"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

That's silly. If that were true, then we didn't need to wait until 2003
to invade Iraq, we could (and *should*) have had a U.N coalition behind
us, and there needn't have been any ridiculous fables about WMDs and
ties to Al-Queda.

Nobody knows the "main reason" we invaded Iraq, although it looks like
revenge for their assassination attempt on Bush Sr and massive profits
for Halliburton are the two top contenders. IMHO this is why you heard
NOTHING about war against Iraq as a Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign promise,
even though they were determined to go ahead with one before the election.

"Vito" wrote
...I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN.

Isolationism is one of the favorite themes of the right, religious or
otherwise. Bad-mouthing the U.N and appeals to lowbrow bigotry aginst
them furriners is one way of making an elitist rich persons campaign
that has a chance of capturing the vote of the average & below average
citizen.



FamilySailor wrote:
Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN.

Agreed.

... It is about the safety of the US and its citizens.

If that were true, then where is the credible 'imminent threat' posed by
Iraq? It was never there. It was never even credible on paper. In order
to pretend that it might be there, Bush & Cheney had to strenuously
ignore lots of intel on Iraq and carefully quote only cherrypicked reports.


... The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.

Agreed again. But overstretching the Army and running up a huge deficit
while chasing phantoms, and meanwhile creating many many more real
enemies, is a very poor way to go about it.

DSK

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:00:04 -0400, DSK wrote:

Nobody knows the "main reason" we invaded Iraq, although it looks like
revenge for their assassination attempt on Bush Sr and massive profits for
Halliburton are the two top contenders.

Perhaps Tehran does. There hasn't been much recently on the Chalabi
investigation, but it should prove informative. At the very least, much
of the faulty intelligence was fed by Chalabi's INC to the Office of
Special Plans. In question, did the intelligence start with Chalabi or
Tehran and, as Chalabi has been accused of tipping the Iranians to our
breaking their code, was he actually an Iranian agent. He has had ties
with Tehran as far back as 1995. At the worst, we could have been duped
by Iran into removing an enemy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html