On the Reasons of the Current War

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I think that it is necessary to discuss the real reasons of the war in Iraq. Many versions are being proposed by different sides of the conflict, and none of them seems to me being convincing enough to be regarded as a real reason that made the current war possible and even inevitable.

First of all, let us relate to claims that the main purpose was imposing control over the Iraqi oil resources. I think, this objective required no war at all, and replacement of Saddam Hussein was not a conditio sine qua nonAIPAC leaders define themselves as Americans supporting Israel, and not as Israelis living in the USA, and they also respect priority of the American national interests to these of Israelan alternative to the current injustice is poverty for all

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,274 • Replies: 17

No top replies

The US State Department official responsible for human rights has said that North Korea probably has worse human rights than Iraq - despite justifying its current invasion of Iraq in part by citing human rights violations.

0 Replies

I agree, that is why I do not support a version that the current war is intended exclusively for protection of the human rights in Iraq. I have some ideas on the real reasons of war against Milosevic in Yugoslavia as well, and these reasons bear an exclusively geopolitic character, but this exceeds the framework of the topic.

0 Replies

Quote:

One of the Western outposts has already been abandoned: I mean the South Africa; I am not a supporter of the very idea of racial discrimination, but this country was an integral part of the Western civilization, and now it joined the ranks of the Third World, and its natural resources (including uranium, by the way) may serve the enemy

Re your above quote, steissd:

Do you suggest that colonies should be re-established?
(Which than would solve the "Iranian problem" somehow, and many others as well, like the Israel-Palestina conflict ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Re your above quote, steissd:

Do you suggest that colonies should be re-established?

Of course not. This is impossible. But sometimes I think that British rule would be more in favor of Ugandians than this of the former dictator Idi Amin, that South Rhodesia was ruled in much more civilized way than Zimbabwe, etc. I also share a heretic approach that Giscard d'Estaine was much more civilized person than "emperor" Bocassa, therefore he would be a better head of state for the Central African Republic (as a President of France, of course). In some cases (not in all of them, of course) colonialism was a less evil than barbaric regimes of the "independent nationalists".
BTW, this would not solve an Iranian problem: Iran has never been anyone's dependent territory.

0 Replies

Sorry, steissd. I wanted to write 'Iraq' instead of 'Iran'. Since I'm reading a book about Persia, this Freudian mistake happened.

0 Replies

threadmarking

0 Replies

Ah, OK. You need not apologize. I have sometimes typos without any influence of spirit of the late Dr. Freud, just by pressing the wrong key Laughing

But which colonizers might save Iraq? I do not think that restoring the Turkish rule over this country might make it more peaceful; on the contrary, such a thing could make Turkey more belligerent and less "Western"...

0 Replies

Your glossing over the possibility of pro-Israel concerns as a possible cause of the war is little more than false modesty.

Don't for a second suppose that because Jews are not a majority here in the United States that they cannot influence political decisions far greater than their true proportions.

Jews are, as we have discussed many times, achievers -- and they often get their way by dint of tenacity when sheer numbers would argue agaist their being able to pull it off.

I think a huge component of our going into this war falls at the feet of several very influential Jews who had Israeli interests in mind.

If I were a Jew -- particularly if I were a Jew with Israel's interests at heart -- I would do everything I can to get the United States to clean out as many people like Saddam Hussein as possible -- whether attempting to do so is in the interests of the United States or not.

It is my opinion that sever

0 Replies

I am afraid, Mr. Apisa, it seems to me that you have missed the main point of my publication. I did not state that this war was not in Israeli interests. It actually is, in spite of all the damage it causes to the Israeli economy destroying tourism industries and repelling investors; just like it is in favor of the long-term interests of the USA, France, Germany, Spain, UK, and any other countries of the Western civilization (and Israel is a part of it, regardless of anyone's opinion). The objective is intimidation of the Third World in order not to share the destiny of the Roman Empire, to make the Third World physically and psychologically unable to resist domination of the First World. IMO, such a strategic approach is the only possible under the present conditions.
This war is not for interests of any specific country, even as large, powerful and significant as the USA is. It is about survival of the Western civilization. Maybe, even on expense of existence of the other civilizations on the Earth.

0 Replies

steissd,

Suprisingly, I agree with a mutitude of your accessments.

I too would not consider the pro-Isreal lobby as being the cause for this war. They undoubtedly support it for the most part but I do not think they were a factor in the conceptual stages of the war.

I also would like to give positive reinforcement to the point you made about the US/Isreal relationship. It's not as unshakable as some think. We have taken Isreal to task many times and Isreal has, when they can afford it, returned the favor (e.g Bush says withdraw NOW, Sharons does it after a few days just to back Bush down).

As to your accessment of Saddam's stance on Isreal agree, I think his support for Palestinians is all PR, kinda like Osama, they talk up Palestine but never give any substantial aid to their cause. They just want to use it to curry favor with Arabs.

I also agree that Saddam has not posed an existencial threat to Isreal. I list as a possible reason his inability to do so.

I also agree with your call on Iraq's WMDs. I would parrot you and say, every country has them, they are usually no big deal. IMO they are more powerful for use in PR campaigns than military ones. Today's optima weapons are guided munitions.

I also do not consider the iussue of Democracy to have been the casus belli. I think it's an issue to play up to a domestic audience.

I also aree that Saddam is being used as an example. The idea is to make US military advantage more known and less challengeable.

But I only read your post up to that point because I couldn't stomach your conclusions and falsities. I really has no idea when I started writing this response that you'd have consluciosn that i consider so twisted. I will respond to that part when I have more time. Let me just note that you make a strong ase that western nations are not threatened then used the notion of saving our ciilization. It's a poor argument. This will not prserve our ability to live our lives the way we do. We did and would have continued to do so splendidly without the war.

0 Replies

Mr. de Kere, I may sound cynical, but I repeat: for successful functioning of the Western economy (and there can be no freedom in absence of economic prosperity) cheap labor, cheap energy and cheap resources are vital condition. In their absence economic disaster may reach such dimensions, that the Black Friday of 1929 will look like a hoax if compared to it. All these vital facilities and commodities may be provided only by the Third World. Therefore, in order to have our way of life we must provide preservation of the status quo, and to have the Third World submissive, predictable and controllable.
An alternative to this is not the global harmony and total happiness, but poverty and oppression for all the people in the world without any exception. Famine that disappeared from the First World countries in the 20th century may return.
I do not say that the Western civilization is the most "correct" and "just". It is not. But it is our civilization, this is the way of life we want to live, and we are to protect our possibilities to live this way by all the means possible. And if we procrastinate, the moment may come when we shall be unable doing this.
By the way, it may happen, Mr. de Kere, that I shall not be able to respond to your response on my publication, when it appears. On Thursday, early in the morning, I have to return to the Army, and I have no Internet access there.

0 Replies

steissd,

Taking issue with your economic blueprint would be as easy as it is irrelevant.

What does the continued economical suppression of the 3rd world have to do with this war?

What will this war do that could not have been acheived by tarrifs?

And I disagree with the notion that we need a 3rd world. Yes, we need poor to have rich but the divisions don't have to be national. We would not ALL be poor if the status quo were to change. That is an assumption that is as grand as it is unfounded.

0 Replies

This war has much to do with economic suppression of the Third World. It must show that any attempts to change the existing situation are futile, and that the Third World leaders that do not comply with the situation will be dismissed.
They just must get accustomed to the fact that the address of the global HR department that hires and fires the "presidents", "kings", "emperors"and "spiritual leaders" of the Third World is: White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC, United States of America.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

I am afraid, Mr. Apisa, it seems to me that you have missed the main point of my publication. I did not state that this war was not in Israeli interests.

COMMENT:

If I missed the main point of your post, it was because you rambled -- and the main point never became clear.

But at no point did I infer that you stated that the war was not in Israel's interest.

(I happen to think it is NOT in Israel's interest -- and it is NOT in the interest of any other country that you mentioned. But I did not say, nor infer, that you stated that it wasn't.)

Quote:

It actually is, in spite of all the damage it causes to the Israeli economy destroying tourism industries and repelling investors; just like it is in favor of the long-term interests of the USA, France, Germany, Spain, UK, and any other countries of the Western civilization (and Israel is a part of it, regardless of anyone's opinion).

COMMENT:

Nonsense.

No country will be any safer because of this misadventure -- and almost all will be less safe because of it.

Grinding Arab noses in their loses and inability to gain an equal footing with the United States vis-a-vis Israel will not cause them to relent -- it will fortify them. As Mubarak said yesterday, "If there was one Usama Bin Laden yesterday there will be dozens tomorrow because of this." (Or words to that effect!)

Quote:

The objective is intimidation of the Third World in order not to share the destiny of the Roman Empire, to make the Third World physically and psychologically unable to resist domination of the First World. IMO, such a strategic approach is the only possible under the present conditions.
This war is not for interests of any specific country, even as large, powerful and significant as the USA is. It is about survival of the Western civilization. Maybe, even on expense of existence of the other civilizations on the Earth.

COMMENT:

Dream on!

0 Replies

Re: On the Reasons of the Current War

steissd wrote:

The Iraqi oil resources... required no war at all... Policies of Saddam's regime were not the main existential threat to Israel... I may even suppose that the Iraqi nuclear program was not pinpointed against Israel...
I cannot regard necessity of establishing of democracy in Iraq as a serious reason for waging a war either... More, I strongly doubt that democratic rule may be applicable to the modern Iraq, and that such a ruling may be stable and functional... Democracy and freedom of choice are more likely way to establishment of the Islamic republic (granted, pro-Iranian Shi'ites are majority of the Iraqi Arabs), than a predictable, peaceful and pro-Western country. Saddam is a SOB, but he is the least evil possible; if removed, he is to be replaced by 'our SOB', but not by the democratically elected leader.

Agree,to all that. And yes, it's not really abour WMDs.

For the rest of the post I have several elements to comment. These are the first ones.

1. While this is certainly a part of a "civilizations clash", it's not strictly the West against the "non-West". The US (and you can count "Anglosaxony", "New Europe" and Israel, if you want to) is not The Western Civilization (meaning by that, the rule of democracy, economic freedom and law), while Baathism and Arab-nationalism do not account for "The Third World". They are a limited expression of "third-worldism". The West knows really little about the way the think and the way they perceive life. Perhaps that's why they're perceived by many as dangerous.

I have the feeling your geopolitics are, somewhoe, Middleeast centered.

2. Certainly, the US wants a "demonstration effect" with Hussein. I doubt that it will actually prove something to other leaders. On the contrary, I believe it will spark higher Jihad feelings among Islamic fundamentalists, and it will do nothing to deter authoritarian regimes such as Cuba's or North Korea's.

3. The ideas of "necessary exploitation" of the Third World strikes to me as badly swallowed textbook Marxism. As if today economy -to put it in Marxist terms- was ruled by absolute surplus-value, and not relative surplus-value (that is, by the empoverishment of the populations and not by increasing the productivity/wage ratio).

0 Replies

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today "the majority of oil wealth has been secured" by coalition forces in Iraq.

q.e.d.

0 Replies

frolic,

Oil is a side dish, not the deep reason.

0 Replies

On the Reasons of the Current War

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know