[QUOTE=Philster]
The powers that be like to refer to UN Resolutions (various #'s) that allowed for military responses when Iraq shot at planes, kicked out inspectors, etc, etc.
[/QUOTE]
He did not kick out the inspectors. They went every place the administration said to go and found nothing. Bush recalled them before it became obvious to everyone the WMD was a fake.
Looking back on how I was thinking at the time, and how the people I know were thinking, I believe it comes down to:
a) After 9/11, we were in ass-kicking mode
b) We were told by our government that Saddam had WMDs
c) We weren’t really afraid that Saddam was going to attack us with those WMDs, but
d) We were annoyed that he was still in power a decade after the Gulf War, still thumbing his nose at us (after we won, no less), still bothering our planes over the no-fly zones, so
e) In the take-no-guff climate indicated in (a), it seemed only natural to remove from power this dangerous and clearly not very nice guy with whom we had unfinished business after the first Gulf War. Invading Iraq seemed merely to be a continuation of our authority from the first Gulf War.
f) Naturally, we trusted the intelligence about WMDs that our leaders revealed to us (after all, we had the Best Military and Best Intelligence Agencies in the World)
g) Since we trusted our side, and we knew Saddam was a no-good-liar who had been playing games with UN Weapons Inspectors for years (which he had), all of his denials and last-minute games just seemed to further confirm our suspicions that he had something to hide.
That’s why I think most citizens supported (or at least did not decry) the war when it began.
Why the administration thought the war was necessary, I don’t know for sure.
toadspit I think that might really be close to explaining what I believe many folks who did not oppose the war believed. Well done.
I offer a bit of a tweak to (f) - I think many folk weren’t all that convinced by the intel that was made public, but they thought the government HAD to have some more serious stuff that only they were aware of, justifying attack at that time. I seem to recall people saying things along the lines of, “Gee, if they are releasing this stuff and saying war is needed, just think how much more top secret stuff they must have that would be too dangerous and scary to release!”
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
(f) - I think many folk weren’t all that convinced by the intel that was made public, but they thought the government HAD to have some more serious stuff that only they were aware of, justifying attack at that time. I seem to recall people saying things along the lines of, “Gee, if they are releasing this stuff and saying war is needed, just think how much more top secret stuff they must have that would be too dangerous and scary to release!”
[/QUOTE]
I agree.
From a UK perspective, while I was sure that there were no WMD (the Israelis would have zapped them - as they did twice before) and I thought that Saddam was a windbag, but no real threat
I soon realized that I was very wrong and consider that Blair et al made a major mistake. ‘Look we are nicer than the Americans’ does not wash out there.
I suppose I was trying to rationalize an excuse for something incredibly stupid
[QUOTE=FRDE]
[/QUOTE]
This kinda made me think of another thing. Over the past 25 years or so, the US has a history of air strikes or other limited attacks against against unfriendlies, saving actual invasions for relatively tiny, militarily weak countries in our hemisphere.
I think many people kinda thought this would be an easy in and out - more along the lines of a cruise missle strike or bombing raids, and underestimated the risk and costs involved in putting thousands of boots on the ground in a very large, populous, and heavily armed country on the other side of the world.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I think many people kinda thought this would be an easy in and out - more along the lines of a cruise missle strike or bombing raids, and underestimated the risk and costs involved in putting thousands of boots on the ground in a very large, populous, and heavily armed country on the other side of the world.
[/QUOTE]
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War
Nov. 15, 2002
[INDENT]There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.
“The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,” he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.
He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq’s armed forces are weaker.
“Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he said. “It won’t be a World War III.”
Secretary Rumsfeld TownHall Meeting At Aviano Air Base
Friday, February 7, 2003
Rumsfeld: Well – (laughter) – let me say this about that. (Laughter.) It is highly unlikely that we would go to a full mobilization. …
And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
So I would see this buildup going up, lasting for a period, and the last choice is war, but if that is necessary, a period where that takes place and then a drawdown. And you would find people moving back out and some residual number staying there, with the – undoubtedly the forces of many other nations.
Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”
Sunday, March 30, 2003
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think we’ll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I’ve never – we’ve never had a timetable. We’ve always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don’t know. And I don’t think you need a timetable. What you really need to know is it’s going to end and it’s going to end with the Iraqi people liberated and that regime will be gone.
[/INDENT]
Is the absence of the word “years” is conspicuous? Gosh, golly you betcha.
Saddam kept undercutting OPEC and passing his quotas. When Chavez did so the Opeckers cut the price so low that he was in real financial trouble.
Saddam went into Kuwait to get their oil quota. he was ambitious and greedy. The oil price must be controlled. It was always about oil. There are approx. 65 countries with dictators or horrible rulers. Why have we not made a list of governments whose system must be changed.? Because they do not have the resources we want.
Saddam claimed Kuwait was slant drilling. Their wells were drilling into what he saw as Iraqi oil. In the middle east it is always about oil.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Saddam kept undercutting OPEC and passing his quotas. When Chavez did so the Opeckers cut the price so low that he was in real financial trouble.
Saddam went into Kuwait to get their oil quota.
[/QUOTE]
Are you just kidding around? “Oil quota” isn’t something you can rob. Why would invading Kuwait increase his oil quota?
As another poster once put it when someone else raised this preposterous idea, it’s like mugging someone for their frequent flyer miles.
If he got their oil ,he would get their quota. Or that was the attempt. Plus the slant drilling which may have been an excuse ,like WMD.