What do you think was the main reason for the US invasion of Iraq?

[J. J.]

I would say multiple reasons:

1.  There was the possibility of WMD's.  It was higher, based on intelligence, that was credible, but ultimately wrong.

2.  Iraq was seen, with some justification as being a future staging area for al-Qaeda, with state resources behind it.  It was the principle of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

3.  The was the sense that Hussein was going to destabilize the region, but possibly invading another country.  Arguably the region is more stable now, though Iraq itself isn't.

4.  Iraq did try to assassinate a former US President, who happened to be the father of the then current one.  That is probably an act of war.

5.  The argument that the US should bring democracy, and that this would be better than having a dictatorship.

6.  The idea (which is accurate) that Iraq did harbor non al-Qaeda terrorists.

I don't agree with all of them.

[Bo]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

North Korea was our enemy back in the late 1940s, way before Saddam. That's why North Korea invaded South Korea back in 1950. Thus, if you're going to say that we should have invaded Iraq because Saddam was our enemy for a long time, then we should have invaded North Korea and Iran first because they were our enemies longer than Iraq was. And if you're going to use human rights as an excuse to invade Iraq, then North Korea and Sudan should have been invaded before Iraq, since their human rights records were worse than Iraq's, especially in 2003.

[fezzyfestoon]

Refused to believe it until recently, but it was quite obviously all about:

[Derek]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

North Korea was our enemy back in the late 1940s, way before Saddam. That's why North Korea invaded South Korea back in 1950. Thus, if you're going to say that we should have invaded Iraq because Saddam was our enemy for a long time, then we should have invaded North Korea and Iran first because they were our enemies longer than Iraq was. And if you're going to use human rights as an excuse to invade Iraq, then North Korea and Sudan should have been invaded before Iraq, since their human rights records were worse than Iraq's, especially in 2003.

Length of time as an enemy is a moot point either way. You say 1940's but when did they develop their nukes? Human rights are not on my agenda, I judge morality based on the situation at hand.

[Bo]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

North Korea was our enemy back in the late 1940s, way before Saddam. That's why North Korea invaded South Korea back in 1950. Thus, if you're going to say that we should have invaded Iraq because Saddam was our enemy for a long time, then we should have invaded North Korea and Iran first because they were our enemies longer than Iraq was. And if you're going to use human rights as an excuse to invade Iraq, then North Korea and Sudan should have been invaded before Iraq, since their human rights records were worse than Iraq's, especially in 2003.

Length of time as an enemy is a moot point either way. You say 1940's but when did they develop their nukes? Human rights are not on my agenda, I judge morality based on the situation at hand.

North Korea probably developed their nukes in the late 1990s, but they were our enemy for 50 years before that. And Saddam never developed nuclear weapons. Interesting you say human rights isn't on your agenda, since you previously argued that it was a good thing to invade Iraq to make the lives of the Iraqi people better.  And it would have been more moral to invade a country where the people are trapped in like in a prison than one where the people can leave if they want to.

[cpeeks]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

Saddam was an ally until the first gulf war Derek.

[Derek]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

Saddam was an ally until the first gulf war Derek.

yes and he blew it by invading Kuwait.

[Bo]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

[Derek]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

[cpeeks]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

Yet again another deranged bs comment from Derek.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

source?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

OIL-- isn't it obvious?

But, Snow, if so, why aren't we reaping the benefits of it......or are we, and I missed it?

[Derek]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

source?

Source? It was well known just like the OJ trial.

[cpeeks]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

God I hate to say this but yet again another deranged bs statement from Derek.

source?

Source? It was well known just like the OJ trial.

[opebo]

By the by, did you fellows know what was the reason the US won in WWII? (the last attempt to contain it)

OIL.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

By the by, did you fellows know what was the reason the US won in WWII? (the last attempt to contain it)

Russia.

Fixed.

[Derek]

By the by, did you fellows know what was the reason the US won in WWII? (the last attempt to contain it)

OIL.

If that were the case then Bush would have had the sanctions lifted and we would have bought the oil at market price. Think before you speak.

[cpeeks]

By the by, did you fellows know what was the reason the US won in WWII? (the last attempt to contain it)

OIL.

If that were the case then Bush would have had the sanctions lifted and we would have bought the oil at market price. Think before you speak.

You should take your on advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[anvi]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

[Derek]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

[Bo]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and waste our own money doing it, he should have started with North Korea and Sudan. As for demcoracy in the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq he should have focused on the creation of a Palestinian state (especially in his second term, after Arafat's death). That way, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been solved and a democracy in Palestine would have been created without any American lives lost. That could have led to a domino effect in the long run where the other dictatorships in the Middle East collapse, except it would have involved us spending much less money and losing much less (or no) lives.

[Derek]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and waste our own money doing it, he should have started with North Korea and Sudan. As for demcoracy in the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq he should have focused on the creation of a Palestinian state (especially in his second term, after Arafat's death). That way, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been solved and a democracy in Palestine would have been created without any American lives lost. That could have led to a domino effect in the long run where the other dictatorships in the Middle East collapse, except it would have involved us spending much less money and losing much less (or no) lives.

Creation of a Palestine state? Why so it could have invaded Israel and took them over? That's what Hammas and Al-Qaida would have wanted. Look everyone seems to think that they have a quick and easy solution for everything but that just wouldn't work.

[Bo]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon.  

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics.  

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and waste our own money doing it, he should have started with North Korea and Sudan. As for demcoracy in the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq he should have focused on the creation of a Palestinian state (especially in his second term, after Arafat's death). That way, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been solved and a democracy in Palestine would have been created without any American lives lost. That could have led to a domino effect in the long run where the other dictatorships in the Middle East collapse, except it would have involved us spending much less money and losing much less (or no) lives.

Creation of a Palestine state? Why so it could have invaded Israel and took them over? That's what Hammas and Al-Qaida would have wanted. Look everyone seems to think that they have a quick and easy solution for everything but that just wouldn't work.

No one would have invaded Israel with the kind of army they have. Bush Jr. actually supported the creation of a Palestinian state. I'm just saying that if Bush Jr. genuinely wanted a democracy in the Middle East so that all those other dictatorships there would collapse afterwards, he should have focused more on Palestine instead of invading Iraq. Sometimes the easy way is the best way, and it would have saved the U.S. a lot of lives and money, as well as preserved America's international reputation.

[The Duke]

The way you know the reason wasn't oil is that we nationalized the oil and gave it all to the Iraqi government.  If we were trying to steal the oil, we'd have just given it to Texaco.

Israel had very mixed feelings about invading Iraq.  See this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2736283.stm

LOL at imperialism.

[cpeeks]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and waste our own money doing it, he should have started with North Korea and Sudan. As for demcoracy in the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq he should have focused on the creation of a Palestinian state (especially in his second term, after Arafat's death). That way, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been solved and a democracy in Palestine would have been created without any American lives lost. That could have led to a domino effect in the long run where the other dictatorships in the Middle East collapse, except it would have involved us spending much less money and losing much less (or no) lives.

Creation of a Palestine state? Why so it could have invaded Israel and took them over? That's what Hammas and Al-Qaida would have wanted. Look everyone seems to think that they have a quick and easy solution for everything but that just wouldn't work.

Lol how would the palestinians conquer one of the most powerful armies in the world. The whole arab world could not defeat Isreal. Have you studied history and seen what happened in the 4 previous Arab, Isreali wars?