What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Re: What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

Originally posted by CrONoS
What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

- Oil
- Free the Iraqi
- GeoStrategy
- Trickle-down (A working capitalist-democracy in Iraq will have a spill over effect)
- Conspiration Theory
- Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein


Thanks

I would say that there were various proponents of the war and various reasons, in short all of this falls under geostrategy, underlined by a very hawkish administration who had the power to push it all the way...

Foreign Policy:
- create a new post 9-11 base in ME, as Saudi Arabia stopped being viable (US withdrew from Saudi btw)
- try to foster democracy which by proxy would provide US with access, control and good bargaining position & a proper ally in addition to Israel within ME
- show others that US is not to be challenged in any way (ie in UN etc, they'll just walk all over you as they please)

Military Industry:
- further development of military tech and thus unchallengeable "total supremacy" for US in international relations
- it is good to have some sort of war to siphon billions of taxpayers dollars into their own pockets and you get their support for it all
- lots of $$$ for political donors out of favorable no bid contracts

Military:
-easy enough country to topple and an easily achievable target, could have been believable that not too many Americans will die so it was palatable for all the parties pushing the deal

Personal:
-Bush is a funny idiot, and he certainly minded that Saddam wanted to kill his dad, so add a bit of a revenge, and he was for it all too

Marketing:
- Saddam was an easy marketing target , best known dictator, a new face of evil (post USSR collapse), known from 1991 even by those who never ever turn on the news channel, one that American people would easily buy to take out.

Political:
- Republicans got a war and got elected on it alone for the second term

And the main unifying aspect, acceptable to all politicians from both sides of the political spectrum:
Oil & energy strategy for remainder of 21st century:
- Base in ME, third largest world reserves of oil under political control
- significantly weakened OPEC
- lessened dependency on unfavorable regimes like Venezuelan or Saudis
- lots of $$$ for political donors out of favorable contracts
-removal of main US economic dependency and main economic weakness


9-11 was a good excuse to pull this off, and they did it without any problems at home, while the world just stood by and is still watching the resulting massacre that followed...

[Patroklos]

You would still have to control a significant portion of land near the SOH.

We would. Not nessecarily the whole thing though, because very little of it is suitable for supporting anti-ship missile batteries that can hit the narrowist part were ships can not avoid coming into their range.

I did dedicate two whole MEUs and a few carrier groups to the purpose

Since it is obvious some here have no real concept of the area and geography involved, here you go.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I did dedicate two whole MEUs and a few carrier groups to the purpose

How many carrier groups are there? It used to be just one.

[Patroklos]

How many carrier groups are there? It used to be just one.

Sometimes now it is none.

But they are always close, I don't have Navy Times handy at the moment but the last one I saw had one in the Red Sea on the way to the area, the one it was relieving in the Med on the way home, and another in the Indian Ocean.

There were more out but they were doing workups in the Atlantic or a WestPac deployment or something.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow.

Why is the blame America first gang so pessimistic? Your arguments should be that the US should not invade Iran because it's the wrong thing to do not because you think the American military sucks so much.

Since when has the question wether something is morally right or wrong any influence on world politics?

[Ben Kenobi]

Since when has the question wether something is morally right or wrong any influence on world politics?

I don't see how you can understand the world without taking things like that into consideration.

[Kidlicious]

Ben,

People start calling you a conspiracy theorist for stupid reasons when you start discussing the immorality of the US system.

[Ben Kenobi]

If a conspiracy theorist calls you a conspiracy theorist, is that a sign that your arguments make sense?

All I'm saying is that morality plays a much higher part of decision making then you folks are willing to acknowledge, on both parts.

[BeBMan]

I wouldn't say it plays no role at all, but it's rather difficult to measure. It's also a question if it plays a role for real "moral" reasons (wouldn't deny this happens as well), or just as justification.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wouldn't say it plays no role at all, but it's rather difficult to measure. It's also a question if it plays a role for real "moral" reasons (wouldn't deny this happens as well), or just as justification.

I think there are solid arguments against Iran, both moral and practical concerns.

On the moral side, I don't believe it's ever justified. On the practical side, it's best to finish up loose ends before other things come into consideration.

What I don't see is a valid argument is that the US military would not be able to get the job done.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All I'm saying is that morality plays a much higher part of decision making then you folks are willing to acknowledge, on both parts.

The neocons believe it would be moral, so what's the point if we do or not?

[Ben Kenobi]

The neocons believe it would be moral, so what's the point if we do or not?

The point being that both sides would make some headway if they understood that there are deep moral reasons behind their positions.

It's not helpful to dismiss the moral concerns of those you dub 'neo-cons', anymore then it is for them to do the same to you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not helpful to dismiss the moral concerns of those you dub 'neo-cons', anymore then it is for them to do the same to you.

Why not?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The USA had large oil deposits which it could exploit in its own territory. That oil was used to provide cheap fuel for motor cars.

Voters in the USA like to hold their politicians accountable for all sorts of things. This suits the politicians as it allows them to exercise ever widening power.

One of the things (bizarrely) that USA voters hold their politicians to account for is the price of oil.

Oil production and price primarily depend upon the middle east.

The political result is that the middle east is the one part of the world where the USA can be guaranteed to take a close interest and to seek (ham fistedly) to keep stable.

The answer is oil.

Even bush hasn't pretended that invasions bring stability.

People are forgetting how often the US has involved itself in countries with little or no valuable commodities whatsoever. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama (the canal is no longer much of a meaningful strategic asset), Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan....Iraq is the only one with much oil. If not having oil wasn't able to save those other countries from invasion why is everybody so convinced that Iraq would never get invaded without oil?

[Patroklos]

Because "Blood for Oil" fits on a bumper sticker.

"Blood for long term democratic reform and cultural assimilation throughout the Middle East" doesn't.