What do you think was the main reason for the US invasion of Iraq?

[cpeeks]

Easy he wanted to prove daddy wrong. I will never forget in the 2004 debates when Kerry used Sr's own words agains Dubya. Sr. wrote in his autobioraphy that the reason he didnt take Saddam out was that it would have created an imbalance of power through out the region between the sunni, and shiite countries, a power vaccum through out Iraq and U.S. forces would be seen as bitter occupiers  in a hostile enviroment with no exit strategy. Hmm daddy was kinda prophetic.

[cpeeks]

Easy he wanted to prove daddy wrong. I will never forget in the 2004 debates when Kerry used Sr's own words agains Dubya. Sr. wrote in his autobioraphy that the reason he didnt take Saddam out was that it would have created an imbalance of power through out the region between the sunni, and shiite countries, a power vaccum through out Iraq and U.S. forces would be seen as bitter occupiers  in a hostile enviroment with no exit strategy. Hmm daddy was kinda prophetic.

Anyone could've seen that. Bush Sr. was very much correct. What was the right thing to do though? Bush Jr. did just that. Remember too that Bush Sr. said that before Saddam tried to have him assassinated in 1993. Bush Sr. may have changed his mind after that. I know I would.

Then maybe if we had adhered to daddy's words a half million people would still be alive, and we wouldnt have spent a trillion dollars.

[cpeeks]

Strategic domination of middle east, oil, and opportunity to steal from treasury.

No and you're just quoting the democrats. If it were about oil, then Bush would've lifted the sanctions on Iraq so that the U.S. could've bought their oil at market price. Instead he went to war to take out a middle eastern Adolf Hitler and encouraged drilling in Alaska.

Again lol as much as I hate to say it I have to agree with Derek  about the part about oil. It was never about oil. People dont realize that we dont get alot of oil from the middle east. We get most of our oil from Venezula, and Canada.

[cpeeks]

Strategic domination of middle east, oil, and opportunity to steal from treasury.

No and you're just quoting the democrats. If it were about oil, then Bush would've lifted the sanctions on Iraq so that the U.S. could've bought their oil at market price. Instead he went to war to take out a middle eastern Adolf Hitler and encouraged drilling in Alaska.

I do agree with you about the strategic domintaion of the middle east, but not about the oil. The powers that be will not be satisfied until we dominate every region of the world.
Again lol as much as I hate to say it I have to agree with Derek  about the part about oil. It was never about oil. People dont realize that we dont get alot of oil from the middle east. We get most of our oil from Venezula, and Canada.

Iraq was producing a lot of oil under Saddam though, and even after we removed Sadam it was still the Iraqis' oil. Thus, what was in it for the U.S.?

[cpeeks]

Im trying to figure out what political agenda I have. I am just against illegally invading a soverign nation.

[cpeeks]

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack.

Soverign nation, illegal invasion.

[cpeeks]

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack.

Soverign nation, illegal invasion.

Violates a UN Charter? what a crime. We had congressional and UN approval. F! the French, Germans, and Chinese. France was getting oil from Iraq at 4 cents a barrel. For them, it was only about oil.

Nope the U.N. did not approve Bush's illegal war.

[cpeeks]

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack.

Soverign nation, illegal invasion.

Violates a UN Charter? what a crime. We had congressional and UN approval. F! the French, Germans, and Chinese. France was getting oil from Iraq at 4 cents a barrel. For them, it was only about oil.

Nope the U.N. did not approve Bush's illegal war.

You nay sayers were only about one thing and that's oil. Look at the French getting their oil barrels at 4 cents a barrel. You're right they loved that price and so they opposed the war.

In France, they call Bush "the Asshole." I'm completely serious.

Your point? Look if you want to go live in France I'm not holding you back. That's one less person who votes democrat in the elections.

My point is that the naysayers didn't want America spending its money on invading a country that posed no immedaite threat to us. It's not like we have money to spare. And the international community felt that Saddam should remain in power because he was minding his own business and not invading or threatening anybody.

The word international means global and the word community means a small area of individuals who hold a similar set of beliefs, values, and ideas. Don't you see how putting the 2 terms together is an oxymoron? I don't much care what other countries think in that case because if they were able to look past what Saddam was doing then they really did have their heads up their asses.

Hmm were there ied's, under Saddam? Did a half million people lose there life in 7 years since we took over? Answer me that? And look whats going on in Saudi, Iran, China, North Korea, Sudan, Congo, why didnt we go there? If your so worried about the poor Iraq's why dont you do something about and join the army? I bet you would be screaming to the high heavens about you dont wanna go then. Your such a false patriot. Ya your all about waving the flag and national defense as long as you dont have to do it, just like Bush, Cheney, Rush, Rove, all the people that tell you what to beleive.

[cpeeks]

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack.

Soverign nation, illegal invasion.

Violates a UN Charter? what a crime. We had congressional and UN approval. F! the French, Germans, and Chinese. France was getting oil from Iraq at 4 cents a barrel. For them, it was only about oil.

Nope the U.N. did not approve Bush's illegal war.

You nay sayers were only about one thing and that's oil. Look at the French getting their oil barrels at 4 cents a barrel. You're right they loved that price and so they opposed the war.

In France, they call Bush "the Asshole." I'm completely serious.

Your point? Look if you want to go live in France I'm not holding you back. That's one less person who votes democrat in the elections.

My point is that the naysayers didn't want America spending its money on invading a country that posed no immedaite threat to us. It's not like we have money to spare. And the international community felt that Saddam should remain in power because he was minding his own business and not invading or threatening anybody.

The word international means global and the word community means a small area of individuals who hold a similar set of beliefs, values, and ideas. Don't you see how putting the 2 terms together is an oxymoron? I don't much care what other countries think in that case because if they were able to look past what Saddam was doing then they really did have their heads up their asses.

Hmm were there ied's, under Saddam? Did a half million people lose there life in 7 years since we took over? Answer me that? And look whats going on in Saudi, Iran, China, North Korea, Sudan, Congo, why didnt we go there? If your so worried about the poor Iraq's why dont you do something about and join the army? I bet you would be screaming to the high heavens about you dont wanna go then. Your such a false patriot. Ya your all about waving the flag and national defense as long as you dont have to do it, just like Bush, Cheney, Rush, Rove, all the people that tell you what to beleive.

Yes what you're doing is pointing the finger everywhere but Iraq to make Bush look bad. Had Bush gone after Iran, we'd be pointing towards Iraq.

I could have bought the case for war against Iran alot easier, its an islamic extremist nation, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation. Christians had freedom of religion, Tariq Aziz was a christian, now I believe I read somewhere that most of the churches have been destroyed because of the Islamic extremism that has developed there.

[cpeeks]

I'm all in favor of invading Iran.

LOL I am sure you be but in order to get the troops to fight three wars and maintain our presence elsewhere, your gonna have to have a draft which means CHEERLEADERS like you are gonna have to be a man and go fight. You willing to do that?

[cpeeks]

You didnt answer the question.

[cpeeks]

You didnt answer the question.

To be honest when I spoke to recruiters they told me that I couldn't join because of all the medications I'm on.

LOL thats garbage, Ive seen recruiters lie and put people in who had epiletic seizures, a recruiter will do anything to put someone in.

[cpeeks]

Watching you two debate is immensely depressing.

LOGOUT

[cpeeks]

Again, the real reason is that Bush wanted to promote women's rights, give children a chance to go to school, and bring freedom to those less fortunate. He tried to advocate those things here but the democrats were too high and mighty to listen.

Quit posting the same crap over and over. Women had more rights in Iraq than other Mideast country genius, and Kids go to school there. And ya there life is so better, the city of Nassariah hasnt had power in 7 years.

[cpeeks]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

I have asked him that numerous times, and he always says some crap about how Bush cared about the poor Iraq's, he cant answer it.

[cpeeks]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

What dammage did Iraq do to the rest of the world? They were a secular nation. Jesus quit posting this deranged bs!!!!!!!

[cpeeks]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

[cpeeks]

Derek, why did Bush choose to promote those things in Iraq? Why not in North Korea....or somewhere in Africa?

Somewhere in Africa? Look North Korea we do need to place sanctions on. The truth is that they didn't have any sanctions that they were violating. At first I thought North Korea was a left wing hoax so that America wouldn't support the troops in Iraq. Still, they give the whole "oh I support you but not what you're there doing" line but that's another story. Bush did more to fight aids in Africa than Bono or any other rockstar could ever dream of so that's what we did there. I'm sure that he took an interest in Iraq when his father invaded and took it up as a cause much like Al Gore and his bogus global warming claims that are based off of the bogus studies at liberal universities.  After Bush learned from handling 9/11 his next move was Iraq. Saddam had done enough damage to the world and it was time to go. You saying what about Africa, what about North Korea is just sour grapes most likely from the 2000 election or possibly you didn't receive as many government benefits because we were at war and our soldiers needed the equipment that Kerry voted against.

Actually, the North Korean people are/were much more oppressed than the Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam, despite his atrociousness, actually allowed people to leave Iraq if they didn't want to live there. Kim Jong-Il never did that. And North Korea did violate rules by building nuclear weapons when they were members of the NPT. Saddam actually began to comply with the U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, your argument about violating rules and especially human rights is completely pointless.

I'm not saying North Korea doesn't have weapons. They do. What was going on in the 90's with our intelligence that we couldn't see what was going on? What was Clinton doing? As early as 2002, North Korea has all these nukes. When did they develop them? Yep! They were developed in the 90's while Clinton allowed them to slip through his fingers. Saddam was an enemy with a longer history. Allow them to leave if they could do it without being killed is more like it.

Saddam was an ally until the first gulf war Derek.

[cpeeks]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

Yet again another deranged bs comment from Derek.

[cpeeks]

Derek, you haven't responded to my last post.

You didn't ask me anything. And they developed them in the 90's because Clinton sold them the nukes.

God I hate to say this but yet again another deranged bs statement from Derek.

source?

Source? It was well known just like the OJ trial.

[cpeeks]

By the by, did you fellows know what was the reason the US won in WWII? (the last attempt to contain it)

OIL.

If that were the case then Bush would have had the sanctions lifted and we would have bought the oil at market price. Think before you speak.

You should take your on advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cpeeks]

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

It is geographically strategic in theory. To have a democracy in the middle east would send a message to Islamist states. However, I think it had more to do with flawed intelligence warnings and some concern for humanity. Doing what Bush could to make the world a better place for the oppressed. I view it as a humanitarian mission.

If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and waste our own money doing it, he should have started with North Korea and Sudan. As for demcoracy in the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq he should have focused on the creation of a Palestinian state (especially in his second term, after Arafat's death). That way, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been solved and a democracy in Palestine would have been created without any American lives lost. That could have led to a domino effect in the long run where the other dictatorships in the Middle East collapse, except it would have involved us spending much less money and losing much less (or no) lives.

Creation of a Palestine state? Why so it could have invaded Israel and took them over? That's what Hammas and Al-Qaida would have wanted. Look everyone seems to think that they have a quick and easy solution for everything but that just wouldn't work.

Lol how would the palestinians conquer one of the most powerful armies in the world. The whole arab world could not defeat Isreal. Have you studied history and seen what happened in the 4 previous Arab, Isreali wars?

[cpeeks]

The way you know the reason wasn't oil is that we nationalized the oil and gave it all to the Iraqi government.  If we were trying to steal the oil, we'd have just given it to Texaco.

Israel had very mixed feelings about invading Iraq.  See this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2736283.stm

LOL at imperialism.

You are correct. The world warned of the quagmire that is taking place there now. Those people are so much worse off. From what I have heard there are some places that still do not have power after 7 years. Most of the christians have left Iraq because they no longer have freedom of religion that they enjoyed under Saddam. Garbage piles up on the streets because nobody will work as a garbage collector because they keep  getting blowed up by I.E.D.'s. LOL remember when Bush said they would greet Americans with roses like in Paris? Yea they greeted them with bombs. I guess that Bush didnt realize that we were not liberators, no foreign army occupied Iraq like in Paris in WW2.

[cpeeks]

And within a few weeks we were being attacked in the streets. I hardly say thats a welcome.

[cpeeks]

The way you know the reason wasn't oil is that we nationalized the oil and gave it all to the Iraqi government.  If we were trying to steal the oil, we'd have just given it to Texaco.

Israel had very mixed feelings about invading Iraq.  See this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2736283.stm

LOL at imperialism.

You are correct. The world warned of the quagmire that is taking place there now. Those people are so much worse off. From what I have heard there are some places that still do not have power after 7 years. Most of the christians have left Iraq because they no longer have freedom of religion that they enjoyed under Saddam. Garbage piles up on the streets because nobody will work as a garbage collector because they keep  getting blowed up by I.E.D.'s. LOL remember when Bush said they would greet Americans with roses like in Paris? Yea they greeted them with bombs. I guess that Bush didnt realize that we were not liberators, no foreign army occupied Iraq like in Paris in WW2.

We were greeted as liberating liberators. Remember how happy they were when the statue fell?

How about we liberate North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Burma, and Venezuela next?

Haha why stop there lets go liberate Cuba, China, and Russia.