What does the U.S want from Iraq?

What would it take for Bush to decide not to invade?
Iraq is permitting random inspections anywhere the inspectors want. They are destroying missiles even though there is a massive buildup of an aggressive force intent on invasion.
Bush describes absolutely everything Iraq does as “a game of deception”.
It certainly seems that Bush made up his mind looong before the inspectors started doing their work. Are the inspectors wasting their time?

I repeat the question: What would it take ?

IMHO, there isn’t anything Iraq can do to stop Bush ordering an invasion, because Bush isn’t interested in not invading Iraq. He wants to have a war so that his “War on Terror” seems to be acheiving something (despite Iraq’s lack of links to terrorist groups), meaning he’ll probably get a second term as president, and his oil company backers want a war so they can exploit Iraq’s oil.

But that’s just my opinion.

I doubt if this thread lasts long enough to compose a factual answer…

Two words: Regime change.

It would be too easy to get all political and start expressing views which will undoubtably start pissing people off.

However, if this thread is allowed to continue here, then I will happily join in with my tuppence-worth.

To give you some background on the foreign policy or doctrine of the current Bush Administration, I suggest that you take a look at an episode of Frontline which covers the Iraq issue.

Similar thread.
What do the US want Saddam to do?

Saddam: Do you expect me to disarm, George?

Bush: No Mr Hussein, I expect you to die!

(with apologies to Gert Frobe and Sean Connery)

I understand this thread may seem dangerously close to a Debate, so I’ll cut to the chase:

What do they mean by “total disarmament” ?

if this means giving up all WMD:

what if they don’t have them ?

if proof of their destruction is required:

isn’t it conceivable they don’t have proof of the destruction of every single WMD they destroyed?


There are multiple factors involved and possibly not all have to be met to avoid invasion. (Shit, I just burnt my lunch :(). Such items include freeing the people of Iraq from tyranny, S.H. going into exile, S.H. Steping forth with all his banned weapon every last one and presenting them for destruction (by us or the UN, not by actual use which tends to destroy them too).

I don’t know if there’s a factual answer to this question, but I do know that the last time we did this in GQ, it ended badly. I think I’ll send this one over to Great Debates.

moderator GQ

I’m watching the episode of Frontline right now, and it looks like a pile of steaming propaganda so far…

“The bigger the lie, The more often it’s told, the more who believe it.” - Joseph Goebbels

The US needs an example. Iraq is a dangerous regime, in violation of the UN resolutions and it poses a threat to the US and to the region. All of those factors, in the minds of the leadership, are justifications for the war. But I think they see the war in Iraq as having another purpose, namely to show the rest of the world, Syria, N. Korea Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. that the new US foreign policy is going to be taken seriously, and that those countries need to reevaluate their own polices. Much like the Korean War, and then Vietnam served to illustrate that the Truman Doctrine was real, the war in Iraq will give the credability to the Bush doctrin so that hopefully further wars will not be needed. Nice theory huh?

Oh, yeah, I can see it now…

“SH*T! Those Americans are crazy! Okay, change of plans – instad of being a quiet and docile dictatorship, we’ve got to acquire WMDs and nukes ASAP! We’re gonna need a really big stick to fend off that nutjob Bush when he starts looking for his next target!”

Excuse me if I don’t have the appetite for an Arms Race II…

Well me personally, I would have said the US needs to distract the public from the collapsing economy and self-combusting society, also to boost approval ratings for a crap President and to provide cheap oil in order to screw OPEC and help Bush’s sponsors (the US oil companies), but hey, I opted for a line of reasoning that could be somewhat backed up.

rjung I didn’t say it was a good idea, but I think it is at least part of the administration’s thinking.


Oh, wait, that’s merely what GWB wants, not what the US wants.

Therein lies much of the problem. One tends to think this will ultimately become a problem for GWB. One would hope so. Of course the majority of those of us who voted cast our vote for someone else and that doesn’t seem to have slowed him down much…