Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:22 pm

We know why Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. The USA had been attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, whose leader, Osama bin Laden, was being permitted to train terrorists in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. But what did Iraq have to do with the ‘War on Terror’? Saddam Hussein was no friend of al-Qaeda.

One theory is that George W. Bush wanted to get his revenge on Saddam because he had “tried to kill my daddy” in Kuwait in 1993. But was that really the reason to start a war? Wouldn’t an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein have been a simpler solution?
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

We were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he used chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians and that he pursued an extensive biological weapons programme. The United Nations did locate and destroy large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi co-operation and obstruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In her book’ The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313), Naomi Klein offers us another explanation: “Saddam did not pose a threat to US security, but he did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp. Saddam’s removal from power opened vistas of opportunities for the oil giants, including Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.”

Klein continues (p.348) that after Iraq had been occupied “there was not a single governmental function that was considered so ‘core’ that it could not be handed to a contractor, preferably one who provided the Republican Party with financial contributions or Christian foot soldiers during election campaigns. The usual Bush motto governed all aspects of the foreign forces’ involvement in Iraq: if a task could be performed by a private entity, it must be.” Klein concludes (p.359) that “like Russia’s gangsterism and Bush’s cronyism, contemporary Iraq is a creation of the fifty-year crusade to privatise the world.” That “crusade” stemmed from the Chicago School under Milton Friedman, which aimed to dismantle the welfare statism started by Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s and copied by many other countries, including the UK. And it’s a crusade which the despicable Tory-led government in the UK has been pursuing relentlessly since it came to power in 2010.

So why was Iraq invaded? Was it revenge for the attempt to kill George Bush Senior? Or was it part of the ‘War on Terror’, which Klein (p.301) says is unwinnable from a military perspective but unbeatable economically?

avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:21 pm

Almost from Day One of the Iraq invasion, commentators and social networks alike were repeating versions of "It's all about the OIL!"

The General Public of all nations has learned not to give uncritical credence to Government propaganda.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Red Rackham on Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:13 pm

We all knew what Gulf 1 was about, at the time Gulf 2 seemed equally justified. But the more I look back the more I think we were conned by Blair, Bush Jr & Cheney. And I have to say, it leaves a bad taste.
avatar
Red Rackham

Posts : 47
Join date : 2013-01-06
Location : Staffordshire England.

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by astradt1 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:11 pm

Gulf 1 was about Oil......If Kuwait had only carrots for export the west would not have worried too much about Iraq's land grab....
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 963
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Red Rackham on Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:14 am

Gulf 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait. It's that black & white.
avatar
Red Rackham

Posts : 47
Join date : 2013-01-06
Location : Staffordshire England.

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by skwalker1964 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:20 am

Red Rackham wrote:Gulf 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait. It's that black & white.

The (2nd) invasion of Iraq was definitely about oil but in a much broader sense than just appropriating Iraq's and the contracts around it. Saddam had threatened to list Iraq's oil in euros rather than dollars, and other oil-producing nations might have followed suit.

The practice of using the US dollar as the currency for oil transactions has always underpinned the US currency, and a switch to the Euro could have seriously destabilised both the US currency and the US economy. My personal opinion is that the die was cast as soon as the US understood what Saddam was considering.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Red Rackham on Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:30 pm

There may be something in what you say skwalker, and all the arguments about oil may have some truth in them (Particularly with regard to the 2003 war) but in my opinion the oil argument was peripheral. The US wanted Hussein, dead or alive it didn't matter. Bush Jnr was determined to get his man without a coalition or UN approval if necessary.

General Schwarzkopf (RIP) wanted to go all the way (To Baghdad) in 1991 and he had plenty of support in Washington but Bush Snr wasn't keen. Immediately after Gulf 1 he was riding high, he didn't want to risk that by ignoring the UN and marching on Baghdad. There were of course other reasons but these days I think politicians consider political survival before anything else.
avatar
Red Rackham

Posts : 47
Join date : 2013-01-06
Location : Staffordshire England.

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:35 pm

A Nation's Leaders seem to have a need for a BOGEYMAN to justify the exaction of taxes "for Defence". The First World War produced an entire Nation for us to be frightened of, strengthened of course by WW2. After that the Soviet Union stepped smartly into the vacancy, and since 1945 there has NEVER been a complete week in which the British military were not engaged in some kind of warlike activity somewhere in the World.

But now in 2013 we seem to have a Pacifist government, which is writing to several thousand servicemen to say, "As you haven't managed to get shot, you're being fired."

What is "the average voter" meant to think about that?

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by the sap on Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:33 pm

I don't know if there is one primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, but this I do know, no matter what Saddam Hussein or his gov't had done, nothing would have quelled his impending doom.....It was a done deal. Bush and his henchmen had, along with Bush's lapdog, Tony Blair, made that perfectly obvious in not allowing the inspectors more time to find WMD. What was the rush! There was nothing to indicate an imminent attack, and as I always suspected, WMD were never found. A perfect example of a gov't inclined toward war-mongering.
avatar
the sap

Posts : 9
Join date : 2013-02-17

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:14 pm

What was the rush?
the sap. In ’The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313), Naomi Klein provides an answer to that one: “Saddam......did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp. Saddam’s removal from power opened vistas of opportunities for the oil giants, including Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.”
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by the sap on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:37 pm

Ivan wrote:-
In ’The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313), Naomi Klein provides an answer to that one: “Saddam......did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp. Saddam’s removal from power opened vistas of opportunities for the oil giants, including Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.”

I don't question that at all, Ivan....and I'm sure that's one possibile reason. Bush also had a personal vendetta with Hussein because of the threats made by him towards his father.

I'm sure the reasons will be revealed in the coming years. They usually are.
avatar
the sap

Posts : 9
Join date : 2013-02-17

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by tlttf on Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:18 pm

According to the Telegraph today, in an interview David Miliband denies labour wanted to go to war with Iraq and that it was all "Bushes fault". Well I'm glad he cleared that issue up!

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:48 pm

tlttf. You certainly haven’t cleared anything up. Why, on this occasion, did you shy away from posting the exact quote?

According to ‘The Daily Telegraph’ and ‘The Agenda’, this is what David Miliband actually said:-

George Bush being elected US President was the worst thing ever to happen to Tony Blair. The first term of the Bush administration took America and the world on a very different course than had been set in the post Cold War period."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9909336/George-Bush-was-the-worst-thing-to-ever-happen-to-Tony-Blair-says-David-Miliband.html

http://www.itv.com/news/topic/the-agenda/

avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by tlttf on Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:29 pm

Sorry Ivan, I'm pretty sure I got the message right!

With the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War fast approaching, the Labour Party and its support base are pulling out all the stops to disassociate themselves from that disastrous venture. They're painting it as an American fiasco, into which Britain was merely, and sadly, sucked. Iraq was all Bush's fault, they wail; it was that evil, Stetson-sporting Texan, not the proud and dignified Labour Party, who signed the death warrant for Iraq. On TV last night, former Labour foreign secretary David Miliband said Iraq was not primarily a Labour Party concern but rather was evidence that Bush – damned wicked Bush! – took international affairs in the "wrong direction".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100205391/

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by blueturando on Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:32 pm

To be fair I think most MPs on all sides were duped into voting to join the US in the 2nd Iraq war and I am sure pressure from the top brass was exerted to ensure a 'Yes' vote. Blair could see his 'Thatcher' moment coming to play and was swept along with the tide choosing to believe any intelligence that pointed towards favourable light rather than take time to find out the truth.

I am sure the reasons for Bush wanting to topple Saddam are numerous, including OIL and also he was still smarting over 9/11 and with Bin Laden in hiding, Saddam would make a handy replacement to exact revenge for the American people baying for blood

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:34 pm

David Miliband denies labour wanted to go to war with Iraq and that it was all "Bushes fault".
tlttf. David Miliband didn't say that, he said this:-

"I read that 174-page UN report on the unaccounted for components of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had. It turned out that not just the UN, not just the Russian and UK and US spy agencies were all wrong. We didn't know then what we know now; if we had, there wouldn't have been a war."

It really is about time you started paying attention to detail and stopped making things up as you go along.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:52 pm

One thing that hasn't changed between then and now is how the Government of the day "leans on" the BBC to support the current Party Line, on the dubious basis of patriotism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8453116.stm

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Shirina on Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:58 pm

I know there has been a lot of talk about Gulf 2 being about oil - and perhaps it was, but I don't think it was the primary reason for the invasion.

Keep in mind that the United States was attacked by a rogue terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, sponsored by the Taliban in Afghanistan with shaky connections to Pakistan. The terrorists themselves were largely Saudi.

Iraq is going to be like South Korea where US troops will be permanently based, and that's what the invasion was all about. America wanted a nation smack dab in the middle of the Middle East that it could use as a staging area against any further attackers. Notice where Iraq is - it is perhaps the best nation to occupy as it really does stand in the middle of it all, sharing borders with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. All Arab nations from Egypt to Pakistan is a relatively short hop for air strikes and cruise missile attacks. It is close to Israel should that nation need our aid, it has an "overwatch" position on Saudi Arabia in case the pro-US monarchy there is overthrown a la the Iranian Revolution of 1979, it's a quick invasion across the border to keep Iran pinned down, and many of the "Stan" nations are nearby as well. No more having to take months mobilizing from the US to the Middle East in case something goes haywire over there.

Gulf 1 I don't feel was about oil, but it was a great excuse to get US troops on the ground in the region. We never did completely leave Qatar and Saudi Arabia which was the primary reason for the 9/11 attacks. The US military has made no secret of its mission - to keep the sea lanes open, especially the Strait of Hormuz. Operation Earnest Will in 1988 saw the US Navy reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers to prevent Iranian attacks on them during the Iran-Iraq War. America, itself, receives most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and South America NOT the Middle East - but I did hear whispers at the time that the big reason for the 2003 war was because Saddam threatened to flood the market with cheap oil, and Big Oil and OPEC didn't want their profits undermined.

Oil will always be a part of the equation, but I also believe that the strategy necessary for an effective war on terror also plays a major role. If America can keep troops over there with her hands on Iraq's strings, life will be much easier. When I taught 7th graders, I was told one of the best ways to keep toublemakers at bay was to move close to their desks when "randomly" moving about the room. They are less likely to try something if you're right there standing nearby. It works in the classroom - and it works in military planning. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by ROB on Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:11 pm


[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Iraq War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In late February 2009, newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama announced an 18-month withdrawal window for combat forces, with approximately 50,000 troops remaining in the country "to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to provide intelligence and surveillance".[75][76] UK forces ended combat operations on 30 April 2009.[77] In a speech at the Oval Office on 31 August 2010 Obama declared "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."[79][80][81] Beginning 1 September 2010, the American operational name for its involvement in Iraq changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation New Dawn". The remaining 50,000 U.S. troops were designated as "advise and assist brigades" assigned to non-combat operations while retaining the ability to revert to combat operations as necessary. Two combat aviation brigades also remain in Iraq.[82]

On 21 October 2011, President Obama announced that all U.S. troops and trainers would leave Iraq by the end of the year, bringing the U.S. mission in Iraq to an end.[85] On 15 December 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially declared the Iraq War over, at a flag lowering ceremony in Baghdad.[86] The last U.S. troops left Iraqi territory on 18 December 2011 at 4:27 UTC.[87]

The last American soldier to die in Iraq before the withdrawal was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad on 14 November.[312]

Iraqi insurgency surged in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. The terror campaigns have since been engaged by Iraqi, primarily radical Sunni, insurgent groups against the central government and the warfare between various factions within Iraq. The events of post U.S. withdrawal violence succeeded the previous insurgency in Iraq (prior to 18 December 2011), but have showed different patterns, raising concerns that the surging violence might slide into another civil war. Some 1,000 people were killed across Iraq within the first two months since U.S. withdrawal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use



Last edited by RockOnBrother on Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by ROB on Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:13 pm


A thrice-deployed to Iraq US combat soldier told me that, from his first deployment in 2003 to his last deployment in 2008, US and British com bat troops had devolved from swiftly-moving strike forces to highly-paid “rent-a-cops” patrolling in predictable and thus vulnerable patterns. He further stated that US and UK combat troops ought to have been pulled out of Iraq no later than fall 2004, leaving in Iraq special ops forces, US Navy SEALs, US Army Special Forces, Delta Force, Rangers, and special ops air assets, US Air Force special ops air assets, UK SAS and special ops air assets, and Aussie SAS assets, to seek and eliminate al qaida and other terrorists who make Iraq their new desert home.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:30 pm

Wikipedia has read what I was about to post, and declared it to be total rubbish. Why are they picking on me?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

The reality of Iraq invasion.

Post by tlttf on Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:34 pm

When Blair and Bush fiddled with the data (lied) so as to allow invasion to be a humanitarian effort rather than the true commercial involvement, did they perceive the damage they would cause in loss of life, liberty and wealth to the Iraq people. Or did they even care?

The truth is out
Thursday 20 June 2013
by Solomon Hughes



The recent BBC three-part documentary The Iraq War had its flaws, but was gripping television.
The BBC did the usual kindness to the warmongers - attributing the lies and brutalities of the war to "blunders" and "mistakes," rather than inevitable qualities of an imperial adventure.
But the programmes still effectively laid out the grim tale effectively.
I watched it with my younger lad, both of us open-mouthed. There was so much violence, injustice and deceit in the Iraq war that we had forgotten half of it.
The last 10 minutes of the documentary were particularly useful. They showed how Iraq's current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki didn't win any election.
He stole his position from the actual votewinners. He chased one of the ministers from the winning party out of the country with spurious accusations of "terrorism" - accusations based on tortured "confessions" from his opponent's family.


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/134419

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:22 pm

It was always about the Oil.  That's why Iran is still in everybody's sights.
 
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by tlttf on Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:33 am

Statement of bleeding obvious.

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:04 am

Ain't it de troof?  As long as "The West" remains wedded to our gas-guzzling personal transportation we shall be handing a sizeable chunk of our earnings to those Peoples who had the foresight to live over an oilfield.

Or until someone discovers "safe" nuclear energy.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Curious Cdn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:29 pm

Well, "oil" is the old canard and yes, it is the underlying reason for much (but not all) of the conflict in the Middle East. After 9/11 though, the American public was looking for some sort of pay back and chasing a few Al Qaida types around the caves of Tora Bora wasn't satisfying their need for revenge. What better target than a foe of known capability, Arabic speakers with brown skin and a dodgy dictator with a history of naked aggression himself? This invasion was an artificial creation meant solely for domestic American consumption so that Bush and Co. could prove that they were hunting "bad guys". If this all sounds childishly simple .. well, that is the nature of the American public. It had better be simple and cartoonish or they can't collectively grasp it.
avatar
Curious Cdn

Posts : 44
Join date : 2011-11-08
Age : 61
Location : Oakville Ontario Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:40 pm

The dichotomy lies in the Public's insistence upon Politicians always to be seen to be "doing something".

Sometimes they know that they would be better to just let something be. But we don't let them.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:08 pm

Mel wrote:On this forum in the past we have debated the Iraq war and Blair to the nth degree. There were WOMD because as I was advised by a high ranking RAF friend of mine who was out there in Iraq, confirmed that these weapons were taken over the border into Syria before the inspectors arrived. Now with Syria at the height of a weapons inspection, this only adds credence to what I had been told.
If you consider the controversy surrounding the lack of WMDs (which were used as justification for the invasion), then I find it difficult to believe that the UK and US governments would not announce that they had been taken across the border to Syria. The fact that they didn't suggests the evidence just wasn't there. Did your friend explain why this info was kept from the general public because it's counter-intuitive that it would be hushed up. You might say it would have been manna from heaven for Bush and Blair. Indeed, it would also make a very good case for military intervention in Syria now, which both the US and UK governments were pushing for until recently. Again, making this information public would have suited the agendas of both governments.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:52 pm

"I find it difficult to believe that the UK and US governments would not announce that they had been taken across the border to Syria."

Can you imagine Dab the difficulty in accusing Syria at that particuler time? It was impossible to even enter Syria border, let alone have WOMD inspectors in. It will come to light eventually and those in ignorance will have egg on their faces.

There is a lot we do not know about the tender threat of war in that region.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:04 pm

Mel wrote:"I find it difficult to believe that the UK and US governments would not announce that they had been taken across the border to Syria."

Can you imagine Dab the difficulty in accusing Syria at that particuler time? It was impossible to even enter Syria border, let alone have WOMD inspectors in. It will come to light eventually and those in ignorance will have egg on their faces.

There is a lot we do not know about the tender threat of war in that region.
I disagree that it would have been suppressed for the reasons I've already given. Access to Syria wouldn't even have been needed in order to provide an explanation for where the WMDs went, would it? It would have actually been a rather neat story that would have helped the US and UK governments when the public was questioning the war. Also, if the US were willing to take on (what was at the time iirc) the 4th largest army in the world in Iraq, why would accusing Syria have been such a problem back then?
Finally, do you realise what you're saying? I.e. that someone in the RAF had access to highly classified information that he was willing to give to someone without clearance who could then (as you have done) make it public? Again, this doesn't really stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:34 pm

I've just had another thought - why would Saddam Hussein give his arsenal of WMDs to a country who are allies of his biggest enemy, i.e. Syria and Iran, respectively? Again, it makes absolutely no sense.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Where's the evidence for this other than hear say?

Post by Bellatori on Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:25 pm

Dan Fante wrote:I've just had another thought - why would Saddam Hussein give his arsenal of WMDs to a country who are allies of his biggest enemy, i.e. Syria and Iran, respectively? Again, it makes absolutely no sense.
I agree entirely. The whole thing sounds like someone bigging up their importance with dodgy information. A bit like the infamous 'dodgy' dossier. Whatever Saddam was he was not a complete idiot. His only mistake was not realising the US intended war whatever he did.

Bellatori
Banned

Posts : 446
Join date : 2013-10-11
Age : 66
Location : Newcastle

http://www.bellatori.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:38 pm

You mention Iran. There is your answer Bell and Dan.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:35 am

Mel wrote:You mention Iran. There is your answer Bell and Dan.
Could you expand upon that?
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:59 am

Dan, Relations between Iran and Saddam were never good to say the least. However, Iran did not support the multi-national coalition against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it housed many Shia political organizations opposing Saddam's rule.

The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 led to the normalization of relations between the two countries. As of January 2010, the two countries have signed over 100 economic and cooperation agreements. It is possible that around the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iran and indeed Syria felt threatened by the west and therefore it is highly likely that my associate friend, the RAF Officer was right when he said that WOMD had been taken across the border into Syria.
Of course the West could not go so far as to accuse either Syria nor Iran of assisting Iraq, for obvious reasons.

Now we are getting off topic to some extent and should refer the debate on this subject on an apropriate thread, if you don't mind.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:24 am

Mel wrote:Dan,  Relations between Iran and Saddam were never good to say the least. However,  Iran did not support the multi-national coalition against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it housed many Shia political organizations opposing Saddam's rule.

The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 led to the normalization of relations between the two countries. As of January 2010, the two countries have signed over 100 economic and cooperation agreements. It is possible that around the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iran and indeed Syria felt threatened by the west and therefore it is highly likely that my associate friend, the RAF Officer was right when he said that WOMD had been taken across the border into Syria.
Of course the West could not go so far as to accuse either Syria nor Iran of assisting Iraq, for obvious reasons.

Now we are getting off topic to some extent and should refer the debate on this subject on an apropriate thread, if you don't mind.
What you say still doesn't make sense. Why is it "highly likely" that what you have said is true? The weapons would have had to have been moved before the invasion because (according to your friend) they were taken to Syria before the inspectors arrived. Inspections were taking place between 1991 and 2002. So, again according to your friend, back in 1991, just after the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein gave his chemical weapons arsenal a the country that was very closely allied to Iran, even though Iran were Iraq's biggest enemy in the region? Laughing 
Also, given you've already said the weapons were moved before the inspectors got there, in what way are the events post-2003 relevant to the movement of the weapons?
By all means, move this if you must but you brought the subject up and you can't blame people for taking issue with what they perceive to be flaws in the logic of your argument.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:33 am

" in what way are the events post-2003 relevant to the movement of the weapons?"

I have simply tried to explain that although as you say Iran were Saddam's biggest enemy in many ways, the hatred of the west was much stronger than the hatred between these two countries coulped with the possibility of Syria/ Iran obtaining ready made WOMD was perhaps an overiding factor.

In any case speculation is not proof of anything which can work both ways and just because the weapons inspectors found nothing does not mean they were not present at some time and of course they were were they not?

As previously said, history will prove Blair correct in his actions and clear him of the severe and IMO incorrect accusations.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:43 am

Mel wrote:" in what way are the events post-2003 relevant to the movement of the weapons?"

I have simply tried to explain that although as you say Iran were Saddam's biggest enemy in many ways, the hatred of the west was much stronger than the hatred between these two countries coulped with the possibility of Syria/ Iran obtaining ready made WOMD was perhaps an overiding factor.

In any case speculation is not proof of anything which can work both ways and just because the weapons inspectors found nothing does not mean they were not present at some time and of course they were were they not?

As previously said, history will prove Blair correct in his actions and clear him of the severe and IMO incorrect accusations.
I think you'll find that Saddam's hatred of Iran was greater than his hatred of the west. There's a famous saying which bears this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews,_and_Flies
And the stuff about history proving Blair to be correct is just supposition based on hope with no evidence to back it up.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:39 pm

What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?
 
Probably the same as the cause of most disputes, Money.  
 
As Ivan has noted above, " In her book’ The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313), Naomi Klein offers us another explanation: “Saddam did not pose a threat to US security, but he did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp."
 
Add in the US Military/Industrial representation in George Bush's cabinet (Cheney, Rumsfeld) and you have the other side of the coin, the riches to be made from War armament.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:33 pm

"And the stuff about history proving Blair to be correct is just supposition based on hope with no evidence to back it up.."

Ah well Dan you have your view and I mine. We shall see no doubt in time the the proof either way.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum