Why did the US decide to go to war with Iraq?

[Goshin]

I think we can just go with the Texas Defense in Saddam's case: "He needed killin'." :mrgreen:

 

[obvious Child]

I ignore 300 years ? where ?

YOU are ignoring a thousand years.

You ignore everything you don't like. I am ignoring a thousand years? Tell me, was the reign of Islam completely happy go lucky? Or were Muslims butchering each other? :2wave:

I haven't ignored a damn thing.

You just conveniently left out the majority of my last post which showed that Muslims today cannot even agree on basic county level ordinances. Sure you didn't ignore anything.

You claimed it wasn't possible, I provided evidence of a thousand years of expansion as a "loose confedration working in concert".
I also provided evidence of co-operation betwixt allegedly hostile factions in the modern era.

Except you gloss over that during the reign of Islam, Muslims were butchering each other. And you ignore that arguebly the only unifier has defended the murder of Shiites by Sunnis. Unity you say?

Only if you're nuts.

Why did you go out of your way to pretend the first thousand years of Islamic expansion didn't happen ?

Did I? Or did I argue that such a period was full of Muslim infighting? You have real big blinders on.

Except that the overall team fell apart and butchered each other.

Your notions (as always) are insane.

Muslims cannot even agree on basic county ordinances. You think they'll get together in your delusional argument?

 

[Voidwar]

You ignore everything you don't like.

Riiiiight.

I am ignoring a thousand years? Tell me, was the reign of Islam completely happy go lucky? Or were Muslims butchering each other? :2wave:

Were they expanding ? Yes or No ?

You just conveniently left out the majority of my last post which showed that Muslims today cannot even agree on basic county level ordinances. Sure you didn't ignore anything.

Nope. Same factions and infighting during the thousand year expansion you are trying to ignore.

Except you gloss over that during the reign of Islam, Muslims were butchering each other.

No, I do not. I point out that they can expand as a team while the infighting goes on.

Did I? Or did I argue that such a period was full of Muslim infighting?

You argued your way right out of a point, because the overal team was expanding that whole time.

 

[Dayton3]

I'll give you the reasons I give my students:

1) The belief that Saddam Husseins Iraq was either constructing or in possession of chemical weapons (they did have a handful but nothing like what was predicted).

2) Iraq's continuing violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

3) Iraq's continuing abuse and oppression of their own people.

4) Iraq's support for terrorists who had killed American citizens (but not 9-11).

In addition.

It was long established U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

 

[obvious Child]

Riiiiight.

I'd bet that Lexrst and Budha as well as CC agree with me.

Were they expanding ? Yes or No ?

Does that ignore what I said? Yes or No?

Nope. Same factions and infighting during the thousand year expansion you are trying to ignore.

I'm ignoring that....by saying it? You got twisted logic there.

No, I do not.

Only you think that you address points by pretending they never were made.

I point out that they can expand as a team while the infighting goes on.

And they fell apart.

You argued your way right out of a point, because the overal team was expanding that whole time.

And you completely gloss over the details.

You ignore how Muslims today can't agree on mostly anything
You ignore how Muslims today kill each other in large numbers
You ignore how Muslims today cannot even agree on oil production
You ignore how Muslims today are arguebly just as diverse as Christians

You ignore everything you wish to suit your arguments.

It is hysterical how you think that people who cannot even agree on basic county ordinances can come together to threaten the world.

 

[Voidwar]

I'd bet that Lexrst and Budha as well as CC agree with me.

Who cares what your failed cheerleading squad thinks about anything ?

Does that ignore what I said? Yes or No?

What you said ignores the thousand years of expansion.

I'm ignoring that....by saying it? You got twisted logic there.

Naw, you just proved yourself wrong, admitting that the team as a whole can expand even while the infighting is ongoing.

You ignore how Muslims today can't agree on mostly anything

False. I detailed multiple times that these factions violently, lethally oppose each other and vie for power within Islam, whether Islam is expanding or not, both in the past and "today".

Your naive and repeated refrain that "muslim factions can't ever work together" is simply a chunk of ignorance, easily proven false by a casual perusal of the historical record.

Repeating it after I prove it false, and appealing to a popularity contest when it has been, gets you nowhere.

 

[obvious Child]

Ah typical Voidwar. Pretend you address points by ignoring them entirely.

This is how you "win" an argument. By being so utterly ridiculous and saying you never ignored anything to the point where no one wants to deal with you.

 

[Voidwar]

Ah typical Voidwar. Pretend you address points by ignoring them entirely.

Crybaby ad hominem.

Your premise was destroyed.

 

[Voidwar]

Oh look, one of your failed cheerleading team stopped by.

Did you ladies have a nice visit ?

 

[Ikari]

I'll give you the reasons I give my students:

1) The belief that Saddam Husseins Iraq was either constructing or in possession of chemical weapons (they did have a handful but nothing like what was predicted).

2) Iraq's continuing violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

3) Iraq's continuing abuse and oppression of their own people.

4) Iraq's support for terrorists who had killed American citizens (but not 9-11).

In addition.

It was long established U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Why was it our policy to overthrow him when we helped to put his party into power in the first place?

 

[reefedjib]

I found this old thread. When you ask "Why did the US decide to go to war with Iraq?" do you mean the reasons or the objectives?

I think that Dayton3 handled the reasons well:

I'll give you the reasons I give my students:

1) The belief that Saddam Husseins Iraq was either constructing or in possession of chemical weapons (they did have a handful but nothing like what was predicted).

2) Iraq's continuing violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

3) Iraq's continuing abuse and oppression of their own people.

4) Iraq's support for terrorists who had killed American citizens (but not 9-11).

In addition.

It was long established U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

As far as the objectives go, there are short-term and long-term objectives. One short-term objective is that it forced Saudi Arabia to deal with the growing Jihadist threat within that country and they did indeed deal with it. I think the number one long-term objective was to build a weapon and deploy it in the region. That weapon is a democratic Iraq and the primary target is Iran.

There is a dysfunctional democracy in Lebanon. Turkey has a democracy. And of course Israel. There are no other democratic examples. The primary target of a democratic Iraq is Iran. We can see the effects starting to cause trouble within that country.

There are two schools of political theory in the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. The Twelver sect is the dominant sect in Iraq and Iran (and other countries in the Gulf). One of these political schools is in power in Iran and is the Khomenist School. This school believes that the government is run by the clerics and so the clerics have executive power in Iran. The other school is the Quietist School headed by Ali Sistani of Iraq. This school thinks that the jurisprudence of a government should be run by the Clerics, or at least that the Quran is a leading text of jurisprudence, but that the executive is a secular function.

Since the invasion and introduction of democracy in a Quietist fashion in Iraq, there has been a lot of clerical travels between Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. Qom is the spiritual center of Iran. The Quietist school has been gaining significant ground against the Khomenist School in Qom and the real struggle in Iran is between groups of clerics over who will run the government.

This is a non-trivial result of the invasion of Iraq, and it's true long-term objective.

 

[Elena]

Can someone provide me a non-bias link to a document or inform me in a non biased honest way the answer? I never paid attention to the reason why we went to war and now, embarassingly, I'd like to know why. I'm not here to debate, just to get honest answers.

It's not about any "conspiracy theory", it's 2 hours long, and the guy is not a natural born speaker, but he has lots and lots of documents he collected over the years working with CIA.

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145]THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11[/ame]

 

[American]

Did someone dig up an old thread from 5 years ago?

 

[Mach]

Can someone provide me a non-bias link to a document or inform me in a non biased honest way the answer? I never paid attention to the reason why we went to war and now, embarassingly, I'd like to know why. I'm not here to debate, just to get honest answers.

Cheney. Neoconservatives. Bush. 9/11. The public that voted Bush in (and didn't defeat Bush).

I think at a high-level, these things combined to put us into war in Iraq. As to Cheney's personal motives, good luck. Bush's motives? Good luck, although I would wager they were primarily emotional...gut feelings, based on Bush's testimony as to how he makes decisions as the decider. 9/11 gave them an opening, although it was never thought to be directly related to Iraq by those responsible for the War. It was entirely sufficient to make Congress into yes-men-women with regards to "security". Were neoconservatives just helping out big business/oil by fabricating a plausible case for invasion and occupation there? Maybe, but we can't really know either way, and ultimately it's not important.

 

[Mach]

i have a couple of issues here:

a) the idea that bush DIDN'T imply 9/11 and iraq were related amazes me. every high level person in that admin continually mentioned 9/11 and iraq together, so much so that a majority of our population had no idea mostly saudis were the perpetrators. i believe many still think saddam had a hand in 9/11.

b) you didn't mention wmds, which was their rallying cry: it was a slam dunk they had those weapons, right? except it wasn't.

c) oil.....while that didn't develop as our gov't had hoped, initial oil contracts offered to the iraqis did not reflect the same types of terms other standard oil contracts do. they were particularly rich for the oil companies.

as for "daddy's war"....i have no insight into bush's psyche.

I agree with most of what Zyph wrote, with the addiotn of your objections.

I doubt any one factor pushed Bush into this. If I were a betting man, I'd put money that Bush felt, and was helped to feel, that he needed to man-up at that time and do something big, he was after all wearing the mantle of the entire U.S. and as a self-described emotional guy, lashing out was probably a sensible choice. Cheney/Neocons offered the game plan on how to lash out, and the support for making the choice. The fact that it helped them and their party (oil, haliburton, etc.) might be why they supported it, but I would guess Bush cared more about 1. their support of his action. 2. being given a task that the U.S. would support. Which he had...at that time.

There is no doubt that those making the case linked Iraq w/9/11 and nukes, even to the extent of hushing objection to it. Again, that may be how they gained more support, but their choice was already made.

 

[gohira7]

I'm a complete newbie, and I just wanted to understand the war. I really didn't want this to turn into 'radical muslim' this and 'daddy's war' that. There must be some official documents highlighting the reasons for war. Maybe those are the reasons, but I'd just like to know what the 'official' reason is.

The problem is that even the initiators of war may not understand what is motivating them. Each decision in a line of decisions may seem reasonable but the collective result may be insanity. The pathological hate filled posts on this thread are a symptom of the larger pathology of war itself. I can't give you a clear set of documents showing policy decisions. It may take scholarly studies and piles of future books to clarify what decisions were made to start the war. Even today I'll bet many of the documents you are looking for are classified. What you'll get on the internet today are opinon pieces and hate blogs, usually written by immature 13 year old geeks. Journal level treatments of the causes of the war cost money. A better source will be a good college library or the politics section of a quality bookstore like Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Walden Books.

I can give you a link on a good description of the basic steps that define war as a social pathology. There will be posts that whine that "our war is special,...better,...more virtuous!" HA! It's all the same, from before the Peloponnesian War to the modern age.
A lecture entitled WHAT IS WAR AND WHY DO WE DO IT? given by Anthony Stevens at the Durrell School, Corfu, on July 4th 2007.