Why are we in Iraq?

[madfloridian]

Because of what? Both candidates are defending their positions on this, so there must be something I do not know. I am accused of not being very politically savvy if I question it, yet it is the most major issue in our country today.

I am supposed to not really question it, just accept that all is well and will work out.

So, why are we there?

[MercutioATC]

1. WMD! Wait, no... Torture! Ummm.... Fight them there or fight them here!

Hmmmm.....

[lastknowngood]

2. Oil and control/power "As private parts to gods are we, they play

with us for sport" from the Black Adder.

[jjmalonejr]

3. Because Bush rushed in where wise men may have feared to tread

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to use force if and only if diplomatic avenues had completely failed. He stands by that decision and his position is that Bush ABUSED that authority. No one can claim that we'd reached a diplomatic dead-end with Saddam Hussein, and no one can claim that it was an IMPERATIVE to go into this war unprepared and without the support of the UN and our allies.

Why are we STILL there? Because our immediate withdrawl from Iraq would mean either a failed state or the rise of a government of thugs or radical Islamists openly hostile to the United States.

Both would be very, very bad.

You're free to question everything, and you should. I would never take that away from you, nor would I ever promise you that "all is well and will work out." I don't know that, but I do think that toppling a government in the Middle East and then leaving a power vacuum to be filled by whoever is ruthless enough to grab it is a bad idea.

[K-W]

6. That isnt why we are still there.

We are still there because the entire point of invading Iraq was to occupy Iraq.

The 'if we pulled out now' argument is absolutely bs, even if it was possible to stabalize, we arent doing the right things to make it happen.

[jjmalonejr]

9. I agree that we aren't doing the right things to stabilize the country.

I also agree that Bushco invaded Iraq to occupy, pacify and make boatloads of cash rebuilding Iraq.

Unfortunately, they've been stymied on the "pacify" part because they stupidly believed that we'd be greeted as liberators.

That said, I don't think the "if we pulled out now" argument is necessarily BS. Granted, stabilizing Iraq MAY prove impossible, but I hope not. In my opinion, creating a huge gaping wound right smack dab in the center of the Middle East and then just leaving it to grow hopelessly infected would be a disastrous result.

[K-W]

10. You are being suckered by your idealism.

The plan was to invade, setup multiple military bases, setup a puppet government, and then move on to further take control of the middle east. I dont think they expected to be greeted as liberators like they claimed, but I do think they expected it to be easier to pacify them.

Regardless, we have already created the gaping wound and we arent bandaging it. But the Bush administration is using that well meaning attitude to sucker america into footing the bill for thier empire under the guise of reconstructing Iraq.

Iraq will be no more stable if we pull out in 3 years than if we pull out now. There might be ways that an international peacekeeping force could stablize the country, the US cannot and should not be trusted to do those things.

We need to withdraw troops and let Iraq decide its own fate, with help from the UN if neccessary.

[Xipe Totec]

11. Easier Said Than Done

<snip>

"Part of that actually is Bush's doing. The man in the White House so screwed up the war on terrorism by invading Iraq that few Americans, certainly not John Kerry, have the courage to speak truth to power: We are going to have to cut and run without appearing to cut and run. We have to execute the most difficult of military maneuvers, retreating under fire, without admitting it, as Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. Certainly Kerry could not admit that last Thursday night; few of us can. The almost criminal incompetence of the occupation cripples us all. But Kerry has to fudge that. For now, on Iraq, he has to mimic Bush. We all do. The final futility is just Vietnamization all over again, turn the country back to the locals, keeping Americans out of harm's way and getting out of there as fast as we can -- or repairing to bases where bullet-proof-vested soldiers, watching videos and eating ice cream, will occasionally venture forth like Romans on punitive missions. But Kerry would be dead politically if he admitted that. So would Bush."

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=123&e=3&u=/ucrr/20040801/cm_ucrr/amaddeninglycalibratedcandidate

[K-W]

14. If we are obsessed with 'winning' like 'nam, then yes.

I certainly am not trying to suggest any US president is going to take kindly to the idea of a cut and run, just that it is the right thing to do.

[Xipe Totec]

21. Right Thing to do, No Doubt

But since when has the American public ever rewarded a politician for doing the right thing? Look at Carter.

I think it is unfair to judge Kerry for the position he has to take now in order to get elected when we should be judging Bush for his actions instead.

The amount of electronic ink wasted on this single IWR issue is unbelievable. Worse yet, counterproductive because it only plays into the Republicans hands. Is it any wonder they keep flushing us out of the weeds and picking us off one by one?

[K-W]

23. I have been a big Kerry defender. I agree completely. n/t

[jjmalonejr]

18. I'm not an idealist, and I'm not being suckered.

I just happen to think that there are RESPONSIBLE ways to correct your mistakes. Removing Saddam Hussein was not a mistake, but the way Bush conducted this whole operation was DEFINITELY a mistake. If it could have been done with UN support and the support of our allies, we could be looking at a very different picture in Iraq right now. Bush didn't give a shit about UN support or the support of our allies. He was willing to pretend he cared while he was putting the pieces in place on his own personal RISK board, but he was perfectly content to go ahead and go it alone. The lack of post-war planning was also stunning.

All that said, I don't think that saying "oops" and leaving a mess there is the way to go. You are free to disagree, but I wish you wouldn't dismiss me by calling me a "sucker."

You said:
"There might be ways that an international peacekeeping force could stablize the country, the US cannot and should not be trusted to do those things."

I agree with the first half, disagree with the second half. It isn't that the US cannot be trusted, it's that BUSH cannot be trusted. I don't believe for a minute that Kerry will continue down the same path as Bush.

[K-W]

20. Im sorry, but you are living in a dream.

If you buy the idea that we are staying there to correct our mistake, you are being suckered. I understand you dont like being told that, but its the truth. Even if Kerry is elected president, the military industrial complex will not change a great deal. If he keeps the military in Iraq, they will continue to persue thier goals.

I appreciate that you are enlightened as to the way Bush operates, but if you think that he is the problem here, you are mistaken. The United States has been violating other countries for its own selfish goals since its inception.

The US acts in its own best interests in foriegn policy. If you think the Kerry military will suddenly turn into a bunch of Mother Theresa's, you are sadly mistaken.

Go do some reasearch on latin american history. Bush is not the exception, he is pretty much the rule.

[jjmalonejr]

25. Well, our conversation is over

I'm so happy for you that you are so uniquely intelligent and well-informed that your opinion is the only one that matters. I'm also so impressed that you have the amazing clairvoyant ability to discern whether or not someone has any knowledge of Latin American history without that topic even being discussed.

Sorry, but I can't carry on a conversation with someone so unbelievably arrogant.

I have no illusions about military-idustrial complex, and I have no illusions that Kerry is going to turn the Pentagon into a "bunch of Mother Theresa's." I do, however, believe that he will make better decisions than Bush, and I do believe that American foreign policy can change for the better. I know it won't happen overnight, but if I thought the United States was irretrievably evil I would leave now. Why don't you, since you seem to believe that?

Frankly, I think YOU are the idealist for believing that an immediate withdrawl from Iraq after we destroyed the place won't matter to us and will be in our long term national security interests. Real astute.

[K-W]

35. How could someone have knowledge of Latin American History

and possibly think that the US can be trusted to act in accordance with the best interests of the people of other nations?

Oh please explain that to me.

Iraq is destroyed, deal with it. We cant fix it. Nobody can fix it. Iraq has a long difficult journey ahead of them and it is all our fault and our continuing to arrogantly meddle in thier nation isnt doing anything to make it better.

Believe in fairy tales, believe that we can put back together a shattered nation. Meanwhile the government is taking advantage of your naivete to further thier agenda.

Im sorry if I seem harsh with you, but it is people like you that allow people like Bush to do what they do. People who hold silly notions about what the US government is and what kind of an influence it is in the world. You cant put broken countries back together again.

[jjmalonejr]

39. People like me? Very nice.

So I believe in fairy tales? And hold silly notions?

Is it possible for you to have a constructive conversation with someone and share your point of view without demeaning or patronizing the people you talk to? Is that possible? Or are you incapable of that?

The problem isn't that you're being harsh. The problem is that you are acting like an unbelievable jerk.

I respect your point of view, and if I'm being honest I've learned a thing or two from talking with you. Unfortunately, that is overshadowed by the bitter taste in my mouth.

Mean, arrogant, self-impressed people suck.

[K-W]

42. What do you want me to say?

I think you are wrong, do you want me to suger coat it?

I think the idea that the US can put broken countries together enables our government to exercise foriegn policy that is holding a large portion of the world back, killing people, and motivating terrorists to try and kill us.

I think the idea that the US has something resembling a clue how to put together a country is niave. I think the idea that the US government(who cant even act in the best interests of many US citizens) can act in the best interests of Iraqis is niave.

I love that things like vietnam and now Iraq have opened many Americans eyes to the nature of US foriegn policy, but I think that would all be utterly wasted if people thought that they were oddities in US foriegn policy. The problem runs much deeper. We have been using our military and foriegn policy to subjegate parts of the world since we first had a military to do it. The same policies we persue now have been around for decades.

It is the arrogance of the US that allows people to think that somehow we are capable of the impossible, nation building. The middle east has been in the unfortunate position of being constantly interferred with, invaded, taken over, invaded, interferred with, invaded, etc.

No matter who is president, the US is going to setup the type of government that we see as most in line with US interests. That is a government that answers to us, that acts as our ally, that allows our corporations fully access, and that allows us to keep military bases.

Our government acts for our country, it does not act for Iraqi's. And as long as we occupy them, they can never move forward towards determining thier own destiny. Do you really think the US would ever let them elect leaders that would oppose our policy? Saddam wasnt taken out because he was a dictator, we support dictators all over the world, he was taken out because he stood in the way of US policy. As much as those of us with good hearts would love the US to be an agent of good, we must recognize that our government is not capable of that unless we make some serious changes to the very fabric of our society, and until then, we should keep our grubby hands off other nations.

We supported saddam hussein, that didnt help Iraq, we went in to remove him, that didnt help Iraq, I have a hard time believe suddenly we know what the best options for Iraq are.

[jjmalonejr]

43. OK, now you're talking!

We don't disagree as much as you may think, I just reacted badly to your attitude. I see WAY too much arrogance coming from many DU'ers in defense of their positions. You don't need tell me I'm "suckered by my idealism" or "living in a dream" or suggest that I'm somehow ignorant of history because I take a position that's different from yours. It doesn't advance your argument to belittle me. Attack the position, not the person.

(I'm just as guilty of that in my past few responses to you, and I apologize for that, but I was just pissed off)

That said, your argument above is difficult to find fault with. I will say this though: I don't believe that past is necessarily prologue. You're absolutely right about the United State's shameful history of meddling (as all past imperial powers have done), but I don't believe that we are doomed to repeat past mistakes if we behave responsibly in the future.

The pursuit of the war in Iraq was shamefully irresponsible, both in theory and execution (I'm sure we agree on that). I opposed it from the beginning. I've been a supporter of Kerry's for a long time and I was crushed when he voted for the IWR. I've now come to understand his rationale, and continue to support him enthusiastically, but I wish that it were possible to be elected President while sticking to principles instead of developing rationales. (Talk about your idealism!)

I noted that you said in a post above that you have been a defender of Kerry's. I'm curious to know how you square that with your position that we should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Not that I don't respect it (I'm more of a realist than an idealist), but I'm interested to know your thoughts.

(How's that for a guy who was insulting you in his previous post!)

[K-W]

44. My attitude rarely does me good.

If we dont change the system, I dont see how we can possibly expect different results than in the past. We have had many well meaning presidents. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, to name a few. All of them have gotten sucked into the washington bubble and eaten alive by the military industrial complex.

I have defended Kerry on the IWR vote becuase he didnt vote for the war, as republicans and many DU'rs have claimed. I think that in his position his vote was pefectly reasonable. I think it was politically smart as well.

I guess to give you an idea of what I think overall, I blame the system, not the people. There is little accountability on issues of foriegn policy. Much of our foriegn policy goes unreported, almost all of it is decided in secret, classified meetings based on secret classified information. Look at venezuala. How many americans have any idea that thier tax money went into funding a recall election in venezuala because the US opposes Chavez's oil policy?

If the public never knows, we cant hold politicians accountable, and politicians are forced, by our system, to not care much about things people dont consider when voting. So we get two kinds of politicians in modern times. Democrats who put far too much trust in the washington foriegn policy establishment and republicans who are completely beholden to it.

[jjmalonejr]

46. Well, attitude aside, thanks for hanging in with me.

Admittedly, I wasn't much better.

Thank you for sharing your views with me. We're much more ideologically aligned than you might think, given our prior exchange.

I'll keep my eye out for you on the boards.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Because We Have A Madman In The White House

And close to half of the people in this country still support him.

Because getting into a war is easy. Getting out of one is hard.

Because many people voted for Ralph Nader the last time around.

Because we keep shooting at each other instead of the madman in the White House.

Because we refuse to close ranks and the Republicans scatter us like feathers fluttering in a puff of hot air.

Because we won't accept a decision that Kerry had to make two years ago to keep his Senate seat.

Because we focus on the fact that Kerry said he would still support the IWR today, instead of focusing on the nearly 1,000 US soldiers killed and tens of thousand US soldiers wounded as a result of a neoCon scheme that was already in place before 9/11 and waiting for an excuse.

[maxsolomon]

5. really? OIL.

duh. they (cheney et al) KNOW there's none left & they're securing our access to the biggest remaining pool of it.

anything else is window dressing.

[0007]

7. Too get a foot hold in the Middle East, for Christ sake were

building 14 military installations in Iraq. One day the bombing will start in Iran. I think those 70,000 troops that junior sez he's gonna bring home to protect the US, will soon be stationed in Iraq. Halliburton is working night and day to finish those military bases.

OIL

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Well, at least four (14 wouldn't surprise me)

The United States is planning to establish up to four long-term military bases in Iraq. The proposal would transform America's ability to project its power in the Middle East.
...
The bases would be used primarily to help with reconstructing Iraq. But their proximity to Syria and Iran could help the US to apply added pressure on those countries. With US troops also stationed in Afghanistan, Iran is now almost surrounded by American forces.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/21/wirq21.xml

[The Crazy Canadian]

8. Some reasons:

1. Oil
2. Israel
3. Remake Middle East
4. Change World Order (unilateralism over multilateralism)
5. Start US Empire

Initial reasons for invading Iraq:

1. WMD
2. Part of "War on Terrorism"

[Disturbed]

12. The Hand-Over That Wasn't:

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[MisterP]

15. hail PNAC!

[spanone]

13. I think it's the MultiBillion Dollar War Machine for Profits

I used to think it was about oil. But oil is only part of it. Halliburton is making SOOOO much money they can't account for 1.8 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. This is for feeding the soldiers, rebuilding Iraq, building roads, airports on and on. MAJOR MONEY.

[kiahzero]

16. Right now, or in the first place?

We're there right now, because we need to prevent Iraq from turning into another failed state like Afghanistan.

We went there in the first place because Bush cut short the inspections, and decided to invade.

[shance]

17. Why have we liberated any country with valuable natural resources?

Read War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler. A short but amazingly
honest, forthright book.

[Placebo]

19. This War Was NOT FOR OIL. It Was For CORPORATE PROFITS.

The vast majority of money made from the war in Iraq, has come from the cost of rebuilding it.

All those corporations which have swooped in and now have government contracts getting tax payer's money are making a killing, and as it was shown in F911, this was the plan, "whatever you charge the government will pay." It's the truth.

END THE CORPORATE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ NOW.

[madfloridian]

22. Applause! Ding, ding!

You got it!

That is why they all stand by their votes.

[shance]

30. Oil = Corporate Profits. They are interchangeable.

Its not an either/or issue.

[Pepperbelly]

24. a simple explanation of why it is now imperative to deal with iraq ...

Because Bush screwed the pooch.

Right now, WE are the primary cause of instabiity in Iraq. It would not be the mess that it is today had Bush not screwed the pooch.

But he did.

And now, if we cannot somehow nurture a stable structure for the country, it will devolve into either an Islamic Republic with scores to settle OR it tribalizes like Afghanistan. Bush has painted us into a strategic corner, sowing hatred and instability everywhere he casts his eyes and now ...

Here we are.

[LynnTheDem]

26. Geopolitics.

Ie OIL.

As for "regime change" coz Sh was a meanie and we had to "liberate" the Shi'ites (the same Shi'ites we're slaughtering now) and "bring Hussein to justice" and keep the world safe from him, that's just more total bushite to dupe, con and fool the American rubes:


Blair: March 2, 2003

"If military action proves necessary, it will be to uphold the authority of the UN and to ensure Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction, not to overthrow him. It is why, detestable as I find his regime, he could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."

http://www.sundayherald.com/print31827

Bush: March 5, 2003

"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. *choke over that whopper of a lie!*

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force,"

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03092003/nation_w/nation_w.asp

Three top Bush administration officials said today they would welcome exile for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and one, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, signaled the United States might allow Hussein to escape war crimes prosecution if he voluntarily steps down.
http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/01/20/official.html

President George Bush last night gave Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to give up power and go into exile.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31547

Saddam can stay if he disarms, Powell says
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561443683.html

Rice and Powell Say that a Disarmed Saddam Could Stay in Power
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2159.html

So when were they LYING?

Right before invasion & occupation, when they said SH could remain in power if he disarmed (oops! He had disarmed. Years ago. Just like he'd been saying for years) or go freely on his way as long as his way was out of Iraq?

Or now, when they chant on and on and on and on and on about it being the "right thing to do", removing the "worse-than-Hitler madman" to keep America & the world safe?

[louis c]

27. To Promote Soccer

[LynnTheDem]

28. And when the RWWs...

...then demand to know why, if it's for the oil, we don't have cheap oil now (they truly are stupid) try to explain to them that:

1. Since when did massive conglomerates such as oil companies desire to pass on their savings to us lowly "unwashed masses" thus reducing their $ billions in profits?

2. Notice the fact that oil in Iraq is not being pumped, and in fact oil is being imported INTO Iraq, all coz of them "Saddam loyalists" SHIA rebels?

3. It wasn't about the US getting hold of all that oil as much as it's about the US CONTROLLING WHO DOESN'T get hold of all that oil...ie CHINA.

The neocons see China as the only possible threat to the USA, and China has no oil of their own; they must import every drop. If China were to get hold of Iraq's oil (a possibility before the invasion, when Saddam Hussein was talking friendly with China) that would make China a far more viable threat to the US.

4. Saddam was switching to the Euro for oil. That would have meant a disaster for America, economically, and most especially for US big business.

5. Why do RWWs doubt the word of their own beloved idiols; Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, re PNAC.

[Amaya]

29. PNAC

[Seabiscuit]

31. Aren't we there

to find a left-handed broom?

That's the impression I always got.

[madfloridian]

32. Now that is funny. I would laugh but it is too sad.

:hi:

[Seabiscuit]

48. You're right - I hesitated before posting that joke -

but I have always found it worth while to try to find some morsel of the cosmic joke to chew on even during the worst of times. The Iraq tragedy/quagmire is no laughing matter, either for our troops and their families, or for the Iraqi people who have all suffered in one way or another from the Bushistas' war crimes.

I was poking fun at Dubya, not Iraqis.

[madfloridian]

49. I understood what you meant.

The whole thing is so sad. Now I think we might be looking for another left-handed broom in Iran...if we aren't already. Troops being moved and all that good stuff.

[0rganism]

33. We may not have invaded Iraq for the Oil, but we aren't leaving without it

I forget who said it first, might be a Michael Moore.

[SunDrop23]

34. I don't know why we are there, but it is a shame

our men and women in the military have to be associated with such a clusterfck mission.

[LynnTheDem]

37. Assume Cheney wasn't lying then...

"Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well."

-The dick Cheney, 1990.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/080504EricSmith.shtml

The real reasons Bush went to war

WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar

In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq in the "axis of evil".

If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge. Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1270414,00.html

[Tight_rope]

38. I don't know...we were suppose to be there to

Liberate the people and help them build a better country. But as you can see we are busy killing the people and destroying everything in site. And we wonder why the world hates us so.

[guajira]

40. 3 Reasons - OIL OIL OIL n/t

[serryjw]

47. YES! YES! YES!

It is all about the oil.......1,2 & 3

4th we need bases in Iraq AFTER we pull out of Arabia by the end of the year.

5th...What is the sense of getting the OIL IF they keep setting fire to it! So we MUST stabilize the ME....

HOLD ON!...Iran is next!

I am the ONLY one BUT I believe we will invade Saudi Arabia. WHEN King Fahd dies the children will continue to fight for the kingdom....there can very easily be a civil war in Arabia that would put 25% of the world's oil in jeopardy,

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

41. I don't know, you tell me.

:shrug:

[stranger_with_candy]

45. So that

Saddam's gun can be mounted on a plaque in the White House as a souvenir for trying to kill daddy.

Oh, and OIL.

[truthspeaker]

50. Oil, and to defend Israel, but mostly oil.

[Cat Atomic]

51. Empire. That's why Franken drives me nuts when he complains that

the Bush administration didn't plan for the aftermath of the invasion. This *IS* the intended aftermath. This is an occupation; a war for empire. They never intended to make the Iraqis self-sufficient or comfortable. They never intended to leave.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. For politicians to show that they're "tough on terror".

The mere fact that Iraq posed no threat to the USofA, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't interfere with the candidates arguing about who has the larger jockstrap contents.

What's the loss of a few thousand Iraqis (er..collateral damage), a thousand or so American GI's compared to the political ambitions of guys who want to get their mugs on postage stamps?

[klyon]

53. we had to find out how much oil is left in the hole

oil oil always oil
KL

[JHBowden]

54. Here's my conjecture.

Politicians don't want the country to crumble, so they want to roll the dice and see if the Democracy thing works out. Oil, Israel, and orders from Jesus could have been motivations for going in to begin with, but the fear of chaos is what is sustaining it now.