War in Iraq - What's it about list?

PH01

Here's a list of what's the war is about. Please add to it if I've missed anything...

1. Oil.
2. The Euro: The currency which Iraq traded it's oil in, but not anymore.
3. Unilateralism: The US going it alone. It has the power so why not use it? The UN never get the job done.
4. The overthrow of an evil dictator
5. WMD. OK so they didn't find any, but who's to say that Saddam wouldn't have developed them in the future.
6. Iraqi Freedom. Hmmmm, wait and see on that one.
7. The EU. There is nothing a hyper-power like the US fears more than the rise of another super-power, the EU. And this war has successfully split the EU down the middle.
8. Peace in the Middle-East:
Theory No. 1: you take away the 'playground bully' and everybody can live happily ever after.
Theory No. 2: The joint UK/US strategy from a UK point of view - the UK go with the US on Iraq, so the US should now go with the UK on Israel and Palestine.
Theory No. 3: The joint UK/US strategy from a US point of view - Thanks for helping out in Iraq, but don't expect too much in return on Israel.
Theory No. 4: Spread democracy around the Middle-East starting with Iraq. Then Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait... etc, except Israel of course.

bonkey

9. The War on "Terrorism Carried Out Against US Interests". The US is systematically bringing down the governments of nations who support (in any way) terrorism carried out against the US or any of its "key interests".

jc

DadaKopf

10. Isolating and containing China.
11. Stabilising the US economy (by acting tough and decisive) which gets on to 12...
12. Winning the next election.

13. Testing of weapons in combat situations.
14. giving experience to green troops.
15. giving appearance of American Military superiority to the world.
16. Creating a complete military foothold in the Middle east.
17. Cleaning up of messes the CIA created in the first place.
18. Getting rid of old enemies.

bonkey

19 Jusitifying increase in military spending

20. Justifying continued stifling of privacy and personal freedom in teh US

jc

Balfa

21. Controlling the oil in iraq that they don't need (they get only 15% of their oil from the middle east) so that they can control the other countries that require iraq's oil for their power, economy and military.

22. Creating yet another US overseas protectorate where they can station troops. They like to have their fingers in every pie. In the middle east, they already have huge influence in (in order of "americanness") Qatar, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.

SkepticOne

Who said they were attacking without reason?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by bonkey
9. The War on "Terrorism Carried Out Against US Interests". The US is systematically bringing down the governments of nations who support (in any way) terrorism carried out against the US or any of its "key interests".

jc

Actually, this is a good reason for the war.

Balfa

ehh. that's actually one of the worst reasons for the war. that's just displaying the ingrained american way of thinking:

My neighbour COULD kill me! therefore i better kill him first!!

They're attacking iraq because terrorists (which have nothing to do with iraq) CAN attack them?

Well damn! the US have the ability to attack me! i better launch a war against them!


edit: The US attack. The US conquer. The US install puppet persidents. It's a cycle that's been repeating for half a century. Why is this time around any different? All Bush is currently doing is putting US lives at risk by enraging Arab people. Arab people who are quite capable of performing another mass killing on US soil. You can't STOP terrorism. All you can do is remove the reason for the terrorism. That means stopping this continuing cycle of sh!tting all over the Arab world. In Bush's own words, "responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide".

froggy 2

Well,
I think that oil, at the opposite of a widespread theory, is only a bonus in the case of IRAQ. Although it remains an interesting matter, USA can still find oil somewhere else: there is no immediate shortage.
Another bonus is the fact some senior members of US government will personally make money in the process.
Still, the real point is the control of the country; not for the oil, but for the strategic position.
In fact, IRAQ has no link with 11/09, nor does it have links with islamists… and it is precisely why it had to be invaded.
Before the 11/09, US were totally unaware of the islamists being their foe ; I even remember that when we were having bombs in our metro by Algerian GIA, US press and diplomacy kept on telling us that GIA were good fellows and the problem was Algerian government (which is a real problem, but no as important as islamists anyway)… not to mention that UK openly hosted islamists. Some of the GIA tried to smash an airbus in the Eiffel tower in 1995; so we are totally aware of what islamists are; and we’ve been aware much sooner than many others.
Then, the 11/09/01…
Islamists became the great concern for USA; they particularly realized that what they thought to be their best friends in the region (especially SAUDI ARABIA) were rotten by islamism. So, by now, USA is in search for a reliable, powerful, well placed ally in the area. The first (and main) criteria is that there should be no islamist. Take a look at the map: the only country that is not infested by islamists is ... IRAQ.
IRAQ is (used to be) a relatively modern country, with a well-educated middle class, and no islamist (they have been hung), and a (before war at least) relatively powerful army: It is the perfect potential ally.
This can explain why US army had not bombed the IRAQIS elite troops at the beginning of the war (during, the 5 first days) in the hope to save those troops for the next regime... and why S. HUSSEIN was suspicious and kept those troops outside BAGHDAD. It is speculation, but it is coherent.

By the way, you could ask what do I think is wrong with this plan? Two or three little details…
• The « pawn ». Here, it is IRAQ; and several tens of thousand killed.
• The need of a powerful ally imply that USA will have to sacrifice the shi’ias (don’t know how it spells) in the south (IRAQ should have a port and keep its oil fields + shi’ias to close to IRAN + shi’ias too religious) and probably even the Kurds in the north (to restore alliance with TURQUY + control of oil needed by IRAQ to be powerful).
• USA needs a RELIABLE ALLY, not a democratic one. Taken into account Arabian anti-US opinions, and the fact they will have to sacrifice shi’ias and Kurds, a democratic government would probably not be pro-US => probability of the new regime being democratic is very low.
• The risks of increased instability in the region: BEN LADEN is an offspring of Gulf War I... What the Childs of GWII will look like? Muslims general attitude towards west has changed from “hostile” to “hatred”. The main mistake is to think that a strong ally in the region could preserve from terrorism; it’s false unless USA take control of the entire Arabian countries one after the other: and even then this would only give MILITARY control (ask ISRAELI about it).

IRAQI people will gain the end of embargo (which could have been left –or at least softened- long ago)… Better than nothing, and certainly an important point.
I admit this is speculation; anyway it’s my point of view; hope I’m wrong.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by froggy 2

Before the 11/09, US were totally unaware of the islamists being their foe ; I

I dunno. The Siege was certainly out before 9/11. And the original WTC bombing in 93? Wasn't that an "Islamic Fundamentalist" group?

Maybe the general public were unaware, but I think the administration was all but too painfully aware of their dependency and massive vulnerability on middle-east oil (US imports 60% of all oil produced on the planet).

bonkey

Originally posted by Captain Trips
(US imports 60% of all oil produced on the planet).

I'd just love to see where you get that figure from....

jc

Captain Trips

Sorry, mixed up the stats. I knew the numbers but put them in the wrong place. Here's what a Google showed:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Notes/Notes_Exam1/ResourceCons.html - this one estimates US uses 25% of world energy resources.

ANd here: http://www.iags.org/energysecurity.html - this one says that the US *imports* 56% of it's energy needs (up from 35% in the 70s).

Roughly 60%, I simply messed up the stat in my head. The stat of them using 25% of world energy I think is around a decade old. If the importing has increased, so likely also has the overall energy consumption per capita given that the popualtion of the US has not increased comparatively (e.g., almost doubled, like the import reqs.).

Interesting that it was in 1973 also that the US got OPEC to agree to only trade oil in dollars - same time as the crisis at that time. Perhaps they created a degree of stability for the western supplies in general at that time, but as China, eg. , get energy hungry the balance was tipping in recent years? Who knows.

Basically Bush is doing what he set out to do - to preserve the way of life of Americans for Americans. This however may be very shortsited as the modern way of life is basically import and consume. They have massive imports - 46% compared to exports.

This could *not* be maintained if, for example, the US couldn't afford to buy these imports. This could happen if the value of the US dollar went down, costs in the US would go up. This is happening already as the dollar has lost 20-25% value against the euro in the 2 years since the Saddam/Old Iraq regime attempted to circumvent limitations on oil sales by not selling them for dollars to then buy food.

Same as in Venezuela - 4th largest oil producer in the world, 2nd of the USs list of countries importing from. Chavez wanted to trade in a barter system, e.g., with Cuba. This would mean they didn't need dollars. Again, cutting the US out of the loop.

The US is not really the end user given it imports so much. I think in reality, it's like, the US consumer is the end user, but the US government is very much the middleman. *IT* profits, the federal reserve can roll out cash to buy imports because eveyrone needs dollars, or at least, they used to.

It will be interesting to see if any other countries start to go euro. The US's dependence on imports to satisfy their consumer society (much more so than here or rest of world) could collapse their economy with the effect on us and the rest of the world being no-one to buy our ****, basically. BUt then, then, the Chinese are looking like they might like to start spending some cash soon. Especially if that US-estimated stat on an 8x increase in China's oil imports proves right.

bonkey

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Sorry, mixed up the stats. I knew the numbers but put them in the wrong place. Here's what a Google showed:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Notes/Notes_Exam1/ResourceCons.html - this one estimates US uses 25% of world energy resources.

ANd here: http://www.iags.org/energysecurity.html - this one says that the US *imports* 56% of it's energy needs (up from 35% in the 70s).

Yup. Those figures sound about right.

Sorry for jumping on them originally, but I have seen too many people passing off completely bogus "facts" about how big an energy consumer the US is.

jc

Biffa Bacon

23. Human rights
24. Democracy
25. Peace

froggy 2

I dunno. The Siege was certainly out before 9/11. And the original WTC bombing in 93? Wasn't that an "Islamic Fundamentalist" group?

Maybe the general public were unaware, but I think the administration was all but too painfully aware of their dependency and massive vulnerability on middle-east oil (US imports 60% of all oil produced on the planet).

I did not say islamists were not US enemies, I said US did not realize it despite several bombings (a US destroyer, a bombing in LEBANON, the attack of WTC).
I read recently an interview of H. KISSINGER; about 11/09 he said something like: ”the worst part of this was that the attack came from people we did not know being our enemies”. Of course, KISSINGER tells us what he wants to tell (normal about foreign policy), but I don’t see why he would have lied.
Furthermore, during the 90s, US foreign policy never tried to weaken islamists (no contact with northern alliance in AFGANISTAN for instance).

The reason of this lack of reaction remains unclear:
Either they still hoped to use Islamism (or at least a part of it, like in ALGERIA), or maybe they just hesitated to get action against their old SAOUDI friend.
The most probable explanation is that they have strongly underestimated the problem.
Now Islamism is the top priority; I think THAT is the change.

For oil, well I think it's far easier to sponsor an anti-CHAVEZ coup in VENEZUELA... Not worth a immediate war.

Captain Trips

True true. Definitely I agree with saying that it has become a number one priority. However, given the US government's extensive intelligence network, I would say that they definitely viewed the "fundamentalist" (hehe, I just realised that "mentalist" makes up most of that word) threat as being present but not a significant threat. Perhaps a "containable" threat, or never really believing that anyone could really attack the US?

Kissinger is a bit of furtive guy though. Him and the rest of the NYCFR crowd I'd say were very aware - and are a very different element of political influence compared to the oil lobbyists and Bush et al.

I did not say islamists were not US enemies, I said US did not realize it despite several bombings (a US destroyer, a bombing in LEBANON, the attack of WTC).

I doubt very much that the US didn't know. The Islamic nations/groups have never hidden their hatred for the West, especially with the US. The US knew, they just underestimated the threat. Think of the fact that the US has only suffered maybe three attacks in the last 40 years, in comparison to the rest of europe. They just figured that nobody would directly mess with them. They were wrong.

Executive Steve

ummm.... fundamentalist christian eschatology? thats a big one right there... a VERY big one...

powerslidesrus

Because its the right thing to do.

Whatever you say about the war the us/uk have a pretty good history of dealing with dictators. Not perfect but pretty good. Of course there are other reasons - noone's that niave. But despite this the fact that Bush has a single figure iq he is doing the right thing. amazingly

bonkey

Originally posted by powerslidesrus
Whatever you say about the war the us/uk have a pretty good history of dealing with dictators. Not perfect but pretty good.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

powerslidesrus

hitler, mussolini and a weak attempt on stalin - prob held back because of all those nukes. plus a funny attempt to overthrow castro.

powerslidesrus

you could throw in kaiser wilhelm, but monarchy is a different kind of dictatorship for a different thread.

Plus i think getting rid of Hitler makes them pretty good by default.

Éomer of Rohan

Good grief.

hitler, mussolini and a weak attempt on stalin - prob held back because of all those nukes. plus a funny attempt to overthrow castro.

It was the Italians themselves who ousted Mussolini - and never really wanted him in the first place.
As to Hitler, was it the US and UK that broke the back of the German wehrmacht? No. Was it the US who led a crusade to rid the world of a dictator? No. The US joined the war simply because they had no alternative - Germany declared war on them. They never tried to overthrow Stalin. The CIA were a laughing stock when it came to the attempts on Castro.....in fact I think it is safe to say that the US and UK have done a better job at installing dictatorships - take a look at the British Empire's former territories where the gov'ts are now mostly oligarchies or the various countries that the US has meddled with *cough* Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (admittedly not installed but certainly propping up), Qatar, Bahrain, KUWAIT, Yemen (it was fricking US interference which caused the pro-British sultan to turn to the Soviets!), Chile, Argentina, the list is virtually endless.

powerslidesrus

It was the Italians themselves who ousted Mussolini - and never really wanted him in the first place.

italy. 1943

July Allied forces invade Sicily.
July Mussolini is relieved of his command by the king and is arrested. Marshal Badoglio takes over for Mussolini.
September Allied troops land at Salerno (Italy).

explain away all that.

Germany - us bombing of the ruhr and surrounding areas destroyed germany and its industrial base. If you doubt that then you seriously need to read up on your history. If they hadnt pounded germanies supplies, development and industry then the russian onslought would have been met by much better equiped resistance. The tiger tanks that were in short supply would be much more numerous devestating the russian t32's and the war would have at least lasted another year or two.

Anyway this is a politics thread not a history one

powerslidesrus

plus a funny attempt to overthrow castro.

that was meant as a joke - of course cia made a show of themselves - i dont dispute that.

As for the rest my knowledge middle eastern history isnt that great beyond basic understanding. so i wont agree/disagree with any of that :cool:

Éomer of Rohan

July Allied forces invade Sicily.
July Mussolini is relieved of his command by the king and is arrested. Marshal Badoglio takes over for Mussolini.
September Allied troops land at Salerno (Italy).

You forgot to mention the rioting that the destruction of the Italian 8th army in Russia caused - proving that the Italians were both opposed to war and to the government - if there had not been internal dissent, Italy would never have surrendered, Mussolini would never have been arrested and so on.

us bombing of the ruhr and surrounding areas destroyed germany and its industrial base. If you doubt that then you seriously need to read up on your history. If they hadnt pounded germanies supplies, development and industry then the russian onslought would have been met by much better equiped resistance. The tiger tanks that were in short supply would be much more numerous devestating the russian t32's and the war would have at least lasted another year or two.

A little tip - never insult my knowledge of WWII. The Russians annihilated the 6th Army and 4th Pz Army at Stalingrad long before D-day - in fact that occurred in early 1943. The forces on the East initially included roughly 4 million Axis troops. The Russians were clearing out the Germans a hell of a long time before the Americans began pounding German cities into the ground. In total, 6 Axis Armies were destroyed before American B-17's started their domination of the skies and the RAF and USAF defeated the Luftwaffe. These six armies nearly broke the back of Von Mansteins Ostfront - and it was Russia that tied up the ninth and twelfth armies right to the very end. The Soviets lost 30 million people in the German invasion and bled Hitlers army to death just as surely as Czar Paul did Napoleons Grande Armee. If Germany had not invaded Russia, neither the Americans nor the British would have stood a chance given that immediately following Dunkirk, Operation Sealion would have been put into effect rather than striking needlessly into Greece and Yugoslavia. Thus the US would have had no springboard to attack Germany and the Middle East would have fallen giving Germany the economic viability of a continental empire. All conjecture admittedly but given that the total allied troops landed succeeding 6th June was 1 million and the Axis invasion force of Russia was 4 million and the Germans had better quality armoured vehicles than the pathetic Shermans and Matildas (and by the way, the Soviet T-34 was the best all round tank of its day, not to mention the KV-2 which even the gun of the King Tiger couldn't penetrate - so your assumptions here are baseless) the Allies would have been soundly beaten.

As for this being a politics thread, I am backing up my point that the Americans a) did not play that great a part in defeating Hitler and b) it was not by choice anyway.

powerslidesrus

dont think im a fool when it comes to ww2 either.
the german King Tigers were unbelievably superior to the t34's whose main advantage was volume - but it really was a brilliant tank. the german Jagdpanther was the best anti-tank gun of ww2 apart from the 88mm anti tank/air gun. these were capable of destroying pretty much anything else. The t-34's would be burning hulks also the armour on the king tiger was such that it could shrug off hits from the t34.

the KV-2 could be destroyed by the 88mm anti tank/air gun.

ill get to the rest later as i havent time now:(

Lennoxschips

The US has put more dictators in power than they've taken out of power.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
It was the Italians themselves who ousted

And fascists at that

and never really wanted him in the first place.

How did you work that one out?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You forgot to mention the rioting that the destruction of the Italian 8th army in Russia caused - proving that the Italians were both opposed to war and to the government - if there had not been internal dissent, Italy would never have surrendered, Mussolini would never have been arrested and so on.

Hardly proves anything. That there was decent to an unsuccessful war would hardly imply opposition to the government. You’re reading way too much into it

Éomer of Rohan

The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows:D ). But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

ykt0di9url7bc3

The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows ). But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

and your point being?

we can all sit around here for the next 100 years bitching about WW2 or we can get on about the world at hand....

Iraq has been defeated and is being administrated by the United States...


wmd
United States has show only a passing interest in North Korea..."the UN will handle it"

humanitarian
United States have no idea who Robert Mugabe is....."tennis player?...??"

terrorism
United States is looking very hard at Syria.....

Oil
United States has control of the Iraqi oil lands

Imho opnion
Oil and Middle East stability are at the forefront of the US agenda

SkepticOne

Originally posted by SearrarD
Imho opnion
Oil and Middle East stability are at the forefront of the US agenda

Yes, a stable Middle East is necessary for stable and low oil prices. I don't think they can get away with actually stealing the oil, politically. I believe their aim is to set up a government that will be more predicable than Saddam and won't mess about with oil supply or the currency in which it is traded. They may also be seeking to undermine the OPEC cartel.

On the other hand, what would be interesting and controvertial is if they force Iraq to sell off some of the oilfields to oil companies to pay for reconstruction. If they want to outright steal the oil, they could sell the oilfields at knockdown prices to US oil companies while still under the control of the US retired general or Iraqi puppet.

What the US needs to do now, IMHO, is stabilise the situation in Iraq. First priority needs to be sorting out electricity and water and other basic services.

They need to deal with the looters and impose basic law and order. In the absence of a legal system after the war, fairly robust methods may need to be employed. I think the British and US have been reluctant to do this because of the tendency for the media to take things out of context.

There has been some debate as to whether the UN should be involved in setting up an interim Government. I can understand the US not wanting this, but I don't think the US can do it successfully on their own without questions of legitimacy arising, to the extent that the original purpose would be undermined.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by SearrarD
wmd
United States has show only a passing interest in North Korea..."the UN will handle it"

If the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz et al letter of 1998 to Clinton is to be believed, it would appear that WMD capability is a concern since Iraq is in an oil rich area.

"If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard."

WMDs less of a concern in Korea because they aren't near oil supplies to the same extent plus, of course, they have the bomb. Interestingly, the US is saying that they don't belive that NK has restarted its nuclear programme.

So I believe that the US genuinely believed that Saddam had the capability to manufacture WMDs prior to the war, although the links to terrorist groups like Al Queda are bogus. Attention now being turned to Syria because they haven't found any to date in Iraq. I think this is just a political move and they don't have any immediate intention of invading.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So I believe that the US genuinely believed that Saddam had the capability to manufacture WMDs prior to the

I'd be more inclined to say that they believed he would have them someday, at which point it may prove infeasible to oust him.

Then again, your theory holds up if and when WMDs are discovered in Iraq, whereas mine is always open to criticism and debate even if none are ever found.

Oh well,

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd be more inclined to say that they believed he would have them someday, at which point it may prove infeasible to oust him.

This is also a possibility. Their point of view was maybe: "either he has the capability now, or if he doesn't he will have at some point".

Then again, your theory holds up if and when WMDs are discovered in Iraq, whereas mine is always open to criticism and debate even if none are ever found.

My point was really about the beliefs within the minds of the decision makers in the US not the actuality of WMDs in Iraq, so both your theory and mine are open to debate.

Éomer of Rohan

WMDs less of a concern in Korea because they aren't near oil supplies to the same extent plus, of course, they have the bomb. Interestingly, the US is saying that they don't belive that NK has restarted its nuclear programme.

That has to be the smokescreen for a climb down over a confrontation with North Korea - they have restarted their nuclear power station and they are producing enriched Uranium 235 so the obvious logical step would be to restart the programme? That was the clearly stated objective in withdrawing from the Tri-partite agreement of 1994, no?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
That has to be the smokescreen for a climb down over a confrontation with North Korea.

Yes, I believe so. I should have said that although there is some concern, (not as much as Iraq), they are unlikely to invade.

bonkey

It is also coupled with the fact that the spread of Communism is no longer seen as the Great Evil of Today [tm] by the administration.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows:D ).

Those two (and quite separate) points are your opinion, please don’t portray them as fact.

But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

What is the relevance of this point? Most if not all revolutions are as a result of a self-appointed minority. Be it the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Fascists in Italy or the Freemasons in America. Regardless, over twenty years passed from the March on Rome to the fall of Mussolini; drawing a connection is very dubious.

We now return you to your scheduled topic...