>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Mike, if you think the Iraqi invasion was in any way, ever, about Iraqi freedom, you are even younger than I thought. Now that the grand jury has heard all the testimony and indictments are coming out, lips are loosening. And the clear picture that emerges is that a small cabal behind the amiable dunce -- people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Rove -- were bound and determined to invade Iraq. They weren't interested in facts and actively tried to suppress facts that were inconvenient to them. These bozos have led us into a disaster of the first magnitude. What I don't understand is how they managed to do so with the blind support of so many who supported the war (and continue to support it despite all evidence) simply because they see themselves as conservative Republicans. What dupes.
>>>>
>>>>JOMO....
>>>
>>>If all that is true, why do you think they wanted to invade Iraq? If you say it was for oil, then you are even younger than I thought.
>>
>>I guess we may never know the true motivation(s), Jay, but I think we can say quite flatly that it was NOT for the good of the Iraqi people.
>>
>>My surmise is along these lines:
>>a) President Bush harboured bad feelings that his Dad never "finished the job".
>>b) 9/11 gave the cabal the opportunity to raise their ~1991 document as "the plan" to deal with terrorism.
>>c) President Bush jumped on it and put himself in the cabal's hands.
>>d) The cabal made the mistake of actually believing the "intelligence" that they had made up in the first place.
>>
>>Now that ~1991 document was related totally to projecting U.S. power throughout the world in order to protect American interests. That, of course, meant OIL more than it meant anything else.
>>That document suggested that expanding democracy would be a good excuse for taking that course of action.
>>
>>Looking at it from another side... If helping the poor people of Iraq was the prime motive, there are countless countries of the world where the people need MORE help than the Iraqis ever did THAT WOULD HAVE COST FAR LESS TO ACHIEVE. In fact I'd hazard that the money and casualty counts of the Iraq war could easily have solved all of the problems of Africa!
>>
>>I personally feel that the U.S. has to stay in Iraq now to fix the mess they wrought. But that doesn't mean that the war was justified. Especially now that the "justification" is proving to have been fabricated.
>>
>>cheers
>
>Don't you believe that is was a combination of things? Not just helping another country, but trying to eliminate threats as well? I'm not saying that many of the things you defined are not valid reasons, just that it's not all about evil capitalists trying to take over the world (my words).

Sure I think it's a combination of reasons, and that we'll never know what they all were.
But I say that my items (a), (b) and (c) above define primarily how it all came about.
I also think there's a big difference between "evil capitalists" and "protecting our interests", though I'd agree that both would appear to let nothing stand in their way.
The U.S. used to use pressure (diplomatic, financial, implied military strength, etc) to "protect our interests" but the cabal's choice to do it through military action has replaced that method. And the world is very worried about that!

cheers