What possible justification is there for the US to occupy Iraq?

[BurtWorm]

Anyone?

[pruner]

1. Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy…

isn't that enough of a reason?

:shrug:

[Bucky]

2. We bombed the shit out of it and now it's a chaotic mess.

I suppose we need to stick around and clean things up a bit.

[corporatewhore]

13. I think the UN would be more of a legit force

and plus i think the iraqis deserve self determination after years of saddam and of course the us should pay reperations and help build buildings we destroyed but i dont think we should have a military presence

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. These folks might know:

[burrowowl]

4. OIL!

Legally, no justification whatsoever.
In fact, the so-called war is illegal.
Will we see Bu$hie and Co tried?

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. You mean outside of making the country safe for Halliburton?

not much. Not much at all. Of course, it has always been about who controls the resources. Saddam was a thug, to be sure. But for a long time he was OUR kind of thug, doing what he was told, so to speak. Then, he had the audacity to become his OWN kind of thug! Well!!! we just cant have that, now can we?

Even if they find 150 armed and live Nuclear warheads and tons of other nasty stuf it was NEVER about the WMD's. It was about who gets to control the profits. Before it was the French, the Germans an the Russians. Now it is us and the Brits.

[opihimoimoi]

8. For the SPICE

[corporatewhore]

12. Oil and to kill more poor brown people

(iraqis and the us troops-dubya loves to kill brown people reminds of his days in the govs mansion)

[pansypoo53219]

6. oil

definately the oil.

[wtmusic]

7. To search for more Iraqis in spiderholes

Because *no one* deserves to live in a yucky spiderhole!

:silly:

[zulchzulu]

10. Yunno "Spiderholes" would be a great band name

[zulchzulu]

9. Sand castle contests and camel races

...and maybe oil...

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Besides the obvious oil profits, it's location, location, location!!

Iraq is a centralized point from which to launch invasions of the other countries on the PNAC Agenda .....Syria, Iran.... basically everyone but Israel eventually.

[corporatewhore]

14. and the dry desert air is good for karls bacne

http://www.cafeshops.com/thewhitehouse/88025

[BurtWorm]

15. Devil's Advocate Answer (warning to devil: it's full of holes)

The US is the only power in the world strong enough to have any positive influence over countries that refuse to get their liberal democratic act together. Not even the UN has the firepower to back up its efforts to move the world that way, nation by nation. But the US does. The US must therefore have the will to use that firepower, if necessary, to install democracies in place of dictatorships. It's irresponsible not to do so, irresponsible to the people who, through no fault of their own, suffer under them. The long-term goal is a world in which liberal democracies are the rule, because such a world must be safer when laws determine nations' actions rather than the caprice of tyrants.

Now why Iraq, of all places to start? Set aside the lies that the devil's party told to get the US involved in a war there. The war had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism--or at least terrorist activity inside Iraq was not sufficiently compelling to justify breaching long-standing international protocol against violating other nations' sovereignty. Neither was the question of WMDs, per se, because it was not clear, in truth, how imminent any threat from them was. So why Iraq? (Hey, devil, here's one of your biggest holes and I don't have a clue how to close it.)

[corporatewhore]

19. Mr.Satan (lucifer not you georgie)

the us because of strong military and various other enforcers (such as School of americas grads) are responsible for propping psychotic dictators up such as saddam and pinnochet and taking out liberal democracies the most recent try being Hugo Chavez from Venezuela
knowing our track record shouldnt the UN decide which despots to take out and how to do iAnd if it is our responsibility to go after evildoing contries who commit human rights violations why dont we go in and bomb israel. I think that we should achieve social justice with negociations Rember Gandhi a small indian took on the Brittish Empire

[BurtWorm]

21. I was trying to save that massive crater for later.

I just wanted to give Satan a fighting chance to make his case.

[Kitsune]

16. Our oil somehow got stashed under their sand *nt*

[Tinoire]

17. Water. Oil. Re-defining the Middle-East.

<snip>

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

<snip>

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2434

[Tinoire]

18. Justification as in excuse? Stability is what they'll peddle

and that one really makes me want to :puke:


:hi:

[Fleshdancer]

20. What's Iraq? Don't you mean New Texas?? n/t

[tlb]

22. The Security Council authorized and approved the occupation in October.

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- The U.N. Security Council Thursday unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, but calling for control to be returned to the Iraqi people "as soon as practicable."

It also "authorizes a multinational force under a unified command," meaning the United States, to contribute to security and stability.


The Governing Council and its ministers are regarded "as the principle bodies of the Iraqi interim administration." The council now "embodies the sovereignty of the state of Iraq" during a transitional period "until an internationally recognized representative government is established and assumes the responsibilities" of the Coalition Provisional Authority, known in international parlance as the occupying power.

[BurtWorm]

23. That "justification" came a little late, didn't it?

I mean we were already occupying the place since May. That's kind of like going to the Supreme Court to stop a vote tally, then having them run out the clock while making a "decision" for you.