PDA

View Full Version : Why USA went into Iraq



Sinestro
11-01-2008, 22:50
1991 - Iraq invades Kuwait; President Bush Sr. sends troops to Arabia (Saudi Arabia) to fight the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and gets snubbed and dislikes American presence in his homeland. Bin Laden creates (Afghanistan) Al-Quida and orders a strike on America by high jacking commercial airliners and crashing them into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans. Bush Jr gets very mad and goes into Afghanistan and fights the Taliban who were hosting the Al-Quida. But then sees that if Iraq wouldn't have attacked Kuwait in the first place then there would be no angry Bin Laden. Bush Jr. goes into Iraq and now you know the rest of the story....

Transparent Theatre
12-01-2008, 10:01
You left out Bush Jr running an oil company in which the main investor was Osama bin-Laden's own brother. (This is true).

Judge
12-01-2008, 17:28
Another reason....Saddam sealed his own fate when he wanted to start dealing in euros.
We all know the real reason,Saddam's rusty WMD were a threat to the western world.
Bush is dreaming again.
Bush Expects Praise From History Writers Over Iraq |Sky News|World News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1300367,00.html)

Transparent Theatre
15-01-2008, 00:06
Completely agreed, Judge! The only untold element here is that Bush is only the figurehead. I don't want to excuse the guy, but ultimately he was just a dumb-but-ambitious kid of a former President. The real plotting that prompted the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions was from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) guys... Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Kristol and very likely other more shady members of this grouping. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld fell under the influence of Kristol's father whilst at college, and he in his turn was a disciple of a shady neo-Nazi academic called Leo Straus. If you do any amount of Googling about Straus and Kristol, you'll find some extremely nasty stuff.

The same team is trying desperately to prompt a war with Iran currently (although this morning it emerged that the stunt with speedboats and a US Navy ship was actually set-up by a prankster).

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been "neutralised" for their outstanding incompetence and corruption whilst in office, but have yet to face trial. The others - notably Bolton, who is "down but not out" after his UN Ambassador fiasco - are mostly still in-post and ready to do their dirty work once again.

Judge
15-01-2008, 02:33
Yep,that is the team behind it all(and a few others) but we can't forget what they said a couple of years before 9/11. This is what they said when talking about the world’s resources,it said,was, “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.


The speedboat incident was a joke,and from this joke WW3 could have started.

Bush's papa isn't just a figurehead,maybe this Bush now is a figurehead but when he leaves he will be a fixer like papa Bush.Keep it in the family they say.

Carbo
20-01-2008, 02:17
1991 - Iraq invades Kuwait; President Bush Sr. sends troops to Arabia (Saudi Arabia) to fight the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and gets snubbed and dislikes American presence in his homeland. Bin Laden creates (Afghanistan) Al-Quida and orders a strike on America by high jacking commercial airliners and crashing them into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans. Bush Jr gets very mad and goes into Afghanistan and fights the Taliban who were hosting the Al-Quida. But then sees that if Iraq wouldn't have attacked Kuwait in the first place then there would be no angry Bin Laden. Bush Jr. goes into Iraq and now you know the rest of the story....
Strange train of thought.

I've come to the conclustion that Bush went into Iraq for three reasons:

1) Saddam's pariah status made the huge Iraqi oil reserves a bone of contention. First, American companies couldn't get involved due to the sanctions -- something that Russian oil majors like Lukoil were taking full advantage of -- which was bad for Bush's oil-buddies. The war reset the table, as evidenced by the tearing up of Lukoil's West Qurna field contract. Second, the terrible state of the regime and the sanctions meant the vast oil reserves sitting under the Iraqi desert couldn’t be properly utilized because they weren't getting the investment or market exposure they needed. Bad for the long term price (oh how wrong they were!), and the US supermajors and sub-contractors the current US administration is so close to. (That being said, the oil companies have creamed it in now that chaos has been established as the norm in the Middle East.)

2) Few realise the true scale of the West's precipitous relationship with oil. For example, if somebody was able to shut the Straight of Hormuz for any meaningful length of time, we'd have economic meltdown. And don't think of that as hyperbole; there is not the slightest embellishment in that statement. Our economy would be royally ass-****ed by anyone who could disrupt or stop Mid East oil supply. ****ed. Disaster. Meltdown. Bush and Gang wanted to get rid of what they perceived as the person in the region most likely to do this: the unpredictable, sociopathic Saddam.

3) Personal vendetta. Saddam tried to jave his daddy assasinated dueing a visit to Kuwait.

Of course, the defense industry, with which he and his family have connections -- private contractors and weapons makers both -- weren't complaining too much. And 9/11 gave them a great excuse. Of course, we could also talk forever about the views on who should hold sway in the Mid East held by Christian fundamentalists that Bush is involved with. But I truly believe the abovementioned three points were the reasons.

I'm not an expert, though; but that's my take.

Packman
20-01-2008, 16:20
Strange train of thought.

I've come to the conclustion that Bush went into Iraq for three reasons:

1) Saddam's pariah status made the huge Iraqi oil reserves a bone of contention. First, American companies couldn't get involved due to the sanctions -- something that Russian oil majors like Lukoil were taking full advantage of -- which was bad for Bush's oil-buddies. The war reset the table, as evidenced by the tearing up of Lukoil's West Qurna field contract. Second, the terrible state of the regime and the sanctions meant the vast oil reserves sitting under the Iraqi desert couldn’t be properly utilized because they weren't getting the investment or market exposure they needed. Bad for the long term price (oh how wrong they were!), and the US supermajors and sub-contractors the current US administration is so close to. (That being said, the oil companies have creamed it in now that chaos has been established as the norm in the Middle East.)

2) Few realise the true scale of the West's precipitous relationship with oil. For example, if somebody was able to shut the Straight of Hormuz for any meaningful length of time, we'd have economic meltdown. And don't think of that as hyperbole; there is not the slightest embellishment in that statement. Our economy would be royally ass-****ed by anyone who could disrupt or stop Mid East oil supply. ****ed. Disaster. Meltdown. Bush and Gang wanted to get rid of what they perceived as the person in the region most likely to do this: the unpredictable, sociopathic Saddam.

3) Personal vendetta. Saddam tried to jave his daddy assasinated dueing a visit to Kuwait.

Of course, the defense industry, with which he and his family have connections -- private contractors and weapons makers both -- weren't complaining too much. And 9/11 gave them a great excuse. Of course, we could also talk forever about the views on who should hold sway in the Mid East held by Christian fundamentalists that Bush is involved with. But I truly believe the abovementioned three points were the reasons.

I'm not an expert, though; but that's my take.

In addition to those reasons you have the neo-cons believing rightly or wrongly that Saddam was a threat to Israel's security. Thus the push to get Israel's big brother the US to do the heavy lifting to take Saddam out.

Willy
20-01-2008, 17:29
Nothing to do with Israel, Saudi Arabia worried a lot more. They have much more invested in the American economy and it was much more likely the Saddam would go take their oil. Israel has only money. Saudi Arabia has a lot of buisness with the Bush family.

Transparent Theatre
20-01-2008, 18:06
Saudi Arabia has a lot of buisness with the Bush family.

George W Bush had an oil company in which the main investor was Osama bin-Laden's own brother.

This inconvenient fact is rarely mentioned on Faux News etc.

Judge
20-01-2008, 19:29
Nothing to do with Israel, Saudi Arabia worried a lot more. They have much more invested in the American economy and it was much more likely the Saddam would go take their oil. Israel has only money. Saudi Arabia has a lot of buisness with the Bush family.

It will be interesting to see who gets the upcoming $15bn border security contract from Saudi Arabia .
My money is on Raytheon .

Bels
20-01-2008, 19:40
Where's Britain in all of this, didn't they declare war first with Iraq on their invasion into Kuwait?? Did they have some form of previous agreement with Kuwait on such an event of them being invaded. Are 30,000 British troops and much aircraft to be ignored in this matter. More British planes shot down by Americans rather than Iraqees :(

Willy
21-01-2008, 11:01
It will be interesting to see who gets the upcoming $15bn border security contract from Saudi Arabia .
My money is on Raytheon .

I think your right, then they will subcontract to Halliburton.

Mr. Bels this is Why America went thread not Why England went.

You should start a new thread.

Transparent Theatre
21-01-2008, 11:15
Jonathan Steele, a one-time Moscow Correspondent of THE GUARDIAN, has a new book out concerning the absence of planning for what would follow the Iraq invasion. Details here:

Guys, I'm afraid we haven't got a clue ... | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2244183,00.html)

Bels
21-01-2008, 11:42
I think your right, then they will subcontract to Halliburton.

Mr. Bels this is Why America went thread not Why England went.

You should start a new thread.

Mr Willy , they both went in together, should 30,000 troops be considered invisible in this thread.

Willy
21-01-2008, 16:16
No England followed and then were put in the quietest place, but this thread is about America, so don't try to hijack it in the name of England! You guys always trying to steal our glory!

Bels
21-01-2008, 19:17
I can't see what you're talking about, :eh: I was qouting from memory (shows my age) but due to your story you got me reading all the archives on the internet.

Here's a brief summary of events and why we entered Kuwait and invaded Iraq.

BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key events (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/kuwait_invasion.stm)

Judge
21-01-2008, 20:12
No England followed and then were put in the quietest place, but this thread is about America, so don't try to hijack it in the name of England! You guys always trying to steal our glory!


According to Robert Gates noone will steal your glory, America's allies aren't up for the job..

Gates' comments anger NATO allies - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/16/gates.nato.ap/index.html)

Bels
21-01-2008, 21:19
Thanks Judge, and this quoted piece is interesting :)

However, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands have a bigger proportion of their armed forces serving with the NATO force in Afghanistan than the United States. Britain with 7,753 troops, has 4 percent of its military, compared with 1.1 percent of U.S. armed forces serving with the NATO force.

British and Dutch officials refused to believe Gates' comment were aimed at them.

Willy
22-01-2008, 11:28
Doing all you can to hijack this thread aren't you Bels?
What ever 1.1 percent of U.S troops is about 10,000 so?

Bels
22-01-2008, 20:23
I can't understand how you call it hi-jack. I'm on topic, giving my opinion and facts.

Heres some more facts. The argument of the Iraqi's was that Britain created the borders around Kuwait, and Iraq refused to recognise these borders, The Iraqis went in because they believed that Kuwait was keeping down the price of oil down, and they didn't like it. It was a British argument.

Bels
22-01-2008, 20:25
Doing all you can to hijack this thread aren't you Bels?
What ever 1.1 percent of U.S troops is about 10,000 so?

Not enough troops coming from a continent in comparison to the size of Britain.

Willy
23-01-2008, 18:22
I can't understand how you call it hi-jack. I'm on topic, giving my opinion and facts.

Heres some more facts. The argument of the Iraqi's was that Britain created the borders around Kuwait, and Iraq refused to recognise these borders, The Iraqis went in because they believed that Kuwait was keeping down the price of oil down, and they didn't like it. It was a British argument.


No Mr. Bels the topic is Why USA went into Iraq, why don't you start a thread Why Britain when into Iraq?

The thing is we don't know the real facts, and don't claim you do.

Kuwait started putting oil wells too close to the Iraq boarder and after Iraq attacked Kuwait, Bush buddy's Saudi Arabia got frighten so the good old USA sent their boys in.