Why Did America Attack Iraq?

Re: Why Did America Attack Iraq?

englishmajor wrote:

Because Iraq was not responsible for the Towers going down. The attackers were Saudis. Did the Bush Adm. 'let' the attacks happen in New York? Would they do that to get the Americans pissed off enough to go to war? How else would they have gotten enough people willing to die in Iraq? Now Bush admits the 'war' is for oil and had nothing to do with WMD's. Of course, most people know by now that the Carlyle Group is composed of the Bush and bin Laden families. See a connection here? I'm not 'left' or 'right' -don't even live in America, and because of that I hear news reports that the U.S. censors. I think the whole 'war' has been a travesty. It's sad that only now Americans want the war to end because they cannot afford the hurricane disasters and also a war that's costing billions per week. Bush's popularity polls went lower because of the hurricane mismanagement than because of a war that should not have ever happened. Americans need to get their priorities straight. And sign onto the Kyoto Accord ASAP.

Please cite your source for this admission by Bush. Thank you.

0 Replies

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

from: www.boston.com

**there are other sites on the 'net as well. Suggest you check them out. Terrorism has been going on in the WORLD an awfully long time - well before 9/11 and Bush & his predecessors were not concerned. The Taliban obtained their weapons from the U.S. (You can easily check that out, it's common knowledge). Why does the US sell weapons to developing countries, is another question.....To think oil has nothing to do with this travesty in Iraq is not only naive -it is dangerous.

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

from: www.boston.com

**there are other sites on the 'net as well. Suggest you check them out. Terrorism has been going on in the WORLD an awfully long time - well before 9/11 and Bush & his predecessors were not concerned. The Taliban obtained their weapons from the U.S. (You can easily check that out, it's common knowledge). Why does the US sell weapons to developing countries, is another question.....To think oil has nothing to do with this travesty in Iraq is not only naive -it is dangerous.

To say that one benefit of the invasion is that it keeps Iraqi oil from coming under the control of terrorists, is hardly to say that the chief reason for the invasion is to obtain the oil. The chief reason for the invasion was simply what he said so many times that it was - because someone like Hussein cannot safely be permitted to amass WMD.

0 Replies

You seem to be asking more than one question here, English. For once -- and it's a rare lapse, I admit -- I agree with everything Brandon has said. Bush hasn't admitted at all that the invasion was "for oil." He has been touting the "humanitarian" aspects of ending Saddam's rule since the WMDs were an obvious red herring. I'm not sure that there is any connection whatever between 9/11 and the Iraq war except insofar that both pit the West against Islam (or vice versa, if you will). I think one of the prime reasons for invading Iraq was an attempt to set right what Pappy Bush screwed up with the first Gulf War. That's when Saddam should have been taken out, not so many years later.

0 Replies

I for one can think of no valid reason for the invasion of Iraq. Neither it seems can the Bush administration considering that they have amended the reasoning several times since.
I can only wonder if time could be rolled back would the addle brained one have taken the same course of action.

0 Replies

If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?

0 Replies

Maybe years and years from now Iraq will have settled into some form of their own belief of democracy. It may be that the three different sections, Kurds, Shia, and the Sunni's will have devolved into their own sections. Who really knows?

What I have always held against this whole thing was the dishonest and the unilateral way the Bush administration went about this Iraq experiment. I also never understood why it was important to do it so forcefully right in the middle of Afghanistan war.

In any event, in my opinion based on readings from sites such as the New American Century and from the book, "The Price of Loyalty" and from interviews on Salon.Com with Bill Clinton about his book "My life" where he talks about Paul Wolfowitz, it was something those in the top positions of the Bush administration were just determined to do and they did it.

0 Replies

Re: Why Did America Attack Iraq?

englishmajor wrote:

Because Iraq was not responsible for the Towers going down. The attackers were Saudis. Did the Bush Adm. 'let' the attacks happen in New York? Would they do that to get the Americans pissed off enough to go to war? How else would they have gotten enough people willing to die in Iraq?

Tripe

Now Bush admits the 'war' is for oil and had nothing to do with WMD's. Of course, most people know by now that the Carlyle Group is composed of the Bush and bin Laden families. See a connection here?

Brandon has ably responded to this canard.

I'm not 'left' or 'right' -don't even live in America,

You know, I think they have a "left" and a "right" even in Canada.

and because of that I hear news reports that the U.S. censors. I think the whole 'war' has been a travesty.

It's sad that only now Americans want the war to end because they cannot afford the hurricane disasters and also a war that's costing billions per week.

Of course Americans want the war to end. Despite what our friends north of the border may believe, Americans are not in favor of a perpetual state of war.

There are significant differences between the following positions held by people who can be said to have differences with the Administration on the war in Iraq:

1) They never wanted it to start and they want it to end now - complete withdrawal. A fairly static group

2) They never wanted it to start, but since it did they believe the US needs to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion. Some may have moved to group #1, but not a lot.

3) They supported it when it began, but now question the wisdom of the action, but nevertheless believe the US needs to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion. This is the group that has grown the most since the start of the war

4) They supported it when it started, but now want it to end -complete withdrawal. A tiny fraction at best.

Between those who continue to support the war, and groups #2, and #3, the bottom line position of the majority of Americans is to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion. So if by "Americans want the war to end" you mean most Americans want an immediate and complete withdrawal - you are simply wrong.

To what uncensored news reports do you have access that have led you to the conclusion that Americans who want the war to end (right now) feel this way because of fiscal reasons? Heaven knows I am not an tremendous fan of the anti-war movement in the US, but I certainly give them far more credit than your cynical assessment.

The Bush's popularity polls went lower because of the hurricane mismanagement than because of a war that should not have ever happened. Americans need to get their priorities straight. And sign onto the Kyoto Accord ASAP.

It would seem your priorities for Americans are:

1) Sign the Kyoto Accords
2) Pull out of Iraq
3) Improve the nation's disaster response capabilities

Not all that surprising for someone who isn't American.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?

It's not over yet. The time to ask that question will be when it is over.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?

It's not over yet. The time to ask that question will be when it is over.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Maybe years and years from now Iraq will have settled into some form of their own belief of democracy. It may be that the three different sections, Kurds, Shia, and the Sunni's will have devolved into their own sections. Who really knows?

Right now, no one.

What I have always held against this whole thing was the dishonest and the unilateral way the Bush administration went about this Iraq experiment. I also never understood why it was important to do it so forcefully right in the middle of Afghanistan war.

It amazes me that the allegation of unilateral action endures despite a vast array of facts presented whenever this allegation is raised.

The reasons why it was important to invade Iraq when we did have been repeatedly provided. I know that you don't agree with them, but do you really not understand them?

In any event, in my opinion based on readings from sites such as the New American Century and from the book, "The Price of Loyalty" and from interviews on Salon.Com with Bill Clinton about his book "My life" where he talks about Paul Wolfowitz, it was something those in the top positions of the Bush administration were just determined to do and they did it.

Well, yes. They were determined to do it, because they believed it was in the best interests of America to do so. Again, I realize you do not agree with them, but do you really think they all simply woke up one morning and said "Damn, I'd like to invade Iraq today. Not sure why, but I'll be damned if anything or anyone will stop me!"?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?

When you pose this question, you must take into account the fact that WMD might have been discovered. Under similar circumstances, the next time it comes up in some dictatorship, WMD might be discovered. Your question contains an implicit misconception, since it ignores that fact that had a hidden stash of WMD been discovered, it might have caused terrible havoc in the world down the line.

0 Replies

Quote:

It amazes me that the allegation of unilateral action endures despite a vast array of facts presented whenever this allegation is raised.

The reasons why it was important to invade Iraq when we did have been repeatedly provided. I know that you don't agree with them, but do you really not understand them?

It was unilateral in that it didn't wait for a UN decision to carry out a UN resolution. The Bush administration just decided on their own to invade Iraq and some other countries went along with them.

Their reasons changed from day to day but even taking all their reasons together I didn't then and I don't know understand now why it was necessary to drum up the war and all that before we were done with Afghanistan. They never made a convincing case for understanding it, in my judgement.

Quote:

Well, yes. They were determined to do it, because they believed it was in the best interests of America to do so. Again, I realize you do not agree with them, but do you really think they all simply woke up one morning and said "Damn, I'd like to invade Iraq today. Not sure why, but I'll be damned if anything or anyone will stop me!"?

No I don't think they just woke one morning and decided to invade Iraq. It was planned a long time ago before the Bush administration took office and they just waited for the opportunity for support to do so and when 9/11 came and the country was hot to go out and defend ourselves they knew they had their chance. Those in Bush administration were the same people in PNAC and their mission was making the middle east friendly to our interest.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Quote:

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

Quote:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Quote:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Quote:

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Quote:

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

One can agree or disagree with their assessments but the fact remains that two names remains consistent through out all these letters and document and those same two people (and more) are still in the Bush administration today and have been part of the off all the decisions from the start. They were finally in a position to carry out all their plans and the did it. All the going before the security council and touting all those new evidence of nuclear weapons in the form of mushroom clouds was just something they told us in order to get support to carry out their long formed plans. Afghanistan was just a temporary glitch in their plans that they had to do in because everyone knew Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and he was in Afghanistan and the taliban refused to give him up.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
It amazes me that the allegation of unilateral action endures despite a vast array of facts presented whenever this allegation is raised.

The reasons why it was important to invade Iraq when we did have been repeatedly provided. I know that you don't agree with them, but do you really not understand them?

It was unilateral in that it didn't wait for a UN decision to carry out a UN resolution. The Bush administration just decided on their own to invade Iraq and some other countries went along with them.

Well then, you're argument should be that the Bush Administration, along with some other countries, launched a war that was not sanctioned by the UN. This is quite different from a unilateral action.

Of course you realize that neither the Security Counsel nor the General Assembly was ever going to sanction the war. Whether this was because of international politics or hearfelt conviction, is it your belief that the US is government is subservient in authority to the UN?

Their reasons changed from day to day but even taking all their reasons together I didn't then and I don't know understand now why it was necessary to drum up the war and all that before we were done with Afghanistan. They never made a convincing case for understanding it, in my judgement.

Perhaps it is merely semantics, but I have to wonder if it is at all possible that if someone provided an explanation of the reasons for going to war when we did, that was clearer than what was given by the Administration, you might change your mind and support the war. If that's the case, I'll be happy to give it a shot.

Do you feel you don't understand their reasoning or do you simply disagree with it?

Quote:
Well, yes. They were determined to do it, because they believed it was in the best interests of America to do so. Again, I realize you do not agree with them, but do you really think they all simply woke up one morning and said "Damn, I'd like to invade Iraq today. Not sure why, but I'll be damned if anything or anyone will stop me!"?

No I don't think they just woke one morning and decided to invade Iraq. It was planned a long time ago before the Bush administration took office and they just waited for the opportunity for support to do so and when 9/11 came and the country was hot to go out and defend ourselves they knew they had their chance. Those in Bush administration were the same people in PNAC and their mission was making the middle east friendly to our interest.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Quote:
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

Quote:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Quote:
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Quote:
We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Quote:
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

One can agree or disagree with their assessments but the fact remains that two names remains consistent through out all these letters and document and those same two people (and more) are still in the Bush administration today and have been part of the off all the decisions from the start. They were finally in a position to carry out all their plans and the did it. All the going before the security council and touting all those new evidence of nuclear weapons in the form of mushroom clouds was just something they told us in order to get support to carry out their long formed plans. Afghanistan was just a temporary glitch in their plans that they had to do in because everyone knew Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and he was in Afghanistan and the taliban refused to give him up.

But if one agrees with their assessments, and believes that its a good thing to have a Middle-East that is friendly to our interests, and not a threat, why would one have a problem with their being determined to find an opportunity to carry out the strategy, even before 9/11?

It is entirely logical that 9/11 would reinforce the importance of such a strategy in the minds of these individuals, and serve as a catalyst, rather than an excuse for going to war with Iraq.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Afghanistan represented a "glitch" in the plan. Clearly, the two actions have not been mutually exclusive, and neither has had a substantial impact on the other.
I appreciate that there are some who believe that somehow the manpower and money being spent on the Iraqi war, if redirected, would have long ago resulted in the capture of Bin Laden, but this ignores the realties of the search.

The two most likely current hiding places of Bin Laden are Pakistan and Iran. It is not a shortage of troops or money that prevent us from going into these areas and capturing the man.

Nothing about prosecuting the war in Iraq has made it more difficult, politically, to secure the capture of Bin Laden from either country. We are not deferring to the refusal of either country to allow our armed forces within their borders to hunt Bin Laden down simply because we are engaged in Iraq, and if we were not in Iraq, we would not be having an easier time convincing them they should allow our troops on their soil.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

au1929 wrote:
If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?

It's not over yet. The time to ask that question will be when it is over.

It's over.

0 Replies

To say that it is 'tripe' that America allowed the Towers to be blown up is naive. Intelligence (an oxymoron in the US) including the CIA had knowledge of an imminent attack months before. Remember, it had been attacked before in the 1990'.s Do you recall Bush's reaction when he was told about the planes crashing into the Towers? He kept reading to schoolchildren. Doesn't that strike you as a strange and abnormal reaction for a COMMANDER IN CHIEF, unless of course he already knew about it. Certainly, the Bin Laden family were flown out of NY in a private jet after the attacks. The connection between the bin Laden's and the Bush family is well known. You have heard of the Carlyle Group? You don't think Bush/Cheney stand to make, and have made, millions of dollars from this 'war', from Bush's relatives who develop gas masks to the rebuilding of Iraq (Halliburton/Cheney). If you think Bush was concerned about removing Saddam for humanitarian reasons, think again. Bush was on a personal vendetta; his comment 'they tried to kill my daddy' (paraphrase) had everything to do with his decision to go to war with people who had not been involved with the Tower bombing. I notice you did not address that fact either. It was the Saudis who were responsible for that act. bin Laden will not be found, because that's part of the deal. They can't find a guy over 6 ft. tall in a country of short people??

My comment about Americans not supporting the war any longer and demanding the troops be brought back, esp. in view of the hurricane damage can be found at: www.commondreams.org, which contains articles from Reuters, AP, etc. SEE BELOW: (also contains comments about the handling of hurricane)

Published on Saturday, September 24, 2005 by Reuters
'End This War': Hundreds of Thousands Protest Iraq War
by Lisa Lambert

WASHINGTON - More than 100,000 protesters flooded Washington on Saturday to stage dual demonstrations against the U.S.-led war in Iraq and economic globalization, before coming together to demand President George W. Bush bring troops home.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan (center R) of Vacaville, California, and Reverend Jesse Jackson take part in a protest march to end the war in Iraq, in Washington, September 24, 2005. Hundreds of thousands of protesters flooded Washington on Saturday to stage dual demonstrations against the U.S.-led war in Iraq and economic globalization, and to demand that President George W. Bush bring troops home now. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Thousands of demonstrators march through San Francisco to protest the war in Iraq on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

Demonstrators take part in a massive protest against U.S. involvement in Iraq, in downtown Los Angeles Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005. Drums pounded, voices boomed and whistles shrieked as demonstrators, some 15,000 by police estimates, marched in the shadows of downtown skyscrapers Saturday, one of several California demonstrations on a day of protests across the country. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)

"We need a people's movement to end this war," said Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester whose son was killed in fighting in Iraq. Camping out in Crawford, Texas, during much of August while Bush was vacationing there, Sheehan's rallies drew crowds there that sometimes numbered in the hundreds as she demanded a meeting with Bush.

Bush, who met with Sheehan in 2004 after her son was killed, refused to meet with her again.

"We'll be the checks and balances on this out-of-control criminal government," Sheehan, who has become the anti-war movement's best-known face, told the group gathered at the Ellipse, a park behind the White House.

In Los Angeles, about 15,000 people protested peacefully, while thousands more marched in San Francisco and in London urging an end to military action in Iraq nearly 30 months after an invasion ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The crowds in Washington swelled through the day, and by late afternoon organizers of the anti-war demonstration said 300,000 people had assembled -- exceeding an anticipated 100,000. Washington police declined to comment on the size of the rally.

Meanwhile, 1,000 to 3,000 people, as estimated by demonstration organizers, gathered a few blocks away to protest the autumn meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, saying policies that promote globalization and reduce trade barriers hurt the world's poor.

CIRCLING THE WHITE HOUSE

Many of them joined the anti-war march that circled a wide swath of downtown Washington, including the White House. They walked slowly, and often silently, and carried a blocks-long string of pictures of the 1,900 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq.

"We're here to bring a dose of reality to the American public," said Chad Hetman, a member of an anti-war veterans' group. "This war was based on lies."

The protesters were graying baby boomers who had railed against the Vietnam War, parents pushing strollers with toddlers, college students and a few adults in wheelchairs.

On Washington's National Mall, they set up a faux military cemetery of hundreds of small, white crosses in neat lines. In Los Angeles, 60 mock coffins draped in American flags were laid out in rows on a downtown street.

"This is what we are losing every day," said Vickie Castro, of Riverside, California, standing in front of the coffins with a picture of her son, Cpl. Jonathan Castro, who was killed in action in Mosul, Iraq, in 2004.

Demonstrations in Washington and London took aim at the Bush administration, calling its policies and actions "criminal."

Some protesters carried signs calling Bush and Cheney "Liars." One sign said, "Bush is a Cat 5 Disaster," in a reference to the recent hurricanes that have hammered the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Another said, "Make Levees, Not Humvees" -- referencing the New Orleans levees that Katrina breached and recalling the "Make Love, Not War" chant of 1960s Vietnam war protesters.

VARIED CAUSES

The demonstrations also drew anarchists, communists and environmentalists. Others called for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba and expressed solidarity with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the Palestinians.

Protesters tried to link their separate causes under the umbrella of a fight against global poverty.

Some at the IMF/World Bank protest said they were fighting for the rights of the poor in Louisiana displaced by Hurricane Katrina, the poor in Iraq who are being hurt by war and those that protesters say are forced into poverty by IMF policies.

A U.S. veterans' group criticized the protesters.

"The political protesters of the '60s didn't end their war and neither will this new generation," Jim Mueller, head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said in a statement. "They will, however, achieve the same result -- they will devastate troop morale."

A veteran of the Iraq war at the Washington march disagreed.

"People join the military to defend their country, not lies," said Adam Reuter, a 22-year-old Georgia resident who was given a medical discharge from the Army four months ago.

Washington police said they made two arrests by Saturday afternoon.

Additional reporting by Paritosh Bansal in Los Angeles

© 2005 Reuters Ltd.

If you, Finn, think the war is so noble, why don't you join up? or donate YOUR son? also, did you ever ask yourself why Israel gets to have WMD's???
love to hear your reasoning on that one.
BTW, I am an American. It's called being an ex-pat. Sure glad I am.

0 Replies

More info for you:

Published on Thursday, September 22, 2005 by the Canadian Press
Public Pressure Mounts for Bush to Curtail Iraq War After Katrina Disaster
by Beth Gorham

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush says he can wage war in Iraq and still pay most of the huge bill for rebuilding the hurricane-lashed Gulf Coast. Most Americans don't agree with him. And for the first time, Bush is facing a serious revolt in his own party over how to pay for hurricane relief.
Republicans already edgy about the estimated $200-billion US price tag to clean up after Katrina were bracing for more damage by week's end as hurricane Rita hurtled toward Texas and the battered Louisiana coast.

For now, they're split on whether to cut domestic programs or add billions more to the whopping $333-billion U.S. deficit, options that Americans clearly aren't favouring in opinion polls.

And with congressional elections looming next year, analysts say legislators are increasingly feeling the heat from voters who tell pollsters the Iraq war was a mistake and Bush is spending too much there.

If the tide of public opinion doesn't budge, Bush may not be able to withstand an abrupt change in priorities, said Charles Cushman, a politics professor at George Washington University.

"His supporters in Congress could abandon him if he's not going to be able to help them get re-elected," he said.

"There will be tremendous pressure to declare victory no matter what's going on in Iraq and go home."

A new Gallup survey Wednesday reported a record high in the percentage of Americans favouring a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq, with 63 per cent saying some or all of them should come home.

The opinion shift on troop withdrawal was similar among Republicans, Democrats and independents.

And 54 per cent of Americans chose less spending on Iraq over other means of paying for Katrina, including increasing the deficit, cutting domestic programs or raising taxes, an option Bush has ruled out.

Public approval of Bush's handling of Iraq tumbled eight points in just the last week, to 32 per cent.

An Iraq backlash from Katrina was evident in other recent polls, including an Associated Press-Ipsos survey this week in which two-thirds said Bush was spending too much on the war.

As well, a recent New York Times survey suggested more than eight in 10 Americans are concerned about the $5 billion US spent each month in Iraq, with support for the war falling to an all-time low.

Still, only 26 per cent said they expected U.S. troops to be withdrawn within two years.

"Technically, it is possible for the administration to continue to wage war in Iraq and launch huge domestic efforts," said Will Dobson, managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

"The question is whether either can be done to the expectations of the public," he said. "And now Bush is in complete damage control mode."

The president's record low approval ratings after the bungled response to Katrina didn't improve following a nationally televised speech last week where he promised to fund one of the world's largest reconstruction efforts.

In a recent editorial, Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the aftermath of Katrina will "inevitably" increase political pressure on Bush to reduce his involvement in Iraq and spend more to rebuild or improve the country's capacity to deal with future disasters.

Even before Katrina stuck, there were increasing concerns about the effectiveness of the Iraq effort, which has gobbled nearly $200 billion US and claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil last month near Bush's Texas ranch also renewed national focus on the war and its toll on the 140,000 soldiers there.

But analysts say it was clearly Katrina that sparked an abrupt spike in discontent, against the backdrop last week of the deadliest day in Baghdad since the March 2003 invasion, when more than 150 people were killed in suicide bombings.

And the hurricane catastrophe has supplied renewed energy for anti-war groups planning massive rallies in the U.S. capital this weekend.

Some groups are now specifically targeting individual U.S. legislators on the issue of whether they're soft on national security.

"The terrible tragedy of Katrina brought a silver lining and that's more scrutiny of Bush's foreign and domestic policy," said Bill Dobbs, media co-ordinator for United for Peace and Justice.

"We've got to put Congress on the hot seat. Congress gave George Bush the authority and money to wage this war. Now they have to hold him accountable."

And that's exactly the president's weak spot, said Cushman, who notes that much of the war costs have been borrowed and China holds a lot of the U.S. debt.

"Even considering the Reagan deficits, which were enormous, these guys make them look like pikers," he said. "They're spending money like drunken sailors."

The question, said Cushman, is whether Democrats can mount an effective case against waste and abusive government in next year's elections.

That kind of campaign worked well on the flip side for former speaker Newt Gingrich, credited with in 1994 with marshalling the electoral success that allowed Republicans to take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

"Democrats might actually get their act together now. There's a counter-case to be made," said Cushman.

"It could be a very compelling indictment of malfeasance and incompetence in office."

(englishmajor comments: of course, it IS Canadian Press. But if you can find FACTS to dispute any of it I'd be pleased to know about it).

And yes, there is 'right and left' political parties in Canada of course, but the religious aspect of the Conservatives is much more of a minority (found mostly in Alberta, the petrol province) and the eastern Cons. have their origins in the Tory's, which were pro empire/crown and not pro republican. We have multiple political parties here (4) - 5 if you count the Greens. No one party in Canada can have complete power like they do in the States because it is a parlimentary system (social democrat) here, and is more representative of various parties, because each party can hold seats in the House of Commons (legislature). All parties must be conferred with to make a law. It is much more democratic that the States. There you only have 2 parties.

0 Replies

Able2Know post
Finn, suggest you read 'new posts' specifically the post 'what really happened on 9/11'. long read but interesting facts. especially a comment by one employee in the Tower who wondered why they had been evacuating people days before, etc etc. No prior knowledge of an attack? Poppycock. There is evidence that bombs were in the building......just in case the planes missed......there were several floors that were vacant, due to remodeling. Of course, if you want to hang onto your viewpoint based on fiction, go ahead. Laughing

but you would be wise to know both sides of the story.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Well then, you're argument should be that the Bush Administration, along with some other countries, launched a war that was not sanctioned by the UN. This is quite different from a unilateral action.

Of course you realize that neither the Security Counsel nor the General Assembly was ever going to sanction the war. Whether this was because of international politics or hearfelt conviction, is it your belief that the US is government is subservient in authority to the UN?

People. both the administration and it's supporters, give the UN resolution as a defense for the invasion of Iraq. I am saying if they give the UN resolution as a reason, and Bush did go to the UN so one can assume it was not just for show, then it would have been right to work with the UN as a group and come to a group decision with a vote about invading Iraq. But Bush didn't do that and he took the place of the UN inspectors and just decided to invade Iraq. He made a unilateral decision rather than a collective decision made with the UN.

unilateral defined

Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme> b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos>
3 : UNILINEAL
4 : having only one side
- uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb unilateral defined

Perhaps it is merely semantics, but I have to wonder if it is at all possible that if someone provided an explanation of the reasons for going to war when we did, that was clearer than what was given by the Administration, you might change your mind and support the war. If that's the case, I'll be happy to give it a shot.

Do you feel you don't understand their reasoning or do you simply disagree with it?

I don't agree with it.

But if one agrees with their assessments, and believes that its a good thing to have a Middle-East that is friendly to our interests, and not a threat, why would one have a problem with their being determined to find an opportunity to carry out the strategy, even before 9/11?

It is entirely logical that 9/11 would reinforce the importance of such a strategy in the minds of these individuals, and serve as a catalyst, rather than an excuse for going to war with Iraq.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Afghanistan represented a "glitch" in the plan. Clearly, the two actions have not been mutually exclusive, and neither has had a substantial impact on the other.
I appreciate that there are some who believe that somehow the manpower and money being spent on the Iraqi war, if redirected, would have long ago resulted in the capture of Bin Laden, but this ignores the realties of the search.

The two most likely current hiding places of Bin Laden are Pakistan and Iran. It is not a shortage of troops or money that prevent us from going into these areas and capturing the man.

Nothing about prosecuting the war in Iraq has made it more difficult, politically, to secure the capture of Bin Laden from either country. We are not deferring to the refusal of either country to allow our armed forces within their borders to hunt Bin Laden down simply because we are engaged in Iraq, and if we were not in Iraq, we would not be having an easier time convincing them they should allow our troops on their soil.

We don't have the right to change the world according to our interest so I disagree with their carrying out their long ranged plans. I beleive they would have went ahead with their plans regardless of 9/11 and that is why I think Afghanistan was merely a glitch in their plans on removing Saddam Hussein from power.

We should have stayed in Afghanistan to better secure the place and better support the new government there. Instead we took most of our troops and resources and diverted them to Iraq. Now we have two messes, Iraq and Afghanistan. Both places are a security disaster and that is because we have a flub up of an administration that was determined to carry out their Iraq experiment and didn't listen to anyone about all the post saddam problems that would ensue once we got rid of saddam Hussein. But instead relied on their visions of what they felt would be parades and flowers thrown in our honor as liberators. That is the price both America and Iraq has to play for allowing a bunch fanatical out of touch of zealots to carry out their fantasies.

I am firm in my beliefs as I imagine you too, so if you like we can agree to disagree. This Iraq stuff has rehashed to death.

0 Replies

Why Did America Attack Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know