Why did america atatcked iraq?

[mellow mood]

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!

mellow mood Reviewed by mellow mood on 05-27-2005. 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 Rating: 5

[BlueCat]

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/

[BlueCat]

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'.

[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.

[Button Basher]

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

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

[pisshead]

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...

[mellow mood]

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

[yocass]

"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.

[ihateapplesandsalt]

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.

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).

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.

[U4EUH]

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