1
   

Why Did America Attack Iraq?

 
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2005 11:34 am
It would seem your priorities for Americans are:

1) Sign the Kyoto Accords
2) Pull out of Iraq
3) Improve the nation's disaster response capabilities

Not all that surprising for someone who isn't American.

FINN:
It would seem that your priorities for America are:
1) Don't sign the Kyoto Accord and increase greenhouse gases.
2) Stay in Iraq to save face. Another Vietnam; expensive and lives lost for nothing.
3) You think NOT improving disaster response is a better idea? Better to do that than rely on CANADA and other countries.

Views are from an EX-PAT. Sometimes things are not always as they seem, eh?
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2005 11:46 am
Why is it that you think only America should be exempt from UN intervention? Pre-emptive war is what HITLER did. How does Bush differ? Of course, the US should be subservient to UN wishes, as that represents the WORLD. The WORLD is not the US. The US is not the biggest country in the world, only the one with the biggest appetite for consumer goods. And I hear the US can't pay its debts now? Big deficit? And China is holding the debt.......interesting problem your country is facing, thanks to Bush. One should never, never elect a psychopath for a Prez. However I could cite facts about both of his elections, both of which were 'fixed'. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. Old news. Americans did ever have a short attention span.
I completely understand why the US went to war. I have outlined it above and quoted it in numerous sources. It was for: Oil, protect Israel, revenge.

BTW, you did not respond to my question about why Israel is permitted to have WMD's and all surrounding countries are stripped of theirs?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2005 10:23 pm
McTag wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
au1929 wrote:
If I may I would as allied question ask.
Taking a backward look at the war in Iraq I have to ask was or is it worth it? Aside from the removal of Saddam what has been accomplished.
Where is Iraq headed? Towards democracy, civil war, theocracy?


It's not over yet. The time to ask that question will be when it is over.


It's over.


Fallacious comments, though possibly glib, remain fallacious.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2005 11:43 pm
You think it's not over?

There is not a safe road or a safe airport in Iraq. Armed militia roam virtually at will. Dozens if Iraqis are killed every week, and soldiers and western personnel leave their armed safe compounds at their peril. Neighbours Iran have recenty elected a hardliner to lead them. The military have no grip on security, and popular sentiment is turning agains this adventure in Britain and in the USA, for several different reasons.

Maybe you have some other information which is not widely available, about this, Finn. If not, I refer you to my previous statement.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 10:48 pm
It is most certainly not over.
The sole reason for invading Iraq was oil.
And to remove the threat to Israel, which Iraq apparently was- in the minds of the brains in Washington DC, anyway. But since no WMD's were ever found, and they knew that before they went in, go figure. American imperialism. Pure and simple.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 11:22 pm
It's over...but it's not over.

How can we know if it's over or not over when the reasons for going to war and the objectives of the war keep changing?
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 11:24 pm
Exactly. So when do you think the Americans will impeach the jerk? Ever?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 11:29 pm
I have to admit to being a bit reluctant to voice an opinion on that.

Now while someone gets the smelling salts...... Very Happy

I mean that I am happy to rip into US foreign policy (eg the Disaster That Is Iraq) and into policy that affects my country (eg the environment) I'm a bit reluctant to voice too much of an opinion on purely domestic issues such as impeachment. Having said that I would be happy to see him impeached but it's a matter for American legislators and their electorate I think.

I also want to see Schwarzenegger recalled but again I'm reluctant to get into it as I'm not a Californian.

I must be growing up...............naaahhh Very Happy
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 11:42 pm
As a former Californian I can tell you that we'd like to see him recalled as well.

Sorry I shocked you about impeaching Bush! I'm just surprised that the Americans were so hot to impeach Clinton over, well, you know, but Bush the War Criminal is above and beyond such things?

Just glad I'm in Canada now. It's great to not have to live in fear all the time.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 11:47 pm
Oh I wasn't shocked englishmajor - I could see America impeaching Bush. Honest and decent people voted for him because they believed he was good for America. They didn't vote for him because they thought he was a nutbar Very Happy If they want to hook him out of there, more power to them.

Canada - the only other country other than Australia I would ever consider living in.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 07:49 am
What has Arnold done that would lead you to believe he should be recalled?
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 05:35 pm
He has done nothing, which is why he should be recalled. He has not fulfilled any promises. I don't believe in a personality 'cult' following as a prerequisite for being governor or president. (Governator). To blame Gray Davis was a major red herring, as it was Republican Pete Wilson who deregulated and allowed the utility companies to break the economy of California. Forced into secret meetings by the industry, Gray was at least able to put a cap on the gouging.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 07:00 pm
And just on that - saw the documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room" the other night - about Enron. It explains the California power fraud nicely.
0 Replies
 
yardsale
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 07:08 pm
It is all abou the Iron triangle and the industrial military complex

Wikipedia:
Iron triangle is a phrase typically used by American political scientists to describe what are deemed to be cozy relationships in U.S. politics between the legislature, government bureaucracies, and constituencies; which ultimately result in very tight policy-making circles. The term is frequently used in discussions having to do with "agency capture" - the co-option of government agencies by special interests. One of the most frequent usages of the term relates to the Military-Industrial Complex. In this context, the term is most often used to refer to the relationship between the weapons industry/military contractors, the military bureaucracy headquartered at The Pentagon, and political power exercised by the United States Congress.

Central to the issue of iron triangles is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as players in the political game, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. The idea is that an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. For these purposes, constituency may be defined as a group of politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by government bureaucracies (often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement).

A considerable amount of what is seen as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its respective constituency. The official goals of an agency may be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is meant to serve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:16 am
George W. Bush's suicidal statecraft


By Zbigniew Brzezinski Tribune Media Services International

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005





WASHINGTON Demagoguery 
 
 
Quote:
Sixty years ago, Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "A Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for President George W. Bush's place in history but - much more important - ominously for America's future, it has lately seemed as if that adroit phrase might be applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
Though there have been some hints lately that the administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, Bush's speech of Oct. 6 was a throwback to the more demagogic formulations that he employed during the presidential campaign of 2004 to justify the war that he himself started.
That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by demagogic rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated.
It has precipitated worldwide criticism, while in the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the successor to British imperialism and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread in the world of Islam as a whole.
More than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is now needed, however. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced public sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists.
It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York.
Yet in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London. There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in the deepening U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by their feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be a brutalizing denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but from as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of the nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the United States look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
Compounding U.S. political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity.

Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. news media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (torture, in other words) was forced to resign, nor to face public disgrace and prosecution. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court retroactively now seems quite self-serving.
Finally, complicating the sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends, with spending on defense and security escalating dramatically. The budgets for the Department of Defense and for the Department of Homeland Security are now larger than the total budgets of most nations, and they are likely to continue escalating even as the growing budget and trade deficits are transforming America into the world's no. 1 debtor nation.
At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of the war's early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.
It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of American policy. As a result, large swathes of the world - be it East Asia, or Europe, or Latin America - have been quietly exploring ways of shaping closer regional associations tied less to the notions of trans-Pacific, or trans-Atlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers or future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China: Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
In a very real sense, during the last four years, the Bush team has thus been dangerously undercutting America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle.
To be sure, since America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, yet for a while, even a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise a constructive global influence.
Flaying away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation.
In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the United States leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.
With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider regional policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:47 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

To say that one benefit of the invasion is that it keeps Iraqi oil from coming under the control of terrorists, is hardly to say that the chief reason for the invasion is to obtain the oil. The chief reason for the invasion was simply what he said so many times that it was - because someone like Hussein cannot safely be permitted to amass WMD.


Its quite a clever sleight of hand to invade a country, discover it had oil, then say well we better not let the insurgents control the oil, so we will.

Does that make sense. Honestly? Of course this war is about the control of oil...American control of Iraqi oil. Plus using Iraq to project American power in the area. Ever looked at a map? Do you know where the next oil is coming from? The previous war was about oil. The whole turbulent history of the middle east has been about oil ever since the British government decided to make the Navy dependent on oil from Persia in 1908. America imports nearly 60% of its daily oil requirements. Morever conventional oil in non opec countries has passed peak. Demand keeps rising from India and China. The United States depends on secure supplies of oil from the Mid East and will be even more dependent in future. Of course this war is about oil. And protecting the dollar as the world reserve currency, specifically thwarting any move by opec to trade oil for euros. What was the first things the Americans did when they got to Baghdad? Started charging for Iraqi oil in dollars not euros. Its oil and its oil and its oil and its time you got that into your head.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:24 pm
Did you see The Independent today, front page?

Pinter: Torture and misery in name of freedom
By Harold Pinter who yesterday won the Nobel Prize for Literature
Published: 14 October 2005

The great poet Wilfred Owen articulated the tragedy, the horror - and indeed the pity - of war in a way no other poet has. Yet we have learnt nothing. Nearly 100 years after his death the world has become more savage, more brutal, more pitiless.
But the "free world" we are told, as embodied in the United States and Great Britain, is different to the rest of the world since our actions are dictated and sanctioned by a moral authority and a moral passion condoned by someone called God. Some people may find this difficult to comprehend but Osama Bin Laden finds it easy.
What would Wilfred Owen make of the invasion of Iraq? A bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of International Law. An arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public. An act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort (all other justifications having failed to justify themselves) - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.
An independent and totally objective account of the Iraqi civilian dead in the medical magazine The Lancet estimates that the figure approaches 100,000. But neither the US or the UK bother to count the Iraqi dead. As General Tommy Franks of US Central Command memorably said: "We don't do body counts".
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery and degradation to the Iraqi people and call it " bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East". But, as we all know, we have not been welcomed with the predicted flowers. What we have unleashed is a ferocious and unremitting resistance, mayhem and chaos.
You may say at this point: what about the Iraqi elections? Well, President Bush himself answered this question when he said: "We cannot accept that there can be free democratic elections in a country under foreign military occupation". I had to read that statement twice before I realised that he was talking about Lebanon and Syria.
What do Bush and Blair actually see when they look at themselves in the mirror?
I believe Wilfred Owen would share our contempt, our revulsion, our nausea and our shame at both the language and the actions of the American and British governments.

Adapted by Harold Pinter from a speech he delivered on winning the Wilfred Owen Award earlier this year

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319540.ece
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:39 pm
Excellent reports, thank you. They are all right on. I really don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue with any of these articles.

Now, what are the Americans going to DO about it? When will someone say the "I" word? (Impeachment). I think most of them are over their initial reverence for Duh-bya after 9/11, when saying anything against America was considered an act of terrorism.

Isn't the Caspian Sea where they plan to put a pipeline? Isn't that why ole Condie Rice is there now? The war in Iraq is important to Americans because they have to have the countries surrouding this area in their control. Although now they've guessed it won't be as easy as they thought. I'm sure Russia and China are watching with great interest, as the reports say. It is too bad that America wants to repeat history; this is how Rome fell, trying to defend its borders againsts terrorists. But when its leaders do not read history it is bound to repeat itself. I have been predicting that America would become isolated. As they are a debtor nation now, who will want to do business with them?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 04:14 pm
englishmajor,

You throw the "I" word around as if it were a simple matter of deciding we don't like the job the President is doing and we've decided to get rid of him. In some ways I wish it were that simple, in others I'm glad it's not.

Impeachment at the federal level only applies to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeaners".

Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

Believe me, I'm not a GWB fan, but I don't see anything that he has done as an impeachable offense.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:03 pm
How about bribing the media, twisting facts, spindoctors to use propaganda to start a war that should never have begun? How about lies,lies, lies, from 9/11 on? I'm sure if they can come up with perjury for Clinton they could come up with something for Georgie. If the Democrats get in Congress in '07 and get a majority vote, they could definitely accomplish this. I realize it is not a simple matter; I am just astounded that the people in America are so apathic - and basically most of them are. Look at how many turned out to vote! In a country of 300 million people! Like they say, you deserve what you accept.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 08:58:51