Whoops, sorry about the multipost … .
Yep, it’s simplistic. But it’s not wrong.
IMHO, Powell is still be in his job because Bush successfully sold the spiel (you outline) to him but Cheney and the good ol’ boys are there for their purposes - namely oil, and Wolfy for ideological reasons – not one single unifying reason, everyone has their own particular take on why it made sense.
Popular, all-purpose link, information for the digesting of. Cheney wears the pants, though.
The first problem, from an administration pov, is that you actually need to empower an Iraqi body to whom you’d lend the money. The administration is in no hurry to empower anyone in relation to Iraq, including the UN. Iraqis are somewhere down the list.
Second, if you loan someone money, there’s a convention that suggests they get to decide with whom they’re going to spend it. Not good, thinks George.
Don’t mention the frogs! I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I’d recommend the Cheney report, though; 2/3s of US oil having to be imported by 2020, etc.
Hippie alert!
Never mind, it was a worthy post. 
My take on that? Dad says, sonny I’m going to poo poo your attack so they won’t be saying you did it for me. Remember, these are politicians we are talking about.
Does anybody think it could’ve been because of other countries exploiting the oil for food programs and the weakening of the UN by ignoring their own sanctions?
Didn’t this put a stop to all that? Weren’t we the largest presence in Iraq before? And all these other countries were using loopholes to import oil?
Not quite sure I follow you, Rooves. Is this the desperate and immediate threat that made war unavoidable? Loopholes in the “Oil for Food” Program? An urgent need to protect the dignity of the United Nations?
Surely we can all agree that terrorism is a problem. I don’t care what country we have to go into to fight it head on. Should we wait for the suicide bombers to start walking our streets? Our actions will always be in doubt until the ‘infected’ country has the juevos to stand up and help with their own problem. Ya see, terrorism has been a way of life in the mid-east for centuries. Most of the population is scared doo-doo-less to make a stand. If ‘the good guys’ pull out or fail, those people will be marked for death or torture.
Middle Eastern countries and people have been fighting each other since time began. Those fighting today probably don’t have a clue as to what ‘really’ started it. All they know is ‘the other guy just attacked us’ … now it’s there turn … and on and on and on …
Radical Muslims are trying to get a political foothold in numerous areas so that they can control a block of people with oppression and fear. As one of the ‘good guys’ (or so I’d like to believe) I’m all for making that as near impossible as possible.
Is there any doubt Sadaam would have sooner or later aquired atomic weapons and used them to, first control his neighbors and then attempt some sort of blackmail against the US? Somebody will do this some day. I just don’t think it’s right to sit around and do nothing about it.
Terrorism is the biggest challenge the world has ever seen. We Americans are so insulated from that reality that we can’t see the future nightmare that is inevitable.
Delmar, welcome to the SDMB. You should realise that this forum might be of a more taxing standard than others you have come across. If you state something as though it were a fact, you will be asked to cite a source which provides unambiguous and independently-verifiable support for your contention.
I will not bother to traipse through your ill-informed and myopic post highlighting examples of your poor critical thinking. I will merely point out that:[ul][li]Terrorism is a problem. Unnecessary invasions unsanctioned by the UN Security Council are also a problem.People from the middle east, radical muslims and terrorists comprise 3 sets with 4 different intersections.[/li][li]There is considerable doubt that would ever have acquired atomic weapons. In any case, we were led to believe that the threat was imminent.[/ul][/li]
Your government has told you that the Iraqi invasion prevented terrorism, and you have believed it. Lurk here awhile, and you will find that many articulate and intelligent people, even some American conservatives, think that the invasion might have increased the terrorist risk.
One of the corollaries of Occam’s razor is; “Don’t attribute to malice what can be satisfactorilly explained by stupidity.”
Anyway it’s hard for me to believe that the US administration is stupid. Did these guys really believe that American troops would be received as liberators by the Iraqis and that these people would be eager to adopt the occidental philosophy and would soon become a democracy?
If the simple explanation is unsatisfactory, we must add hipotheses. So I think there was malice and not stupidity. And malice means profits. Not necessarilly for GWB and Cheney, but at least for the contributors of their campaign for reelection.
Very much my own opinion. We are moving from being the USA to the USSA. Commisar Ashcroft’s first attempt to draft utility workers into his KGB failed, but I’m sure that hasn’t stopped him from trying something else.
We treat other countries like we ran some sort of new Warsaw Pact–give us money and troops for our adventures, we will remain in control. Trust us, comrades, we know what is best for World Socialism–World Democracy, that is.
Our poor get poorer, our middle class become poor, our priviliged get even more priviliges and state support. Very much like the USSR. We have different trappings and our Commisars did not make the mistake of coming out in hostility against established churches.
Neoconservatives are Stalinists with a better wardrobe.