| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 11:08:19 AM |
| Object: |
Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
.
|
|
| User: "Butros Butros Golleee!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 05:07:12 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce3df$479cba84$3f183a8c$17459@DIALUPUSA.NET...
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Some say it was because Bush was incredibly jealous of Sadamn because of
these pics released...
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/c/saddam_bush_briefs.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 12:58:03 PM |
|
|
Black Elk <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ce3df$479cba84$3f183a8c
$17459@DIALUPUSA.NET:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Invading other countries is what Republicans do
to stop coverage of their failures. In Reagan's case
he invaded Grenada a week after his humiliating retreat
from Beirut. In Bush's case it was a "Bin Laden got away"
distraction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 11:14:01 AM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Oil and stupidity. They go hand in hand.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ellis_jay" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 06:01:11 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
We wanted to own their sand?
--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government. ___Edward Abbey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zigler" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 12:27:37 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 11:08 am, Black Elk <windriver2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
boredom... evil... sucking neocon *****?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 09:10:17 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 12:08=EF=BF=BDpm, Black Elk <windriver2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Shalom aleikhem;
Q. What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
A. The George W. Bush Administration's intentions of removing Saddam
Hussein from power are not a recent development by any stretch of the
imagination. Top White House officials affiliated with conservative
think tanks and past administrations have been developing strategies
for removing the Iraqi leader since the 1990s.
One such think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
published a report in September 2000 recommending policies for
preserving and expanding U.S. dominance in world affairs, including an
aggressive policy for deposing Saddam Hussein. Members of this group
include Vice President ***** Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
convicted Iran-Contra perjurer and current National Security Council
(NSC) staffer Elliot Abrams, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and assistant for national
security affairs.
U.S. military action against Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein has long been
a goal of members of the present Bush Administration. The PNAC report
was based upon a 1992 draft of the Pentagon's Defense Planning
Guidance, which was prepared for then-Defense Secretary Cheney,
Wolfowitz and Libby. At the time Libby and Wolfowitz were part of
Cheney's policy staff.
Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa
Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/category/netanyahu-watch/
The Project for the New American Century
Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing
permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. Kagan, for example,
willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish
permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq. ...
US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy
headache at a stroke Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003
The Observer
By Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he
expected an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the
near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.
"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.
"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."
Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.
Shalom:
"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to
Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential
future government figures in Baghdad.The plan envisages the
reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the
British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's
northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Iraqi invasion: oil perspective
The British built the Kirkuk-to-Haifa pipeline in 1927. In 1934, they
completed a 12-inch pipeline from the Kirkuk fields to Al-Haditha on
the Euphrates River. At that point the pipeline forked. One branch
went through Syria to Tripoli (Lebanon). The other went across Jordan
to Haifa. The British built refineries at both Tripoli and Haifa to
handle this Iraq oil. (In World War II, Germany wanted to get control
of this oil.)
In 1945 the British added a parallel 16-inch pipeline in Syria.
When Jews started to invade Palestine in 1945, Syria shut down its
branch to Tripoli. Iraq shut down all oil from from Kirkuk to Haifa.
At that point, most of northern Iraq's oil went to the Turkish port
city of Gihan, which was OK with the US, since Turkey was a US ally
against the USSR. Turkey collect transit fees for this oil.
In 1947 the British oil refinery at Haifa still handled trickle of oil
from miscellaneous areas, and still employed some 1,700 Arab workers,
plus 360 Jewish employees. The Arab and Jewish workers formed a union
to oppose British tyranny. Then Israel was created. Immediately Irgun
(commanded by Menachem Begin), the Hagana and other terrorist groups
moved in. Irgun had bombed the King David Hotel the year before, and
they started massacring Arabs in Haifa and elsewhere.
In 1952, western oil companies built two new lines through Syria to
Tripoli. The pipeline to Haifa was allowed to decay. Pieces of it were
dismantled. Various interests used the pieces to build water
pipelines.
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa (Kirkuk oil fields were said to contain
perhaps 40% of Iraq's oil), and partly to bring oil deals to his
personal friends, such as Ray L. Hunt. Small American oil companies
like Hunt Oil will extract Kurdish oil as soon as and if Mosul and
Kirkuk are broken off from Iraq (17 November 2007). Mosul is the first
stop for Kirkuk oil.
When the Haifa pipeline opens back up, only Jordan (not Israel) will
collect hefty transit fees. Kurdish oil will go to Europe via Israel,
not Turkey. This might be a reason why Turkey is threatening to
invade. The minute Bush invaded Iraq, the Turkish realized that the
pipeline to Haifa would be opened back up. Therefore Turkey tried to
make deals with Central Asian states (such as Azerbaijan) to get new
pipelines to Turkey, but now Iran and Russia have foiled Turkish plans
by forming the new alliance of Caspian Sea states. Turkey feels
squeezed. This is yet another reason why they are threatening to
invade northern Iraq.
Shortly after the 2003 invasion, Benyamin Netanyahu (the then Israeli
finance minister) boasted, "Soon you will see Iraqi oil flowing to
Haifa. It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is
reconstituted, and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean. It's not
a pipe dream."
Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US guaranteed all
Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This MoU is quietly
renewed every five years. It commits US taxpayers to maintain a
strategic US reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002
dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from
restrictions on oil exports from the US. Moreover, the US government
agreed to divert oil from the US, even in case of oil shortages in the
US. The US government also guaranteed delivery of oil in US tankers
if
commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the
US to Israel.
SEE
Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding
(September 1, 1975)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
Israel can wrench a lot of oil from the region if the pipeline were
used again and Kurds were willing to sell the oil. It would also make
Kurds dependent on Israelis for oil revenues and thus give a greater
leverage to Israelis over Kurds of the region...
We are All Jews Now
Aidel gepotchket - Delicately brought up
Consider the present crisis in America and the rise of anti-
Americanism worldwide. "The US has become a Jewish state in more ways
than one. It has the same security checks, the same holocaust museums,
the same poverty for many and riches for a few as Israel
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm
Azoy gait es! - That's how it goes!
Shavuah Tov
---- The Dybbuk Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JSM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 12:50:28 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 9:08 am, Black Elk <windriver2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Not that I'm a Bush supporter but we need to keep the facts straight.
The US had suffered the second attack from terrorists on the
continent. 95% of the world figured Saddam had Nukes, he did have
poison gas, and was believed to be working on germ warfare. The UN
sent Hans Blix and his guide dog to Iraq and while he didn't find
anything, he did find a lot of evidence that there was a lot of hiding
going on. Saddam (a real likeable guy according to Obama) kicked the
inspectors out and we played this cat and mouse game while in the
meantime good ol Saddam used the helicopters he had received the OK to
use from the UN to kill off more of his opponents in Iraq. In the
meantime his sons, one was putting people he didn't like through a
wood chopper and the other was 'requesting' school officials to pick
him out something young and tender on a weekly basis. But Obama is
sure this was just a mis understanding and a strongly worded letter
would straighten it all out. Still does.
So, 95% of the world thought Sad had nukes and he was obviously hiding
something else he wouldn't have kicked the inspectors out. So the US
said put up or shut up and Sad said 'come and get me' so Bush did.
I do believe Bush did this in part because he thought himself a hero
and I also believe because of the extraordinary amounts of money
involved with a war he and his friends would be able to siphon off
vast amounts of money with little or no consequence. That, in fact,
he has done. I doubt he has the mental capacity to run the show on
his own but somebody is pulling the strings. I didn't used to think
it was Cheney but now I think otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baggi B" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 01:47:49 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 11:50 am, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:08 am, Black Elk <windriver2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What was the Bush administration's real reason for invading Iraq?
Not that I'm a Bush supporter but we need to keep the facts straight.
The US had suffered the second attack from terrorists on the
continent. 95% of the world figured Saddam had Nukes,
What a load of crap. If you are not a Bush supporter, then you have
fallen for his propaganda hook line and sinker. At least you have the
brains to admit Bush does not have the brains.
Baggi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Aulds " |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 01:14:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:50:28 -0800 (PST), JSM <ekrubmeg@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, 95% of the world thought Sad had nukes and he was obviously hiding
something else he wouldn't have kicked the inspectors out. So the US
said put up or shut up and Sad said 'come and get me' so Bush did.
I do believe Bush did this in part because he thought himself a hero
and I also believe because of the extraordinary amounts of money
involved with a war he and his friends would be able to siphon off
vast amounts of money with little or no consequence. That, in fact,
he has done. I doubt he has the mental capacity to run the show on
his own but somebody is pulling the strings. I didn't used to think
it was Cheney but now I think otherwise.
Wrong. On the 95% figure, and also the oft-repeated lie that Saddam
kicked out the weapons inspection teams.
"the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not
admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war
this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush
had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them
effective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56336-2003Jul14
Wrong. Furthermore, I believe you KNEW you were wrong when you made
those statements ... in other words, I believe you deliberately made
claims you knew were false.
Very much like those who told us they had "irrefutable proof" of the
evidence of "vast stockpiles" of WMD that made the tiny, defenseless,
virtually unarmed nation of Iraq an "imminent threat" to the US. They
did not have evidence; they knew they did not; they said it anyway.
That makes them ... well, you know what that makes them.
Don't you?
Charles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 01:38:44 PM |
|
|
Charles Aulds wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:50:28 -0800 (PST), JSM <ekrubmeg@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, 95% of the world thought Sad had nukes and he was obviously hiding
something else he wouldn't have kicked the inspectors out. So the US
said put up or shut up and Sad said 'come and get me' so Bush did.
I do believe Bush did this in part because he thought himself a hero
and I also believe because of the extraordinary amounts of money
involved with a war he and his friends would be able to siphon off
vast amounts of money with little or no consequence. That, in fact,
he has done. I doubt he has the mental capacity to run the show on
his own but somebody is pulling the strings. I didn't used to think
it was Cheney but now I think otherwise.
Wrong. On the 95% figure, and also the oft-repeated lie that Saddam
kicked out the weapons inspection teams.
"the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not
admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war
this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush
had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them
effective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56336-2003Jul14
Wrong. Furthermore, I believe you KNEW you were wrong when you made
those statements ... in other words, I believe you deliberately made
claims you knew were false.
Very much like those who told us they had "irrefutable proof" of the
evidence of "vast stockpiles" of WMD that made the tiny, defenseless,
virtually unarmed nation of Iraq an "imminent threat" to the US. They
did not have evidence; they knew they did not; they said it anyway.
That makes them ... well, you know what that makes them.
Don't you?
Charles
It's hard to believe with as much money as we dump into the
Military-Corporate-Industrial Complex's spy apparatus the U.S. didn't
know exactly what time Saddam got out of bed in the morning and what he
had for breakfast.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? |
27 Jan 2008 08:49:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 2:38=A0pm, Black Elk <windriver2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Charles Aulds wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:50:28 -0800 (PST), JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, 95% of the world thought Sad had nukes and he was obviously hiding
something else he wouldn't have kicked the inspectors out. =A0 So the U=
S
said put up or shut up and Sad said 'come and get me' so Bush did.
I do believe Bush did this in part because he thought himself a hero
and I also believe because of the extraordinary amounts of money
involved with a war he and his friends would be able to siphon off
vast amounts of money with little or no consequence. =A0That, in fact,
he has done. =A0I doubt he has the mental capacity to run the show on
his own but somebody is pulling the strings. =A0I didn't used to think
it was Cheney but now I think otherwise.
Wrong. =A0On the 95% figure, and also the oft-repeated lie that Saddam
kicked out the weapons inspection teams.
"the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not
admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war
this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush
had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them
effective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56336-2003Jul14
Wrong. =A0Furthermore, I believe you KNEW you were wrong when you made
those statements ... in other words, I believe you deliberately made
claims you knew were false.
Very much like those who told us they had "irrefutable proof" of the
evidence of "vast stockpiles" of WMD that made the tiny, defenseless,
virtually unarmed nation of Iraq an "imminent threat" to the US. =A0They=
did not have evidence; they knew they did not; they said it anyway.
That makes them ... well, you know what that makes them.
Don't you?
Charles
It's hard to believe with as much money as we dump into the
Military-Corporate-Industrial Complex's spy apparatus the U.S. didn't
know exactly what time Saddam got out of bed in the morning and what he
had for breakfast.- Hide quoted text -
Well, they did actually. They were so stupid, they let
him get up every morning at 7am to plan how to
watch The Godfather movies. Since the
"Military-Industrial-Complex" only even exists on idiot Wall Street.
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
