Washington's motives for war in Iraq

PaulHughesWH

Everyone has an opinion on it - now vote for what you thought was the most likely reason behind America's military adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq... and who knows where next?

Options 3 and 5 could be linked.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

There's no one reason- previous baggage in the form of Cheney/Rummy who always wanted to get rid of Saddam. Certainly, if Israel feels more secure, then the peace process is easier to sell. Also, Ariel Sharon is a natural hawkish ally of the neocons, lending a helping hand to him assists the legitimacy of the "war on terror" policies.

Oil I don't think is a major issue, the easiest way to obtain it would have been to forgive Saddam and buy the oil. Far cheaper in blood and treasure terms, and in diplomatic/political terms. The stakes were far too high for this to be about the oil.

An option missing which deserves a mention is the PNAC/American Enterprise Institute agenda- the spread of democracy across the Middle East, by diplomatic persuasion if possible, by force if necessary. All in the name of future generations of American security. Many Americans see this as a sacrifice today for security tomorrow, a legacy similar to that of liberated continental Europe, the freedoms enjoyed in South Korea etc. That is an important resonance that isn't well understood by Europeans- the Woodrow Wilson doctrine- making America safer at home by spreading freedoms abroad.

Call it globalization, a crusade, whatever. All of these actions are part of a facet of policies designed to spread our power and influence through that region and the world. That is a major inspiration for the policy within Washington, a viewset which believes in American security, not by *any* means necessary, but certainly means that are seen as unreasonable or an over-reaction. The harsh and genuinely felt response often is "Well, it wasn't your country that suffered through 9/11." It's difficult to confront morally, just as it was hard to confront the nascent Israel as it evicted Palestinians and forced them off their land.

arcadegame2004

I tihnk that in Iraq's case, Dubya Bush's main interest was to finish the job his father started. I think 911 and the result ascendancy of the neo-cons in terms of their influence on the President quicked the pace though. And it didn't hurt that Bush's JR Ewing style friends could get their hands on Iraqi oil.

Memnoch

i think there should be another option in the poll, WAR for PROFIT, thats what this war is about really, lots and lots of money for lots and lots of big american companies, weapons manufacturers, "contractors"(merceneries) for hire, (which is like 14k ppl, i.e. the 2nd biggest army in iraq right now), "reconstruction" contracts, oil companies. the rich get richer, all at the expensive of the american tax payer and iraqi oil + lives.

more money into the coffers of dubya's "election" fund and so on and so forth

Moriarty

Yes Memnoch, that's of course the reason. They increased the national debt massively just for the laugh.

Sigh.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Oil I don't think is a major issue, the easiest way to obtain it would have been to forgive Saddam and buy the oil. Far cheaper in blood and treasure terms, and in diplomatic/political terms. The stakes were far too high for this to be about the oil.

While I would agree with your opinion that there was probably no single motivation, I would not necessarily discount the oil motive am. Certainly with the benefit of hindsight, the material, economic and diplomatic cost has been considerable - however most evidence seems to indicate that the present US regime did not foresee this cost and had indeed been convinced that the security situation would have been well under control by now.

Or to put it another way "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".

keu

power, control, authority?
really basic I know..

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
Yes Memnoch, that's of course the reason. They increased the national debt massively just for the laugh.

Sigh.

hmm.. again, they don't give a crap about the national debt or about the average american taxpayer its not "just for a laugh", its for profit, for the administration and their friends.

anyways, nice try to side track the issues, your good at throwing in red herrings when you dont' have any real arguements.

Manach

My choice was the option for post 911 Revenge. The US was out to show that even regimes that had little or nothing to do with Islamic militants, ie Iraq, could be targetted; and then on to an overawed Iran and/or Syria, [Arab country of choice] to stamp out militants. This policy seems to have been proved false in the medium term in that the only open arms the liberated Iraqis welcomed the US with were RPGs.

Tommy Vercetti

"He tried to kill my daddy!"

thejollyrodger

how can people vote on the poll when there is no

"to liberate the ordinary iraqi people from an evil dictator" ?

Memnoch

i don't understand how people have such a short memory, especially when they talk about "liberating the iraqi people from saddam."

it was the CIA that put saddam and the bath party in power, they supported him, and provided him with WMDs and showed him how to use them against the iranians and his own people. The US supported his brutal regime, even as late as 2001 the bush administration was publicaly defending this guy...

the US has a long history of supporting and putting in place brutal regimes throughout the world, so to say that they did this for the "freedom of the iraqi people" is the utmost hypocricy and double speak, either that or just plain stupidity.

the US administration doesn't give a crap about the freedom of "ordinary 'anywhere' people", as is clearly shown by their support for such regimes and violators of human rights.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Memnoch
i don't understand how people have such a short memory, especially when they talk about "liberating the iraqi people from saddam."

it was the CIA that put saddam and the bath party in power, they supported him, and provided him with WMDs and showed him how to use them against the iranians and his own people. The US supported his brutal regime, even as late as 2001 the bush administration was publicaly defending this guy...

the US has a long history of supporting and putting in place brutal regimes throughout the world, so to say that they did this for the "freedom of the iraqi people" is the utmost hypocricy and double speak, either that or just plain stupidity.

the US administration doesn't give a crap about the freedom of "ordinary 'anywhere' people", as is clearly shown by their support for such regimes and violators of human rights.

Have you ever heard of the Truman doctrine? Frankly, the world isn't an ideal place. Realpolitik interferes with ideals. But you wouldn't understand that, since you are isolated too high up in that ivory tower of yours to realise why decisions like that may be made.

Memnoch

realpolitik? does that term encompass the reckless murder of thousands of individuals for the profit and betterment of a few?

you may not like it, but society is based on laws. But hey if your willing to admit that the bush administration doesn't actually care about the "values" it so frequently touts, then i'm happy with that.

but make up your mind which it is... either they went there for "realpolitik" or it was for the "freedom of the iraqi people", or no no no no, it was to stop the "imminent threat from WMDs to continental america"... please... wake up

even YOU should be able to see through their obvious hypocrisy and double speak.. they go in to "Liberate" the people and get rid of the "regime", so they "disband the army," and talk about the "terrorists" causing trouble in the sunni triangle. then they give control of the area to former iraqi general's whom they had already declared "terrorists" this after the strong american declaration of "no negotiation with terrorists".

hell this is just one example of their "flip-flopping". This administration doesn't represent a philosophy or any sort of moral values, their ideology is based on greed, and hunger for power pure and simple, and in this pursuit they are brothers in greed.

Ping Chow Chi

Originally posted by Moriarty
Yes Memnoch, that's of course the reason. They increased the national debt massively just for the laugh.

Sigh.

I think its safe to say, no matter which motive(s) you subscribe for America going to war, that Bush et al didn't think that the war in Iraq would cost anywhere near as much as it is turning out to.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Memnoch
realpolitik? does that term encompass the reckless murder of thousands of individuals for the profit and betterment of a few?

Show me where the Iraq war was planned to be &/ is being carried out such that the sole reason for its being is to create profit for the few.

Originally posted by Memnoch
you may not like it, but society is based on laws. But hey if your willing to admit that the bush administration doesn't actually care about the "values" it so frequently touts, then i'm happy with that.

I didn't say that, but that doesn't appear to get in your way of claiming that. How about if I say that you are a stalin-admiring baby-eating far-leftist? What, you wouldn't like that? Gee golly gosh. Has it occoured to you that you may not be the only one who doesn't like having words put in their mouth? So don't do it.

Originally posted by Memnoch
but make up your mind which it is... either they went there for "realpolitik" or it was for the "freedom of the iraqi people", or no no no no, it was to stop the "imminent threat from WMDs to continental america"... please... wake up

I haven't made up my mind about why they went to war. Odds are that it was for multiple reasons, no matter how much people like yourself may want to reduce it down to bite-size pieces so you can use it to further bash them over the head with.

Originally posted by Memnoch
hell this is just one example of their "flip-flopping". This administration doesn't represent a philosophy or any sort of moral values, their ideology is based on greed, and hunger for power pure and simple, and in this pursuit they are brothers in greed.

But of course! So, do you have any actual evidence for this mindless retoric?

In any case, I wasn't talking about the current administration in particular since you weren't either. You made a nice sweeping statement about US policy post-ww2, I responded to that. You seem to have missed the point about the truman doctrine aswell. I'll give you some time to go google it.

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
I think its safe to say, no matter which motive(s) you subscribe for America going to war, that Bush et al didn't think that the war in Iraq would cost anywhere near as much as it is turning out to.

Quite possibly, but they had still budgeted pre-war for quite a massive outlay for the war and first few months after it ($87billion seems to spring to mind, but that may be wide of the mark).

halkar

And longer they will stay the more it will cost, why do you think now they are trying to shift it over UN whom they didn't care before they started the war?
Bush thought Iraqis were waiting for him with waving US flags and thought entering Baghdad was going to be like entering Paris in WWII. They have lost and they have lost big time, they have cleared out their bases in Saudi Arabia thinking that Iraq was to be their new base in center of Middle East and now that is far from reality and recently they demanded Turkey to open one of its Nato bases and open 2 more bases in the country. I don't know what will be reaction of Turkey whom was against invasion of Iraq from the beginning and it was one of the few countries that people won unlike in Italy, Spain and Poland that they didn't care public opinion. Turkey would have gained over 20 billion in US aid if they had opened the borders and bases for US at the time but Turkey rejected to get involved with the US plans.
Looks like whatever the US plans were, they are all going back to the drawing board and needs to be checked seriously before they make any further move in Middle East.

As for their motives in Iraq, it was oil and greed and nothing else becasue those are the two things they seem to be getting out of Iraq with their oils and the lucrative contracts that they are awarding only to themselves. They destroyed most of Iraqis infrastructure and now they are charging to rebuild them only by their own companies.
They probably sat down and decided where to destroy and whom to build before the war and bought eachothers shares

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Memnoch
realpolitik? does that term encompass the reckless murder of thousands of individuals for the profit and betterment of a few?

Most realpolitik involves amoral policy executed for the betterment of one group at the expense of another. Of course that betterment may not be the business interests of an oligarchy, it could instead be the imposition of trade conditions on one nation that another nation would find unfairly favourable.

you may not like it, but society is based on laws. But hey if your willing to admit that the bush administration doesn't actually care about the "values" it so frequently touts, then i'm happy with that.

Actually, as much as we would like for Society to be built on law, it’s more correctly based upon expediency. If we can rationalise something we will make it, retrospectively, legal. We can legitimise an invasion after it has taken place or invent a new category of crimes to try prisoners after the alleged crime has been committed. And after a while these inconsistencies are at best only debated on Web sites. So I wouldn’t place to much emphasis on Law if I were you.

PaulHughesWH

So much for free speech.

bonkey

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
So much for free speech.

You have free speech. No-one has closed this thread.

What you don't have is free polls, especially when you're starting one which says "The US is gone war-crazy" as some sort of pre-determined fact, then asks for reasons why without even incluing the possibilty to vote for options ranging from "are you out of your mind, the US is not gone war-crazy you're just anti-American", through the more balanced options, including "undecided", but instead, making everything a "yes, it is gone crazy, and here's why" option.

I've simply levelled the playing field. By throwing out the options, and the poll, I've reduced this to a discussion, where the "No it isn't war-crazy at all" point of view actually has as open a field to make its case on as the "yes it is war crazy" crew.

For someone who's constantly bemoaning how the popular press is misrepresenting a certain political candidate and his stances on issues, one would think that you would be both more aware of - and more considerate of - the need to be balanced in your coverage of something. But apparently not.

For you to cast this as an oppression of a freedom that you don't have here anyway is, well, about as fair and balanced as the poll was in the first place.

jc

popinfresh

With regards to whether or not this war was about oul? Personally, I think the US were smart to invade Iraq. Evil, but a very smart move all the same. The harsh reality is that oil is the back-bone of the Western World. And the world oil supplys are about to get tight. The world does not have the resources to offer the American way of life to 6 billion people. So, given the unpredictability of the major oil-supplying countries, ie: Saudi Arabia, the US felt it necessary to secure a source of oil should Saudi Arabia start messing them about. How do they do this? Invade Iraq and throw in a puppet "democratic" government. The WMD story was to get support off the American people. There's no ifs or buts, THIS WAR WAS ABOUT OIL. No government in the world gives a flying fcuk about liberating other people. How come USA dont do anything in Africa?
I did say that the Iraqi war was a good idea, but no Non-American is going to benefit. The US only care about the interests of their own population. And that is a threat to the world greater that Hitler if they have a major control over the world oil supplies when resources start to get low.....

Personally I've seen the error of my ways, and I realise that Bush caused the invasion of Iraq to help his own people. He secured the oil in Iraq because he saw the film, "The Day After Tomorrow".

Seriously, I see the reasons for the invasion, as being
1) Securing a real base to launch military actions in the Middle East.
2) Securing of a resource to prevent an enemy of the US being in control.
3) A statement of Military Might. And Application of new technologies in a combat environment.
4) A distraction for both the American people and the Senate to changes in reagrds to Internal Security, and powers for "secret organisations".

And I don't have any evidence for any of this. These are just my opinions.

Memnoch

Originally posted by klaz
Personally I've seen the error of my ways, and I realise that Bush caused the invasion of Iraq to help his own people. He secured the oil in Iraq because he saw the film, "The Day After Tomorrow".

Seriously, I see the reasons for the invasion, as being
1) Securing a real base to launch military actions in the Middle East.
2) Securing of a resource to prevent an enemy of the US being in control.
3) A statement of Military Might. And Application of new technologies in a combat environment.
4) A distraction for both the American people and the Senate to changes in reagrds to Internal Security, and powers for "secret organisations".

And I don't have any evidence for any of this. These are just my opinions.

u forgot about lots and lots and LOTS of money made by big companies in america through this war, most are heavy contributors to dubya's election campaign.

anyways this is kinda how I felt just before the iraq war, up until this point i had been "supporting" the war of terror

MeatProduct

My thoughts were the same before the war. Then I opened my eyes very slightly and saw the superficial motives for this war. I'm certain there's plently more going on that we have no idea about. It's obvious to me that the US administration wants death.

Nick