Why did we cause a war causing the death of 700 000 civil for a little more oil? Because they're from Iraq ?

Question

When you prepare the invasion of a country and the dismissal of his chief, you should know what you will do of this country?

For all the remainder I agree except that the man who says that oil is not important is very naive !

Why a so expensive and mortal war ?

Answer 1

For more power to rule.

'At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation. That same evening at 9.30 pm, a "War Cabinet" was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11.00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the "War on Terrorism" was officially launched.'
That same evening at 9.30 pm, a "War Cabinet" was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11.00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the "War on Terrorism" was officially launched.

The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to "state sponsorship" of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan.

Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops. Americans were led to believe that the decison to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.

Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The "terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event" as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on "humanitarian grounds", with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the "international community".

Several prominent "progressive" intellectuals made a case for "retaliation against terrorism", on moral and ethical grounds. The "just cause" military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11, without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the "Islamic terror network", it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.

I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled "Who is Osama bin Laden?" was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See full text of 9/12 article below).

From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive "enemy of America", who was "threatening the Homeland".

The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US adminstrations. Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: "he turned against us".

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive "outside enemy" had been fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

I used to have a little sympathy for those people who were still sitting on the fence over the justness of the Iraq invasion. I understood that the US government and mainstream media talking heads made an effort to imbue their official claims with a semblance of logic and reason, and that the American public could, to some extent, be forgiven for sanctioning illegal war and suffering. They were, after all being deceived.

Not anymore.

It seems that the years of government double-speak and subtle manipulation have led the Bush administration to feel confident that the ability of the average American to think critically has now been compromised to such an extent that they will easily swallow blatant and verifiable fantasy.

The Iraq invasion, we were told, was all about protecting the world against the threat of Saddam's WMDs, yet it was a claim that was inherently flawed because the logical response was to attempt to prove or disprove it - either Saddam had WMDs or he didn't. As we all found out too late, the claim was little more than the product of the minds of American and British spin doctors. A few more hours in the spin room however, and they were back on track, but the back-room boys had learned their lesson, they weren't going to make the mistake of throwing around allegations that were based on something as empirical, and therefore provable or disprovable, as the existence or otherwise of WMDs. This time, it was going to be something much more intangible, like the needs of the Iraqi people and how much happier they (and the rest of the world) would be under American style democracy and without the 'tyrant' Saddam.

This second claim had the potential to fool the American people at least a little longer than the first, appealing as it did to their artificially pumped egos as well as their morbid fear of the unknown i.e. anything outside America's borders. After all, look at how happy the American people are! But really look, not at the details, but the broad panacea of American life, such as it is displayed in Hollywood movies for but one example. Who would not wish such hedonistic revelry for the whole world? In the end however, it seems that the true intention of the Bush cabal towards Iraq is, in its nature, so depraved and far-removed from their claimed altruism, that its face was never going to take long to manifest.

That face today is seen in:

the fact that 655,000 Iraqi people have been murdered since the beginning of the invasion, at least 50% by US forces directly.

that 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country as a result of the presence of US troops.

that Iraq's health service has disintegrated, with even the most basic treatments unavailable, and that up to half of the aforementioned 655,000 deaths might have been avoided if proper medical care had been available. 2,000 doctors and nurses have been killed with 18,000 more choosing to leave the country in fear of their lives.

the 'Iraqization' of the conflict, where US-sponsored deaths squads being run out of the Iraqi interior ministry are murdering dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians daily in an attempt to twist the root cause of Iraq's problems - the invasion of a sovereign nation by a foreign aggressor - and create the appearance of an internal 'sectarian' conflict between rival Iraqi ethnic and religious factions, when no such serious sectarian strife has ever existed in recent Iraqi history.

the chilling report that the Bush government and its generals are planning to "penalize Iraq if it fails to stop the violence", violence for which the Bush government itself is responsible.

Under this last, the US military would launch an assault on the densely populated neighborhoods of Baghdad, beginning with Sadr City, the home of some 2 million impoverished Shia and the stronghold of the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, that is, one of the groups representing the will of the Iraqi people.

In layman's terms, this means that the Bush government has decided that to "win the Iraq war" and "liberate the Iraqi people", it must wage a wholesale war on the Iraqi people in order to coerce them to accept US government rule over their country and lives. Those that submit will live, those that do not, will die. It couldn't be more simple. Iraq has been destroyed, not liberated.

Here, of course, we are a long way from what "folks back home" believe is being done by their government in their name. Yet there is no real reason that such should be the case, because all of the information I present here is freely available in mainstream publications to the American and 'Western' populations. If there is one thing lacking, some piece of data that is preventing many people from fully awakening to the horror and brutality that is being wrought by their (un)elected officials, then it is perhaps the hard evidence that not all human beings are like you and I - not all human beings possess an innate tendency towards the rejection of mass murder of the innocent. Some of them actively engage in acts of depravity, and seek out positions of power from which they can give vent to their deviant natures with impunity.

Answer 2

first it did not cause the death of 700,000 civilians, since of course in a war without ememies wearing unifroms you don't know who s who, and in general it probably saved three times that many from a madman who was running thier nation.

We went to war because both parties Reb and Dem agreed and voted almost 100 percent to do it. and both parties still support the war since they continue to fund it, ( no matter what they say, they support it or they would not fund it)

next everyone knows it had nothing to do with oil, since it caused less oil and we did not take over the oil wells anyway.

We did it to free a nation perhaps, because there lands were a training grounds for the terrorist

But in general becuse the america public wanted to kick someones rear for 911 and they were as good as anyone

Answer 3

If you look deep enough you Will find that we did not start that war for oil. I will agree that saying it was for oil makes it sound better that saying we started it to save people from a tyrant.

So you can take your pick on which you choose to believe and have a good day.

Answer 4

Listen to Father Chuck.

Answer 5

How many of the 'civils' were insurgents, or Iraqi citizens killed from islamofascist bombers?

Not that I'm expecting you to actually research that one. But if you want meaningful conversations about foreign policy, don't rely on info from MTV.

.

Answer 6

What do you think World War II was about? Orange juice? The Japanese didn't go to Pearl Harbor looking for pearls, and the Germans didn't go to Russia looking for caviar.

Answer 7

I don't think it's purely for oil. But the why? is the unanswerable question...I ask, why doesn't this administration seem to care?