to happen).

Rome thought it was a good idea to control the world with its military too, while it rotted from the inside out.

 

[razeontherock]

We are witnessing the fall of Rome ...

 

[boxes]

Rome thought it was a good idea to control the world with its military too, while it rotted from the inside out.

The control of stratigic positions is not the issue it is the rotting from the inside that is the issue. If you are healthy on the inside and fail to keep your enemys down you will be taken over in the same way you would if you fell from within.

Just because we are rotting from within does not mean that keeping our enemys at bay with an iron fist is a bad idea.

 

[okafor]

Rome thought it was a good idea to control the world with its military too, while it rotted from the inside out.

The rot is not related to the military. The rot is the consequence of an entitlement mentality that saps incentive, punishes productivity, and constantly demands more government robbing from producers to give to takers.

 

[docpotter]

1- Saddam Hussein was evil, and an oppressor , and was threatening to the world that he had weapons of mass destruction , but that isn't the main reason ...

2- After 9-11 , we ( the USA ) needed a " hub " in the middle east to basically keep troops . As George W. Bush said " If we keep the terrorists on the run over there, we won't have to worry about them over here "

He was very correct, since 9 -11 -2001 there wasn't diddly poo done on US soil by terrorists . It was a great strategy . Weapons of mass destruction or not the plan worked quite well

 

[Gracchus]

1- Saddam Hussein was evil, and an oppressor , and was threatening to the world that he had weapons of mass destruction , but that isn't the main reason ...

2- After 9-11 , we ( the USA ) needed a " hub " in the middle east to basically keep troops . As George W. Bush said " If we keep the terrorists on the run over there, we won't have to worry about them over here "

He was very correct, since 9 -11 -2001 there wasn't diddly poo done on US soil by terrorists . It was a great strategy . Weapons of mass destruction or not the plan worked quite well

But after all, why would any enemy waste resources blowing up anything in the US? We are collapsing under the expense of funding wars, and maintaining social stability.

 

[darwinian12345]

1- Saddam Hussein was evil, and an oppressor , and was threatening to the world that he had weapons of mass destruction , but that isn't the main reason ...

2- After 9-11 , we ( the USA ) needed a " hub " in the middle east to basically keep troops . As George W. Bush said " If we keep the terrorists on the run over there, we won't have to worry about them over here "

He was very correct, since 9 -11 -2001 there wasn't diddly poo done on US soil by terrorists . It was a great strategy . Weapons of mass destruction or not the plan worked quite well

Sure it was a great strategy...killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's while trying to win the peoples hearts and minds and at the same time draining the countries oil and placing in a government of US lackeys like they did with Afghanistan! Where are you Christian morals?!

 

[Gracchus]

Sure it was a great strategy...killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's while trying to win the peoples hearts and minds and at the same time draining the countries oil and placing in a government of US lackeys like they did with Afghanistan! Where are you Christian morals?!

Well, let's be fair. The only thing missing was the regiment of missionaries.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why did the US invade Iraq?


So many different reasons have been thrown at us that I'm baffled and can't evaluate in what ways it moral and in what ways was it immoral.

According to my understanding, the reason we invaded Iraq was for the following reason.
First we must go back to the late 1970’s to early 1980’s when Iran was our enemy because the shaw of Iran had taken some Americans as hostages
Iraq was Iran’s enemy and they were at war so we helped Iraq with weapons; some of them can be considered of mass destruction.
Years later when Iraq invaded Kuwait we went to war to kick them out; and when Iraq surrendered, we allowed Saddam to stay in power as long as he agreed with the surrender agreement which forbade him from having “weapons of mass destruction” which was spelled out in the surrender agreement.

For whatever reason, we didn’t force him to hand over the weapons we sold him 12 yrs earlier but when September 11th happened and we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, we concluded that Saddam Hussain was one of several leaders who was providing financial support to Al-Qaeda. Our intelligence along with German, and Russian intelligence told us that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction and the idea of him turning some of them over to the terrorists caused us to enforce his original surrender agreement and hand over the weapons. Of course Saddam said he didn’t have them anymore so we assumed he was lying and we invaded for refusing to agree with his original surrender agreement.

K