|My theory on the war||Live Steam|
Aug 5, 2003 10:36 AM
|Since this was lost in a thread below I thought I would move it up and get some discussion going. Nothing I can prove, but sort of like the missing WMD. Can't prove they didn't exist before the war started.
My personal belief is that the war was for far more reasons than we will know for quite a while and I don't mean oil, though destabilization of the world economy through "oil terrorism" is worth fighting to prevent.
I said it before the war started that the war was a shot across the bow for other nations and Iraq was the perfect whipping boy. It appears, from the little we know about the 9/11 report, that Saudi Arabia has been less than forthcoming about their desires. Syria and Iran are also tinderboxes. Iraq puts us in the middle of the region we need to be most concerned about for obvious reasons. NK is China's problem for the most part.
These issues and concerns could not have been expressed to the American people without starting a firestorm and possibly WW3. Iraq was ripe and easy because of the position they put themselves in. I feel for the families of the men and women who gave all, but their service was voluntary. The same goes for the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD. More of them, thus far, gave their all vs the loses in Iraq. Not justification, but just a sad reminder that, in these new and uncertain times, one need not be on the front in some foreign land to be considered a causality of war.
Does anyone want to comment on the possibility that the Iraq war was about something larger than oil or WMD? I think it is about stemming the proliferation of Islamic extremism. I think the administration used Iraq to insert us in a region that is becoming ever more dangerous to western idealism. I believe the 9/11 report ties Saudi money to this which makes it "state sponsored" terrorism. We could have gone into Saudi Arabia, but that would have been much more difficult from many perspectives. The Iraqi proposition was much more explainable and sends almost the same message to these radical states that - they must get themselves in line or face similar "regime change". Remember that term? That is the catch phrase the Bush administration wants the Saudi royal family and others to hear and hear well.
|I'll take a stab ...||sacheson|
Aug 5, 2003 11:30 AM
|... I posted an article a while back that drew a lot of criticism. It outlined several reasons beyond WMD and petro-chemical (P-C) resources that we chose to concentrate our efforts on Iraq. In my opinion, the article states many of the same points you do.
The article says (and I tend to agree) that the region surrounding Iraq adheres to a rather strict socio-economic class heirarchy where the powers in control are well off (in more ways than money), and other citizens of the region are left in a pretty poor state. The governments tend to be militarily backed, and tend to have a fundamentalist-type group at the controls. These governments also use their one influence, P-C resources, as their leverage on the rest of the develop(ed)(ing) world.
By the US et. al. taking the initiative with a questionable dictator in Iraq, a ripple effect will ensue.
1) by implementing a democracy in the region, the monarchist, fundamentalist political structures will be destabilized.
2) bringing the quality of life up for the average Iraqi (probably take some time) will potentially impact the class apathy in surrounding countries. If this happens, current class structure might be challenged
3) adding a controlled, yet non-OPEC P-C producing country in the region will undermine malicious tactics of the OPEC cartel.
... there were other things noted, but I can't remember them now.
In agreeing on there being several reasons for the invasion, I still hold to my guns that WMD were a poor excuse and oil is more of a reason than the administration will ever let us know.
Aug 5, 2003 11:42 AM
|This war was an omnibus operation in furtherance of several agendas including (in no particular order):
Removing a long standing thorn in the US's side.
Maintaining momentum in an essentially directionless War on Terror.
Distracting Americans from the Administration's generally abyssmal domestic policy.
Maintaining a political climate that vastly favors the GOP.
Undermining the UN and other bodies of International Law.
Removing a de-stabilizing factor in the oil market and giving the US some leverage agains OPEC.
"Shuffling the deck" in the Middle East in favor of US and Israeli interests.
Removing a concievable (but unproven) source of aid to anti-American terrorists.
Giving Americans a reason to feel like they are kicking butt and taking names, rather than cowering in their bathrooms with a plastic sheet and a roll of duct tape.
I don't believe for a second that liberating the Iraqi people was a serious ambition on the part of the Bush Administration, and the results vindicate that position. True, no country that large could be stabilized in the short period of time the US has had so far. But it is obvious that the Administration had no credible plan to stabilize or re-build Iraq. If it all magically fell in to place, I'm sure they would have been happier (and taken all the credit for it). But since it hasn't, well "stuff happens". They'll slap something together stabilize the situation enough to keep mass tragedies off the front pages. Other than that, look at Afghanistan if you want to see Iraq's future.
Comparing FDNY and NYPD deaths on 9/11 to troops killed in Iraq ignores an obvious distinction. There was no question about what they were doing or the justification for doing it. Their comrades weren't hanging around Ground Zero months later asking why the hell they were there in the first place and demanding to know when they could go home.
Also, your theory about Islamic extremism is full of holes. Iraq was not a center of Islamic extremism. We originally supported Saddam as a counter-weight to the Islamic extremism of Iran. Iraq was never a radical state from a religious POV. How does allying ouserlves with Saudi Arabia against Saddam send any message to them that they better clean up their act? How does covering up evidence that Saudi Arabia contributed to 9/11 send the message that they need to clean up their act?
In fact, all of the machinations that you claim could not have been disclosed to the American people without starting the next World War have been stated by high ranking Bush Administration officials. So what are you talking about?
Bottom line, this war was an easy sell to an ignorant or disinterested American populace. But like most shoddy products targeted at uninformed consumers, it didn't work as advertised and may end up doing more harm than good.
|Steam & Czar.||jesse1|
Aug 5, 2003 12:27 PM
|I really want to see you guys debate on TV! You both articulate your ideas and arguments very well. I'm going to compile your last 50 or so arguments and forward them to MSNBC, FOX, & CNN. If you guys sign a contract with any of them, I'd apreciate 1 1/2% of each of your first years salaries. Thanks!|
|Steam & Czar.||Live Steam|
Aug 5, 2003 3:32 PM
|Jesse, if you can work that out, I'd give you 5% :O) I'm not sure what CZAR would part with though :O)|
|My theory on the war||MR_GRUMPY|
Aug 5, 2003 12:35 PM
|I think that george went down to the WarRoom and saw a map of Iraq with lots of toy tanks and soldiers on it. When one of the toy soldiers got stuck in his nose, he really got mad. That's when the plans were started.
He was asked to go back to the Oval Office because he kept setting the tanks on fire.
|My theory on the war||Jon Billheimer|
Aug 5, 2003 1:06 PM
You've stated in part the official neocon justification for picking Iraq. This was nothing new. It has been stated in letters and articles by Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. There are two more dimensions to this scenario. One is that Dubya's failing oil companies have in past years been the beneficiaries of cash injections by certain Saudi sheikhs. This simply buttresses the historical reality that the U.S. since Roosevelt has had a pact with the Saudi Royal Family in order to stabilize western oil supplies. It is my opinion, also, that this is the reason why the Bush administration quashed the FBI forensic investigation into the sourcing of funds for Al-Qaeda, which traces directly to high ranking members of the Saudi government and Royal Family. This information is also reportedly contained in the 28 censored pages in the Congressional report on the sources and causes of 9/11.
A possible consequence of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation is that under U.S. military supervision the Iraqi oilfields will become fully operational in the next five years or so. At that point, an Iraq which has essentially become a U.S. protectorate can provide an alternative source for Saudi oil. The U.S. can then afford to withdraw its political and military support from the House of Saud. I believe that this in fact is the long term strategy and the real reason for the Iraq war. Not the palpable load of garbage which the administration has foisted on the American public and the world.
|My theory on the war||Live Steam|
Aug 5, 2003 3:31 PM
|I never heard anyone try to justify the war because prevailing thought was to try and contain or stem Islamic fanaticism, or that some other threat was immanent. Iraq was the obvious choice because they were vulnerable from a diplomatic position, not that they represent a stronghold for Islamic fanaticism. I also believe that this foothold gives us a front row seat. It allows us to monitor the happenings in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia which are hotbeds for Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.
Your point is well taken about the Iraqi oil fields. It wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to allow Saddam to develop them to their full potential and reap the benefits of the monetary gains. He would only have used it to further his maniacal desires.
Once 9/11 occurred, the outlook on Islamic terrorists changed from a pestering faction to a real and immanent Global threat. Destabilization of the Worlds oil supply, through terrorism, is a real threat. The Saudi oil fields are a prime target and having a "friendly" government in place in Iraq is not a bad thing for anyone. Our presence in Iraq allows us to keep an eye on the entire region. I also say the war was a strong message for each of the other ME countries who allow fanatical Islamic teachings and who, directly or indirectly, fund programs that result in the taking of innocent lives, to stop or face similar consequences.
I don't have a problem with any of the aforementioned scenarios proffered by you or I, and I don't understand anyone else's opposition to them either. We didn't go in to steal the oil. We went in to make sure it was available to everyone and wouldn't be used as an economic weapon. So if the excuse was WMD, humanitarian or what ever, the benefits certainly outweigh the drawbacks. Would you be happy if Saddam were still in power and Saudi oil was under threat of being withheld? Would that make anyone's life better? I know the liberated Iraqi people wouldn't be better off if he were again back in power.
Say Jon, do you feel that if France and the remainder of disenting nations stood shoulder to shoulder with the US, that we would be discussing a different history?
|Meanwhile, back on Earth...||No_sprint|
Aug 5, 2003 1:33 PM
|Had the country not invaded it's neighbor, been ousted, made a promise to the world, thwarted that promise through years and years of diplomacy, the coalition would not have gone in and ousted a maniacal mass murderer whose family ruled suckers, engaged in prostitution, heroine, terrorism and robbery veiled behind a ridiculous false front of religious extremeism.|
|Virtuous, simple and free of doubt. (nm)||czardonic|
Aug 5, 2003 1:36 PM
|and here's their plans for the future||rufus|
Aug 5, 2003 3:30 PM
This country has changed considerably since September 2002, when an inconspicuous, 21-page White House report was sent to Congress. That report, innocuously titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," was a product of the extremist neoconservative intellectuals (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.) who seized philosophical control of the White House after 9/11 and sold George W. Bush on an aggressive, muscular foreign policy. It became the basis for what has happened since (the invasion of Iraq) and for what may happen in the future, yet few people really know what it contains.
As William Finnegan, writing in the May issue of Harper's, rightly and articulately suggests, it is also a stunningly radical economic document, a blueprint for enforcing a worldview favoring corporate globalization and unregulated free markets.
A close reading of the Bush administration plan for corporate world economic dominance reveals a breathtaking audacious agenda. Its opening remarks, contributed by the president, baldly proclaim that the United States will "use this moment of opportunity" (i.e., the war on terrorism) to bring democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the globe.
Free trade, which is presented as a "moral principle," is the cornerstone of this brave, new economic world. The neocons regard it as the ultimate American value, our most important contribution to global civilization. The ability to buy and sell anywhere at will, they write, represents "real freedom." To advance it, they say, the United States will ensure the following:
that bilateral free-trade agreements are put into effect worldwide (think: cheaper imports and lost jobs);
that the Free Trade Area of the Americas is enacted (think: NAFTA times 10);
that global energy sources are expanded (think: increased environmental degradation); and
that American workers are helped to "adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets" (think: lower wages and weaker unions).
Although "The National Security Strategy" doesn't spell it out in so many words, the implication is clear: there is an integral relationship between free-market economics, neocon style, and America's security in the world. We need, in short, to establish global laissez-faire capitalism as a bulwark against terrorism: an iffy proposition at best, a bizarre one at worst.
The Economist magazine, no left-wing publication, reports that Republican-connected, free-market think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, are confidently predicting the quick privatization, at Washington's insistence, of Iraq's state-owned oil sector. Iraq's recon- struction, it further reports, may be ultimately financed by arranging for U.S. and other outside oil companies to lend rebuilding capital in exchange for rights to (or ownership of) the country's petroleum reserves.
It will be instructive to see if "The National Security Strategy" tie-in between economics and defense does actually manifest itself in Iraq. If so, the war will not only be proven to have been considerably about oil, after all, but the Bush administration's imperial ambitions will be shown conclusively to have a major economic component in the form of a corporate tail wagging the U.S. government dog. At this point, who could doubt it? It's all there in black and white - and under the White House imprimatur.