Did USA invade Iraq because of 9-11? FACTS ONLY!

Hi.

Went out with a friend last week, and we get along very well, but he is a liberal, and I am a conservative.

He asked me this question:

Were one of the reasons that the USA invaded Iraq because of 9/11 terrorism?

I immediately said yes, and he said that was a common myth, and that the US did NOT invade Iraq because of 9-11.

I started thinking about this, and he maybe right. Help me out yall, is this true of false?

So I started thinking about it, and I was thinking that he may be correct.

I think that the official USA reasons for invading Iraq were:

-12 years Non-compliance of 17 UN Treaties Resolutions
-Strong evidence of WMD.

I believe that it was strongly implied, that, "Oh yea, we are pretty confidant that Sadam Hussien was helping Ossama Ben Laden and Al Kadia.

BUT, that was not an official reason.

Someone who knows, help me out please.

Point me to a web site, News site, etc,

When doing a google search, I get lots of left and right winged sites, but no actual lists, or at least none that I can find.

So, your input please. Again, I am not trying to start a debate, nor am I interested in having a debate, just trying to find the truth.

Thanks

www.whatreallyhappened.com , look thru the archives, it will enlighten you with references to credible sources. Stay away from any links to rense.com, as they tend to be a bit nuts.
Rob

Budd, to my understanding, each has his own knowledge and opinion on what the truth is. It all depends on which side you were on, so trying to find the truth would imply starting a debate, no matter the intention. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

I remembered watching a news talk regarding the reasons and one of them is to show the middle east people not to mess with US. Iraq is located strategically between two other nations that oppose US (forgot the names, already /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

of course, there are lots of argued causes on the war in Iraq, like oil, WMD, Saddam, etc etc.
i personally believe that the sept 11 is not the actual reason, it is just an event that makes the ball rolls.

JMHO

only people who know the facts are the people in charge. i am glad we went there but thease aint the facts you require .

Iraq has not been directly linked to 9-11.
Bush nor his administration has never stated that is was.

Hussein has, however, been linked to terrorists, and as you stated, played games with the resolutions.

therefore, due to the events of 9-11 precipitating our war on terrorism, and Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions(creating a very real potential to arm terrorists) we invaded.

so, yes. i believe that 9-11 changed our view/policy, which lead to Iraq.

some believe that Iraq was never a threat, some do.
ulterior motives? who knows?

here is some WMD info which i believe to be credible:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

disclaimer: not trying to start a debate either. some of the above is only my interpretation of the events.

your mileage may vary!

Bob

[ QUOTE ]
shiftd said:
Budd, to my understanding, each has his own knowledge and opinion on what the truth is. It all depends on which side you were on, so trying to find the truth would imply starting a debate, no matter the intention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, 4 responses already, thanks!

Shiftd, I understand what you are saying, (like we say at work, "What's REALLY goin' on!")

But, all I was looking for, was the stated, official reasons that George Bush gave. It would certantly be up for debate (and BOY HOWDY, was it ever! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif ) as to if one agrees or disagrees, but the actual reasons would not be up to a debate.

Kind of like if I said, "The water in the lake is too cold to swim in". We could debate if the water was or was not too cold, and what too cold is, and the actual temperature of the water, but the fact that I actually made the statement itself is not up for debate.

AH ok buddy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

i understand what you are saying.


move along folks, nothing to see here /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

see. i dunno what to believe.
and in fact there are no facts but the ones Bush wants to reveal @ his discretion.

alotta the reasons that i flip around in my mind for the invasion of Iraq are immediately met by the thought,
why Iraq? there were other opposing countries that were violating more UN resolutions.. so it must be 'cause Iraq possibly had WMD's or substances necessary to constructing them.. but wasn't that fabricated? sheesh. we didn't really find anything anyways.

the only reason that i like and that i can make sense of, is we invaded Iraq for the purpose of taking Hussein outta power. which is a good thing.

Well I did a google for "Facts Only" and came up with these:

This

This

and of course

This

Well I tried Google also * bush statement Iraq invasion *.
All sorts of stuff but found a link to WhiteHouse.Gov . It has speeches the President has made. I suppose some might debate the accuracy of the quoted speeches but few would (I'm sure some would) debate that the speeches were made.
So here is a link to Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly 9-12-2002 About half way down are a listing of things Iraq agreed to after the war with Kuwait/Desert Storm that they have not done. I'm sure there are other speeches that might have more specifics.
I think this is what you are looking for the fact of what Bush said true or not.

Wits' End said: ...link to Address to the United Nations 9-12-2002

This link seems to layout the case for the invasion of Iraq with most of the detail that the Bush administration used for its case.

As far as 9-11 goes, here is the only sentence that I see related to 9-11:

"if an emboldened [Iraq] regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."

I guess you will have to decide if this means we invaded because of 9-11 or not. When President Bush was asked if the U.S. believes there is evidence showing that Iraq sponsored the 9-11 attack, he has said that there is no evidence of that.

It seems to me that it is a bit of a futile effort to try to find the ONE reason why the U.S. is in Iraq. There are many reasons. Most have been stated here already. Each in itself seems pretty petty and insufficient reasoning for, as it is being put, invading Iraq. But to put all of these little things together, you end up with one big ball of very compelling reasons... the least of which is the oppression of the Iraqi people by their dictator. I'm sure there are many many more reasons also that we are totally clueless about. I'm ok with that for now. I don't think anyone can argue that for whatever reasons, it's a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power. Does it really matter what the REASON for taking him out of power is? The fact that there was more than one is enough for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
I don't think anyone can argue that for whatever reasons, it's a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power. Does it really matter what the REASON for taking him out of power is? The fact that there was more than one is enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with that statement (At least the first part). The low life, scum sucking weasle needed to be removed, and if his is the first televised execution I'll tune in. But if we adopt a philosophy of the end justifies the means then we open a whole new can of worms. Before Vietnam I might have trusted our government, now I just can't. So rather than get into a long debate I would only suggest that each one ask themselves this question "Who stood to gain the most from the whole mess?"

Not our soldiers who are getting killed, but maybe the billion dollar funnel that was created. Don't think that this can be interpreted as a lack of support for our military. I would gladly stand with them again, and do anything I could for them. I have nothing but the highest respect for those on the wall. I just think maybe they are gettin the shaft in this deal.

What Bravo25 said!

oldgrandpajack

OK, now im pissed,.

i had this HUGE thing typed out, with facts, and all that.
I click spell check ,, and BAM, page disappears.

This is the second time I have lost a post due to spell check.

You ppl are just gonna have to put up with my bad spelling, cuz i am not clicking that damn button ever again.

And no I am not retyping all that I just lost. It took me 15 minutes to type it.

sld;kjghlsdgl;sagl;asghs ARRRRRRRGGGGGGG !!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[ QUOTE ]
BuddTX said:
-12 years Non-compliance of 17 UN Treaties Resolutions
-Strong evidence of WMD.


[/ QUOTE ]
In Cyprus, the turkish occupation army ignores for 30 years now, about 20 UN resolutions... But maybe the Cypriots are out of luck cause they dont have any oil.. Or they are lucky?
As for WMD goes, maybe junior will find some just before the elections...

i guess (as others have stated) that to find the "official" position/rationale, you should go to the government websites, and read the speaches/testimony of the president and his administration.

i would not trust non-official interpretation. read the info yourself and decide! there is a lot of info, so be patient. (sorry, i dont have any links handy. PM me if you like, and i will try to dig some up)

take care,
Bob

*post voluntarily edited to ease myself out of an impending S..tstorm!

[ QUOTE ]
Wits' End said: . . .but found a link to WhiteHouse.Gov.
So here is a link to Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly 9-12-2002

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!

That is what I was looking for!

Since others are politely commenting on this issue, I will now comment too, keeping civility in mind.

First of all, I don't care if you are "For or Against" the Iraq invasion, we should ALL want our Troops home, and peace to exist in Iraq (and the world). Even if the cause is JUST, war is HELL. Those three words say a lot. It's NOT like saying, "Boy, I had a Hellofaday at work!" either.

Some interesting facts and quotes in Bush's speech:

"From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

"And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993"

SO, Iraq ALREADY DID (Past tense) have WMD. The press has made me believe that WMD were a figment of Bush's imagination. AND, they had larger WMD already developed too, like long range missles.

"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state."

We know have confirmed that it was not just "Tens of thousands" but a confirmed 300,000 to 400,000 with estimates as high as 600,000 mass graves.

And, as Ikend stated, and as I suspected, the 9/11 reference "hints at" Iraq involvement, but no hard evidence.

I am OK with this. The hundreds of thousands of mass graves are enough for US involvement, although it should have been the UN.

Now, what does bother me, (and I am about as conserative as it gets), is the following:

-The press has implied that there are other places in the world that "Hundreds of thousands" of people in a country are wrongly killed, but the US does not get involved.

-IRAQ should be footing the bill for this war. They have the money, they have the resources.

Many thanks!

Iraq was invaded because of 9/11. Not because of any direct or proven indirect involvement, but as a knee jerk reaction "to do something" and the need to get a foothold in the middle east to enable further action as deemed necessary to neighbouring states that may support terrorism.

Reflect on the mass genocide that went on in Yugoslavia. What about the even greater number of people killed (and still being killed) in numerous African states? There are still even worse dictators than Sadam still in power, and will be in power for years to come.

Where was the coalition action then? Where is the coalition now in all the other countries that are suffering similar oppression?

Only recently, the British goverment released papers showing what our American allies were prepared to do in the 1973 Oil Crisis - invade to preserve oil supplies. It is clear that oil is the fundamental concern. Anything else is a bonus.

Afganistan was a correct course of action with a clear goal. But I don't think the US administration fully understands just how much the Arab/Muslim world detests any western, and particularly American involvement in the middle east. Where are the equal sanctions and action agains Isreal? - this is in the minds of every Muslim

Don't take this as a direct critisism, but America is very isolationist and largely ignorant what goes on [politically] in the rest of the world.

The middle east is not a group of countries, but essentially a collection of tribes and factions who have, over the years, been given artifical countries made for them by outsiders

Today, our defence minister announced that British troops are expected to be in iraq for at least another 3 years !!
Is that going to be 4 soldiers killed per week for the next 156 weeks (624 deaths)?

I had no confidence in Bush as a competant or skilled politian, and it seems that he he being advised and steered in a direction by others. His advisors do not seem to grasp the basics of the middle east political situation.

So, back to 9/11. The Gulf War is now being referred to part of "the war on terror". This appears to make it more acceptable to the public - especially in the US, who have not had the benefit of knowing the past politics or history of the middle east. However, it was undertaken for a completely different reason and agenda.

Yes, the official reason was to enforce (their interpretation of) the UN mandate. And as someone else mentioned, a possibility of an weapons programme falling into unfriendly hands was a additional reason.

But you only have to watch the news to see that what is comming out of Iraq is not images of happy iraqis, rebuilding towns and communities and liberation - it is images of fighting, of invaders of destruction and death. The muslim world does not see the situation through our eyes, and they are looking for the next opportunity for revenge - the next opportunity to hijack a plane.

[ QUOTE ]
zorba said:
[ QUOTE ]
BuddTX said:
-12 years Non-compliance of 17 UN Treaties Resolutions
-Strong evidence of WMD.


[/ QUOTE ]
In Cyprus, the turkish occupation army ignores for 30 years now, about 20 UN resolutions... But maybe the Cypriots are out of luck cause they dont have any oil.. Or they are lucky?
As for WMD goes, maybe junior will find some just before the elections...

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a lot more states ignoring UN resolutions.