1
   

Was the Iraq War a "war for oil"?

 
 
chad3006
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:51 am
@kennethamy,
If the purpose of the war was to spread democracy to the middle east, then why is the Saudi Royal family (a monarchy) supported?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:58 am
@Dave Allen,
The point I'm trying to make is that we...we as a world economic structure..have found ourselves in a very difficult position. This situation at times requires more than ethical means to secure our ability to survive.

I'm still certain if that first flush of success had been followed by security and a peaceful transition , you and others would not be so vehement in your opposition.

I wonder if Bush and Blair where so devious why they did not plant evidence of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm certain that they really did believe he was holding certain weapons. This is not say, I believe that's why they went to war.

I will ask you this, do you think we should interfere in Darfur, in a military manner?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:06 am
@xris,
xris;112117 wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that we...we as a world economic structure..have found ourselves in a very difficult position. This situation at times requires more than ethical means to secure our ability to survive.

As I said - I think the risk Saddam posed to world oil trade was negligable, really.

To echo Chad in a way, the Saudi's have a far bigger impact on world oil trade, are also tyrants, yet are unmolested - because of their closer ties to the US.

Quote:
I wonder if Bush and Blair where so devious why they did not plant evidence of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm certain that they really did believe he was holding certain weapons. This is not say, I believe that's why they went to war.

I think they were naive rather than devious. I reckon Blair thought he could moderate Bush, couldn't and got dragged along for the ride.

Bush I think was naive enough to think Iraqis wanted a liberal democracy, and that he and his advisors had little conception of the tensions between the sectarian divisions in the country.

I do think some of the project for a new american century chaps are devious - but they wouldn't be so stupid as to plant evidence that could be traced back to the US even if they were "THAT" devious.

Quote:
I will ask you this, do you think we should interfere in Darfur, in a military manner?

Dunno, I'm not really sure about the situation.

I think in many cases the UN would provide a better garrison force than the army of any given nation.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:14 am
@chad3006,
chad3006;112115 wrote:
If the purpose of the war was to spread democracy to the middle east, then why is the Saudi Royal family (a monarchy) supported?
That's not the point. We, the west, want stability, we don't care what face it wears. Democracies in general are more stable. For certain reasons Islamic countries appear to reject democracy. All they appear to respond to, is strength or brutal dictators.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:19 am
@kennethamy,
Yeah, not like us Europeans who wouldn't countenance a monarch or dictator, ever.

Oh wait...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:22 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112122 wrote:
Yeah, not like us Europeans who wouldn't countenance a monarch or dictator, ever.

Oh wait...
monarch with any power are history and dictators are also a thing of the past. Give me an Islamic country with a democratic government and ill give you six secular democracies.
0 Replies
 
chad3006
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:48 am
@xris,
xris;112121 wrote:
That's not the point. We, the west, want stability, we don't care what face it wears. Democracies in general are more stable. For certain reasons Islamic countries appear to reject democracy. All they appear to respond to, is strength or brutal dictators.


People all over the world "appear" to reject democracy when their self determination is threatened by western "stability."
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 10:54 am
@chad3006,
chad3006;112126 wrote:
People all over the world "appear" to reject democracy when their self determination is threatened by western "stability."


Can you give a few examples of what you mean? I don't see that Iraq's self-determination was threatened. What seems to have happened was with the disposal of Saddam, different factions are fighting for control. And it is hard to establish a central government. The same for Afganistan.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 11:03 am
@chad3006,
chad3006;112126 wrote:
People all over the world "appear" to reject democracy when their self determination is threatened by western "stability."

I'm not sure that's fair - but certainly the relative stability in Europe since the 1940s is at least partly due to mutual good will, and the desire of foreign powers to see that protected.

Which contrasts sharply with how the Middle East has been used historically, both by it's rulers and foreign powers.

Should never have disbanded the Ottoman ambit - frankly.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 11:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111526 wrote:
Was the Iraq war a "war for oil"...


In part, though as I understand it, that wasn't a prime-motivator reason. It likely worked in the back of the heads of the decision makers as they likely thought, "... and this would be nice to have too, wouldn't it!". But mainly...[INDENT]1. Rage, suspicion and fear of the Hussein Regime; coupled with intelligence debacles, post 911, put the GW Bush administration (and congress, for that matter) in disproportionate fear of it.

2. Lingering doubt as to whether Hussein should have been left in power, post Desert Storm, left suspicion as to whether or not we had "unfinished business" in dealing with an enemy of an ally and potential threat.

3. I think that we could put access to oil reserves on the list. But after all I've read on the issue, I don't think I'd call it a primary motivator. Leave the two above factors out, I seriously doubt we'd have done anything with or to them, for oil alone.
[/INDENT]I also don't believe bringing democracy to that nation played any quantifiable part in the motivations; not truly. It was; however, something the government could hang their ideological hat on to help increase support for the effort. I can't know their absolute motivations, but as I understand it, this pretty much wraps it up.

Good to ask this question as the ability to gain hindsight increases.

Thanks
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 11:34 am
@chad3006,
chad3006;112115 wrote:
If the purpose of the war was to spread democracy to the middle east, then why is the Saudi Royal family (a monarchy) supported?
The invasion of Iraq was an indirect attack on all the monarchies of the middle east. At the point Iraq is stable and demonstrating public mechanisms of government, like legislature and judiciary, the basis of monarchy in the middle east will have eroded. The way will then be clear for the emergence of a culture expressing the soul of the middle eastern people as an essential part of the modern world.

The view of George W. Bush was that this was the will of God, and it was encumbent upon him to pursue it even in the face of the opposition of the world and the representatives of Americans: the Congress. As it was, he faced no opposition from Congress and no power existed in the world to deny him.

Aware of opinions that he was pissing in the wind, middle easterners would reject his agenda and in the meantime he was undermining the relationship of America to the rest of the world, Bush proceeded with faith that he will no doubt die with.

The whole affair depended on access to Saudi soil for staging purposes.. the long term plan being to pull all US troops out of Saudi. Osama Bin Laden didn't like US troops contaminating that holy ground. With no need to keep troops there to watch Saddam, they could be removed.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 03:07 pm
@xris,
xris;112091 wrote:
Im not arguing from the position of right or wrong but from the economic expediency. He was unstable and we need stability. I don't like the situation we find our selves in but oil is very crucial to our survival.

Why does morality always lose the battle with expediency??? Do you think it actually helps our survival prospect if the world hates us... First of all, why should the Muslims support us at all buying into our system, or buying our goods...Okay; a billion and a half Muslims all technically free to choose one of our products instead of some others... What will the payoff for our economy be??? Okay; so you want two wars; one to take the resources they might well need to survive, and one to shove our products down their throats...Consider that after the second world war all these people considered us champions of self determination...How many dictators later they are still being fitted for the collar we want them to wear......
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 05:25 am
@Fido,
Fido;112198 wrote:
Why does morality always lose the battle with expediency??? Do you think it actually helps our survival prospect if the world hates us... First of all, why should the Muslims support us at all buying into our system, or buying our goods...Okay; a billion and a half Muslims all technically free to choose one of our products instead of some others... What will the payoff for our economy be??? Okay; so you want two wars; one to take the resources they might well need to survive, and one to shove our products down their throats...Consider that after the second world war all these people considered us champions of self determination...How many dictators later they are still being fitted for the collar we want them to wear......
If you think commerce goes hand in hand with like ability then your very much mistaken. When people think of America its Disney land and mcdonalds, not Iraq or its foreign policies. You don't shove your products down their throats your feeding them Chinese products with the American dream attached. You give me one fool who despises the west and Ill give you forty that cant wait to live there.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 06:22 am
@xris,
xris;112328 wrote:
If you think commerce goes hand in hand with like ability then your very much mistaken. When people think of America its Disney land and mcdonalds, not Iraq or its foreign policies. You don't shove your products down their throats your feeding them Chinese products with the American dream attached. You give me one fool who despises the west and Ill give you forty that cant wait to live there.

Good will does play a part in business unless you intend to force everyone to buy at the point of a gun, which will raise the price out of sight..We are not paying the full price for our oil unless one considers the cost of the military on the spot to make certain we get it...For the profits of the oil companies the bigger part of the price is laid on the tax payers...

You might consider the possibility that ambitious people want to come here because our government offers the people no protection from exploitation, so that people with strong family ethics have an advantage, able to protect themselves, and able to exploit others...Why do you think they are willing to attack us here??? Too many have seen how empty and immoral this place is...They think, as do I, that one good push would reveal the failure and fragility of our forms, and the whole edifice would fall...Why do you think we went to war over an insignificant loss of a couple of buildings and a few thousand people???When human beings, when the people are not in control of their government, then no measured response is possible... The danger to the form requires a formal response... What should have been a well considered decission was not considered at all,, except by a fraction of the people weighing the prospects of re-election...The form offered a reflex response... n fact, it wass like an elephant chasing a fly, with the very act of doing so exhausting the elephant, and ensureing his destruction...

If we were out today; how many years would it take us to be prepared to go back, if necessary???We had an army before...That army was spent to buy nothing, except a worse situation than before...We cannot stay, and cannot leave... We are like man with a hog by the leg that we cannot dare let go of...So where is the cost???It is buried in a deficite...It is endured by a few military families.... If war becomes necessary it should be the whole people who go to war... They did not seek consensus until after their plans began to unravel...They have not graspped the political necessity of a draft because that act would ruin the last political support the war enjoys...So the war, like the fighting of the war by a few has been an inexcusable act of injustice... The one bright spot is that the insanity and injuries of the war will be suffered by a relatively few, instead of by a whole generation as in Vietnam... Thirty years from now we will still be putting those people in our prisons because we have no mental health system capable of treating them... They have been treated unjustly by the very orgaanization created in this land to achieve justice: Our government...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 10:15 am
@Fido,
Sorry too much rhetoric for me.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 11:02 am
@xris,
xris;112377 wrote:
Sorry too much rhetoric for me.


As the Emperor, Joseph II said in "Amadeus", "too many notes".
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 03:26 pm
@kennethamy,
What are the chances that he thought, as a monarch, that there were too many kings, and not enough musicians???Perhaps if he had had his way there would have been only one note: The sound of one hand clapping...What would you like if you were king of the jungle....Perhaps another dead end war for lost ground???
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 05:22 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;112115 wrote:
If the purpose of the war was to spread democracy to the middle east, then why is the Saudi Royal family (a monarchy) supported?


Well, it's a pragmatic decision. 'Democracy' is a poster for 'worthy causes' and 'things nobody can doubt'. But it is applied selectively. Some things are strategically more important than democracy, but 'promoting democracy' is seen as a valid means of securing the strategy, if applicable.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 05:26 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;112115 wrote:
If the purpose of the war was to spread democracy to the middle east, then why is the Saudi Royal family (a monarchy) supported?


I imagine that it was (rightly) believed that everything could not be done at once. And it was hoped that once a democratic government was established in Iraq and Afganistan, some form of democracy would spread to other parts of the Middle East as well. Sounds like a plan to me.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 05:55 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;112480 wrote:
Well, it's a pragmatic decision. 'Democracy' is a poster for 'worthy causes' and 'things nobody can doubt'. But it is applied selectively. Some things are strategically more important than democracy, but 'promoting democracy' is seen as a valid means of securing the strategy, if applicable.


Well; that is a deep subject, and we don't want to go there without a lot of rigging...

---------- Post added 12-18-2009 at 07:16 PM ----------

kennethamy;112483 wrote:
I imagine that it was (rightly) believed that everything could not be done at once. And it was hoped that once a democratic government was established in Iraq and Afganistan, some form of democracy would spread to other parts of the Middle East as well. Sounds like a plan to me.


Why don't all those who hoped for democracy for them now hope for democracy for us... That they could lie us into war on the strength of a majority they never would have had, had the truth been known- and still be walking the streets like honorable people means we have no democracy... If it were your family and one of them lied you into a fight, would you ever trust them again??? But some of their good friends look right at the lies and never mind, because it would take more than murder to make them change their minds...They are republicans, and perhaps born republicans, and they can no more call the party of their birth illegal than they can admit the larceny in their souls...They justify... They justify torture, and deny torture is torture... What men are these who would allow torture before a trial, and before evidence is found??? What kind of men would accept for another treatment they would not with a choice endure for a moment...What kind of person justifies attacking an innocent for the crimes of another???...

If the Iraqi people were parties to the crimes of Saddam, they were also his victims...He knew how to gather in every string and pull them when needed for a dance... To go and break their worlds to harvest an enemy whose crimes did not demand war is a war crime...Who are you to justify killing people for some spiritual good like our dollars, for their oil, and Western Law that holds them powerless before their governments???...

Do you think those people cannot tell death and destruction when they smell it...Iraq is too far to smell, but it is not the taste of democracy they have in their mouths...Trust me on this: Before we can breed democracy we must have a couple in the pen, but not one example among all the nations exists on this earth...
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 10:04:22