View Poll Results: Was the Iraq invasion planned or envisioned before 9/11?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Crazy Conspiracy Talk...

    5 27.78%
  • Evidence points towards a pre-9/11 agenda...

    12 66.67%
  • I'm undecided.

    1 5.56%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

  1. #11
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Wesley Clark.

    Last edited by Amadeus; 06-16-14 at 06:19 AM.

  2. #12
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    We have plans for invading every country. That's normal.

    This is true. It got out back when Bush was still President we had plans to invade Canada and some people freaked. From what understand the entire world is divided into regions like Central Command, Southern Command, etc. Each of those commands plan and train for any eventuality and in case hostilities break out the US has already planed and rehearsed our response.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  3. #13
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    This is true. It got out back when Bush was still President we had plans to invade Canada and some people freaked. From what understand the entire world is divided into regions like Central Command, Southern Command, etc. Each of those commands plan and train for any eventuality and in case hostilities break out the US has already planed and rehearsed our response.
    The problem is that Bush surrounded himself with people who wanted the Iraq invasion and actively pushed for it across two presidents. And to quote the PNAC manifesto:

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

  4. #14
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Liberals, anti-war types, and even some conservatives are called 'crazy conspiracy theorists' when they refer to the pre-9/11 plans for an Iraq Invasion. What do you think? Are they right, or was the Iraq War a foregone conclusion when Bush chose his cabinet?

    This is a letter to Clinton from 1998:

    PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton
    As far as the specific details of the link, nothing would surprise when it comes to our current utter dependency to petroleum. Under the current arrangement, an arrangement I believe is not in our best interest on multiple fronts, access to the free flow of a single commodity is essential to our economic life. Because its an oligopoly (a legal monopoly,) having as much of the world's oil reserves in as many US friendly hands as possibly is a type of economic life-support. This arrangement has gone on so long many Americans cannot see just how dangerous this situation is even after our history of marriages of convenience to homicidal dictators, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the first war with Iraq, the requirement of no-fly zones, the imposition of sanctions that reportedly cost 500,000 innocent children their lives due to no access to medicine and the huge black-eye that gave us in the region, repeated terrorist attacks on US targets mostly overseas upon our navy and embassies, 9/11 and the second war in Iraq. All this while all oil sold world-wide is first scalped similar to concert tickets by the Oil Futures Market with the ability to buy it all up before its pumped out of the ground and then control how much the refineries can have access to and of course after they've added their exorbitant markup. But even before that, a band of dictators conspire to maximize the amount of money they can extract from the American people through creating additional artificial scarcity. IMHO the saddest thing of all is we spend into the trillions supporting this system just in military protections and the status quo and temporary efforts to prime the pump in advancing other transportation options get labeled "communist" or too expensive. To some the best solution is instead of breaking the crack addition of petroleum dependency, we can just build our own crack houses in our own neighbors instead of having to interact with dangerous neighborhoods, a strategy that maintains this crack's central role in the global economy most of the same dangerous arrangements, just slightly differently.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Liberals, anti-war types, and even some conservatives are called 'crazy conspiracy theorists' when they refer to the pre-9/11 plans for an Iraq Invasion. What do you think? Are they right, or was the Iraq War a foregone conclusion when Bush chose his cabinet?

    This is a letter to Clinton from 1998:

    PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton
    You have a couple of questions here that have to be address...

    Was War with Iraq a foregone conclussion when Bush chose his cabinet? No. If it was we would've gone in there day one. Even if one's ASSUMPTION is they absolutely WANTED War in Iraq, the fact they did not do it until there was reasonable jusitification for going into Iraq suggests they weren't going to simply just invade without some kind of reason. As such, it would be incorrect to say it was a foregone conclussion as it hinged on other things happening.

    Was there likely pre-9/11 plans for an Iraq Invasion? Absolutely. I would hope there would be, both internally and in terms of outside policy think tanks. You have a generally volatile region in the middle east tied to a vest national intereset in terms of energy production. You have a leader who we've previously had negative interactions with who had repeatedly and continually bucked against and outright violated sanctions placed upon his country and who was routinely attempting to project himself as still potentially capable of posing a thread. NOT having strategic plans in place would be foolish and irresponsible.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Liberals, anti-war types, and even some conservatives are called 'crazy conspiracy theorists' when they refer to the pre-9/11 plans for an Iraq Invasion. What do you think? Are they right, or was the Iraq War a foregone conclusion when Bush chose his cabinet?

    This is a letter to Clinton from 1998:

    PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton
    There is a vast difference between pointing out that there was a concerted and widespread body of opinion in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein prior to 9/11, hell it was codified during the Clinton administration with the Iraq Liberation Act--and believing that the Bush Administration came to power with the intention of invading Iraq. The former is fact, the latter is unsupported conspiracy theory.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    One of the things George W. Bush campaigned on during the 2000 presidential campaign was his intention to drive Saddam Hussein out of Iraq, and establish a democratic government. It came as no great shock to me when, after 9/11, he saw the perfect opportunity to bootstrap his determination to eliminate Hussein after the American people supported his intervention with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    The problem was that (in my opinion), because Bush knew he was going to invade Iraq even before he sent the first wave of troops to Afghanistan, he purposely sent only half the troops that would normally be sent for a fast, heavy, immediate mission success because he was holding back more than half the available troops and firepower for his planned Iraq invasion.

    That led to the fiasco at Tora Bora, which should have been the end of both Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, and the demolition of both groups. Instead, with the reduced American presence, Afghan troops sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda were used to shore up the perimeter. Unsurprisingly, these jihadist sympathizers allowed the enemy to breach the perimeter and disappear into Pakistan, all because our standard military doctrine of using "overwhelming force" was dismissed in order to hold back for an invasion that had not even been discussed with or approved by congress.

    We all know what happened then. Instead being in and out of Afghanistan within 6 months with an honest "mission accomplished", we ended up in a quagmire in both Afghanistan and Iraq lasting over a decade, which will continue to haunt the US and bleed our treasury dry for the foreseeable future, even as both countries are currently engaged in reestablishing Extremist Rule, and Iraq is... as so many of us predicted... breaking itself via civil war into three sectarian "countries."

    I firmly believe that the clandestine plans of the Bush administration to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein at any cost has led to a humanitarian and financial disaster that will haunt the USA for decades and decades to come.
    When did he do this? If anything the foreign policy tenor of his administration was a significant reversal of his campaign narrative. I only recall him making an oblique reference or two on Iraq during his debates with Al Gore largely as part of his platform of criticizing what was perceived to be the Clinton administrations penchant for 'nation building'. However both candidates were committed to the toppling of Saddam as they both endorsed the ILA. Neither advocated invasion or anything close to it so far as I know.

  8. #18
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Give this video 20 seconds of your time. Then decide whether or not to watch the rest.


  9. #19
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You have a couple of questions here that have to be address...

    Was War with Iraq a foregone conclussion when Bush chose his cabinet? No. If it was we would've gone in there day one. Even if one's ASSUMPTION is they absolutely WANTED War in Iraq, the fact they did not do it until there was reasonable jusitification for going into Iraq suggests they weren't going to simply just invade without some kind of reason. As such, it would be incorrect to say it was a foregone conclussion as it hinged on other things happening.
    I am often clumsy with my wording. You are correct.

  10. #20
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: Pre-9/11 Plans for Iraq: Crazy Conspiracy or Fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Liberals, anti-war types, and even some conservatives are called 'crazy conspiracy theorists' when they refer to the pre-9/11 plans for an Iraq Invasion. What do you think? Are they right, or was the Iraq War a foregone conclusion when Bush chose his cabinet?

    This is a letter to Clinton from 1998:

    PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton

    Considering the fact even before Bush was president they have been saying Saddam has WMDs I would imagine that they would have Iraq invasion plans before 9-11.

    I know this is hard for all the die hard anti-Bush retard conspiracy believing loons. But Bush did not invent the Iraq has WMDs claims, nor was it something only uttered by republicans.

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



    Washingtonpost.com: Iraq Special Report
    Thursday, February 5, 1998; Page A01

    Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

    Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

    Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •