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

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?

EDIT:
Gmcnulty, you kill me, you really do. Are you going to sit there and pretend not to know what realpolitik is? Saddam was getting in a diplomatic and economic stranglehold by a superpower that rewarded presidents with approval rating whenever they made up a reason to bomb him. If you were in those shoes, would you work with the opposition? Of course you would. For all their differences, they had plenty of reason to work together. 1. They were fighting a war on America with little hope of success. 2. They hate Israel.

As for your links... my HTML is rusty, so do you really want me to go make a webpage for my jacked up extremist views? The subject here is the motivation behind the facts, and interpretation of motive is subjective. A link is virtually useless in the debate. If that were not the case, the truth would be in black and white all over the press. (Speaking of which, you didn't provide any link for the idea that there is a press conspiracy to keep us dumb).
I won't say too much about the "looney left" comment though. I don't believe I'm in a position to lecture people on sanity. All I can say is to observe the wild mood swings of Al Gore and Howard Dean and judge for yourself. (I know that has no bearing, I just think it's funny to watch such dull people try to be so energetic. On the same note, I'd like to see G-dub in a rodeo and see if Texans will stand by him then.)

It's not a matter of what I would have done.....It's not a matter of what you think he did or should have done...............

It's a matter of what was done.............

As of now, there's no solid evidence from any reliable source that connects the two; there is no high government official maintaining that there is evidence of any connection between the two...............

Except for the Neo-con mouth pieces an publications who hype the Fife memo as some soret of proof and that piece of �toilet paper� was discredited long time ago����..

Link up and put up�����.


[edit on 15-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

Originally posted by nativeokie
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?

Fair point, but the problem is, there will be no peace in Iraq while we are there. An occupying force will always be met with resistance, especially one that promises democracy, but then shoots at protestors. Hell, Iraq now has the biggest US embassy in the world, and its located in one of Saddam's Baghdad palaces. Do you honestly think that the symbolism of that will be lost on any Iraqis.
Returning to topic, a Pentagon insider has posted material on the net about the real reasons we went to war. She worked in the South East Asia department, whic dealt with Iraq pre-war, and was among the experts who were disregarded by the Iraq Special Group which took over this area in preparation for the war. I can't remember all the reasons which she cites, but one which I do recall is that Saddam had started running the Oil for Food thing with Euros rather than dollars, and there was a fear that other middle eastern nations might do the same. As I understand it, the fact that the oil trade operates in dollars is one of the things which underwrites the US economy, and this was seen as an economic attack. I'll post the link later, but its after 5:10 am and I really need to be heading bedwards.

Eventually we will probably square off with NATO, but no problem. Short of a nuclear war, we can take them.
If anyone cares I can explain this i detail, but I'm sure you'd rather not hear my military rambling.

I'm a pragmatist, and I think it's an outlook that people should consider more seriously. Fairness is nice, but survival is better. It's an unfair world... I want my side to have the long end of the stick (or more accurately, I'd perfer that my side be giving others the long end of the stick, if you get my drift).

[edit on 14-6-2004 by The Vagabond]

Never mind?

Send a U2U..................avoid the red sticky.

I can handle it...................I'm no whaaa-whaaa whiner, honest.

Originally posted by Yog the Sloth
I do recall is that Saddam had started running the Oil for Food thing with Euros rather than dollars, and there was a fear that other middle eastern nations might do the same. As I understand it, the fact that the oil trade operates in dollars is one of the things which underwrites the US economy, and this was seen as an economic attack.

This is the true hidden agenda of the war and continues to be the hidden war of our decade. Whoever wins the currency war will dominate the first half of this century. We bought ourselves some time with the Iraq war, but there will be much more to be done if we are to remain the economic and military superpower that we currently are. I hope we do win for who else in the world will stand for freedom and individual rights of people? The impotent UN who had never done anything without the bankrolling of the US? Certainly not! What country then would truly take the lead in furthering freedom and human rights. Germany? France? China? Russia? Give me a break. If we go down the world will sink into depotism faster than a snitch with lead shoes. We are the hope of the world.

"Saddam had started running the Oil for Food thing with Euros rather than dollars"

Some have suggested that as one of the prime movers to make the war.............

We're in deep doo-doo...........the balance of trade numbers are at record levels and we are loosing our edge in exports of technology and services...........was reported today............

Commodities will some be priced in Euros if this clown get a second term..........

For the love of God, did I not just address this?
In a discussion of INTENT, a link, especially one regarding rather or not neo-cons are still promoting an idea, is absolutely useless. Since you insist on being this way though, I'll submit another fact for your consideration, even though as I've said, not all possible motives lead to a correct conclusion, and not all evidence is relevant.

www.foxnews.com...
Terrorist training camps linked to PLF found in Iraq.
Granted, PLF is not directly under Osama Bin Laden, but the demonstrates a willingness on Saddam's part to work with terrorists despite rifts in ideology.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
but the demonstrates a willingness on Saddam's part to work with terrorists despite rifts in ideology.

also this

ANO activities declined through the 1990s until Abu Nidal (Sabri Khalil al-Banna) was found dead of gunshot wound(s)in his Baghdad apartment in the Summer of 2002.

Abu Nidal was a fruit-cake indeed. Saddam mighta killed Nidal himself in the end, envious of Nidal's trademark relaxed madman aura.

Now here�s your story link to the findings of a US Marine Cpl. (like higher then a Private)
I have quoted the salient facts from the FAUX news report (I despise Fox. Could you tell?)
================================================
Marines Discover Terror Training Camp near Baghdad

��abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs��

��operated by the Iraqi government and the Palestine Liberation Front, said Marine spokesman Cpl. John Hoellwarth��
�Among the documents found were filled-out questionnaires that included such questions as "What type of missions would you like to carry out?" according to Hoellwarth. He said many recruits wanted to carry out suicide missions.�
��.an obstacle course and what appeared to be a prison, to teach terrorists what to do if captured and interrogated�.�
��.uniforms and gas masks were also left behind, along with bread and other food, suggesting the place had been used fairly recently�.�
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now here�s my link (just one of many I have) but I sought out a HIGHER authority like the hot dog commercial suggests:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda
President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign.

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion can be found here:

www.thememoryhole.org...

Now what do ya have to say?

Bush's a liar?

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda

Not to suggest that I don't think Bush is an idiot, but isn't the title, Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda, which you just repeated, misleading? Consider that, according to your own source, this was the question asked:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

How about, Bush saying after 9-11,
If you harbor terrorists, or provide support for terror...we will see you at a time and place of our choosing...We know Saddam paid hamas suicude bombers families....well, thats support of terror right there...good morning iraq!!! Saddam violated the no fly zone constantly...you know the part of his agreement that ended the gulf war? We chose the time and place to fight....and its working....

Putting our millitary out in front of the population to take the heat has been a magnet for these wackos to line up and come get some...better there than here i say.....better we draw our enemy out of hidding in the shadow like a roach....people in iraq and all over the mid east wanted to fight America, well now they got their chance.....watch what you wish for next time radicals....guess they thought the sleeping giant didnt have the courage to swat at flies....

Or would you rather the USA takes Israel off its leash and lets them deal out some understanding their way....Tehran turning to 10,000 degrees in about 3 seconds?

PS all that is googled/linked to is not gospel.....in fact some of it is biased and not fact at all. I believe all of the links backing up links to terror/iraq have been posted in threads already, just do a search.

Here's the link I mentioned earlier, to
The New Pentagon Papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
By Karen Kwiatkowski
The bulk of the article deals with how the normal processes by which Pentagon officers operate were derailed in order to produce and maintain the public reason, WMD etc.
The most relevant quote "the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role."
Course, your entitled to believe any of the other reasons, but I'm inclined to accept her word.

Having actually read the thesis referred to by GM, I recall each of the expressed reasons for going to war. These and each of the other mentioned reasons have eaqual validity/questionability. We can volley back and forth as to the relative import of each and every excuse, but where will we arrive at the end of this flagellating forray?

OPINION
Main Entry: opin�ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

My opinion: Abandon The Middle East! Abandon Israel!(painful for a Jew to say, I am an American 1st) Make priority No.1 relief from dependence on oil. Isolate from entanglement in Geo-political morass. Invest in our own infastructure/industry. Health-care reform. Secure our borders/ports of entry. Emphasise education!!! Lead by example! Demand accountability from business/leadership. Enforce seperation of Church/State. Protect our environment.

Yada, yada, blah, blah, blah!

Now there's a man who knows his own mind and speaks it clearly ����One might quibble with some of the details of the objectives he suggests but he sure does not mince words����

How refreshing���..

How about a personal reason?

Ever sense i was old enough to be aware of what the news was about, which was about 8yrs old i suppose....(1975) what did i see?


Israel was being hunted by nations around it....conflict here is standard.

Muslim nations becoming increasingly more millitant and agressive

As i grew and studied i learned of the cold wars impact on they way things are done and how that helped shaped what is "now".

Then a 25yr list of escalation terrorism against western nations....
Heck the strikes against USA targets is impressive enough to know that some hidden underworld, criminal, radical, religious based syndacate of mobsters, was indeed a threat...if not not...soon...
For 25yrs now, ive watched thousands chant "Death to America".

I heard their threats.
WE GOT THE MESSAGE ON 9-11.

Wherever your hidding Osama, someone is close by hunting you, and all your sick buddies.

Some places arent safe for open terror networks anymore now huh? Just like no place here is safe anymore......that sounds like a more even playing field than us just being sitting ducks.

How about the idea that; YES...the USA can, does, and will exersice its influence on the planet if you become a threat to our Nations security or economic and diplomatic concerns. We will try to refrain as much as possible from encouraging conflicts, but will not shirk use of our warriors...

If you choose to confront our nation, be warned and be prepared to reap what you sow...

Some of us here arent so affraid of bullies
and after 25yrs of getting sand kicked in our face, its time to stand up!

We tell each other to F--k off all the time, So why not apply that to the World?
lets just grit our teeth, stare back at those crossing the line, and do what needs to be done as best and as fast as possible....

Or should we just sit back on the sand while the bully takes everything and burrys us in the sand....one kick of it at a time.

"An eye for
an eye leaves the whole world blind" by Mohandas Gandhi.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Some of us here arent so affraid of bullies

I think that there are large sections of the world which would dipute your idea of who the global bully is.

You refer to the �You�re either with us or against us.� remark? It was the height of stupidity to make that remark. All bluster, and more so to play to the base then a Bush Policy statement. (In fact, did you know, this is the only WH in modern history which has NO POLICY COMMITTEE or OFFICE. All decisions are made based on political considerations by Karl Robe et. al. more of the blind leading the blind.)

Now that all aside, what terrorists did he harbor? Where�s your link? Why did he not state that as his main reason for war? And all of the other reasons you use as an excuse for outrageous and impeachable behaviors?

Well his �Bring it on.� Remark in a class far above the one above sure has been a magnet for those terrorist wanting to kill our boys. Since the fools want a war on the cheap they never secured the borders and now by some accounts there are 1lmost 100,000 armed foreigners in Iraq; and so far they have killed 600 and maimed another 2000+. And you know what? Terrorism attacks are up 40% in the world. (State tried to cook the books on those numbers but got caught.)

And what does Israel have to do with much of anything other then to raise a straw man and suggest we speculate and conjecture rather then deal with the facts we have before us.

And the links���.you say, some are bias? Why because you said so? You God or somebody like that?
Well that maybe. But some are NOT and you have yet to give any substance to your babble, bluster and BS�������..Link up and put up

Re: Your personal view.


In short you seem to be supporting a policy of, in its most simple terms "an eye for an eye"

Let me make reference: Israel has been using that same policy for the past 56 years and they are still killing each other.

Don't you think thats a fair test of a policies efectiveness?

And would it not then be a fair assessment to say................It's a FAILED policy. One that will not work. One that will guaranttee more death and distruction; and in the long run bankrupt this country.............

We need to change the Bush policies because they ,as he, are losers.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

[edit on 15-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

Scott2,
When did i cry out for vengance, evoking the names of the dead already?
I spoke about acting defensivly and only in the nations most grave interests.

YOG,
Im certain "who's the biggest bully" is debatable, and there is no doubght we could be, gobbling up what ever we had the will to take....but we live in the real world...and weak kneed people that will barely stand up for themselves or the chance to clean up a known and recognized wrong on the planet (saddam), will never allow the USA to become too big a bully.
They'll whine down our will to fight.....(or practically defend ourselves)

Fine, the USA is the worlds biggest bully.....Well just what/how do you deal with the top preadator in the food chain? When it comes right down to it, i EXPECT that if the planet was dying, that theyd do everything to make sure Americans survived the longest. Thats their jobs. Regardless of how other nations feel about it....indeed there might be little that can be done to stop the USA short of a serious conflict...which none of the major world players really is interested in....this whole terror thing aside, theres a whole lot of $$$ to be made out there....and well almost the whole world except some lawless radicals is agreeing to get along so far on this so...
dont step too close to the train as it passes.

GMC,
I never utilized with us/them, i said WE needed to stand up for ourselves. I didnt imply wanting or needing anyone elses help or permission.

Like there arent threads full of links here on ATS already with this but here,
www.iht.com...
or here
www.foxnews.com...
So if you deal in terrorism with whatever fring groups name is, your guilty...If your in bed with one, why not others?

You say,
"they never secured the borders and now by some accounts there are almost 100,000 armed foreigners in Iraq"
Yeah thats part of us trapping by choosing when/where...we got to pick where all these wackos would congregate..better there than other places...by consentrating the enemy to where our forces can monitor and generally dominate them, we'll be able to wipe out more of them quicker than if we had to hop from place to place.....if the enemy cant resist their jihadist sirens call to where their opponent kills them at over 10-1 ratio....then you get an idea of the mentality of the people that want to KILL THE WEST.

You.
"Terrorism attacks are up 40% in the world. " No link backing up that "fact"
lets take it as true however....where are most of these attacks occuring? Ill bet a good many of them are occuring where we chose to put our troops....hmmm instead of other places....yes other places have been targets but what % fo these strikes happened where one might "expect" this thing to be occuring...say palestine? stats can be manipulated by more than the state....terrorists dont care about your statistics, they care about blowing more and more stuff up...yes get it, the # you gave shows that....theyve been accelerating this for 25 yrs, where have you been?

Good god man, the top 10 cities in America will probably have a total # of people murdered way in excess of the # of troops we've lost
here is a link for murder #'s from 2002
www.racematters.org...

These people go to the meat grinder every year and noone seems to give a care, but god forbid we have to use millitary force and lose less people to actually do something to ensure our quality of life.
When the murder rate in the USA drops below the rate of attrition for our forign policy, then ill consider if our forign policy needs a review.

YOU,
"Let me make reference: Israel has been using that same policy for the past 56 years and they are still killing each other.

WRONG,
Israel has been under tremendous constraints by the USA to NOT go off on its neighbors....We flat out told them they werent getting into the gulf war...and knuckled them to comply against their wishes..
The USA is under no such constraints.
If we let israel do whatever it wanted to fix its security problems, there would be more conflict not less....israel is not a straw man, its a HUGE piece of that regions situation AT ALL TIMES....duh?

You offer your assesment of a nations policy yet set no criteria for making this judgment.

If you think Bush is the only "player" on the global stage then you are limited in your scope of knowledge of world affairs....
All saddam had to do to stay in power was comply fully with the UN inspection programs, and obey the no fly zone, neither of which he could do....too bad for him enforcement occured.

You, speaking about the President.
"outrageous and impeachable behaviors?"
lets not diverge this thread with bush bashing...enough to say if there was anything impeachable, where is the special council? why arent the kerry people stringing up GWB in the media...WHY? BECAUSE THEY CANT SAY THOSE THINGS AS TRUTH on TV or they would have done so already.
Where is this so called impeachment, it hasnt even thought about getting off the ground.
Outrageous behaivior? certantly unorthodox...but these are both subjective.

Im advocating Americans marching in the streets, chanting "death to your people" and burning their flags..then showing this for 25 yrs to those people and see how they think we feel about them after we terrorize them.
How do you think im supposed to feel pal, like the USA and the Taliban/al queda/iran/ are going to be good buddies? Theyve shown their intent and will to exercise that intent....dont mind us if we dont sit and wait for you to do this again...how many times do we do nothing before we try something?
Im advocating peace thru strength.