Quote:
Originally posted by theking
#6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions.
#7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies.
#8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next.
Any one of the reasons above is a reason for war.
|
Those are the real reasons, of course. If Bush had come out at the beginning and admitted these were his reasons, I could almost support him in it. Iraq is a key square on the chessboard, as it were, and an American presence there would help start the westernization of the Middle East. But he had to lie about it.
I don't buy that the intelligence gathering of the most powerful nation in the world is that slapdash. Sorry. If they know what library books are being borrowed and who met who on a bus three years ago, then I think they would know whether or not it was likely that Saddam had WMD's. In fact, Blix said they were most likely nonexistant. But no, Bush had to go in with an ARMY to "make sure". Wouldn't a few good CIA operatives have done a better job of sniffing around the desert, maybe assassinating Saddam on the way?
No, because once Saddam was removed from power, Bush had to ensure that the Americans were in place to stabilize the region and to select the successor.
And that is the real reason, of course. Future-thinking and all that, it's brilliant. BUT just stop lying to us. If he would stop lying, then the American public could actually decide based on the truth, whether or not they want to pursue this venture.
Ah well. back to work for me.