[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759767]I guess common sense and what the fuck the secretary of defense says means shit to you as proof.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
[url]http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts_yellowcake.php[/url]
There. Happy?[/QUOTE]
That's cool. But, it doesn't state that was the motivation for the war in Iraq. Got one of those?
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25759779]That's cool. But, it doesn't state that was the motivation for the war in Iraq. Got one of those?[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously that thick?
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
Do I need to hunt down every single thing to show that? No, not really, because you can tell when they say "Oh, iraq has yellowcake uranium and we think they're trying to make weapons with it" and them invading based on WMD's as a reason. Jesus.
Okay, we all know nukes are bad, please stop posting those images.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759808]Are you seriously that thick?[/QUOTE]
Just took another flick through, actually. Only concrete statement I could find claiming that the "nuclear weapons" claim was a motivation for the Iraq War was in one of the secondary sources, here:
[url]http://www.leadingtowar.com/PDFsources_claims_yellowcake/2003_03_18_WP.pdf[/url]
However, this /doesn't/ state that the apparently-false "nuclear weapons" claim was /the/ motivation for the Iraq War. Rather, it states that the claim was one of a number of motivations for the Iraq War, also including the claim that Iraq was "aggressively producing nuclear weapons". For now, I'd like to see more, clearer evidence that the false "nuke" claim was the motivation for the U.S initiation of the Iraq War.
E: Noticed your edit. Bear in mind that WMD is a much wider term that simply "nuclear weapons", regardless of the standard public assumptions. It also includes chemical weapons, which I believe may be a strong basis for an attack on Iraq. Like I said - more info needed.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25759849]Just took another flick through, actually. Only concrete statement I could find claiming that the "nuclear weapons" claim was a motivation for the Iraq War was in one of the secondary sources, here:
[url]http://www.leadingtowar.com/PDFsources_claims_yellowcake/2003_03_18_WP.pdf[/url]
However, this /doesn't/ state that the apparently-false "nuclear weapons" claim was /the/ motivation for the Iraq War. Rather, it states that the claim was one of a number of motivations for the Iraq War, also including the claim that Iraq was "aggressively producing nuclear weapons". For now, I'd like to see more, clearer evidence that the false "nuke" claim was the motivation for the U.S initiation of the Iraq War.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I'll just go trolling through 75,000 wikileaks documents because you're too thick to believe reasonable assertions.
The REASON they went to war was for fucking oil. Who the fuck cares what they hid that motivation behind, the fact of the matter is that they did hide that motivation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759866]Ok, I'll just go trolling through 75,000 wikileaks documents because you're too thick to believe reasonable assertions.
The REASON they went to war was for fucking oil. Who the fuck cares what they hid that motivation behind, the fact of the matter is that they did hide that motivation.[/QUOTE]
I'll need some sources on that.
Seriously. I've heard the "it was all for oil from evil america" argument before. I agree, there's a good chance it /may/ have been to secure oil reserves. However, there are too many other variables, as I've stated before. Until I get some more info, I'm not going to make hasty judgments.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25759889]I'll need some sources on that.
Seriously. I've heard the "it was all for oil from evil america" argument before. I agree, there's a good chance it /may/ have been to secure oil reserves. However, there are too many other variables, as I've stated before. Until I get some more info, I'm not going to make hasty judgments.[/QUOTE]
Faked and forged documents, over a few thousand wikileaks documents, and the fact that US business has made a fucking killing in Iraq isn't enough? If someone hit you with a book in the face, would you deny that they hit you with a book in the face until you saw a video of the event? Frankly, until counter proof shows up that they did anything different, this makes more sense than whatever reason you think they went to war for.
Tell me, why DID they go to war?
They went into Iraq on the fear that they had nuclear weapons. As Condi Rice said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I honestly don't buy the fact they went in there only for the oil.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759907]Faked and forged documents, over a few thousand wikileaks documents, and the fact that US business has made a fucking killing in Iraq isn't enough? If someone hit you with a book in the face, would you deny that they hit you with a book in the face until you saw a video of the event? Frankly, until counter proof shows up that they did anything different, this makes more sense than whatever reason you think they went to war for.
Tell me, why DID they go to war?[/QUOTE]
What do the Wikileaks documents say? I also wasn't under the assumption America had made a killing out of Iraq - war's expensive. Also, try the rules of logic - it's not my job to disprove your theory, it's your job to prove it.
Why do I think America went to war? Like I said, I'm not sure. Possibly to protect oil interests, yes. Also, possibly to remove Saddam Hussein, who was a destabilizing influence on the Middle East. Possibly because of Saddam's well-known stock-piling of chemical weapons, and his lack of reluctance to use them (particularly on his own people), which in conjunction with other reasons makes his regime a threat to America and her allies. Can't say for sure.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25759938]What do the Wikileaks documents say? I also wasn't under the assumption America had made a killing out of Iraq - war's expensive. Also, try the rules of logic - it's not my job to disprove your theory, it's your job to prove it.
Why do I think America went to war? Like I said, I'm not sure. Possibly to protect oil interests, yes. Also, possibly to remove Saddam Hussein, who was a destabilizing influence on the Middle East. Possibly because of Saddam's well-known stock-piling of chemical weapons, and his lack of reluctance to use them (particularly on his own people), which in conjunction with other reasons makes his regime a threat to America and her allies. Can't say for sure.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Wars expensive? Yeah, wars expensive on the tax payers... It's beautiful heaven for anyone in a business or the war industry. They've made more money than god in the past 10 years due to oil, war, and the things that go along with that.
There's a lot more threatening leaders than Saddam was. And don't you think if the government wasn't hiding something, they would have done a more thorough investigation on him after they had him in custody instead of rushing straight to a execution trial?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759760]Does no one remember Rumsfield bitching about Yellowcake uranium and Iraq trying to obtain it? Of course you fucking don't when it goes against your view point.[/QUOTE]
also cause he was like 5 at the time.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759907]Tell me, why DID they go to war?[/QUOTE]
Look on a map, what country does both Iraq and Afghanistan border? And recently there was talk of invading Pakistan.
So in other words, we invaded for not just the oil, but to remove a mad dictator with leftover chemical weapons that he was planning to reinstate to hold onto his power because he knew we were after his oil?
Was it still worth it? The Russians and Europeans got the oil.
[QUOTE=Chilean;25759976]also cause he was like 5 at the time.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
Look on a map, what country does both Iraq and Afghanistan border? And recently there was talk of invading Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
And the purpose of going to war with Iran? More oil? That's kind of a "Well duh" moment.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xystus234;25760008]So in other words, we invaded for not just the Oil, but to remove a mad dictator with leftover chemical weapons that he was planning to reinstate to hold onto his power?
Was it still worth it?[/QUOTE]
None of those reasons are valid for war. Desposing of a dictator you don't like as a country, just waltzing into them when they haven't really done shit all to you and fucking them up because you don't like their leader isn't a valid reason for war.
Though, the CIA has built more puppet governments than I can count on my hands and toes.
Iraq tried to get Nuclear capabilities, that's not a secret. Can't remember the name but the US backed Israel and Shah controlled Iran in destroying a French reactor being shipped to them at one point. They never really got off the ground though and with the country poor as shit, they wouldn't have been able to spend the huge amount of money required for a Nuclear weapon anyway.
Chemical weapons were known. It's possible to say everyone has them but most aren't banned by the UN whereas Iraq's were. Ground forced in Iraq went in with MOPP suits because they fully expected Saddam to gas them. Finding a few remnants of this isn't a big deal and everyone knows it. The reason this came out through wikileaks and not press releases is because the US never thought it was a big deal and not worth trying to justify it with them.
You just love making bad threads, don't you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760011]And the purpose of going to war with Iran? More oil? That's kind of a "Well duh" moment.[/QUOTE]
I'd want them surrounded since they keep running their mouths.
Frankly, while I believe it was an unjustified invasion that was for some other reason, I don't think it was oil.
Hell, Canada has more oil than Iraq.
[QUOTE=Chilean;25760036]I'd want them surrounded since they keep running their mouths.
Frankly, while I believe it was an unjustified invasion that was for some other reason, I don't think it was oil.[/QUOTE]
Desposing of a dictator? Well, I'd fucking hope not because that's as unethical as oil. WMD's? Well, that was all faked and chemical weapons really aren't reason enough. Religious differences? 9/11? Not really.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760011]None of those reasons are valid for war. Desposing of a dictator you don't like as a country, just waltzing into them when they haven't really done shit all to you and fucking them up because you don't like their leader isn't a valid reason for war.
Though, the CIA has built more puppet governments than I can count on my hands and toes.[/QUOTE]
Personally I don't mind the old CIA coups. Would of been a better way to get rid of Saddam and if they manage to lead them in the right direction, they could of ended up with a semi-competent government with no massive war. While they often bring in puppet dictators it's not a requirement and they can bring in a decent government if it suits their needs.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25759960]Are you serious? Wars expensive? Yeah, wars expensive on the tax payers... It's beautiful heaven for anyone in a business or the war industry. They've made more money than god in the past 10 years due to oil, war, and the things that go along with that.
There's a lot more threatening leaders than Saddam was. And don't you think if the government wasn't hiding something, they would have done a more thorough investigation on him after they had him in custody instead of rushing straight to a execution trial?[/QUOTE]
No doubt, arms manufacturers and the like would have made a massive profit from the Iraq War. But, I'm not sure whether this lobby group, although rich and influential, could have been the key motivation to go to war. Aside from that, who else has been getting rich but them? Certainly not the U.S. as a country - would they go to war to appease arms dealers?
I'm not a foreign affairs or US policy expert. However, I think the claim that "there's a lot more threatening leaders than Saddam was" is concrete enough. Like, who? More importantly, how did this appear to the Bush Administration? Can't go with that, although it /may/ be true.
And, no, I don't think the government necessarily would have done a more thorough investigation on Saddam if they weren't hiding something, for a number of reasons. Foremostly, I don't think the US would have needed to prove Saddam's guilt after already declaring war - there's his historical crimes. Also, if the US really /were/ on such shaky motivation for the war, they would probably try and find justification beforehand to show to their public. Doesn't seem a logical order of events to me, like executing someone and then trying them. Secondly, there's no need - in conjunction with what I've said above, the US public also felt that Saddam was a guilty, guilty man - why would the US need to present this again? Preaching to the converted. Finally, there's also the benefits of gaining a quick result from the war. Foremostly, execution of Saddam shows the US public that the war is on track, in contrast to Afghanistan, where the iconic Osama is still at large. There's also a benefit to the Iraqi people - they now know that America's actually getting results, not just running around and doing nothing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760045]Desposing of a dictator? Well, I'd fucking hope not because that's as unethical as oil. WMD's? Well, that was all faked and chemical weapons really aren't reason enough. Religious differences? 9/11? Not really.[/QUOTE]
I have this theory that when W. was younger he was like "When I grow up, I'm gonna invade Iraq just like my daddy."
Probably just as legitimate as any other reason.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25758351]You wanna talk shock images? Here's one 1000x worse than yours alienmartian. Sure shows you're so fucking wrong.
[img_thumb]http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/74311d1248366199-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg[/img_thumb]
[editline]30th October 2010[/editline]
Yeah man, Chemical warfare is so much worse than this, yeah?[/QUOTE]
Wow. Ghouls exist. That's... just wow.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760045]Desposing of a dictator? Well, I'd fucking hope not because that's as unethical as oil. WMD's? Well, that was all faked and chemical weapons really aren't reason enough. Religious differences? 9/11? Not really.[/QUOTE]
Well if it was oil, it didn't really work.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/sovereign-backed-oil-companies-creamed-the-multinationals-in-iraq-2010-2[/url]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25760054]No doubt, arms manufacturers and the like would have made a massive profit from the Iraq War. But, I'm not sure whether this lobby group, although rich and influential, could have been the key motivation to go to war. Aside from that, who else has been getting rich but them? Certainly not the U.S. as a country - would they go to war to appease arms dealers?
I'm not a foreign affairs or US policy expert. However, I think the claim that "there's a lot more threatening leaders than Saddam was" is concrete enough. Like, who? More importantly, how did this appear to the Bush Administration? Can't go with that, although it /may/ be true.
And, no, I don't think the government necessarily would have done a more thorough investigation on Saddam if they weren't hiding something, for a number of reasons. Foremostly, I don't think the US would have needed to prove Saddam's guilt after already declaring war - there's his historical crimes. Also, if the US really /were/ on such shaky motivation for the war, they would probably try and find justification beforehand to show to their public. Doesn't seem a logical order of events to me, like executing someone and then trying them. Secondly, there's no need - in conjunction with what I've said above, the US public also felt that Saddam was a guilty, guilty man - why would the US need to present this again? Preaching to the converted. Finally, there's also the benefits of gaining a quick result from the war. Foremostly, execution of Saddam shows the US public that the war is on track, in contrast to Afghanistan, where the iconic Osama is still at large. There's also a benefit to the Iraqi people - they now know that America's actually getting results, not just running around and doing nothing.[/QUOTE]
The US is quite literally owned by the lobbyists and corporations that pay enough money.
and Saddam should have been investigated in connection with the supposed WMD's. If anyone knew, he did. They didn't ask, and they just shot themselves in the foot on that one.
And world leaders more dangerous? Kim Jong-Il to name one. Regardless of how "dangerous" a world leader is, you can't just invade them without reason, like they attacked you. And Saddam wasn't dangerous at all to the US, Bush just wanted him because of his dad, and Cheney just wanted bush to push it through because enron made more money from iraq than you can fathom.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chilean;25760084]Well if it was oil, it didn't really work.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/sovereign-backed-oil-companies-creamed-the-multinationals-in-iraq-2010-2[/url][/QUOTE]
They misjudged, too bad for them. Hindsight doesn't rule out that they aimed to do it from the beginning.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760088]
They misjudged, too bad for them. Hindsight doesn't rule out that they aimed to do it from the beginning.[/QUOTE]
This is literally the reason I didn't think it was oil, because my first thought was that something like that would happen. I just never bothered to look it up until now. It just seems like common sense to me, any company with the money is going to jump on it regardless of their nationality.
[QUOTE=Chilean;25760142]This is literally the reason I didn't think it was oil, because my first thought was that something like that would happen. I just never bothered to look it up until now. It just seems like common sense to me, any company with the money is going to jump on it regardless of their nationality.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but doesn't the huge, huge importance of the actual group behind the president and their corporate ties make this seem just a little more possible? They probably thought that this would go a lot easier than it did.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760088]and Saddam should have been investigated in connection with the supposed WMD's. If anyone knew, he did. They didn't ask, and they just shot themselves in the foot on that one. [/QUOTE]
They did investigate him or at least the UN did. They took a look around but couldn't find anything and they wouldn't let them get into some of the facilities. I can't remember his name but there was that guy on TV just denying it all. Remember him?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760088]The US is quite literally owned by the lobbyists and corporations that pay enough money.
and Saddam should have been investigated in connection with the supposed WMD's. If anyone knew, he did. They didn't ask, and they just shot themselves in the foot on that one.
And world leaders more dangerous? Kim Jong-Il to name one. Regardless of how "dangerous" a world leader is, you can't just invade them without reason, like they attacked you. And Saddam wasn't dangerous at all to the US, Bush just wanted him because of his dad, and Cheney just wanted bush to push it through because enron made more money from iraq than you can fathom.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think it's as bad as you predict. And, even if it is, I don't think enough people would be making money out of it to convince the Administration to go to war. There's got to be other reasons.
Like I said, chemical weapons. They're WMDs.
But, is (was) Kim Jong-Il a bigger threat than Saddam? North Korea's incredibly isolated, so it cannot spread its influence anywhere. Partially because of this, they have no allies, and thus could not hope to defeat the US in a military struggle - and, despite the apparent wackiness of Kim, I'm sure he knows that. I doubt he's as stupid as FP makes him out to be. Thus, it can be suggested and argued that North Korea would not attack anyone in a major, obvious fashion, in fear of retribution. In contrast, while Saddam's regime likewise could not stand against the greater US in a military struggle, it DOES have the ability to influence other Middle Eastern factions and nations, and provide shelter to America's allies.
But, at the end, are any of us foreign analysts? I can't honestly say why the US would attack, but I feel there's a solid chance of it being to remove a "bad" threat, rather than purely for economical reasons. And I'll need sources on your last sentence, though I've also heard the "bush" line vaguely. I didn't know Enron made money from Iraq - weren't they into domestic energy, and collapse in 2001?
Yeah, it was the IAEA and it turned out they had no WMDs/Nukes at all.
They were into anything that they reasonably could be as far as I know, they went into Iraq barely after the invasion was done and were making money fairly quickly from what I know.
Chemical weapons just don't fit though, there's too many in too many peoples hands, and even if his did violate geneva convention... That's still not a good reason, neither is disposing of a dictator.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25760176]Yeah, it was the IAEA and it turned out they had no WMDs/Nukes at all.[/QUOTE]
Not from what they could see. They disallowed access to some facilities so it was an incomplete report but at least they did try to investigate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.