Are there any DUers who still seriously believe...

that the primary reason we invaded Iraq was because:

1) Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons
2) Saddam Hussein was going to share those nuclear weapons with Islamic terrorists

Please, please, please tell me we've all seen this Bush regurgitated excrement for what it is?!?

Does anyone here still believe this was the case??? And if so, please explain to me why?

:shrug:

over on the "What happend if we nuke Iran?" thread -- and I was so flabbergasted to see it I wondered if there were still reasonable people here on DU who truly think that.

I though it would be an impossibility, but maybe I'm missing something.... :shrug:

Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of this message before replying.


You sound like all the rightwingers who wanted to attack Iraq because Al Qaeda attacked the US. Iran is no more Iraq than Iraq was Al Qaeda. Using Al Q as an excuse for invading Iraq makes no more sense than using Iraq as an excuse for not invading Iran.

Lets go back to 2001. The Taliban with extensive backing from Iran were preparing to finish off the Northern Alliance. The Taliban had Afghanistan so well in hand that many of the Taliban's supporters had begun crossing the border into the former Soviet Republics bordering northern Afghanistan to spread the Islamic Revolutionary Movement.

Who was screaming and hollering about the Islamic Revolutionary Movement and the threat it posed to the rest of the world? The very liberal NOW (National Organization of Women) was the primary activists working on this issue. As Afghanistan had proven, women not raised in a country under Islamic law who suddenly find themselves living under such laws are unable to cope. Honor killings, stonings and beheadings of women in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia occur with enough infrequency to be a big story when they do. In Afghanistan hundreds of women a day were receiving such punishments. Because the average woman of Kabul was no more prepared for such a life than the typical woman in Manhattan.

This is not some bogey man. It exists. Iran was their first success. Several countries in Africa have since fallen. The genocide in Darfur is part and parcel of this movement. Niger keeps drifting closer and closer to this state of affairs. There are several such movements scattered around the Indian Ocean.

Given that this started in Iran, we know Iran played a big part in its success in Afghanistan, and that Iran is supporting the revival of the Taliban as I write this, I could make an argument for invading Iran. In fact, my argument for invading Iran (to hurt the Islamic Revolutionary Movement) would be much the same as the argument I used against invading Iraq (Saddam opposed the Islamic Revolutionary Movement).

Disclaimer: I could. But I won't for two reasons. One, while Iraq and Iran are clearly different creatures, idiot's lies vis-a-vis Iraq have destroyed this administration's credibility. As evidenced by your post, any policy/action touched by idiot will be tainted. Better that he do nothing and let a later President tackle Iran if necessary.

And, two, Iran has a very active opposition party. It may be that both parties believe in the same intrusive foreign policy (remind you of anywhere else?). But I don't know enough to say one way or the other. But given that hope, then we know perfectly well that military action against Iran will have the same results as, say, 9/11 did here. The country will rally around the militant, rightwing, relgious nutcases. And our security is best served by Iranian progression, not regression.

So I am not saying we should invade Iran. I am just saying your argument that we should not invade Iran because we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, is flawed.

My post is specific to a DUer who continues to claim we went into Iraq because Saddam was building nukes and was going to share them with terrorists.

I posted no opinion on Iran. :shrug:

So back off, huh?

Those of us here, by nature, questioned the motives from the beginning. I'm sure if anyone did though, they've long since changed their minds.

I remember in the lead-up to the invasion the amazing work done by researchers here debunking what the administration was pushing, including Powell's now infamous speech before the UN.

And I especially remember all the "leaking" being done behind the scenes by the intel folks who were clearly trying to get the truth out there about the administrations' lies. There were some real heroes trying to do the right thing.

I never bought into the reasons we were told for the Iraq war, although a lot of my family and friends did and discussion with them was pointless. DU was a place where I could come to read intelligent, well-researched information and discuss with those of like mind.

dealings to the Euro, which, I understand would have sunk the dollar.

i think the thought of constantly high oil prices had the energy sector salivating.
the though of maybe even owning some of those oil fields had them drooling.
and for shrub, the thought of finally bagging saddam is, i am convinced, the reason he straightened up his image and embarked on his plan to become president.

of having our hands tight on Iraq's spigot to keep the price of oil high is more along the lines of what you are thinking?

remember at the very beginning of shrub's taking over the white house, they had that secret energy meeting that they refused to even release the names of the attendees?

well, what exactly have we seen, more than 5 years later, that even masquerades as an energy policy?

the ONLY thing that adds up is that they were talking about controlling the middle east and asian supply, as that's the ONLY thing they've even attempted that remotely relates to energy policy.

But there are still plenty of Kool Aid drinkers out there.

GWB is a testosterone-laden little cowboy and jez doin' wut come naturally.

He and we can find many "reasons" but when you get right down to things you just nailed it IMO.

at the end of the day, you are right!

... his father's name.

showing Daddy he had balls enough to go get Saddam and Daddy didn't.

Big bull/little bull syndrome.

I see it in my house. I see it in the White House.

I always believed it was to defend his daddy's honor, and to steal the oil from that area. He will do the same in Iran unless he is stopped.

not matter what...just happened that 9/11 occurred and Bushco and the media started pounding the war drums against Iraq

That we would be in Iraq before his first term ended? It was a foregone conclusion as far as I was concerned.

By the way, can somebody come to my house to help me find my bong?

It's R ole and they cain't have it! Ole ole ole. It's all about the ole.


_ _ _

Saddam Hussein was a convenient excuse to attack. This is about oil. Oil, oil, oil.