Motives for Iraq war

Oh, but don't they all?

I don't know, I find this one more realistic than the Bush administration invading Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing oil.

Personally, I think the motivation behind the Iraq war was part humanitarian, and mostly achieving what's in America's best interest. The benefites of installing a friendly regime in Iraq would be three-fold: it would without doubt increase American, and the world's, sense of security; allow a historically oppressed people a chance to experience democracy; and give the United States and its allies another place to buy oil, that being especially important with the sour relations between the US and several oil-exporting countries.

 

Why was the iraki war started , I don't know but here is a few guess

1- the regime of embargo was breaking down more and more

2- the U.S. imposed no fly zone ,was going nowhere wiht a statistical risk
of a crash in irak for mechanical reasons or whatever , pilot taken...

3- the script had kids with flowers , delirious crowds , arabs waving old
glory , excellent feed for the news machine

4-the obscene waste of taxpayer money called the C.I.A. could not even
make a good call , it's pretty obvious than if they though there were
none ,they could have brough a few containers of W.M.D. with them .

5- anyone who think oil was no factor ,has no clue about texas politicians

6-the pro israeli congressmen would love it

7-the military-industrial would love it

8-the press would love it

9- the irakis would love it

10- it would show the whole world what G.W.Bush was made of

 

guys,i just saw a news item.a new movie just released in turkey has u.s. troops under the direction of evil zionist dr,s kidnapping muslim children and cutting out their livers,kidneys ect.to sell or whatever...this movie is packing them in the theaters.gary busy of gerri lee lewis fame apparently co stars.mabey thats why g.w.bush invaded ....it fits niclely with other conspiracy theories ,oil ,childrens livers and world domination....

 

Yes, that movie arrived at theaters in Germany and other european countries with big Turkish populations. Being set in northern Irak (Kurd territory) is merely a coincidence. :roll:

 

You can stop reading right there. It's the only thing in this post that makes any sense whatsoever.

*reads sign*

You must be at least this tall ^ to ride this ride...er post in this forum...

 

Grieg, would you care to elaborate as to why his reasons are all wrong? They seem to cover quite a few subjects, and just one sweeping statement doesn't disprove them all.

And if not for these things, why was the war started?

 

Well, just like jeaguer, I cannot pretend to certainly know the reasons, but these are my guesses:

-Control of oil supply

Traditionally, Saudi Arabia is the US most important oil supplier and strategic partner in the middle east.Saudi Arabia allows the presence of US troops on it's soil, and represents Americas only major foothold in the arab world.(Besides some micro states like Kuwait or Qatar....).Saudi Arabia however is ruled by a royal family that doesn't even really try to hide it's support for islamic terrorism throughout the world and advocates a very radical version of islam called wahabbism....

Then comes 9/11, Osama Ben Laden....
Nearly all the hijackers that day were saudis, Ben Laden is a saudi....
Decision makers in Washington realize that their privileged ally is actually infected with islamic terrorism and could possibly become unreliable or even turn into a foe....which could lead to the loss of US influence in the middle east and could cause problems to oil supply.

So they decide that it would be good to have an alternative should there be trouble with the saudis.Problem is the two only alternatives to Saudi Arabia are black sheeps of the US: Iraq and Iran....
Any real partnership with either Saddam or the mullahs is impossible for the US....so some regime must be changed.
Removing the mullahs seems overly complicated, but removing Saddam seems rather easy....


So a pro US governement in Iraq, and a people that is thankfull to the US for it's liberation would be the best guarantee for firm US influence in the region, and would set both Saudi Arabia and Iran under considerable pressure.

Besides that, everyone knows that China is rapidly becoming more and more powerfull, and many think that in the decades to come there will be a strong political and economic rivalry between the US and China.By controlling the middle east and it's oil, America can take a big advantage in this coming struggle.(As in order to sustain it's economic growth, China will be more and more dependent on imported oil).


- Remodeling the middle east

Iraq is a potentially very rhich country.It has oil, it has water....
By establishing a pro US/democratic regime here, many in the White House tought this would have some domino effect and lead to some kind of democratization in the whole region which in turn would be in favour of US interests.


- Demonstration of Force

This was also a way to show the world what America can accomplish if it acts with resolve.Wether the UN would follow, wether it would simply be ignored....
In any case it would be made clear to all governements that America is no longer willing to collaborate with international organisations, if it's (percieved) interests command it otherwise.


- Public relations

It is important to bear in mind that the scenario that the US administration had in mind when they started the war was very different from what we are actually whitnessing in Iraq.
The war was supposed to be over after several weeks and according to US officials troops would be home after a few months.
Iraqis would be celebrating in the streets and willingly adopt a democratic/pro western system.
Infrastructure would be rebuild quickly and thankfull Iraqis would set up George Bush statues in Bagdad....
Such a short sucessfull war would be a great "propaganda" operation for the US administration, would also be seen as a major step in the broader context of war on terror and would strengthen George Bushs image as a tough president....
After proving sucessfull in Iraq, a similar procedure could be employed for other hostile regimes.


There certainly were other reasons like:

- the influence of oil groups (that hope for lucrative contracts in Iraq) upon the Bush administration.

-The hope that the removal of Saddam would have positive influence on the israeli-palestinian conflict

-Old resentments against Saddam.For many in Washington, the fact that Saddam still was in power after Desert Storm was seen as some sort of humiliation.Plans for a removal of Saddam were nothing new and had already existed under the Clinton administration.

-The humanitarian situation in Iraq was not good at all, and the embargo was inded killing tens of thousand(especially children).Calls for a limitation of the embargo or even an end of it were increasing.However in the view of many(especially in Washington) any concession to Iraq would make Saddam look like a winner.So before ending the embargo, Saddam had to go.

There certainly were some other reasons, but these are the most imporatnt I can think off.

 

hello greig

as for me being immature , that's cool , other whom I care about would
wholheartedly agree , but which of my suggestions don't you like ??

I'm not being smart arsed , and have no pretention of being right
the point of an intelligent discussion is to chisel out the dross from the
good stuff .




P.S. I've made it to saergent , this is trully scary !!

 

I'm back.
Grieg you still didn't adress my argument. Except your claim that i'm obviously biased. So are you my friend. Welcome to the world.

Who do you think will buy/get... previously state owned oil firms when thing gets privatised and who will get conssesions on pumping oil? What are they earning now (like halliburton cheating US military for a couple of bilion $) is nothing compared to their earnings in the future.

I'm talking precisly about that. I don't know how things are in US, but i'm paying gas at a hell of lot higher price that before 3.gulf war.

 

You answer my query with another question rather than addressing it. Who do you think will buy/get concessions on pumping oil in Iraq?

The fluctuating price of oil is a function of the market place and is perfectly normal. I stated that the world supply of oil is stable at the present time and it is. It is available for sale at a reasonable price(given the state of the market and the world) and in reasonable quantities.
The fact that you presently pay more than you did in the past doesn't mean that the supply is unstable.
Basic economics here, nothing too complicated to understand.

 

But answer to my question is a self evident, isn't it? So what do you belive the answer is?

So far so good. I can agree with that. But for what reason is the oil price fluctuating so much? Is it prehaps that some of the biggest oil supliers are in the same region as Iraq? (no need to answer that as i belive that answer is self evident).

Right. Lets see your argument a little closer.

Rule of supply and demand:
Too much supply = prices drop
too much demand = prices rise
instability in market = prices rise
Basic ecomnomics, not to complicated. Right? Right!

Did demand rise? Not so much.
Even with China and India modernising it will take some time to make significant impression on the market. That does not mean that both countries don't take strategic decisions in securing stable source of oil (Iran, Russia, Sudan, Yellow sea...) in the future.

Did supply drop? Not realy.
Iraq was not producing much anyway. Do Iran, Saudia Arabia... produce less oil? No, they are producing more.

Is market of oil supply unstable? Yes.
War in the area where most of the oil is pumped is not exactly a stabilising factor. With civil war in Iraq looming on the horison and general instability of the entire region together with Bush & co starting to press Iran, I realy don't think that one can say that oil supply is stable.

 

What you think may be evident but that doesn't mean that there is evidence of it's correctness. Do you have such evidence? Can you name another example where it has happened?

As far as the rule of supply and demand goes apparently it is more complicated than you are aware since your statements make it clear that you, like many people who think they understand a basic concept without studying it, really don't understand it at all.

Hint: a change in quantity demanded is not the same thing as a change in demand.

Likewise a change in quantity supplied is not the same thing as a change in supply.

Once we get beyond a basic grasp of the terminology perhaps we can discuss the substantive issues.

One must learn to crawl before they learn to walk

 

Who said the war was supposed to be over in a few weeks? I seem to remember Bush stating in his speech that this won't be a short war but will take years.
Some Iraqis did celebrate in the streets and AFAIK did adopt a democratic form of government. I seem to remember elections being held.

 

Well, I remember several american officials, civilian and military talking about a short war, especially Donald Rumsfeld Dick Cheney and others.
It's only after the beginning of the war that the administration began to speak about a long and difficult war.
One example:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2479807.stm


Some iraqis were indeed celebrating in the streets, more were rioting and plundering.Most were indifferent at the beginning.
But it is clear tough that most iraqis right now do not see the coalition forces as liberators.In a recent poll made at the request of the british military in late 2005, 47% of iraqis responded that attacks against coalition forces were justified.(65% in the sunni provinces).
82% said they were strongly opposed to the presence of coaltion forces.
1% responded that the coalition forces were responsible for any improvement in security.
Not really answers you would expect from a "liberated" population....


And yes, there were more or less democratic elections held.(Very democratic actually by middle eastern standards).I never said otherwise.

 

You know who were greeted as LIBERATORS in 1941? the NAZIS... Because soem states western states of the Soviet Union were annexed bewfore the war and were extremely unhappy.

 

Gunter, how is that relevant? The wars were of completely different nature, as are the countries in question.

 

Opinion polls aren't an accurate measue to judge the will of the people IMO. They are easy to manipulate and achieve the results one wants to achieve.
No country wants to be occupied. It is a necessary evil at the moment. The ruling government in Iraq, elected by the people in a free and fair election, does not want the US forces to leave Iraq at this time.
If the Iraqi government were capable of maintaining order the US would like to pull out it's forces and you can be sure just as soon as it is feasible they will do so. The US is paying in blood for the Iraqi's freedom whether all of them appreciate it or not. Hopefully the sacrifices wont be wasted.

 

That would be nice. I'd hate for our troops to go through all this mess and have it all come to nothing because the Iraqis couldn't make it work.

 

Shades of a previous post , but the pronuncment of g.w.Bush are not
inconsistent and he always stated what he would do .

there is " the war against terror " overall , lasting a long time and ..
.... the afghanistan campaign
..... the iraki campaign
..... etc..etc

there is no contradiction at all if one accept the basic premisses

 

What ticks me off is that ever time Iraq gets mentioned these days in the British Media somebody always pops up and asks the question "Should our boys be brought back now?"

The only real answer I can see is 'Only if you want a civil war in Iraq'


I should make it clear that I don't think that British troops are all that stand between Iraq & civil war, but I do think that the more troops that are there the better. If we withdraw, that does set a rather nasty precedent, and would put more of a strain on America. And being as we helped start it off, we should have the decency to see it through.