I've been posting in the refusal to go to Iraq thread but I find myself wanting to go off topic.

I have some questions that hopefully some people can answer for me without fighting. Answer one or all. Keep in mind that I am not as politically savvy or as informed as the members who post in this forum. So KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Stupid would be me.

Now, we supposedly went to Iraq to find Weapons of Mass destruction. Is that right? Now, there weren't any. Do you think Bush knew there wasn't any there? If he knew there wasn't any there- why would he bother going in the first place? What do you think the reason we went over there is?

How come everyone keeps talking about oil? What does that mean?


Ok now my next one.

Lets assume that we never would have went over there at all. What difference did it make? I mean- Would Saddam have been caught? Is it good that we went there? If we could go back in time, should we have not gone at all?

Now one more- Why didn't Bush's dad go after Saddam when he could have? I somehow recall us bombing his house. What made it so urgent now and not then? Was it 9-11?

I'm sure these questions have been asked a number of times. I see Scotty and DG debating often. I just really want to know some facts here. Does anyone have the truth? Or do we just not know the truth?

I've read some of the other threads but I just keep getting lost. Is there a really good thread at AP that will answer some of these questions? If so- please post it.

Thanks.
*******************************************************************
07-12-06, 11:10 AM
Sarai

quote:
Now, we supposedly went to Iraq to find Weapons of Mass destruction. Is that right? Now, there weren't any. Do you think Bush knew there wasn't any there? If he knew there wasn't any there- why would he bother going in the first place? What do you think the reason we went over there is?



Personally (and despite your pleadings, I'm sure there will be arguments over this), I believe that Bush thought there were WMD in Iraq. I think the reason we went there was

1. Bush (and many others) thought Hussein did have a WMD program (but they were wrong)

2. Iraq is a very strategic region, largely because it is very rich in oil. The first war in the gulf was fought basically because it was recognized that if Hussein could have conquered Kuwait, the economy of Iraq would have stabilized quickly and, since he had a history of aggression, the Saudis worried that Hussein would then have the resources to attack Saudi Arabia. This worried everyone because if Hussein controlled Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he would become one of the most powerful men in the world, because he would control so much wealth in oil. I think that Bush worried that Hussein was rebuilding weapons and was going to "go for it" again. Plus, it didn't help that Bush probably felt a personal vendetta against Hussein due to his father's past with Hussein and Bush I's mistake in not taking Hussein out of the government in the first gulf war.

3. Hussein was in violation of the agreements after the first gulf war, because although the UN was doing a good job inspecting Iraq, they were pretty much doing so in SPITE of Hussein. He really was putting on a good bluff, and did seem to want the world to think he had a WMD program. He would say that he didn't, but then he wouldn't give the UN free access to inspect. He would basically say, "Sure you can look here. But not HERE." Or "Sure you can look- but not this week. Come back next week." Things like that. I think that for Hussein, this was about Iraqi pride - what right, from his perspective, did the UN have to be inspecting his country like that? His actions did look mighty suspicious, though, IMHO.

quote:
How come everyone keeps talking about oil? What does that mean?



See above. Some people think that this is only about Bush wanting to control the oil in Iraq. I disagree. I think this was about Bush wanting to make sure that someone more amenable to the West controls the oil. It isn't just about the resource, either; he who controls the resources also has a very large amount of political and economic power (and therefore potential military power), and although I disagree with the war, I can see why it concerned people that Hussein could potentially get this power. In hindsight it is clear that he wasn't even close to having that kind of power, but at the time, I don't think it was quite so clear.


quote:
Lets assume that we never would have went over there at all. What difference did it make? I mean- Would Saddam have been caught?



No, Saddam Hussein would still be in power if not for the war. But on the other hand, who cares? Hussein didn't have WMD and the UN was doing a good job of keeping an eye on him. A lot of Americans and Iraqis would still be alive if not for this war.

But hindsight is 20/20. I remember right before the war, thinking that perhaps it would be better to go in and force Hussein out, reasoning that it was better to take out a tyrant and be wrong about him having WMD than to leave him there and be right about him having them. However, now I see that I was wrong.

quote:
Now one more- Why didn't Bush's dad go after Saddam when he could have? I somehow recall us bombing his house. What made it so urgent now and not then? Was it 9-11?



Bush I thought that an internal rebellion would force Hussein out of power. He encouraged Iraqis to rebel, but didn't support them, probably for the same reasons that people say it was a mistake for us to go to war now - it would have gotten us in the middle of a civil war, similar to Vietnam. Hussein crushed the rebellion and those who rebelled found themselves, their families and their neighborhoods in danger. It was a huge mistake on the part of the US, not only because of the suffering that Hussein wreaked on those who opposed him, but also because we lost a lot of trust from Iraqis who felt we should have supported them.

Why now? As I said, I think all of the reasons listed above for fighting existed through all the Clinton years, but Clinton had a little more faith in the UN (although Clinton did conduct bombing raids and supported the Oil for Food program that some say kept Iraqis in dire economic straits). Also, Bush II had special, personal reasons for wanting to get involved - mainly to finish what his father didn't finish. 9/11 probably made it feel all the more urgent for Bush (and for a lot of Americans)- the idea of an enemy like Hussein getting hold of WMD was simply terrifying in the wake of 9/11. I think that is a big reason why Americans tended to support Bush at first, but not most Europeans. Europeans have experienced terrorism for years, but they have never experienced an attack that was so grandiose as 9/11, and also maybe because they have experienced terrorism for so long, maybe they aren't as shaken by it as Americans were. 9/11 scared the crap out of us. And while Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the idea of a guy like Hussein building WMD seemed terrifying to a country that was already terrified. And I genuinely believe that Bush was as scared as the rest of us - I don't think he's this great puppet master that some make him out to be. But that fear of Hussein was unfounded.

quote:
Does anyone have the truth? Or do we just not know the truth? I've read some of the other threads but I just keep getting lost. Confused

I don't think anyone knows the whole truth. There is no doubt that a lot of people will disagree with a lot of what I wrote. What you're seeing, when people argue, is a difference in world view.

I hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask if anything I've written isn't clear.

07-12-06, 12:02 PM
DorianGreyed
Do you think Bush knew there wasn't any there? If he knew there wasn't any there- why would he bother going in the first place? What do you think the reason we went over there is?

Very credible evidence has come out of several sources that the government knew that the probability of Saddam having WMDs was remote. Retired CIA, former State Department officials, and experts in intelligence concerning Iraq have all come forward with damning statements about what the White House knew, what they did not want to hear, nd what they did not tell us. There can be no reasonable doubt that the administration suppressed any information that was contrary to their desire to invade Iraq. Many Congressmen have said that they now realize that they were not given all the necessary facts in the rush to war.

How come everyone keeps talking about oil? What does that mean?[/[i]

Iraq has a lot of oil. When the US first took over after toppling Saddam, the plan by the Provisional Authority (a nice-sounding name, but it was almost all US friends of the administration, few of whom even spoke Arabic) was to sell off Iraq's natural resources and big businesses. The theory was that Iraq's economy would be a true free market (the ideal state, according to Big Business, a state with no controls over business, few, if any restrictions, and very low taxes for businesses), which of course, no Iraqis could have invested in, only mega-corporations. Under the plan, the real owners of Iraq's oil would have been the supra-national oil companies (read that as US oil interests). That plan fizzled when the rest of the world realized that the plan was undoubtedly illegal under any country's laws. Iraq's share of the profit from oil sales would have been confiscated by the US, some given to the private contractors from the US who moved in to do all the construction to re-build Iraq (work that has yet to be even half-way finished, even after three years) and some remaining in US government hands to pay for the cost of invading Iraq. (Yeah, it really sounds bad when you cut out all the BS and simply state what the plan was.) Unfortunately, Iraq's oil production has yet to reach even the lowered levels of just before we invaded, let alone what it was at its highest. Billions and billions of US taxpayer's dollar simply disappeared in Iraq. Large supplies of cash remain and will remain unaccounted for. As far as rebuilding Iraq goes, Baghdad, where you would think things would be in the best shape with regard to re-building, still has more hours without electricity than with electricity. (Try that in an Iraqi summer's heat.) The rest of the country is worse. This is less than under Saddam. Garbage lines the street in many of the more affluent areas. Every day, people die in the streets from sectarian warfare, and Iraq can't even pay its own police. The religious warlords can, and can offer much better safety than the official government. Iraq simply has no money, less now than even under Saddam, and their only significant source of money is oil, which is flowing less that before the invassion. (I am not sure if they even get any profit from the sale of their own oil at this time.) Experts have said it will be at least a decade befopre Iraq can start to recover its oil profits, and that is if things turn around immediately.

[i]Lets assume that we never would have went over there at all. What difference did it make? I mean- Would Saddam have been caught? Is it good that we went there? If we could go back in time, should we have not gone at all?

I have said many, many times that someone should have assassinated Saddam once he gassed the Kurds, back when Reagan was president. (He used the chemicals that the US sold or gave to him.) US forces could have sent in several small teams to do the job, with far less loss of lives to both sides.

Had we not invaded, Saddam would probably still be in power, and brutalizing his people with much less loss of life to them. If you don't count the number of deaths resulting from the Iran-Iraq war, far more Iraqis have been killed by US forces than by Saddam. Baghdad would be a safer place than it is now. There would not be a civil war in Iraq. The US would be a few hundred billion dollars less in debt. Thousands of people would still be alive. There would be fewer terrorist in the world. (Before someome takes exception to this, even the US state Department has said that the war increased the number of terrorists, so argue with them.)

Had we not invaded, possibly we would have kept more forces in Afghanistan, and have actually ended the Taliban's life rather than just pushed it out into the countryside, where it still rules, and may yet come back; the Afghani government rules only the the very largest cities. Maybe there would be less opium grown in Afghanistan and smuggled out to the world. much of the profits going to terrorists. Maybe we would have even caught the guy who was behind 9/11, which was what started this entire thing.

07-12-06, 12:18 PM
aminator2002
Now, we supposedly went to Iraq to find Weapons of Mass destruction. Is that right?

** that was the reason stated at the time. The real reason IMO is that Bush Jr. came into office in January of 2001 with the intent of finding any way possible to go into Iraq. It was one of the stated goals of wish list items that he'd like to take care of. He sold the idea to the public with the WMD idea.

Now, there weren't any. Do you think Bush knew there wasn't any there?

** There was one report in particular that indicates that one of the main pieces of evidence to the fact that there were nuclear weapons being developed was discredited but released to the public and before the UN anyway. This is one of the main sticking points when Colin Powell presented evidence of enriched uranium being sold to Hussein. Yes, I believe Bush knew at the time that this wasn't credible information but that is just my opinion and can not necessarily be proven.

If he knew there wasn't any there- why would he bother going in the first place?

** He may not have known that there weren't any or he may have only known that he was stretching the facts and information. He did show that he had motivation to stretch the truth in that he, Rumsfeld and Cheney all expressed a strong desire to depose Saddam Hussein. This is stated quite clearly in a report that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld contributed to called the PNAC plan. This plan is a statement of conservative foreign policy penned before the September 11 attacks. It clearly states that Iraq is a prime objective. After September 11, Rumsfeld was urging all his intelligence officers to find a connection that could be utilized to allow invasion of Iraq... this too is documented by the former anti-terrorism chief.

What do you think the reason we went over there is?

**Because Bush and the conservative think tank have wanted to see regime change since Bush Sr. was inclined to only fulfill the UN directive of forcing retreat from Kuwait and an end to aggression. The conservatives have always wanted Saddam out because they feel he is a critical part of the lack of stability in the region. The reality is that Saddam was a stable tyrant and what has happened is a bunch of instability has been tossed in the pot.

How come everyone keeps talking about oil? What does that mean?

**We would not be interested in anything happening in the MIddle East if not for our oil needs and OPEC's power in setting global oil prices. We would simply walk away in a similar fashion that we do with Rwanda and Sudan if not for the fact that we do have interest in the stability of the region and specifically the stability of our economy which is highly dependent on oil.


Ok now my next one.

Lets assume that we never would have went over there at all. What difference did it make?

**We would not have the UN against us. We would not have all of our free world allies thinking that our country and specifically our president is out of control and a "danger". We would not have lost the lives of several thousand service members. We would probably not be having so many problems getting people to join the armed services because when we went to Afghanistan (uniformly considered a just cause) numbers increased but now with Iraq (opinion quite split) enlistments are down to a level that doesn't meet the need. We would not have spent BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that we will never get back. We would not have caused the massive loss of life in Iraq that has ensued... Saddam killed many people but I think the numbers of serious life changing casualties and deaths as a result of this war are getting there. We would still have a stable crazy dictactor in power that we KNEW. Before Bush took over we were largely running the operation of containment alone, but at least we were following UN guidelines.

I mean- Would Saddam have been caught?

**Been caught? He was the dictator of a soveriegn nation. The typical means of deposing a dictator is civil war.

Is it good that we went there?

** Obviously I think not.

If we could go back in time, should we have not gone at all?

** Obviously I don't think we should have gone at all.

Now one more- Why didn't Bush's dad go after Saddam when he could have?

** He was following the letter of the UN order which only called for an end of aggression towards Kuwait. He did not have authorization to make any further action... and he followed that as law.

I somehow recall us bombing his house.

** I believe you are thinking of the Libyan leader Ghadafi rather than Hussein. Ghadafi's house was bombed and his daughter was killed as a result.

What made it so urgent now and not then?

** Very simply there was enough political momentum to allow Bush to formulate a war in Iraq. He had enormous support after 9-11. He transformed this political power into a means to execute a plan that was on his agenda since day one of his Presidency.

Was it 9-11?

** It has been stated numerous times even by Bush himself that there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. The only connection that can be made is that the American people wanted action and they somehow rolled every middle eastern problem into the 9-11 attacks. There is no reasoning with the general public that there is simply no connection... 2/3 believe against all reason that there is a connection between Saddam and Osama. Apparently Bush's own words don't get through.


I'm sure these questions have been asked a number of times. I see Scotty and DG debating often. I just really want to know some facts here. Does anyone have the truth? Or do we just not know the truth?

** Nobody knows the truth but there seem to be a lot of people that just turn their backs on some critical points and say that it is all Bush bashing. It isn't all Bush bashing... some very serious things have happened and continue to come out.

07-12-06, 12:22 PM
frankvan

quote:
Now, we supposedly went to Iraq to find Weapons of Mass destruction. Is that right? Now, there weren't any. Do you think Bush knew there wasn't any there? If he knew there wasn't any there- why would he bother going in the first place? What do you think the reason we went over there is?



Most of the evidence seems to bear out the impression that Bush wanted to find a reason to invade Iraq. Therefore he appears to have been impatient with dissenting opinions and his subordinates would naturally be inclined to tell him what he wanted to hear. I think it is a mistake to think the president is anything more than what appears on the surface. I think he tends to be in awe of cleverer individuals like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, hence prone to yield to manipulation.

quote:
How come everyone keeps talking about oil? What does that mean?



In addition to what Sarai says, I believe that the administration, Rice and Rumsfeld at least, believed that the war would be a pushover, accomplish a great deal at little cost, and its oil supplies would defray most of the cost. Imagine what a triumph if it had succeeded! If the disssenting voices had been listened to: Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff for instance, things might have turned out differently, but here again Rumsfeld prevailed, too few troops were deployed initially, too many miscalculations resulted in widespread lawlessness and anarchy. The Iraqi army was disbanded and we now have to try and create one from scratch. IMO

07-12-06, 03:04 PM
clarebear
Thank you all so much for taking the time to respond. I know these have probably been answered so many times. I appreciate you taking the time again. I'm going to reread these and try to sort it out. I may even print the page.

07-12-06, 03:29 PM
Sarai
It was interesting to read the different responses to this question, especially since we've all just given our perspective without arguing with each other. I'd be very interested to read the answers that someone who supports the war in Iraq would give. It could be enlightening, and so far we've been good about not attacking each other, so maybe we could really learn from this thread. Any takers who would like to address Clare's questions from a pro-war standpoint? Scotty? Karrow?

07-12-06, 05:37 PM
Karrow

quote:
Any takers who would like to address Clare's questions from a pro-war standpoint? Scotty? Karrow?


Sarai, as I've never posted my views here because it would then be difficult to moderate a thread I was also arguing debating in, what makes you think I'm pro-war?

And don't anyone ask whether I am or not. My views are my own. Big Grin

07-12-06, 06:23 PM
Sarai
Karrow- I'm so sorry! I meant to write "Kendor." Oops.

I must admit, though, now that I think of it, I AM awfully curious as to your perspective... Wink

07-12-06, 06:25 PM
frankvan
It may have been the jackbooted image! Wink

07-12-06, 06:37 PM
Karrow

quote:
Originally posted by Sarai:
Karrow- I'm so sorry! I meant to write "Kendor." Oops.

I must admit, though, now that I think of it, I AM awfully curious as to your perspective... Wink


Well, if I ruled the world......Wink

07-12-06, 06:40 PM
Karrow

quote:
Originally posted by frankvan:
It may have been the jackbooted image! Wink


Those jackboots are reserved for the sole (pun intended) purpose of reminding recalcitrant members of the rules. Big Grin

My apologies clarebear, we've contravened the rules and taken your thread off-topic. Back to the war in Iraq.

07-13-06, 12:10 PM
frankvan
The pro-war crowd seem reluctant to answer Clare's questions. Scotty ? Kendor? Don't be shy! We're all family. Wink
That other thread on the refusal to deploy ..seems to have crowded this one off the front page. Sorry, Clare. Maybe later. Frown

This message has been edited. Last edited by: frankvan, 07-13-06 07:20 PM

07-13-06, 08:51 PM
clarebear
I bailed out of that other thread. I really am open minded. I want to base my opinion on the truth. I judge things by what is right. In life, you have to do the right thing. I try my best to be fair and non judgemental. While I know being informed is very important, I can't keep up. I'm just being honest. Life happens and while I try to follow the news and world events, it changes so fast. Its hard to tell what the facts are and what someone's own opinion is. Some people won't budge at all. I know that many times I can be wrong on an issue. I can admit when I'm wrong. It happens often. Wink I just really wish I knew the truth. It bothers me that I can't do anything. I can debate on this board and even if I had all the facts- that doesn't change anything. I know that a lot of people have died in Iraq. I turn on the news and hear of another helicopter crash or bombing. I am scared for the people over there. There isn't much I can do. So I give blood, donate money or support our troops over there any way I can. I just feel helpless. I do have lots of questions. I'm just kind of lost. People on the boards know a lot more facts and history than I do. I'm just trying to understand it all.


P.S. I printed this topic and it was 7 pages long! Red Face

07-13-06, 09:58 PM
Dwight
Clarebear, for what ever it is worth, I feel much the same as you.

quote:
There isn't much I can do. So I give blood, donate money or support our troops over there any way I can.

I cannot give blood because I take medication to thin my blood and because I take the medication I cannot afford to donate money. So all I can really do is worry about our troops and morn for all the injured and killed. Since my son in now in Army Basic Training, I now have even more reason to worry.

As citizens we need to try to keep ourselves informed of what goes on in our world. But realistically, there is only so much that one person can do. We hire politicians to take care of our government and it is up to them and our courts to insure that what they do is legal under our Constitution.

I have learned from this thread and I thank you for posting the question. Also, thanks to all who responded here. I too hope to see some posts by those with differing views. Not to bicker, but rather to learn from each other.

Dwight

07-13-06, 11:31 PM
Kendor
Kendor here,

Just found this thread. I have much to say, civily, (word?), but twill have to wait 'til the morrow. Just got the boys settled in and now its my turn. G'night for now.

~~~~~Dream Sequence:
Kendor, waking up as Lt. Watada: "Where am I?" Well Lt., you're in Honolulu. "Thank God. I thought I was gonna get killed in one of those 'war' things." No worries mate, you're at 'ome now. (Aussie accent due to dream algorithm permutations). "Ok, whew! Can someone bring me some Spam casserole?" KABOOM

FOX NEWS BULLITIN
Breaking News here, we here at Fox News have just been informed that Hawaii has just been attacked by warplanes believing to have come from New Persia, (formerly Iraq). Yes, ever since the breakdown of the US military due to its members being allowed to pick and choose their assignments, .....

Remember where you heard it first.

Night. God Bless.

07-14-06, 09:30 AM
newnickname
That must be the same dreamworld in which withdrawing from Vietnam allowed the communists to take over Hawaii.

quote:
I somehow recall us bombing his house.

The invasion did seem to start with an attack on a compound or group of houses where Hussein was believed to be. The documentary Why We Fight went back to find the place, and also interviewed the pilots involved. At least one of the bombs fell outside the compound, killing a neighbouring family.

I agree with those who say that, essentially, the Bush administration decided to invade because they thought it would be relatively easy. If they had successfully deposed Hussein's government, secured Iraq's oil for the US, and set up a model of democracy and showcase for unregulated capitalism - cheaply and with minimal loss of life (incidentally boosting their own standing in the polls and generating cash for military contractors), then the legalities and moralities of the situation wouldn't have recieved so much attention. It would have been a fait accompli.

They did seem to think that it would be as easy as blowing up Hussein and putting Chalabi , er... Allawi, in his place.

Chalk another one up to "cock up" rather than "conspiracy".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname, 07-14-06 10:00 AM

07-14-06, 10:12 AM
DorianGreyed
"That must be the same dreamworld in which withdrawing from Vietnam allowed the communists to take over Hawaii."

Even as we speak, they have also taken over in California, as predicted, cleverly disguising their leader as the Austrian son of a former Nazi. Those insidious Commies!

07-15-06, 08:12 AM
frankvan
Patience, Clare dear. Some 'morrows take longer than others. Wink

07-15-06, 06:17 PM
newnickname
Maybe the boys are more rambunctious than was implied. "Just got them settled" could have been the domestic equivalent of "major combat operations are over".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,