Of the above choices, what is the main motivation for going to war, and occupying Iraqi? Forget official explanations. What is the true motivation?

Of all he above, No. 4 (to get Iraqi Oil) is the least significant choice, IMO, yet it is talked about repeatedly as if it was real reason. I don't believe that.

btw, I do not even list "to eliminate the WMD threat" as a choice because that has been totally discredited from all sides. If anyone still believes this, you need to become a Republican.

"O.I.L"= Oil , Israel, Logistical USA bases
(so I put "other" because I don't know what order of importance NeoCONS have this in)

I picked other, for Theocracy.

Oil just gives them money to pay for it, plus the bases there give them a staging ground. Will the crusades ever be over?

Because George Bush wanted to be a "war president". He feels it gives him exceptional powers to promote his political and economic agenda and also to fulfill some psychological need to be seen as the warrior he could never be in reality.

I chose other because I feel this is all part of the grand rule the world scheme of the Neocons and the rich corporations of the world. No borders...control of the lower class...on and on. Doesn't matter about Sadam, they supported him when it was opportune, when it wasn't they attacked him, pretty much the same for all of the countries in the world.

Iraq is just one step in the Neo-con plans for a new world order!
That's all.

It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about religion, it wasn't about Democracy.
Iraq was simply a stepping stone towards a New World Order with the US as King Shit of the Hill!

My vote for OTHER is a vote for all of the above.

One word.

GREED

Greed = New World Order

I have a secondary questions to this thread, is there EVER a time and/or place that a Presidential Adminstration has a valid reason to lie us into war? (in other words, a "white" lie ?)

No, Never. And if it can be proven that this has happened, then that President is a traitor to his country. In the case of Bush, he believes his own lies, so I don't know what that makes him, other than a fool. But what do you call the rest of the country that follows the fool into his war (to get back for 9-11, when Iraq had nothing to do with it)? To me, they are far more to blame for the mess we are in than Bush is. Bush couldn't have done shit without these people to back him.

Roosevelt lied us into WWII.
Was that a justified war?
And considewring the US's isolationist stance pre-war,
would that make his lying the US into war justified?

Media Beat (7/27/94)

By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

And nearly every day after this lie, we had the domino theory explained to us!

Question?
Exactly why did we invade Vietnam?
Was it purely a case of of making business for the war machine?

I think so, Sky.

They moved military equipment to Vietnam at the end of the Korean War. Yes, it was planned, so the military industrial complex would have a new place to play, spend & make money.

What frightens me about this , more than the fact that Military Industrial Complex is greedy, is that the people who are used for this endless war are always people of color> yellow, brown, black, and in our own backyard, red. Is it that obvious that NeoCONS/Elitists know we would not tolerate this against whites or Euros, (that is why we died by the tens of thousands to save Europe in WWII?) , or have I oversimplified socio/political aspects of these types of wars based on lies such as Vietnam and Iraq?