Motives for Iraq war

Not just the US's golden boy but the European's golden boy (and milk cow).

Far better to have the Iraqis dieing to contain the islamic threat to Europe's and to a lesser extent the US's oil and as an added bonus we can sell him the equipment.

 

Yet another daft short-term strategy.

when will we learn?

 

And the soviets/russians golden boy too.
Few greater powers are absolutely innocent in Saddams crimes before Desert Storm.

 

Ah yes, I had forgotten about them - did the Chinese sell them anything?

 

Ricky wrote:

You might well have imagined it considering their actions. You are referring to the same UN forces that stood back and watched as Serb forces waltzed into their compound and took their armor and drove it away? They wanted to avoid creating a stir it seems...lol.

 

Really?
When / who was that?

I know that British peackeeping troops had some ridiculous rules to follow -
Like if a guy chucks a grenade at you & runs off, you cannot shoot him, because the grenade is the threat not the guy. :roll:

Anyway. Bosnia etc may have been badly handled. Or maybe not, I'm not well-informed enough to know. However, Why the heck did not somebody interfere in the Sudan? Or in other places where similar events happen.
Ah, but then, with the injustices of the world, there just are not enough soldiers out there. :cry:

 

Yes, I´ve wondered about that one too. Why Iraq when it is most likely in Sudan the terrorists who will attack the US next time are trained.

 

Since nobody wished to explain about the alleged "oil grab" by the US we will have to continue the debate without that explanation however there is no doubt that oil is terribly important to the entire world. The stabilty of the oil supply must be assured otherwise the economic and social chaos will result in much human hardship. That being said one should realize that Iraq is important for a number of reasons not the least of which is it's oil. That gives it a high priority. The UN has shown itself incapable of handling any conflict that potentially involves military force as the will and resolve is lacking.
The lower priority conflicts around the world can be handled by those with less capability. The UN and European nations can perhaps act rather than merely criticise? Or is action beyond what can be expected? Rhetoric is useless unless it is backed up with a credible deterrent force.

 

I should point out here that most European Nations were involved in the latest Gulf War. Only France & Germany (doubtless there will be others I have overlooked!) had the capability to help out but did not. France was actually heavily involved in keeping the peace out in a small state in Africa, in a rather vicious 'squabble' that received very little reporting thanks to Iraq.

This is not an 'America went in & Europe stayed out' scenario.

Please can everybody remember that. As a member of the most prominent European partner (in terms of actions in the war), this kind of attitude gets my goat a bit.

Now, who 'ordered' the war? Was it President Bush, acting for his own ends? Was it (any leader, really) following his interpretation of the UN resolution? An interpretation that many nations followed, as their involvement in the war would suggest.

It is (did anybody bother to read my earlier post?) a shame that Blair etc felt the urge to 'sex it up' a bit (actual quote, believe it or not) and bang on about the infamous 45 minutes etc.

 

Ricky wrote:

Actually my "Euro" comments were not meant to include the Brits, many of whom informed me in the past that they do not consider themselves "Europeans"

While some accuse the US of having designs on Iraqi oil there is no question that rather than reap a bonanza in free oil the Iraqi war will end up costing the US many billions of dollars. The French, Germans and Russians on the other hand had strong economic reasons for allowing Saddams brutal regime to continue. They had contracts with Iraq worth billions.

 

I did not say the US attacked Iraq to make money from the oil they would capture.
What I meant was what you quote yourself, it was about securing the oil supply as the US realized that their traditional oil suppliers(Saudi Arabia, and smaller gulf states) are heavily infected with islamism and therefore not entirely reliable.So the iraqi oil is a guarantee, if other suppliers fail to their role.
Now, wether the war has really stabilized the oil supply, that is another question.

Another reason for the US to control the region is China, which as it grows incredibely rapidely will become more and more dependent on oil.
In a possible future crisis with China, the US could use it's control of the gulf region to cut chinese oil supplies.


And Grieg, I do not think there is any need for you to critizise european nations here.
First, it's not the point of the topic, secondly it's totally ridiculous.
Do you want me to make a list of crisis regions where european countries are actually involved?

 

My annoyance was not aimed totally at yourself Grieg (as I'm sure you realised), nor just at the American members.

I believe that Dutch troops were & are in Iraq, and possibly Spanish IIRC, along with a few other Euro nations.

Oh, and no, Britain is not European, except by an accident of geography.
Mind you, we certainly are not American either, regardless of Blair's opinions!

Ah, Xenophobia... :roll:

So, no comments on the UN resolution theory? That the war actually may (shockingly) have had a 'legal' basis.

 

Saddam's regime was indebted with many companies (mainly oil companies) from France, Russia and China. That's one reason hey didn't get involved.

UN least efective operation since it's inception is considered by many to be Sierra Leona (anybody remember those beheadings?).

And last, but not least, UN ROEs we had to follow in Bosnia sucked.

 

Ah !

Britain, a long time member of the EU, not European. I wonder what Norway is then. Asian ? :-?

 

Well, I have seen an european map (spanish, if I remember correctly) from 16th century. No british islands at all. It looked kind a kewl.
Gotta have one of those.

And yes, I know, offtopic.

 

Castelot wrote:

Neither did I say you did. See the initial post in this thread which was as the poster admitted deliberately provocative.

Definitely not. Lets save all our criticism for the Great Satan, the US 8)

ps - I know that technically Britain is part of Europe however I doubt that even the Brits here would deny that there is precious little feeling of kinship with Continental Europe? At least that is what I have been told by many Brits in past discussions.

 

The only european map I've ever seen on which England was not to be found is called "An irish view of europe's leading football nations"....
But now that's really off topic.

 

I think that Grieg's comments on Europe in this topic are largely unfounded and uncalled for in this context. First off, Germany and France are not Europe, there are 25 states in the EU right now and a lot of them did indeed send troops out to fight and/or keep the peace in Iraq. Our very own Dutch PM, Blair Junior (in that he is conservative and likes to please Bush) ordered 1600 men into the region to help the Coalition occupy the country. Two of them died.

European forces were involved in any and every major action initiated by the United Nations throughout its history. In your eyes this seems to mean that they stand by and do nothing. However, the UN is not a state but an international organization with the aim of preventing war and restoring peace, set up on American initiative, and right now the US is the only country who refuses to recognize that this institution has been given supranational authority in matters of peace and war, forcing other countries to look as if they don't act while in fact actively being involved through the UN. This means that it's not France, or Germany, or Belgium that is out there influencing world matters, but the UN they trust to do it for them, an organization that is much more involved in any and every international dispute than most nations on themselves.

Meanwhile I haven't heard a reason for the Iraq war from the supporting lobby here, I've only heard them deny the reasons brought forward by those who seem to oppose it.

 

The post I cut and pasted onto the China vs Taiwan thread suggests just this.

 

Roel wrote:

How is that consistent with previous comments about Iraq being purely Bush's war (or a cowboy's war was it not?) You can't have it both ways. Either the Dutch are there because they believe there is just reason or because they were pressured into it by the Cowboy. What's it gonna be?
If my memory is faulty about you having posted those comments Roel please correct me (coulda been another Hollander)

Exactly right. The UN is ineffective, corrupt, unorganized and basically useless, this I cannot deny