War in Iraq?

Question

Who thinks that george invaded iraq because of the oil.I do.They thought that gaining control would be over in a few months(Like Gallipoli)and like gallipoli they were wrong.More people have died in iraq now(about 4000) than in the world Trade centre bombing or when they actually invaded iraq.
9/11 gave george an excuse to invade iraq.Who agrees?

Answer 1

If fairy tales were true, the United States would be involved in the truly noble cause of "spreading freedom", and America would have "firmly planted the flag of liberty" in Iraq. However, reality keeps rearing its ugly head to mock the Neocons and their fiction that the US is an altruistic, benevolent super-power sowing the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. For openers, consider the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis resulting from "collateral damage" inflicted by the American military. Bestowing a "better government" as an altruistic gesture would not involve obscene and scandalous profits for members of the military industrial complex like Bechtel and Halliburton, would it? What spiritually aware human being could overlook the widespread Iraqi civilian suffering and death caused by the brutal economic sanctions the US spear-headed for 10 years prior to the war and perpetuated by the American invasion and occupation? How about the Neocon's use of lies and defiance of the UN to initiate the invasion? Torture and abuse of prisoners of war are not characteristic actions of a nation "spreading freedom" or planting a "flag of liberty". Tragically, as was the case with Vietnam, there will be no happy ending to the "Tale of the Iraqi Invasion". Suffering, war, terror, and death are the bitter harvest the Iraqis are reaping, and the flag firmly planted in their soil is one of economic servitude to the American Empire.



Behind the vacuous rhetoric about America "spreading freedom" lays a much more sinister motive for the Iraqi invasion. The Neocons launched the war in Iraq to begin implementing the Bush Doctrine, their strategy to advance US global domination. Invasion and occupation of Iraq afforded them what they believed would be a "soft target" (obviously someone forgot to account for the challenges of "post war" Iraq) to engage the four principles of their grand blueprint. They exercised preemption by invading a country which they deemed a threat to the United States. Acting in opposition to the United Nations, they attacked Iraq unilaterally. Placing over 100,000 American troops in harm's way, they placed Congress in a moral Catch-22 as they demanded billions of additional dollars to perpetuate the American military's "strength beyond challenge". Despite their constituency's growing opposition to the war, Congress could hardly deny American troops the funding they needed. To complete the "quadrifecta" of principles forming the bedrock of the Bush Doctrine, the Neocons are carrying out their morally despicable invasion and occupation under the guise of "promoting democracy and freedom".

Answer 2

against the Iraq conflict yet on account that we began it we could desire to end it. needless to say there is the prospect that with Saddam in power we could have ultimately had to pass to conflict in some unspecified time interior the destiny. Who knows? I purely think of the money could have been greater useful spent interior the USA of a on relatives power progression. innovations you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-conflict or anti-militia. until anybody interior the international ceases to be aggressive there'll constantly be a choose for a militia. as long as international locations compete for land and aspects there will be conflict. people who marketing campaign to end all wars or do away with the militia stay in a dreamworld.

Answer 3

War in Iraq? It's not a humanity. Bringing democrasy or chosing 9/11 as a reason to the "war" does not justify of American Army martial criminals. So, you are right. They were clearly for oil in Iraq. You know, a "muslim" cannot be a terrorist. The terrorists in Islamic countries are the heretics who could not understand and agree with islamic scholarships and dogmas. But islam is not a dogmatic religion.

Answer 4

The reason Boosh and his cronie pals evaded Iraq was to destabilize oil coming out of the Middle East so they have an excuse to jack up the price of crude. As you can tell by the price at the pumps, it worked.

But don't for one minute give any credit to Boosh. He's personally responsible for three failed oil companies. It's apparent, he is the puppet. It's all the crooks in the background that he's protecting. (Like all of the lost e-mails)

All we can hope for is us getting out of Iraq to someday stabilize their oil exports.

Answer 5

It IS very much about oil. But not as you perversely suggest. You seem to know a bit about history. So, why don't you do a little reading? Reagan reflagged the oil tankers. Why? World Economy? Who brokered the cease fire agreement in the first gulf war (Desert Storm)? Who broke that agreement? And why? Corruption in the U.N.?
So, in WW II, (Patton's march across France in '44 with the U.S. 3d Army -- to be specific) how many men did he lose on average during any three week period?
I think you are perverse and a liberal whiner who's invested nothing in any of this. But probably drive a behemoth SUV that guzzles gas.

Answer 6

I do not agree.

The Clinton administration was actively seeking support for 'regime change'. Go back and search comments made by Sandy Berger and Clinton in the late 90's.

Based on the arguments being made in the former administration about the threat level of Saddam and his desires to control the region, the Bush administration had no reason to believe that when his administration came into power that the threat dissolved away and he no longer had to be concerned about it.

Answer 7

Where is the oil if that is what we went there for. The President actually said it was not going to be a quick job and was going to take a long time. National security is the main function of the US government.
>FDR led us into WW2. Germany never attacked us, Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost. An avg. of 112,500 per year.
>Truman finished that war and started one with Korea. N. Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost.
>JFK started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost.
>Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.

Answer 8

Here's my take on why we're at war in Iraq.

If we weren't there to protect and try to change the situation in Iraq, there would be a power vaccuum....This vaccuum would be filled in by Iran, Syria and other Islamo fanatics who, for centuries, have hated Europeans (whites).

Have no doubt that these fanatics would gain control of all the oil in that area. They would dictate to whom they would sell the oil and at what price...Remember, these fanatics are not motivated by profit but by hatred...They could sell oil to their friends for 25 cents/barrel and sell it to the US for $25,000 / barrel. Thus they would be able to control the whole world economy.
Just like Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela sells gasoline in his country for 25 cents / gallon.

Could you live with gasoline going for $250 /gallon?

This is why GWB is fighting in Iraq.

Answer 9

I think the original reason was revenge for his dad on Jr's part. The oil was just an added bonus that Bush has exploited as much as he possibly can.

Answer 10

The presidents job is to protect the interest of our nation, that means getting your oil for us as well ,,but i believe it had more to do with the Euro for oil than the actual Oil...I could be wrong but that's my thought. Who knows what runs through GB mind.LOL