Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: thx1138 Your national security never come into question from Iraq's military, but it was the switch to the Euro from the USD that was threat to your national secutity and reason for the invasion.

If you had read my post correctly, you would have noticed that i agree with your statement about not being worried about Iraqs military, at least not directly. The threat came from the possible trade of WMDs to terrorist groups, yes the ties to such groups are weak when one looks directly at saddam, but not much investigation has been done on his generals, i will research this topic further and find evidence of it, rather than just making such a ridiculous claim that we invaded iraq because of a change in currency, let's be reasonable.

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: thx1138 Again who funded Iraq when they were at war with Iran? The US supported this butcher, you can not white wash over that fact (well the US supported Iran also). Again why was Kuwait invaded? Kuwait was (and may still be)stealing oil from Iraq with the use of sideways drilling. Kuwait's Oil Industry Rises From the Ashes of War - New York Times You see the white hat is not so white after all. sorry but the US is just playing games like all other nations. It's nice to think you're with the "good guys" but there are no "guy goods" just a power stuggle between groups that all use the same dirty tricks.

Governments change, at the time it was in the best interest of the US to support Iraq and stabalize the area. I can guaruntee you that the US didnt go to saddam and say, look we want you to start gasing your people. So the "white hat" analogy doesnt even apply.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jeranamostilton Governments change, at the time it was in the best interest of the US to support Iraq and stabalize the area. I can guaruntee you that the US didnt go to saddam and say, look we want you to start gasing your people.

That's your viewpoint, but it operates under the premise that the fate of Iran and Iraq is ours to decide. Also, did the Iran/Iraq war "stabilize the region"? I see precious little evidence of this, just rhetoric. In this rhetoric, "stability" is codeword for "America and its close allies can do whatever they wish, and you better not question it."

In order to take that position, I'd have to live in constant delusion and lack basic reasoning skills.

From Saddam, we could have learned that our trust in most of our
"allies" is utterly idiotic, as well as our national leadership. But no, the stupidity continues.

Grandpa h.

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: grandpa That's your viewpoint, but it operates under the premise that the fate of Iran and Iraq is ours to decide. Also, did the Iran/Iraq war "stabilize the region"? I see precious little evidence of this, just rhetoric. In this rhetoric, "stability" is codeword for "America and its close allies can do whatever they wish, and you better not question it." In order to take that position, I'd have to live in constant delusion and lack basic reasoning skills. From Saddam, we could have learned that our trust in most of our "allies" is utterly idiotic, as well as our national leadership. But no, the stupidity continues. Grandpa h.

We didn't decide their fate, we chose to help arm Iraq that at the time seemed in our best interest. You can analyze the situation all you want, but in the end it boils down to exactly what I said before, governments change, Hussein cooperated with us and then turned on us. If it is your viewpoint that the US should return to the days of isolationism, so be it, but I for one do not agree with that. As for the present day situation in Iraq, it was necessary for us to take action. That is not a continuation of "stupidity" as you like to put it, rather, we have realized our mistake in allying ourself with Iraq, waited for Saddam to comply, and because of his failure to comply for over a decade, we have the right to take action. As far as the US doing whatever it wants and not asking questions, action was required and the government is not stopping you from questioning its decision. Knowing that an unstable dictator and threat of his military placing WMDs in the hands of terrorists lets me rest easy. As for you living in a state of delusion and lacking of basic reasoning skills, i feel you already exemplify these characteristics, because you believe everything the liberal media feeds you and continue to us them as your beacon of truth even when confronted with actual concrete evidence behind the US decision to invade Iraq.

[Century 25]

The Iraq conflict (War) was based on..? Certainly not based on Iraq (Saddam) attacking the United States. It was based on greed and a power trip.

The 911 attacks were perp'd by a spoiled kid of a billionaire. bin Laden. In his religion-addled mind he wanted revenge. He specifically chose the Pentagon, the WTC, and was going for the capitol at DC. Hmm.. looks like it was all directed at the military/industry gang.

So, just how did Iraq/Saddam figure in..?

Allies..? Duh...

[thx1138]

rather than just making such a ridiculous claim that we invaded iraq because of a change in currency, let's be reasonable.

ridiculous? you obviously have not really reseached this topic yet, so here's some help..

First from
Dr. Bulent Gokay
Senior Lecturer in International Relations and
Director of European Studies Programme
SPIRE, Keele University, Staffs ST5 5BG, England, UK

Middle East Information - MEIC Issues and analysis of the Middle East: Conflicts, News, History, Religions and Discussions

Dr. Bulent Gokay Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of European Studies Programme SPIRE, Keele University, Staffs ST5 5BG, England, UK Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq since the start of the Bush administration, and indeed earlier. Iraq’s proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world’s total. The total reserves could be 200 billion barrels or even more, all of it quite easy and relatively cheap to extract. Because the US is the world's largest user of petroleum, and its appetite is growing because of its standards of consumption, it needs control over the oilfields of the Middle East. I suggust you read the full story.

Bush's Deep Reasons for War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro question

T&A: Dollar vs EURO, weapons of mass destruction

Ron Paul of Texas - The End of Dollar Hegemony

[Rainbow]

Quote by: sevendogs Iraq war started based on hundreds of false statements. Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com A recent independent study showed that Bush and his administration issued hundreds of false statements to manipulate public opinion prior Iraq war. The question is if Bush and some of his administration would be tried as war criminals?

A trial for illusions ???

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jeranamostilton We didn't decide their fate, we chose to help arm Iraq that at the time seemed in our best interest. You can analyze the situation all you want, but in the end it boils down to exactly what I said before, governments change, Hussein cooperated with us and then turned on us.

America and other countries have played amajor role in shaping Iraq's future. In fact, modern Iraq itself was a European creation. It's only a matter of time before our "best interests" make the worst results.

And when did Saddam "turn on us"? America invaded Iraq, remember? Then, a second time, over nonexistent WMDs.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It was not necessary to make Sadam more cooperative, it was necessary to insure he was not a true threat. We could have kept up in much the same way in Iraq, secured Afganistan more effectively and helped to create a real bastion of democracy in the region, all with the support and good-will of the world community. Once we had fought the real war against terror, we could have kept up a real coalition of the truely willing and used the power of our still present moral standing in the world to promote a Middle East peace plan that would have showed the average Arab citizen (who really only wants some kind of secure life and an expectation of future success) that the western world is not opposed to that happening. All of our policies in the middle east are focused on securing our power and control. Just as there is a small radical branch of western idiots who believe that only the white man matters and it is a sell out to take any action that does not secure white dominance, there is a small radical branch of Islamic idiots who believe that the world will not be right until it has been returned to the state of being that existed when Mohhamed walked the earth. The way you defeat them is to marginalize them. You make life agreeable to the majority so that their idiotic rantings seem just what they are. And just like the KKK and the militia morons in the US will never completely go away, they get less support when the world around them does not lend creadence to their stupid ideals. If you are shooting at them every chance you get, they get to wag their fingers and scream from the mountains "Oppression!" And in case you haven't seen it before, I will say it again. I lived in the DC area on 9/11. I worked 3 blocks from the Pentagon. I personally knew someone who died on the plane that hit the pentagon. I do not claim that I was great friends with this person. I was a friend of his daughter and knew him from cook-outs and such. My point is, I do not in anyway not know what that day meant. I have not forgotten or any such nonsense. But here is a truth that can not be ignored. Our actions have taken many more innocent lives in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. The people who have lost childen, wives, mothers, fathers, husbands, brothers and sisters in Iraq where not responsible for 9/11 and we are breeding more hate. You would not care either (if it was one of your family) that we TRY not to kill innocents. Those people are just as innocent and just as dead as any American. We feed the monster when we do stupid shit like that. All your backward reasoning and attemps at justification do not change that simple fact. We are now feeding the monster, not killing it. Just about any answer would have been better. We are weaker, they are stronger. Is Bin Laden weaker? Yes, but he does not care. He cares that millions more despise us now. Can HE attack us with the same effect? No, but he does not care. He cares that millions of more brains are being applied to finding ways to attack us and thousands of more cells with the same ideology are being spawned. It was a stupid, short sighted solution. It will cost us if we do not stop it. It has already cost us, just not in civilian blood, yet.

It appears that today, some of these "monsters" strapped bombs to a couple of mentally retarded girls, took them into a crowded market, and remote detonated them.

The question now is, Do iraqis really want such people prevailing? Do YOU want such people prevailing? Who really is the bad guy in Iraq? Or is everything just the fault of the United States?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Jeranamostilton Governments change, at the time it was in the best interest of the US to support Iraq and stabalize the area. I can guaruntee you that the US didnt go to saddam and say, look we want you to start gasing your people. So the "white hat" analogy doesnt even apply.

Its not even true. As the post indicated, the USA gave funding to BOTH Iran and Iraq. The question is why?
The answer is real simple: It was correctly judged that both Iran and Iraq were dangerous and expansionist countries. The thinking was to let them expand into each other, chew each other up, so as to keep them going in other directions.

There seem to be many people on this board who like to say that other countries are sovereign, and can and should do whatever they want without te USA stepping in. But then when they do such things that might annoy the USA, its automatically assumed that their actions are in RESPONSE to a previous action of America or its allies. Its impossible to conceive that Iraq under saddam would want to grab Kuwait. No, it was Kuwait's fault, it was Britains fault. Iran would never want to spread Islamic fundamentalism. No, its the USa's fault because they were friends with the Shah.
Other country's actually do have interests in the world. And those interests might clash with the USa. And its entirely possible that the USA might actually be right in some circumstances (no, really!).

[rmnunez]

Despite Iraq's tremendous reserves, its actual output is relatively insignificant. It has been insiginificant for considerable time, was insignificant long before intervention this time and since even before Desert Storm.

This is why those claims Iraqi threats to trade in Euros instead of dollars sound so strange. On a good year, Iraqi oil exports amounted to about 7% of US foreign oil imports (Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all export and exported more). And the US was Iraq's biggest purchaser.

This is why the argument Iraq was attacked to get at its oil sounds so silly to me. If this really was the idea, they didn't notice Iraq hadn't invested in oil production for decades, its refineries, oil wells and pipelines were all obsolete, deplorably maintained, decrepit and near collapse. An oil refinery costs about half a billion dollars, who is going to plunk down that kind of money and run the chance it will be confiscated by some adversarial successive regime or blown up by rebellious insurgents?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO It appears that today, some of these "monsters" strapped bombs to a couple of mentally retarded girls, took them into a crowded market, and remote detonated them. The question now is, Do iraqis really want such people prevailing? Do YOU want such people prevailing? Who really is the bad guy in Iraq? Or is everything just the fault of the United States?

The answer to the first two questions is no. The answer to your third and fourth questions are tied together. There are multiple "bad guys" in Iraq. The difference between you and I is that where fault lies with the US, I am willing to admit it. "Everything" is not the fault of the US, but just because we were faced with vexing and difficult problems does not mean that any course of action we may have taken was therefore good. As I have stated over and over again, in respone to many different issues, seeing a problem and acting is not enough. Your actions must be reasonable and accomplish whatever logical aims you may have. If your "solution" fails is this reguard, it should be challenged and deserves to be criticized. Unintended and unforeseeable consequences are one thing. If you create an oxygen rich incubator for premature babies because you know that many of them die for lack of oxygen because the lungs are late developing organs and later discover that you used too much oxygen and this led to blindness, you did not do "wrong". You adjust back on the oxygen, leaning from your mistake. But when thousands of people are screaming from all corners of the globe, "Do not do this! It will lead to more chaos, not less. It will be this way because of A, B, C and D" and they end up later to be proved to be right, you can not claim that you did not and could not know there would be problems. And you must accept the fact that you have screwed up in a major way, caused more problems than you solved and quit clinging to notions that have been disproved. If you do not, you remain PART OF THE FREAKING PROBLEM and you were always PART OF THE FREAKING PROBLEM, whether you intended to be or not.

[Matt W]

Edited thread title so it complies with Breaking News requirements - use the exact title of the article when posting, please.

[thx1138]

Its impossible to conceive that Iraq under saddam would want to grab Kuwait. No, it was Kuwait's fault, it was Britains fault. Iran would never want to spread Islamic fundamentalism. No, its the USa's fault because they were friends with the Shah.

You are starting to wake up that is a good sign.

This is why those claims Iraqi threats to trade in Euros instead of dollars sound so strange. On a good year, Iraqi oil exports amounted to about 7% of US foreign oil imports (Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all export and exported more). And the US was Iraq's biggest purchaser.

It sounds strange until you do some reseach and read about the petro dollar cycle. If that cycle was to change.. ie more countries took Iraq's swicth as an example, the U.S. would have a major financial problem, more a threat than any WMD.

Iran has recently stop using the dollar for selling its oil and the drums of war are beating for the U.S. once again...

Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars -report Reuters - Saturday, December 8 10:10 am TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has completely stopped selling any of its oil for U.S. dollars, an Iranian news agency reported on Saturday, citing the oil minister of the world's fourth-largest crude producer. The ISNA news agency did not give a direct quote from Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari. A senior oil official last month said "nearly all" of Iran's crude oil sales were now being paid for in non-U.S. currencies. For nearly two years, OPEC's second biggest producer has been reducing its exposure to the dollar, saying the weak U.S. currency is eroding its purchasing power.

YouTube - The Petro Dollar pt 1 of 4

YouTube - The Petro Dollar pt 2 of 4

YouTube - The Petro Dollar pt 3 of 4

YouTube - The Petro Dollar pt 4 of 4




But don't take my word for it (of course you wouldn't do that!) just read about for yourselves.



Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

#132 The US and Eurasia: End Game for the Industrial Era? | Richard Heinberg's website

[rmnunez]

Absolutely thx, if the whole world stopped trading in dollars the US economy would suffer a substantial setback, I agree. But I don't think that because Iraq stopped selling oil in dollars it would make much of a difference, for starters they weren't selling much oil. I also doubt Saddam suddenly going for Euros would lead many other countries to follow his example, particularly not since he was already in the international dog-house.

[thx1138]

“Increased Iraqi oil revenues stemming from high prices and improved security are piling up in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rather than being spent on needed reconstruction projects,” reports the Washington Times. Out of $10 billion budgeted for capital projects in 2007, only 4.4 percent had been spent by August, according to official Iraqi figures reported this month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report cited unofficial figures saying about 24 percent had been spent. Meanwhile, some $6 billion to $7 billion from last year’s budget is “being rolled over” and invested in U.S. treasuries, said Yahia Said, director of Iraq Revenue Watch, part of the private watchdog group Revenue Watch Institute.

...

[rmnunez]

thx, you've got to realize how insignificant $10 billion in Iraqi oil revenues are in the global scheme of oil trading Remember national outputs are meassured in millions of barrels per day and each of those barrels is going for nearly $100.

I don't find the lack of capital investment done with those $10 billion criticable given the situation on the ground. Its only recently that we can quantify improvements since the "surge", as the insurgents ad terrorists get beaten back we can expect expenditures to restore and reconstruct. Spending billions on fixing things up with a bunch of terrorists running around blowing them up is a waste.

[thx1138]

Well it still shows the inefficiency and lack of planning that went into this operation.

[rmnunez]

Yes, they failed to anticipate how delays in reconstruction would promote insurgency and how insurgency would promote delays in reconstruction. Should this have been foresen?

I think they compounded the mistake by getting rid of anyone who was a Baathist since lots of those guys were technocrats who knew how to run things and perhaps weren't all that ideologically committed. The delay in capturing Saddam also had a detrimental effect because for some time those decommissioned military officers would be unsure of what to do. They could be duty-bound to instill insurgency and assist it with their networks and knowledge.

[thx1138]

Yes, they failed to anticipate how delays in reconstruction would promote insurgency and how insurgency would promote delays in reconstruction. Should this have been foresen?

I don't think they failed to anticipate anything. They knew exactally what was going on, if it looks to us as a failure to anticipate something then it's meant to look like that.

Remember this? YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN