Real Reason America Went To War

[Argus]

deleted

[Toro]

One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to put pressure on the Saudis. After 9/11, America asked the Saudis to crack down on al-Qaeda, but Saudi efforts were feeble at best. Saudi Arabia didn't believe that America would do anything if they didn't. The invasion was a show of force to the Saudis and others in the region - Iran, Syria - that America meant business, and that if they didn't take care of al-Qaeda in their countries, America would. (That was one of the reasons for all the sabre-rattling against Syria a year or so ago.) Not only because America was demonstrating they had the will, but by occupying Iraq, they would be more strategically able to do so. There were other reasons for the invasion, but that was a significant one. Tokyo is also correct when he says that America has had a great deal of success hitting at terrorist targets in the middle east. Whether thats a good long-term strategy remains to be seen, and certainly the bombings in London and Madrid are showing that al-Qaeda remains resilient elsewhere.

[Black Dog]

I think that the present War on Terrorism has been well-orchestrated and is in fact the exact right strategy to defeat Al-Qaeda. The ‘war’ has taken the form of a complement of military, diplomatic, and covert activity to put strong pressure on Al-Qaeda cells on every corner of the world, and especially in the Middle East. America’s achievements so far have included removing Al-Qaeda’s key state sponsor in Afghanistan, hunting down or assassinating dozens of talented Al-Qaeda operatives, and convincing several Middle Eastern nations, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, to crack down on fundamentalist terrorism. Military training and assistance is being provided to dozens of countries across the world battling insurgencies linked to Islamist terrorists such as Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah. The United States is destroying Al-Qaeda’s leadership, routing it from its bases of sanctuary, cutting off its sources of funds, and most importantly of all, demonstrating to Islamic militants that the United States is not, as Bin Laden, said, a “weak horse.” September 11th probably served more than any other event to embolden militant Islamists into believing that the United States was vulnerable and impotent. However, by prosecuting the War on Terrorism aggressively and energetically, the Bush administration is demonstrating to the world that the United States is fully capable of taking immediate and decisive action to lacerate anti-American terrorism.

The problem with your analyisis is that you envision AQ as a cohesive unit, with leadership and structure that can be disrupted. That may have been the case at one time, but the ideology behind AQ (always the most dangerous thing about it) has proven to have a wide audience. AQ has proven to be durable inasmuch as it has survived teh capture or death of its key leaders and its loss of a central base of operations by going international. And while small, scattered cells are less dangerous, there need not be another attack on the scale of 9-11 to seriously disrupt the domestic economic and political situation.

I don't think there's much the U.S. can do at this point to contain the radical ideeologies that endorse terrorism as a tactic. Certainly, the aggressive response to date (which, IMO is but a cover) has probably done more to fuel such militant beliefs.

[Montgomery Burns]

The real reason America went to war is well known to anyone who watches Fox News or reads the Wall Street Journal.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

The above is the title of a resolution passed by both the House and the Senate, with Democrat as well as Republican majorities.

It has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Out of all 23 clauses, there are only 2 that even mention stockpiles of WMD. What the resolution did stress – in 12 separate clauses – were 16 UN resolutions that that Saddam had ignored or defied.

Bill Clinton never even sought congressional approval (or UN approval) when he went to war in Kosovo (a country that was no threat to the US whatsoever), but that didn't seem to bother Democrats.

[err]

Without the United States, Western Europe would be speaking German right now. The United States is the most underappreciated country in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The RUSSIANS beat Hitler.... The British and Canadians fought Hitler... 75% of all Hitlers forces were on the Eastern Front (that's the side Russia is on.)

America entered the war at the last minute to try out their new toys.... They had to settle for Japan to try them out though...

[err]

My question is.. if the US is so intent on waging its 'war on terror' where does Saudi Arabia come in?  9/11 Hijackers were funded using Saudi money, most of them were Saudi's.  The Saudi's are in fact funding the millitant brand of islam and waging war on Muslims and the 'western infidel'(US). 

Saudi Arabia is one of the starting points for the whole problem. In the 1950s, the USA made a deal with the Saudi royalty. The US-based oil companies would do all of the work, build roads, hospitals, palaces, and give the Saudi's 12.5% of their revenues. In return, the USA would protect the royal family with military and any other forces necessary from any challenge to their power... including democracy. The Saudi people have had to live under a regime supported by the USA for generations now.

Only for a brief 2-year period did the Saudis cut off oil to the Americas (1973-1974) because the royal family had to bow to pressure from the Saudi people who were extremely displeased with the USA's support for Isreal. Ever since then, the Saudi royal family and Washington have been close. The Saudi public has not been thrilled by this relationship, especially due to the American support for Isreal.

In the spring of 2001, the Americans began amassing troops on Saudi soil. (Dick Cheney (Defence minister under George Bush senior) had been plotting the Iraqi attack for some time, long before Bush was elected, it would appear). The growing American presence was the last straw.... The Saudi people, especially ones like Osama Bin Laden did not want his country to be the home for the American infidels...

On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his followers lashed out at the infidels. This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for. They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack.

When no link between Al Queda and Iraq could be found (other than they both had the letter "Q" in their names), they used the WMD excuse.... Drats, that wasn't going to pan out either... That nasty Hans Blix was killing their excuse... .. Oh no... wait, I've got a good Idea ...... we'll say that we're freeing the people... no... even better, bringing DEMOCRACY to the region.... but not to our good friends in Saudi Arabia... because the American deal with them was to keep democracy out of Saudi Arabia....

The real reason for the war wasn't the Iraqi people... you'd have to be really naive to believe that...

The reason goes back to the 1973-1974 "energy crisis". If Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or even Canada cut them off of the fuel for their big manly SUVs, then they'd really be in trouble... their war machines all need oil and its derivatives. So while they currently have ACCESS to all the oil they need, that ACCESS could be cut off as it was in the '70s.... and that would be a "national security threat". So they opted to get CONTROL of one of 10% of the world's oil.... because CONTROL is better than ACCESS.

[mirror]

Dear Err

Thanks for such an excellent post. Quite enlightening.

[Montgomery Burns]

err:

When no link between Al Queda and Iraq could be found (other than they both had the letter "Q" in their names)

Err destroyed any credibility he had with this remark.

How can you be so blindly ignorant of their links?

[err]

err:

When no link between Al Queda and Iraq could be found (other than they both had the letter "Q" in their names)

Err destroyed any credibility he had with this remark.

How can you be so blindly ignorant of their links?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MONTGOMERY BURNS IS Asking for MORe ON links about Al Queda and Iraq. Anyone care to help him ???

[newbie]

deleted

[Argus]

My question is.. if the US is so intent on waging its 'war on terror' where does Saudi Arabia come in?  9/11 Hijackers were funded using Saudi money, most of them were Saudi's.  The Saudi's are in fact funding the millitant brand of islam and waging war on Muslims and the 'western infidel'(US). 

In the spring of 2001, the Americans began amassing troops on Saudi soil. (Dick Cheney (Defence minister under George Bush senior) had been plotting the Iraqi attack for some time, long before Bush was elected, it would appear). The growing American presence was the last straw.... The Saudi people, especially ones like Osama Bin Laden did not want his country to be the home for the American infidels...

There is a category of dishonesty called "Lying by omission" which I believe this falls under. The US first put troops on Saudi soil at their request after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was the springboard for US and allied attacks to free Kuwait. Afterwards, most Amerians left, but since Iraq was still considered dangerous some US troops stayed to deter future attacks.

On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his followers lashed out at the infidels. 

bin Laden's group was responsible for attacks on Americans going back to at least 1998, and there are strong suggestions his group was tied in to the original attack on the WTC in 1993. So to suggest that he "lashed out", an interesting euphemism for mass murder, in response to the US gathering forces for a second attack is so much sputum. The attack on the WTC took a long time to organize and was not in response to the US threats against Iraq. It was caused by religious fanaticsm and hatred of those who did not share his religious beliefs and those of his largely ignorant followers.

This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for.  They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack.

More sputum. Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region, and a continuing threat to its neighbours. The US decided that something needed to be done to get at the roots of Mulim fanatacism in the middle east. That meant cultural changes. All Arab states were brutal dictatorships, and the only alternative people saw was islamic radicals who were fighting the various governments. Iraq was perfectly located so that if the US could turn it into a reasonable facimile of a democratic state it would provide a lesson to the rest of the Arab world - there is an alternative to Islamic radicalism. The people of Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia could hardly ignore a functioning democratic Arab state next door. And we have already seen some signs of the affect this could have - in Lebanon, where crowds which had observed the Iraqi election demanded their own. A common refrain was "If the Iraqis can vote why can't we?"

Certainly the oil factored into this. Putting pressure on Saudi Arabia to cut back on its financial support for Islamic fundamentalism around the world would be far easier if the US had some control over Iraq's oil, (and had troops on the Saudi border). Of course, they couldn't say that, nor could they try and say publicly they were trying to reform the Arab world. You just don't say such things.

So they opted to get CONTROL of one of 10% of the world's oil.... because CONTROL is better than ACCESS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paranoid nonsense. The US is commited to free elections. They are not going to be able to control Iraq's government beyond that. The new government will be supported by the Shiite religious leaders, and they won't need the US for anything. So you are suggesting the US spent a vast fortune, not to mention thousands of lives, to gain control of Iraq's oil for a couple of brief years? Ludicrous.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

QUOTE

This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for.  They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack.

More sputum.

Not sputum, I'm afraid, but fact. I don't have a certain book here with me, but I have previously posted a direct quote from someone in the US admin. acknowledging this fact.

Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region, and a continuing threat to its neighbours.

This was not the case, as acknowledged by several key US military people, including Gen. Colin Powell. "Saddam is being kept in his box", they said, and "He is unable to project any military power over his neighbors".

It was caused by religious fanaticsm and hatred of those who did not share his religious beliefs and those of his largely ignorant followers.

Religious fanatacism, no doubt. However, Osama was most critical of the 'west' (and the US mostly) for supporting brutal dictatorships (and this cannot be denied) that oppressed Muslims in their respective countries, usually for the purposes of exploiting either cheap resources or labour.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for.  They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack.

More sputum.

Not sputum, I'm afraid, but fact. I don't have a certain book here with me, but I have previously posted a direct quote from someone in the US admin. acknowledging this fact.

I"m not saying they didn't use WMDs or the WTC as excuses. I'm saying the reason they're in Iraq is not oil, but for the reasons I gave.

Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region, and a continuing threat to its neighbours.

This was not the case, as acknowledged by several key US military people, including Gen. Colin Powell. "Saddam is being kept in his box", they said, and "He is unable to project any military power over his neighbors".

Sure. So long as the US kept troops there continously ,and enforced the no-fly zones. How long do you want to do that?

It was caused by religious fanaticsm and hatred of those who did not share his religious beliefs and those of his largely ignorant followers.

Religious fanatacism, no doubt. However, Osama was most critical of the 'west' (and the US mostly) for supporting brutal dictatorships (and this cannot be denied) that oppressed Muslims in their respective countries, usually for the purposes of exploiting either cheap resources or labour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bin Laden is critical of us supporting "brutal dictatorships", yet bin laden favours peaceful, gentle, kindly, open governments like the Taliban? Or the Sudanese? Please.

[cybercoma]

Argus,

Just some points to consider.

- Saddam wasn't a religious fanatic like the other leaders in the Arab world. To claim they toppled Hussein to quell the tide of islamic fanaticism is just plain wrong.

- The United States may be committed to free elections and that may have been another purpose for going to war in Iraq, however that doesn't take into consideration their deep-rooted hatred for democratically elected leaders in south america. They're all for free elections as long as it doesn't produce a communist or socialist result.

Bin Laden is not directly linked to Iraq, no matter how many times people say it, it's simply not true. I can agree that the United States needed to get in middle east and have a presence to stop this religious fanaticism from spreading any further. And what better way to do so than create free elections in an oppressed nation; of course sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve doesn't hurt either, but that certainly didn't make it the main reason.

[Argus]

Argus,

Just some points to consider.

- Saddam wasn't a religious fanatic like the other leaders in the Arab world.  To claim they toppled Hussein to quell the tide of islamic fanaticism is just plain wrong.

You start where you can start. They could not have invaded Saudi Arabia. It would have inflamed the Muslim world. Iraq was the perfect location to make a try at rearranging the Arab world's thinking; somewhat modern, by Arab lights, somewhat more sectarian, if you can use that term about a Muslim nation, but large and influential.

- The United States may be committed to free elections and that may have been another purpose for going to war in Iraq, however that doesn't take into consideration their deep-rooted hatred for democratically elected leaders in south america.  They're all for free elections as long as it doesn't produce a communist or socialist result.

I think you're overstating the case in 2005. The US certainly didn't tolerate socialist/communist politicians during the cold war, but it appears to be a little more blase about them now. Does it like Chavez? No, but I can hardly blame them given his statements. Does it like Germany's or France's leaders, or ours? No, but again, I can certainly see why. But hatred is far too strong a word, and I don't think it lessens their preference for democracy. I do agree, however, that the Bush government is made up of short-sighted idiots, by and large, and their earlier reaction to the coup against Chavez is an indictment against them and their alleged support for democracy.

I can see no reasonable or logical reason for the war in Iraq other than what I have posted. It might be that they are even dumber than I think, that they actually believed they could control Iraq's oil for the foreseeable future, as if we were still in the fifties or sixties, and have wasted all this for control which is bound to fade away in the next year or two. But surely they can't be that dumb. And all the people advising them can't be that dumb.

Bin Laden is not directly linked to Iraq, no matter how many times people say it, it's simply not true.  I can agree that the United States needed to get in middle east and have a presence to stop this religious fanaticism from spreading any further.  And what better way to do so than create free elections in an oppressed nation; of course sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve doesn't hurt either, but that certainly didn't make it the main reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what WAS their main reason? Do you think for a minute they're going to control the newly elected government? That government will be under the control of Sistani and the other top religious figures, not the Pentagon. Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

[Montgomery Burns]

Cybercoma:

Bin Laden is not directly linked to Iraq, no matter how many times people say it, it's simply not true.

I'm not absolutely sure about OBL (although there are suggestions - the intelligence world is murky), but Al Qaeda had many many links to Saddam. This is an undisputed fact.

[newbie]

... but Al Qaeda had many many links to Saddam.  This is an undisputed fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Dubya's own 911 commission report found no credible evidence of collaboration. But you're free to believe what you want to believe.

[mirror]

newbie

Some people are well, you know. They come from the Mulroney school of politics:

If you throw enough mud against the wall, some of it will stick.

[Montgomery Burns]

... but Al Qaeda had many many links to Saddam.  This is an undisputed fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Dubya's own 911 commission report found no credible evidence of collaboration. But you're free to believe what you want to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bull. The non-partisan 9/11 commission -which you deride as "Dubya's own commission" - said that they were obviously linked. Again, this is an undisputed fact.

Pay attention, newbie.

[newbie]

... but Al Qaeda had many many links to Saddam.  This is an undisputed fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Dubya's own 911 commission report found no credible evidence of collaboration. But you're free to believe what you want to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bull. The non-partisan 9/11 commission -which you deride as "Dubya's own commission" - said that they were obviously linked. Again, this is an undisputed fact.

Pay attention, newbie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks."

Do you see where it says signature of President George W. Bush?"

Please quote me where the commission said there was an obvious link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

[newbie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/111903.aspx

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropol...eral_Powell.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/...l?oneclick=true

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001967.php

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...h-alqaeda_x.htm

Plenty more but I'm tired. This case is closed for me. Goodnite.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

Please quote me where the commission said there was an obvious link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

9/11 Democrat Chairman Lee Hamilton Slams Media Distortions

Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al-Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions.

"The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.

Hamilton's comments followed a deluge of mainstream reports falsely claiming that the 9/11 Commission had discredited the Bush administration's claim of longstanding links between Baghdad and bin Laden.

But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong.

"There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report.

"There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."

Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts."

Lee Hamilton: There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.

Plus, 9/11 Commission members John Lehman blasted the NY Times for reportin there was no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Bill Clinton worried about Al Qaeda getting weapons from Iraq

There was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda

Lee Hamilton: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that"

And then there is Stephen Hayes' book documenting the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

And then there is this:

Saddam and Al Qaeda links

I don't understand why you persistently argue this point? Don't you know about all the Al Qaeda terrorists that Saddam housed in Iraq?

I too could post more but I am off for the night.

[newbie]

deleted (this topic has been over analyzed IMO)

[cybercoma]

So what WAS their main reason? Do you think for a minute they're going to control the newly elected government? That government will be under the control of Sistani and the other top religious figures, not the Pentagon. Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe most of what you were saying. The United States mostly wanted a foothold in the middle east to slow (and eventually stop) the spread of Islamic fanaticism. Iraq was an easy target, had a good geographic position, and has the fringe benefit of a crapload of oil. American made democracy in that nation should hopefully set the tone for generations to come.

Now whether it will serve only to anger the middle east more, or if eventually the people will demand free governments like Iraq is about to have...we'll have to wait and see.

[ValleyForge]

The reason why America went to war after September 11, is because military doctrine changed from a defensive nature to one of PRE-EMPTION.

The USA will no longer wait to be attacked. Because of the nuclear threat and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the USA has taken on an attack posture of seek and destroy.

Also knocking down our World Trade Center Towers demanded a nuclear response but American leaders are restrained and wise and invading Iraq gives USA a firm footfhold in the region to attack Syria and Iran.

Further, USA must have a presence in the middle east because of Israel. Israel cannot afford to sit back and watch muslim nations develop the nuclear weapon and be surrounded by that. They are geographically too small and these geographics play into Israeli military doctrine which they must follow or face possible destruction at the hands of muslims.

The USA for that reason is there to keep Israel from pre-empting and annhiilating Iran or Syria or Egypt. USA will do that for them.