# Why did Bush decide to invade Iraq instead of Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634 "2005-07-01T03:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/81 "2005-07-05T03:19:43Z")
> [@zega](#): > > Besides, why shouldn’t the US take care of a mess it helped create, by deposing the dictator it used to support? Most people would say that taking care of a mess we helped create is what the U.S. forces in Iraq are doing **now.** We created the mess when we deposed Hussein, who for all his brutality was at least able to make his preposterous multinational state function and even prosper. (Like Tito in Yugoslavia.) As for deposing Hussein, whom we once supported – that’s just the kind of dishonorable backstabbing that will discourage other murderous dictators from trusting us! We can’t have **that!** 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/82 "2005-07-05T04:43:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, I haven’t traveled in the ME, but based on what I see in the (American) media, it seems that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has upset things in general in the Middle East much, much more than the existence of Hussein’s regime (post-Gulf War and the subsequent containment) was doing. Which is why a while back I stopped watching the news. I found I was losing perspective. I had a converstation with one of my employees two days ago. It started out with his wondering how people in the west felt about Arab people. It moved from there to the attempt to introduce Sharia law into Canada and how that was perceived. Then onto what he would do if he moved to a place like Canada and his daughter’s didn’t want to wear the Hijab anymore. I have a good relationship with the people who work with and for me, so we talk about most anything. Most don’t bother about Iraq, from what I can tell. Some background on this same fellow. He had his personal computer at home stolen a year ago. He went the police to report it. They said they would find it for him, but he would have to pay them to do it. It was cheaper to buy a new one. He owned some land that he was hoping to build a house on. The President’s brother wanted a large track of land in the area, so he took it. That was that. No compensation. So, he lives in an apartment in Aden. Each apartment has its own water pump in the basement. His water pump was old so he bought a new one. The rest of the residents now complain because they claim he is taking all the water pressure from them. As he only runs the pump a half hour a day he could only affect the pressure during that time. Another employee is moving from his family home to the capital because he has 6 daughters and no sons. He wants them to have an education that he can’t give them back on the farm, so to speak. He says it is just because of the lack of educational opportunities, but from previous conversations about culture, I’m pretty sure he wants more for them then how he sees his mother and sisters treated. Yet another employee has to get regular insulin for his mother and father. Last month the government, who supplies this medicine, said they didn’t have any this month…He had to find somewhere else to get it. I think the only ones who get upset about things like Iraq are the ones looking to find something to be upset about. If not Iraq it would be something else. The leaders looking to divert attention back home, the fanatics looking for any excuse, or those just grinding their axe are the ones you see on the news. Most people are just trying to survive the graft and corruption of their daily existence. At least that is my take on it from Yemen. ---
**Author:** ![zega](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@zega](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zega)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/83 "2005-07-05T08:50:42Z")
I hate the current mess as much as the next person. But I don’t actually think trying to do something well intentioned but failing is worse than actually planning and/or doing something malicious. More frustrating, maybe, but worse? Calling Americans imperialistic is odd at best. America abhors imperialism, both in theory and in practice. If they were truly imperialistic, they wouldn’t want to leave at all, but would want to control the country. What the US government does is ensure markets stay open. To that end, it wants stability, a relatively friendly local government, and a military base nearby just in case. It abhors the work involved in actually governing a foreign land. This has been the case historically for a long time. This isn’t imperialism. Contrast this with Soviet expansion and occupation, or, if you like, the British Empire. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > As for deposing Hussein, whom we once supported – that’s just the kind of dishonorable backstabbing that will discourage other murderous dictators from trusting us! We can’t have **that!** 😉 lol I think initially Iraq’s neighbours breathed a sigh of relief that the region’s foremost aggressor was removed. I agree the insurgency may have unsettled local leaders hoping to keep extremist factions in their own countries reigned in. I won’t disagree the occupation was botched. However those most affected by this are (unfortunately) the Iraqis themselves. I hope order can be restored soon. Local leaders may also have been unsettled by the US’s pressure for democratization in the Middle East in general. But that’s because most of the local leaders are dictators. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/84 "2005-07-05T15:05:49Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I would like to replay some of the comments of Democrats in that discussion back in 1998: > > “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.” > > - **Bill Clinton, 1998** > > “We urge the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” > > - **Tom Daschle, 1998** > > “Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. **Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?** ” > > - **Tom Daschle, 1998** > > “The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later,” > > - **Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 1998** > > “I agree with using military force,” > > - **Chris Dodd, 1998** > > “Iraq is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential activities on a global basis.” > > - **John Kerry, 1998** > > "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do: as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel, or the people of the Middle East. > > We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone." > > - **Al Gore** > > So while the resolution itself stopped far short of war and indeed only endorsed programs of destabilization by funding resistance groups, many prominent democrats were calling for a lot more than that. The same ones who suddenly became anti-war and skeptical when it was a Republican president in charge. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Do I have to repeat this again? NO ONE is saying that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq in 1998, or that anyone was advocating a full-scale invasion. Exactimundo, my friend. There’s more than one significant difference between 1998 and 2002-3. One, as you point out, is who was in the White House. But the other is what was at stake. As we both know, politicians will say any damn-fool thing to posture and look ‘strong’ when nothing is on the line. And it doesn’t cost anybody anything. But one hopes they think their positions (and words) through a bit more carefully when what’s at issue is whether or not to invade another country. For instance, it’s easy for me to say, “Hell, **I** could run the Washington Redskins more effectively than Dan Snyder is doing.” And I’m sure I’ve said it often. But I’d have to be much more cautious about what I said if someone with the power to make it happen (whoever that could be) told me they were willing to act on my claim if I really meant it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/85 "2005-07-05T15:38:24Z")
> [@zega](#): > > I hate the current mess as much as the next person. But I don’t actually think trying to do something well intentioned but failing is worse than actually planning and/or doing something malicious. More frustrating, maybe, but worse? I don’t think good intentions (not that I think the Bushies had 'em) absolve one of the responsibility of thoroughly considering the consequences of one’s actions, and equally thoroughly preparing for the significant risks and contingencies. If my friends and I decide to play touch football in the room that houses your collection of fine china, because it would be a ‘cool’ place to do so, it’s only marginally less offensive, IMHO, when your china gets trashed than if we went in there with the intent of breaking all your china. > [@](#): > > Calling Americans imperialistic is odd at best. America abhors imperialism, both in theory and in practice. If they were truly imperialistic, they wouldn’t want to leave at all, but would want to control the country. For many moons now, people have been talking about how important it would be for this Administration to say, clearly and unequivocally, that they don’t intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The point at which their failure to do so can be excused as an accidental oversight has long since passed. The assumption must be made that the neocons don’t want to leave Iraq, and that they do want to control the country. And what exactly was the Coalition Provisional Authority but an exercise in imperialism? They were passing laws and attempting to make policy for Iraq, all from a Heritage Foundation viewpoint of what Iraq ought to look like. That doesn’t coincide with your claim that “America abhors imperialism, both in theory and in practice.” > [@](#): > > [T]he US government…wants stability, a relatively friendly local government, and a military base nearby just in case. It abhors the work involved in actually governing a foreign land. This has been the case historically for a long time. This isn’t imperialism. See preceding comment about the CPA. > [@](#): > > Contrast this with Soviet expansion and occupation, or, if you like, the British Empire. Or the Romans. Oh yeah - the Romans also abhorred the work involved in actual governance - they preferred that the locals do all that. They wanted stability, friendly local governments, and military bases in the conquered lands. > [@](#): > > I think initially Iraq’s neighbours breathed a sigh of relief that the region’s foremost aggressor was removed. Why should that concern them? Do you know how long it’s been since Iraq attacked anyone without believing they had American approval to do so? And by 2003, American approval of Iraq was long gone; an invasion wasn’t necessary to change that. Iran is certainly delighted with the outcome. Their main rival in the region has been eliminated, and (should the U.S. ever leave) has been replaced with a friendly regime. We’ve left ourselves with the problem that, as soon as we leave, Iran becomes the big kid on the block, which makes it hard for us to leave. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/86 "2005-07-05T22:32:44Z")
> [@zega](#): > > Calling Americans imperialistic is odd at best. America abhors imperialism, both in theory and in practice. If they were truly imperialistic, they wouldn’t want to leave at all, but would want to control the country. What the US government does is ensure markets stay open. To that end, it wants stability, a relatively friendly local government, and a military base nearby just in case. It abhors the work involved in actually governing a foreign land. This has been the case historically for a long time. This isn’t imperialism. Contrast this with Soviet expansion and occupation, or, if you like, the British Empire. 😕 There’s more than one kind of imperialism, **zega.** It does not always require colonization or direct rule, military or civilian. Any intervention by a stronger state in a weaker one’s government or economy to force it into a direction favorable to the stronger state’s interests (or the desires of its leadership, which is often not the same thing) is a form of imperialism. The multiple U.S. military interventions in Central American and Caribbean states throughout the 20th Century (often to prop up the government of “our son-of-a-bitch” and/or defend the business interests of the United Fruit Company) were imperialistic by any reasonable definition of the term, even where we did not establish permanent military bases in those countries. In Iraq, one of our principal if unstated policy aims is to use American force of arms, not necessarily to control or profit from Iraq’s oil, but simply to secure conditions that will ensure a steady flow of cheap oil from the Middle East to world markets, in particular the U.S., for the near future – regardless of whether that is the result desired by any of the governments or peoples of the Middle Eastern countries. That **is** imperialism. (It might also be tragically necessary in order to keep global industrial civilization ticking along for a few more years, but that’s another discussion.) ---
**Author:** ![zega](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@zega](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zega)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/87 "2005-07-06T03:12:10Z")
im·pe·ri·al·ism (ĭm-pîr’ē-ə-lĭz’əm) n. The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. he·gem·o·ny (hĭ-jĕm’ə-nē, hĕj’ə-mō’nē) n., pl. -nies. The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others. OK, there’s a lot of leeway there. So much leeway, it begs further explanation whenever anyone uses the term in anything other than the classic form, that of the great empires of the past. The initial post on imperialism was brief, as was my response to it. That said, what is the current status of US hegemony in Central America today, political or economic? I’m not sure myself, but it seems much reduced. Can funding one group over another count as hegemony? I suppose you could make a case for it, if the amount of money is large enough, or the receivers loyal enough. But it seems like the US tends to withdraw over time, a rather short time compared to previous countries. Also, the US tends to want to set up a trade dependency rather th iperin keep up the pressure forever. What I’m getting at is that labeling the US as imperialistic is very misleading. Are you saying that whenever the US exerts its pressure, be it military, economic, or political, that’s imperialism? Since its pressure does tend to dominate in this one-superpower world. I prefer to think of imperialism as a sustained program of increasing pressure in an increasing number of areas, with the intent of always increasing power, of whatever nature. And this is what most people think when they think of imperialism. Well, I don’t think the US is doing that. But it is exerting its considerable pressure for its own ends, I’ll grant that, so if we’re using the wide, inclusive definition of imperialism, and aren’t invoking previous much more forceful powers in history as directly proportional analogies, then sure. Let me just repost what I was responding to to make it clearer: > [@alaricthegoth](#): > > to avoid obfuscation: the intentions underlying this iraq adventure were pure imperialism, linearly connected to the 1922 British Invasion, and collaterally related to the 1953 mossadegh removal > > there were no “good intentions” involved. Also, the question of “the result desired by any of the governments or peoples of the Middle Eastern countries” is not straightforward (quote from BrainGlutton). The peoples of Middle Eastern nations may want something different than what their governments want. Various peoples in one nation may have conflicting desires. The Kurds did want the US to invade. Other oppressed people in Iraq may have also wanted it. The government didn’t, but the government was Saddam, an oppressive dictator. The German government of 1944 didn’t want the US and its allies invading Germany, but they did so. The Hutus of Rwanda didn’t want outside pressure exerted on them, but the Tutsis did. These are blurry lines. Countries are great masses of peoples, with differing opinions and desires. And not all those desires are good, or correct (depending on the person making the judgement). So if the word “imperialism” is going to be bandied about as an attack against US policy, then it had better be the large, inclusive, and morally neutral version of the word. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634.md?page=4)