Please tell me why we at War??

[blur]

Originally posted by bashwolf
I am not American born, European, or Middle Eastern  but I sure like to know what others from these 3 conteintes why US at war with Iraq??  I have done my research to find the truth or so-called truth.  I like to hear from you guys your opionion s etc will be  greatly appreciated.

After the 2000 US elections the neo-conservative hawks in Washington DC finally found an administration open to its aggressive proactive foreign policy stance.

Iraq is a stepping-stone in this policy of total global domination. Once Iraq is subdued the US administration will start its typical war drum beating rhetoric with Iran; claiming ties to Al-Qaida, liberating their oppressed people and other fabrications.

There’s a lot of information on the Internet about this but here’s a site to start with if you’re interested.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

[Toad]

Originally posted by blur
Once Iraq is subdued the US administration will start its typical war drum beating rhetoric with Iran; claiming ties to Al-Qaida, liberating their oppressed people and other fabrications.

This sort of statement triggers my "Purest BS" alarm.

It also makes me willing to place a wager.

Would you like to place a wager on the quality of your analysis of US intentions?

Pick the time frame for your predicted US invasion of Iran and suggest and amount. I'm sure we can work something out.

Because I'm willing to wager that after this military conflict, the people of the US will turn slowly towards isolationism.

[Toad]

Why are we there?

Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 6:08 AM EST (1108 GMT)
BASRA, Iraq (CNN) -- Thousands of civilians trying to flee Basra Friday were fired upon by militia forces backing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, British military officials said.

They told CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour that once the gunfire started, many of the civilians turned around and ran back into the city.

Sort of highlights what Badger wrote in his link.


(BTW, Badger, well said... but you should have posted an "MG warning" with that.   )

[Fatty]

I agree with towd, don't go quoting some canadian rock trio as a source.

[Charon]

Toad, you're certainly aware of the neo-conservative aspect of this administration -- a group that has long held the opinion that a regime change in Iraq would be beneficial for US interests in the region that are not related to terrorism or even particularly generating a more positive life in Iraq except as a means to an end. However, I have yet to see you comment on this aspect of the War.

This isn't tirlateral commission/Area 59/Skull & Bones stuff. This involves clearly documented positions held by senior foreign policy advisors (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, perhaps Cheney, Rice a number of staffers) -- the "McNamaras" of the current administration. These positions provide a roadmap for creating peace and stability in the region through a variety of regime changes, starting with Iraq. The Washington Post has reported on the neo-conservative aspect. Frontline did an excellent piece on it where William Kristol and other neo-conservatives bragged about winning the heart and mind of Bush Jr. on foreign policy over the positions of outdated fogies like Powell and Bush Sr. Even the mainstream broadcast media, ever protective of the almighty access (which disappears if you stray too far from the party line) is starting to cover it now.

Under the Wolfowitz doctrine, the regime changes should occur regardless of world support (not needed because of our current military "flexibility"); and once the frst domino falls the rest were seen to fall soon after. Voilia! Instant peace in a region that has one overriding national interest under it's soil. As a side benefit, the Palestinians would find hard line support evaporating, allowing them to see the hopelessness of their position and become willing to compromise. It should also be pointed out that this was seen as being a cakewalk. Other side benefits include:

- Freeing the Iraqi people (or at least the portions most oppressed by Hussein in the North and South). It will be interesting to see just what form of democracy comes from this, when an election is allowed to take place.

- Potentially reducing the threat of terrorists getting WMD from one of the many states in position to turn them over to such groups.

- Huge oil contracts (production and infrastructure) for the countries that are onboard. You can't squeak at the French and Russians and Chinese for this without at least acknowledging that their losses will be our gains.

- Provide an option to Saudi oil that is clearly at risk. If you want to find a few Al-Queda cells you don’t have to look very far in Saudi Arabia. It could easily pull an Iran at some point in the not-too-distant future and the world economy would likely suffer greatly. It also helps break the grip OPEC has on the market today without necessarily reducing profitability.

Now that the war has started we can't pull back. Let's hope these new McNamaras are as smart as they think they are, and that the end result truly will be better for the Iraqi people and the world with the least cost to the liberators and the Iraqis.

Charon

[10Bears]

Toad: We don't.

But they most certainly better find them in a clear, open, internationally documented way.

We most certainly better find them eh Toad?

Note it was 16 posts.. Nash was the first one to mention the main pretext for invasion.. the WMD..

Fellas I've tried to direct Toad to the PFNAC site so he can read for himself.. he refuses to even acknowledge the PNAC. The next country on the list isn't Iran tho it's Syria.. Already we've been reading news reports of Syria helping Iraqis shipping arms and troops across the border.. They are developing the pretext now.

[Toad]

Oh, I read that stuff. I just don't attach as much importance to it as some do. It's really "business as usual" for DC.

Anyway, there is still the Congress. Did Kristol et al use their Jedi mind control techniques on ~ 535 of them? Because they voted to authorize this action in October...... after endless negotiations in the UN. Even Brother Clinton made similar comments about using force against Iraq at various times. Did Kristol get to him too? Or Hillary? Because she voted "yes" in October as well. So did Daschle... hmmm the Force is strong indeed in this Kristol.

Yeah, there's special interest groups out there. Suprise. Some of them have major influence in the Executive branch. Some have major influence in the Republican party. Some have major influence in the Democratic party....... go figure. Why, I'd wager there were one or two special interest groups that had major influence in the Clinton Executive years.

However, they don't make the laws, they don't pass the law and they don't send US troops off to foreign lands to fight all by themselves.

Like it or not, ALL special interest groups are allowed in this form of government. It's a part of the process and has been since day one. McCain-Feingold tried to change that..... but money and politicians have always been inseparable and always will be IMO.

Still, bottom line, Kristol & Co. can try to influence all they like. It's purely legal and it's always going on no matter what administration is in office or which party holds control in the Congress.

It is up to US to make sure they don't "buy" our Congress into doing something we don't want done.

And, as I said, I think after this exposure to "modern warfare regime change" the US public is going to be very, very reluctant to engage in it again, PARTICULARLY without International sanction (UN/SC). I predict a veer towards isolationism will follow after the toll of blood and gold is counted for this operation. America doesn't like losing her sons overseas.

I may be wrong, but I'm willing to back that opinion with a bit of gold of my own. I seriously doubt Blur will take the wager, however.

[Toad]

LOL, 10 Bears.

I read your link when u posted it the first time. I don't agree with Kristol, but just like the anti-war protestors, I accept his right to voice his opinion.

As I said, $pecial intere$t groups are allowed..... period. Of whatever ideological Stripe. Now you wouldn't try to remove Kristol & Co's right to "free speech" would you? You support that don't you? Because if you remove his right, it surely won't end there.

As I also said above, just exactly whose responsibility is it to see that the government does the wishes of the people?

IIRC, that would be us registered voters, wouldn't it?

No one's going into Iran or Syria or anywhere else unless Congress authorizes that too. IMO, after this deal something like that will require a direct, provable attack on the US.

Knowing how you love to back your opinions with a little side wager, I'll offer you the same bet as I offered Blur.

BTW, do you want to double down on the WMD bet?

[Charon]

Because I'm willing to wager that after this military conflict, the people of the US will turn slowly towards isolationism.

Toad

Have to agree with Toad here. Regardless of the hopes and aspirations of the neo-cons, step two in the big plan just ain't going to happen unless the "Arab Street" actually does something more than burn a few effigies. Even the administration seems to be reassesing this political experiment given Richard Pearle departure, though that could just as easily be related to the selling influence scandal.

[edit: BTW, I agree completely Toad -- business as usual in Washington. Hard to find a Mr. Smith in the bunch on either side of the aisle. As for Clinton and his special interests, couldn't agree more. The Carol Browner EPA (really more the Gore EPA) was insane, and I consider myself to be an America the Beautiful type of guy. For example, they would set contaminat reduction standards for drinking water that were too low to even be tested for compliance.]

Charon

[john9001]

i will use simple terms so anyone can understand, even the neo-liberals

saddam = torture, death

british/american = food, water, medicine


thats not my words, thats what the iraqi people say.

[Toad]

Now, if Apache's thread about Syria proves true and escalates, Syria might get themselves into it after all. But that wouldn't be because we attacked them. It'd be because they chose to militarily side with Iraq. Which would be monumental stupidity on their part.

[SLO]

Originally posted by Martlet
You're either with us, or you're against us.  If there are known terrorists in Canada, and they do nothing about it, don't cry if you find SOS members entered your country and dealt with the problem for you.

never never land my dreaming friend.....

btw....in the post that now is locked.....i was bein sarcastic myself....

guess ya missed that 1....

hmm ye not very perceptive are we.....

[Martlet]

Originally posted by SLO
never never land my dreaming friend.....

btw....in the post that now is locked.....i was bein sarcastic myself....

guess ya missed that 1....

hmm ye not very perceptive are we.....

I'm very perceptive, I just have trouble with horrible english.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Charon

[edit: BTW, I agree completely Toad -- business as usual in Washington. Charon

So why would anyone lose sleep over Kristol? Any mature American voter knows there are guys like him all over DC, pushing their own agendas and undermining the agendas of their competitors. Any mature American voter knows big money draws special interests like sh*t draws flies.

As I said, it's up to US to monitor that process and intervene through the ballot box, letters to our reps and supporting groups that support our own particular special interests. That's how the system is supposed to work, right?

[Toad]

Nope, they'd still lose. Casualties would soar on both sides, to huge unprecedented levels. Would insure an isolationist USA in the aftermath for certain.