01-06-2003 02:37									#1
	Finally the reason for the war on Iraq Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

http://www.msnbc.com/news/920238.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

as the treads on Iraq have died a slow death, let's conclude what was the real reason for the whole "current occupation" as the war is behind us, and we should have the benefit of the hindsight...

I will quote this:

quote: And that’s also why the British government went to war? No, but they were madly keen to prove that they were reliable allies of President Bush—and there were those around President Bush who were determined to have a war. There are those in Washington who now appear to see the weapons issue as irrelevant. It was their decision to put this at the heart of their case. It cannot be a side issue after the war when they made it a central issue before the war.

Well at least it is clear why the British went to war - well it was pretty clear all along however they had to pretend (a they still do a little) that there were some other "moral" reasons, at least they are trying to come up with some...

But still it is a bit of a mystery to me why did the new Bush administration go against Saddam now?

There must be a several reasons in this case, all holding its own merits (unlike the British with just one overwhelmingly important reason)

My opinion is this:
Causes:

Main:

1. Wanted a more secure power base in ME as opposed to Saudi Arabia.
2. Opportunity to get out of Saudi Arabia all together to a frendlier regime (well more controllabe at least).
3. More control of worlds oil markets and prices, security in case of instabilities in Saudi Arabia
4. Preventing Iraq into becoming Iran #2 after the eventual death of Saddam

Convenient circumstances:
1. Saddam was a "bad man" in the eyes of the American and world public so he was a good target

2. Saddam as a tyrant was very unlikely to be able to rally up the masses behind him in order to oppose the invading armies.

3. Saddams army was very weak after 10 years of sanctions and his army's equipment was old


So all in all there were some compelling reasons to go there, but still the current "western occupation" would not be getting the required support if we were all told the real reasons for the war. So what were they from the US side?

* P.S , please do not let this slide into WOMD or no WOMD discussion - if there were WOMD's in Iraq and the US/UK were not able to find them by now after capturing the most of former Iraqi officials, and scientists... plus having their own troops on the ground for so long + all the possible military intelligence - no matter how large Iraq is, how can anyone benefit from hiding it still if they existed... so move on to real reasons for the war.

just to quote for the end

quote: Energy security policy must take into account both short-term concerns and the longer-term trends and challenges of timely resource development. Policy makers must focus on the political dimension to the timely development of resources instead of assuming that market forces will always bring these resources to bear in an efficient, timely manner. Political considerations have contributed to a slowing in resource development in recent years and have, in several cases throughout the history of the oil patch, brought about market failure. There is no question that political factors could still thwart the full development of oil-production capability needed to meet rapidly growing demand in the years to come. The Baker Institute and PIRINC recommend that resource development policy be addressed in a more comprehensive and less piecemeal and reactive fashion. A comprehensive policy must take into consideration long-term issues, strategic challenges, and emerging political trends in oil-producing regions. Policy makers need not fear that we are running out of oil, but constructive policies are required to promote supply diversity and timely development of the world’s resource base. Such policies should take into consideration both the economic issues related to energy security and strategic considerations. Both strategic components and economic protection are important considerations when devising a meaningful energy security policy.

http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/...y_14/index.html

hey, lets not forget that the oil ministry building was the first one to protect in the "free" Baghdad

	01-06-2003 02:47									#2
	Put an end to popups!

Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point.

	01-06-2003 02:48									#3
	Put an end to popups!

In truth, your 1-4 are good reasons (I would quibble with #3, in saying that "control" isn't quite the right word to use, and we are only trying to influence the price in the long run by making sure there is enough supply available), but I do think you need to add:

5) WOMD (despite what you say);
6) Saddam is a bad man, and was destabilizing the region in any number of ways (a reason, not a circumstance);
7) Democratization of the ME and showing the ME that we would support liberal reform, especially in economic and political matters -- there is a group of neocons that are true believers in this;
8) Showing the Arab world we mean business, don't give a fig about Arab street demonstrations, and to get out from under the weakness shown in Somalia '93; and
9) Completing the military encirclement of Iran.

As I continue to think about, I keep editing in more reasons. There really is no shortage of reasons...

Last edited by DanS on 01-06-2003 at 03:02

	01-06-2003 03:08									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DanS In truth, your 1-4 are good reasons (I would quibble with #3, in saying that "control" isn't quite the right word to use, and we are only trying to influence the price in the long run by making sure there is enough supply available), but I do think you need to add: 5) WOMD (despite what you say); 6) Saddam is a bad man, and was destabilizing the region in any number of ways (a reason, not a circumstance); 7) Democratization of the ME and showing the ME that we would support liberal reform -- there is a group of neocons that are true believers in this; 8) Showing the Arab world we mean business, don't give a fig about Arab street demonstrations, and to get out from under the weakness shown in Somalia '93; and 9) Completing the military encirclement of Iran.

Yes I agree with "control" being a too strong word - more influence is more correct.

7 - is interesting, and it is interesting that there are people in the government neo-cons, that are true believers, we will see what happens with them when 60% shia majority choose a pro-Iranian government... but I believe that was a + in the administration for going after Saddam, after all this would be really "nice" if it was the main reason...
8, 9 make sense too, and they are probably just pluses, with 9 being a bigger plus combined with my reason #4...

Well 5, and 6 in my opinion more or less, as they might have been a + in some "decision makers" eyes but surely they cannot be convincing enough for US or other western countries to start"policing" the world in the case of severe abuse in obvious cases as Sudan, Burma, Congo or Zimbabve where there is no other issues to address (apart from evil dictators, or civil unrests)... anyway , not saying this was not important at all, but I wouldn't believe that was the reason to give the go ahead, as we were lead to believe.

	01-06-2003 03:13									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything. Short, to the point.

	01-06-2003 03:17									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

I always thought that the WMD is only an ruse used to pass the bureaucratic tests at UNSC. The notion that sovereignty of a state trumps every other rights is too dominant at UN.

	01-06-2003 03:22									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Re #7 -- You will never find "the reason", but rather "the reasons". There are realist neocons and then there are "idealist" neocons. Most neocons are idealists, including Wolfowitz and Pearl. I think Paul Bremer, the head honcho of Iraq right now, is a realist neocon. That's why he was OK for the State Department, which is made up of a bunch of realists (not neocon). Rumsfeld is not a neocon, more of a free thinker, but uses the neocons towards his ends. Confused yet?

I don't think there will be a pro-Iranian Iraq. There are a lot of Iraq/Iraq religious rivalries over the separation of religious and temporal authority. The US can promote Najaf over Qom, since Najaf is now home turf. Najaf appears to be the real center of Shiite learning, but had fallen on tough times the last couple of decades.

Re #8, it is definitely not just a plus. Al Qaeda was promoting the idea that the US is weak, and our dealings with Saddam fed that impression. We showed that we are not weak in pretty spectacular fashion. We kicked a lot of pan-Arab jihadist ass and made it clear that we were one big martyr machine.

Re #9, it could be just a plus for most. But there are a lot of people with different pet reasons.

Re #5 & #6, please remember that we were "policing" the area for the last 12 years with constant warplane and sea patrols, and frequent engagements.

	01-06-2003 03:39									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything. Short, to the point.

Then, US army should already have invaded half of African countries...

	01-06-2003 03:41									#9
	Support Apolyton

Here's a short description of neoconservativism. This author puts Cheney as a neoconservative. I wouldn't label him that--he has been very coy about his real beliefs--but there you go.

quote: One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East -- a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again. The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President **** Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as "neoconservatism," though a more accurate term might be "hard Wilsonianism." Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ("Soft Wilsonians," a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.

The author doesn't go into a third group of peole I would label realist neo-cons. They are more like the glue that holds the realist/neo-con alliance together.

	01-06-2003 03:47									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

That's just imperialism.

	01-06-2003 03:52									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

10) Bush's approval rating hit 54% on the eve of the war and his domestic policies weren't helping this figure. Probably not the main reason, but I hardly doubt this contributed.

	01-06-2003 03:56									#12
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You forgot the simple reason that Bush doesn't like Saddam.

	01-06-2003 04:10									#13
	Tired of ads?

Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now.

	01-06-2003 04:22									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now.

Proof? Source? Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded?

	01-06-2003 04:25									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point"

Got more in common with Bush than most would admit! *cough*kyoto*cough*

You, me, and most from a Western perspective would view Saddam as a "bad", "evil" man, but surely we all know that such things dont exist! We only view him as such because our culture and our arguments are based on certain assumptions that are specific to our culture.

In a different culture, he may not have been viewed as such. Some Iraqi friends of mine who live in Britain said once that though they didnt like him as a leader (just as some Britons dont like Blair), he was a fellow Arab and thus infinitely preferable to the Americans. That reaction is making itself ever more clear in Iraq, as the people are becoming more and more violent and outspoken against the Americans. Even the crowd near the statue of Saddam as it fell was tiny compared to what could have been fielded, even more if they were not scared about going outside.

"Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now"

He'll probably win the next election, but by a vastly reduced amount. That will be good for democracy, as itll force him to become accountable and dependent on the house of commons.

	01-06-2003 04:25									#16
	Get a bigger avatar today!

DanS: Good summary. There are two strains of thought in the administration: The realist perspective (which I'd put Cheney in as well, btw) and the neo-con perspective (hard Wilsonians like Wolfowitz). There are those who seem to be in the middle (Rice). They all mesh together in the end, but the neo-cons have an upper hand because everyone's boss (Bush) is a neo-con as well.

	01-06-2003 04:26									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Proof? Source? Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded?

Don't you read the news? He said it was all about WMD's; that Iraq was a major threat. Now it's coming out that they doctored the reports and that what was presented in cabinet had little relation to what was presented in public. I also get the feeling that there are many in the British intelligence community who are extremely annoyed about the whole thing and are looking to see that blame is apportioned where it is due.

The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook, who has been pretty smart in refusing to pander to the radicals on either side.

	01-06-2003 04:28									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded"

< Parody >

There are others??? Those folks must be destroyed!!!!

< / Parody >

Lots of people in Britain dont trust Blair, regardless of the war, they are seeing through the style, and seeing a lack of substance. He has pretty well failed on public services, and there is some growing constination (that I am doing my best to encourage) about the private finance initiative. The anti-war movement, and growing environmental and anti-globalisation movements will knock off a lot of his potential votes. Lots of labour people, partly due to the war, partly due to failure and hypocracy, are moving towards Lib Dem. Hopefully, soon they will be the new second party!

	01-06-2003 04:32									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Don't you read the news? He said it was all about WMD's; that Iraq was a major threat. Now it's coming out that they doctored the reports and that what was presented in cabinet had little relation to what was presented in public. I also get the feeling that there are many in the British intelligence community who are extremely annoyed about the whole thing and are looking to see that blame is apportioned where it is due. The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook, who has been pretty smart in refusing to pander to the radicals on either side.

The question is whether people care. My feeling is that Blair will get re-elected next time. He has a certain teflon property like Clinton.

	01-06-2003 04:36									#20
	Suffering from ads?

"The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook"

And probably George Galloway.

I very much doubt he was in the pocket of Saddam, he is a libertarian, and must surely know that such a proposition would run against that nature, and completely destroy him if they found out.

His implication also has the effect of making it seem that people who were anti-war were somehow pro-saddam, as were the people opposed to the war on humanitarian grounds. Galloway has always been a persistent thorn in the side of the Bliar government. Its too convenient for the British government imo. Also the journalist that found the reports was working for the pro-war Telegraph, and was named David Blair .

Its too convenient, he will probably be vindicated, which will do more damage to New Labour.

	01-06-2003 04:36									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by elijah Lots of people in Britain dont trust Blair, regardless of the war, they are seeing through the style, and seeing a lack of substance. He has pretty well failed on public services, and there is some growing constination (that I am doing my best to encourage) about the private finance initiative. The anti-war movement, and growing environmental and anti-globalisation movements will knock off a lot of his potential votes. Lots of labour people, partly due to the war, partly due to failure and hypocracy, are moving towards Lib Dem. Hopefully, soon they will be the new second party!

So it still comes down to domestic policies. I guess Blair wasn't as successful as Clinton, this might well be his downfall.

	01-06-2003 04:39									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Blair will be in deep **** if it turns out that he was participating in the neocon lie campaign, or even worse, was fooled by said campaign.

Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy. Burn the crazy poodle at the stake!

	01-06-2003 04:42									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: We only view him as such because our culture and our arguments are based on certain assumptions that are specific to our culture.

We view him for what he is. Saddam Hussein is viewed with wide contempt in all circles, Arab world included. Why? Because his decisions have caused his people to suffer and his country to fall. Your friends base their view of America strictly on the basis of the Anti-American sentiment that has been instilled in them since they were children. I mean, honestly, who has ever been considered a good leader simply because they share a single trait with those that they lead?

As for the initial question posed in this thread, I believe there are two basic philosophies that are involved:

1) People who wish to secure Iraqi oil as a hedge against possible retaliation for further military action in the gulf and other regions. These people are in it strictly for the freer hand it will offer the US in its foreign policy.

2) People who are overly optimistic and think that, after the US establishes democracy in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East will turn on a dime, stop hating us, and instantly decide that their countries should be democratic too.

Most people fall somewhere in between, but these, I think, are the bases for most of the reasons for war in Iraq.

	01-06-2003 04:42									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy.

2/10

Weak, Roland, weak .

	01-06-2003 04:42									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Blair will be in deep **** if it turns out that he was participating in the neocon lie campaign, or even worse, was fooled by said campaign.

It's not so much the voters as the other members of his own party that may well be his downfall.

If polls start showing that people are happy with the Labour Party but dissatisfied with Blair, he will be out on his ear. The only thing he's got going for him is the perception that he is solely responsible for Labour being and staying in power. Of course this is false, the poor Tory governments had at least as much to do with it.

	01-06-2003 04:46									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Burn the crazy poodle at the stake!"



The Europe issue will also hurt Blair. If he gives a referendum, unfortunately, most people will vote NO to the euro, although I think it is in our best interest to go in.

If he doesnt give a referendum, he will be viewed as even more presidential and dictatorial than he currently is.

He is indeed in a mighty pickle!

His only option really is to give a referendum at the beginning of the next parliament assuming he wins the next election. However, this has a further problem, as the opposition could say that he is intending to deny the British people the vote, or harm his government early on (so it can be repaired), which can backfire against Blair.

British Intelligence had wind of the shinanigins of Iraq's weapons long ago, it must have surely been aware that the US intelligence had simliar concerns. It begs the question of how much more lies in Pandora's Iraqi box, for both the US and UK.

Neo-con lie campaign? Neo-con + new labour.

	01-06-2003 04:47									#27
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy. 2/10 Weak, Roland, weak .

I wish that were a troll of mine.

It isn't.

	01-06-2003 04:50									#28
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by elijah The Europe issue will also hurt Blair.

Blair is, unfortunetaly, an idiot of monumental proportions. He pissed away his political capital to support a bunch of braindead yankee wannabe fascists, for which he is rewarded by being ****ed in the arse by Rumsfeld. Brilliant.

Maybe with the next Bushist war, he'll see the error of his ways.

	01-06-2003 04:51									#29
	Remove this text

quote: I wish that were a troll of mine. It isn't.

Ok, that's a little better... but ONLY a little

3/10

You still have much farther to climb.

	01-06-2003 04:52									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by elijah If he doesnt give a referendum, he will be viewed as even more presidential and dictatorial than he currently is.

This comment cuts right to the point. Blair is trying to be a president when he isn't one. You simply cannot act presidentially if you aren't a president because, as Prime Minister, you are in a much more vulnerable position.

I don't know how much Americans know about the Westminster system, but you have to keep your caucus onside or you're out (it is slightly more complicated, but that's the essence of it). What makes it worse is that half of your own members probably want your job.

The Labour Party made a lot of headway against the conservatives by using only the term "sleaze". That term became such a catch all for the failings of the Major government that it only had to be mentioned to get people onside. If Blair comes to be pigeonholed by the opposition and the press with terms like "arrogance" or "deceit" (I'm sure someone else can invent a better one), his days are numbered.