Motives for Iraq war

It's an oversimplification of those who see a map of Iraq and think, "hey, there's oil there - and since there's nothing else, this must be why the US invaded." It might be true that the war was inspired largely to secure oil supply to the US, but this simply doesn't mean that they go in and take it for free. It seems to me like the Americans are trying to establish a stable, democratic base in the country to ensure that the oil keeps flowing to the free market.

And I wish Americans would stop complaining about gas prices. Gasoline is still more than twice as expensive here as it is in the US.

 

Roel wrote:

But you do know why that is, of course. One cannot extol the virtues of
Social Democracy(or whatever we are calling it today) and the welfare state and not expect to pay the bill when it comes due 8)

 

Definitely true, the vast majority of the difference is "environment" tax.

I think we're still calling it Social Democracy, though, or the welfare state.

 

Very true, Roel, and that fact does help me feel better when I'm paying for my gas.

 

I would complain to if I was an average American that could easily effort a Hummer H2 (40.000 dollars in the US) wich consumes 3 times as much gasoline as a Ford Focus for example...

 

Jeffrey wrote:

I think you missed the point. The reason why your gas cost so much more is because of all the taxes added on to pay for the welfare state.

 

There is not just oil in the region.

The region has geology very similar to the Australian and Canadian mineral belts.

The question is, whether the revenue from the minerals will be able to support the ruling cliche in the comfort that oil has given them AND be able to subsidise the exploding population enough to keep them quiet.


http://www.sgs.org.sa/index.cfm?sec=1&page=home.cfm

 

The "oil, oil, oil" could have been obtained easier and more cheaply by following the French President's desire and dropping all the economic restrictions agianst Iraq. GWB wanted Sadaam removed becuase he honestly believed he was a bad man with WMD and was backing terrorists.

 

Actually that was not only the french presidents desire but the wish of the vast majority of the countries represented at the UN.
Whas that embargo really necessary?
It killed some thens of thousands of iraqi children a year, allowed some corrupt UN personal to enrich themselves via the oil for food programm, did not weaken Saddam by any means, increased the oil price.....

What France as well as other nations proposed was to end the embargo, and allow Iraq to sell it's oil freely on the world market.

Arms purchases were to be prohibited for Iraq, strategic materials were to be controlled and severely restricted.

Trough a supervision of oil earnings, continued arms monitoring, a financial surveillance system to watch expenditures from oil earnings, the iraqi problem could well have been solved in a much bether way than the way that is actually being tried.

I am not trying to show here how wise France is, or how unwise other countries are, because generally I think that neither the US, nor Europe, nor Russia or China look good in the iraqi affair.





[

 

[

[/quote]

Sorry, but I do not believe that the american president is as stupid as you depict him here.

 

Sorry, but I do not believe that the american president is as stupid as you depict him here.[/quote]

I'm glad you don't find him that simple, but I'm afraid it's all I can conclude.

Was the embargo following the 1991 Gulf War necessary? No, but this was the "humane" way to deal with the dictator Sadaam, no worry that it was the Iraqi people who suffered. Do you really believe the world would have restrained from selling Sadaam weapons or controlled deliveries of strategic materials to him? I don't, this would have been little more than a politically acceptable way of doing nothing. IMO the best course of action would have been to finish the war in 1991 by deposing Sadamm.

 

[

[/quote]

I totally agree with that.

 

Only problem with this was the arab allies of the coalition... :-?

 

Yes, they would definately have been a major problem in such a scenario,but surely not the only one.

Generally it is of course very easy to look back 15 years later and judge what should have been done in 1991.
Decision makers at that stage did not know what we know today, and the risks of a regime change probably seemed too great to them.

 

I think it also shows the difference between politicalians and leaders. The 1991 war ended with the liberation of Kuwait in accordance with the UN mandate and bad publicity over the "Highway of Death" and such. I think true leaders would have at least tried to convince the populace and the UN to eliminate the regime and ask the Arabs to install a ruling body. The privations of the years of blockade and Sadaam's murders could have been avoided.

 

I have some ictures of it after the road was cleared, I could try to find them and scan them.

 

Actually, the Hummer starts out at about $53,000, and your average American cannot afford one. I know *I* can't, anyway!

 

Thats not wat I meant, what I meant was that the US people who are complaining about the ''high'' gasoline prices mostly drive in big gas slurping (spelling?) SUV's or pickup trucks, no wonder they are complaining that they pay so much for gasoline, first they must look at there own before bullshitting the goverment.

 

LOL!, I think here in The Netherlands you pa about twice as much for a basic version of the Hummer H2

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Not at all. The people come first, then the government. We are the master, not the servant. If you will notice it wasn't the Americans here who were complaining loudest about the high price of gas.
How do you know what "most" Americans drive anyways? There are certainly a lot of Hondas and Toyotas sold in the US (I have a couple of them myself )

The same reason for the high gas prices; taxes are added on by your government.