Quote :

"And BTW, a supposedly WMD-enabled Iraq was a threat to the US Isreal. That's the reason."

yes.

and conveniently enough they had oil. and americans who had banded together with their sorrow and aggression (9/11) were persuaded by the government to direct their momentum towards iraq. Because attacking saudi arabia would be counterproductive to us interest (hint: o*l.)

6/10/2008 4:18:59 PM

^^http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/10/2008 4:19:42 PM

War. War never changes.

The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

But war never changes.

In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: Petroleum and Uranium. For these resources, China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve into quarreling, bickering nation-states, bent on controlling the last remaining resources on Earth.

In 2077, the storm of world war had come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet was reduced to cinders.

6/10/2008 5:02:41 PM

^are you serious?

Quote :

"In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. "Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense," says Walcott. "And that really prompts you to ask, 'Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?'""

Your own article further proves my point...that we went into Iraq because of WMD intelligence. Again, the argument is not whether the info was right or wrong, how the media hyped the info, ect..

PS...Moyer....really....the ultra liberal Moyer did GB and Russia come to the same conclusion? They must have been saying the same things that "didnt make sense" after the fact......

6/10/2008 5:06:22 PM

Quote :

"Also, id like to point out that the " war on terrorism " has allowed the U.S to set up many more military bases around and in oil enriched countries. Its the ultimate preemptive attack since it is closing off the one resource needed to fuel every aspect of a nations economy."

This is a point with which I tend to agree. I also heard a very interesting theory and that is that we are preemptively positioning for the next Cold War. If this is the case, I will be taking back a LOT of what I have said about Bush & Co. Only time will tell.

6/11/2008 12:41:05 AM

The point was that we were sold the war, in a very calculated way, based on at best shaky and at worst, outright false intelligence that was presented to the American public as fact.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=321

I saw an article about a Congressional investigation into this that I saw today, I'll see if I can find it. If you object to my using Bill Moyers, then blame the administration that turned me and a lot of other people from moderate-to-right-leaning individuals into pseudo-Democrats (I'm registered independent so I can interfere in anyone's primaries in NC). I voted Bush one time, and I was fooled pretty well one time. I'd like to think we'll learn something from our mistake.

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : Found what the article was referencing.]

6/11/2008 12:48:10 AM

You give the American government and the people far too much credit in that you are assuming they had a rational plan in mind.

In the year or so since 9-11, America was angry and not the least bit overconfident after seeing the military take on the Taliban with (what appeared to be) little difficulty. Iraq had always been a thorn in the US' side...for the 10 or so years since the Gulf War, there had been how many shooting incidents? I think that America (particularly GW Bush) felt that this was their opportunity to "finish the job" from 1991. If it were really about oil, you would think that we'd be plundering the country a little more competently, right?

6/11/2008 9:00:29 PM

Quote :

"Iraq had always been a thorn in the US' side...for the 10 or so years since the Gulf War, there had been how many shooting incidents?"

Iraq was never a thorn in our side. We never even needed to be there. They were a bother to us only because we decided to set up camp there. Ever gone camping and deliberately set your temp next to a hornet's nest? I bet those fuckers would be pretty annoying.

Quote :

"If it were really about oil, you would think that we'd be plundering the country a little more competently, right?"

You're absolutely right about this. If this was for oil, gas prices would be decreasing not increasing right now lol.

6/11/2008 10:29:30 PM

6/11/2008 11:44:19 PM

Quote :

"Iraq had always been a thorn in the US' side...for the 10 or so years since the Gulf War, there had been how many shooting incidents? I think that America (particularly GW Bush) felt that this was their opportunity to "finish the job" from 1991."

Maybe it was just me, but didn't war with Iraq seem like an inevitabilty throughout the 90s? We dropped bombs on them almost every other day.

6/12/2008 12:13:24 AM

didnt seem like an inevitability for me til about 99 or so when gwb started getting real popular

6/12/2008 12:15:07 AM

Did you miss the bombing campaigns and missile strikes whenever Saddam started acting like a douche?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1990-1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000

6/12/2008 12:23:55 AM

damn man i wish i wouldnt have watched so much wrestling back then

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 12:28 AM. Reason : and played video games]

6/12/2008 12:28:42 AM

gas prices up up and away !

7/7/2008 8:27:02 PM

driven more largely by global demand and intense market speculation

(i.e. lack of investment alternatives, new commodity bubble)

it was still about oil though

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/90509


[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ...]

7/8/2008 2:54:20 AM

^^^^ back when he campaigned on relative isolationism? No, GWB in 1999 or 2000 wasn't beating the war drum.

7/8/2008 3:14:39 AM

Quote :

"First thing Russia would do is invade anwr and drill our oil."

The next cold war will likely come from disputes over oil located under the north pole. Russia is already claiming ownership of oil reserves located there. Some estimates say there may be almost as much oil there as Saudi Arabia. It would definitely be a contested resource that the world isn't going to just give to Russia.

Add to that the fact that global warming is opening shipping lanes through the arctic that can save around 2000 nautical miles on trade routes from Europe to Asia (which becomes even more important when you factor in the cost of fuel) and the arctic region may be the last great territory grab.

7/8/2008 11:12:29 AM

You mean besides the moon, right?

7/9/2008 1:48:20 AM