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

[Zyphlin]

I'll try my best to give you a somewhat unbiased reasoning as it was stated without going into a lot of assumptions.

After the 9/11 attacks George Bush declared a "war on terror" stating that state sponsors of Terror would not be tolerated. After Afghanistan when it appeared the Taliban would be roundly handled (turned out to be a mistake in thinking) attention was turned elsewhere. The combination of Saddam's history of state sponsored Terror (in genera, not directly relating to the U.S.), the questionable ties it had to Al-Qaeda, mixed with backing of potential U.N. Security Council regulations that have been repeatedly violated and a standing policy here in the U.S. of regime change for Iraq, along with the desire to try and create a democratic groundswell in the middle of the region in hopes of winning the "hearts and minds" of people withi nthe Middle east while simultaneously giving us a potential location in the middle of the ME to launch further operations, likely worked together to lay the ground work for the reason to go into Iraq.

People speculate that Bush "implied" it had something to do with iraq directly being involved in 9/11, but the only way to reach that belief is to use a lot of assumption as the closest you can come to it legitimately is that Bush went in because of 9/11 and the fact it was done by terrorists, thus delcaring a war on terrorists, and Iraq in general was a state sponsor of terrorism. So it was "due to 9/11" in much the same way that someone says he became a great baseball player "due to his brother killing himself". His brother killing himself didn't lead to him becoming a great baseball player, but the after affects of it caused him to take the actions which led to that. Similarly, Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11, but the act of 9/11 caused the after affects that led to the reasons to go into Iraq.

Others say it was for "oil", however this seems a very flimsy reasoning and is at best an extremely ancillary one with little real evidence other than conspiratorial people and hacks.

Otherse say it was to "liberate the iraqi people", however this seems to be an added benefit and something picked up later but far from one of the main reasons for the invasion.

Others say it was to finish "his daddies war" but there is literally zero real true evidence to show this played a large portion in the reason and is based on nothing but biased opinions coming primarily from people who simply dislike him. The closest to truth this may be is Bush believing, as his father seemed to, that Saddam was a danger to the region and as such potentially a danger to the world (Due to the reliance on the oil in said region and the alliances within the region by power houses like China, Russia, and the U.S.) and thus felt he needed to be removed.

Hope that helps.

 

[honesty]

I'll try my best to give you a somewhat unbiased reasoning as it was stated without going into a lot of assumptions.

After the 9/11 attacks George Bush declared a "war on terror" stating that state sponsors of Terror would not be tolerated. After Afghanistan when it appeared the Taliban would be roundly handled (turned out to be a mistake in thinking) attention was turned elsewhere. The combination of Saddam's history of state sponsored Terror (in genera, not directly relating to the U.S.), the questionable ties it had to Al-Qaeda, mixed with backing of potential U.N. Security Council regulations that have been repeatedly violated and a standing policy here in the U.S. of regime change for Iraq, along with the desire to try and create a democratic groundswell in the middle of the region in hopes of winning the "hearts and minds" of people withi nthe Middle east while simultaneously giving us a potential location in the middle of the ME to launch further operations, likely worked together to lay the ground work for the reason to go into Iraq.

People speculate that Bush "implied" it had something to do with iraq directly being involved in 9/11, but the only way to reach that belief is to use a lot of assumption as the closest you can come to it legitimately is that Bush went in because of 9/11 and the fact it was done by terrorists, thus delcaring a war on terrorists, and Iraq in general was a state sponsor of terrorism. So it was "due to 9/11" in much the same way that someone says he became a great baseball player "due to his brother killing himself". His brother killing himself didn't lead to him becoming a great baseball player, but the after affects of it caused him to take the actions which led to that. Similarly, Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11, but the act of 9/11 caused the after affects that led to the reasons to go into Iraq.

Others say it was for "oil", however this seems a very flimsy reasoning and is at best an extremely ancillary one with little real evidence other than conspiratorial people and hacks.

Otherse say it was to "liberate the iraqi people", however this seems to be an added benefit and something picked up later but far from one of the main reasons for the invasion.

Others say it was to finish "his daddies war" but there is literally zero real true evidence to show this played a large portion in the reason and is based on nothing but biased opinions coming primarily from people who simply dislike him. The closest to truth this may be is Bush believing, as his father seemed to, that Saddam was a danger to the region and as such potentially a danger to the world (Due to the reliance on the oil in said region and the alliances within the region by power houses like China, Russia, and the U.S.) and thus felt he needed to be removed.

Hope that helps.

sounds informative, do you have any suggested reading?

 

[Zyphlin]

I'll see about digging some up after work. A lot of this is just from years of reading various things etc. Possibly check some of his State of the Union addresses prior to or immedietely after the war...I believe in some of them Bush outlines his views on why we needed to go into Iraq/Needed to have a "War on Terror". I think there may be some other documents as well but the difficulty is there was no official declaration for War (and hasn't been one in a long, long time).

 

[liblady]

If you want official documented reasons, look up Saddam's litany of ceasefire violations. Undeniable Casus Belli.

or, find condi rice's "mushroom cloud" statement.

 

[liblady]

I'll try my best to give you a somewhat unbiased reasoning as it was stated without going into a lot of assumptions.

After the 9/11 attacks George Bush declared a "war on terror" stating that state sponsors of Terror would not be tolerated. After Afghanistan when it appeared the Taliban would be roundly handled (turned out to be a mistake in thinking) attention was turned elsewhere. The combination of Saddam's history of state sponsored Terror (in genera, not directly relating to the U.S.), the questionable ties it had to Al-Qaeda, mixed with backing of potential U.N. Security Council regulations that have been repeatedly violated and a standing policy here in the U.S. of regime change for Iraq, along with the desire to try and create a democratic groundswell in the middle of the region in hopes of winning the "hearts and minds" of people withi nthe Middle east while simultaneously giving us a potential location in the middle of the ME to launch further operations, likely worked together to lay the ground work for the reason to go into Iraq.

People speculate that Bush "implied" it had something to do with iraq directly being involved in 9/11, but the only way to reach that belief is to use a lot of assumption as the closest you can come to it legitimately is that Bush went in because of 9/11 and the fact it was done by terrorists, thus delcaring a war on terrorists, and Iraq in general was a state sponsor of terrorism. So it was "due to 9/11" in much the same way that someone says he became a great baseball player "due to his brother killing himself". His brother killing himself didn't lead to him becoming a great baseball player, but the after affects of it caused him to take the actions which led to that. Similarly, Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11, but the act of 9/11 caused the after affects that led to the reasons to go into Iraq.

Others say it was for "oil", however this seems a very flimsy reasoning and is at best an extremely ancillary one with little real evidence other than conspiratorial people and hacks.

Otherse say it was to "liberate the iraqi people", however this seems to be an added benefit and something picked up later but far from one of the main reasons for the invasion.

Others say it was to finish "his daddies war" but there is literally zero real true evidence to show this played a large portion in the reason and is based on nothing but biased opinions coming primarily from people who simply dislike him. The closest to truth this may be is Bush believing, as his father seemed to, that Saddam was a danger to the region and as such potentially a danger to the world (Due to the reliance on the oil in said region and the alliances within the region by power houses like China, Russia, and the U.S.) and thus felt he needed to be removed.

Hope that helps.

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.

 

[Voidwar]

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

This is a good place to start in on the ceasefire agreement, U. N . Resolution 687 I think ?

 

[Zyphlin]

Thanking your post for the WMD mention. That was a mistake on my part, as I always roll that in when my mind is thinking of it with the Security Council resolutions as that's part of what those resolutions were dealing with.

 

[Voidwar]

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.

France Germany and Russia raped Iraq for Oil, NOT the U.S. .

Look into Oil for Food if you want to become well informed on the topic.

 

[mikeey]

Honesty good question i say,but i think it was a regime change as Tony Blair
said,Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing.I believe that,also he would not have said that without President Bush permision,maybe just to take over their land for ever.

all the best m8.

mikeey

 

[liblady]

France Germany and Russia raped Iraq for Oil, NOT the U.S. .

Look into Oil for Food if you want to become well informed on the topic.

uh-huh.......i'm not referring to oil for food, that was just wrong. i'm referring to the original contracts our oil companies/gov't pressed the iraqis to sign, which they ultimately did not agree to.

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity - Middle East, World - The Independent

 

[Voidwar]

Can they run their own oil industry themselves or do they lack the equipment and knowhow ?

If Iraq has to hire this work out, why do you think those who do have the equipment and knowhow should do the work for free ?

 

[liblady]

Can they run their own oil industry themselves or do they lack the equipment and knowhow ?

If Iraq has to hire this work out, why do you think those who do have the equipment and knowhow should do the work for free ?

absolutely not......but why were they pressed to sign unprecendented types of contracts, unlike other middle eastern countries, who retain control of their own oil?

 

[Voidwar]

I was replying to the title in your link.

It uses profit like it was a dirty word, when tthe author wrote the piece to get paid by an editor, and thus profit.

We all wake up in the morning for profit, so calling it out as an evil motivation is pure hypocrisy.

Point to the specific precedents you don't like and we will discuss them.

 

[liblady]

I was replying to the title in your link.

It uses profit like it was a dirty word, when tthe author wrote the piece to get paid by an editor, and thus profit.

We all wake up in the morning for profit, so calling it out as an evil motivation is pure hypocrisy.

Point to the specific precedents you don't like and we will discuss them.

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.


aside from out of the norm profit %, the term of the contracts were very long, which way back when was the first red flag for me.

 

[liblady]

I was replying to the title in your link.

It uses profit like it was a dirty word, when tthe author wrote the piece to get paid by an editor, and thus profit.

We all wake up in the morning for profit, so calling it out as an evil motivation is pure hypocrisy.

Point to the specific precedents you don't like and we will discuss them.

btw, i've got to go for now, but i have never believed profit was evil. rape is, though.

 

[Voidwar]

aside from out of the norm profit %, the term of the contracts were very long, which way back when was the first red flag for me.

Lack of stability = much higher security costs, which is where that extra money will go.

If we are done blaming them for wanting to make money, it hardly seems smart to start blaming them for being concerned with life and limb.

Length of contract ? I simply don't care. Goes to Stability concerns, and their possible "replacement" after the expensive work is completed.

 

[Voidwar]

btw, i've got to go for now,

np, good chat, seeya upon return.

 

[obvious Child]

Poitical differences get subsumed when there is an external enemy.

And quickly destroy any Islamic unity when that external enemy disappears.

Preventing unification is not all it accomplishes. It also prevents and hinders collusion by the "loose confederation acting in concert" that is Islam.

Apparently you missed the day in history class where you learned the Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for years.

 

[Voidwar]

And quickly destroy any Islamic unity when that external enemy disappears.



Apparently you missed the day in history class where you learned the Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for years.

Yawn.

The offensive squads and defensive squads of a football team might get in a squad vs squad brawl on thursday, and play together, as a team, on friday.

Your point is a hollow cliche, and doesn't actually impinge on my point anyway.

 

[obvious Child]

Your point is a hollow cliche, and doesn't actually impinge on my point anyway.

Never mind hundreds of years of history.

The notion that Muslims across the planet will ever unite against everyone else is mindbogglingly stupid. You can't even get a Sunni and Shiite in Iraq to agree on how oil revenue will be divided. And you forget that arguebly the biggest unifier of Islam against everyone else, Bin Laden, is squarely anti-Shiite and defend Sunnis who have murdered Shiites.

Your notions of a Caliphate are borderline drug induced.

I do laugh at how you think Saddam was a "Muslim" Leader. Notice I put " around Muslim

 

[Voidwar]

Never mind hundreds of years of history.

Oh, do you mean the millenium or more of expansion as a "loose confederation, acting in concert" ??

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests]Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Several rival factions on that team during that long winning streak.

 

[obvious Child]

Several rival factions on that team during that long winning streak.

Never mind how you gloss over their differences and strife.

It is completely irrational to think that the world's Muslims could actually cooperate in the manner you are warning us against when you cannot even get them to agree on basic policies within their own counties. Notice I said counties not countries. A basic operating level of government cannot achieve unity. You think they can manage this on a world level?

That's certified crazy.

 

[Voidwar]

Never mind how you gloss over their differences and strife.

I didn't gloss over jack. Its right there in the link.

Several factions within Islam, vying with each other for dominance, during a thousand year expansion as an overall team.

You are the glossy one, trying to ignore a thousand years of what you claim can't happen.

It is completely irrational to think that the world's Muslims could actually cooperate in the manner you are warning us against

Could Charie Wilson and the Israelis and the Pakis work together to fight the Russians ?

Did the Muslims themselves do what you describe for over a thousand years?

Yes to both.

 

[obvious Child]

Really? You gloss over everything.

You ignore modern history. I see you deliberately ignored my point about county level politics in Islamic countries. Why is that? If you think your point is so valid, why did you go out of your way to pretend that did not exist?

Did the Muslims backstab and murder each other for thousands years?

 

[Voidwar]

Really? You gloss over everything.

You ignore modern history.

I ignore 300 years ? where ?

YOU are ignoring a thousand years.

I see you deliberately ignored my point about county level politics in Islamic countries.

I haven't ignored a damn thing. 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.

Why is that? If you think your point is so valid, why did you go out of your way to pretend that did not exist?

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

Did the Muslims backstab and murder each other for thousands years?

Yes, at the same time the overall team was expanding for one thousand years, factions within it, vied lethally for control.