Re: Why Did America Attack Iraq?
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.
America, it seems, is suffering from hubris.
America invaded a country that possessed no WMDs, and according to Scott Ritter had been pretty much all dismantled. The administration needed to create a pretext for invasion, thus the WMD canard had to do.
The lack of substance behind these allegations were so pervasive that the administrations claims could not be verified. In fact, the Bush neo-con hawks parroted this nonsense of "WMD"s for so long even they began to full heartedly believe their own lies.
But when the administration was asked to actually verify their claims in terms of substance, it fell short. This happened when Collin Powell went in front of the security council and it turned out all the intelligence they had was pretty much horsepucky.
Of course, the invasion of Iraq is in line with larger geopolitical aims of the neoconservatives and other Washington hawks. The plans for invading Iraq did not begin right before the invasion and right after 9-11 (since supposedly there was that mythical link which turned out to be another bogus claim like the WMDs).
The plans for invading Iraq had been on the minds of the key hawks within Washington for a long time. Ultraconservative think tanks and groups such as the AEI or the Project for a New American Century (PNAC which is located at the 5th floor of the AEI) of which Dick Cheney was a part of, brewed up these grand visions even before 9-11. Names such as Rumself, Cheney, Irving Kristol and his Weekly Standard
gang. Of course the chief architects for this war were Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz.
The war was fought for primarily three reasons. First, it was fought to demonstrate that it was possible to free the U.S. from subordination to international law and the constraints of the U.N. and other allies. 9-11 provided a key opportunity for this, and the neoconservative intellectual policy makers that came to dominate after that event, saw this as their golden opportunity and Iraq was the lab rat used in this experiment.
Second, it was fought to establish long term American bases in the Middle East, and you can hear such names as "fourteen enduring bases" come up. This has largely come about since there is no guarantee in Saudi Arabia due to its volatile situation and America being the empire that it is, has to have bases somewhere in the Middle East.
Third, it was fat to remove Saddam, one of the few remaining of the third world dictators, and a dictator who has at many times defied the United States, and has threatened America's "special ally" Israel. So this war was in effect fought primarily for Israel and it is no wonder that many of the neoconservative architects and their policies had alot in common with Israels. The neo-con policy is perhaps most apparent in the 1996 report prepared for Benjamin Netenyahu by an Israeli think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Do you know who the chief author of that report was? It was Richard Perle of the AEI.