What were the historic reasons for the Iraq war I.e. how

it wasn't

>>323368
saddam was mad that kuwait had more oil than him and invaded

>>323368
technically speaking there's no discernible justification short of
>le oil
>le 9/11
>le you're either with us or against us
>le WMDs
>le insert democracy!
>le failed dictatorship
of course these days it's mostly
>le stop extremists, save yurop
>le moderate rebels
if I missed any feel free to chime in

Because America lives on war. Whenever America isn't warring all focus is on homeland issues, which are far more harder to solve than bombing arabs.

I think Bush and the boys genuinely believed they could create a democracy from an Islamic dictatorship.

File: 1431898916736.jpg (451KB, 900x1392px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 900x1392px

It, along with Libya, Syria, a few other countries and finally Iran, were originally all going to be the first-ever Anerican invasions without a traditional war rationale. The idea was to undo and make amends for the Carter-Reagan-Bush-first half of Clinton administrations destroying everything by encouraging crazy people to come to power with highly-lethal weaponry and a willing Saudi international conspiracy of hired plainclothes thugs.

This was one of hundreds of thoroughly-planned ideas that are made every year, but it just happened to get more support and hence more attention than the others.

Unfortunately, this means greater autonomy for foreign countries, which everyone except for "the powers that be" wanted. So a real conquest meant to take place within a year, just like Kuwait was meant to conclude with a subjugation of Iraq, was commandeered by the Bush family.

The result has been a degradation in American military power because most citizens are now convinced that the military is just a bunch of ooga-boogas. By painting thee idea of an offensive American military invasion as a bad thing, the military was neutered.

All this is public information. It just takes some effort to prove it for yourself, with some inference as to intent. Now, in reality, the invasions might never have happened, but their more advanced planning, aborted by successive administrations and Congresses, seemed to be going in the direction of adding a humanitarian assistance role to the military less as an ad-hoc system and rather on a permanent basis, intended to influence future ship design, infantry training, munitions design, military recruitment, etcetera, leading to... primary and secondary education, which is the root of all problems stemming from the human disease of not knowing how to fucking fo research. Better education precludes the election of Reagans, Bushes, and Eisenhowers, among other things.

This is why we invaded Iraq /how we did/: aggrandizement.

File: Absolutely Happening.png (1008KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1024x680px

>>323368
WMDs yall

Bush Sr. left the job unfinished

We're not allowed to discuss that here until 2028.

>>326437
But its obvious origins are in 1991.

Damn, not till 2016!

File: Fry.jpg (21KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 288x288px

>>323368
The "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive warfare to prevent the use of WMDs.

>>323368
>We went to war, in essence, because both public and elite faith in this policy of imploding the regime through external military, diplomatic and economic pressure collapsed. 9/11 did not merely give Bush the political capital to invade Iraq, it created the rationale by which actors who did not stand to directly benefit by the war signed on board to support it.

When there has been a disaster of public policy, it is generally easy to point a finger at those who clearly intended to enrich themselves greatly. The attempt to create an annex to Texas in Iraq - a low wage, no law, low tax place to extract oil - is obvious enough from seeing how the true believer neocon hacks ran the occupation into the ground. It is not hard to see how Bush himself hoped to leverage both the positive and negative impact of the war for political advantage.

However, if it had merely been the dream of a few oil service companies, bankers and assorted military contractors to have a war, we would not be hip deep in the sands of Iraq with 3475 allied fatalities and more than 30,000 other casualties. Worth noting that if Iraq produced fatalities per casualty at the same rate as Vietnam, we would have over 12,000 dead. A number which, I am sure, would grab people's attention.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6199

Billy Graham and the flying fish!

Oil must flow. Destroy a volatile, powerful state which had been consistently threatening the stability of oil regimes.

Bush jr wanted to make daddy proud by finishing what he started, and Cheney wanted oil money