So what's this War about anyway?

[knot]

Don't look now, but you may be in violation of US Code: Title 18871.

Very funny bush. I would have a beer with you.

 

[knot]

No, I think that Bush sucks for the exact reasons why I started this thread. Come on, Guys. If you in Politics don't know it, how should I know without on single, honest, official explanation?

What don't you tell us since you seem to be quizzing us. (so we can have a good laugh)

Oliver is a political truther and a troll.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

He had oil. Lots of it. Oil = power, weapons, etc. for future purchases and including allies - which would'nt be too far a reality since he had a common enemy with Islamic extremists: America (the enemy of my enemy can be my friend temporarily)

He also had US & UK fighters patrolling over most of his country 24/7, no army at all, and was being so closely watched by the US that he couldn't fart without Washington getting five reports in triplicate.

Come on, seriously. The only people Saddam was a threat to were Iraqis. He never would have been able to develop any sort of WMD, or even buy modern conventional weaponry.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Oliver]

What don't you tell us since you seem to be quizzing us. (so we can have a good laugh)

Well, if I would know, I wouldn't ask.

 

[Oliver]

He also had US & UK fighters patrolling over most of his country 24/7, no army at all, and was being so closely watched by the US that he couldn't fart without Washington getting five reports in triplicate.

Come on, seriously. The only people Saddam was a threat to were Iraqis. He never would have been able to develop any sort of WMD, or even buy modern conventional weaponry.

Cheers,
TGHO

Thanks for your honest replies, TGHO.

Did you ever heard a good explanation and what do you think were the reasons?

 

[Pardalis]

Nope, I really believe you don't know it.

Look at a map of the region.

 

[knot]

He also had US & UK fighters patrolling over most of his country 24/7, no army at all, and was being so closely watched by the US that he couldn't fart without Washington getting five reports in triplicate.

Come on, seriously. The only people Saddam was a threat to were Iraqis. He never would have been able to develop any sort of WMD, or even buy modern conventional weaponry.

Cheers,
TGHO

Right, could never have purchased anything while Iran is supplying insurgents as we speak. We can't even watch our own borders.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Thanks for your honest replies, TGHO.

Did you ever heard a good explanation and what do you think were the reasons?

*Shrug* I don't know about "honest", this is all just my opinion.

I honestly think that the only reason Bush II attacked Saddam was to prove to himself that he was better than his dad, Bush I, and would "take Saddam out". Nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Saddam being a possible future threat. Just simply Bush II trying to prove his manliness.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Oliver]

What don't you tell us since you seem to be quizzing us. (so we can have a good laugh)

Oliver is a political truther and a troll.

You actually show that you don't know it. But that's okay - nobody I asked really knows it.

 

[Pardalis]

*Shrug* I don't know about "honest", this is all just my opinion.

If you say something along the lines of what Oliver wants to hear, then you are considered honest. That's how it works discussing with Ollie.

Everyone else is a bigoted Bush supporter.

I honestly think that the only reason Bush II attacked Saddam was to prove to himself that he was better than his dad, Bush I, and would "take Saddam out". Nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Saddam being a possible future threat. Just simply Bush II trying to prove his manliness.

This is hardly the reason (at least not the only one), come on, so start a costly war for such frivolous reasons? It goes way beyond personal matters.

 

[Oliver]

*Shrug* I don't know about "honest", this is all just my opinion.

I honestly think that the only reason Bush II attacked Saddam was to prove to himself that he was better than his dad, Bush I, and would "take Saddam out". Nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Saddam being a possible future threat. Just simply Bush II trying to prove his manliness.

Cheers,
TGHO

I have a hard time to realize this with the help of his staff unless they all thought the same way. And if this is true, it really would remind me of Hitler in terms of legislations and the invasion of Poland.

 

[knot]

*Shrug* I don't know about "honest", this is all just my opinion.

I honestly think that the only reason Bush II attacked Saddam was to prove to himself that he was better than his dad, Bush I, and would "take Saddam out". Nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Saddam being a possible future threat. Just simply Bush II trying to prove his manliness.

Cheers,
TGHO

Not everyone thinks on a level of testosterone. I don't have the answers, just speculation, but there's obviously much more to it.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

This is hardly the reason (at least not the only one), come on, so start a costly war for such frivolous reasons? It goes way beyond personal matters.

Not everyone thinks on a level of testosterone. I don't have the answers, just speculation, but there's obviously much more to it.

I disagree. Bush II had the support of both Rumsfield and Cheney, both of whom were Bush I supporters and saw the chance for political advantage in attacking Iraq the second time. The myriad of "legitimate" reasons offered by Bush II have been shown to be either completely erroneous or plain lies. And plenty of other strong-willed people have started wars for less reasons than to prove their own aggressiveness.

I'm open to evidence, however, so if you gentlemen can come up with something conclusive that proves that it wasn't just Bush II trying to prove himself to his Daddy, I'll reconsider.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Pardalis]

I disagree. Bush II had the support of both Rumsfield and Cheney, both of whom were Bush I supporters and saw the chance for political advantage in attacking Iraq the second time.

I think it's the other way around, George W Bush doesn't have the brains nor the authority within his own administration to have made the decision to go to Iraq. Everybody knows he doesn't make the decisions.

It's a policy the NeoCons have cooked up without him.

I think it's a strategic geopolitical decision to "stabilize" (in their own flawed and ill-conceived way) the region. Of course they completely messed it up.

 

[Oliver]

I disagree. Bush II had the support of both Rumsfield and Cheney, both of whom were Bush I supporters and saw the chance for political advantage in attacking Iraq the second time. The myriad of "legitimate" reasons offered by Bush II have been shown to be either completely erroneous or plain lies. And plenty of other strong-willed people have started wars for less reasons than to prove their own aggressiveness.

I'm open to evidence, however, so if you gentlemen can come up with something conclusive that proves that it wasn't just Bush II trying to prove himself to his Daddy, I'll reconsider.

Cheers,
TGHO

I would throw some pre-9/11 "Neocon Thinktank Strategies" into the discussion that talk about Americas future foreign policies. But I would be attacked instantaneously by everyone who also uses to read JREF/ConspiracyTheories. But interestingly enough - it's the best explanation I heard so far.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

I think it's the other way around, George W Bush doesn't have the brains nor the authority within his own administration to have made the decision to go to Iraq. Everybody knows he doesn't make the decisions.

It's a policy the NeoCons have cooked up without him.

I think it's a strategic geopolitical decision to "stabilize" (in their own flawed and ill-conceived way) the region. Of course they completely messed it up.

I'm aware of the NeoCon agenda and PNAC, however I don't think Bush II is ineffectual as you hypothesise. Whilst he may have been manipulated, I think it has always been his goal to show up his Dad. Remember he was described to the Queen of England as the black sheep of the family, what better way to throw off that mantle than to go one step better than his Dad and remove Saddam completely?

I will agree that there is probably a complex web of shady motives, the majority of which will never come to light, but I personally think that Bush II's manliness had a lot to do with it.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Oliver]

I'm aware of the NeoCon agenda and PNAC, however I don't think Bush II is ineffectual as you hypothesise. Whilst he may have been manipulated, I think it has always been his goal to show up his Dad. Remember he was described to the Queen of England as the black sheep of the family, what better way to throw off that mantle than to go one step better than his Dad and remove Saddam completely?

I will agree that there is probably a complex web of shady motives, the majority of which will never come to light, but I personally think that Bush II's manliness had a lot to do with it.

Cheers,
TGHO

What I don't understand is that nobody demands an answer about this question. The Media should run crazy about this question - at least that's what I've learned from our German media: If the public want to know - the Media will harass everyone involved until they have an explanation.

 

[Pardalis]

I will agree that there is probably a complex web of shady motives, the majority of which will never come to light, but I personally think that Bush II's manliness had a lot to do with it.

It's an ensemble of reasons in my opinion. It's not just personal reasons, not just about oil, not just about democratizing the Middle East, it's not just about radical Islam and terrorism, not just Israel, it's all of them, and others (China is not far away).

And "Imperialism", as Oliver wants so badly it to be, sounds just too simplistic to me because of the negative connotations of the word.

 

[knot]

oops! I should have realized that I'm replying in a non-American member thread.

It's like trying to explain the second amendment to the clueless.

I will bow out gracefully as to knot feed the trolls.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm not saying this is the reason but it's logical to me. I don't expect an American hater will understand this at all:

It's best to take some lunatic out that does a lot of threatening and even carries out threats when he can, before he's capable of carrying out larger threats - because he would have.

I'm not sure if I would call the rest "war" There are insurgents that want to continue causing instability and show off their stupidity but we are not at war with Iraq.

The "war on terror" is trying to change the mindset of radicals - either surrender or face the consequences. Surrender to win like Japan did. Hell, we're becoming a nation of Japan's tenants. The practically own downtown Los Angeles. Replacing a dictatorship may open eyes to a life that's more fullfilling. I don't know.

Saddam was harmless to other countries in that area. His armed forces had been pretty well written off after Gulf War 1. WMD's were known to be minimal. The WOT, so far, has Osama winning hands down. It's absolute mayhem, in which his kind thrives.