Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why did Bush attack Iraq, eh?

  1. To acquire 1/4 of the world's oil supply for Texas based oil companies

    7 vote(s)
    36.8%
  2. To prove to his dad that he's a big boy now

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  3. Because terrorism increases fear, which is necessary to manipulate the public (basically to cause te

    5 vote(s)
    26.3%
  4. To acquire public treasure for Texas oil companies

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Divert attention from domestic policies, which are annoying

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  6. To replace a secular agnostic government with a fundamentalist theorcacy

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  7. Penis envy

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%
  1. Feb 16, 2004 #1
    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 dont have the legal title to it)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 16, 2004 #2
    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.
     
  4. Feb 16, 2004 #3
    Or perhaps another reason that doesn't fit into your biased poll???

    I liked this article:


    I've highlighted points that I think aid in letting you know what my answer to your question would be
    :smile:
     
  5. Feb 16, 2004 #4
    There seems to have been bias in the use of intelligence, phatmonkey...how do you answer those charges?
     
  6. Feb 16, 2004 #5

    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 :)
     
  7. Feb 16, 2004 #6
    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.
     
  8. Feb 16, 2004 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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, thats 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.
     
  9. Feb 16, 2004 #8
    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.
     
  10. Feb 16, 2004 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. Feb 16, 2004 #10
    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.
     
  12. Feb 16, 2004 #11
    Are you talking about Clinton, or Bush?
     
  13. Feb 16, 2004 #12

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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!
     
  14. Feb 16, 2004 #13
    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.
     
  15. Feb 16, 2004 #14
    I'm afraid you'll just have to make due with your write-in correction...:smile:
     
  16. Feb 16, 2004 #15

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :frown: ok

    I suppose i will have to chime in with "penis envy" every so often
     
  17. Feb 16, 2004 #16
    I hope not...
     
  18. Feb 16, 2004 #17
    Right, because you know that was mentioned in the article I posted. There's plenty more options.
     
  19. Feb 16, 2004 #18

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Feb 17, 2004 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    Ya know...that's just not true.
     
  21. Feb 17, 2004 #20

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Evidence?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why did Bush attack Iraq, eh?
  1. Why Bush? (Replies: 55)

Loading...