Reasons for the War

Kai

Picking thru all the twisted news stories and propaganda what do you think this war is really all about ??

1. Weapons of mass destruction.
2. Terrorism ties to Al Qaeda / Osama bin laden.
3. Opressed iraqi people ?
4. Saddam calling bush "junior bush" constantly
5. George bush senior getting junior to finish what he couldnt ?

To be honest i dont think too many americans loose sleep over the opressed Iraqi people, the fact that bush cites this as a main reason for the war is sickening.

Terrorism ties to Al Qaeda ?? To be honest id say you could tie Al Qaeda to any country you like given enough time. america had over a year.

Weapons of mass destruction, Well iraq arent the only ones
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/

Does anyone else have OIL on their minds when they think of Iraq ?
Maybe, just maybe theres the answer.

Éomer of Rohan

I must admit I logged into this with a certain amount of trepidation, sure that it was the bastion of some pro war candidates lol - thankfully it was someone with some sense IMO.

Red Moose

Bush had massive popularity after 9/11 and again after Afghanistan - same thign as Iraq but maybe more topical at the time.

Blair was one the most popular PMs ever in the UK.

Both are basically throwing it all away for this war. Basically there is some **** they obviously know that they are willing to sacrifice the holy grail of being a popular leader/politcian for.

Who knows what it is but I'd say that they are both doing what they're advisers would say is stupid, and yet they do it anyway. Obviously there's something we all don't know about this.

Obviously there's something we all don't know about this.

Oh i agree theres loads that we don't know abt this war, and the reasons behind it. But going on the evidence released, there's hardly grounds for the invasion.

Still, a bit late now, since the killing is well started.

Beruthiel

I received an e.mail from a friend which made a lot of sense to me

It is a very, very long piece, I will post a small bit and if anyone is interested I will post the rest or mail it to you

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL OR IRAQ:
IT'S ABOUT THE US AND EUROPE GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD ON WORLD ECONOMIC DOMINANCE.
By Geoffrey Heard
Melbourne, Australia

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on
economic leadership of the world.


America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

Meh

Originally posted by Beruthiel
Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

So why does Tony Blair (who is pro-euro) back the war? This argument just doesn't make sense.

Beruthiel

Meh - that was only the first part of the text, it's really too long to post here, PM me your email address and I will send it to you

pickarooney

I thought that Iraq was only allowed to "sell" oil in exchange for food? Where did I get that idea from?

Meh

Originally posted by Beruthiel
Meh - that was only the first part of the text, it's really too long to post here, PM me your email address and I will send it to you

I've read the article in question and it doesn't address my point. Blair is finding it hard enough to persuade the British to vote for the euro; damaging the currency is not something he wants to do. If the euro were to become the world oil reserve currency, he'd be delighted -- he'd have a much better chance of winning his referendum then.

The article addresses none of this -- it just makes vague assertions that somehow the UK will be able to get a better entry deal for the UK if the euro is weaker. This is not an economically sound argument -- why would Blair want the UK to join up to a weak, unstable currency? It even makes the preposterous assertion that Blair secretly wants to "withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental Europe". Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about UK politics knows how absurd this is. Blair is a committed pro-European.

dathi1

History has a habit of repeating itself. We have US and Britain re colonising Iraq under the guise of liberation. During the British Empire the motives were the same but the reasons were different i.e. to bring civilization to the world. We now have British Paratroopers making comparisons to a "Northern Ireland" style campaign at Um Quassar alone. The much anticipated waving of hands and American flags hasn’t materialised even at captured sand banks outside metropolitan areas. To cover this folly General Franks is blaming terror and fear by Iraqi paramilitary groups called Fedayin. This war seems to be heading into a Iraqi nationalist campaign versus a Pan American / UK invasion. I think the invaders will win the war by perhaps killing Hussein and making a new international martyr but then as history tells us the war begins again.

sceptre

Originally posted by Meh
I've read the article in question and it doesn't address my point. Blair is finding it hard enough to persuade the British to vote for the euro; damaging the currency is not something he wants to do. If the euro were to become the world oil reserve currency, he'd be delighted -- he'd have a much better chance of winning his referendum then.
<snip>

You're right - it doesn't. I sincerely believe the difference with Blair is that he genuinely thinks he's doing the right thing. It's also the impression that I got from a few protestors outside Downing Street yesterday (yes, I wandered down as I really wanted people's views on this one) (in other words, at least a few hardcore brit protestors believe their PM thinks he's doing the right thing - they just happen to think he isn't). If this is true, Blair is out of the equation on this matter.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
It even makes the preposterous assertion that Blair secretly wants to "withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental Europe". Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about UK politics knows how absurd this is. Blair is a committed pro-European.

So pro-European that he decided it was better to throw his lot in with the US rather than presenting a united EU front. Indeed, he threw his lot in with the US before it was even obvious that the EU would be clearly and irreconcilably divided on the issue. How pro-European is that?

Blair may be acting altruistically. He may also be playing a very strategic move to keep the UK in the best possible position. If the Euro falters, then the UK most definitely will not be interested in scuppering their independant currency to join it. If things stay the same or improve, then he can still look to join the Euro.

By backing the US on this count, he keeps both options clearly open, and gives himself a nice hedge (keeping tight with the US - always good for the economy) in the meantime.

He also leaves the UK open to the best of both worlds about what happens to the oil. If the US gets any form of control on it, he's well in to reap benefits. If they dont, and US currency falters, then off to join the Euro-zone to reap the same benefits instead.

jc

Elmo

Revenge and Greed.

Dr_Teeth

Hmm.. if the Euro is weak doesn't that mean that the UK gets a better deal when it joins up - ie the EUR->GBP rate that gets fixed? And I guess it makes imports really cheap too..

Teeth.

Meh

So pro-European that he decided it was better to throw his lot in with the US rather than presenting a united EU front.

Since when does being pro-European mean "agreeing with France and Germany on everything"? You might as well criticise Chirac and Schröder as "anti-European" for not presenting a common front with Blair and Aznar.

He may also be playing a very strategic move to keep the UK in the best possible position. If the Euro falters, then the UK most definitely will not be interested in scuppering their independant currency to join it. If things stay the same or improve, then he can still look to join the Euro.

Still doesn't explain why he'd actively help Bush sabotage the €.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1989327.stm
[Blair] wants Britain in and will be happy, possibly even delighted, to go down in history as the man who got the UK to change currency from the pound to the euro.

His enthusiasm for Europe shines through the interview as he insists it would be a betrayal of the national interest to stand aside purely for political decisions.

Accusing Blair of deliberately attempting to weaken the euro is clearly nonsense.

Hmm.. if the Euro is weak doesn't that mean that the UK gets a better deal when it joins up - ie the EUR->GBP rate that gets fixed? And I guess it makes imports really cheap too..

And it makes exports really expensive, so all the UK manufacturers who sell to the eurozone will go out of business. A weak, volatile euro is not in the UK's economic interests.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Since when does being pro-European mean "agreeing with France and Germany on everything"?

You seem to have missed the next sentence where I said that Blair did this before it was clear that there was a disagreement within Europe.

Britain made the decision - regarding both Afghanistan and Iraq - to side with the US before consulting with the EU to see what their reaction was.

Maybe you forget all the topics here where there was a discussion on whether speedy action was more or less important in this case than waiting a couple of days to discuss the issue with the other member-states and to see if the EU could represent itself as a unified body, or would agree from the outset that it had no unified position and that therefore each nation would have to choose and make its own stance?

So either Blair's pro-European concept is "your job is to agree with Britain", or he is not acting in a pro-European manner in this case - he is acting without considering consultations and the possibility of presenting a united front. And before you turn this around and say "well, France and Germany have the same attitude", please note that I have not once made a comment as to whether or not their actions are "pro-European" in these issues. I am discussing one nation and its actions. Those actions are not pro-EU.

Even if Blair had advance "warning" that there would be a split, is this a reason not to try and to be seen to make the attempt? The US were willing (at least) to go in front of the UN Security Council and make their case. Blair didnt even give the EU that courtesy.

jc