specialbrewrants

Iraq the Truth.

Can someone out there please give me a rational reason why Bush invaded Iraq.

DEFINITELY FALSE REASONS

Nations always act in their self interest so let's dismiss the altruistic to democratize the Middle East (so why not Africa?)

Next the WMD's argument has been seen to be a made up pretext to make it legal to invade in that Iraq was a direct threat to the US.

Support for Al Quaeda from Iraq is total rubbish: Saddam only recognised one power, himself.

POSSIBLE REASONS

To make the US the preferred partner in dealing with Middle Eastern Oil as opposed to Europe, Russia, India, China or the Far East.

This relies on the Conspiracy theory that Saddam had started to deal his oil in Euros and this undermined the viability of the US Dollar for countries from which the US had borrowed. This would result in a run on the US Dollar pegged artifially high and would mean economic meltdown for the US deprived of its cheap imports.


I think that no one sensible can dispute:

1. It made sense to overthrow the regime in Afganistan.
2. The average Iraqi will eventually be better off without Saddam.
3. The WMD pretext for war against Iraq was seriously flawed. At best the intelligence was flawed; at worst Bush deliberately lied.

What is at dispute is the benefit the US is getting from the Invasion. There has to be a reason of self interest for the US to invade in the first place. Nor can this be down to stupidity as some people maintain. Bush may not be the brightest light in the administration but he is surrounded by thousands of highly intelligent people. How did America get to be top dog in the first place: not by being stupid.

Certainly the short term cost is high both in lives and effort. Oil prices have risen. AQ has a presence in Iraq it never had. AQ has gathered more recruits since the invasion.

In the long term democratic or non democratic the Iraqis are going to own the oil. The US will certainly have major influence over that oil, but this is not the same as the simple theft of the oil that some commentators maintain.

The "Why Iraq?" that some have put forward on this forum is that Saudi Arabia is the real target since OBL's movement originated there and enjoys support without the government cracking down on it.

Invading SA directly would be disasterous since world oil supplies would suffer because SA has about 70% of the World's reserves, but stationing troops in Iraq would mean that US troops can invade SA at a drop of a hat. Thus SA's rulers would spot the writing on the wall and begin putting their house in order.

There are flaws in this argument:

1. Where is the evidence that SA is doing anything about AQ?
2. If we were unwilling to invade SA in the past because of the crisis in world oil supplies that would result, then surely that argument still applies.

Some of the evidence that tends to support this is:
1. US troops stationed in SA because of the Kuwait problem had been asked to leave, but I am sure that Kuwait would have been happy to give them a home.
2. Iraq is right in the Middle of the middle east whereas Kuwait is at the south of it.

This is my take on it so far THE TRUTH

With 90% of the Worlds Oil Reserves the Middle East is strategically important to the USA - more so, now there are more customers for the oil. It cannot risk Islamic Fundamentalism arising in the area and exerting a stranglehold on the US.

The US develops a long term plan to occupy Iraq for its strategic location and pretexts include the evil of Saddam, the War on Terror, WMD and democrasy for the Middle East, but they are only what the public is told, not the true reason.

The plan is a long term one in that the insurgency was expected but could not be revealed to be expected to the public to whom the war would have to be sold.

The US genuinely wants democracy for Iraq and hopes a knock on effect will occur effectively replacing dictatorships and the reason for terrorism. Overall it is a plan that will produce good for the world but that's not the reason behind it.

I can see why some people thought this thread was a double blind. In my eyes:

Bush invaded Iraq to ensure Middle Eastern Oil Supplies to the USA. Iraq was chosen because of its strategic position and because it provided suitable pretexts that could be sold to the public.

Which is almost: "Bush invaded Iraq solely for the oil"

I have just realised something I think is quite important to the whole Iraq debate.

People talk about the Iraq war as being badly planned because there was no contingency for a prolonged war against insurgents within Iraq. This again comes back to the attitude that "Americans are thickos and GB is the thickest of the bunch" which as I have pointed out earlier is complete bullshit.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ WAS TO GET TROOPS INTO A STRATEGIC POSITION IN IRAQ TO ENSURE FUTURE OIL SUPPLIES TO AMERICA. THE INSURGENCY ALLOWS THE TROOPS TO BE KEPT IN IRAQ WHICH IS THE OBJECTIVE ALL ALONG.

THE ADMINISTRATION KNEW THERE WOULD BE INSURGENCY ALL ALONG. THEY KNEW THIS WOULD WORK TO THEIR ADVANTAGE BY LEGITIMIZING THE PRESENCE OF AMERICAN TROOPS. ALTHOUGH THERE IS MUCH TALK BY THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT A PULL OUT TO PLACATE THE PUBLIC, THERE IS NO INTENTION TO WITHDRAW TROOPS BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE OBJECT OF THE MISSION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So the War is going to plan after all...

Sorry I got my last post 100% wrong. Please disregard it. 2 guys have turned up in really sharp suits and they are really clean cut and persuaded me I have an overactive imagination.

I was expecting them to be from MI5 but they were Jehova's witnesses. I will be doing Bible study everynight and not messing with the Internet from now on.

posted by gruad @ 7:53 pm