US Invasion of Iraq

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:02 pm

Just wondering what you all believe.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:09 pm

#3, and to make daddy proud

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:33 pm

Sheer stupidity.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:34 pm

noisetonepause wrote:Sheer stupidity.

NO DOUBT

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:39 pm

Number three, without a doubt.

It's important to remember the OFFICIAL reason was an imminent threat of WMD's - nothing about freeing the Iraqi people are creating a Democratic model for the Middle East blah blah blah... Those are not acceptable reasons (legally) for invading and occupying another country. The fear card was used to the fullest extent; we pulled Blix and his crew out prematurely, and then upped the time table for our first strike, hitting earlier than we had said...all because Saddam was about to strike us with his WMD's at any moment!

Very important to never forget these lies, my fellow Americans...

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:34 pm

What amazes me is that they were complicit with misinfomation and outright lies about the pretext for the invasion but are still in office now, this goes for Blair et al also. It was as though once he WMD excuse failed, they just used the justification of an altruistic crusade for the democractic right of the Iraqi people. I mean wtf?

Sales Dude McBoob · Post by **Sales Dude McBoob** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:42 pm

[x] Feverishly delusional hubris

Nod · Post by **Nod** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:49 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... iraq_x.htm

then...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

then...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... s=358x1293

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - GWB, talking utter bollocks as usual, sometime in 2002.

Nod · Post by **Nod** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:55 pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast ... .plans.ap/

Check out the Powerpoint presentations! "In part the optimism came from not knowing diddly squat" - lmao.

Thinktanx · Post by **Thinktanx** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:57 pm

In truth, it is some of #2 and all of #3. The Neo-Con line of thinking is/was that while America is the only 'superpower', it should use its strength to spread democracy. If you snoop around Neo-Con journals (particularly between '00-'03), you will find that to be their 'official party line'. The thing is, of course, that this spreading of 'democracy' is really only about serving themselves, and not so much about helping the Iraqi people (or whomever they are 'reaching out to'), although, that would be a great upside...

Oh, and sheer stupidity...

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:58 pm

Y'know, I generally don't give our current administration much credit for anything, but I will say this:

The idea of -in theory- creating a peaceful, democratic society in the middle of the Middle East, to be used as a model for tolerance, democracy and peace is not a bad idea at all. If it could happen, it could possibly create some ripples of change, which could not only aleviate some of the threat of terrorism from radical Islamists, but also provide a more "modern" social template where women have more equal rights and people have control of their government by electing their representatives. It's not a bad idea, really.

The REALLY BAD IDEA was how we went about trying to implement that: By lying to our own people, in order to justify an invasion. By lying to ourselves about the realities of what such an enormous undertaking would require, both troop-wise and time-wise. By not having any plan for helping the Iraqi's work out their political/religious/tribal issues and maintaining peace while a new government is formed. By losing countless resources (men and money) to corrupt tribal warlords, religious leaders, and even the two-faced "official" government in place now.

I hate to be cliche with Clinton and his blowjob, but seriously...where's Ken Starr and his fever-pitched witch hunt now? How does a little extra-marital hanky-panky on the job compare with a debacle like this? Why isn't the country furious and calling for impeachment now, like they were then?

Politics...

glu · Post by **glu** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:59 pm

reason why is Saddam. He wanted to trade oil for euros instead of US dollars around a month before operation " shock and awe" , which would have given europe a better rate and screwed the value of the American dollar that much more.

So I say we went to war in order to sustain the value of the dollar.

cosmosuave · Post by **cosmosuave** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:19 pm

Kajillion Page Thread Comin Up

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:52 pm

Would "general stupidity" go under "None of the above"?

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:58 pm

Sales Dude McBoob wrote:[x] Feverishly delusional hubris

Title of my first album. Oddly, that one wasn't the hit I had expected.

US Invasion of Iraq

Why did the US invade Iraq?

US Invasion of Iraq