Factors causing Bush to invade Iraq - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SoCalCoug · 06-22-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

Wow, I didn't realize how liberal the folks were on this board. I like it. I would rather be around a bunch of people who disagree with me so I can get some understanding of how liberals think.

We're only liberal on CB. The rest of America sees us as moderate, and even moderately conservative.

JohnnyLingo · 06-22-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

We're only liberal on CB. The rest of America sees us as moderate, and even moderately conservative.

"The rest of America"

Uh. right.

Goatnapper'96 · 06-22-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let's leave aside for a moment WMD's and the extent if any that concern about these were real or pretextual factors in Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I submit that Bush was no different than the head of state of other beligerent nations in history in that his decision to invade a foreign country and occupy it was decisively motivated by 1) money; and 2) bizarre and petty psychological factors. Who agrees?

I believe it was to emplace a friendly regime in the hopes of establishing a middle east democracy that would one day allow plurality of thought, and hence an opponent to militant Islam. Oil was just rhetoric that shed as much light on the motivation as WMDs. Both are just political justifications.

I think just getting pictures of Saddam's love shack lamps made it all worthwhile, can you imagine Daddy Sadd spreading out on a bed inside a sexy van adorned with shagg carpet and stringly lampshade like window shades?

BOWN BICHA BOWN BOWN!!!

jay santos · 06-22-2007, 05:41 PM

SU's the master manipulator. You can't argue with him intelligibly because he doesn't play fair and treats everyone as inferiors. He's the classic stereotypical lawyer, not interested in the truth only interested in winning using whatever tactic he can.

That said, I don't think you can dismiss the Freudian angle. The father/son relationship is so complicated and significant in most people's behavior that you probably can never discount it, especially when it's so obvious in the Bush's.

SoCalCoug · 06-22-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

"The rest of America"

Uh. right.

You're right - the rest of America, not including the ultra-conservatives

Detroitdad · 06-22-2007, 06:04 PM

I voted for 1 and 2, but I think they were both minor factors. There were a lot of factors, but I believe through the things that I have read that the primary reasons for going to Iraq was to attempt to spread democracy in an effort to "drain the swamp." Going into Iraq then could fulfill two objectives, 1) create a state that could provide a model to states in development into democracy, and provide the hope necessary to prevent desperate young men from becoming terrorists, which is a way of "draining the swamp." 2) produce a state that is sympathetic to US interests in the region (oil and Israel).

I think the effort was the product of a naive and overly optimistic world view that has been borne out by events on the ground there. But again the only reason we really care a lot about what goes on in the Persian Gulf is oil and Israel, so I answered yes to the first portion of the poll.

Certainly the history between Saddam and the Bush family did not hurt in motivating GWB to get rid of him. But I blanch a bit at playing amateur psychologist and reading to much into that connection, and so I consider it a very minor factor.

View Poll Results: Which of these motivated bush to invade Iraq?
Installing a friendly regime to give access to oil on good terms.	2	14.29%
A Freudian thing vis-a-vis his father.	0	0%
Both Option 1 and 2	7	50.00%
Neither Option 1 nor 2	5	35.71%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

06-22-2007, 05:41 PM	#14
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	SU's the master manipulator. You can't argue with him intelligibly because he doesn't play fair and treats everyone as inferiors. He's the classic stereotypical lawyer, not interested in the truth only interested in winning using whatever tactic he can. That said, I don't think you can dismiss the Freudian angle. The father/son relationship is so complicated and significant in most people's behavior that you probably can never discount it, especially when it's so obvious in the Bush's.

06-22-2007, 06:04 PM	#16
Detroitdad Resident Jackass Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Roswell, New Mexico Posts: 1,846	I voted for 1 and 2, but I think they were both minor factors. There were a lot of factors, but I believe through the things that I have read that the primary reasons for going to Iraq was to attempt to spread democracy in an effort to "drain the swamp." Going into Iraq then could fulfill two objectives, 1) create a state that could provide a model to states in development into democracy, and provide the hope necessary to prevent desperate young men from becoming terrorists, which is a way of "draining the swamp." 2) produce a state that is sympathetic to US interests in the region (oil and Israel). I think the effort was the product of a naive and overly optimistic world view that has been borne out by events on the ground there. But again the only reason we really care a lot about what goes on in the Persian Gulf is oil and Israel, so I answered yes to the first portion of the poll. Certainly the history between Saddam and the Bush family did not hurt in motivating GWB to get rid of him. But I blanch a bit at playing amateur psychologist and reading to much into that connection, and so I consider it a very minor factor.