Why America Invaded Iraq:

Bradylama

Bradylama

So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Not for WMDs, not for terrorism, not for cheap Persian rugs. We invaded Iraq for OIL. Oil stability to be more specific.


"The spice must flow."

Much like Frank Herbert's vision of a society grown reliant on a mind-altering drug, so has the world grown reliant upon oil.

The stable flow of oil into Western nations is the most important factor concerning economic stability. The OPEC price raise of the 1970's is a key example of the importance of stable oil. The disruption of oil is devastating to the economy.

So what does Iraq have to do with oil stability you may ask?

Saddam, as history has shown, was an expansionist. He had no qualms about invading the sovereign nation of Kuwait for its oil fields. Chances are also more likely that he would have invaded Saudi Arabia as well had he gone unnoposed. War in the Middle East puts America's supply of foreign oil (which affects the price of gas) at a severe risk, as the possible destruction of oil fields, and the raising of prices to fund war efforts severely hampers oil production.

So logically, an expansionistic power in the Middle East is a liability we can't afford to let remain.
 
They did invade Saudi in the first war. Anyhow, even though I hate it when people like to bash America, I have to agree, to a certain point. The oil was definitely one of the reasons. But it's more of payback from Iraq to the United States for getting rid of thier tyrant. We should've got it over with during the first war, but oh well. I find it hard to understand why people must complain about good things though. So are you saying you aren't happy we took out an evil person from power? Or is it because we went without the UN? Or do you just feel the need to rant? Or is it perhaps because of the General Topic post calling for more political discussions?
 
We invaded because we heard they were cloning three legged dogs and we as the greatest nation cannot have that!

No, we will not stand for Three Legged Clone DOGS!

Mohrg :twisted:
 
You DO realize that China, France and Russia benefited more then YOU CAN BELIVE by keeping Saddam in power? Check out every possible solution next time.

"OIL+America=EVIL CAPITALISTS!"
You think this would be fucking old after we saved your collective asses from the Soviets, but no...........

Have you ever thought that *maybe* it was about changing a region for the better?
 
No. It's not really about changing the region for the better.

This argument was made earlier here. Why would the US be interested in spending over $100 billion in making a region safer, especially when it's in recession. Yes, the idea is to have a good ally in the middle east, but why have a good ally? Because of the oil.

Do you see any other corner of the world getting that kind of effort because of the good will of the US?

When the Brits pulled out from Iran, the Iranians were still the big boys in the gulf and the US supported them. When Iran fell, our attention shifted to Saddam and we supported him during the Iran-Iraq war. During this time we saw the upgrading of US interest in the Persian gulf into being one of the main regions of national security concern. First the Carter Doctrine (saying we would go to war with the Soviets if they invaded) and then the Reagan Corrollary- that the US would fight regional powers that threatened the region's oil.

But the Iran-Iraq war was generally a good thing for the US. Why? Simple logic, if you have two big dogs in an ally filled with dogs- the best thing is to have the two dogs slug it out.

Since then the Iranians have been weak (thought not so weak as to keep from interferring in Afghanistan) and Saddam got hungry for Kuwait. We shifted our support to the Saudis.

But the Saudis have been giving us shit as well and since the first war the US has been very careful in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq offers the US the opportunity to make a good ally on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. This at a time when many countries are looking at Central Asia as the "next great game" and pipeline politics is a big concern. Having a good friend in Iraq provides the US with leverage as well as a hand in one of the most strategically vital regions.

By why is it so damn important? Oil.
 
Well, that is fairly accurate. We do care about the region because of the oil. But I refuse to listen to an explanaton that it was some kind of massive Oil hungry capitalists sending evil baby killers to Iraq to grab oil. That is not it.

Frankly, you are right on that point. Do I agree with the fact that we are doing this partially because oil is so important in the region? No.

There are, however, other reasons. THe creation of a stable democracy, with Taiwan level growth in the region would get rid of Islamic fundementalisim in a heart beat.
 
Indeed, CC. This would be a remarkable thing.

There are serious strategic advantages that could come from this in addition to our relationship to oil.

Iraq, before the Iran-Iraq war, was one of the most modern and industrialized states in the Middle East. It had potential.

If you want to compare it to other places where the US has pulled off similar missions- namely Germany and Japan- Iraq might be one of the best places to try democratization. If the US could pull that off- that would be a coup.

I think it was Thomas Friedman who pointed out that one place you don't find people joining the ranks of Al Queida is India- one of the largest Muslim populations but also one of the longest democracies in the developing world.

Why, because when some Muslim clerics started going off saying "Hey we should take up the sword against the Christian infidels" other more moderate Muslims responded with "What are you, out of your fucking mind?"

Free speech is often the best enemy to bad speech, but it's hard to have free speech without democracy.
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
There are, however, other reasons. THe creation of a stable democracy, with Taiwan level growth in the region would get rid of Islamic fundementalisim in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

A stable democracy is the last thing the US wants in Iraq. An Iraqi democracy freely elected by the people would be a theocracy, that much has been shown by poolling of the Iraqi people. This is why Paul Bremer et al want a representative democracy in Iraq to separate the people from the (direct) power. A representative democracy would allow the US to institute secular ideals, not religious ones.

I come back to my original point by saying that this is not what the Iraqis want (again, according to news articles). They want direct democracy so they can make their state have religious influence, but this does not fit the US definition of 'democratic', IMO. Therefore, no 'stable' democracy, only a US puppet.

Incidentally this representative democracy is the same thing that gave us Gore winning the popular vote and governor Bush winning the electoral college. I have said my say on representative democracy previously (can you find the thread Welsh? I can't) so I will not go back into that.

Now, discuss! (as my philosophy prof. used to say)
 
Craprunner's stance I find ironic, since it kindof gives credence to the idea that Iraq being about WMDs or terrorism is a Straussian "Noble Lie" to distract the common man from a truth they can't understand. (no offense)

Saddam was a liability that threatened our stable supply of oil. In that respect, I wholeheartedly supported the war. Its just something that needs to be done.

You know, I never really thought about Frank Herbert's message until recently. =/
 
Your wrong, actually Murdoch. The Iraqi people are not Iranian-Iranian Shiites are exemplerary in thier fanatsisisim. Both the Azeri, who are Shiite, and certainly the southern Iraqis at this point have lttile interest in a fanatical government.

Also, in order to create a theocracy there must be a clear majority of a religion (hence The Handmaiden's Tale was complete utter bullshit), and Iraq lacks this.

I see the creation of a Turkey in Iraq as the best possible solution- a Republic backed by a man like Attaturk-equal parts George Washington and Pinochet to erase fundementalisim (Attaturk killed thousands of mullahs).

Frank Herbert was wrong. The Arabs have about as much a chance as defeating anywone save the Italians or the French. Absurd.
 
Honestly, I don't think it matters which sect they are. When creatures such as this guy are around:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082980/
does it matter?


I agree that a Turkey-like Iraq would be a good thing, I just don't think its going to happen if the people have a say in it.

Plus, the three ethnic groups in IRaq have virually nothing in common, not even religion in the case of the Kurds. Like the groups will ever agree to a democratic system of equal power, teh ethnic hatred runs deep in the Mideast.

Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/sprj.irq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/15/sprj.nitop.baghdad.demo/index.html
 
You're missing the point though, Craprunner. Our society's reliance upon oil has given us all a severe weakness that anybody can extort. The only difference is that in Dune, the Spice only grew on Arrakis. Of course, we rely on Middle-Eastern subsidies to keep the price of oil down, so its not that far off.

And history has shown that you don't need a conventional army to defeat a more powerful foe. Another thing presented in Dune, as Muad'Dib and the Fedaykin defeated the entire galaxy due to their knowlege of the desert.
 
Problem being that in that world, computers (and therefore everything our army is based upon) are outlawed. THey work with truly outmoded technices. Afghanistan proved Herbert wrong.

Kurds are Sunni and Christian. dont know what you are talking about. And there are also Sunni clerics in Turkey who want to install a theocracy in Turkey. Not gonna happen. There are also Communists in Iraq. Not gonna happen.

Anyone remember this quote from Ford? "People can have any color Model T they want, as long as it is black." All parties hould be allowed save non-Liberal Muslim. That simple.
 
Even though I hate this as much as you CCR, I have to admit it, these guys are right, why would we spend so much money on Iraq? I mean sure, by succeeding in Iraq, we gain many things. But Bush is most likely, if not definitely after the oil. He sees it as a way out of recession, that and victory, and catching terrorists and dictators will provide boosts to our economy. Plus, we gain an ally in a hellish region. I hate to admit it, because many are calling us evil, but I view it as a very good thing. We are doing good, and getting paid. I can't understand why anyone would be upset by this decision though. We helped to spread a government which they live under and excercise thier freedoms under it.
 
I don't see how Afghanistan proved Herbert wrong. -_-

The point was that we've grown reliant on oil like the Empire in Dune grew reliant on Spice. It doesn't matter who wins, the point is that being reliant on one item leaves us severely vulnerable.


Out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to be a White Pride advocate, would you Craprunner?
 
:roll:

Yeah, like all good Americans I have a Nazi and Confederate flag hanging over my bead.

Americans dont have a that-far-right. It is one of the beauties of the two party system.

I am only sick and tired of being told that a culture that has yet to reaserch how to string a bow is comparable to a civilization that gives birth to Plato, Michael Psellus, Sinan and Beethoven. I grew up in a neighborhood where, if you inslulted *one* person, or if you insinuated that Christanity was better then whatever Pagan rite the people of Asante had you where labelled a "racist".

Frankly, race does not matter at all. For instance, the Vlachs speek a romantic language, very close to Romanian, and they live in Yougoslavia. That is, in my view the important information. They are Romanians in Yugoslavia.

The fact that they are dark skinned and of African descent is meaningless. They are, in effect Romanian.

Same goes for Turks. A Bosnian immigrant has about as much in commom with a Circassian or for that matter a Turkmen as he does a Native American, but does that make him any less of a Turk?

And Ill admit that on some level it was about oil. But did we carpet bomb Baghdad so we could carry out some Deus Ex level global conspiricy so we can have SUVs the size of Provence? No. Welsh is as right as Bradylama is wrong.

EDIT: Look closely at the center of my avatar, very closely.
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
:roll:

Yeah, like all good Americans I have a Nazi and Confederate flag hanging over my bead.

Americans dont have a that-far-right. It is one of the beauties of the two party system.

I am only sick and tired of being told that a culture that has yet to reaserch how to string a bow is comparable to a civilization that gives birth to Plato, Michael Psellus, Sinan and Beethoven. I grew up in a neighborhood where, if you inslulted *one* person, or if you insinuated that Christanity was better then whatever Pagan rite the people of Asante had you where labelled a "racist".
Click to expand...

What the Hell are you talking about?

And Ill admit that on some level it was about oil. But did we carpet bomb Baghdad so we could carry out some Deus Ex level global conspiricy so we can have SUVs the size of Provence? No. Welsh is as right as Bradylama is wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was some huge conspiracy. Jesus Christ, this is simple logic. Saddam was a threat to our oil supply, am I wrong in saying that?

The point is that WMDs and terrorism were Straussian "noble lies." A noble lie is something that politicians tell people because they know that the simple, common man, wouldn't understand. Everything that Welsh said as well is part of the esoteric truths that politicians keep to themselves because common people are too stupid.

I mostly posted this thread to give a plausible reason for the war because I'm so tired of hearing about people complaining about us not finding Saddam's weapons.

EDIT: Look closely at the center of my avatar, very closely.
Click to expand...

I see a star in a circle. Is it on a canteen or what?

You'll have to forgive me for being curious. In my experience the only people that fly the Stars and Bars in their avatars are racist.
 
There is a Hammer and Cicle in the middle. I hate the Confederacy and everything it stood for. IT pokes fun at them.

I grew up as a WASP in a mostly African American neighborhood in African American churches, schools and areas. I lived a block away from Louis Farrakan. And I am sick and tired of people treating things like "Black Athena" like they would true works of history instead of being treated like the insane rambalings of Hermaan Goring.

I mostly posted this thread to give a plausible reason for the war because I'm so tired of hearing about people complaining about us not finding Saddam's weapons.
Click to expand...
I mistook you for a conspiricy theroist. I must admit that oil certainly was a deciding factor.
 
It doesn't work for the size then. Because all I see is a star ontop of a circle with red background. =/

As an aside I suggest you look up information on Leo Strauss. Even if you do find Straussianism a load of gobbledy-gook, its emphasis on philosophical interpretation is fairly thought provoking. As well as political theories such as the aforementioned "noble lie."
 
Still, if you are going to sell the Americans on an idea of weapons of mass destruction or on connections between Saddam and Terrorism, than you should deliver.

As citizens of a democratic state, we are entitled to more transparency and honesty from our government. The government should have made the case that "we are going in for the oil."

When a government starts spending time decieving the public, bad things are likely to happen down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top