This is a serious question. I literally can't remember anymore because it has changed. Some of the ones I remember are: 1. Iraq broke UN rules 2. WMD 3. Liberate the tortured people 4. Can't cut and run (of course that doesn't spreak to why we "cut" in the 1st place) 5. The big myth: War on Terror (even though the Administration now says there is no connection to terrorists and Iraq...but they sure phrase it so you think that is what they're saying.) Am I missing any? I keep hearing different ones that I forgot about because they've been debunked long ago and nobody speaks about them anymore. The interesting part is discussing WHY we don't hear about the debunked war justifications anymore.
A large percentage of the American people persist in believing in those mostly false statements. The Bushies need this to continue to get reelected. If they don't talk about it, those ignorant of the truth will assume those falsehoods are true.
I don't want to get into an "agenda" discussion or an interpretation of why we went to war. I want to remember what were the stated reasons by the whitehouse of why.
That was the basis of my response. Neither of the "reasons" I cited are mine own, but rather were those advocated by the administration or supporters of same.
Maybe I'm totally naive or completely out of touch, but I've always thought that if the administration had told the truth, it might well have flown. 'Well, look, Saddam may not be an imminent threat to the US or Europe, but getting him out of the picture and creating a more stable Iraq in tandem with a long-term military presence that will eventually be embraced more or less as a normalcy will - we hope - go a long way towards stabalizing the region. We feel like we need a stronger military presence in the area because, let's face it, the region is critically important economically yet very unpredictable. For example, the principal Saudis are going to die off sooner than later, and we absolutely cannot have another Iran there. Plus, we can't have these middle eastern countries monkeying around with selling their oil for euros rather than dollars like Saddam's doing. That would be catastrophic for the US economically. That's the bleak reality. It's going to be costly and not very much fun, but we're convinced it is absolutely necessary.' Now, if the Bush junta had bundled that with at the very least some real European support and ideally some real regional support, it's possible we wouldn't be arguing about all this at present.
That's not quite correct. They said there was no direct connection between the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq had many terrorist connections, including: training camps, acting as a safe haven, funding, and supplying arms.
Not sure it would have worked at all, but that's food for an interesting discussion. However, how you get European support for a war whose underlying purpose is to increase American economic control and reverse the influence of European economic influence is beyond me, let alone who you'd get them to sell that to their electorates.
Incorrect. They referred to or essentially linked 9-11 and Iraq on several occassions to the point where the majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9-11, due exclusively to administrative statements. The training camp was in the section of Iraq over which Saddam could not effect control, and both parties ( Saddam and Al Queada) are on record as opposing each other. In fact one of AQ's stated primary objectives was the removl of Saddam from power because of his severe opposition to extreme Islamic groups. Hardly a 'safe haven'. I am sure some terrorists resided there at times, as they resided in Canada, Mexico, the US, etc. Funding? Do you mean his monetary tribute to the families of PLO bombers? Hardly the same thing, and like we have seen now in Iraq, a case of " the enemy of my enemy', etc. Supplying arms? Where and when? Not denying it happned, every country has done so,including the US , but what are your specifics?
First off, the way the Bush administration handled the whole going to war was/is terrible. They have changed reasons so many times. I honestly believe the reason we went to war was because Iraq did not comply with what they agreed to at the end of the first war. Yes this agreement was with the U.N. and the UNSC agreed that Iraq was not in compliance with their end of the agreement for some time, and chose to do nothing about it. At that point, the UNSC was rendered useless as they have no intentions of backing up their word, which said that further action would be taken if Iraq did not comply with their agreement. At that point the US made the decision to go back in Iraq to defend what the MOSTLY US forces fought for in in the first war.
It's beyond me, too, but somehow Bush has got Blair (remember when he was supposed to be a Clinton clone?) to act in a manner that, as far as I can see, is detrimental to his interests in every conceivable way. The answer to the question, though, is I think it takes time. The vast majority of the oil the Europeans consume comes from the middle east. Comparatively little of that consumed in North America does. I think if Bush and friends had pitched it not as 'We're leading the way, follow or get crushed!' and more of, 'Look, we need to do this collectively because all the western world - and we're in this together - relies on a stable middle east,' you know, and sort of diplomatically stroked some national egos, well, I think an astute politician could have pulled it off. I guess you guys are right, though: whether Dub could've pulled it off is another matter entirely. Who needs the foppy old Europeans when you've got God?
The UNSC didn't choose to do nothing about it. They had no-fly zones enacted, the weapons inspectors went back in, sanctions were enacted, more was being done up until the point that GW Bush decided to go ahead and go to war. The UNSC was in fact doing many different things, and there was still more they could have done, and still not gone to war. Some people seem to believe that not going to war meant doing nothing. Those obviously were not the only options available. The UNSC wasn't going to war, but they were doing something.
So the world should expect the US unilaterally to invade any country that sits in violation of the UN? That's cute. By the way, ever hear of Operation Desert Fox? It seemed pretty effective at the time.
Well, krosfyah, I think I have an answer (I too, have struggled with this question). Here's what I've learned (summarizing) 1. Iran broke UN rules. Yeah, well, they're not the first or only country to do so. Why did we choose to attack Iraq and not others? 2. WMD. What WMD? We didn't find any. So am I to believe that we attacked a country because we thought they might have WMD, and we were wrong? Oops, our bad? I don't think so. 3. Liberate the tortured people. There are lots of tortured people around the world - but we're not attacking their governments. Who made us the savior of Iraq's tortured? 4. Can't cut and run... uuhh I don't know what that means. 5. War on terror. What a bunch of bunk. There is no war on terror. Terrorism occurs all over the world, and US isn't doing anything about it. It should be re-phrased to "We'll fight any terrorists who hurt us badly." ... So what's the answer? You can answer it yourself. Why the hell do we care at all about some third world country in the middle of a stinkin' desert on the other side of the world? oil. I don't know how. I honestly can't explain it. I don't know the details. But somehow, that's got to be the reason. -- droxford
That's pretty much what I recall. Each of those reasons are problematic. So I'm trying to figure out if there are any others that I forgot. We all know oil is a major factor but they'll never admit that.
My God! You've got a vice president who won't divulge his energy policy team, that laid out a map of Iraq during one of their policy meetings during the summer of 2001 and this war wasn't about oil? Please 911 gave these creeps the excuse they needed.
