Why we went into Iraq?

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

This level of conpiracy mongering belongs up there with, “the CIA actually attacked the WTC”, and “That wasn’t an airplane that hit the Pentagon”. It’s one level below moon-landing hoax conspiracies.
[/QUOTE]

I have the suspicion that the real reason one sees the WTC conspiracies maintaining a strong presence, is that in reality the powers that be love that many fall for equating people that are only calling attention to policy declarations and acts of the Neocons, to be the at the same level as the people who peddle WTC loony conspiracies.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And BTW, would you please take your personal vendetta to the pit?
[/quote]
It’s not a vendetta against you personally. It’s a vendetta against the spreading of falsehood. Fighting ignorance, ya know.

Every time I try and post anything, even a recitation of facts

Nope, every time you try and post something, it is NOT a recitation of facts. That’s the problem. That’s what I address. Again, it isn’t personal; you just get the brunt of the ignorance-fighting here because you’re the primary spewer of falsehoods here. If you nevertheless think you’re getting attacked personally, at any time, go ahead and pit whoever you think is doing it. Go ahead, right now, you’re logged on already.

Like it or not, complex, nuanced arguments are difficult to sell in today’s ‘sound bite’ media.

They got attacked, in the minority of cases where they did get attacked, not for being nuanced but for being confused, for trying out rationalization after rationalization for a decision that had already been made. Which was, as you know now even if it’s painful to admit, the fact. When did Bush *ever * make a “complex, nuanced” explanation, not simply sell us fear? Ever?

On a personal note, I believed quite a bit of this

Including the lies told to support the predetermined decision. It didn’t matter what you were told; you were willing to believe anything that supported your desire to have a war, right there on your TV. You have yet to acknowledge that any of those things you believed and repeated here, most especially the existence of Saddam’s WMD’s, were in fact false.

Unfortunately, once there were 75,000 soldiers sitting in ships off the coast and camped out in Kuwait, the only way I saw to avoid war was for Saddam to capitulate, which he did not do.

]Don’t kid yourself. The decision had already been made. We all knew it. Even you. There was no way to avoid war, and you didn’t even want there to be one. And still don’t. You’re the only one you’re kidding with that.

Bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole attack, etc. All met with indifference or at best symbolic retaliation.

Why do you continue to say that when you’ve had it explained to you, so patiently by so many people here, that that is not true?

So the way I saw it, we would either fight then, or pull out and watch the sanctions crumble against Iraq, the no-fly zones become increasingly non-viable politically, and eventually Saddam would have his way and build up his WMD arsenals more and eventually get nukes. Then we’d wind up fighting him ANYWAY, possibly right around now, only this time with the stakes an order of magnitude higher.

And I still think that is correct. I saw no way to have a peaceful future with Saddam in power. It was a question of showing strength and fighting him then, or withdrawing, letting him get much stronger, giving terror networks a chance to grow and arm with increasingly devastating weapons, then fight him later on much less favorable terms.

But *not * just continuing the containment strategy that had worked just fine for a decade, supported by everyone but the warmonger faction? Your claim that is was falling apart has *no * factual support behind it.

You “still think it is correct” that Saddam was building up his WMD arsenals. Wow. There is no polite response available to that statement.
BTW, when you personally go and fight, when your family or neighbors lose a loved young person to a landmine there, *then * you can use the word “we”. But first work on the reasons you so frequently get told you’re spouting lies, okay?

[Zoe]

Isn’t a war of aggression a war crime?

Now that the Pentagon has confirmed that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq/Saddam and we’ve known for a long time that there were no WMD, who will hold these men accountable? They didn’t just react to the intelligence they were given. They decided what intelligence they wanted and got it. George Tenet was given a medal. Was it for being accurate?

F.U. Shakespeare: It would be a little like a middle-easterner thinking that Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt are in cahoots.

Strangely enough, they have become friends and Falwell visits in Flynt’s home when he is in that part of the country. (Source: John Seigenthaler, Sr., founder of the First Amendment Center. He once hosted a debate between Flynt and Falwell.)[/hijack]

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Isn’t a war of aggression a war crime?
[/quote]
We hanged people for it at Nuremberg. The charter states the principle:

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

[ElvisL1ves]

Here you go, Sam, right from the horse’s ass.
Maybe *now * you’ll stop falsely saying otherwise? :dubious:

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Half the conspiratorialists say that the U.S. attacked Iraq to increase the flow of oil. The other half say they attacked to stop it. Could you please make up your mind?
[/quote]
They want to get the oil away from other people; selling it themselves or just stopping the flow both benefit them.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

the original name of the Iraq campaign being Operation Iraqi Liberation - O.I.L.

By God, you’ve caught them! Because we all know the evil overlords like to give names to their plans with acronyms that give away their true intentions. Good sleuthing, Holmes!
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think they don’t ? I think it was probably a cute in house term that somebody forgot to change for public consumption.

and you have Cheney’s “energy task force” studying maps of of Iraqi oil fields.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And why shoudn’t they? Would you want them to go to war WITHOUT having studied the oil fields? Especially since it was feared that Saddam would set those fields ablaze?

[/quote]
I’d like them to not plan to steal other people’s oil. It was an “energy task force”, not a war planning commission - supposedly.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
This level of conpiracy mongering belongs up there with, “the CIA actually attacked the WTC”, and “That wasn’t an airplane that hit the Pentagon”. It’s one level below moon-landing hoax conspiracies.
[/quote]
That’s standard these days; try to shut down accusations of misbehavior by the government by whining “It’s a conspiricay theory ! Therefore it’s wrong !” Without, of course either showing that it’s a conspiracy theory or that it’s wrong. After all, there’s never been an actual conspiracy in all of human history, right ?

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Saddam was willing to work with anyone who was willing to to help hurt America. It was his overriding passion. He had a vendetta against the U.S.
[/quote]
Garbage; it was known before the war that Saddam would never have helped Al Qaeda, and I see no evidence that hurting America was his overridding passion. Staying in power and alive was. The vendatta was ours.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
As for al-Qaida being ‘helped’, I’m not so sure about that. Iraq has been a meat-grinder for foreign terrorists.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. First, there aren’t that many to be ground up; most of the people fighting are Iraqis. Second, most of the foreign fighters there are people who were not fighters before the Iraq invasion. Third, it’s a wonderful recruiting tool.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Al-Qaida’s leadership has been decimated, and the capture of key Al-Qaida people in Iraq has led to intelligence coups that have dismantled some networks.
[/quote]
According to who ? The US government ?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
So - whether you support the current military action or not - I was wondering if any of you would be interested in offering your opinions of why we actually sent troops into Iraq 4 years ago? if you feel the actual reasons differed from the stated reasons, feel free to say so.
[/QUOTE]

I think Greg Palast put it pretty well.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Sam]
…Saddam was willing to work with anyone who was willing to to help hurt America. It was his overriding passion. He had a vendetta against the U.S…

[/QUOTE]

Sure took his time about it. Didn’t seem in any particular hurry, for someone compelled by an “overriding passion”. (Being as you are Canadian, and born to a more subdued emotional spectrum, are you quite sure you don’t mean just “a hankering”?)

But perhaps you would buttress your impressive abilities as a judge of character with a fact or two? Some overt aggressive act? Some concrete and tangible action that limns a clear and present danger? Or even a grave and growing danger? Shouldn’t there be a fully funded nuclear weapons program? Or at the very least, intercontinental missiles? Assuming, as you say, that Saddam fully intended grave harm to America, how did he fully intend to carry it out? Voodoo?

[Kimstu]

But Sam’s rationale does explain the years of close alliance between Saddam’s Iraq and its fellow America-hater Iran, now doesn’t it?

Oh, wait a minute…

[gonzomax]

Bush speech to Iraqi people mar.17,203

• All military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning.
  In any conflict ,your fate depends on your actions.
  Do not destroy the oil wells.a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people.
  Wonder why he didn’t mention anything else ,museums, farms ,fishing etc.

[Dinsdale]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Isn’t a war of aggression a war crime?
[/QUOTE]

Well, my understanding of international law was that war was justified essentially only if you were attacked, or if an ally with whom you have a defense treaty is attacked. But if you remember Bush’s and his party’s mocking of Kerry’s reference to “international opinion” or somesuch during the debates, their attitude towards the UN, their interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and many other instances, I sincerely believe that they are too interested in either establishing or respecting internationally agreed upon norms of conduct - at least when those norms are not convenient or to US advantage.

I believe there was some attempt to justify this action as a “pre-emptive defensive strike” - a concept I believe has little history and little international agreement as to its validity. But I think that was a nod towards the dubious “legality” of our actions.

But such concerns of “legality” are essentially irrelevant, because there is no chance that we will “lose” this conflict in a manner that will allow the international community to force us to submit to the jurisdiction of the World Court or any other body that might judge our actions illegal. Any such determination would have to come from within the US itself - and I don’t see that happening. Nor - as much as I despise this action - am I sure that would be “a good thing.”

Sam - does it trouble you at all that what you consider the clearest explanation of why our country invaded a sovereign nation, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, exists not in any official document, but instead in the private writings of a particular interest group?

When our forefathers wished to express our grievances against the Crown, they had no compunction against setting a number of them out in writing. I think it is mighty sad that our government was willing to attack another sovereign state, and commit so much of our cash, blood, and good name, but justified it in easily digestible “soundbites.”

I guess I need to pull up the Congressional authorization to see what reasons were set forth therein. As a citizen and a lawyer, I prefer “offical” statements over private publications as justification for state action - especially of this magnitude.

Seeing as we can’t even agree why we started this thing (and in my opinon, we did start it; we clearly had the last chance to stop it from happening), there seems to be little if any chance of us intelligently discussing our reasons why we agree or disagree with that reason.

Edit - being lazy I just pulled this up from wiki concerning the reasons set forth in the war authorization:
-Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
-Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
-Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
-Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
-Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
-Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq”
-Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations
-Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
-Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

[F.U.Shakespeare]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
F.U. Shakespeare: It would be a little like a middle-easterner thinking that Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt are in cahoots.

Strangely enough, they have become friends and Falwell visits in Flynt’s home when he is in that part of the country. (Source: John Seigenthaler, Sr., founder of the First Amendment Center. He once hosted a debate between Flynt and Falwell.)[/hijack]
[/QUOTE]
I should have known someone here would have remembered that debate.

I was simply noting that their avowed and apparent goals are 180 degrees apart, yet they might look very similarly aligned to a person sufficiently ignorant of US culture. I guess I should have picked two more opposed Americans, but I can’t think of any.[/hijack]

[Elsie]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
By occupying Iraq and throwing it into chaos, we’ve taken most Iraqi oil off the market for a long time, raising the price for oil and increasing the profits of Bush’s oil buddies.
[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you talking about, this is utterly absurd and quite the most retarded comment I’ve seen on this board these past two weeks - where did this come from, out of your head I presume?

It’s an uttely stupid idea, unsupported in any media anywhere at any time to the very best of my knowledge and for most economically sound of reasons.

It’s lunatic. Here’s what some other lunatics say about Iraqi oil production for export in 2006 - if you don’t like that source, there are hundreds of others at your finger tips.

Oil - production:

2.13 million bbl/day; note - prewar production in 2002 was 2.2 million bbl/day (2006 est.)

[Elsie]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Half the conspiratorialists say that the U.S. attacked Iraq to increase the flow of oil. The other half say they attacked to stop it. Could you please make up your mind?

[/QUOTE]

And there was me thinking “half the conspiratorialists” bought the whole WMD farm hook, line and empire, and then changed - on cue - like the media-fodder chameleon’s they are to believe it was all about terrah.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Elsie]
What the hell are you talking about, this is utterly absurd and quite the most retarded comment I’ve seen on this board these past two weeks - where did this come from, out of your head I presume?
[/quote]
No, a place called reality. You may be unfamiliar with it.

[QUOTE=Elsie]
It’s an uttely stupid idea, unsupported in any media anywhere at any time to the very best of my knowledge and for most economically sound of reasons.
[/quote]
Iraq’s Oil Bust

Across the country, insurgents mount a major attack on oil facilities about once every three days, and the situation is getting worse. December was the third month in a row that Iraqi oil production went down, marking the lowest level of exports since the invasion. At a time when global supplies are stretched thin, the Iraqi oil bust helps keep world prices near record highs.

[QUOTE=Elsie]
It’s lunatic. Here’s what some other lunatics say about Iraqi oil production for export in 2006 - if you don’t like that source, there are hundreds of others at your finger tips.
[/QUOTE]
Sources which agree with me, not you. as for the CIA, why would I believe a word they say ?

[Elsie]

How is any of that supposed to support your view that “we” - presumbaly the USA/Bush Administration - have intentionally taken Iraqi oil off the world markets in order to drive up the price.

What you quote (immediately above) talks of “insurgent action” and “production going down” - that’s the opposite of the point you make, as in this:

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
By occupying Iraq and throwing it into chaos, we’ve taken most Iraqi oil off the market for a long time, raising the price for oil and increasing the profits of Bush’s oil buddies.
[/QUOTE]

[Elsie]

btw, I’m not going to engage with you on this. It’s too absurd for words and, besides, it’s a nice day here.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Elsie]
How is any of that supposed to support your view that “we” - presumbaly the USA/Bush Administration - have intentionally taken Iraqi oil off the world markets in order to drive up the price.

What you quote (immediately above) talks of “insurgent action” and “production going down” - that’s the opposite of the point you make, as in this:
[/QUOTE]
How is it the opposite ?

[QUOTE=Elsie]
btw, I’m not going to engage with you on this. It’s too absurd for words and, besides, it’s a nice day here.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Then perhaps you shouldn’t be posting in a forum called Great Debates.

[guizot]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

Oil had nothing to do with it. I know ‘oil!’ is a rallying cry for lefty conspiratorialists, but people who understand economics know better. Oil is fungible.
[/QUOTE]
For that exact reason there was a schism about not whether to invade Iraq by why, and what to do afterwards.The oil industry disagreed with the “neo-cons” and the neo-cons won out. It was more about the price of oil.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
In fact, a pet plan of the Neocons was the notion of an ‘oil trust’, in which Iraqi oil revenue would be turned directly over to the people and used to help them build up their economy and create an instant middle class.
[/QUOTE]
I just wonder how sincere they were about that. Or naive. (“Instant middle class”?) If they’d really cared, they would have done a lot more post-invasion preparation. Who was it in the Senate recently who said something to the effect that, “You’re trying to do in three weeks what the allies in WWII had been planning for years.”?

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
That ties up nicely, ignorance, incompetence and wishful thinking, make a much more plausible reason than a malign conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agree. Reminds me of an old joke. How do you know the CIA had nothing to do with the Kennedy assasination?

He’s dead, isn’t he?

I think these jokers are too dumb to pull of some world-spanning conspiracy. I think it’s just as you said.