My opinion about why Bush invaded Iraq

[Tony_FLADEM]

I believe Bush invaded Iraq to divert attention from 9-11. If Bush had not invaded Iraq, the american people and the media would be more focused on what happend on 9-11-01 and the Bush Adminstration does not want this. They did not want a true dialogue about what happend on that day. Instead they decided to invade Iraq to change the subject.

[pinkpops]

1. I would put it another way

9/11 came just in time to save him, but it was not possible to keep the ball rolling just going after Bin Laden et al because it was have been too elusive and the public would lose focus.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Politics, oil, profit.

[indepat]

3. Equal PNAC?

[pansypoo53219]

4. oedip[al oedipal oedipal

the minute the !#$%^ supreme court INSTALLED him, he was lookin for ANY excuse to take sadaa, out to show mommy that he is better than poppy. and 9/11 gave him one EVEN THOUGH SADAAM HGAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. amd even today he tried to tie Sadaam to it. lying asshole.

[Poiuyt]

5. I agree

Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The 9/11 attacks just gave him the "Pearl Harbor" event that he needed to justify an invasion. Never mind the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

[AlinPA]

6. I believe that their motivation was:

1. To make Bush look like a "commander in chief". They needed a war for that and to keep him popular.
2. Halliburton's bottom line
3. To cover bad news.

[Dirk39]

7. Disagree...

Hello from Germany,
didn't it even emphasize the critical questions about 9-11?
I think the main reason was to save the northamerican economy. Even the oil-argument isn't sufficient. O.K. the USA needs oil, but it depends on nearly everything else, too.
The only way to safe the economy is to convince the rest of the world that the USA is needed as a military force in a world that is permanently threatened by terror. If this strategy would have worked, it would guarantee further investions into the USA.
I think this war has more to do with the USA being weak, not just economically but military, too.
They have the strongest airforce and navy ever in the world, no question, but they can't lead a real war.
This is a reason that a weak and defenseless country was attacked, that had no air defense. It even makes PNAC looks like a comedy: while they are dreaming of attacking 4 countries at the same time, they can't even win that theatrical mini-war.
If there would be a real economic competition among different nations, the USA as we know it today, would be a thing of the past.
I follow mostly the argumentation of Emmanuel Todd, whose book is discussed in Editorials and Other Articles at DU. I'm still not sure about this, but some of his arguments are really convincing.
Dirk

[Festivito]

8. add Euro changeover, pipeline payback, and PNAC.

Saddam changed from dollars to Euro oil pricing which will be bad for US dollar. Venezuela did too, so we made them a coup.

Political paybacks in the form of pipeline building. When oil begins to to dry up, the pipeline owners will be as gods. It's not for the now, it's the future with only 50 years or less of oil at current consumption.

The Bush-son inheritable Carlye and military congressional industrial complex profits fit into Bush's desire.

Neo-conservative PNAC needs a strategic base for ME conquest. Saudis can and did kick us out.

Looking presidential with a war that hides 9/11 seems like frosting on the above as cake. That 9/11 lie is too big, way to big for the US to believe. He already has Afghanistan and can could and will spin it as a postive for himself. 9/11 hides itself, for now.

US military is not good for policing, especially under Bush, and policing is what Iraq is all about. We can win a war for good purpose and good means, this just isn't a good war as was Bosnia for an example.