Iraq was all over oil!

[Mekong]

Where's my cut of the profits!!!

 

 

 

And people question why I work in oil n gas!

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

[color:red]"What I find disturbing is that so many people actually believed that nuclear weapons was the real reason to kill masses of civilians and to bomb entire country back to the stone age."[/color]

 

Good point. After the initial battle, it changed from that of bombing back to the stone age to that of giving democracy and freedom. Are they one in the same?

 

[Steve]

I recall being very skeptical about going into Iraq. 911 was still fresh in everyone's minds here. So we could be culled into it out of fear of WMDs and the risk of not going in if he had it was too great to a lot of people here. Obviously there are no WMDs after the fact. Bush put a new spin when none were found and changed it to a democracy thing. If it can be proven Bush there wasn't any impeach, jail, whatever you want. However, logic demands that I can't buy the 'it was only about oil' thing 100%. Why would England and several other countries go along with it? Why would Bush's enemies (democrats) go along with it? Its too simple. Maybe its too complex for my limited intelligence. I don't know.

 

My guess is this. Bush always wanted to go in (partly due to Saddam's planned attempt on his father's life, amongst other reasons). I think they thought there was something. The intelligence was more than bad (and a little trumped up as well). I think they were short sighted, naive, even stupid but I don't think some grand conspiracy which would take too many people to keep secret. Now, what I think they knew or thought they knew is enough to get Bush booted out probably.

 

 

[bust]

However, logic demands that I can't buy the 'it was only about oil' thing 100%. Why would England and several other countries go along with it? Why would Bush's enemies (democrats) go along with it? Its too simple. Maybe its too complex for my limited intelligence. I don't know.

Not complex just deceptive.

A set of principles from the PNAC

 

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

 

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

 

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

 

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

 

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

 

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

 

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

 

â?¢ we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

 

â?¢ we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

 

â?¢ we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

 

â?¢ we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

 

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

[Old Hippie]

Frankly, I think this regime is corrupt and out of control, and needs to have the brakes put on it.

[Steve]

There are still two political parties. How are they going to do it without the other party? The law says only congress can declare war. Congress was mostly democratic for the last 30 years or so and it was only in the mid '90s till the last election that the Republicans had the congress.

 

Iraq happened because of a (un)lucky series of events, starting with 911. Had 911 not happened, Iraq would not have happened.

 

After the next election its likelly that the democrats will have a stronger hold on the legislature. They are prime position to get the white house and the leading republican candidates don't subscribe to that theory. So, how are these neocons gonna carry out this strategy when the country and even the average republican is tired of the war? And the white house is in democratic hands?

[Steve]

The likely scenario in the next few years after Bush leaves is that America signs Kyoto, leaves Iraq, reduces the military presence in a lot of 'hot button' locales and leave most europeans to have to come up with new things to hate America about.

[trooper]

The likely scenario in the next few years after Bush leaves is that America signs Kyoto, leaves Iraq, reduces the military presence in a lot of 'hot button' locales and leave most europeans to have to come up with new things to hate America about.

 

That's a good start . Maybe in the future there will be europeans that actually think that you can do something good also.

 

And before this goes to how America saved the Europe, Second World War is long gone, we are talking about what happens today.

 

[Flashermac]

Thirty years ago, I had a Finnish friend who was absolutely terrified that the Russians were going to invade her country again. Leave it to GWB to make the Americans the main concern.

 

 

[bust]

There are still two political parties. How are they going to do it without the other party? The law says only congress can declare war. Congress was mostly democratic for the last 30 years or so and it was only in the mid '90s till the last election that the Republicans had the congress.

 

Iraq happened because of a (un)lucky series of events, starting with 911. Had 911 not happened, Iraq would not have happened.

 

After the next election its likelly that the democrats will have a stronger hold on the legislature. They are prime position to get the white house and the leading republican candidates don't subscribe to that theory. So, how are these neocons gonna carry out this strategy when the country and even the average republican is tired of the war? And the white house is in democratic hands?

I hope you are right and agree with what you say. 9/11 like you say was conveniant but also raises a whole other series of questions about 9/11 itself and who had the most to gain from it. I know a bit but the billionaires run the White House and have made a lot of money. I think even without 9/11 we still would have had the same outcome.