Placing a US presence on two sides of Iran and especially between Iran and Israel wasn't an accident. I contend the Iraq invasion was primarily designed to intimidate Iran, not to mention, surround them. I believe they were always the main threat and there was no way to justify invading Iran then. Saddam didn't stick to the ceasefire agreement, that was enough justification to take down his regime on it's own.

Dave I am sorry but that is a bunch of crap the republicans are now trying to sell us to justify the invasion. History does not back up this.  Iraq hated Iran, we supported their war against Iran, (thus their claims Iraq had WMD, we were the ones that gave it to them and knew it had grown too old to be effective.) Taking out Saddam opened up a chance to have Iraq more friendly with Iran, they now have a common enemy.

When Iraq attacked the Saudi's , the Saudi's asked the US for help containing Iraq, Bin Laden was a Saudi and his family was very powerful and he was pissed that the royal family invited the US "infindels" into their holy land, this is where Bin Laden first set his sights on the US. Dessert Storm was the result of this, we pushed Iraq back over the border.

The only proof that can support a reason for going into Iraq is Bush is an idiot and will believe what he is told and Cheney and Rumsfield made a boat load of money for their former companies, which they still have deferred stock in. How is it so hard for some to believe, this was all about money. People have robbed and killed people for less then 100 dollars. Just because Cheney wears a suit,doesn't make him any less capable of being a criminal.

Edited: to correct wording that made Scott happy. Damn I hate when I do that. LOL

How is it so hard for some to believe this wasn't about money.

Not hard at all.  I definitely believe it wasn't about money.

Beleiving it was about money gives way too much credit to Bush's mental facilities.

The idea behind going into Iraq isn't what upsets me.  It's the absolute idiocy of going in without any plans to get back out.  That's total incompetence.  That's "worst president ever" criteria.

Beleiving it was about money gives way too much credit to Bush's mental facilities.

The idea behind going into Iraq isn't what upsets me.  It's the absolute idiocy of going in without any plans to get back out.  That's total incompetence.  That's "worst president ever" criteria.

Bush is an idiot but he is also a puppet,  the real planners of this whole mess are Cheney and Rumsfeld, if you have an un-ending , 1 billion a week invasion, who beneifits from that? Those military contractors that have connection to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Look at Kellogg, Root & Browns and Halliburtons financial information before the Iraq invasion, they were almost out of business. When Cheney is no longer VP he will receive so much money from Halliburton from his deferred stock option it would make your head spin.

Edited: to correct wording that made Scott happy. Damn I hate when I do that.

LOL  :)

Here's another link:

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

The selling of war shifted from (i) disarming Iraq, to (ii) regime change, to (iii) liberating the people of Iraq.  That alone made me doubt the sincerity of all involved.

Also, didn't The Project for The New American Century submit a proposal to Clinton back in the late 90s to invade Iraq so that the US could establish a strong foothold in the Middle East economically and militarily?  And didn't a few of those guys land in Bush's cabinet or something?

Then, there was The Carlyle Group ... I haven't thought about this stuff in a long time, but I recall there being something fishy about them ... military contracts and all.

Michael Retour wrote: What possible threat is Iran to the US?  I've heard theories before but that was a rather interesting one Dave. Isn't the world volatile enough?

You've got to be kidding me? Iran not a threat? What possible threat was a ragtag bunch of Al-Qaeda members before 9/11? I don't think the strategy in Iraq was designed to then attack Iran, but hopefully contain them and prevent the need to attack them. If they continue their nuclear program though, it could be unfortunate. Iraq is the best possible staging area for any military action we might need to take to fight terrorism in the middle east, it's really that simple. The naivete or ignorance, or whatever you want to call it on this issue makes me sad sometimes. Should we just return to complacency and the reactive policies of the past in dealing with terrorists? I don't think so.