Why Did America Attack Iraq?

The first casualty of war is....?

Remember Secretary Powell's WMD speech. How convincing he was. And he was wrong on every point.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff has offered a remarkably blunt criticism of the administration he served, saying that foreign policy had been usurped by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," and that President Bush has made the country more vulnerable, not less, to future crises.

The comments came in a speech Wednesday by Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Mr. Powell at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005. Speaking to the New America Foundation, an independent public-policy institute in Washington, Mr. Wilkerson suggested that secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding had taken a heavy toll in the Bush administration, skewing its policies and undercutting its ability to handle crises.

"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."

Mr. Wilkerson suggested that the dysfunction within the administration was so grave that "if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."

Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations."

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues," he said.

The former aide referred to Mr. Bush as someone who "is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either." He was far more admiring of the president's father, whom he called "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."

Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.

real life wrote:

Well I guess if YOU have decided, then that's it.

No point taking the word of someone who has actually BEEN THERE.

Hah - real life the weakest witness in a case is always the eye witness, they are frequently very wrong about what they thought they saw.

Finn - seriously - I admire your ability to not get upset at some things.

Steve-O Old Son, I am going to take your seriously - not so much because I trust you, but because I agree (in general) with your observation, and because it gives rise to a subject with which I am facinated...(no, not me), cyber-relations.

Truth be told, I do get upset at a few things posted on A2K, but they tend to be comments which strike me as monumentally ignorant; almost never insults or ad hominems.

I don't know why the slings and arrows of outrageous A2Kers would or should upset me. A2K is a cyber-forum, a place where we can indulge in intellectual freedom and masquerade. I fully realize that for any number of posters, A2K is a concrete community, and they may actually dislike Finn D'Abuzz, but I resist their desire (concious or otherwise) to impose the constraints of the material world on this cyber-haven.

A2K insults are a stimulus, not an affront.

I would take one point in issue though. "Ample" is frequently a eupehmism for "big" which is a euphemism for "fat". If that avatar has a fat rear end I need my computer checked

My usage of "ample" was consistent with several dictionary definitions, and with no euphemistic intent:

Of large or great size, amount, extent, or capacity.

Large in degree, kind, or quantity: an ample reward.

More than enough: ample evidence.

Fully sufficient to meet a need or purpose:

Ample is not a euphemisim for "big," any more than is Rubenesque.

It may be used as a euphemisism for "fat," but that's sloppy usage, and not employed by me.

Englishmajor's avatar has an ample derriere. It invokes a cartoonish lust which should, in no way, be interpreted as an insult.

When someone employs an actual photo of themselves as an avatar (a facinating choice in itself) I am quite sensitive about commenting upon it. I will admit that I've mistaken at least one woman as a man, but that was an innocent mistake, with no offense intended.

Sorry for the drift, please resume normal hostile relations

And now I return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Well, I guess I missed something here. I thought this thread was about why America attacked Iraq, not about someone's avatar? I suppose if Finn does not have a valid argument, then he resorts to name calling? Finn, could we get back on the subject? BTW I checked the avatar in question - no ampleness there!

Very interesting, indeed. Of course that is why there is a war in Iraq. I am trying to convince someone on another thread that 9/11 was planned well before in order to get Americans whipped up to such a patriotic fever that they'd want to go to war. Which they did. America is desperate for oil and will stop at nothing to get it.

The next war I see on the horizon, I think, will be for fresh water........

englishmajor is perceptive about the war for water. I live in an arid country (well much of it is arid) and water is a political issue here and very much an economic one. We have some people telling us that water is too cheap and that we need to pay more for it so that we conserve it better. They do have a point, I will concede that, but making a commodity of water only means it goes to the wealthiest, not that it's conserved and used properly.

Hooyah EM!

As for China - what a scary, gloomy picture. Western capitalist economies singing the praises of a nominally communist, absolutely totalitarian system which is rapacious in its consumption of resources. Capitalism is seeding its own destruction (okay I nicked that from good old Karl) by sucking up big time to China.

How is this a gloomy picture?

I tend to agree with what I perceive your point to be, that China is by no means assured to be the next Primo Economic power on earth.

Do you really think that Western capitalists are about to bet the farm on China? Some, undoubtedly, will, and these bold folks will either become the next wave of Magnates or Paupers.

Gosh you Lefties need to either spend more time in corporations or do a whole lot more research. I trust that you will do neither and fully expect that you will continue to parrot the Lefty bilge about Big Bad Corporate America taking the whole effin world down with them.

Here is the disconnect:

Those who yearn to take America down a peg will consstently tell us to look out for China. Good effin Lord ( whoa, that's a religious thread waiting to burst) we better all start to learn Mandarin (Hey wait a minute. didn't these same people, in the 80"s, tell us we all better start learning Japanese, and how to read a Nippo business card?)

These same experts will tell us that the end of the American Empire is inevitable because of

- Excessively disparate relations between the Haves and the Have Nots
- Militarism
- Restrictions on personal liberties
- Environmental degradation
- Slavery to non-renewable energy sources

Duh, China?

Considering that economic, social, and politcal dynamics tend to effect each and every nation in much the same way, is there any logical conclusion other than the critics of America have a pathological hatred for the US of A?!

pachelbel wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Momma Angel, I am disappointed in you, of all people! I have read many threads and gather you are Christian? Yet you can agree with what Finn Duh Buzz said and even laugh at his vulgar use of language concerning someone's avatar? Ohhhhhh.....bad. Shame on you!

pachelbel,

I was not agreeing with what Finn said. And what I was laughing at was his use of the word ample.

And yes, pachelbel, I am Christian. I am also human and I also have a sense of humor. I got a giggle out of one little word he used and unfortunately, I didn't make that very clear.

Being Christian doesn't mean being perfect. Disappointed in me? Why? Sweetie, never ever put someone above being able to make mistakes or disagree with you. You will find you will always be disappointed.

And Finn, I do not agree with most of what you say. I just did get a giggle out of your use of the word. Plain and simple.

englishmajor wrote:

Very interesting, indeed. Of course that is why there is a war in Iraq. I am trying to convince someone on another thread that 9/11 was planned well before in order to get Americans whipped up to such a patriotic fever that they'd want to go to war. Which they did. America is desperate for oil and will stop at nothing to get it.

The next war I see on the horizon, I think, will be for fresh water........

Not, I'm afraid it is not, and if you succeed in convincing "someone on another thread" that 9/11 was planned ....please reveal their identities so I may ignore each and every posting they make.

I won't even quality that with an answer.
The power of ideological hysteria to stultify native intelligence is astounding.

Open up your history book and put some lotion on your redneck. You can use a rag if you want to and study the Spanish-American War and the Yellow Press. Hearst's papers made a lot of money from that war. How about Poland's terrorist attack on a radio station as well as the burning of the Reichtag building as Hitler's excuse to kill communists and invade Poland. Or -how about Pearl Harbor: not planned, but allowed to happen?
Bottom line: it took less time to get Hitler than has passed in the pursuit of bin Laden. The British and American forces need the Russians, I guess. Precious time and resources were diverted by the Iraq fiasco led by naive advisors of a president who "doesn't reflect" and makes fun of his lack of education. We all know how he got through college.

To date, Bush has done everything bin Laden wanted him to do. (1) He got rid of Saddam (2) He has guaranteed Palestinian sovereignty (remember the land was taken by Moses through genocide) (3) he has removed all US troops from Saudi soil. Is bin Laden still on CIA payroll?

As for oil profits, you seem to have some awareness of stocks and the global economy. You fail to recognize the law of supply and demand. Prices have gone up due to China and India's demand with help from pulling Iraqi oil off stream via the war. With current oil prices (Katrina aside) how can you say oil corps are not making a killing?

Was oil a factor in the war in Iraq? Of course!

Would anyone in the West really care about what happened to a bunch of ignorant towel heads in the Middle East if they weren't sitting on the continued font of 21st century energy? Of course not, just look at Africa.

What about North Africa's oil? Arabs wear headgear traditionally just like you wear a cowboy hat. Or is it a baseball cap? The vast majority of Iraqis are Shiite (Persian) and wear no such garb, not to mention the Kurds.

Oil attracts our gaze to the Middle East. Oil is why we have international terrorists. Oil is why Israel has not been free to crush the Palestinian vermin once and for all. Oil is why the Saudis have financed Wahabi Jihadists around the globe. Oil is why Mr Nobel Peace Prize - Jimmy Carter propped up the Shah of Iran. Oil is why Canada is prepared to drop her ecological britches to suck the foul crude from Canadian sands. Oil is why the monster Saddam was supported by The West. Oil is why a evil rat like Yassir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The reason we have terrorists and Wahabism goes back to the 18th century when coal wasn't even part of the equation. Read your history. Believe it or not, some people don't care for secular humanism, including Wahabis. That is why they fought against the Saudi royal family, Turks, Nasser, Russian communists, Syria and Iraq.

If only Lawrence of Arabia had oil to play!

For all of you gadflies who would open our eyes to the influence of oil...no fu*king kidding!

Now, let's return to Iraq.

If the United States was truly ruled by a cohort of venal scumbags, owned by American oil interests, would they really have invaded Iraq?

(SEE ABOVE FOR REPLY).

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BUMPER STICKER: I FEAR MY GOVERNMENT BUT I LOVE MY COUNTRY?)

Would it not have been much easier for these soulless puppets of American petro-interests to accommodate Saddam in any way he thought fit? Hell, the French and Russians followed this avenue. Were our oil-interest puppets just not venal s.o.b.s but moronic ones at that?

Yes, it would, as witnessed by Rumsfeld hugging Saddam while Kurds were being gassed. Saddam just got a little too uppity, like Noreiga and Castro and Allende. Saddam's plan to peg oil prices to the Euro might have been a factor?

Corporations in general (irrespective of whether or not they are domiciled in the US or are tied to oil) are compelled by the capital markets to achieve short term successes. Check it out, the War in Iraq did not drive US oil company stocks consistently up. Au contraire. The war in Iraq, perforce, reduced Iraqi oil production. There may have been a time when big ass companies looked to the long terms, but no more. If oil interests in America were trying to influence Bush it was in terms of keeping things stable in the Middle East. I would bet considerably large sums of money on the fact that oil industry magnates (unaffected by their ideology) were not in favor of invading Iraq.

(SEE ABOVE, i.e. supply and demand). Since Bush had to pull forces out of Saudi Arabia his Texas cowboys figured Iraq was the natural strategic location for the flyboys. Too bad they weren't up on history, or they would have been able to anticipate the current civil war in Iraq.

The ideological idiots would have us believe that Corp Bloodsuckers make their decisions based solely upon the impact on profits and share price (In reality it has a lot more to do with share price than profits. One might think the two are inextricably woven, but they are, alas, not.), and maybe they do. However this is not consistent with the notion that the Corp Bloodsuckers will also influence (if not command) the White House to take actions that hold no promise for immediate profits or increased share price.

It is not ideaology but simple facts that Condelezza, who used to work for Chevron, and Cheney for Halliburton, etc etc is that enough of a revolving door? There is more involved than oil: it is, in Eisenhower's words 'the industrial military complex' and the need for a rationale (idealogy) for its existence. Fact: the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting ripped apart, economically as well as politically. As the middle class shrinks, the US gets more and more like the Banana Republics it has dictated to. Fascism is alive and well in Amerika, disguised by a pseudo republic, Hollywood, video games, and Ronald McDonald smiles. Read Brave New World?

Sorry folks, but even the Bad Guys have to be consistent or they will soon be nonexistent.

And yet....there may very well be future wars based upon fresh water. Insightful, unless one is parroting a futurist. In any case substitute water for oil. The political and economic dynamics will be the same. The geography, of course, will not. When water significantly supercedes oil as a crucial natural resource, the Middle East will retreat back towards the Stone Age, and Canada (Hoo-yeah EM!) will become the new Saudi Arabia.

You got it mixed up. Stone age lingered in Europe and North America much longer than the Mid East. Currently, Turkey controls the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates as well as making regular shipments of water to Israel via tankers. Egypt and Sudan control the Nile. The Caucasus and Caspian hold vast amounts of water. Given that this is all in the Mid East don't hold your breath.

But hell those lovely Canuks...give them the pivot point of the global economy and they will lead us to the Promised Land

Yeah, eh? And hopefully Canadians will do that without another war.

englishmajor wrote:

Very interesting, indeed. Of course that is why there is a war in Iraq. I am trying to convince someone on another thread that 9/11 was planned well before in order to get Americans whipped up to such a patriotic fever that they'd want to go to war. Which they did. America is desperate for oil and will stop at nothing to get it.

The next war I see on the horizon, I think, will be for fresh water........

Not, I'm afraid it is not, and if you succeed in convincing "someone on another thread" that 9/11 was planned ....please reveal their identities so I may ignore each and every posting they make.

color=red]I won't even quality that with an answer. [/color]
The power of ideological hysteria to stultify native intelligence is astounding.

Open up your history book and put some lotion on your redneck. You can use a rag if you want to and study the Spanish-American War and the Yellow Press. Hearst's papers made a lot of money from that war. How about Poland's terrorist attack on a radio station as well as the burning of the Reichtag building as Hitler's excuse to kill communists and invade Poland. Or -how about Pearl Harbor: not planned, but allowed to happen?
Bottom line: it took less time to get Hitler than has passed in the pursuit of bin Laden. The British and American forces need the Russians, I guess. Precious time and resources were diverted by the Iraq fiasco led by naive advisors of a president who "doesn't reflect" and makes fun of his lack of education. We all know how he got through college.

To date, Bush has done everything bin Laden wanted him to do. (1) He got rid of Saddam (2) He has guaranteed Palestinian sovereignty (remember the land was taken by Moses through genocide) (3) he has removed all US troops from Saudi soil. Is bin Laden still on CIA payroll?

As for oil profits, you seem to have some awareness of stocks and the global economy. You fail to recognize the law of supply and demand. Prices have gone up due to China and India's demand with help from pulling Iraqi oil off stream via the war. With current oil prices (Katrina aside) how can you say oil corps are not making a killing?

Was oil a factor in the war in Iraq? Of course!

Would anyone in the West really care about what happened to a bunch of ignorant towel heads in the Middle East if they weren't sitting on the continued font of 21st century energy? Of course not, just look at Africa.

What about North Africa's oil? Arabs wear headgear traditionally just like you wear a cowboy hat. Or is it a baseball cap? The vast majority of Iraqis are Shiite (Persian) and wear no such garb, not to mention the Kurds.

Oil attracts our gaze to the Middle East. Oil is why we have international terrorists. Oil is why Israel has not been free to crush the Palestinian vermin once and for all. Oil is why the Saudis have financed Wahabi Jihadists around the globe. Oil is why Mr Nobel Peace Prize - Jimmy Carter propped up the Shah of Iran. Oil is why Canada is prepared to drop her ecological britches to suck the foul crude from Canadian sands. Oil is why the monster Saddam was supported by The West. Oil is why a evil rat like Yassir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The reason we have terrorists and Wahabism goes back to the 18th century when coal wasn't even part of the equation. Read your history. Believe it or not, some people don't care for secular humanism, including Wahabis. That is why they fought against the Saudi royal family, Turks, Nasser, Russian communists, Syria and Iraq.

If only Lawrence of Arabia had oil to play!

For all of you gadflies who would open our eyes to the influence of oil...no fu*king kidding!

Now, let's return to Iraq.

If the United States was truly ruled by a cohort of venal scumbags, owned by American oil interests, would they really have invaded Iraq?

(SEE ABOVE FOR REPLY).

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BUMPER STICKER: I FEAR MY GOVERNMENT BUT I LOVE MY COUNTRY?)

Would it not have been much easier for these soulless puppets of American petro-interests to accommodate Saddam in any way he thought fit? Hell, the French and Russians followed this avenue. Were our oil-interest puppets just not venal s.o.b.s but moronic ones at that?

Yes, it would, as witnessed by Rumsfeld hugging Saddam while Kurds were being gassed. Saddam just got a little too uppity, like Noreiga and Castro and Allende. Saddam's plan to peg oil prices to the Euro might have been a factor?

Corporations in general (irrespective of whether or not they are domiciled in the US or are tied to oil) are compelled by the capital markets to achieve short term successes. Check it out, the War in Iraq did not drive US oil company stocks consistently up. Au contraire. The war in Iraq, perforce, reduced Iraqi oil production. There may have been a time when big ass companies looked to the long terms, but no more. If oil interests in America were trying to influence Bush it was in terms of keeping things stable in the Middle East. I would bet considerably large sums of money on the fact that oil industry magnates (unaffected by their ideology) were not in favor of invading Iraq.

(SEE ABOVE, i.e. supply and demand). Since Bush had to pull forces out of Saudi Arabia his Texas cowboys figured Iraq was the natural strategic location for the flyboys. Too bad they weren't up on history, or they would have been able to anticipate the current civil war in Iraq.

The ideological idiots would have us believe that Corp Bloodsuckers make their decisions based solely upon the impact on profits and share price (In reality it has a lot more to do with share price than profits. One might think the two are inextricably woven, but they are, alas, not.), and maybe they do. However this is not consistent with the notion that the Corp Bloodsuckers will also influence (if not command) the White House to take actions that hold no promise for immediate profits or increased share price.

It is not ideaology but simple facts that Condelezza, who used to work for Chevron, and Cheney for Halliburton, etc etc is that enough of a revolving door? There is more involved than oil: it is, in Eisenhower's words 'the industrial military complex' and the need for a rationale (idealogy) for its existence. Fact: the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting ripped apart, economically as well as politically. As the middle class shrinks, the US gets more and more like the Banana Republics it has dictated to. Fascism is alive and well in Amerika, disguised by a pseudo republic, Hollywood, video games, and Ronald McDonald smiles. Read Brave New World?

Sorry folks, but even the Bad Guys have to be consistent or they will soon be nonexistent.

And yet....there may very well be future wars based upon fresh water. Insightful, unless one is parroting a futurist. In any case substitute water for oil. The political and economic dynamics will be the same. The geography, of course, will not. When water significantly supercedes oil as a crucial natural resource, the Middle East will retreat back towards the Stone Age, and Canada (Hoo-yeah EM!) will become the new Saudi Arabia.

You got it mixed up. Stone age lingered in Europe and North America much longer than the Mid East. Currently, Turkey controls the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates as well as making regular shipments of water to Israel via tankers. Egypt and Sudan control the Nile. The Caucasus and Caspian hold vast amounts of water. Given that this is all in the Mid East don't hold your breath.

But hell those lovely Canuks...give them the pivot point of the global economy and they will lead us to the Promised Land

Yeah, eh? And hopefully Canadians will do that without another war.

Finn,

I have to admit your sense of humor does intrigue me. I will have to get back with you a bit later. Actually, I think the only thing I didn't agree with was the use of any namecalling. I did want to ask you something about a post though. I will get back to it this afternoon. Am on my way to town to do an errand!

Thanx

Well, I have yet to be called a calcified antiquique. I have to go look that up to see if I'm supposed to be offended or not! LOL