Whoa, discuss my explanation for war.

Great Debates
1

Okay fellas, I just thought of this. I don’t know if anyone else here has said this before, but I just had an idea that explains a good bit as to why we are at war in Iraq.

Bush wanted to destroy Saddam to bring Israel to the peace process. Have you heard the language of compromise from Ariel Sharon lately?

Now, I’ll go through several things. Forgive me if I appear to give GWB a lot of credit for being clever. I have never considered him clever before, and I have thought of him as an empty vessel for other’s foreign policy. But now, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Please indulge in me for the sake of argument.

First I was against this war from its very first mention. Bush started talking about regime change first. Then he started to slip at the very beginning saying that disarmament was a type of regime change. Anyway, that’s beside the point. I had been very confused why we were at war. I mean anyone who knows the likelyhood of an attack from Saddam on the US doesn’t warrant a war. So what do we have to gain from a regime change in Iraq?

Then I started to drift in the neocon conspiracy explanation. These people wanted to control the middle east in order to assure Israel’s safety. There’s no doubt that this is what the neocons want. They are seriously pro-likud, and have urged Netanyahu to make a clean break etc. So in the pentagon, you definately have a contingent that wants this, and it would appear that they are running the show from the looks of the buildup to the iraq war.

Now, maybe I’m giving bush too much credit, but everyone knows that the Arab world hates the US, and we were attcked on 911 because of our troops in the Arab world. Remember how Bin Laden first declared war against American soldiers, NOT America. That is important because it shows his original aim. Anyone with half a brain knows that if we get 911 because we have troops in Saudi Arabia, then many bad things will happen if we have an entire Arab country under our control.
Now, that doesn’t make much sense, now does it. US attacks Iraq for security? But, how do you explain a few other things. WHY? is Tony Blair so eager to go to war? Why is Sharon starting to talk like he wants peace.

 What would Tony Blair have to gain from his involvement? Tony Blair is known as a politicial that is like a weathervane. He goes with the public opinion on many things and doesn't go only by principles like our beloved Shrub. What would he have to gain in the situation. First of all the principle of going to war with the US is very risky and has very few benefits for the UK, fighting a war in which they aren't really needed. I don't think he's in the war for fear of reprecussions from the US. I mean he could support the war without troops, or just be neutral and still survive.

I think that a few things could be the case. Either GWB told him of the plan to use Iraq as leverage to create peace in Palestine, and he joined in to help him manage the PR aspect because he knew that the Bush admin wasn’t so good at diplomacy, and would need it for future dealings with Israel. Or, he joined the coalition contingent on the US involvement in a palestinian peace process. The second one doesn’t jive with my idea that this war was premeditated to to bring peace to Israel/Palestine, so I’ll leave it out for the sake of my argument. Perhaps Bush and Blair had a discussion about how to best to gain credibility in the Middle East, and they concluded that peace regarding the israeli palestinian conflict was the number one priority.

But how to bring peace to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Obviously the actions of both sides are problematic. Sharon is overly beligerent, and the Palestinians are vicitims, but continue with terror attacks. If Bush just decided to put pressure on Sharon, it wouldn’t work, because an army of likudniks in the pentagon and elsewhere in Washington would launch the wave on anti-semitism rhetoric against bush. That’s not going to work. Israel would say, screw you, and forget washington, or use other means to get its way in Wahsington, as it undoubtably has power in the government and on policy. However, if Bush went with the neocon hawks in his war on Iraq, then he would have them in a bind, because they supported a war agains Israel. The only way to get the Palestinians to stop terrorism is to have the Israelis stop their beligerent activity. Now, here are the multifold benefits of having the US in Iraq. First, it gets pressure off of them from the hawks. You couldn’t force Israel to be peaceful with a beligerent Syria and Iraq supporting terrorism in Israel. With Iraq out of the picture, and Syria under pressure from a US occupied Iraq, then Israel can be assured of a degree of safety to back off of the beligerent activities.

 Now, here is why I broke with the neocon driven government idea. The neocons want to attack syria next. They want to remake the middle east to secure peace for israel, but they are not for a peace process right now, and Bush has made quite a commitment on the air that he would devote as much effort to peace in Palestine as Blair did in N. Ireland, he also said that he would focus as much effort on the peace process as he would on the Iraq situation.

Consider it this way. You want to stop terrorism. If you are smart, then you realize that the best way to do this would be for the US to stop being considered in the Mid East as an evil entity like Israel. The only to break that tie would be to break with Israel in the peace process and place pressure on them. But it wouldn’t work, because of the sponsorship of terrorism from Iraq and Syria, plus the Israeli lobby in the US. Any pressure from the US would create an ugly situation agains israel, and would create an ugly situation in the US. Imagine if they managed to create an agreement with the palestinians, and attacks continued. Then violence would be increased. Maybe GWB realized it was impossible to create peace in Israel/Palestine if Iraq and Syria didn’t have a check on their power. The US could be anti-terrorism, but also against Israeli military action at the same time.

This is my new (tenative) theory that explains many things:
How will it make us safer?
Getting rid of SH will allow Israel to feel safe enough to go for peace. And if US presses Israel, then we can be seen differently.

How do you explain Blair’s support?
He knew that it would be for the greater good of peace with the israeli/palestinian conflict.

How do you explain Sharon’s changes?
He knew of the deal, war with Iraq and a neutralization of terrorism support in exchange for peace talks.
Now, I realize that this gives bush a lot of credit for things he may not have thought up himself, but we’ll see hwo it works out. I am not sure when he would have come up with this plan, but it may have something to do with Tony Blair.

Supposedly TB urged Bush to deal with Afghanistan first before Iraq way back in the days just after 911.

Obviously I have thought that the whole WMB, or huminitarian slant were just excuses from the get-go. I based this on the fact that GWB wanted regime change before the whole WMD justification. If you come up with a justification after you come up with a plan, then obviously another justification created the plan.

The question for me was only what is the justification? Well, its my attempt. I am also posting this story on my blog here.

2

Uh, no. There isn’t much complex about things:

a) we are pretty certain Iraq had WMD
b) we are very certain Hussein is/was a bad guy

a + b is a big problem. No more #a is an ok solution, no more #a and #b is the ideal one.

3

If these were the two criteria, then an attack on North Korea would have been the better idea.

a) we are pretty sure that North Korea has WMD (nuclear even!)
b) we are pretty sure that Kim Jong Il is a bad guy

so, according to your logic, war in response to a is an ok solution and a and b war is the ideal one.

You can deny that Kim Jong Il is just as crazy as Saddam Hussein, but you can’t deny that he has Nukes. On top of that he probably has a missile that can hit California.

So if you want to “simplify” the case for any way, then a war against:

Israel, UK, France, Russia, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Iraq would be an ok solution based on the facts that they possess WMD alone.

The game of geopolitics isn’t black and white. I’m trying to give credence for support of the war. I wasn’t pro-war, and won’t be utnil I see a decent reason to be so. This is the only thing that would make me favor the war.

I don’t think you can say that Iraq threatened the US more than NK? With the threats of war against the us for sanctions? Also with the admission of having a nuke program?

Look, if peace in Israel and Palestine prevents Islamic people from killing innocent Americans, and we have to fight a war in Iraq to do so, then I think it is a good thing. But don’t give me this explanation that it was all about WMD and Saddam Hussein’s charachter.

You don’t seem to have an answer to the fact that a US occupied Iraq would have the inflamatory effect of the US having bases in Saudi Arabia x 100. If we got 911 for having bases in SA, then how is having 300,000 soldiers in Iraq gonna make it better? If it weren’t tied to some other end.

4

WOW I think you might be hitting on something. Since the beginning of this whole thing, i have been very skeptical for the reasoning behind this war. To me, things haven’t been adding up. We have all but completely ignored North Korea so the national security and WMD didnt work for me. I just think the Iraq threat was seriously blown out of proportion.(and the fact that we still have yet to see that evidence of the WMD) The second reason was freedom of the Iraqi people. This didnt add up either because we didnt give a hoot for the last 12 years so why do we want to free them all of the sudden? So those two motivations dont make sense to me. There has to be more to the story… and I hope your right; I hope that it is in the name of Middle East peace.

5

I think it is much more likely that the powers that be fear Saudi falling ala Iran. Gotta have at least one puppet state in the region…

6

Are you saying we pissed off the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Chinese and another 100 countries, plus ransacking our treasury by $100 billion, and having over 100 of our young service men and women plus thousands of Iraqi soldiers killed just to make Sharon become less belligerent?

Or are you saying that was the price we had to pay to face the powerful Jewish lobby that is running the entire Pentagon and the U.S. Government?

Sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Otherwise, we’ll be witnessing Bush and Blair share the Nobel Peace Price for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while the rest of the world watches in shock and awe.

7

How’s your Geography lately, futureman? North Korea is still bordered by the People’s Republic of China. Last I heard, that particular government’s not too keen on anyone changing the status quo in their peninsular neighbour.

8

:slight_smile: that was funny about shock and awe!

Trust me, I am only entertaining the notion! My view have pretty much been like yours have, but recently, I have formulated this position, so I would have a perspective as the future progresses.

Okay lets look at it like this.

Is pissing off the world worth creating peace in the Middle East and thereby preventing further terror attacks? I think so.

What about the Israel-Lobby? Well, its true. and sad. But if he were the true and clever politician that I wish he were, an attack on Iraq would allow them to realize the peace process is being tilted to the israelis favor.

Well anyway, bush’s first mistake was choosing Cheney as VP. He’s the one who opened the door wide to the neocons after cheney basically handpicked the Pentagon. Bush only had 2 years experience in a mainly ceremonial position.

uugh. call me naive, but I want to find something that I can belive that actually the world wil be alright! As for the tax cuts? Well…I’m still working on it ; ). But anyway. I’ll be happy if this war is for creating peace. I know it is possible, but not likely.

9

So you’re saying that the phrase, We won’t continue to let the world’s cruelest dictators threaten us with the most dangerous weapons, only applies to the easiest to take down? Look with nukes, NK is the number one threat. If bush had wanted a war with NK, I would oppose, but understand.

Its like saying if you have cancer in your colon and cancer in your brain you decide to take out the colon cancer but not the brain cancer because the danger is too great. Its still gonna kill you anyway.

And finally, don’t insult me by accusing I dont’ know which countries border North Korea. And if you actually knew anything, China doesn’t pose as much of a threat as does NK itself. NK has
15,000 artillery pieces withing firing range of Seol. If anything that looks beligerent turns up NK instantly has a city of millions held hostage.

It seems to me if you take up the strategy of preemption to secure yourself, you would start with the ones that present the greates threat to you no matter how hard it would be.

10

The above is not necessarily the reason why Iraq was picked over North Korea. One of the primary considerations when it comes to Korea is that it would be FAR more difficult a target than Afghanistan or Iraq, owing to their defensive might.

Futureman was responding to Bill H’s propaganda-fed justification for the Iraq war. I do not believe he was making the point that North Korea was a serious target otherwise – note his use of the word “if” in the extract criticized.

As for the general point, Futureman, this conspiracy seems rather far-fetched. Bush has never shown interest in the Palestinian problem until recent times and that only because he realized he was shooting himself in the foot as far as the Muslim world and the international community are concerned. Even then, Bush has yet to give a convincing speech on this issue without looking like he’s either drugged or in extreme discomfort.

Besides, ascribing to Bush a conspiracy involving a covert, years-long plan of machiavellian complexity and reach is not just giving him too much credit, it’s an outright fantasy.

11

That’s true, but HOW can you describe Tony Blair’s Involvement ?!?!?!?!?! I just don’t understand it. If the US weren’t commited to the peace process somehow it seems like a no-win situation.
If anyone of the crew isn’t stupid or politically unskilled, its Tony Blair. He would have nothing to gain if it weren’t somehow tied to a peaceful resolution to the peace process, TB would have nothing to gain. He could still get by favorably in the US with something short of sending in 40k troops.

12

I admire your creative thinking, futureman. However, for mine, your theory lacks true political motivations, i.e. $$$.

I will acknowledge the validity of your premise that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the official reasons given. I can’t see how anyone with two IQ points to rub together could possibly buy the garbage in the press briefings etc.

My theory is based very much on $$$.

Fact one: Polliticians everywhere are ruled by the masters that fund the election campaigns. If anyone wishes to debate this point alone, I’d be happy to, but for the purposes of this thread, I’ll leave it out. Therefore any politician’s decision is ruled by thier masters’ agendas.

Fact two: The United States is not a self-sustaining economy. The country consumes hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods more than it produces. Prior to WWII, America was the most productive nation on Earth. It has since transformed into the biggest leech on Earth. American corporations and bankers have cornered other nations into performing the laborious manufacturing and production tasks for the American economy while Americans concentrate on consumer service occupations like sales, marketing, law, banking, medicine etc, etc. As it stands countires like Malaysia manufature most basic mechanical components for American machinery. Countires like China produce most goods on the shelves of department stores. South American countries produce most of the clothes worn by Americans. And more and more food consumed by Americans comes from abroad as well.

Fact Three: Iraq has massive oil reserves which are essential to any economy in this day and age. And, no I don’t join in with the trite chant of “no blood for oil.” I think the situation is a little more involved than simply robbing Iraq of its oil.

Fact Four: Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he is willing to break from the coalition of nations worldwide that bow and scrape to the American bankers and corporations. He has shown contempt and antagonism for the USA and would have no problem with helping to bring about America’s downfall.

What if nations like those sweat-shop countries in Sth America as well as Malaysia and China formed an alliance with Iraq. These productive nations could form an alliance with one another and support one another’s economies and leave America completely out of the loop. If these nations reached an agreement whereby Iraq supplied the oil, Malaysia supplied the heavy industrial goods, China supllied the light indusrty, Sth America supplied the textiles and formed a coalition, cutting supplies to the US, then America would be screwed. I’m sure that Germany and France would not mind joining in such a coalition to pitch in a little high-tech and assembly funcitons. In this scenario the United States and its already fragile economy would crumble overnight.

I think THAT is why the Bush decided to invade Iraq. I think a coalition as I described above was threatening to form and Iraq was the easiest link to pull out of the chain. Bush just didn’t want to go down as the president that let the mighty USA crumble.

As for Syria and the apparent plans to invade them next, I must admit, I don’t have much of an explanation for that aspect.

As for Blair, I think his reasons were the same as Bush’s. I figure the UK is in a similar position as the US, although I’m not real familiar with the economic state of Great Britain.

13

Well, you do have a point. The ascription is wrong, and so is the use of the word “covert”. The PNAC is “brains” behind it, and it’s all available for you to read here on their website.

14

You do not need to bring the Israeli peace process into the equation to balance it. The UK is the USA’s tightest ally, to begin with, and Bush and Blair are close friends – there’s reasons to start with.

Influence and money are others. Which politician, today, has the most influence with the USA? Tony Blair, I would say, and in no small part thanks to his support of Bush over the Iraq affair. Blair lost credibility in Europe and around the world but he gained the US’s favour (something Aznar, Berlusconi, and others also want, hence their decisions to alienate their voters).

Desmostylus: I could not access the link, but as far as I know PNAC is just one of a number of nutty organizations who resort to “educating” (read: spewing propaganda unto) others in the hope they can have their sick twisted way. It’s an exercise in conservative circle jerking, but do they actually have political ability and influence?

Mind you, I can see Bush subscribing to PNAC, now that you mention it – sounds like his brand of idiocy. Bash forward, think later.

15

Abe, yes, it’s a nutty organization. But its members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle. Influence? You tell me.

16

This thread is interesting, but I cannot let lander2k2’s post escape without comment.

**
I don’t want to debate this either, but can’t you allow for some small possibility that politicians are also driven by voters?

**
Is there some first world country you’re thinking of that is a “self-sustaining economy”? I sure can’t think of any. America is still the most productive nation on Earth. Our GNP is more than 2x the number 2 nation (Japan). cite
Your definition of leech must be different than mine. Are you under the impression that we don’t pay for the goods we buy from other coutries? Do you think the transaction is not voluntary? All goods and services are supplied in the most efficient manner possible (at least as a goal) and that means that each country produces the most of what it excels at. It’s the same at the microeconomic level. Are you entirely self-sustaining? Are you leeching off farmers to grow your food, manufacturers to build your car or bicycle, utility companies to provide your water and electricity?

**
I guess I have no comment on this item since you don’t actually say anything.

**
Okay.

**
Well, this is hilarious. All these countries are going to get together and agree to stop taking money from the US. Yep, take our $10 trillion dollars out of the world economy and it’s the US that crumbles. Good joke.

17

Well, I think the general idea presented in the OP that a new Iraq that doesn’t support Palestinian terrorism will make Israel happy is pretty sound. It’s also pretty obvious. However, as the sole motivation for a $100B war (and the fact that it’s being implemented by a secret cabal of radical neo-con likudniks, or whatever), it’s pretty far out there. (Or, to use the OP’s parlance: Whoa.)

I’m sure that this effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was known by the Bush administration - they’re not stupid. (As an aside: Why is it the only time liberals will admit that Bush isn’t stupid, it’s because he’s really an evil mastermind?) However, the other motives - keeping WMDs out of the hands of someone who’s nasty and insane, freeing an oppressed people, eliminating a known sponsor of terrorism, and such - are more compelling, in that they’re more valid justifications, and more likely to actually, you know, work. But if this brings peace to Israel, and if it serves as a springboard to a democratic and peaceful Middle East, I’m sure nobody’s going to complain.

Jeff

18

There are only two reasons you can be a Republican - either you’re STUPID or you’re EVIL.

19

I don’t blame you at all for ridiculing the theory of mine. Often, anything that people don’t see on CNN is beyond their reality, and so must be ridiculed because it doesn’t fit the mainstream mold. Well, you’re entitled.

In reply to what you said, do you think that these workers in sweat shops are happy about “taking money from the US,” as you put it? Due to international banking measures and trade agreements, people in these countries are working for peanuts. If they can form an alliance and a viable international community that excludes America and its influence, don’t you think they’d jump at the chance? If they can start getting a fair exchange for their products and live a little better, don’t you think they would? I don’t for one minute think that if American dollars were suddenly pulled out the international economy, that it wouldn’t have devastating effects all over the world (unless some nations had prepared for such as my theory proposes). You seem to be implying that America can do okay without it’s support from abroad. America’s economy is already a shambles and seems like it will fall apart before too long without such conspiracy against it.

My theory is just a theory. I can’t find any other reason that satisfactorily explains invading Iraq. Whether you like my theory or not, I still stand behind the facts that it’s based on

20

You’re debating something you don’t wish to debate? Well, I’m up for it. (Apologies for the deviation from the essential topic of this thread but this is a point that is relevant to context. The fundamental nature of politics surrounding any issue - esp. the invasion of Iraq - is pertinent to the reasons for the war.)

I had thought this was a widely grasped concept, but I’ll briefly explain it. A Presidential campaign has a price tag on it; on the order of magnitude of $100 million+. Having a kitty of this volume is requisite to becoming president. If you don’t have the $$, you can’t run an election campaign, and hence, you can’t win office. That much money is needed to run TV ads, hire PR experts and travel your campaign team around the country etc. So, where does this money come from? Election campaign contributors. Now, these campaign contributors are corporations and, essentially, individuals who are very rich. Very rich people don’t donate, they invest. If a politician doesn’t support their interests once in office, then their next campaign will not get funded and their political career gets flushed.

So, no it’s not driven by voters (that minority that bothers to turn up at the polls) at all because voters can only decide who to vote for based on what data they are given in the media which is, at the top of the food chain, owned by the same super-rich folk that fund election campaigns. Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is run by the rich, not by the people. I really didn’t think that most were still buying that nonsense about America being a democracy.

I do apologize for the use of the term “self-sustaining.” It is the wrong term to use. I can see how you misunderstood. The term “viable” would be more appropriate. What I meant to indicate was the fact that America consumes more than it produces. Regardless of the voluminous GNP, the consumption still outweighs it by a long shot. I’m assuming you’ve heard of the trade deficit and understand what that means. Yes, America pays for its goods - with credit from banks and with a currency that is artificially inflated. You have to think in terms of basic economical terms, i.e. actual goods and services, not the smoke and mirrors of the international monetary systems. If an economy is chewing up more than it is producing then it is a leech (that is a parasitical blood-sucker). If I personally were somehow buying all of my goods and services on a limitless credit card and not repaying the debt and not working, producing goods and services for the community in return, then yes, I would be a leech on those that provide my food, transport and utilities.

You’re commenting on something you have no comment on? I said something: Iraq has a lot of oil. Simple point that was just relevant to my theory. But since you couldn’t find fault with it, I guess you just felt you had to make a snide comment. Fair enough.

Alright.

I don’t blame you at all for ridiculing the theory of mine. Often, anything that people don’t see on CNN is beyond their reality, and so must be ridiculed because it doesn’t fit the mainstream mold. Well, you’re entitled.

In reply to what you said, do you think that these workers in sweat shops are happy about “taking money from the US,” as you put it? Due to international banking measures and trade agreements, people in these countries are working for peanuts. If they can form an alliance and a viable international community that excludes America and its influence, don’t you think they’d jump at the chance? If they can start getting a fair exchange for their products and live a little better, don’t you think they would? I don’t for one minute think that if American dollars were suddenly pulled out the international economy, that it wouldn’t have devastating effects all over the world (unless some nations had prepared for such as my theory proposes). You seem to be implying that America can do okay without its support from abroad. America’s economy is already a shambles and seems like it will fall apart before too long without such conspiracy against it.

My theory is just a theory. I can’t find any other reason that satisfactorily explains invading Iraq. Whether you like my theory or not, I still stand behind the facts that it’s based on.