Here a Ctrl + V just for you babycakesFancy_Pollux wrote:
Hurray for the UN.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71943
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71943
Absolutely. It's not just the US. The UK were very heavily involved in making the case for war. The joint US/UK legal team did an amazing job of trying to legally justify a war that was not really legally justifiable. The dodgy intelligence is most likely the product of the British and US governments, rather than the intelligence agencies, which in the UK at least (I don't know about the US) are supposed to operate independently from government to avoid this sort of fiasco.Kmarion wrote:
We have been here before.. http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp ... But you see that is my point Bert. Not to say it was inaccurate, I think we all know by now it was. What is being suggested here is that the bad intlligence was a Cheney exlusive event (Via made up by fake intelligence agencies). That report (Of UK origin) posted is what you guys stood behind as well.
The available intelligence should be what decisions are made on. The government should not be making decisions and then looking for whatever intel they can get to justify them.
The UK is practically as culpable in this whole debacle as the US. The actions of both nations have been shortsighted, deceptive and borderline illegal.
Those are the real motives for the war. WMDs, liberation, saddam, all are publicity fronts to gain support. As the OP of this thread makes evident, WMDs in korea doesn't merit invasion, liberation of africans doesn't merit invasion, and cruel dictators have never merited invasion. None of these were any of the real motives for invasion.ronmexico86 wrote:
I don't think it's quite that simple. At the time war was declared, from what I remember ALL the intelligence services thought that Iraq had WMDs, including most, if not all, of Iraq's (correct me if I'm wrong). However, that cannot be the only thing that brought us into war. We had no idea the war would last this long, there were the special interests of oil, defense, corporations, and also the Israel Lobby pressing (here's a long article about it if you don't believe in its influence http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ). I firmly believe nothing can be singled out completely but I will say I doubt the war was for liberation (especially initially, unless there was some idea that Saddam had to be removed in order to halt WMDs? I don't know...)jonsimon wrote:
Iraq was selling oil in Euros. The basis of US economic supremecy since WWII has been the sale of crude oil exclusively in US cash. The income of the upper tier of American society, the economic aristocrats, is such a large portion of GDP that those individuals have a direct interest in the GDP. So, Iraq sells oil in euros, the US dollar loses its strength, GDP drops, the rich lose money. And in America, the rich run the government. With that motive you now have a target for all that pressure from US corporations who bid for military contracts (many like haliburton who are run by government officials/friends/family members). That is how you start a war.Bertster7 wrote:
But what was?
I can think of lots of things that weren't ever the issue and lots of things that were potential factors. But I really have very little idea why the Iraq war was fought.
Or, to put it simply:Varegg wrote:
I can answer all questions at once: Domestic defence industry and Oil !
Did North Korea attack us?sergeriver wrote:
What about the people in the countries mentioned by CameronPoe? Are those less important?
Iraq didn't attack you.The_Mac wrote:
Did North Korea attack us?sergeriver wrote:
What about the people in the countries mentioned by CameronPoe? Are those less important?