Could it be.......the American are turning the corner in Iraq?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Ummmm... history is full of states overcoming odds to become self-determined in the face of oppression. European history goes from one war to another in exactly the same way... one country trying to suppress another's self-determination.

Why am I not surprised that that's your argument.

So, you'd prefer an algierian style resistance force to their imperial masters in the middle east?

Sounds a lot like Iraq...

[FireFly]

Nope, I'd prefer peaceful cooperation, but alas, that's not likely to happen.

Actually, after re-reading this thread, it's quite clear that there is some misunderstanding here. I do not support the US invasion of Iraq and think they should get out as quickly as possible. I also don't think that any nation should interfere in the machinations of others, unless assistance is requested. I'm merely stating that there is more to international relations than just oil. There are other factors involved in the war. One of those factors that comes into play is how states get along with one another and what would happen if one had more power than necessary to accomplish their goals. (Like the US for example, who is too big for their britches.) From a government leader standpoint, not a humanistic standpoint, but as the person whom millions of people look towards for their safety, allowing any middle eastern nation to get that powerful could be seriously detrimental to global stability. Unfortunately for Iraq, they were the best poised to become a "Great Power". As such, the US felt the need to take them down a peg or two. (There are other reasons they were picked on, not the least of which iare oil and previous dealings with them.) The 'balance of power' globally gets out of sorts when new powers arise. (We can all see this happening with China right now, however China needs to be handled delicately due to their size.)

Human nature will always lead us to more wars and we shouldn't go looking for them. However, if I'm the leader of a very large nation and can see a hostile state gaining in power and military status and I know that they have a hate on for me, I'm going to take them out at the knees. You're damn straight I'm being selfish. (This is all figurative, of course.) I'm not going to let them strike first and risk my own civilians.

Now this war is rather interesting for me because I can see very clearly how well it's backfired. All the US has done is manage to hit the hornets nest with a stick and piss everybody off. They will get stung unless they can fix it. Even those in Iraq who supported the US mission are getting sick of it. Nothing has been accomplished, and it's a PR nightmare. They need to turn the tide within Iraq to get it's citizens back to supporting them. I don't know if that can even happen with W in office.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out that I've never said I support the war, just that there are other reasons it's being fought. It's not all about oil.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Anyway, just thought I'd point out that I've never said I support the war, just that there are other reasons it's being fought. It's not all about oil.

Some good comments, but you're going to have to work to prove it all ain't about oil and control of the oil assets. The first thing the Americans did was secure the oil fields and oil ministry. Spoke volumes. There was no plan after that, and it showed. I see nothing about Iraq that could provoke the United States in any shape or form. They lied their way into the country, and they've been lying ever since.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Some good comments, but you're going to have to work to prove it all ain't about oil and control of the oil assets. The first thing the Americans did was secure the oil fields and oil ministry. Spoke volumes. There was no plan after that, and it showed. I see nothing about Iraq that could provoke the United States in any shape or form. They lied their way into the country, and they've been lying ever since.

I don't either but Tony Blair, a liberal joined forces. To me, he must have seen a threat.

If anyone doesn't think that this is about security of oil supplies, dictators, oppression and ethnic cleansing isn't unique to the middle east. Why isn't the US in N Korea, half of Africa and previously, Slovakia?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I see nothing about Iraq that could provoke the United States in any shape or form.

An attempted assassination of the president's father who at the time was the president himself. Constant harrassment of the US's closest ally in the region (Israel). Publicly announcing they will fund the family's of anyone who makes a suicide attack on a US interest. Constantly flaunting violting the sanctions placed on them from the prior war.

Basically, Iraq did not fit the model for the middle east that the US had.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Some good comments, but you're going to have to work to prove it all ain't about oil and control of the oil assets. The first thing the Americans did was secure the oil fields and oil ministry. Spoke volumes. There was no plan after that, and it showed. I see nothing about Iraq that could provoke the United States in any shape or form. They lied their way into the country, and they've been lying ever since.

Didn't W say that he was looking for a way to avenge his father? Wouldn't that be another reason?

However, where does the money and power come from? Right from the oil. Cut off their oil, you cut off their money and power supply. Wouldn't that be what you do first too? That's just smart military tactics. Probably wasn't a plan, they thought Iraq would just give up after that. Lack of foresight, but then you have W in office... can't really expect much foresight.

Iraq provoked the US just by being. By having wealth and military power and influence in the middle east.

You're right, the US has been lying about it for a long time, but do you really think "we're scared of what they might become" would've flown as a reason for invasion?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I don't either but Tony Blair, a liberal joined forces. To me, he must have seen a threat.

If anyone doesn't think that this is about security of oil supplies, dictators, oppression and ethnic cleansing isn't unique to the middle east. Why isn't the US in N Korea, half of Africa and previously, Slovakia?

The only one of those states that is a threat is North Korea, and they certainly aren't just going to waltz into a nation holding nukes. The other states aren't threats to global security, why bother?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Didn't W say that he was looking for a way to avenge his father? Wouldn't that be another reason?

However, where does the money and power come from? Right from the oil. Cut off their oil, you cut off their money and power supply. Wouldn't that be what you do first too? That's just smart military tactics. Probably wasn't a plan, they thought Iraq would just give up after that. Lack of foresight, but then you have W in office... can't really expect much foresight.

Iraq provoked the US just by being. By having wealth and military power and influence in the middle east.

You're right, the US has been lying about it for a long time, but do you really think "we're scared of what they might become" would've flown as a reason for invasion?

I totally agree with you on this point. The real reasons for invasion would not have been enough to galvanize the public in the way that WMDs did. They took the climate at the time to get rid of something that had been a thorn in their side that may have developed into a much larger threat.

[Azure]

Apparently there was evidence that Saddam was building mobile weapon labs. Problem was...the Germans didn't share the evidence properly...and the US didn't have boots on the ground collecting it.

Turns out a VERY reliable source called 'curveball' ....indeed provided the US with a curveball of information. But than again, you had a war hungry adminstration, Cheney especially, who really didn't care what the evidence said, and instead of verifying it properly, they went to war based on speculation of a defector and his group, the INC, that Saddam had WMD.

The first thing that came to my mind after I read those reports ...was, didn't the US think their source might be a little biased?

Lanny hit the nail on the head....the US secured the oil fields, and after that they really had no idea what to do. Than again, its not surprising, considering the only knowledgeable guy concerning the ME serving the administration, resigned before Bush's second term. So really, what did we expect?

[FireFly]

Well here's the thing... the US knew they had WMDs because they sold them to Iraq. So where are they? Who did Iraq give them to? And why? Obviously they had to get rid of them, but who did they pick to receive them?

For anyone interested, there's an amazing book called "The Clash of Civilizations..." by Samuel P. Huntington in which he talks about how, since the Cold War is over and the ideology battle won, there are new 'lines' drawn in the sand. I disagree with him on some points, namely that he doesn't think the Jewish civilization is large enough to be counted as a civilization, but it's a pretty good read.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The only one of those states that is a threat is North Korea, and they certainly aren't just going to waltz into a nation holding nukes. The other states aren't threats to global security, why bother?

well they waltzed into Iraq, and thought they had WMDs ... what's the difference? Other than oil

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

well they waltzed into Iraq, and thought they had WMDs ... what's the difference? Other than oil

No, they KNEW they had WMDs as they sold them to Iraq in the first place.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, they KNEW they had WMDs as they sold them to Iraq in the first place.

Belief is that many of them were destroyed by Saddam upon request by the UN.

I don't think Bush and Co. decided to invade Iraq because they figured Saddam still had leftover WMD that the US gave him.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well here's the thing... the US knew they had WMDs because they sold them to Iraq. So where are they? Who did Iraq give them to? And why? Obviously they had to get rid of them, but who did they pick to receive them?

For anyone interested, there's an amazing book called "The Clash of Civilizations..." by Samuel P. Huntington in which he talks about how, since the Cold War is over and the ideology battle won, there are new 'lines' drawn in the sand. I disagree with him on some points, namely that he doesn't think the Jewish civilization is large enough to be counted as a civilization, but it's a pretty good read.

Amazing book?

Bwaahahaha.

I'm sorry, but that may be the most non-academic, anecdotal, ignorant piece ever published in foreign affairs.

The idea of their being cogent 'civilizations' that will do battle now that the soviet union is gone is laughable. To even think they exist is to completely ignore the complexity of a geographic area.

It's like something Thomas L. Friedman would write.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Amazing book?

Bwaahahaha.

I'm sorry, but that may be the most non-academic, anecdotal, ignorant piece ever published in foreign affairs.

The idea of their being cogent 'civilizations' that will do battle now that the soviet union is gone is laughable. To even think they exist is to completely ignore the complexity of a geographic area.

It's like something Thomas L. Friedman would write.

It's not perfect, it's a theory, and a damn good one if you check out how things are shaping up in the world today. It's not perfect much like any theory, but if you treat it as such, you might learn something. The idea of learning things is to take what others say and not regurgitate it, but rather chew it for a while and form it into your own opinion.

Samuel P. Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor. He graduated with distinction from Yale at age 18, served in the Army, and then received his Ph.D. from Harvard and started teaching there when he was 23. He has been a member of Harvard’s Department of Government since 1950 (except for a brief period between 1959 and 1962 when he was associate professor of government at Columbia University). He has served as chairman of the Government Department and of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies...

http://www.gov.harvard.edu/faculty/shuntington/

Clearly the man has no clue at all....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

An attempted assassination of the president's father who at the time was the president himself.

"I'm looking for the man that tried to shoot my pa!"

Yeah, that's a reasonable response for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Great way of formulating foreign policy too. Not even Bush is that big an idiot to consider attempting to even a score putting the nation's sons and daughters in the military at risk, and the billions of dollars it would take to execute.

Constant harrassment of the US's closest ally in the region (Israel).

Actualy, that is Iran. Hussein would pay homage to martyrs, but would not overtly harass Israel except to call them names and make political statements.

Publicly announcing they will fund the family's of anyone who makes a suicide attack on a US interest.

Gonna need a link on that one. Again, sounds more like Iran. Hussein knew he was in no position to provoke the United States.

Constantly flaunting violting the sanctions placed on them from the prior war.

There is no doubt that they played games with the inspectors, but so does every country that gets inspected, including the United States. In fact, the United States has refused inspections for missle treaties more than any other nation. Seems the Americans believe they should be "trusted" but they refuse to extend the same "trust" to others. Funny how that works.

Basically, Iraq did not fit the model for the middle east that the US had.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Iraq provoked the US just by being. By having wealth and military power and influence in the middle east.

You sure give that guy a lot of credit. Considering they found him in a hole in the ground, his military got absolutely creamed (twice) and all the crazies in the neighborhood wanted to kill him, I think you are overstating his wealth, military power and influence.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You sure give that guy a lot of credit. Considering they found him in a hole in the ground, his military got absolutely creamed (twice) and all the crazies in the neighborhood wanted to kill him, I think you are overstating his wealth, military power and influence.

It's not Hussein necessarily, it's the entire state. Whoever runs Iraq will be wealthy and with influence and I doubt it'd take very long to build up an army... especially if the person could convince the other middle eastern states that it was an attack on Islam, and not just Iraq.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

"I'm looking for the man that tried to shoot my pa!"

Yeah, that's a reasonable response for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Great way of formulating foreign policy too. Not even Bush is that big an idiot to consider attempting to even a score putting the nation's sons and daughters in the military at risk, and the billions of dollars it would take to execute.

I think it definitely influenced the Republican party against Saddam.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Gonna need a link on that one. Again, sounds more like Iran. Hussein knew he was in no position to provoke the United States.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Saddam directly financing suicide bombings. The article mentions Israel specifically, but I'll try and find one that also includes the Western targets.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

There is no doubt that they played games with the inspectors, but so does every country that gets inspected, including the United States. In fact, the United States has refused inspections for missle treaties more than any other nation. Seems the Americans believe they should be "trusted" but they refuse to extend the same "trust" to others. Funny how that works.

I will agree with you on that. There are lots of double standards around the world. As a defeated nation Iraq had to accept that.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Actualy, that is Iran. Hussein would pay homage to martyrs, but would not overtly harass Israel except to call them names and make political statements.

Well Iraq did launch many missiles into Israel during the gulf war. On top of that it was part of several arab coalitions that tried to invade Israel. Also see the above link aobut funding suicide bombers. Currently Iran is not such a big fan of Israel either (although prior to the Iranian Revolution they were close allies), but I dont think you can say that Iraq was not an enemy of Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/396885.stm

This article shows how Saddam called for Israel's destructions and that the Jews should leave or accept arab rule. He also calls for an arab wide boycott of sales of oil to the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm
In this article he outright threatens Israel. This quote pretty much sums up the situation prior to invasion:
"Iraq has also been calling for a holy war to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli control. President Saddam Hussein has said Iraq did not need to wait for sanctions to be lifted before striking Israel.
The United States says it closely monitors Iraq for any signs of military activity, but United Nations inspectors looking for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction have not been in the country for nearly two years now."




Basically, my argument is this. There are much cheaper ways of securing oil than invading Iraq. Many other countries have more of it. Saddam Hussein did not fit the vision that the Republican party had for the middle east and the climate at the time made it opportune for his removal.

edit: I should also add that there had been ongoign military action in Iraq since the gulf war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/467891.stm
"Since December more than 25,000 sorties have been flown to enforce the controversial no-fly zones over the north and south of the country. In the north alone, more than 1,000 bombs have been dropped on 250 different targets." This was in December of 1999, well before the US invasion.

Maybe the US just got tired of having to police Iraq constantly.