• In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
GOD defiles Reason

Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

Do you think George W Bush intentionally misled our country into invading Iraq?Elaborate on your answers if you like. If you answered "yes," why do you think he did it? What do you think should be done about it?If you answered "no," which reason was more relevant, more legitimate to you? (WMDs, spreading democracy, liberating Iraqis, etc.) Despite the way things are going now in Iraq, do you think it will prove to be a good idea several years down the road? Or are we making matters worse for future generations?How much does oil play a part?Other thoughts?Results (total votes = 21):Yes&nbsp16 / 76.2%&nbsp No&nbsp5 / 23.8%&nbsp 
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

I think it would be hard to argue that Bush (and his entire Administration) did not mislead the American people. The original and only reason for invading Iraq was supposed to be self defense. Iraq supposedly had WMDs, links to Al-Quida, etc. and was an immediate threat to the United States, thus pre-emptive self defensive action was required. Let us put aside the issue of whether or not pre-emption is legitiment (especially considering how many question marks about the intelligence hung in the air) and focus on the reasons originally provided. The Administration said FACT: Iraq has WMDs and FACT: link to terrorism. It turns out that FACT: neither of these were true. So the reasons changed to democracy, dictator, free the Iraqi people. So regardless of anything else, the reasons changed and the original justification proved not to be true. Absolutely this is a case of misleading. Let alone there are hundreds of oppressed people's the world over that are ruled by nasty dictators with horrible human rights violations worse than Saddam's rule of Iraq, why are we not paying any attention to other countries? Where is America with all the other crisis going on? Not important to United States interests, we only care about liberation, democracy, and freedom when it is in this country's interest.GDF specifically italicized "intentially," so that deserves a specific response. The data the administration collected and used to make the justifications was a hodge podge of data with suspect information that lacked credibility and was often out dated. For example, the Administration cited certain WMD nerve gas dated back to the early 1990s. However, such nerve gas has a limited shelf life. Even if the Nerve Gas has not been destroyed, it would have been a barrel of goo by 2003. Just because Iraq could not produce docuements identifying its where abouts does not mean it exists even though it was a technical violation of protocol. Any biological or chemical weapons specialist could have told the Administration that based on the creation dates of said agents, they were long past the shelf life regardless of whether they were destroyed or not. Saddam DID seek nuclear weapons from Africa a dozen years ago, but he failed and was not actively seeking those weapons. Data pulled from a dozen years ago was mis-used to appear as if it was the present. The entire presentation of the evidence to the American people was extremely suspect, no one was being told all the facts. Shame on the American media for not asking the tough questions. Some people did ask the tough questions and they were not invited to participate in the media circus that become the lead up to war.Oil? I never liked that explanation. Perhaps some people in the administration were thinking about oil, but that is not a main reason, at least not consciously, in my opinion. Think larger. Look a the Middle East, it is one of the last un-Americanized strong holds in the world save Africa, and who really gives a damn about Africa [sarcasm]. What the United States could really use was an Americanized Middle Eastern country to base military operations out of (Saudi Arabia just wasn't cutting it and that country, despite being friendly to American interests, is hardly Americanized). A base to spread American styled democracy, capitalism, and the Western way of life. Securing oil reserves was just part of the bigger picture (much of this is conjecture, but I think it is an arguement that has merit).Scott Ritter (former UN Weapons Inspector and Card Carrying Reblican) has some great books about why the WMD issue was bunk (at least one of those books was published well before the invasion). Also highly recommended is the new documentary film "Why We Fight" which did an awesome job stringing together things said by the Administration, Cheeney, Rumsfield, and Bush and then comparing what was said in the past to what actually happened or what is now known. Edited by: riverc0il at: 5/19/06 8:07 pm
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

I agree that oil was probably not the major motivation for invasion. It seems more likely to me that the Administration was looking for a strategic outpost in the Middle East, and that Iraq had a number of things to recommend it, not the least of which was the fact that so few people would really be willing to jump to the Baath regime's defense.
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

Quote:riverc0il: GDF specifically italicized "intentionally," ...Yes, And intentionally is precisely the emphasis of my question. If he cherry picked select information that was known to be faulty and/or discredited, without explaining to the public that the information he was using was in question, and did this consistently on a daily basis, then his intention was to deliberately deceive the people -- including, more shamefully, our volunteer military and their families.Quote:riverc0il: Oil? I never liked that explanation. Perhaps some people in the administration were thinking about oil, but that is not a main reason, at least not consciously, in my opinion. Think larger....Oil is pretty large. Our economy is oil based. Our military can't function without it. The demise of it's abundance is probably within sight on the horizon. The fishing grounds are gradually depleting and being taken by countries who may not always be our allies. Iraq's oil supply may still be largely unexplored due to Iraq's history of chaos and war. If we do not control the last remaining oil reserves, in some capacity, as supplies are running dry, we would lose our position as a major superpower.And just imagine the profits that can be made if you controlled the last of the oil supply.Quote:MadArchitect: I agree that oil was probably not the major motivation for invasion. It seems more likely to me that the Administration was looking for a strategic outpost in the Middle East, ...That seems like a reasonable explanation, but didn't we already have bases and "friendlies" who would allow us to use their soil if we needed it? Either way, why do we need a military outpost there to begin with? Could it be because of the oil in that region?Quote:MadArchitect: ...and that Iraq had a number of things to recommend it, not the least of which was the fact that so few people would really be willing to jump to the Baath regime's defense.Although it's true that these countries did not come to the Baath regime's defense militarily, the Security Council did vote against going to war with Iraq. So in a sense, they came to their defense, all beit diplomatically. And enough people from the region have come to the aid of the resistance to make our occupation an ongoing nightmare. That's a significant defense. But they probably don't see it as jumping to the Baath regime's defense. Edited by: GOD defiles Reason at: 6/5/06 6:08 am
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

Quote:Either way, why do we need a military outpost there to begin with?to the best of my knowledge, the US does not have a strong military pressence in the region. sure, we did bully our way in there to setup bases to fight saddam the first go around, but those were not permanent bases and iirc, the saudies are not friendly to the idea of a permanent US base on their soil. you can bet, regardless of when we "pull out" of iraq, we are going to leave a significant military presence behind.back to the oil question, worse came to worse, we still have ANWAR and other ways to tap oil. our economic system is good at finding alternatives. if you were specifically looking for "cheap oil," that might be a major reason for the invasion. but i don't think it was a "major reason," maybe a minor one. there really isn't enough evidence to support this point of view and i think it makes a bad arguement, especially when arguing to a conservative base of people. i see much more historical evidence for the US invading a country to setup a military presence and turn a country into a US styled capitalistic system. there is no lack of history of the US over throwing or assisting with over throws over the last 100 years. we are the bully country of the world, there is no arguement in that. you can argue whether or not it was in our interest, the countries interest, or the world's interest... but you can not deny the overwhelming evidence that our country loves to get involved with regime change to something we desire. it isn't about democracy or freedom either, cause we have established dictators when freely elected officials were too friendly with our enemies. in most of these cases, oil was not an issue.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

GOD defiles Reason: Either way, why do we need a military outpost there to begin with? Could it be because of the oil in that region?Oil is probably a factor. But the U.S. also has a stake in the stability of other regions for other reasons. One significant reason is the possibility of the outbreak of large, multinational wars. The World Wars have left us with the memory of a great deal of devestation and threats to our own security. And the Middle East is perceived as the location of potential conflicts that could easily escalate into large-scale conflicts.Although it's true that these countries did not come to the Baath regime's defense militarily, the Security Council did vote against going to war with Iraq.What I meant, specifically, is that Iraq had very few allies within the Middle East. It was a progressive nation in some senses, and this created some friction in its dealings with more conservative, Shariah-dominated nations.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

In principle, I think States lie to their domestic populations when it comes to most things that are important...especially war. Bush is no exception, and is in a long line of liars (Democrat and Republican) when it comes to manipulating and bamboozling the population into acting against its own self-interest, constitutional law, and international agreements.If Iraq's leading economic output was bananas or mangoes, I don't think most Americans would even know it existed. Then, like Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan it would steadily evaporate before our eyes: why bother if there's nothing to gain strategically?Oil is key. Not simply for our use, but as leverage over the others in the world who also face a frightening decline in petroleum resources. Iraq is a stupendous prize, and whomever controls her oil controls a great deal. This is obvious.Military outpost in a US friendly region in the heart of oil rich Middle East is also key. This would serve as foundation for a reverberating influence, intrusion, and invasion of economic principles and open markets. Also, a superb market for supplying the military machinery and training for an entire nation...a treasure chest for the military industrial system in the US.I think the US wanted to teach a lesson to surrounding nations: do as you are told, or we will smash you. Chomsky calls it "establishing credibility"...and anyone who enjoys HBO's Sopranos understands exactly what it means.The timing for the invasion in 2003 was crucial to mid-term elections and forced the Patriotism hand of every candidate in a blatant, black and white display of "either you're with us, or against the troops fighting terrorism".The Bush administration misled the US into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat tied to the war on terror. In reality, it was a devastated nation, crippled by a decade of sanctions, two invasions, and steady bombings.We are certainly making things worse for future generations, in Iraq and the US.
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

MadArchitect: Oil is probably a factor.It might be the overbloated elephant taking a big ole shit right in the middle of the living room floor.Somebody crack a window.. But the U.S. also has a stake in the stability of other regions for other reasons. One significant reason is the possibility of the outbreak of large, multinational wars.Well, Mad, don't you think that invading Iraq runs counter to creating or maintaining that stability?Just to mention a couple of obvious results: At least two regimes have now openly asserted their pursuit of nuclear energy. One isn't shy about his desire for nuclear arms. Who knows what other nations might be doing in secret now that the US has become pre-emptively hostile.Cooled and dormant religious tensions in the Arab/Muslim world have now become hot and active. Something that may mean a great deal more in the future than now is the fact that Iraq was not the only country we shit on when we invaded it. Other countries already had oil deals pending the lifting of the sanctions. that makes me wonder about the potential large scale conflicts you mentioned. Seriously. The World Wars have left us with the memory of a great deal of devestation and threats to our own security. And the Middle East is perceived as the location of potential conflicts that could easily escalate into large-scale conflicts.Well, yeah. What I meant, specifically, is that Iraq had very few allies within the Middle East. It was a progressive nation in some senses, and this created some friction in its dealings with more conservative, Shariah-dominated nations.I might agree with that, but not without considering another factor -- a factor that, in my opinion, is enough to tip my scales into disagreement. No matter what some of those nations thought about Saddam, I think their distrust and enmity toward the US was and is greater.And if Saddam's Iraq was indeed more progressive than the more conservative Islamic countries, then wouldn't it have made more sense to use our unique, once-in-a-lifetime leverage after 9/11 to make him an ally and give him incentives to create and nuture that stablility we desire?Do you think the decade long sanctions were partially intended to facilitate a level of instability? Which might have, in theory, benefited our chances of a successful invasion and overthrow of his regime?
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

GDR: Well, Mad, don't you think that invading Iraq runs counter to creating or maintaining that stability?That depends on whether you're looking at long term or short term goals. In the short term, it destablized at least one nation, and may have upset some balances elsewhere. But the Bush administration may have looked at the Middle East and said, this region is only going to grow more and more hostile to Europe and America over the next 25 years unless we do something right now. Iraq probably wasn't giving a very good name to Western-style democracy -- it was in many ways modelled on Western forms, but was obviously tyranical. Other Middle Eastern nations may have easily inferred that this is the course of states that adopt a democratic model.Cooled and dormant religious tensions in the Arab/Muslim world have now become hot and active.Where had the religious tensions cooled and gone dormant? The last time I checked, Israel and Palestine were still at one another's throats and Islamic fundamentalists had just make major attacks in Spain, England and the U.S.No matter what some of those nations thought about Saddam, I think their distrust and enmity toward the US was and is greater.If you can point me to some literature that will back that claim, I might agree. I think that's a perception that we've gotten in the days since 9/11, but at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I'm not sure that the Baath regime wasn't more disliked than the U.S. Hussein was regarded in many circles as an infidel.And if Saddam's Iraq was indeed more progressive than the more conservative Islamic countries, then wouldn't it have made more sense to use our unique, once-in-a-lifetime leverage after 9/11 to make him an ally and give him incentives to create and nuture that stablility we desire?Regardless of whether or not I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, I don't think that Hussein was the sort of person to deal with through diplomacy. He was self-deluded and self-absorbed, and I don't think we could have trusted him as an ally. Iraq was progressive in according a more equal position to women and provided Western-style education. It has a higher literacy rate than many Middle Eastern culture. At the same time, it could also be a brutal tyranny, killing off dissidents and scaring the population into granting 100% election victories to the Baath regime. That's just a paradox that you have to accept with Iraq. It was just progressive enough to earn it the emnity of its neighbours, but far too much like a facist state to really be accepted into the Western fold.Do you think the decade long sanctions were partially intended to facilitate a level of instability? Which might have, in theory, benefited our chances of a successful invasion and overthrow of his regime?I think the sanctions were intended to make the nation weak, so that Saddam couldn't pose a military threat to other nations, ourselves included. And they were effective at that. The result is that we were able to invade with relative ease, but I don't think that was the intention from day one, no.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Did Bush mislead US into invading Iraq?

Unread post

Quote:Well, Mad, don't you think that invading Iraq runs counter to creating or maintaining that stability?Ha!! This isn't about what Mad thinks, this is about what Bush, Rumsfeld, Chenney, and all the goons think. No, I doubt they thought that invading Iraq ran counter to creating or maintain stability. We were going to go in with Shock and Awe and CRUSH the terrorists. YEA! GO AMERICA! WE SURE SHOWED THEM!More terrorists, we forced Iran's and North Korea's hands into a show of stregnth utilized for self defense, Iraq is more of a terrorist hot bed than ever, and the Middle East in general hates America now more than ever. Even if Bush didn't mislead the US, the administration was probably more short sited in it's objectives than the Vietnam war. Has any US miliary activity ever faced such harsh opposition from its very inception? The warning cries were lit off the world over. It still baffles me.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”