Why the Iraq war was necessary. Bush did what any good president would do to protect our country.

Al Quida is a Saudi based and funded organization that’s purpose was to start a fundamentalist Sunni Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia with the purpose of overthrowing the Saudi kingdom. Just like the Shia in Iran did.
To achieve this goal Ben Laudin started attacking American targets. First they attacked the American embassies in Africa. When the U.S. did nothing Al Quida got stronger claiming that the U.S. was a paper tiger and afraid of losing a solider. By the time the Cole was attacked and again we did nothing and Al Quida was now very popular in the Middle East. Al Quida was now an army and well funded by private Saudi citizens. The revolution was getting closer.
The purpose of 9/11 was to start the revolution in Saudi Arabia. But Bin Laudin made a mistake, Clinton was gone and Bush was president.
First thing Bush has to do was take out Al Quida’s army and those that harbored them ASAP. He needed to show the Arab world that you don’t mess with the US. If he delayed he risked an uprising in not only Saudi Arabia but all of the Middle East.
Because it takes several months to mobilize our army he sent in our special forces. Working with the Northern alliance in Afghanistan they quickly overran both al Quida and the Taliban, showing the might and power of the United States. This move brought the Middle East to a halt as everyone there was awed by our power.
A decision was made that was very important to the well being of both Saudi Arabia and the Middle East when we had Bin Laudin trapped in the caves of Bora Bora. If he was killed he would become a martyr and that could start the uprising. If he was captured he would become a martyr and that could start the uprising. Bin laudin was let go on purpose so that he would become isolated and inept, and over time irrelevant in the Middle East. As he is now.
Bush has another problem; while he defeated the army of Al Quida the organization was still very strong in Saudi Arabia. The revolution was very close to happening. The Saudi king was weak and afraid of taking on Al Quida and would not act against them within his own country. Bush had to both force Saudi Arabia to act against Al Quida and be able to back up the Saudis in case Al Quida overwhelmed the Saudi army.
75% of the reason why Bush invaded Iraq was to put our army on the border of Saudi Arabia both to back up the Saudis and force them to take out Al Quida and those that where funding Al Quida within its borders.
The other reasons why we invaded Iraq was that Iraq was destabilizing the Middle East. After starting several wars and with his crazy sons set to inherit the throne, no private business investment was being invested in the Middle East. With the highest birth rate in the world and most of the oil money staying within the ruling elite there was massive unemployment and lots and lots of angry unemployed young men just waiting to be recruited to kill the evil westerners whose lifestyle they envied.
Sadam was also making a mockery out of the US with the big oil for food scam. The UN and Kopi Annin was so corrupt that Kopi Amin was making the UN almost non functional. Bush needed to expose the very corrupt UN and get that organization functioning again.
Bush also needed to show the world that anyone who messes with the US has to risk the might of the US Army.
As far as WMDs Sadam made a point of letting the world know he had them. He did this because in his weakened state he was terrified of Iran invading him. By making Iran and the world believe he had WMDs he was trying to scare Iran to the point that they would not invade.
Why did Bush use WMDs as the excuse to invade Iraq instead of telling the truth? Because the American press needs everything encapsulated in a 30 second spot. If it can’t be explained in 30 seconds it’s not going to run on the evening news. Something as complicated as the real reasons for invading Iraq would never have been broadcast on the evening news. WMD is very catchy marketing slogan runs in 30 seconds and everyone thought it was foolproof.
The results of the Iraq invasion is that Saudi Arabia was forced to take on al Quida and has successfully destroyed the organization within its borders. The corruption within the UN was exposed and it has since cleaned up its act. Business is now booming in the Middle East. Those angry young men are now employed and have a future.
Now just think what would have happened if Bush didn’t invade Iraq. Al Quida would have risen up against the Saudi government and with all that oil money would have formed a massive and well armed army. With control of the Saudi oil and the Straights of Hormuz the western would have been held hostage. The US economy would have come to a grinding halt and life as we know it would be drastically changed for the worst.
Worst yet is Al Quida is a Sunni organization. The other fundamentalist Islamic government and arch enemy of Saudi Arabia is Iran which is Shia. Sunnis and Shia hate each other, and I would bet that if we did not invade Iraq there would be a war between Saudi Arabia controlled by Al Quida and Iran. This of course inflamed the entire Middle East and probably led to a region wide war.
Nice to have a president that does what he has to do to protect our country.

Wow that's a great fiction story you got going there. Going to turn it into your high school creative writing class?

Seriously, hardly anything you said in there was true. Next time you should check up on facts and spelling of certain people and organizations (Osama Bin Laden, Kofi Annan, Al Qaeda) because it makes it seem like you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I would go point-by-point talking about why your entire post is completely ridiculous, but it hardly seems like its worth the time and effort.

__________________
Signature:

ISLAM and Islamic culture were the underlying reasons for the invasion, and the need for the current brave peace-keeping coalition's presence.

After THEY were defeated, Japan and Germany and Italy required no REAL after-the-fact "baby-sitting" like Muslim countries Iraq and Afghanistan do. Babies, really.

If you MUST be "religious" (and are so insecure about where you go when you die that you'll believe non-scientific based mysticism) then I suppose that this is where you should start: www.BuddhaWeb.org

Iraq wasn't necessary, we simply believed that it was because of the information that we had at the time, information that later proved to be invalid.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

First forgive my spelling for many years I had an admin who took shorthand so I haven’t had to spell or type for 20 years. Sold the business and this is all the spelling or typing I do, and of course emails.
The above information is and is still being reported by the Stratfor intelligence report. This is a daily subscription service that reports what is happening in the world and why. This service is widely subscribed to by people in the government and military as well as those who depend on worldwide supply chains. The McNeil Leir newshour frequently uses this service for their information and has had people from Stratfor on the newshour many times.
The information in my post is straight from what Stratfor has been reporting from the time of the first embassy bombings to today.
I strongly suggest that if you want to know what is really going on in the world you should subscribe to this service. The information is accurate and very detailed.

The dots are starting to connect.

The Iraq war has often been referred to as the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. There's no denying that 100% of the claims made by George W. Bush, as sole justification for launching his war, turned out to be 100% false. On the surface that would certainly seem to make the case for our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, but there are some curious other factors to consider.

As our massive military might quickly crushed the ineffective and weak Iraqi military, for a time anarchy reigned in Baghdad. Remember all the looting and rioting? Our military stood idly by as chaos ruled. Except, and this is telling, our troops were ordered by the Bush administration to protect one and only one entity in Baghdad. It wasn't a hospital, a museum, or any of the infrastructure, it was the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Following our invasion, rapidly the Bush administration starting issuing no bid contracts worth billions of dollars to Halliburton and KBR, both American oil related corporations Dick Cheney had led, and corporations he owned stock in, and still does. Since then, the Bush administration has continued renewing, and issuing additional no-bid contracts to Halliburton and KBR.

Within days of invading Iraq it became obvious to the world that all the Bush claims used to justify starting this war were totally wrong. No weapons of mass destruction, no potential "mushroom clouds", no "clear and present danger to the United States", no al-Qaeda connection, no connection to the 9-11 attack on America, none of the claims were accurate. Immediately the Bush administration shifted gears and attempted to create new, after the fact, excuses for launching this needless war. Republicans jumped on the band wagon and saturated the media with new justifications.

But the Iraqi Oil Ministry was secure. The multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts were flowing to Halliburton and KBR as we floundered around trying to figure out what to do next.

In the weeks, months and years that followed it went from bad to worse. Although al-Qaeda was virtually non-existent in Iraq before Bush's invasion, they showed up. A civil war erupted and headless bodies on the streets of Baghdad became commonplace. With all that blundering, from the very reasons to even start, to the horrific civil war, logic would indicate the Bush administration would be hunting the door to extract themselves from the deteriorating mess they created.

Not so. George W. Bush and the Republicans turned up the knob and pushed harder to make the case, with newly minted justifications and rationalizations, for staying. It goes against logic, but maybe not.

As we entered the presidential race the Republican nominee, John McCain, actually tried to make the case that we should stay in Iraq for one hundred years or longer.
Later during another campaign stop John McCain made a stunning remark. He abandoned all the previously manufactured, after the fact Republican justifications for the war, and admitted it was about the oil.
We also know that John McCain, the Republican nominee, has received more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than any other senator in America. He's received more oil and gas money than any candidate running for president has ever received. We also know that big oil companies have recorded profits greater than any corporation in the history of the world has ever seen. We also know that Republicans passed laws giving big oil companies billions of dollars in tax breaks. We also know that oil prices have reached pricing levels at the highest in history. We also know gas prices have reached historic highs and are still climbing.

It's hardly a secret that Iraq has the world's third largest oil supply.

Now we've learned that our State Department, an official branch of our government, has been "advising" the Iraqi government on the issuance of no-bid contracts to big oil companies. The New York Times has a story today on that subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/op...ml?ref=opinion

It's come full circle. Iraq had vast untapped oil reserves, but American oil companies weren't included in the development. We started a war with Iraq. Dick Cheney's oil company immediately started receiving billions of dollars of no-bid contracts. The reasons for starting the war were swiftly changed.

The Republicans started their efforts to convince Americans we should never leave Iraq. Big oil companies flooded the campaign accounts of Republicans, including the Republican presidential nominee. The price of oil rocketed up. The price of gasoline soared and continues to climb. Record profits are recorded by big oil companies. The Republicans passed laws granting billions of dollars in tax breaks to big oil companies.

John McCain then announced we should stay in Iraq for one hundred years or more. John McCain admitted we went to war with Iraq because of oil. The the Bush administration dispatched our diplomats in the State Department to "advise" the Iraqi government on the issuance of no-bid contracts to American oil companies to develop new oil fields.

Meanwhile, lost in the public's awareness... 4,113 Americans have been killed in Iraq, and 30,333 Americans have been wounded. The Iraq war continues to bankrupt our treasury. As of today, every man, woman and child in America owes $1,721 to pay for this war. Every household in America owes $4,681 to pay for this war. As of today we've now spent over $533 billion on this war, and the numbers climb at a rate of $341.4 million per day.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

The Republicans created this situation. The Republicans continue to support this war. The Republicans want to continue this war for one hundred years or more.

What have we gained from this "investment" created by the Republicans?

All of our intelligence agencies are in agreement that the Iraq war has made America less safe. The Iraq war has served as an al-Qaeda recruiting tool and the real terrorist organization that attacked us is now larger than before 9-11. The Mideast is de-stabilized and rogue nations like Iran and Syria have grown in influence in the region. Oil is now at historic highs. Gas prices are at historic highs and continuing to climb. Big oil companies are raking in unprecedented profits. Big oil companies are receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. Big oil companies are now going to receive no-bid contracts to drill in Iraq. We're now in the deepest debt any nation in recorded history has ever witnessed. And 4,113 Americans have paid for this with their lives.

If that's not a compelling case for needing a change in direction in America nothing will convince you. If you can, in your heart, claim that the Republicans that did this to us deserve four more years to plunder our nation and kill more Americans then you need to find a better moral compass. We're at a crossroads and if we don't make the right choice, unless you own an oil company, you're not going to enjoy your "victory".

So I guess I will go point by point and pick apart the entire post:

Right off the bat you get it wrong. Al Qaeda is a Saudi based terrorist organization, but its purpose isn't to overthrow just the Saud family, but its goal is to eventually dominate the middle east and destroy western life styles. It's the principle reason that they are located in so many different countries and consistently fight off western powers. The overall goal is to establish a Sharia-law based government over the world with a holy caliph as the ruler.

Some simple corrections. Al Qaeda began attacking Americans in the middle east, specifically Yemen. They later targeted the WTC in 1993. Only after those two attacks did they start the bombings in Tanzania and Nairobi.

Also, Al Qaeda never really became "very popular." It was always a fringe movment. It became more popular after the attacks, but its recruitment never reached very high levels since it was such a radical group.

The goal of 9/11 was never really clear. It is believed that Bin Laden thought that a swell of support would rise amongst muslim communities and join his Fatwa against the United States. The fact that Bush was president had nothing to do with making a "mistake." The problem for Bin Laden arose when people all around the world, especially those throughout the Middle East had HUGE levels of sympathy for the United States. So essentially the plan backfired against Bin Laden and all of a sudden he became the focus of the American giant.

So the idea that there was going to be a spontaneous revolution in Saudi Arabia after 9/11 has no basis. However, what is known is that the Saud family has been very worried about the possibility of a national movement taking hold and ousting them from power. However, there is no indication that a revolution, in Saudi Arabia or the whole of the middle east, was going to happen at the time of 9/11.

First of all its Tora Bora.

Secondly, the United States nor George Bush "let" him escape. The failure to capture Osama Bin Laden stemmed from internal disputes between the Pentagon and the CIA since the CIA conducted the first part of the invasion and trapped most of Al Qaeda's forces at Tora Bora. Unfortunatly the military witheld from commiting groud troops to the conflict and thus let Bin Laden (whom was supposedly there) escape. The disputes between Rumsfeld and Tenet are well recorded and their inability to cooperate on how to deal with Bin Laden led to this mistake.

The notion that there was an actual decision to let Bin Laden go is a bit much for me. You will need to provide information to back that theory up.

I have never seen any proof of this. It seems you just made up a random number to qualify your point without any substantial evidence to back up your statement.

I will agree that Iraq was a destabalizing area, there is probably no question about that. But your analysis of investmet in the Middle East is a bit off. There has been a lot of investment in the middle east ,maybe not as much as South East Asia, but there are plenty of companies such as Bechtel and KBR that are putting huge amounts of money in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, etc. That isn't to say there aren't high unemployment rates and high levels of poverty, but to assume that this type of situation automatically creates anti-western sentiment is ridiculous. The Iranian revolution didn't coincidentally call America the "Great Satan" because Coca Cola wasn't giving enough jobs, most of the resenment in the middle east comes fomr a deep-seated dislike for United States involvement in Middle Eastern affairs that usually end up supporting military regimes. The people don't hate the United States because a lack of jobs, but because the consistent double standard that the United States takes up.

It seems your post is based off of a lot of opinion without substantial facts.

Iran was never about to invade Iraq. The reason Saddam was so ambiguous with WMD's was that he wanted a deterrence against the United States. The fact that he didn't have any was the problem with his dangerous bluff.

The reason Bush invaded Iraq was to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear Iraq and have a regime change. So they looked to see if there was any possibility that Saddam had WMD's. All the intelligence at the time pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD's, even though he didn't. Bush didn't lied, but he was very deceptive. All your points about using WMD's because it was a catchy slogan are incredibly irrelevant.

It seems as if you were trying to be ironic with this statement because everything you listed here is basically the opposite.

What has continued to happen in Saudi Arabia is that there is still a significant amount of money that is finding its way to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda to this day.

The oil for food scandal was exposed, but if you think the UN is completely clean now then you are in for a bit of a suprise.

Business has just started to recover in Iraq to pre-war levels. It has taken basically 5 years to establish western corporations within Iraq.

As for the angry young men now having a great future, is that a joke? Seriously, do we not remember Paul Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army and almost instantly unemploying 400,000 men with the wave of a pen. Many of those men simply turned to the Mahdi army and continue to be part of the shiite militias in Iraq under Muqtada Al-Sadr. Not to mention the several Sunni militias established and the Al Qaeda movement in Iraq that had previously not existed there.

Instead of posting your inane slippery-slope predictions at the end, I thought I would just comment on them by saying, are you kidding?

Nice to know that there are people who are completely misinformed out there.

__________________
Signature:

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

If you find my simplified version of why we invaded Iraq to be wrong, then you are trying to tell me that the people who write the daily Stratfor reports are also wrong in what they do. I find that very hard to believe. I am attaching an example of one of the Stratfor daily reports.

Once again forgive my typos retirement numbs the brain.


Geopolitical Diary: A U.S.-Iranian Dance of Diplomacy
June 25, 2008The United States has raised the possibility of opening a diplomatic interests section in Iran. To avoid giving the impression that the idea was an unqualified U.S. position, State Department officials carefully leaked word of an ongoing debate about the plan to the press. But the news was not met with immediate denial by U.S. officials. In fact, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to rule the idea out — instead Rice said she preferred not to comment on internal U.S. deliberations.

Hours after her statement, the official Iranian news agency said Iran was prepared, in principle, to consider the request if it is officially made by the United States. So, a week after word was leaked to The New York Times of Israeli maneuvers in preparation for a possible air strike on Iran, the Administration has opened a diplomatic door.

Currently, American affairs in Iran are handled by the Swiss Embassy, without U.S. diplomats present. Under full diplomatic relations, which this new deal still would not be, the United States would have an embassy and ambassador in Tehran, and the Iranians would have one in Washington. This is a step short of diplomatic recognition. U.S. diplomats would be present in Tehran — and Iranians in Washington — but likely working under the auspices of the Swiss and Pakistani Embassies, which house their respective interest sections presently. The United States has this sort of arrangement with Cuba. It allows diplomatic presence and representation without full recognition.

Cuba is hardly a model of international warmth for the United States, but the question is trajectory. At the moment, there is no formal diplomatic presence in Iran. There would be if this were to happen. And that would obviously represent a major psychological shift in U.S.-Iranian relations. It is not that the Americans and Iranians don’t talk. Apart from direct meetings in Baghdad, the Iranians have high-level diplomats in New York. There have also been meetings, varying in degrees of formality, in Switzerland and other venues. In fact, the Americans and Iranians talk all the time, directly, indirectly and sometimes it appears in Haiku poetry. The idea that the United States and Iran don’t talk just isn’t true.

The importance of this offer is not what it would yield, but that it was made. The United States took the first step, even if it did not take it irrevocably and no formal offer was made. The administration is being cautious. The Americans still recall how in 2003 they were embarrassed by the Iranians who rebuffed an offer by the United States to send help and a visit by a high-level U.S. delegation, including the elder George Bush, to the earthquake-ravaged city of Bam.

Today the United States is not offering diplomatic exchanges. While it said it might offer them, the United States emphasized its division on the subject. U.S. diplomatic translation: “We’d like to exchange diplomats but if you say no, we never asked.” The Iranians quickly replied that if asked, they might agree. Iranian diplomatic translation: “Ask and we’ll say yes.” The speed of the Iranian response is telling. They were not surprised by the request. Their answer was ready. Which means, as one would expect, they were sounded out before.

So on Friday it appeared that the world was on the verge of war between Israel and Iran, with the United States supporting Israel. By late Monday, the United States was proposing raising the level of diplomatic relations and the Iranians were indicating that they were open to it. In our mind this reinforces the idea that the careful leaking of putative Israeli war games was part of a “bad cop, somewhat better cop” routine, designed to work the Iranians psychologically. They were offered the choice between Israeli air strikes or improving diplomatic relations. The second offer sounded much better than the first.

Setting aside the purple rhetoric on all sides, we have long believed that the Americans and Iranians were talking and actually working together in Iraq. The massive decline in casualties in Iraq is not simply due to U.S. military operations. The decision by the Iranians to rein in Shiite Iraqi militias had a significant impact on it. Indeed, in our view, the Iraq issue has always been more important to both countries than the nuclear weapon issue, and in Iraq, there has been progress.

Both governments are urgently concerned with face. Neither wants to appear to be conceding anything to the other. When the Great Satan meets the Axis of Evil, no public compromise is possible. So all compromising is done privately. And that’s what makes this important. The tentative offer is very public and comes from the highest levels of government. It has been acknowledged officially. Now, this is the United States and Iran so anything public can collapse quickly. But the offer itself, no matter how it was couched, is extremely significant as is the response. In many ways we regard this as more significant than the Israeli exercises.

Click Here to Send Stratfor Your Comments

Stratfor is a good source of information, however be careful about copying and pasting from there. Particularly if you utilize Stratfor's paid subscription area to copy and paste from.

Sections 512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act cover that material as copyrighted.

Several blogs have already been sued for doing that, or at least compelled to delete the material and to refrain from posting again.