Why are we in Iraq?

Saddam had plenty of his own arsenal to attack Kuwait, but that too is an entirely different matter. His removal was necessitated for failure to abide by Washington's hegemonic rules for oil sales, the rest is all contrivance and smokescreens.

 

Well the fact is we stick our nose into everyones business. Thats why we are hated so much!

 

A bit more involved than that, but in a nutshell you're correct.

Its more a matter of "how" we stick our noses into other nations' business that has steadily destroyed our national integrity.

 

why are we still in Iraq? well thats easy: To make money. The longer we're there the more money we make. we meaning the global elite that really runs America. Washington is merely a security agency. Wall Street is where the power is.

 

Too true

There are people making MAJOR bucks off this war, what with huge no-bid contracts going to companies like Halliburton and the like. This war is making some people rich, but at a huge expense to civil liberty, the gov't budget (OUR tax dollars), and diplomacy.

 

We are in there because we have a stupid president.

 

we are in Iraq because we have a smart president that doesnt give a fuck about the American people. the "stupid" routine is just a ploy to win the heart of your everyday average joe and it has been successful. This is one of the smartest presidents ever and also the worst. definately far from stupid. Slick Willy doesnt have anything on G.W. He is going to be a very rich man after this especially if we are still in Iraq after his presidency is over. that is what he wants.

 

I concur.

I mean, our Vice Prez was the CEO of Halliburton (sp??), man.
*sighs* More reasons to hate the gov. 'Sal about the cash.

 

The 'yeah buts..' and the 'agh buts..' have always puzzled me.. given a particular question such as Mr Cheneys relationship with Haliburton and the information that they are all publicaly accountable .. And nothing illegal within what any of these people do/did should not be ignored. A vast orchestrated Neo Con blah blah plot, just because a few had oil ties is insulting to the myriad of other congress man/woman the swathes of other goverments that agreed with the dicisons .. And the vast amout of information that actualy proves the point. I would imagine the world goverments are in cohoots (secret organisations etc etc) with each other to boost Mr Bushs bank balance, right ?. The fact that the truth is buried underneath vast amounts of nonsense .. should not detract from the fact .. that this war is about international relations and the the peace within the world .. of wich we all should have. Imho it is the sad truth that people wish for a simpler answer that it is all about Mr Bushs oil intrests.. I can accept it is in partly about oil (but only a small part). Saddam broke countless resolutions over countless years, no action would mean a contiuation with HIS lies. . Personal profiting is if you think about it for say 2 minutes is completly crazy.

 

Once again Matthew, before prattling off alot of self-deluding BS which misses the mark of how international policy matters are indeed forced upon other world leaders (especially the European clique) - who recognise that plans, which cannot be stopped except by force (and what nation's leader is going to stand up militarily to unilateral US military might, pray tell?) should be mediated through multilateral institutional chatter until the public (as you demonstrate) is either so fed up with or so confused by the process that the leaders can shake hands and get a slice of the pie for their own national interests - I suggest (again) that you read Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard".

Yes from the start this was and IS a neocon ideology-driven agenda and in its way a conspiracy of long planned closed door interests come to the fore on the world stage. That neither the UN nor other world leaders stand up to it, only shows the effective power of big money interests to trample down all ethical, legal or moral considerations and to cajole and shame insitutions like the UN into betraying its own founding precepts and whitewash a clearly illegal venture.

And btw, there is plenty of documented information on Cheney's illegal practices through Halliburton subsidiaries in trading with Iraq whilst he was CEO. Similarly Rumsfeld former CEO of Brown and Root (also a big Iraqi no-bid contract recipient) adds additional legitimacy to clear breachs of public interest and abuses of office of this admin.

As for your resort to the illegitimate excuse for use of unilateralist aggression against another sovereign state for breach of UN Resolutions (which were all essentially crafted by and for US interests and intents in the first place), I point out to you that (by your reasoning) we should be bombing Israel into perdition for many times more numerous disregards of UN resolutions.

The resolutions themselves, let it be noted, were predicated on fraudulent claims of WMDs which the administration derived from sources it wanted to hear, not from reality nor any real intelligence or viability of outward threat from Iraq. Again, the SC's resolutions in this regard, given a corrupt causation and equally corrupt process (let us recall illegal wiretaps and backroom intimidation of national delegations by Washington in the run up to its long intended dismissal of the UN's will on the matter anyways) any claim of subsequent "legality" remains just as fraudulent.

The rule of law remains applicable to all and inviolable by all on the international stage, or else it is nothing more than hollow rhetoric to mask the very colonial era paradigm of "might makes right" for which our forefathers fought two successive world wars, signed and ratified numerous conventions (not least of which include The Hague and Vienna Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles) and erected the UN and its charter to end.

I find it strange that you should continue to offhandedly dismiss such glaring oil interests (i.e. "Control" thereof) which characterise the bulk of those in key positions in this administration when the subsequent (and ongoing) fiscal windfall to those very interests further demonstrates the extent of the corruption inherent to the entire process from the very start.

 

Why are we in Iraq? Humanitarian reasons. We're helping Iraqi people.





...












...
















...
















...

















... just kidding

 

"Liberating them"...





































From their mortal coils!

 

going into iraq was the obviously easy first step to take in the real war we are getting into.

 

which would be....?

 

We all prattle off our self deluding BS Lick' i could quite justly say the same about what i am replying too. The book you mention is a diatribe ..and i could easily point you in the right direction of another diatribe.

Just because i don't buy into what your saying as deeply as you do , does not realy mean your right. Of course there is a level of underhandedness and i respect you enough not to be insulting of your point of view as many in this forum .. i can see the point your making , i just think it is slightly ridiculous..straight out of a cheap 'political thriller'.

Yeah i have read a lot of it and i have read the 'final analysis'.. Like most issues within this sphere we can all have our own interpretations based on a prejudice. You can call me a sheep , blinded by this and that etc etc etc .. But i still only will take what your saying with a pinch of salt.. and believe it as much as you disagree with me..

No of course not..each country bound and under UN resolutions is on diffrent paths..As much as people like yourself were saying 'Next Iran' ..this is clearly not happening.. That thought won't be given any more credance untill diplomatic relations hit a rock in the road.. and if any action is taken .. you will say 'i told you so'..Even though the basis of your initial logic or the logic given by others like yourself will be way of the mark. Just because the end maybe what you predicted the reasoning will be (i can gaurantee) wrong..will this be admitted ..?? NO.

Do you work for Saddam Hussein ?.

I apreciate all of that..what gets lost is that we are not all playing the same 'game'.. Insurgents terrorists etc etc are not being diplomatic are they ..'Might makes right' yeaqh thats what they think.. Given the opportunity i know 'our' side would talk like civilised human beings.. the fact that people say the insurgents are fighting some justified attack on the american imperialistic junta (prety much what your saying)..is a excuse..nothing more nothing less. I just think your justifying there actions with a pinch of the truth and a lot of crap.

More justifications...


I do apologise for being rude..i am just am responding honestly.. i hope you respect that...(how english of me ).

 

Nothing more than the same dismissal ive come to expect of you Matt. Frankly youre so off off the mark and in denial of quite clear and sound analyses of the repeat of our similar past interventions and puppet installations in the region, that I indeed find your claims to having done much research dubious.

Calling Brzezinski's book a "diatribe" is a non argument. Diatribe or no, it expounds even more elaborately the underlying ideological aims and attitudes of the PNAC as it indeed follows the very agenda both their 1990-91 report and Brzezinski's book outlines.

Oh and just like one shouldn't forget the HP sauce, you duly throw in the red herring of "Saddam Apologist". One has to admire how that appears like clockwork in any debate with the willfully duped Pro-War of Aggression criminal defenders. Miles wide of the mark once again.

No matter, you can make this about "not agreeing with you" to assuage what is readily available to those who actually dig behind the mainstream PR. The facts and the reality of all the evening news refuses to inform our sheeple of the situation in Iraq and the sycophantry of the installed government to US corporate interests is available. Just takes determination and legwork to sift through it all and put it all into perspective.

Your dismissals and denials can't nor won't change that.

Just being honest myself, mate

 

Care to back this up?

Many thanks.

Your pal,

Pointbreak.

 

Ah true to form, the nit picker ignores the entire context of government criminality and fraud to find one snippet he can fasten upon to maintain his cozy sense of US exceptionalism.

In short dear boy, if you can't be bothered to discuss the big picture, I can't be bothered to validate your dismissive practices.

 

"Can't be bothered" to back up your statements? That's a new one. Don't think it will cut it though. I really want to know.

So tell me, was Rumsfeld CEO of Brown and Root or was he not?

 

Can't be bothered to deal with your discussion sidetracking nitpicking. Whether he was or wasnt is not pertinent to the issue I highlighted of our own government's corruption and conflicts of public interest. Since you seem content to ignore those, I'm content to ignore you.

Go blather on where somewhere truly gives a fuck about your hyper- nationalist ignorance.