Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

I think the invasion of Iraq was a well thought out plan by some very smart people, namely the neocons and big oil. Taking Iraq 's oil allows the U.S. to counter OPEC"s gaming of oil prices, keeps them honest. At the same time it provides greater oil self-sufficency for the U.S. All the while the U.S. oil companies and their attendant industries are pocketing some serious cash.

There is no USA takeover of Iraqi oil......never has been, never will be. This has been proven time and again for the last two years and yet you still believe it.

The Iraqis will use their oil, once they are stable and able to take care of their own country, to rebuild their own country from the devastation that came with Saddam and to help repay some of the costs of this war. There will no longer be a need for Oil For Food crap programs that cheat the people out of living like normal people instead of fearful animals with no humane resources like water and electricity and schools and homes.

We've taken nothing from that country and won't.....however, it is realistic to believe that we will BUY from that country, just as we do from other countries, and we will know that the money is going to the people and not into a terrorist regime bank account.

TONI

British) oil companies in Iraq? Do you really think they are ever going to leave sometime soon? I have not heard of any Iraqi oil companies over there. If there are some I would be interested to know about them. If it were really all about the good of Iraq and its people why is the place crawling with foreign workers? All those jobs should be held by Iraqis.

Most are there rebuilding the refineries, laying new oil lines to replace old and non-working equipment, and training Iraqis to run the companies themselves and know how to do the maintenance required.

Saddam had complete control of the few maintained refineries that he had certain key people running in order to trade in the 'oil for food' program. He raked in the billions, and let the rest of the country including other refineries go to pot. Normal Iraqi citizens weren't working for Saddam, and those are the ones, with the abilities to do so, who are being trained to run the refineries.

The reason the majority of the 'businesses' in Iraq are from the USA and Britain are because other countries who had the abilities to do the work and train workers weren't part of the coalition in the first place, so why should they be given the right to now get the 'cushy' jobs? Only highly qualified engineers, etc. came in to get the job done.....and so be it, if they were from the original coalition.

As for the reconstruction and foreign companies being there for it.....they are training unskilled Iraqi's as the reconstruction goes on. The Iraqi people were NOT allowed to work in most of the job areas that the coalition groups are now training them for.

Where have you been for the last two years?

TONI

Where have you been the last 100? The history of this region is all about oil. Read your history.The Brits Yanks Russians Germans have been in a tug-o-war over this region since the turn of the century. Do you really think the U.S. oil companies are going to pick up and leave Iraq anytime soon Toni?
The Bush Administration is all about oil. Bush is oil Cheney is oil.Condaleeza Rice was a cousultant for Chevron. She even had a oil tanker named after her.Bush and co. take millions from Big Oil.
The Iraqis were and are quite caopable of doing all the work that the foreign workers do now. To suggest otherwise is to be either be uninformed or disrespectful of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis,esp. the Sunni have long been known for their brilliance and ingenuity. They are a smart people.
--The Iraqi people were NOT allowed to work in most of the job areas that the coalition groups are now training them for.--Who was working in the oil industry in Iraq before the invasion Toni? Are you telling me they did not have painters, carpenters, oil personnel, truckers, road workers,etc.?

The plan I suggested is plausible. You jusy have to start putting two and two together. This doesn't make the U.S. any worse than the other countries that are and have been doing the same thing in this region. The only difference is the U.S. could and did use force to achieve its political and economic objectives both of which, I believe, are pragamatic and reasonable.

working in those areas were Saddam loyalists...at least as far as leaders of those areas go....and most went into hiding, fled the country, were arrested until they could show they weren't terrorists and part of the military Saddam had.

The oil being put out by Saddam didn't amount to as much as you think from a few refineries since most were overseen by their loyalists and were in dire disrepair. And most of the oil was being traded in the 'oil for food' program or used to bribe other countries into putting pressure on the UN to lift the sanctions.

Who better to rebuild those refineries and lay new pipe and make the necessary repairs all over the country than people in the oil business? You think whatever you want.....you guys have always believed that the war in Iraq was only about the oil, even though it hasn't been proven. Come to the table with facts to back it up, and we'll talk again. Until then, I'm done with this conversation because that horse has been beaten to death for two years now.

As far as you are concerned, we are a warmongering country that only exploits little countries for whatever we can drain them of......and it matters not who our President is. We've been listening to this crap from 'outsiders' here in SE long enough....but until your own country steps up to the plate and has the right to complain because you're in the game, I'd rather than you all just sat down and minded your own country's problems and how you resolve them. Your energy would be better spent in those areas, I think, because your own closets aren't free of skeletons you'd rather the world not have the opportunity to comment on endlessly.

TONI

Is this CNET policy that some mebers are outsiders and as such are second class mebers? I read the ToS and other statements by CNET regarding participation in its forums. My understanding is that all are welcome here. I don't share your views but that is a product of the info that I have. You don't know or appreciate the history of this region nor do you take into account the realities of the Bush administration and American foreign policy.
If you did a little looking you would find out that many many Iraqis are willing and able to do the work that foreigners are doing there now.
I'm sorry you feel this is an issue of nationality. I don't like this administratin or its policies. I am not a radical anti-American. As I said to mark, there is much about America that I respect and admire.

---the oil being put out by Saddam didn't amount to as much as you think from a few refineries since most were overseen by their loyalists and were in dire disrepair.---
The output under Saddam was and is not the issue here Toni. Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of oil reserves and oil reserves are the big prize, untapped or not.

the coalition did the work, gave up lives to help the Iraqis.

and you wonder why were apposed to non coalition.
well who like the french, germany russia, they all were robbing iraq with saddam seems to me they arent good countries as they had a money reason so thats why.

and yes i beleave we will build there refineries back up to standards, then leave.

and remem,ber all who said there wont be an election there eating crow, soon more will be eating crow when we leave it all to the iraqis.

so get a recipe on how to eat crow

Was that the end of the violence and the chaos? Besides, one of the main insurgency groups pledged before the election that they would not do anything to disrupt the election. They said their fight was with the U.S., not the Iraqi people.I'm sure other insurgency groups did the same.
They can hold all the elections they want, but until order is established on the ground, the election will mean very little.

it took yrs for the scum to get control, look when was there a fair and free iraqi election in the past?

and theres less fighting each day open your eyes dont follow the flock of naysayers that seem to be all doom and gloom

and watch the following months more "free" iraqis are pointing out the scum to the troops.

but time will tell as more countries throw off there leaders that kill them.

>>>>>>They said their fight was with the U.S., not the Iraqi people.>>>>>>>>>

Is that why they have been consistently targeting the Iraqi people and police and not the US forces with their suicide bombings?????

TONI

others are not. Best not to lump them all together like that. Generalizations don't always work. If you do any reading on the subjest you will soon discover that there are many Iraqi resistance groups and some foreign fighters who are in groups or fight separately some attack just military targets and some, I am sad to say, attack civilian targets.

The Reagan administration was very kind to Saddam Hussein. It gave Saddam Chemical weapons and favorable agricultural deals and more. Check this out:
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm
Here's a good series of article excerpts on the subject:
In an October 1, 2002, article entitled ?Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ?80s,? Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,

[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein?s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran.

In a December 17, 2002, article entitled ?Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program,? the Associated Press stated,

Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq?s 1996 accounting of its nuclear program....

Iraq?s report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction....

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985?90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

In a September 26, 2002, article entitled ?Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail,? columnist Robert Novak wrote,

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

In a September 18, 2002, ABC article entitled ?A Tortured Relationship,? reporter Chris Bury wrote,

Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam?s regime as ?a grave and gathering danger,? it?s important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam?s forcible removal from power.

In a March 16, 2003, article entitled ?How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program,? in the St. Petersburg Times, staff writer Tom Drury wrote,

Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a $100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi dictatorship. U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them.

And here?s the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Unfortunately, the U.S.-WMD connection to Saddam Hussein involved more than just delivering those WMDs to him. In an August 18, 2002, New York Times article entitled ?Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,? Patrick E. Tyler wrote,

A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter?s questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq?s use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq.

As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article ?How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons,?

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Immediately prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein delivered a WMD declarations report to the United Nations in an attempt to avert a U.S. invasion. Do you recall that U.S. officials intercepted the report and removed special sections of it, based on claims of ?national security?? Well, it turned out that the removed sections involved the delivery of those WMDs by the United States and other Western countries to Saddam Hussein, information that obviously caused U.S. officials a bit of discomfort on the eve of their invasion.

Hopefully those who have asked for links will read it too. But for some reason I highly doubt it.

It's too bad. There's so much info out there but so many seem to be bleieve they don't need any more.

Regards,

Are you interested in hypnotism and it's uses as a means of indoctrination and programming esp. on groups of people?
If you are, I have a great article for you. It talks about religious groups so I don't want to post it for you if it may offend.

you have a good reason for it or not. However, your bias, 'political elites always lie', is demonstrably false, and everyone else is free to completely disregard it.

I read a lot of history and human brain science. Human societies are naturally inclined to be set up as the elites and the loyal followers. In ancient days where societies were very small, the followers could keep a close watch on the elites to ensure that they carried out the interests of the followers. Today though, in our huge nations, the elites live isolated from he public: they can lie a lot to serve the interest of their elite class without being detected. The CIA, at the discretion of whichever president happens to inhabit the white house, can make up just about any story, and the public has no way of researching the claims. the average voter has neither the time nor the money not the drive to go over all the claims by the CIA and other top officials.

Humans lie all the time, and perhaps you have lied a few times in your life. As I said, people go into politics for personal gains of wealth, power, and prestiege, not because they have altruistic desires for the average man.

I posted above and are willing to admit you are wrong and didn't know Pat Buchanon at all. I can't imagine anyone defending him.

As I stated, I believe Buchanan's research is valid, regardless of all the ad hominem attacks that can be found against him on a Google Search.

Pat Buchanan is the only politician with Integrity??
Now I really am ROFL!

Pat Buchanan is not a politician, he is a political activist and writer for the Paleo-Conservative (traditional conservative) movement.

He did run for office.

yes, earlier in his career his ran in the primaries for the Republican candidate. Later, he was the Presidential candidate for the Reform Party.

Today, he has a show on MSNBC, does a group show on PBS, and runs the website "The American Conservative" http://www.amconmag.com/ He also gives speeches at universities and public events. And I think he may be involved with the America First Party http://www.americafirstparty.org/ but I'm not sure about that.

"mussolini was a real SoB! but the trains ran on time"...

buchanans research is centered around, and focused on, what buchanan is...

to put it in simple terms, flat earth theory is only valid in the eyes of those who believe in a flat earth...

.

Ad Hominem attacks are the norm today in political debates. Right Wingers are "inbred, racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, red-necked, Bible thumpers, fascist, etc.," while Left Wingers are "girly, sissy, *****, tree-huggers, pinkos, commies, etc." There is not much discussion of the political ideas themselves, rather, debates mostly involve name-calling. Such is the case with Pat Buchanan. It is rare that his ideas are actually discussed or refuted with alternate data, rather, opponents simply bombard his image with ad hominem attacks: "racist, isolationist, nazi, hater, anti-Semitic, etc."

The rules of logic (as defined by acadamia) consider such tactics as invalid and hinder arriving at "truths" (the best possible conclusion based on the evidence) I agree with this. Academic rules of debating: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html