You mention - More oil and higher profit margins for the oil industry, including the traditional big oil companies and products and services provider to the petroleum and energy industries such as Halliburton. Big oil execs as well as high profiled board members and consultants get largest shares of pie, hefty year-end bonus for mid-level exces next (we may have some posters in this bloc), and finally, if the trickle-down economy works its magic, American hoi polloi get a few extra drips of gasoline. So in the end, soccer moms are happy, truck drivers are happy, everyone gets something out of this war. - More profits for the defense industry, such as the high tech weaponry manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, and big tax dolloars subsidies to the defense-related contractors such as KBR. - To eliminate one of the thorniest adversaries of Israel in the region. Remember most of the original neocons are or of descendents of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. In additon, AIPAC anyone? - To satisfy the religious zeals of the most hawkish Christian conservatives, who believe Muslisms in the Islamic world have waged a war against them. as the qualifiers and I really believe that isn't the majority of the people who supported the war. Then you said to "most other Americans who initially supported this War" meaning those that weren't those who fit into the above. From that you're saying that most Americans support the war either have a financial or political stake in the war, or are for it due to blood lust. So even with a second look, I disagree with your statements. p.s. as a side note, you used !=, you a programmer arent' you?
It's really sad these days, how many government officials and politicians are true "public servants"? Even the founding fathers were elites that made this country a republic due the fear of a true democracy (or in their words "mobocracy"). Not that I totally disagree with the logic and reasoning behind it.
I believe the answer to both questions is zero at this point. But there is no way of knowing. There is zero evidence to show that the invasion of Iraq prevented one signal attack on the U.S. We do know that it was the stated cause behind numerous other attacks against America's allies. Even the administration that planned IRaq admits that another attack on the U.S. is likely.
maybe what you meant was financial security for a very small number of americans.. or at least prefix your statement with IMO.. right now, majority of americans think the war was not only not worth it but was a mistake and and even a lot more people that that thinks america is less safe.. if the goal is to make a america safer, I think it can be done without attacking Iraq, spending $300 billion dollars, losing almost 2000 americans, killing tens of thousands of iraqis, and having majority of citizens around the world have ill will towards america..
In what way do you believe the Iraq war would or did contribute to American security? Do you think Americans are safer as a result of it?
How many occurred between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war? I'm not sure how you could or why you would correlate this to the Iraq war?
What is the war in Iraq's intended objective? What was the objective of those in power who took America to war? That I can't answer, not being one of them. What objective would I believe would constitute success in the war, if it is achieved? Creating a functioning democracy in Iraq. Have your view of the war's goals changed between its start to now? Initially, I thought there would probably end up being WMDs in Iraq. If they had been found, I would say their elimination would be a critical factor in determining the sucess of the war. Since there were no WMDs, that aspect of the war did not exist, so that objective was eliminated. The other objective, mentioned above, has not changed. Do you think those objectives are realistic now, and what kind of time frame do you believe we're looking at? I think a functioning democracy in Iraq is realistic. This is the part people may not like: I think the timetable is a matter of decades, perhaps generations. We are talking about taking a country politically from the Dark Ages to the Age of Enlightenment. In the West, this process took the better part of a thousand years. If we can do it in 30, I would consider it a remarkable achievement. Finally, do you believe Bush been clear about these goals? I don't think Bush has been very clear on much WRT the War on Terror in general and OIF in particular. I don't think you want to make public clear victory conditions, as then then enemy knows very well what they must do to defeat you. Having said that, the PR effort for this whole thing could have been executed a lot better, as could various other aspects of the war. Bush has by no means done a spectacular job in running OIF or the greater War on Terror. I don't have as low an opinion of him as most around here, but I do think it could have been done better. This is one reason that military command experience would be a good attribute in a presidential candidate, that or a greater understanding of one's limitations and willingness to take the advice of those more qualified.
Your post, to me, sounds like you are basically saying our soldiers are nothing more than sacrificial lambs. Am I correct in interpreting your post? Oh...my answers to the thread questions.... What is the war's intended objective? To enrich the military industrial complex Has my view of the war's goals changed between then and now Nope Do you think those objectives are realistic now, and what kind of time frame do you believe we're looking at? This objective has already been achieved, and will continue to be built on as long as the war continues Finally, do you believe Bush has been clear about these goals? President Bush lied about the initial reason we went to war. President Bush has changed reasons and danced around justification as the war has gone on. President Bush will burn in hell for needlessly causing the deaths of thousands of people, Americans and Iraqis. The war in Iraq is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It is a war for profiteers. Need I say more?
Has anyone here read Woodward's book? I think to claim the the war was started just to increase Haliburton's revenues is pretty lame.
Not just Halliburton. The entire military-industrial complex. I think all of the claims made by the administration as to why the war was started are lame.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
The answer HAS ALWAYS BEEN: The war in Iraq is intended to achieve the installation of government which more adequately cooperates with foreign nations in its current and future oil exports.
I've read Plan of Attack; I think it reveals very little, if anything, about what this administration's ultimate aims were in invading Iraq. After all, Woodward's observations and reporting only reflected what members of the administration wanted Woodward to hear; and IIRC, Woodward's only private interactions with 43 consisted of 2 interviews. I don't believe anything triggered the war against Iraq; Indeed, I think Bush took office with the idea of supplanting Hussein, and saw 9/11 as the perfect opportunity to obtain the necessary public support... It is not as simple as increasing Haliburton's revenues (after all, that could have been done through much less messy and more direct means through a government subsidy, (although, some observers have labelled the invasion of Iraq as the most elaborate subsidy scheme ever concocted for one entity)... Simply put, you can't point to one justification, rather, it's a series of calculated missteps taken by this administration that has led this nation into the quagmire that is Iraq... calculated missteps I can almost excuse, but deception of the public to promote good will for such missteps consistitute an impeachable offense of such magnitude that it dwarfs lying to a grand jury about inappropriate sexual activity in the oval office...
