Why Did the US Attack Iraq in 2003?

[schwarzchildradius]

Nuclear, Biological, chemical weapons, Al-Qaida connection, Terrorism financing, all lies. Saddam started OPEC, and used it to cause a nasty gas crisis in the '70's.
The chem and bio weapons we gave him expired years ago, and the nuclear weapon is difficult from an engineering pov.
What's the real reason for attacking a secular islamic sovereign nation with 1/4 of the world's proven oil supply?
(BTW we can't sell the oil on the open market because technically we don't have the legal title to it)

 

[Zero]

I think part of the issue is that the 'war on terrorism' is basically a crock of sour owl poop, and Iraq is a distraction for that fact. Also, the neocons basically have dreams of empire, and Iraq was always their first goal.

 

[member 5645]

Or perhaps another reason that doesn't fit into your biased poll?

I liked this article:

If David Kay is right about what his weapons inspection teams have found -- or rather not found -- in Iraq, it's clear the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, says there are no large chemical and biological stockpiles likely to be found, and that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program had been literally buried. While he also concluded that Iraq had been aggressively moving to develop longer-range ballistic missiles, had kept its biological-weapons research program alive and tried to restart its nuclear program in 2001, the overall picture is far from the robust set of WMD programs suggested by one senior administration official after another in the year leading up to the war.

Critics of the war and the administration have been quick to use Kay's statements as evidence that the White House jury-rigged intelligence estimates to support its policy of getting rid of Hussein, and hyped what intelligence there was on Iraq's programs. But the Bush administration relied on virtually the same intelligence estimates that the Clinton administration used during the U.N.-inspection crisis in late 1997. As far as hype goes, it would be hard for anyone to beat then-Defense Secretary William S. Cohen's appearance on national television, holding up a five-pound sack of sugar and announcing that a similar amount of Iraqi produced anthrax was enough to kill half the population of Washington.

So, who is at fault? Right now, it looks like U.S. intelligence simply didn't do its job. Not that the job was easy; Iraq was a virtual police state, and Hussein was adept at uncovering plots against him and hiding his own plans. Remember, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we were surprised to discover that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was just months from producing a bomb -- not the five to 10 years that U.S. intelligence had thought. The reality is we had no high-level Iraqi spies who could tell us what was going on; moreover, Hussein appears to have been good at feeding false information through double agents and our high-tech collection systems. With no new information of note, it is no surprise that the analytic side of the intelligence community -- a bureaucracy like any bureaucracy, with its own inertia -- didn't change what it thought about these programs from what it had learned in the early 1990s.

It now appears that Hussein believed that by destroying his chemical and biological stockpiles and not rebuilding major weapons-production sites, he could keep U.N. weapons inspectors from finding anything significant and ease out of sanctions. Once the inspectors were gone and the sanctions eliminated, he could then use the smaller seed programs he had covertly maintained to rebuild and restock his WMD arsenal. Meanwhile, he hoped to deter the U.S. from a military invasion by feeding us disinformation that he still retained a deadly chemical-weapons capability. Obviously, it was a strategy that was too clever by half. And it was a strategy about which we had too few clues.

One result of this missed estimate of the Iraqi threat has been calls for the administration to rethink not only its assessment of the threat posed by the combination of weapons proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism but also the possibility of taking preemptive military action to address this threat. Can the U.S. employ such an option, with all the political and strategic risks it entails, when the intelligence it rests on seems so shaky?

The answer is not so clear. Although it appears the intelligence community overestimated the WMD threat posed by Hussein's Iraq, it is equally true that U.S. intelligence recently underestimated the nuclear weapons programs of two other rogue states, Iran and Libya. Both countries had programs further along and more sophisticated than either the U.S. or its allies knew. Based on these three cases -- and a history of previously underestimating WMD programs in Pakistan, India, North Korea and, yes, Iraq -- the lack of solid intelligence may mean we have more to worry about in the future, not less. What is becoming clear as we unravel both the Iranian and Libyan programs, with their webs of covert foreign suppliers, is how difficult it is to contain proliferation. It is premature to think that military preemption can be taken off the table completely.

So, what should be done? The most obvious goal should be to improve intelligence. Central Intelligence has too few spies who have access to these weapons programs, too few analysts with experience in the field and it lacks the capability to crack the deception and denial that surround the programs. That said, we shouldn't expect intelligence ever to improve to the point that a president will be relieved of having to make hard judgments. The fact remains that the programs on which we are collecting intelligence are readily hidden in a sea of normal commercial endeavors and a global trading system.

Our next goal, however, should be to understand that what we lack in detailed intelligence about weapons programs is more than offset by our strategic intelligence about particular countries' intent. We knew, for example, that North Korea had every intention of using its "peaceful" nuclear program to get a nuclear weapon as far back as the first Bush administration. We had similar insights into Pakistan's nuclear program, Iran's, South Africa's, South Korea's, Taiwan's and a host of other countries' ballistic missile and WMD programs. In some cases, we had the will to head off these efforts; in other cases, we didn't. Yet the decision not to act was rarely, if ever, because we didn't understand a country's intentions.

The real issue is whether we have the political will to use what we know to design policies for unfriendly countries far enough in advance so that we don't have to rely on the more difficult and risky military option. As the history outlined above suggests, we have had a sketchy record in this regard. As for the future, it's anybody's guess. On the one hand, Sept. 11, 2001 -- and the administration's reaction to it -- has made America and its allies more acutely aware of the dangers we face. Even countries that strongly disagreed with us over Iraq, such as France and Germany, have joined in the administration's Proliferation Security Initiative to help stop international trafficking in WMD technologies. And it would be hard to imagine Berlin, Paris and London taking the lead in addressing the Iranian nuclear program in the absence of President Bush having made the issue of terrorist-sponsoring states getting their hands on WMD a global security priority. However, the danger is that the apparent intelligence failure on Iraq's WMD programs will instill a new caution both here and abroad in how we tackle these issues.

But that would be missing the forest for the trees. Whatever the shortcomings in our intelligence on the particulars of Iraq's programs, the basic intelligence assessment that Hussein had never given up his desire to reconstitute his WMD programs was correct. While we should not avoid a debate over how the intelligence community came to misjudge the state of Hussein's programs, this should not distract us from what has always been the core issue for both defenders and critics of the war: To wit, given Hussein's intentions and history, would a policy of containment and deterrence have been sustainable and sufficient to prevent him from becoming a dangerous threat to the U.S. and our interests in the region?

I've highlighted points that I think aid in letting you know what my answer to your question would be

 

[Zero]

There seems to have been bias in the use of intelligence, phatmonkey...how do you answer those charges?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
There seems to have been bias in the use of intelligence, phatmonkey...how do you answer those charges?

Well first, and I mean this completely in a non sarcastic manner, what in particular are you refferring to? Just so we can get started on the same foot :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Well first, and I mean this completely in a non sarcastic manner, what in particular are you refferring to? Just so we can get started on the same foot :)

Basically, it has been claimed from at least as early as the mid 90's that the CIA has been easily manipulated to provide the results that politicians want. At the start of Bush's presidency, those of us in the know were making some of the same charges against the intelligence that Bush is making now.

 

[russ_watters]

I voted for #2, but if you're going to make the poll so slanted, you should at least include a "none of the above" option so people can view the results without contributing to the slant.

Basically, it has been claimed from at least as early as the mid 90's that the CIA has been easily manipulated to provide the results that politicians want. At the start of Bush's presidency, those of us in the know were making some of the same charges against the intelligence that Bush is making now.

Since the mid-90s? How about forever? Since politics is the art of manipulating information, and the CIA is an information agency of the government, that's self-evident.

The mid-90s is probably often cited because of who was president. He may have been the master, but he wasn't the original.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I voted for #2, but if you're going to make the poll so slanted, you should at least include a "none of the above" option so people can view the results without contributing to the slant. Since the mid-90s? How about forever? Since politics is the art of manipulating information, and the CIA is an information agency of the government, that's self-evident.

The mid-90s is probably often cited because of who was president. He may have been the master, but he wasn't the original.

My bad...I meant to type mid-70s. And, hey, Clinton must have been a master, he hardly got caught compared to the Republican presidents.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
My bad...I meant to type mid-70s. And, hey, Clinton must have been a master, he hardly got caught compared to the Republican presidents.

There isn't necessarily anything to "get caught" about: whenever he was in political heat, he bombed something. It didn't matter what - you can always think up a reason to bomb Iraq or another ruthless dictator and make it stick, at least enough to not take too much flak over it.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

the Bush administration relied on virtually the same intelligence estimates that the Clinton administration used during the U.N.-inspection crisis in late 1997. '

That's my POINT! Why the hell is a president in 2004 using intelligence from 1997 ? There are operatives on the ground gathering intelligence in 2003, why not use them? Because you don't care about what's TRUE. You care about what will cause FEAR.

and speaking to the comments that this is a biased poll, the only thing I've left out is "to Democratize Iraq." If you want to vote for that one, I suggest "Fundamentalist Theocracy" en leiu.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There isn't necessarily anything to "get caught" about: whenever he was in political heat, he bombed something. It didn't matter what - you can always think up a reason to bomb Iraq or another ruthless dictator and make it stick, at least enough to not take too much flak over it.

Are you talking about Clinton, or Bush?

 

[jimmy p]

I didnt vote for it, but now i wish i did...PENIS ENVY PENIS ENVY!
Zero, can u change my vote...i voted for the terrorism thing and i want to vote for penis envy now!

 

[motai]

I can vaguely imagine this incident (referring to the penis envy poll)

Bush:"I will not let Saddam come in here waving his weapons of mass destruction in my face! Mine is bigger and I will prove it!"

Of course, I could have chosen the other ones (like the domestic issue), but this one seemed to be far more interesting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by jimmy p
I didnt vote for it, but now i wish i did...PENIS ENVY PENIS ENVY!
Zero, can u change my vote...i voted for the terrorism thing and i want to vote for penis envy now!

I'm afraid you'll just have to make due with your write-in correction...

 

[jimmy p]

ok

I suppose i will have to chime in with "penis envy" every so often

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by jimmy p
ok

I suppose i will have to chime in with "penis envy" every so often

I hope not...

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius

and speaking to the comments that this is a biased poll, the only thing I've left out is "to Democratize Iraq."

Right, because you know that was mentioned in the article I posted. There's plenty more options.

 

[Nereid]

It's all about oil, it always has been about oil, and always will be. It's not just oil for SUVs, it's also control of oil to be able to influence the growth of China and India as competitors for global influence.

WMD? Kim Jong-il could do in a day what Saddam would take a year, even if Bush et al believed the intelligence reports sexed up to the max.

Terror? Dubya's mate President Pervez Musharraf has far, far more terrorists in his nation than M Hussein ever did, as the CIA knew, and knows, very well.

But there's no oil in North Korea, and none to speak of in Pakistan either.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Nereid


But there's no oil in North Korea

Ya know...that's just not true.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by kat
Ya know...that's just not true.

Evidence?

 

[kat]

Thar's oil in them thar hills

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/jan03/msg00041.html

North Korea's Oil Fields
North Korea has published three documents on its hydrocarbon reserves:

General Information on North Korean Oil Fields
East Sea (See of Japan) Reserves
West Sea (Yellow Sea) Reserves

These documents indicate oil reserves of 8-10 billion tons. This
information was released at Rajin-Sonbong seminars held in Japan and
reported by Sankei-Shinbun, a major Japanese newspaper. Jo-Chong-Ryon
(General Association of Koreans Resident in Japan) has published a
lower figure of 6 billion tons.

A Japanese petroleum engineer has examined samples provided by North
Korea at a Rajin oilfield and determined the crude to be of high grade.
North Korea is looking to joint-venture with major oil exploration
companies to co-develop its hydrocarbon reserv es as part of the
Rajin-Sonbong Free Trade Zone.

 

[Zero]

Yeah, NK has oil, but they also have a real army...and they also have China right next door.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The administration took things farther than did the CIA. They said in very certain terms things that the CIA did not say in very certain terms, things like "Iraq has X tons of sarin" and "this and that are chemical weapons trailers", etc. I'm pretty sure that the CIA never claimed to know this for certain, unlike the administration.

In addition, everyone knows the famous state of the union line about uranium from Africa. The White House was told that this information was false at least as early as 2002 after Ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The administration took things farther than did the CIA. They said in very certain terms things that the CIA did not say in very certain terms, things like "Iraq has X tons of sarin" and "this and that are chemical weapons trailers", etc. I'm pretty sure that the CIA never claimed to know this for certain, unlike the administration.

In addition, everyone knows the famous state of the union line about uranium from Africa. The White House was told that this information was false at least as early as 2002 after Ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria.

The way Hans Blix puts it is "they replaced our question marks with exclamation marks".

 

[amp]

Hey Ya'll

I'll read the other threads later. The poll should have an All of the above choice.

 

[Monique]

Where is the 'because of ignorance' button?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Where is the 'because of ignorance' button?

Its just assumed. Any action by Bush is assumed to have been done in ignorance, plus at least one other factor.

 

[Monique]

lol

but really, I don't think bush had a master plan in mind other than playing a super hero by catching the bad guy.

 

[MacTech]

?! Bush?! oh no no you got it all wrong.. it is "why did cheney attack iraq, eh?" Bush has no brain capacity for this type of thing. we all know that his computer is http://www.airmatecompany.com/products/catalog/etchasketch/etchasketch_main.jpg, and it isn't even the 3d one.

Anyway...

it was about oil, not about reconstruction... and about distracting the american public about the dwindling rights and home economics.

 

[member 5645]

For it being so clear that the whole war was one big master plan, you guys sure have a tough time agreeing on why, or even who was behind it.

 

[amp]

Well, after reading the threads the pattern emerges

some here are Bush Admin plants (conspircy theory). LOL - MacTech those models look to be to advanced for him, yeah I said it. If the Prez was so forthcomming, was so cooperative, was so full of integrity, then why is the 9/11 committe being stonewalled when they have a deadline to meet, Phatmonkey, Russ you can't deny your heros gross exaggerations, distortions of known facts, and manipulation of the fears of the masses were not intentional and directed to a goal which appears to have put the US in greater danger as well as causing the needless deaths of so many of our troops. Question, why wasn't he supprised (or visibly shocked) when told what happened on 9/11.

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by amp
some here are Bush Admin plants (conspircy theory). LOL - MacTech those models look to be to advanced for him, yeah I said it.

...

WHAT!

even the keychain one! you can take that everywhere!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
For it being so clear that the whole war was one big master plan, you guys sure have a tough time agreeing on why, or even who was behind it.

Looking for a simple black/white answer for complex geopolitical strategy? There are certainly multiple motives, and multiple people who have at least one motive, or multiple motives with varying priorities for each.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Looking for a simple black/white answer for complex geopolitical strategy? There are certainly multiple motives, and multiple people who have at least one motive, or multiple motives with varying priorities for each.

Yeah, but you guys are sitting here bickering over which is the right ones, or if it was Bush or Cheney. \

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by amp
some here are Bush Admin plants (conspircy theory). LOL - MacTech those models look to be to advanced for him, yeah I said it. If the Prez was so forthcomming, was so cooperative, was so full of integrity, then why is the 9/11 committe being stonewalled when they have a deadline to meet, Phatmonkey, Russ you can't deny your heros gross exaggerations, distortions of known facts, and manipulation of the fears of the masses were not intentional and directed to a goal which appears to have put the US in greater danger as well as causing the needless deaths of so many of our troops. Question, why wasn't he supprised (or visibly shocked) when told what happened on 9/11.

Amp, you know they will defend Bush's actions and motives to the death, if necessary...of course they will, why would they change their minds now, just because of the overwhelming evidence?