Final Answer.

Al Bush – [shared meme] Considering that (1) Dick Cheney absolutely opposed any invasion of Iraq until the day he joined Halliburton, and (2) Halliburton earned $39 billion from the Iraq war, I think we know the answer to this.  

Muhammad Rasheed - Corporate greed; final answer.
Al Bush - Didn't need to call for help either.
Al Bush - Blessings to you this day MR.
Anton Von Flugelhorn - it's not like Hitler trying to invade Russia, - the russian fighting for their country and survival - those poor soldiers were sent there under false pretenses, it removes nothing to their courage and the respect due to them, but the "king is to blame" (re: Henry the V by Shakespeare, a scene exacltly about this: a little glimpse of Harry in the night, even in those days it was a valid question)
Al Bush - Correct AVF. I respect vets. I don't respect lying to vets.
Anton Von Flugelhorn - Vets have been lied to, they are victims, when they come back they are treated like crap, it's disgusting, only banks get bailed out
Tim Brown - Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities. It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD. What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991. These Resolutions were more than mere expressions of UN opinion. The first two -- Resolutions 687 and 689 -- constituted the terms of the truce negotiated in the first Gulf War, a truce whose violation was a legal justification for renewed combat. The other 14 Resolutions were failed attempts to enforce those first two. In sum, the major reason why the U.S. was preparing for war, was to enforce the UN Resolutions and international law. SO there's your truth.... but it just doesn't seem to matter to the far left.
Tim Brown - More facts to ponder: As a result of President Bush’s appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously (on November 7, 2002) to present Saddam with an ultimatum and a 30-day deadline -- to expire on December 7, 2002 -- by which date he was bound to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce and to destroy his illegal weapons programs, or face “serious consequences.” This ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441 – the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce to which Saddam had agreed after the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance, as the Iraqi dictator knew that his military suppliers and political allies -- Russia and France -- would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This -- and not a preference for unilateral measures -- is the reason why the United States eventually went to war against Iraq without UN approval.
Tim Brown - And a few more little bothersome facts.....In addition to Saddam's failure to abide by the UN Resolutions, there were other reasons for the U.S. to feel threatened by this self-declared enemy of America. For example: • he had attempted to orchestrate the assassination of former President George H.W. Bush; • he was the only head of state to openly celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center after 9/11; • every major intelligence agency in the world -- including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the Jordanian -- believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD; • there were in fact links between international terrorists (including al Qaeda) and the Saddam regime -- links that are documented in in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection
Tim Brown - Though critics -- including many Democratic Party leaders – later depicted America's invasion of Iraq as a hasty endeavor undertaken without patience or forethought, President Bush gave Saddam numerous and ample opportunities to avoid war. By March 2003, nearly 14 months had elapsed since his January 2002 "axis of evil" speech. After the December 7, 2003 deadline had passed, the United States did not immediately attack Iraq. Instead, the White House spent the next three months trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French, Russians, and Chinese to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they -- as Security Council members -- had ratified and promised to enforce. Notably, the entire national security team of the former Clinton administration -- including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence -- supported George W. Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.
Muhammad Rasheed -
Tim Brown - And Muhammad is the first to reply even after facing the facts...... I will say this, there is corporate greed in every war. Even in 1776 there were Congress members getting rich from the Revolution we had yet to win! You find one war our nation fought where corporations didn't make out, big time, if you can....... but you can't.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "...there is corporate greed in every war."
That's why it's the easy $100 question.
Muhammad Rasheed - You'll have to go back pretty far to find a war that WASN'T over corporate greed. Any post-Adam Weisthaupt war was DEFINITELY corporate greed driven, and certainly any American war after 1913.
Tim Brown - Go check them All Muhammad, from the Revolution forward.
Muhammad Rasheed - I already know they are, Tim, because of the significance of the events/personages/date I mentioned. The official spin job you’ve bought into given to the public is irrelevant.
Al Bush - That was a case not made, a case I'd still struggle over and certainly not last resort. Baring assassination they posed little threat to us. But this was about oil, chest thumping, teaching someone who's boss, not honestly dealt with, wrong war, wrong plan, wrong financing, wrong deaths, wrong sales job, wrong to do to voters and wrong in outcome. Didn't make anyone safer as assassination is still an open question. It disrupted the biggest threat opposition- Iraq to our current object of scorn, Iran. Left a monster in the budget, killed a ton of the wrong people and made our weaknesses starkly apparent. We live now in a world where cyber is as deadly or more so, I'd say more so, than ground warfare and we still act like we can display military muscle for effect. BS on dry toast. Those days are over.
Tim Brown - No "spin job". The facts I have displayed are just that, facts. There is no spin. The war was brewing long before G.W. or Clinton was in office, and it had more to do with Saddam's actions than Chaney's relationship with Halliburton
Muhammad Rasheed - ...and made a small percentage of the world's populace obscenely wealthier.
Al Bush - Ahh yes we lived through the sins of the father.
Tim Brown - They always do Muhammad and always will
Gambler Wilde - Tim, you can worship your false idol, the American Empire, all you like. Now you can explain to us why McCain and the other Republicans demanded the arming of militias in Syria and Iraq that were obviously al-Qaeda affiliated - al Nusra and the entities that became ISIS/ISIL. Someone please explain to me why American air power has yet to make a dent in ISIS? Iraq folded in weeks in the face of air strikes in two different wars, but ISIS continues to hold its ground on several fronts. My guess is that ISIS knows they can't attack because they will only face significant air strikes when they are on the offensive. America needs boogeymen like ISIS.
Tim, as a likely partisan hack, will agree that Obama's air assault on Libya was a mistake. All of the Democrat shills will have to apologize for Obama's Libya adventure. The moral equivalence between Bush's Iraq War and Obama's Libya War are obvious for those with eyes to see. The real story behind the Benghazi hype was a deliberate policy of arming al-Qaeda linked terrorists in order to destabilize the world. These imperialists want nothing but war - on this, the far left and the far right agree. The dummies in the middle will continue believing their fables until the bitter end.
Tim Brown - Wow Gambler...... Who's your idol? Kardashian? We were discussing the Iraq war. ISIS and American Air Power...... Now I do know a little about that. The air power we are using today is but a fraction of what we usually do Gambler. Pretty simple answer.
Al Bush - Gambler is accurate in assessing the American policy as Empire. We don't know how apparently to realign ourselves to new realities. When I said above I thought there were as many digital dangers as ground force ones it's become clear that we are captive to our history and our weapons. And we can no longer afford it. Defense will now need every dollar to combat cyber warfare. Attacks upon our economy are as deadly or more so since they're not well thought through. The war plan against this country is now one of never ending data streams corrupted and viral, chipping away at banking, infrastructure and grid power supplies, communication and energy. We can't stay in the 20th century when the 22nd is upon us. -- Reassess. Quickly.
Tim Brown - Exactly Al, our real threats are threats where conventional warfare will do little to stop it.
Al Bush - Gambler Wilde is smart as can be. Likely correct about Libya as I've come to regret the chaos there . Now if we don't have to go through the partisan hack stage of getting to know one another we'll be better able to hear.
Carol Tvaroh - Then there's the question of how our invasion of Iraq, a counrty tht did nothing to us, would help "protect our freedom" What rubbish!
Jonathan Beatrice - In Halliburton we trust
Tim Brown - Please Carol and Jonathan please resort to the factual statements that I posted. They can not be refuted.........
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991." 
What was the ultimate purpose for grooming Saddam for that leadership role where his handlers needed him to play ball? Saddam's "ignoring & defiling" are not the root cause of that war. That's the official spin job reason; the real reason is that 1.) wealth was exchanging hands and they needed their own agent in the region to help the process along, and 2.) part of the web of sabotage in the area preventing the Arab nations from working together to attack Israel again (see: Syria & Egypt's counterattack after Israel destroyed their airforces).
Tim Brown - your theory holds no water Muhammad, actually makes no sense what do ever........
Tim Brown - What-so-ever
Muhammad Rasheed - Saddam's decision to not play along and to seize ultimate power in his area for his own benefit was a win-win for western forces: If he played along then the above two points would be in place and the west would be happy, and if he didn't play along the west would get to crank up the war machine and make their billions of dollars a day.
Muhammad Rasheed - I find your theory, Tim, to be hopelessly naive and lacking insight.
Muhammad Rasheed - So I guess we're even.
Tim Brown - I gave you facts Muhammad, you gave me theories, at best. Check the history, the UN resolutions and the votes in Congress. I believe even Al Bush can agree I Have given nothing but facts
Muhammad Rasheed - You gave me an "ultimate reason" theory based on how you interpreted the official spin job reports, which were completely divorced from the root cause of the reason the west is even over there in the first place. Please stop pretending you know what a "fact" looks like. It's getting embarrassing.
Belinda Bates - The question isn't whether or not what you posted was true. The question is how did that threaten our security, and how did going to war with Iraq further secure our freedoms?
I distinctly remember that Saddam Hussein did submit a weapons report before the war that was so heavily redacted that it was impossible for any one without top security clearance to decipher. But the reports after the war were clear. There were no WMDs and their weapons program had long been destroyed. 
And none of that really matters now because it's in the past. What really matter is: how are we treating our returning veterans? There seems to be a prevailing ideology on the right: purchase of life, limb, body, and soul is okay to secure our society and maintain our way of life, but money is sacrosanct.
So the same people who made money sending our troops to war are the same people hiding that money in tax shelters and lobbying to make sure that the tax cuts to the rich are either extended or made permanent. Meanwhile our veterans are being treated deplorably. It's hypocritical and disgusting.
Tim Brown - Oh my.... yea the facts get in the way. If you want to blame oil..... Well duh!!!!! Of course but sadly we need it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Oil is a piece of it, to keep our civilization running. A bigger piece is the protection of Israel from a unified Arab face. A bigger piece still is corporate greed.
Tim Brown - Nope..... It's just not in the facts.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tim, so you really think the entire problem of our war machine leads only to Saddam, and what those reports said?
Really? And that represents "the facts" to you?

Tim Brown - We were only speaking of the Iraqi invasion...... You were bringing up erroneous info.....
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - All conflicts in the middle east are corporate greed driven. That's why western powers are over there. That's "the facts." Al's very first post in this thread showcases the true facts of relevance. The view that everything we need to know is in the official reports about the events that are actually only are spin-job misdirection, is a naive view.

Sam Gootas - get the hell off Halliburton's back, the Army needed the services they were contracted for.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Army could've done it themselves cheaper. It was a con job.