Why war with Iraq is happening
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I am looking at the "big picture" Squiggy.
The US wants nothing worse than to have Iraq as a friendly democratic nation, with the people becoming wealthy and educated due to the control of natural resources by the private not public sector (i.e., by the people, not by a thug).
WMD and UN sanctions just give a legitimate facade to this truth... a reason to become active, as it were. I have no problem with this. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam is a "good thing" for the entire planet, regardless of any immediate thread of WMD.
In the "big picture" it is ultimately Saudi Arabia that we are fighting, and they are the last ones we want to set up a new government in any war aftermath. And, if you can't understand why directly attacking SA is not a rational option, then I'm not the one who isn't seeing the "big picture."
SA is ultimately the root of terrorism. Any direct action against them is going to cause a severe backlash... moreso than any we've seen from Afghanistan or would see from Iraq. Hell, 9/11 was a result of us just being friends with SA... can you imagine if we were overtly enemies?
The invasion of Iraq is a very forward looking strategic move, and one that is entirely necessary IMO. It's not a matter anymore of "justified war" or "finding peaceful solutions to sanctions violations." We've long passed that point. Now it's about the future, and how we're going to make it better. That's the big picture.
Oh, and if you understand why there is a swell of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, then I think you should be completely aware of just why the invasion of Iraq is enevitably a good thing for the rest of the world. Terrorism has at its root a mass of miserable people. They are miserable because they are horribly poor and have no rights. They are poor and violated because thugs control all the money (oil). The leaders prevent revolutions solely by the means of diverting attention elsewhere (holy wars, anti-semetism, anti-Americanism).
I don't agree with a lot of cultures, but I respect and/or tolerate them because my life is pretty rosy in the grand scheme of things. When you are in complete despair, and have nothing left to lose, just about any cause seems better than simply existing miserably.
That's what the world is fighting. That's why the ousting of Saddam is a good strategic move towards that end. That's why we're attacking Iraq, and not SA. That's the big picture.
The US wants nothing worse than to have Iraq as a friendly democratic nation, with the people becoming wealthy and educated due to the control of natural resources by the private not public sector (i.e., by the people, not by a thug).
WMD and UN sanctions just give a legitimate facade to this truth... a reason to become active, as it were. I have no problem with this. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam is a "good thing" for the entire planet, regardless of any immediate thread of WMD.
In the "big picture" it is ultimately Saudi Arabia that we are fighting, and they are the last ones we want to set up a new government in any war aftermath. And, if you can't understand why directly attacking SA is not a rational option, then I'm not the one who isn't seeing the "big picture."
SA is ultimately the root of terrorism. Any direct action against them is going to cause a severe backlash... moreso than any we've seen from Afghanistan or would see from Iraq. Hell, 9/11 was a result of us just being friends with SA... can you imagine if we were overtly enemies?
The invasion of Iraq is a very forward looking strategic move, and one that is entirely necessary IMO. It's not a matter anymore of "justified war" or "finding peaceful solutions to sanctions violations." We've long passed that point. Now it's about the future, and how we're going to make it better. That's the big picture.
Oh, and if you understand why there is a swell of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, then I think you should be completely aware of just why the invasion of Iraq is enevitably a good thing for the rest of the world. Terrorism has at its root a mass of miserable people. They are miserable because they are horribly poor and have no rights. They are poor and violated because thugs control all the money (oil). The leaders prevent revolutions solely by the means of diverting attention elsewhere (holy wars, anti-semetism, anti-Americanism).
I don't agree with a lot of cultures, but I respect and/or tolerate them because my life is pretty rosy in the grand scheme of things. When you are in complete despair, and have nothing left to lose, just about any cause seems better than simply existing miserably.
That's what the world is fighting. That's why the ousting of Saddam is a good strategic move towards that end. That's why we're attacking Iraq, and not SA. That's the big picture.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
outside looking in said:
That statement would point to us attacking SA first.
Saddam was already on his way out because of the sanctions. So we should overstep those sanctions and make sure it ends with us at war so we can hand pick the 'new regime'?
Well that was impressively evasive. The only reason for not attacking SA first is oil related....If we're going to fight terrorism and that is how you want to sell it, then we've NO excuse not to attack SA first. If its about our strategic plan to control the world's oil, THEN JUST SAY SO AND LETS GET ON WITH IT. The hypocrisy is killing me.
Exactly what I was talking about. Lets pretend we're going to fight terrorism and rip it out by the roots.....
Then PLEASE tell me why we befriended SA or the Shah at all...You can't possibly expect that shit to flush when we've shown our hand already...I don't care if America wants to go declare war on OPEC in its entirety...I am just sick of all this hypocrisy and the lies...
Squiggy
ThunderDick
I expect the American people to stop being overwhelmed by the pep rally and start thinking. I expect them to have more respect for our flag than to use it as camoflouge for their emotion. I'm expecting that truth doesn't get tucked away behind the filing cabinets until it is too late. Do I expect too much?
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
That would be a tremendous disaster.Squiggy said:
Absolutely. But first, let's clarify: there isn't any "overstepping" of sanctions involved here. The sanctions were clearly laid out, and they have clearly been broken. Saddam is the one who overstepped them, and even if they would have ultimately worked (difficult to fortell the future, isn't it?), they haven't thus far. The requirements were explicit, and they haven't been met.
Malarky. SA provides around a quarter of the US's oil. If we were such greedy oil bastards we would find Venezuela and Mexico much more attractive. We could get more oil, for less money, with less lives lost, and no fear of terrorist retaliation. To even suggest that this is about "getting oil" is simply ludicrous. Sure, the democrats have been shouting this from the mountain tops, but they're simply wrong. The facts just don't logically support such a view.
We've every excuse not to directly attack SA. It's a delicate and intricate political situation in the Middle East. Let me outline a hypothetical and extreme scenario to elaborate. You have two options. The first is to actively influence the development of a democratic Iraqi state. The liberation of the GDP to benefit the people brings about an intellectual, social, and political enlightenment. The people no longer hate the US, and other Middle Eastern peoples take notice. They also want this improved quality of living. Iran is on the verge of a political revolution, and is next to undergo this renaissance. Other countries revolt against their tyrannical leaders, and are soon to follow. The people are no longer miserable, no longer hate the US, and no longer self-detonate in public places. The second option is to "strike at the root" of terrorism. We cease relations with SA, and now not only do the masses hate the US but the leaders do as well. Terrorism escalates to an all time high, and a full-fledged war with most of the Middle East ensues. The more we fight to protect ourselves, the more fixed the hatred against us becomes. In the end, the only viable option to end the threat of terrorism is the mass killing of much of the population of the ME, after which most of the rest of the world hates the US.
Having such an anti-war stance as yourself, which option do you find more palatable? They both achieve the same ultimate result if successful. If unsuccessful, the first results in things being much the same as they are now, while the second results in a billion Middle Eastern people who live to bring down the US, and teach their children the same, or worse yet retaliation by the rest of the planet for the extermination of the whole lot of them.
Reality is naturally somewhere between these extremes, but I hope this helps you to understand why war against Iraq might be the lesser of two evils, or perhaps even better than simply doing nothing. I hope you understand why I (and likely Blair and Bush) wouldn't consider open attack against SA to be a viable route to take in the war against terrorism.
There is no hyprocisy. Oil plays a part since it is ultimately the cause of the unrest in the region, which results in the terrorism and human rights violations we witness. But we (US/UK) are not out to "get their oil". Indeed, the rest of Europe, in blocking military action, is more interested in preserving their own interests in Middle Eastern oil (which are far greater than that of the US) than they are in 'doing what's right'. The US has no desire to control the world's oil. We are happy that the US works on a free market principle, and would be thrilled if the rest of the world were the same. We don't have to control anything, or reap all the profits, so long as those who are in control don't abuse the money and power generated by it. The US is plenty wealthy. We have no need to monopolize the world's oil market. I honestly don't understand how people can really think that is the case.
There's no pretending involved. If you had to fight Mike Tyson (not by choice, but were involuntarily forced to), would you stand toe to toe and slug it out (even if you did think you stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning) and take the inevitable damage that would occur, or would you strategically jab and run like hell, doing your best to inflict damage when possible while reducing the likelihood of getting your teeth knocked out? Odd analogy, but not too far out in left field. We want to fight terrorism as efficiently as possible, and as quickly as possible, but there has to be some balancing of the benefits and dangers: we don't want to end up with dirty nukes being set off in a dozen US cities before we're finished. If it takes a bit longer, or some more intelligent political and military maneuvering, then I think it's well worth it.
Don't you?
Hindsight is 20/20 huh? We wanted a prominent ally in the ME, for many reasons. It didn't work out as planned, obviously. Are you suggesting that we pay for one mistake by commiting a series of others?
Squiggy
ThunderDick
outside looking in said:
Only for the oil companies...
They were UN requirements. Suddenly we decide its up to us to decide they haven't been met? The UN gets to make that call. Not us. We just want to make sure it ends with us picking the new regime...
oli said:
Venezuela and Mexico are oil friendly. There is no need to attack them.
THERE IS NO POLITICS WHEN IT COMES TO TERRORISM. Thats what we were told, anyway. Now you want to change that to make the pieces fit?
If any of that were realistic, we would have stayed and helped in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Instead, we were content that the oil pipeline didn't end up in Russian hands and we bailed out....That blows your "good guy" scenerio.
Doing whats right would mean doing what you said. We said we were going to erase terrorism wherever it hid....That would take us to SA. Plain & simple.
your kidding.....Right?I can't even believe I'm reading this...Our wealth, in todays world, comes entirely from exploiting other country's resources and manpower. We may have been "the shit" way back when, but today our fortunes are made by pencil pushers screwing over other countries and sucking the profit margins out of their resources. The American worker is sucking hind tit and you want to turn your head away so you don't see it. Put on your Nike sneakers and run down to the newstand. Its in the papers almost every day.
oli said:
Hindsight? Are you now pretending that we didn't know that the Shah was killing his people or That ALL the money was being hoarded by the royals in SA?
No. That is what you are suggesting. This was a war on terrorism. Remember? We should attack the terrorists, which even YOU admit are in SA. Instead you want to attack their sympathizers..... because why?
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Different opinions, different points of view. Ain't the free world grand? 
I don't feel like repeating myself endlessly, so I'll address just a few points.
That's why I think your whole "it's all because we are greedy oil bastards" holds no water. Were that really the case we'd just go next door to get our fix. Why travel half way around the world where it costs more in terms of time, money, and lives, and the possible retaliatory effects are severe? You've yet to answer that simple question, but continue on your "all about the oil" crusade anyway.
If all we wanted to do is exploit other nations, there are easier targets than Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other country in the ME.
You really think politics plays no part in combating terrorism? That's ludicrous... political decisions can cost as many lives as military decisions. Of course such things are taken into consideration.
I don't feel like repeating myself endlessly, so I'll address just a few points.
Venezuela and Mexico are having tremendous difficulties (for very different reasons) actually getting the oil out of the ground and into the market. We could solve their problems for them if all we wanted was oil, but instead we let them solve their own problems. Why? Because their problems are not a threat to us physically, and their leaders aren't (blatantly) barbarizing the population. In Mexico's case it's simply a problem that the state controls the entire oil market and is horribly inefficient. They won't allow private companies to get at the oil, and they won't even allow joint ventures between the Mexican government and foreign private industries to help solve the problem. It is so bad that Mexico is on the verge of becoming a net importer of oil, despite their tremendous easily tapped reserves. Their loss, we get oil elsewhere (Canada mostly). If we were really such greedy bastards we could politically pressure them into allowing joint ventures. We could economically pressure them. We could militarily pressure them. We haven't (no more than is reasonable... we haven't resorted to strongarm tactics yet, though we've pleaded hard for allowing joint ventures, which would seem to be in everyone's best interest). Why? Mexicans don't self-detonate. They don't starve their population intentionally. They have their fair share of problems, but those problems pale in comparison to the ME.
That's why I think your whole "it's all because we are greedy oil bastards" holds no water. Were that really the case we'd just go next door to get our fix. Why travel half way around the world where it costs more in terms of time, money, and lives, and the possible retaliatory effects are severe? You've yet to answer that simple question, but continue on your "all about the oil" crusade anyway.
If all we wanted to do is exploit other nations, there are easier targets than Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other country in the ME.
I was always told not to believe everything I read.
You really think politics plays no part in combating terrorism? That's ludicrous... political decisions can cost as many lives as military decisions. Of course such things are taken into consideration.I'll clarify with conditions: of course we desire to control the world's oil, in the same sense that Bill Gates desires to control the entire software market. However, Bill isn't so greedy that he would be willing to enslave workers and murder CEO's to accomplish that, and neither are we. I desire to control a lot of things in the world, but there is a price I won't pay, and reality tells me that anything less isn't going to cut it. I'm deeply disturbed that you think the US is willing to pay that price.
I wear New Balance shoes when I run, and I stopped reading the newspapers years ago when I opened my eyes and realized how ridiculous they typically are.
Reference Tyson example.
I am not reading all that bickering, damnit.
Short answer-if we place a successful democracy in the ME it may spread (look, I like being optimistic even though I'm truly a pragmatist) which would solve all our problems (well, most of them) in the ME & nobody would have to feel the wrath of our wmds. If we invade SA, then the whole world pays $18.gal for gasoline & gets really pissed at us.
Short answer-if we place a successful democracy in the ME it may spread (look, I like being optimistic even though I'm truly a pragmatist) which would solve all our problems (well, most of them) in the ME & nobody would have to feel the wrath of our wmds. If we invade SA, then the whole world pays $18.gal for gasoline & gets really pissed at us.