Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Please Clarify the Iraqi War & the U.S. Rationale for it. Am I confused?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:42 PM
Original message
Please Clarify the Iraqi War & the U.S. Rationale for it. Am I confused?
Edited on Wed Jul-27-05 07:50 PM by David Zephyr
Let's see if I have this all correct. I mean I want to be really sure that I have all the reasons that America is engaged in its first "pre-emptive war" in our nation's history.

The American people have spent over $300 Billion and have lost nearly 2,000 of our soldiers and cost the lives of perhaps 100,000 Iraqi citizens because George W. Bush told us the following:

1.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to promote a constitutional democracy in Iraq...even though the new Iraqi Constitution subjugates women permanently to all Iraqi men, prohibits Jews from becoming Iraqi citizens, and yes, makes the new government subservient to the Shi'a priesthood. Do I have that right?

2.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to find and eradicate Saddam Hussein's "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program...even though Vice President Cheney now says he "misspoke" to the American people on Tim Russert's swell TV show about this. Am I correct here?

3.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to find and eradicate Saddam Hussein's vast chemical and biological weapons program...even though President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld now are publicly saying that they were probably wrong about that one, too. Please correct me if I've gotten this wrong.

4.) The Iraqi War was to be waged for revenge against al-Qaida because Saddam Hussein had helped Osama bin Laden mastermind the attacks of September 11th against the United States...even though the Bush White House now says that there is no evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 whatsoever. Do I have this right?

5.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to free up the vast oil reserves in that country for the West to use and that the Iraqi Oil would completely pay for the War...even though that now the Bush Administration says that there will be no repayment for the cost of the War from Iraq from their oil resources. Am I still on the right track?

6.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to "fight the terrorists there so that we won't have to fight them anywhere else" because Iraq will become the "center of the war on terrorism"...even though al-Qaida has attacked Bali, Spain and the United Kingdom and still looms large over 2-1/2 years after the war began. Did I miss something?

7.) The Iraqi War was to be waged to establish an alternative within the Middle East to theocratic extremist nations like Iran...even though the new government in Iraq appears to be about to turn the entire Iraqi nation over to rule from Tehran. Could I be mistaken here?

8.) The Iraqi War was to be waged by a man, who once as a candidate for President in 2000, ridiculed Vice President Al Gore on national television for "nation building" and who swore that he would never put a single soldier into a war where there was no "clear exit strategy". Do I remember this correctly?

9.) The Iraqi War was to be waged with the result that American troops would be greeted in the streets there by jubilant crowds waving Old Glory and cheering our actions...even though the Iraqi people have risen up against us and are killing our soldiers daily in a nationalistic resistance to what even our President now calls "an occupation". Am I dreaming here?

10.) The Iraqi War was trumpeted as a "mission accomplished" by our President on an aircraft carrier where he swore to us that "the end of all major hostilities" were over...even though the war is worse now than it ever was and it sure seems like there are a lot of hostilities still going on over two years later. What did I miss here?

11.) The Iraqi War was to be waged in order to "close down the torture chambers and the rape rooms" according to President Bush...even though we have now learned that Abu Graib was perhaps America's first torture and rape room combined. Am I drinking again?

Please feel free, my fellow DU'ers, to correct me if I have anything wrong here. I do so want to believe that our President, his Republican Majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and yes, many of our leaders even with my Democratic Party that the War was "the right thing to do" and that there are good reasons for our nation to still be there.

Am I missing something?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Shhhh stop making sense
Great song too. It doesn't help. But the common theme of many posts lately is this insanity we all feel. The world is bat shit crazy, and you realize you are sane by your understanding that everything they say makes no sense. Something like that. I dunno. It's been a rough week for me too.

On the other hand, you can shut up, be "sane" and join the DLC. This is my idea of a joke. More troops..if the country just realizes the Dems are "tough on defense" we can win win win!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. for political capital, oil, to rob our treasury, for permanent M.E. bases
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, to be fair, part of the rationale was to get rid of Saddam
who was oppressing his own people. Whether they're better off now than before is debatable.

But everything else you've laid out is spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. yeah, i guess that's right..get rid of Saddam... after all
Edited on Wed Jul-27-05 08:52 PM by dweller
he did try to kill the *moron's deddy. And that's why * wanted to get rid of Saddam.

so, let's make sure the 'rationale' is what it is. That vindictive little shit occupying the WH doesn't give one ounce of concern for oppressed Iraqis, 100s of thousands that are now dead from the shock and awe of our illegal invasion.

In downtown Baghdad once existed a sidewalk with a likeness of GWHB put there so the citizens could walk (stomp, spit, whatever) upon it.


you can rest assured that was enough reason for *moron to attack a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, and no method of harming the US or any of its neighbors.

Liberating oppressed people? no, maybe liberating the oil.

dp




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. And that rationale is total bullshit
Iraq's neighbors were trying to arrange an exile for Saddam and sons and certain top officials. Whereupon the Psychopath in Chief said that the invasion was on even if Saddam left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe number them in the order they were used? Just a suggestion
The democracy angle came after the WMD and the 911 justification

I think it's important to keep the reasons in the order they were originally used... it shows better how Bush fished around for a reason...any reason..that would sell...and how the reasons changed to be more in line with the facts getting exposed.


Just a thought. I understand you're just counting them out now.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. kicking and recommending....
Excellent post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Thanks.
Hopefully, we can pose these questions to Republicans that we encounter, huh? Thanks.:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Cutting through the propaganda and BS,
you are probably left with this.

The Bush Dilemma -- The Iraq Gamble Simply Cannot Fail

by Stan Moore
(Tuesday July 26 2005)

<snip>

From the Bush Administration point of view, as well as that of the "establishment" that includes high level Democrats as well as Republicans, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a strategic maneuver. It is designed to secure access to oil, not only in Iraq, but also as a lynchpin in a strategy of control of the entire Persian Gulf. It is a lynchpin in a strategy that wants to contain, if not envelope Iran and its oil wealth. The establishment of military bases around the region, after an assumed victory in Iraq, is key to expansion of military access to neighboring Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. This is part of a larger strategy to weaken China and provide leverage against both China and Russia.

It all starts in Iraq. This is the strategic underpinning of the planning and execution for the Pax Americana in the 21st Century. This is the ONLY way that America can dominate the world for the next 100 years.

<snip>

Do not expect the Bush Administration, or any Democratic administration that replaces it to pull out of Iraq. To do so in the face of Peak Oil would be to pull the plug from America's economy, which would be like removing the drain plug from the oil pan of your favorite SUV and driving it until the motor blows.

Iraq was a strategic move. It was a desperate move, but the explanations were designed to hide the REAL desperate explanation of the move, and create a false, desperate explanation. America was facing a desperate situation, but it was not about weapons of mass destruction or about the need for democracy in Iraq. It was about the passage over a mountain peak, the Hubbert Peak. It was about the risk of not having control on the way down the other side of that peak. It was about whether America would free-fall to disaster, or keeps the economy's engine going down the slope, while the rest of the world came to us for their oil.


http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17118
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The real reasons for the overthrow of Saddam...
were so bad that the Bush Regime could not state them? Would the Amerikan public have rejected those reason overwhelmingly? The real reason will be stated later in my post.

Iraq could not have been invaded if the nations of the UN had actual power to stop Amerika from doing so. The WMD basis was conjured up because it was the only reason that the Amerikan public would go along with. The Bush Regime repeatedly shouted that Iraq was a looming threat to Amerika. Colin Powel went to the UN and spewed lies about WMDs and the threat of Iraq. Even so, the UN did not approve of the invasion. The Prez lied when he said that the Weapons Inspection Team of Hans Blix was kicked out by Iraq. It was kicked out that is true but by the Bush Regime.

Bush Regime Iraq Goals and Partial Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Petrodollar Warfare - Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
Over in the Environment and Energy forum a DUer recently anounced the publication of his new book:

— FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE —

Petrodollar Warfare
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar

William R. Clark
PROJECT CENSORED AWARD WINNING AUTHOR, 2003 and 2005

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world’s second largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched its oil currency trade to euros — rather than U.S. dollars — the Bush administration’s unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.

Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar hegemony and the unsustainable macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling,’ pointing out that the issues underlying the Iraq War also apply to geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and other countries including the member states of the European Union (EU), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without changing course, the American Experiment will end the way all empires end – with military over-extension and subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to create a more balanced global energy and monetary system – thereby reducing the possibility of future oil depletion and oil currency-related warfare.

A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism, Petrodollar Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global political economy.

About the Author: William Clark has received two Project Censored awards, first in 2003 for his ground-breaking research on the Iraq War, oil currency conflict, and U.S. geostrategy and again in 2005 for his research on Iran’s upcoming euro-denominated oil bourse. (Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Stories, Seven Stories Press). He is an Information Security Analyst, and holds a Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in Information and Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins University. He lives near Bethesda, Maryland.

288 pages 6 x 9” Current Affairs / Political Science & Government / Finance
Pb ISBN 0-86571-514-9 US$17.95 / Can$24.95

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x27129
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
10. Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says
Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says

Andrea Lynn, Humanities Editor
217-333-2177; [email protected]

5/10/04

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush.

The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

In addition to what it says about the shifting sands of rationales and the unsteady path to war in Iraq, what is remarkable about the 212-page study is that its author is a student.

The study, “Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress and the Media from September 12, 2001, to October 11, 2002,” is the senior honors thesis of Devon Largio. She and her professor, Scott Althaus, believe the study is the first of its kind.

For her analysis of all available public statements the Bush administration and selected members of Congress made pertaining to war with Iraq, Largio not only identified the rationales offered for going to war, but also established when they emerged and who promoted them. She also charted the appearance of critical keywords such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Iraq to trace the administration’s shift in interest from the al Qaeda leader to the Iraqi despot, and the news media’s response to that shift.

“The rationales that were used to justify the war with Iraq have been a major issue in the news since last year, and Devon’s study provides an especially thorough and wide-ranging analysis of it,” Althaus, a professor of political science, said.

“It is not the last word on the subject, but I believe it is the first to document systematically the case that the administration made for going to war during critical periods of the public debate.

“It is first-rate research,” Althaus said, “the best senior thesis I have ever seen – thoroughly documented and elaborately detailed. Her methodology is first-rate.”

Largio mapped the road to war over three phases: Sept. 12, 2001, to December 2001; January 2002, from Bush’s State of the Union address, to April 2002; and Sept. 12, 2002, to Oct. 11, 2002, the period from Bush’s address to the United Nations to Congress’s approval of the resolution to use force in Iraq.

She drew from statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Policy Board member and long-time adviser Richard Perle; by U.S. senators Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott and John McCain; and from stories in the Congressional Record, the New York Times and The Associated Press. She logged 1,500 statements and stories.

The rationales Largio identified include everything from the five front-runners – war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Saddam Hussein is evil, to the also-rans – Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “because Saddam Hussein hates us,” Colin Powell’s “because it’s a violation of international law,” and Richard Perle’s “because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within the Middle East.”

With regard to the administration’s shift from bin Laden to Saddam, Largio found that Iraq was “part of the plan for the war on terror early in the game.”

For example, in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002, President Bush declared that Iraq was part of the war against terrorism because it supported terrorists and continued to “flaunt its hostility toward America.” He also claimed that Iraq allowed weapons inspectors into the country and then threw them out, “fueling the belief that the nation did in fact plan to develop weapons of mass destruction,” Largio wrote.

In the same speech, the president called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “axis of evil,” a phrase that would “ignite much criticism” and add “to the sense that the U.S. would embark on a war with the Hussein state,” Largio wrote.

“So, from February of 2002 on,” Largio said, “Iraq gets more hits than Osama bin Laden. For President Bush the switch occurs there and the gap grows over time.”

Largio also discovered that it was the media that initiated discussions about Iraq, introducing ideas before the administration and congressional leaders did about the intentions of that country and its leader. The media also “brought the idea that Iraq may be connected to the 9-11 incident to the forefront, asking questions of the officials on the topic and printing articles about the possibility.”

The media “seemed to offer a lot of opinion and speculation, as there had been no formal indication that Iraq would be a target in the war on terror,” Largio wrote. Oddly, though, the media didn’t switch its focus to Iraq and Saddam until July of 2002.

Yet, “Overall, the media was in tune with the major arguments of the administration and Congress, but not with every detail that emerged from the official sources.”

“As always, hindsight is twenty-twenty,” Largio wrote in the conclusion to her thesis. “However, there are questions surrounding nearly every major rationale for the war.

“People may wonder, why are our men and women over there? Why did we go to war? Were we misled? In this election year, these questions deserve answers. And though this paper cannot answer these questions definitively, it can provide some insight into the thinking of the powers-that-be during the earliest stages of war preparation and give the American people a chance to answer these questions for themselves.”

Because Largio’s thesis addresses questions of “great public importance,” Althaus said, and “does so in such a detailed manner,” he arranged to have it posted on a public Web site. Largio will graduate on May 16, and will attend law school at Vanderbilt University.




News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
807 South Wright Street, Suite 520 East, Champaign, Illinois 61820-6261
Telephone 217-333-1085, Fax 217-244-0161, E-mail [email protected]

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC