Why did america atatcked iraq?

Sorry to post another thread about this subject, but id just like to have a clear answer: why did america attacked iraq, and will probably soon attack iran??

plz dont tell me to find massive destruction weapons, tons of countries have nuclear weapons, just like france, north korea, china, etc etc etc

why did they spent over 100 billions of $$$ on this war, if there would be no profit done at all at the end?? only if the only beneficier could be bush?

plz a simple answer i guess most of you alrdy know what i think but i just want to be sure why america spent sooooooo much money and how it could not be at all for oil



thx!

a page of a document. a particular National Security Council document shown in the 60 Minutes interview, clearly drafted in the early weeks of the new administration, which showed plans for the post-invasion dispersal of Iraq's oil assets among the world's great powers, starting with the major oil companies.

For the brief moment it was on the tv screen one could see that this bit of paper, stamped Secret, was undoubtedly one of the most explosive documents in the history of imperial conspiracy. Here, dead center in the camera's lense, was the refutation of every single rationalization for the attack on Iraq ever offered by George W. Bush and his co-conspirators, including Tony Blair

That NSC document told 60 Minutes' vast audience the attack on Iraq was not about national security in the wake of 9/ll. It was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was not about Saddam Hussein's possible ties to Osama bin Laden. It was about stealing Iraq's oil, same way the British stole it three quarter of a century earlier. The major oil companies drew up the map, handed it to their man George, helped him (through such trusties as James Baker) steal the 2000 election and then told him to get on with the attack.

There is evidence it was planned before 9/11 Bush just used 9/11 to sell his war....that proof comes in a paper calld the PNAC

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. The group embraces and disseminates an ideology of faith in force, U.S. supremacy, and rejection of the rule of law in international affairs.

The group's core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a "blueprint for U.S. world domination."

"A Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle, briefed an investment seminar on ways to profit from conflicts in Iraq and North Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government document on the crises in the two countries. The revelation yesterday provoked new concerns about conflicts of interest. Mr Perle also serves on the boards of several defence contractors."


this is the complete document

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

and this is force ministries.... I think this website is so scary....

http://www.forceministries.com/

The PNAC report also:

lt refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

lt describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

lt reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

lt says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

lt spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';


and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Yup. I agree with everything blue said. The neocons have been setting their sights on the middle and and the world since the first Bush adminstration, When the soviet union collapsed, Wolfowitz, Rumseld and the rest of them thought it was the perfect opportunity to begin military operations around the world.

The forum Republicans will say "'Cause they attacked us first" :) !

The hilarious thing is, THEY DIDN'T!! :D America's best friends Afghanistan did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Yup. I agree with everything blue said. The neocons have been setting their sights on the middle and and the world since the first Bush adminstration, When the soviet union collapsed, Wolfowitz, Rumseld and the rest of them thought it was the perfect opportunity to begin military operations around the world.

---

even before the 1st bush administration...back to the 70's even these people have been lurking around...

stanley hilton, the man representing over 400 families suing the government for prior knowledge and involvement in 9/11 went to college with some of these people and said they frequently talked about 9/11 type attacks as a pretext for control...

thx for the answers! so they actually atatcked for oil...

"Just days after â??60 Minutesâ?? told the world that the Pentagon in 2001 mapped out how it would divide up Iraqâ??s oil fields among "foreign suitors," the book writer who supplied CBS News that document says â??60 Minutesâ?? got the map story wrong.

Ron Suskind, author of a new book about former Treasury Secretary Paul Oâ??Neill, said Wednesday (Jan. 14) on NPR, "â??60 Minutesâ?? miscast it [the map] as a Pentagon document. In the book, itâ??s clear itâ??s not that."

Apparently, Suskind was starting to feel the heat about the Iraq map hoax. Because not only is that map not a Pentagon map, it is not in any way a map of U.S. plans for a post-war Iraq."

Ive said it before, Ill say it again, we arent in iraq for oil. Why am I so sure? Because NO ONE has provided any evidence to prove it. No one. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Yup. I agree with everything blue said. The neocons have been setting their sights on the middle and and the world since the first Bush adminstration, When the soviet union collapsed, Wolfowitz, Rumseld and the rest of them thought it was the perfect opportunity to begin military operations around the world.

---

The Soviet Union was never much of a real threat. "The cold war" is much more an ideological construct than is ever admitted, as the real 'war' was against independant nationalism. American imperialism came of age immediately after WWII and not after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The neocons might put their own ideological spin on it, but the American empire has been around quite a good deal longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Button Basher

The hilarious thing is, THEY DIDN'T!! America's best friends Afghanistan did.

---

Afghanistan didn't attack the US either (I assume you're talking about 9/11).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mellow mood

thx for the answers! so they actually atatcked for oil...

---

I think that's a bit oversimplistic. The issue isn't access to oil, or even control of that oil by American capitalists per se (though that is, of course, a major component in a more general and diversified strategy of domination). The paramount impetus was consolidation of empire. The general strategic advantages supersede oil as a material prize.

Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -Herman Goering

Very well said IHAAS...I was going for the simple answer...and thought it could move on from there...nicely done....now did you see where Bush again refused to enforce the WTO rules as applied to China? WHat your thoughts on that? We are headed for economic collapse...only the strongest will survive...what is his reasoning?....does he have too much to profit from his own personal investments in China, Are the tentacles already wrapped too tightly around us or is it the One world order thing,...that just seems so far fetched to me...what do you think?
thanks
Anxiously awaiting reply,
Cat

yes but still, as im saying, Bush, in fact, attacked iraq because it gives him a good strategic advantage and also for oil

Bush has good friends with oil companies, and having cheaper oil is good for his own profit $$$$

and it is a startegical area, he alrdy placed military bases there, and the good president of iraq is OF COURSE a pro-american

so yocass, what are the real reasons, from your opinion, why USA attacked iraq if it isnt for oil or strategical advantages???

Why, again im asking, spend over 100 billions of $$$$ for another reason than to make profit (well Bush's profit coz now america is in trouble coz of debt)???? answer yocass your saying lots of things but you cant answer my question...

I dont say because I dont pretend to know. I know a few reasons that arent true though. And I only ask one question of people, can you prove what you say? Can you show any evidence Bush is making profit off the oil in Iraq? Sure, we probably are getting a deal on oil now, but it isnt PROFIT. We lost a lot more off munitions etc than whatever we may get from the oil. And with what little Iraq imports, I doubt it ever will be profit. Strategic positioning... most defenitely is an important player. And of course the guy is pro Bush. All that money and time we spent over there you better damn well believe we are gonna make sure they dont repeat themselves. Iraq has always been in war with itself.. since the beginning of Iraqi history. Whos to say they didnt have weapons? Took us long enough to get over there they would have plenty of time to destroy them or move them out of country. Im not saying they did have them or they did that, but it is a logical assumption of what could have happened. The truth is you dont know, I dont know, and even the president probably doesnt know everything.

lol

well, as i said, i think Bush is affialiated with oil companies so he makes profit of it.

but yes we dont have REAL proofs but still we got some man. i mean its an evidence. anyway...

yes proly Bush doesnt even know the 1/4 of whats goin on haha

Real proof is there just look for it...there is so much proof...it is too much to post..

The world now associates the bin Laden name with Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect be hind the terror atrocities of Sept. 11. As President George W. Bush leads an intense international manhunt for Osama, few Americans realize that Osama's eldest brother, Salem, was one of Bush's first business partners.

Osama embraced Islamic fundamentalism and is now the world's most wanted man. "Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother," the Daily Mail's Peter Allen said. "In the 1970s, he and George W. Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr. Bush's home state of Texas."

President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.


James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.

proof is not the same thing as heresay, no matter who reports it. Proof is not some sarcastic picture in a book that 60 minutes thought was real. ~shrug~ If my brother went out and became a terrorist, does that mean I would be a terrorist too? Come on now. I said proof, not propoganda.

lol whos making propanganda. hahaha your mixing things now yocass

stop taking Bush's side.... i mean jeez there are so many facts proving all this is a big lie, how can u just not admit this guy is a cock sucker and this war is a waste of time, money and lives...

propaganda: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." I side with bush on the war. I think bush is an idiot though. But for the things that HE screwed up.. like the taxes. He really fucked that up.

Stop not taking Bushes side.. same logic there lol. Really bugs me seeing people on here whining about Bush no matter the situation. They are so anti-Bush that its the only thing they can think about. And anyone who supports him for any reason is wrong. By the same token, people who support Bush no matter what he does bug me too. Think for your own god damn self. Quit stealing other peoples opinions.

Everyone always says all these big facts are there... but they never seem to show up. Elusive little fact buggers arent they. How can you not see that Bush doesnt call all the shots no matter what? Foreigners always seem to have such a grasp on our policies, yet never seem to get that. Well, at least you guys have a reason, your not American, so you shouldnt really need to know all the details. But there are still plenty of Americans not grasping that concept. The president goes to war because his advisors tells him to. If he didnt have the peoples support, then he wouldnt have congress support. If he didnt have congress support, there would be no war. End of story.

Where Amstedam to stick a bit of John Wayne-esqe sound biting on this thread?

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

If he didnt have the peoples support, then he wouldnt have congress support. If he didnt have congress support, there would be no war. End of story.


But if he lied to get the support, what then?

"We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

is that a fucking joke? wow, to have the nerve to say a thing like that. it sounds very arrogant. our socialist warmonger rumsfeld cares about freedom.

yeah, having to tell lie after lie, time and time again to convince us of whatever they want to do, should scream something about the intentions of these people, shouldn't it!

hey PH how are you today? :)

pretty good, tomorrow is my friday, and it's double time since it's a holiday.

and i'm a bit high.

sounds like a good day then....hey I just love that memoryhole website!
so do you think we will ever get though to the Neocons on this site?

probably not in the immediate future...

i used to sound just like them, resorting to nonsensical, vague retorts and using insults and names to disprove whatever...

i actually used to think we were attacked because the terrorists hated our freedom.

i didn't reach the conclusions i've reached about the situation our country is in overnight.

me either, I have been so sadden by the would mess...it is not easy to see your country falling apart...it was a scary thing when I clearly saw what they had done, it still is...

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company,Halliburton and I have gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."


(CBS/AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052701618.html

More proof that the administration was looking for any excuse possible to go to war with Iraq.

eh.

yep, they should really be accused of crime to humanity. damn asshole president

just lately the world really seems to be going to shit, the ammount of blind people walking about makes me worried for the future of humanity.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke



Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mellow mood

eh.

yep, they should really be accused of crime to humanity. damn asshole president

---

but that isnt gonna happen sooooooooooooooooo??

it is only a matter of time Amster....

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/0...q-part-25.html

As the Iraqi Minister for Human Rights Bakhtiar Amin said about the proceedings of the National Assembly: "There will be a place in jail for Saddam and the 11 to watch the TV to understand their time is finished, there is a new Iraq and that they are no longer ruling the country; so they can understand that in the new Iraq, people are elected and they are not coming to power by a coup d'etat."

Get by all the gloom and doom and check out whats going on in that country. It's not as bad as the press wants you to believe! :D

NO KIDDING ITS NOT!!i talk to people on an iraqi blog who live in northern baghdad,they say life is still rough but has gotten alot better and does so everyday.

why would anyone believe anything some kid in brentwood posts?

i think mr bush has succeeded in scaring the fuck out of every nation on earth
and every person who pays attention dont have a clue what to expect next.

he made his piont,he will invade ya ass and change it to fit the program if ya so much as blink the wrong way,with the backing of some folks he uses fear to help make the decisions to back him,911 changed peoples thinking about 'over there"
fear is big tool,(being used by a big tool)and gw is hell of a cheerleader even in war.

do i think some good will come out of it in the end .yes,iraq will have a chance to be run by a group instead of one sadistic bastard like saddam,
hero's would volunteer to go take him out, BUT THATS DONE so now its about putting a group in control who is friendly to the usa(meaning dont want us all dead)

i saw on news saddam gets a trial soon
and the dude said something about U.S.Troops out of iraq in 18 months
that be great if true
its now a police matter over there,im sure those iraqi troops the usa trained to trian others are capable of supplying their new country with loyal people .
even better once no american is in command over their,and its iraqi's who are doing the protecting of their own citezens from the criminals and warring tribes and making sure the goverment is not abusing its power,and dictators take over
i just hope this mess ends soon for all involved
but i dont see it happening soon

question for ya
is it worth the deaths of 'our defenders 'of 'our nation' to defend others,
peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funken Monken

Where Amstedam to stick a bit of John Wayne-esqe sound biting on this thread?

---

here i do it for him