Iraq war worth it even if no WMD found: Bush

[Predator]

As for starting an unpopular war against international opinion, Bush did it anyways, whether for oil or WMD's, so that's a point already proven invalid. Since we know what the war was NOT about (war on terror, WMD's) all that is left is the oil, unless you want to say that Bush simply randomly decided to invade a nation with a dictator (skipping over dozens of other countries in Africa with far worse regimes that would have been easier conflicts to win).

That's right - but dont forget the fact that military presence in Iraq has been a strategic goal of a good portion of the administration through PNAC for quite some time. Military presence in Iraq is considered a key strategic interest for the entire region. Oil is also not the only resource of value in Iraq - the plentiful supply of water, for a region so dry, is also important.

Additionally, the fact that reconstruction would provide an excuse to favour certain companies with government spending cannot be overlooked.

[Col. Crackpot]

As much as it pains me to admit BS, you do make some valid points under that veneer of hyperbole , but this:

George Bush [this Presidents father] thought he could get rid of Saddam by manoeuvring him into invading Kuwait, allowing him to form a coalition which could legitemately kill Saddam's regieme

is tinfoil hattery of the higest degree! You cannot expect us to believe the Iraq's invasion of Kuwiat in 1990 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration without proof. Proof you cannot possibly present, because it doesn't exist!

[BoredShirtless]

is tinfoil hattery of the higest degree! You cannot expect us to believe the Iraq's invasion of Kuwiat in 1990 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration without proof. Proof you cannot possibly present, because it doesn't exist!

Bush didn't orchestrate the invasion, nor was it his idea. But Bush did give Saddam the perception that the US wouldn't interfer in Iraqs claim of Kuwait. Bush played Saddam like a chess player, that's what I meant by "manoeuvring Saddam".

[Coyote]

There are/were many reasons for invading Iraq, and many of them I agree with and think are good, as I've noted in other threads, but the truth is many of them are so cynically "realpolitik" that to admit them aloud would be a major mistake of the Administration.

Still, while I continue to hold to my position of "right war, wrong leaders".

[Ma Deuce]

Bush Sr said in his memoirs (or was it another book?) that he didn't invade Iraq and take out Saddam because the costs that would have been involved were more than he considered worth it. Anyone have the exact quote?

Yes, it was in his memoirs:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

[Chmee]

Bush Sr said in his memoirs (or was it another book?) that he didn't invade Iraq and take out Saddam because the costs that would have been involved were more than he considered worth it. Anyone have the exact quote?

Yes, it was in his memoirs:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

Wordy, isn't he? Could have just said "Wouldn't be prudent."

[Enforcer Talen]

eh, hes a politiician.