Confused as Hell, Please Help. Why did we go to war?

[Cary]

The more questions I ask, the more confusing it gets.

Anyone else experiencing this? Is this what the neo-cons want or what?

[sui generis]

1. well if you let them answer for you

all they have is the most recent AM radio talking point, from that guy with the falafel vibrator and snuff list.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction. Period."

To quote Condi, Donald, Dick, and Dumbya.

[Deep13]

2. Well, listen to a story about a man named Jed.

He went out huntin' to keep his family fed.
He raised up his gun to shoot at some food.
Up from the ground came a bubblin' crude.

Oil that is. Black gold. Texas Tea.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. We went to war because we could

I've already drawn a parallel today between GWB and Bill Clinton. Clinton had some hanky-panky because "he could." GWB has killed thousands "because he can."

End of story. Oh, and those Iraq guys have dark hair, eyes and sometimes wear them there turbines on they heads, so you never know when they might just get into a plane and fly it over here and smash something.

Seems to me these good ole boys are forgetting the part in the Bible that says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

[Arugula Latte]

4. It always comes down to this: $$$$$$$

Oh, and did I mention $$$$$$$?

[Cary]

5. That's all fine and good for those in charge.

But there are a lot of ordinary people who still support and believe in this war and they're the ones whom I think I'm interacting with. Either they are in on the scam, corrupted somehow, stupid, or I'm missing something.

[wryter2000]

6. I don't think there is one, single reason

In my best guess of the order of importance:

1) Bush needed a war to boost his numbers. He wanted to be a "war president," and to a certain extent, it worked for him. I also believe there's no small amount of Oedipal over-compensation here. He's the underachiever of the family, mocked by his mother. This was a way to outdo his powerful father by getting "re-elected," and it had the added bonus of going after the exact same country his father didn't invade.

2) Oil

3) War profiteering

4) PNAC's loony-tunes theory that if we got rid of a dictator in the Middle East, the folks there would turn into good Republicans and join the country club. Everyone over the border would want to do the same. Viola -- peace in the Middle East, something no one else has managed.

5) Once 4 worked so well, do the same in other parts of the world. Result: Lots of "US friendly" governments, leading to huge profits to US megacorporations.

I could be wrong about the order of these, and it depends on whose reason you're talking about. For *asshat, I think only 1 mattered. For Cheney, 2 and 3 might have been most important. For other crooks, such as Wolfowitz, probably 4 and 5 were most important.

[leftstreet]

7. To fight terra-ists. Er, no, to train Iraqi soldiers

At this point you'd need a user's manual to understand it.

[rock]

8. bush* won't tell us the real reason

[StephanieMarie]

9. Every little boy likes to play soldier.

Bush wanted to put his "commander in chief" hat on and look cool.

[BOHICA06]

10. To finish the job started in 1991 ...

9/11, Saddam's own paranoid actions, and lack of progress during the 90s gave us enough cover to feign legitimacy.

To paraphrase somebody, "You had me at Saddam."

[leftofthedial]

11. Halliburton and Carlyle group needed money

poor guys were barely able to scrape together lunch money.

[SkiGuy]

12. because Kristol said to. See PNAC

[mrhopeforwes]

13. an actual logical argument that is, technically, valid, the POSSIBILITY of

WMD. because, yes, it's true that if one acted out the worst case scenario and, hence, believed that, despite the prepronderance of intelligence indicating that Saddam didn't have the actual weapon developed yet, it's better safe than sorry. and since it's always better to err on the side of caution, since not doing so could result in a mushroom cloud, we had to invade just in case. After all, he already used chemical weapons.

...hence, all the counterarguments you could ever make would be moot because, technically, it's logical for the other side to always win by saying, "but you never know."

...although, as George Carlin put: "Not true. Sometimes you know."

...from Wes Clark's Winning Modern Wars: ‘No alternatives to the use of force were attempted. Longer-term containment, accompanied by intrusive inspections, was dismissed without real discussion. The viability of inspections was consistently undercut by statements from leading administration officials who debunked them in principle as ineffective. Therefore, it mattered not whether Saddam complied with the UN Security Council Resolution or not—no compliance would ever have been adequate to assuage the Bush’s administration’s concerns about his hidden capabilities. …Nor was any evidence presented of any imminent Iraqi threat to the United States or its allies. And imminence was the key.’

[MercutioATC]

14. Why do you hate America?

We're there and we have to stay the course...we can't cut and run. Are you a coward?






















Oops...sorry, I was channeling Jean Schmidt there for a second...

[sendero]

15. For ..

.. money. One way or the other.

[rniel]

16. Mushroom clouds

Or something....

I think

[No Exit]

17. We invaded Iraq in order to greatly increase Bush's and Cheney's

net worth. And the net worth of their cronies, such as Daddy Bush.

Mission accomplished!:)

So can we come home now? Nope. The boys are not finished squeezing the rest of the profits out of the situation.