Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Is the U.S. in Iraq for

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Is the U.S. in Iraq for

    I've always wondered what peoples responses to this are yet on CBC they are always biased. Oh and I'm not talking about the soldiers I'm fairly sure that They would say that they were in it for freedom. I'm wondering about the bushies and blairies motives for going to war.

    I Think that iraqui freedom was a goal but not the main one. In a changing world the U.S. needed someone to turn to for oil. Iraq was the perfect Solution.
    58
    Freedom for iraq
    17.24%
    10
    Oil
    22.41%
    13
    A forward base against iran
    0.00%
    0
    To dispose of saddam
    18.97%
    11
    Other
    41.38%
    24

  • #2
    Guy who voted Other that doesn't work you need to tell me your rationel for that answer.
    Last edited by Protestant; 17 Jul 07, 10:28.

    Comment


    • #3
      Other as in.... there's more then one reason for involvement.... causally and in it's effect.

      1. Strategic national/international interests of all variants...to include supporting alliances historic and developing.


      2. Geopolitical presitige.


      3. A latent conservative ideaology that democracy, in your allies, is good as long as they follow your lead.....and penchent for conservative philosophies reference the same.



      4. Oil and expansion of corporate business and markets at all levels.

      best
      CV

      Comment


      • #4
        So you think that it is all of these combined?

        Comment


        • #5
          yup.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
            Other as in.... there's more then one reason for involvement.... causally and in it's effect.

            1. Strategic national/international interests of all variants...to include supporting alliances historic and developing.

            2. Geopolitical presitige.

            3. A latent conservative ideaology that democracy, in your allies, is good as long as they follow your lead.....and penchent for conservative philosophies reference the same

            4. Oil and expansion of corporate business and markets at all levels.

            best
            CV
            yes, that and:

            - lobbies (from Israeli ones to corporate
            - hubris
            - incompetence

            I am very happy to see that the US armed forces were the least adamant to this venture. they knew it would be a difficult one with very little benefits.
            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

            Comment


            • #7
              Only GWBush really knows for sure why we attacked Iraq. My guess is fear. Fear of what? Mainly the fear of confronting, and if necessary, attacking Pakistan. That, combined with the fear of not confronting Pakistan. Or should I say, the fear of having to explain to the American people that the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 had now found a haven in a country, that despite the fact that had created the Taliban and had been conducting an ongoing terror war against India for decades for territorial expansion, had still been considered a US ally; even deserving of 3 billion dollars in free military aid - including the latest version of the F-16. Anything to this administration, would be better than attacking nuclear Pakistan, and yet leaving the terrorists to the Pakistanis would be considered less than acceptable to Americans. Enter Iraq, stage left.

              Attacking Iraq OTOH, offered many potential benefits. Unfortunately, none of them were valid . As an oil-rich puppet, could keep the price of crude cheap for Americans. Maintaining the no-fly zone and inspection regime required constant decisions from Washington. More work for 'the decider'. Saddam had been sending money to Palestinian terrorists, which technically made him vulnerable to American attack(along with all the other countries). All that was required was to convince America that he was more important than Bin Laden. And so began the Iraq debacle. Why are we still there? I don't know but Bin Laden is still in Pakistan, strong as ever, and we're doing nothing concrete about it. There is a huge campaign OTOH to convince Americans that Iraq is the central front on terror. Is it a 'dog and pony show' to distract Americans from UBL? The answer will be more clear when AQ attacks the US again. If they're successful, then the answer is yes.
              Last edited by macgregr; 17 Jul 07, 13:25.

              Comment


              • #8
                Other...As in "All of the Above"...and then some...

                There really is no need to resort to nonsensical conspiracy theories to explain our rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom...It's all spelled out very clearly, in plain English, in the Congressional authorization for the war...

                Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq A.K.A. PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002...passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress in 1992...Including the, then Democrat controlled Senate...With a majority of Senate Democrats voting for it.

                The Senate voted 77-23 for OIF…among Senate Democrats the vote was 29-21 for OIF. The House voted 296-133 for OIF…81 House Democrats (39&#37 voted for OIF.

                The reasons for the war were clearly laid out and overwhelmingly approved by Congress.
                Last edited by The Doctor; 17 Jul 07, 13:29.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't think it was fear. It was pre-positioning. Maybe for this:

                  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d97d75a-2e0...arch%3Fhl%3Dro

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pre-positioning? It certainly contributed to the discussion. I'm watching for the next huge spin blitz by the Bush supporters. The first was to get Americans to see Iraq as 'the central front' against Al Qaeda. The next move will be to spin the next Al Qaeda attack as due to 'our failure to stay in Iraq'. It's already well underway. We flip from UBL to Iraq, and then from Iraq back to UBL.

                    "It's the ol' Potomac two-step, Jack.
                    Jack Ryan: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I don't dance. "

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      'Weapons of mass destruction'.
                      Ties to Al'Queda and 9/11.
                      Taking over for what the Bush administration believed to be a failure of the UN and stepping in for what the Bush administration believed was a lack of action by the UN in relation to the question of 'weapons of mass destruction' as it related to UN resolutions.
                      Last edited by Duncan; 17 Jul 07, 18:29.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#Ba...nd_and_history

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#As...administration

                        Taken together, this tells you all you need to know.

                        The bottom line is that the "neocon" members of the Bush admin had wanted to remove Saddam going back to '91 and after 9/11 they saw their chance to finally do so.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Imperial View Post
                          I don't think it was fear. It was pre-positioning. Maybe for this:

                          http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d97d75a-2e0...arch%3Fhl%3Dro
                          Oh, get a life man. That's the biggest bunch of horse patoey I've read.
                          "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                            Other as in.... there's more then one reason for involvement.... causally and in it's effect.

                            1. Strategic national/international interests of all variants...to include supporting alliances historic and developing.


                            2. Geopolitical presitige.


                            3. A latent conservative ideaology that democracy, in your allies, is good as long as they follow your lead.....and penchent for conservative philosophies reference the same.



                            4. Oil and expansion of corporate business and markets at all levels.

                            best
                            CV
                            Exactly, there are multiple reasons for being in Iraq and anyone of those reasons can stand alone.

                            IOW, this poll is flawed...as well as biased.
                            Later - Tater
                            "Why I have a greater affinity to Israel than to the Muslim world after 9/11: Watching a death-match fight on Animal Planet once, I found myself instinctively rooting for the mammal over the reptile."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As others have already stated, the options are not mutually exclusive. 'All of the above and then some' would be more accurate.

                              Frankly this is the kind of simplistic polls that the media loved so much, but which really doesn't mean much.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X