Reply #9: My reasoning... [View All]

Follow me on this and you may come to the same conclusion I did.

Firstly, to invade and occupy would gaurantee a loss of the election, because he, like his son, was destroying the economy, was going to be forced to raise taxes, and was generally a crap President (puking on the Japanese PM for example).

But they NEEDED to invade. Consider this: Enron and companies like it were reaching the end of their profitable lives, in terms of the kind of pillage they could commit. The economy had been sucked dry, and they would soon collapse without a major influx of wealth.

On top of that was the desire to control the Middle East, possibly as part of the quid pro quo with the Israelis. It is possible that during the war when Israel agreed to stay out of it and just absorb the Scud strikes, that Bush promised behind the scenes that he would remove Hussein from power. On top of that is the PNAC belief (except they were in power at that stage and hadn't published it) of US dominance.

Now, ask yourself whether the "No Fly Zones" and the sanctions and all the rest of the pressure put on Iraq after the first gulf war were really because of fear of Hussein. I personally believe that Hussein was conned into invading Kuwait at the behest of the Bush cabal, and as such there was far more to the war than liberating Kuwait or protecting Iraq's neighbours.

So why else would these harsh sanctions etc be put in place? To act as a future excuse, in the same way as Bush Jnr eventually used them! The plan was ALWAYS to occupy Iraq, and thus they needed some way of doing it when they wanted to, so they basically created a permanent provocation that could be called upon to create that excuse at any time.

As for the Saudis, I think you have things a bit backwards there. Supposedly, the Bush cabal story goes, they showed the Saudis satellite photographs showing Hussein's military massed on the border ready to invade. At this point the Saudis agreed to having US troops in Saudi Arabia, but they sure as hell wouldn't have wanted them based there permanently for the exact reason you mention. So why would the Saudis want the US to stop the invasion, thereby forcing them to accept US troops in Saudi Arabia over an extended period?

Surely they would prefer that the US troops invade Iraq, and turn it into their military garrison? Possibly the only reason the Saudis could have for not having the US invade Iraq was to prevent the Iraqi oil being controlled by the US, and thus removing their one bargaining chip (oil prices).

Notice that as soon as the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, the Saudis asked for, and got the removal of US troops from its soil. This is what they wanted years ago, so why prevent the one thing that would have allowed it to happen?

No, I believe once again that they were promised that the invasion would commence after Bush's re-election, and that never occured because Clinton won.

Can you imagine if Enron had not collapsed before the invasion of Iraq how much money it would have gotten as part of reconstruction efforts? It would have made a fortune!

Basically, take all the reasons Bush Jnr did it, and you have the reasons why Bush Snr would want to do it. The only problem was Bush Snr lost. After that they did everything in their power to have Clinton thrown out, and when that failed they made sure they won the next election, by stealing it.