It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


And Thought You Knew the Reasons for the Iraq War – Guess Again

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 08:45 PM
Ask anyone why we went to war with Iraq, and 99% of all Americans will give you an answer in 5-6 nanoseconds. But what if I told you, “Well, really you don’t really know.”

In fact there is more then one reason………

“Oh, sure…” and you may elicit a few more reasons. But I bet you can’t list all the reason the Bush Administration used to get us to approve their ‘scheme’……

A study produced by a senior honors student at the University of Illinois is the first to count and analyze the Bush administration's rationales leading to the war in Iraq.

The researcher found 27 separate rationales were floated to the public between Sept. 12, 2001 and Oct. 11, 2002—and all but four came directly from the Bush administration.

She also found that Bush switched his focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein only five months after 9/11.

Yet even today – with the 27 listed reasons the WH gave for war – we really don’t know the real reason why. DO WE?

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 09:28 PM
I never did believe what the Bush administration wass trying to dish out to us as the "reason" for invading Iraq. I knew from the "get-go" that it was all in revenge for what was done to Bush41. Our soldiers are just pawns in a deadly game that Bush had in mind before 9/11

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:18 PM
GIve me a break people. If you want to get down to it we have been at war with Iraq since the early 1990's. Saddam broke the requirements of the cease fire that suspended the legally declared Gulf war and Clinton let him slide for years trying to cajole him into submission. You want the real reason we went in there? It is because we needed to finish the job. GB had the courage to rally the country using whatever reason was valid enough and catchy enough to get people behind it. Was it a lie that we went in because of illegal weapons? No that was one of the reasons and it happened to be the most emotionally charged one, so it is the one that stuck in peoples consciousness. Hence it was the reason most propogated for rallying the country to war. That is what a president is supposed to do. If the sheeple of the country do not utilize their gray matter to understand the other reasons for war that is their problem.

It was no secret that Saddam was paying people to be suicide bombers. It was no secret that Saddam had flaunted the UN and the terms of the cease fire that had enabled him to stay in office. It was no secret that he was manipulating world powers to attain the ability to build WMD's. All of these things and the other points mentioned in the above post were no great secret at the time of the ramp up to war. Yet some people would like to relegate the decision to go to war to some personal vendeta?!! Unbelievable.

I would like to make one other point in closing this little missive. Most all of the wars that the United States has chosen to engage in have been entered into for a mirad of reasons of which the general public only knows a few. Government historians would like to tell you that Japan bombed pearl harbor in an unprovoked sneak attack. The actual facts of the matter are that the UNited States and her citizens and servicemen had been secretly fighting the Japanese in China for many months before Japan Attacked. I say that to come to this point. It is part of the job description of the President of the United States that he rally the sheeple of the coutry to support the wars that the country needs to fight. Iraq was a war we decided to fight in the 90's and GB rallied the coutry to win in 2003.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:32 PM
So I guess you could not list all 27 reasons!

Central to this story is not how it may be reflective of some other time in history or much else of what you remark on............but the organized and methodical campaign by the neo-cons and the WH to mislead the American people.

This all became quit clear right after the O’Neill book. As a result there was a 21 pt drop in support for the President by Independent voters. The same spread exists to this day.

I’m really surprised at the Bush folks. Republicans proved just one term earlier, President’s get in deep dodo it they lie………….. some learn; others ……well you get the gist…..

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
.but the organized and methodical campaign by the neo-cons and the WH to mislead the American people.

Mislead them into what?! Do you think it would have been at all wise to try to convince the public that taking out Saddam was imperative because he was directly supporting terrorism in Israel? Do you think it would have been wise to try to make a case for war by expounding on the fact that legally we were still at war. Of course not! These and a host of other reasons would be political suicide both at home and abroad. You have to lead with what inspires even if it is not the whole picture. That is what leadership is all about. It is not misleading. It is leading. Most people are way to lazy and stupid to be able to formulate a cojent opinion on a complex issue such as this so they must be lead with what they can understand. I would call it misleading the people if the other justifications for war were hidden, but they were not. They just were not what activated people so they were not what was used.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:43 PM

Bush the 43rd is the son of Bush the 41st. Bush the 41st was almost killed by the Iraqi leader. This is the main reason Jr. went after Iraq. He tried to kill his daddy, and because of his bloodline he was able to take revenge as the 43rd President. If someome tried to kill your dad wouldn't you try to kill him? I would. The thing on 9/11 gave him a perfect excuse.

The other reason is because Bush knows that cheap oil is running out, (he knows because any good powerful oil man like him does), and that in order to have cheap oil for the U.S. in the near future it is required to take Iraq which has the second largest known reserves over and install a puppet government in the country that is controlled by the U.S. so when push comes to shove the U.S. will have the oil and the Iraqi people will be stuck out along with France and Germany and all the other countries that pissed him off in his search for revenge. Trust me I'm from Texas too and I can see how this clown thinks. Vote Kerry if you don't want WWIII. I hate Democrats!

This to me is something that is easy to see. Most people in the world can't see the forest because all those stupid trees keep getting in the way!

Do you guys and gals really think a rich Texas oil man millionare and second generation president of the most powerful country in the world would care about the Iraqi people or anyone else that would stop the flow of oil money to his rich Skull and Bones buddies and other rich friends and relatives. The president doesn't care about any of that. If he did he would have attempted to declare war proper on Iraq like FDR did on 12/8/1941 by going to Congress and declaring war on Japan after the attack that led us to kick their rear, the last honorable victory my country fought IMHO and yes I lost two brothers in the Nam but consider that whole gig a bunch of crap, it wasn't a war and neither was Korea for that matter. They were police actions to stop the Communist.

Ramble, ramble, ramble...

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:46 PM
Many of the real reasons went unstated, but the invasion was justified.

Like I've said, cold warriors are still running the world. Bush 41 (via his puppet, Bush 43) and Putin are fighting the cold war still. Russia is arming Iran, and we're countering by going into Iraq. Taking out Iraq and Syria relieves pressure on our ally Turkey and on Israel as well. Controlling Iraq gives us a jumping off point for an incursion into Saudi if the house of Saud should fall, or if they should start tugging at the leash. Taking Iraq was economically good for many allies and for us (although the savings on oil would likely take 50 years or more to pay for the war, it was hoped that we could boost the global economy and give our own a jump at the same time. Saddam was getting old, and when dictators die there can be a power vaccuum. You never know what might happen, and once everyone can see that the country is in play it's too late to make up an excuse to go in. He was also getting into some dirty stuff with our allies and with the UN. We were actually stopping a larger scandal from pulling America away from crucial relationships. Saddam was also a devisive issue for our allies. Eventually the sanctions would have had to stop, but that was going to be a conflict between the US and others.

There were a million reasons in domestic politics, diplomatic relations, the strategic situation, economics, morality, etc.

Then of course we can't forget that Saddam broke the treaty that spared him after the gulf war. He was destabilizing his neighbors and killing people. If that WERE the real reason, that would be enough, and although it wasn't THE real reason, it was A real reason.

The left is going to have to figure something out fast- pacifism is a nice idea, but it can get you killed. Until all of mankind transcends self, the natural state of the world will be conflict, which sometimes makes war necessary. Most people seem to be religious or at least moral in some sense, and most religious and moral systems make provision for war. So what's the problem?

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:53 PM
“Bush the 43rd is the son of Bush the 41st. Bush the 41st was almost killed by the Iraqi leader.”

Did she list that one on her list of 27? I may have missed it. Or did you find #28?

“The other reason is because Bush knows that cheap oil is running out, (he knows because any good powerful oil man like him does), and that in order to have cheap oil for the U.S.”

Hell no on both counts.

He knows because daddy’s investment club, The Carlyle Group paid for a very expensive investigation and report…………says recoverable oil will not be able to keep up with demand by year 2020……………… and if he’s getting the oil…………….you and me are not figured in his equation………… ya can bet the barn on that one.

Other then that…..most everything else you say I can’t argue with…………..sorta makes sense that way to me too

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
She also found that Bush switched his focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein only five months after 9/11.

Could the reason of the switch partially be because we found out that Saddam not only helped Al Qaeda but SAddam himself said on an Arabic news media that the US would see a new rash of attacks on US soil soon, and he said this before 9/11....

I have posted links to this before, its too late to look for them, but if you search the forums you'll find them.

[edit on 13-6-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 11:06 PM
I thought I'd add my two cents, that's all. No disrespect intended to her fine report. I know about the 2020 report but it's just more side show mumbo jumbo. He and his daddy saw it coming many moons ago. They're rich powerful oil men. They know the truth. I see the big picture as much more black and white, thats all. People try to add too many shades of grey that just aren't needed IMO. Read what I added in that reguard and you will see how I see the world better. Stargate SG1 is coming on. See you later :-)

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 11:09 PM
Well you best report that to the President; the CIA; and to the State Department because they all say just the opposite............

Think it out clearly: Why would saddam and Osama bin forgotten been allies? They hated each other.

More importantly their political agendas where diametrically opposed. Saddam want to control his country as was; Osama wanted a unified Middle East religious state...............

Plus saddam is crazier then a loon...........and would kill anyone he suspected might be a threat to his power...........


Have any idea of was saddam was doing during the Gulf II war????

He was writing a western style romance novel?


He'll never stand trial if insanity prevents it; and if not NO ONE who want a show trial would ever allow think there was a stink about the Prisoner abuse stuff..................I say he never stand trial

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 11:13 PM
They hated each others, but they worked together for a common purpose. How about think about that? Ancient history, including Islamic/Arabic history, provides countless proofs for such.


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 11:36 PM
DON"T JUST SAY IT................PROVE IT.

Link please................


...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link
Administration Has Been Vague on Issue, but President Says No Evidence Found
By Dana Milbank


Published on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaeda
by Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida - one of the administration's central arguments for a pre-emptive war - appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration's claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
Rumsfeld's Exaggerations: On the Saddam/Al-Qaeda Link
In the National Interest, October 2, 2002
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
The Miami Herald | 03/03/2004 | Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear ...
... 03, 2004. Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty. ... 'We could find no provable connection
between Saddam and al Qaeda,'' a senior US official acknowledged. ...
Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection
Some critics blame TV news for making Baghdad new enemy
From Bruce Morton CNN
Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Posted: 10:17 AM EST (1517 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Does Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein provide assistance to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda? It's a case the Bush administration has tried hard to make.
Desperate to justify the aggressive invasion and occupation of Iraq by Anglo-American forces, the White House has been repeatedly making noise about new evidence that "proves" a link between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin-Laden. What do I say to this evidence? Bah!
++++ Being Dick Cheney
PopMatters, IL - Jun 2, 2004
... this year, Cheney cited a document previously discredited by the Bush Pentagon as the "best source" of information about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link (none have ever ...
Untelling the Truth - Jun 1, 2004
... A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam ... ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links ...
Terrorist link to post-Saddam Iraq is definite
Orangeburg Times Democrat, SC - May 13, 2004
... Recent events in Iraq make a stronger case for the Saddam-al Qaeda link that until now has appeared little more than a case of sharing a common enemy, the ...
Sophism, the neo-conservative way
Deccan Herald, India - May 15, 2004
... The WMD legend, the alleged Saddam-al-Qaeda link, the lies in the Security Council, the myth of a coalition of the willing, and much else besides were “sold ...

Links on request

[edit on 13-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:40 AM
OIL, Greed, OIL, Money, Power. Did I forget to mention OIL!?!
"Vice President Dick Cheney's former company already has garnered more than $600 million in military work related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and potentially could earn billions more without having to compete with other companies.

As the Army's sole provider of troop support services, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary has received work orders totaling $529.4 million related to the two wars under a 10-year contract that has no spending ceiling."

U.S. looks at reopening Iraq-Israel oil pipeline
Pentagon asks Israel about feasibility of reactivating Mosul-Haifa facilities

World Net Daily

The U.S. has asked Israel to report on the feasibility of pumping oil from the Kirkuk wells to the refineries in Haifa.

G2 Bulletin reported exclusively last April that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered to reactivate the old Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline in a move certain to bring sharp reactions in an already tense Middle East. The U.S. request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The original pipeline was built by the Iraqi-British oil company in the late 1920s and early 1930s and was among the main targets of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt.

The pipeline carried Iraqi crude oil to the Haifa refineries on the Mediterranean. From there it was shipped to Europe. But the facility was constantly attacked by Arab guerrillas. Most often it was targeted by Sheikh Az-Adin Kassem, who was finally killed in an engagement with British forces.

Kassem is buried in Haifa, and his name was adopted by Hamas as a symbol of heroism. The defense of the pipeline gave birth to the organization of Jewish underground forces which cooperated with the British and formed special night squads led by legendary Bible-carrying British officer Charles Orde Wingate.

A Christian hero of the Israeli military legacy, Wingate was killed in Burma during operations in 1944.

Immediately following the news report of Israel's readiness to cooperate with the U.S., Iraq and Jordan on reactivating the pipeline closed down in 1948, the Az-Adin Kassem Brigades issued a warning that they would never allow the plan to materialize.

Sources in Amman said the Jordanian intelligence agency warned both the Jordanian and the Israeli governments that pro-Iraqi and pro-Palestinian terrorists might focus their hostile attention on the proposal.

Turkey is also reportedly concerned over the Israeli idea.

Turkish experts believe that Israel plans to revive the pipeline, a potential rival to the pipeline linking the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq with the Turkish Mediterranean port of Yumurtalik.

They also say that the Mosul-Haifa pipeline has been closed for 55 years, and it could not be able to meet the world's demand for oil. But it might be activated with a $3 billion investment in a period of five to six months.

If the Iraqi-Israeli pipeline is reactivated, very little will remain for repair, he said, adding that although the pipeline was closed in 1948, its route is very comfortable and its hydraulic projects are ready.

The annual capacity of the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline is 71 million tons, while the capacity of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline is 5 million tons.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

Just sit back and think who would and is profitting from this war and the answer is obvious. Look at the current relations and prior relations the NEOCONS have to the big corporations involved in the rebuilding of IRAQ and the connections to OIL. Moe Money, moe money!

If you need more links, there are plenty!


posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:02 PM
Since this war was being planned by her mad messianic majesty wolfowitz and his neoconservative castrates since the seventies, it inserts itself into a much broader scheme than that which is colported on a daily basis by the american "make everyone numb" media, it is easy to align malign israelo-american motivations to make a perfect explanation for the criminal killing of tens of thousands of innocents alongside with the wrecking of any reputation the USA had left.

A. israel is being governed by right-wing racial supremacists with strong castration fears, and needs american military occupation somewhere in the region to make it feel safe from the evil-looking bearded mullahs in Iran (hoo-hoo) and socialist movements in the region. This point is also a strategic/psychological proof that israel has no nuclear arsenal.

B. The USA is bankrupt and needs control of strategic world resources, in this case oil, to have an "ok if you want your investments back, we'll cut your oil" ace to play when paytime comes.

These two reasons are so proeminent that they do not compete with ridiculous "9/11" "WMD", "Terror", "liberation" explanations and other cheap televised entertainment.

krotz krotz

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:52 PM
Isn't this discussion a bit late? I mean whether you agree or not with going to war in Iraq, we are at war.

So shouldn't all of this discussion be more along the lines of how to win the war, make peace in Iraq, find Osama, stop these freaks from bombing shopping malls among a million others?

I appreciate the spirit of the discussions but really it makes no difference. If the Dems (of which I am one) would spend half the time talking about the above topics that they spend on whining about how we got there, some difference could be made. Heck we might even get a new president in November.

This just seems we are beating a dead horse. By this point I cannot see how we can change someones opinion of the war by re-hashing this point. The changes will come with Americans looking at two candidates and deciding who is going to end this war best. Vote that person in and let's fix the economy, social security, homeland security and all the other problems we have here.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:41 PM
There IS a difference between these two assertions!!

1) Saddam Hussein had no involvement in the 9/11 plot.

2) Saddam Hussein had no links with al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups.

There are NOT the same thing.

The first is TRUE.

The second is FALSE, and there is now substantial documentary evidence captured from the Iraqi secret police files.

Frequently the loony left mixes these up just as the rabid right.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel
The second is FALSE, and there is now substantial documentary evidence captured from the Iraqi secret police files.
Frequently the loony left mixes these up just as the rabid right.

Looney Left??????????

Put up; or shut up. Link from something other then RW swill.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
She also found that Bush switched his focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein only five months after 9/11.

Has anybody considered that maybe we really did kill Bin Laden? It was plain to see that he was injured in one of the last videos, then the videos stopped.
Problem is that we didn't have a body to parade around, so to announce that he had been killed would 1. create an elvis effect. 2. strain credibility for those who demand to see a body. 3. Create a push to end the war on terror while many key players (and semi-terrorist targets of opportunity) were still standing.
The most powerful nation on Earth had no problem finding and killing the world's most famous billionaire while he was trapped in a country full of rival factions and poverty stricken informants. Once they took care of him, they decided to keep milking 9/11 for diplomatic capital in order to persue our national interests. It's dirty, but very practical. Afterall, if we'd done all this stuff before 9/11 it would have smacked of the late 30s, and we very well might have found ourselves on the outside of NATO, facing them down.
Does that really seem unlikely to you at all?

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:40 PM
“Has anybody considered that maybe we really did kill Bin Laden? “

Sure have. Some even think Bush has the body on ice to then be dragged out some time in mid October to pump his numbers as the ‘big war hero’ and get elected …………




I don’t know about the rest of what you say………….but I think you maybe on to something about us having to face off with NATO some day…………..

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in