The war against the terrorists who caused the attacks of 9/11 had a twist in the middle of the action.
And from the start it wasn't "The war agains terrorist who cuased the attacks of 9/11" but stated as a "War against terrorist and the nations that sponsor or support them". 9/11 was an example of what the political ideology of terrorism can do to us. Bush's statements was never JUST to hit those specifically involved with 9/11 and nothing else and saying it was is twisting facts.
It is known that president Bush is a very good friend of the father of Osama Bin Laden, and it is hard to think that president Bush will order to catch and kill the son of his best friend in the Middle East.
Do you have any proof that Bush's "Best friend in the middle east" is Bin Laden's father? Furthermore, proof that Bin Laden is even close in any way with his father as things I've read paint him as being the black sheep of the family.
On the other hand, it is known that some sources implied that Saddam Hussein tried to assesinate in the past to president Bush's father.
I've seen this stated to.
We were in Afghanistan fighting the real terrorists in their head quarters, and in one moment the war was deviated.
Ah, guess we do'nt have people in Afghanistan anymore. Wait, we do, so not "too" deviated eh? And the main organization that was sponsoring and supporting terrorism in that region was deposed, and sent running, unable to organize well enough to do any further major damage and thus...and in this part I agree was bad strategy...forces were withdrawn to a point believing that the last remnants could be disposed of with less people.
What do you think is the reason that caused this twist in the war?
Easy. The war was never about just those that hit us on 9/11 but the issues with middle eastern extremists and their views in regards to American and the west, be it due to religious or interventional reasons. The Bush plan was to establish a democratic head quarters in the heart of the terrorist geographic location, the middle east, and it happened that we had a number of outstanding U.N. resolutions that could be used as a baseline for the invasion on an international level. I have no doubt Iran likely would've been the prefered target but at the point there was no real good way to justify it internationally (Iraq was shaky enough). With that said, lets look at yours...
1)- The friendship between the King of Saudi Arabia with president Bush?
If by this you mean "the friendship between the King of Saudi Arabia and numerous american politicians", perhaps. Saudi interaction and influence of American government dates to LONG before Bush was in power. It may have had some influence but not much.
2)- The personal revenge of president Bush against Saddam?
Doubtful. This is a great movie cliche and thus permeates the mindset of those that hate Bush but I think this is at most a subconcious thing that may've added to it minorly.
3)- Special interests taking advantage of the status of war to expand it and make great profit from it?
Quite possible from a low standpoint
4)- Strategic measures made by US oil corporations to stop Iraq with their ongoing business with countries like Germany, France, Russia and China?
Remove "U.S. Oil Corps." with "U.S. Government" and I'd say this could very well be a legitimate one. One of the oldest rationals and reasons for war has always been supply and comodity control. With the growing possible thread of China and Russia in the future, wanting to have a bit of a hold on what goes on with some middle eastern oil is something I could see having an impact into this.
5)- Suspicious arms of mass destruction?
I DO think this is part of it. At that time, it was hardly just the Bush administration touting this. Even those on the security committee in congress that would have almost all the same intelligence as the President seemed to believe it. In hindsight, that seems almost impossible to imagine but looking at it from a reasonable, not Bush hating perspective, its completely reasonable. We just got hit, paranoia likely is at a high, even the whiff of potential of a WMD would be enough to cause even seasoned politicians to likely look at worse case scenario information as more credible. And the belief of them having WMD's or persuing them was hardly new as it was prevelant all through the Clinton administration and there's info out there that Saddam purposefully made it seem as if he was persuing them.
6)- Expansion of "freedom and democracy"?
See above; this I think is a massive one, in so much as the over all strategy on conducting the war on terror more so then to actually spread it for the sake of the countries people.
