War in Iraq

[Chacmool]

Was the US invasion justified? What does the future hold? Is there really a link between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq? Why does it seem that the US only gets involved in battles where oil involved? Why aren't the US getting more involved in the horrific battles going on in Africa? Is the UN doing its job? Should more countries get involved in Iraq? Should the Iraqi people sort themselves out?

 

These are just a few issued relating to the topic. I thought it was appropriate to start a new thread, because the thread on state-sponsored crime is being flooded with unrelated arguments that really should be examined more thoroughly.

[infamous]

Was the US invasion justified?

History will be the judge of that.

What does the future hold?

Nobody knows the answer to that question.

Is there really a link between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq?

I believe there is, but I've been wrong before and I'm sure it won't be the last time.

does it seem that the US only gets involved in battles where oil involved?

It's called National interest

Why aren't the US getting more involved in the horrific battles going on in Africa?

We've got our hands full in Iraq.

Is the UN doing its job?

How many resolutions were passed without the U.N. doing so much as squat? The answer to that question is NO!!

Should more countries get involved in Iraq?

Absolutely!

Should the Iraqi people sort themselves out?

Yes, but only when they have the power to see it through.

 

These are just a few issued relating to the topic. I thought it was appropriate to start a new thread, because the thread on state-sponsored crime is being flooded with unrelated arguments that really should be examined more thoroughly.

I'll agree with you on that one Chacmool.

[MortenS]

To get the thread started:

 

Was the US invasion justified?

The first war in Iraq was justified, the second was not. Presence of weapons of mass destruction or parts that could be made to be WMD very soon was claimed to be the reason for the attack, but it was a vicarious motive. Contrary to what the US admin would like the world to believe, the UN weapon inspectors did a good job in both the periods they inspected weapons in Iraq. The US weapon inspectors findings supports that view.

 

WMD was a reason for war that the administration knew they would get support for in congress. They would not have gotten congressional support for the argument: lets go and take out Saddam because he is a bad guy and kills his own people and the Kurds.

There would not be any support for the argument: lets go and make Iraq democratic

And there certainly would not be open support for: Lets go and invade Iraq to get control over the Iraqi oil.

 

It might be possible to construct after-the-fact justifications for the war, but the justifications used to get the congress and other allies to agree was the use of the WMD argument, that several people at the time thought was flawed, including americans. Unfortunately, those of us that claimed that there were no WMD in Iraq got it right, and it was truly a war entered without reasonable justification.

 

What does the future hold?

 

Hopefully, US has learned some economic and political lessons from the war in Iraq. First of all, it was totally wrong to go to war in Iraq when they were still fighting in Afghanistan.

Focus! Get one job done, before starting another. The war is not over just because the fighting stops.

 

Is there really a link between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq?

Yes and no!

There was no detectable link between Al-Quaida and Saddam Hussain, but there were a link between Saddam and palestinian suicide bombers, as Saddam paid families of suicide bombers compensation. Both Saddam and Bin Laden had common friends though: americans.

 

Why does it seem that the US only gets involved in battles where oil involved?

I believe the previous poster summed that up nicely as national interest. I do not think that the US goes to war for the oil alone, but when picking battles, I am sure they think about potential future benefits if the war is successful, including access to oil.

 

Why aren't the US getting more involved in the horrific battles going on in Africa?

Well, they have had a few setbacks in Africa from earlier attempts. I do believe that instead of sending forces, US should instead be involved in training security forces for the AU. The US Army have great knowledge about how to fight an armed war, but it often fails miserably when trying to win the hearts and minds.

 

Is the UN doing its job?

There is a lot of things that are wrong with UN, that they objected to the war in Iraq is not one of them. Remember that UN is not a separate entity, without action from its member states it cannot do anything.

 

 

Should more countries get involved in Iraq?

 

Probably not a good idea, at least not visibly on iraqi soil. It is the presence of foreign troops and the buildup of the national security that seems to trigger most of the insurgency in Iraq. Since the damage is already done, I think that supporting the buildup of police forces and national security forces is the only way to go.

 

Should the Iraqi people sort themselves out?

In principle yes. Changes to communities generally work better when they arise from within, than when they are when enforced from outside. We should assist them in building the institutions, but they need to feel like they own their country and their institutions if the people are going to respect them.

 

I have probably stepped onto some land-mines when posting these...I am more comfortable posting about biology than politics, peace and war.

 

Personally, I am a pacifist (conscious objector), social democrat and situated in Norway, Europe, where UN-route traditionally is seen as the best approach, even if we see the need for reforms. My views are of course influenced by this background.

[C1ay]

Was the US invasion justified?

We'll never know. There's no way to find the answer for that question.

 

What does the future hold?

Don't know. The U.S. would like to be gone from there now but it's in no one's interest to let another Taliban state form to host Al-Qaeda and like factions. Let's hope the Iraqi people can form a proud new nation and government.

 

Is there really a link between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq?

Not really. There's some evidence to suggest some relations between Saddam and Bin Laden but who knows what they were about. Bin Laden had relations with the royal family of Saudi Arabia as well and I don't think they contribute to terrorism.

 

Why does it seem that the US only gets involved in battles where oil involved?

Macedonia ('93), Somolia ('92,'93), Bosnia-Hercegovina ('93), Zaire ('91), Panama ('89), Libya ('86,'89), Grenada ('83), Chad ('83), Honduras ('83-'89), Lebanon ('82) come to mind as a few that were either a result of humanitarian need, requested assistance or terrorism related. I don't think any of these had anything to do with oil but feel free to correct me. I could probably think of a few more like Vietnam, Korea and World Wars I and II.

 

Why aren't the US getting more involved in the horrific battles going on in Africa?

Who knows.

 

Is the UN doing its job?

No, the UN is not doing what it was founded to do.

 

Should more countries get involved in Iraq?

I think so. I think the Iraqi people could use help in many areas.

 

Should the Iraqi people sort themselves out?

The Iraqi people should be in control of making the decisions to reform their nation. I don't think they yet have the police power to enforce their decisions so help should be available to them.

[Qfwfq]

It's called National interest

People over here use an expression: call bread bread, and wine wine.

 

Fine then. Spare us the rhetoric about WMD, cruel dictator (that had been set up by us to fight against Khomeini after supported-by-us Pahlavi had been toppled) and about links with terrorism. Just say that grabbing oil is a good enough excuse. When Cæsar conquered the Middle East, he sure needed no excuse. Veni, vidi, vinsi.

[Qfwfq]

Macedonia ('93), Somolia ('92,'93), Bosnia-Hercegovina ('93), Zaire ('91), Panama ('89), Libya ('86,'89), Grenada ('83), Chad ('83), Honduras ('83-'89), Lebanon ('82) come to mind as a few that were either a result of humanitarian need, requested assistance or terrorism related. I don't think any of these had anything to do with oil but feel free to correct me.

Are we to belive these were all heroic deeds of Uncle Sam?

 

I could probably think of a few more like Vietnam, Korea and World Wars I and II.

These were before oil had become The issue. Ideology and propaganda, and control of consumer markets.

 

After WWII, people over here were being sprayed with vodka and Coke. It caused a lot of terrorism, which still hasn't completely dissappeared.

[Qfwfq]

Why aren't the US getting more involved in the horrific battles going on in Africa?

edit: Because they can't be bothered. Not enough national interest in them.

 

Is the UN doing its job?

As it stands, the UN is a diplomatic structure. It can do nothing if it's members don't agree to do and it will deliberate nothing that even one of the priviledged members veto.

 

How can we blame the UN for not doing it's job? How can we bring this forth as an excuse for Uncle Sam to act instead, the way He chooses, at His convenience? Actually, at the convenience of a few of His most influent citizens.

 

Should more countries get involved in Iraq? Should the Iraqi people sort themselves out?

The Iraqi should be enabled to sort themselves out. So far they haven't been put into a very favourable situation.

[C1ay]

Are we to belive these were all heroic deeds of Uncle Sam?

 

These were before oil had become The issue. Ideology and propaganda, and control of consumer markets.

 

After WWII, people over here were being sprayed with vodka and Coke. It caused a lot of terrorism, which still hasn't completely dissappeared.

Uh, wasn't the question,

 

Why does it seem that the US only gets involved in battles where oil involved?

 

I pointed out that the US does not only get involved where oil is an issue. Did I read the question wrong?

[Qfwfq]

Did I read the question wrong?

Of course not. I only pointed something out. Oil or other national interests, as Infamous puts it, doesn't make much difference. Whichever ones, they are hidden under rhetoric.

[IrishEyes]

Of course not. I only pointed something out. Oil or other national interests, as Infamous puts it, doesn't make much difference. Whichever ones, they are hidden under rhetoric.

So each country should stay within its own borders? And no country has the right to interfere with another country, regardless of the reason?

Or is there a good reason?

[IrishEyes]

Qfwfq-

So C1ay shows that the US gets invloved in more than just oil battles, but still, there must be some hidden agenda, right?

If the US got invloved more heavily in any of the current African crises, what would the general reaction be?

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

[Qfwfq]

So everybody should stay within their own house's walls? And nobody has the right to barge into other's houses, regardless of the reason?

 

I don't see how my words should quite fully imply:

So each country should stay within its own borders? And no country has the right to interfere with another country, regardless of the reason?

Or the opposite. My views are neither one or the other, I'm not a nationalist.

 

Or is there a good reason?

Oil, coal and similar reasons are not what I consider good ones, but I'm not the one that's gonna stand in front of the cannons with a dove and a palm branch.

 

Anyway, all this would be yet another thread, about international politics and justice etc...

[Qfwfq]

The agenda is not always hidden at all, even when it isn't oil. There is planetary strategy in most cases.

 

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

I'm not exhorting the US to go marching into Darfur, Côtè d'Ivoire and so on. It would be a different thing if all or most UN members would consistently and coherently support such things when necessary, and none vetoe it, instead of accusing the UN of not having done what it was founded for, and making this an excuse to go marching in when they have national interests.

 

Of course, there is above all the matter of method. I would never tell the US to bomb towns and cities.

[Biochemist]

..Just say that grabbing oil is a good enough excuse...

I am amazed that this is so often repeated. Even smart folks (like you, Q) repeat this mantra.

 

Could someone explain to me how the US gets oil by being in Iraq? We would have received more oil if we had not gone to Iraq, since the world oil market is fungible, and Saddam would have pumped more oil than is currently being exported.

 

How does the US get oil by being in Iraq?

[Buffy]

Could someone explain to me how the US gets oil by being in Iraq? We would have received more oil if we had not gone to Iraq, since the world oil market is fungible, and Saddam would have pumped more oil than is currently being exported.

That's the irony. The oil-folks (e.g. Cheney) want this *not* so that *America* gets more oil, but so that American *oil companies* get more control of what's there. Their thinking was based on the notion that if Saddam was still in power, all the contracts would go to the Russians and the French and they wanted all the action. Of course this was sheer stupidity from a geopolitical standpoint, and once a free government is in place in Iraq, they're probably going to find they get a better deal with the French and the Russians and the net-net will be the same.

 

I'll agree that the "no blood for oil" crowd is a little looney on this topic, but the fact that the oil lobbists were so active in trying to get votes on the war resolutions shows that they had an interest. It was not the reason, but there were people using this idiotic line of logic, some in high places in government. I find this scary not for the conspiracy but for the level of stupidity among people making critical decisions for us....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

That's the irony. The oil-folks (e.g. Cheney) want this *not* so that *America* gets more oil, but so that American *oil companies* get more control of what's there.

You make an excellent point here Buffy and I must say, I tend to agree with you.

 

I'll agree that the "no blood for oil" crowd is a little looney on this topic, but the fact that the oil lobbists were so active in trying to get votes on the war resolutions shows that they had an interest.

Once again, I must agree.

It was not the reason, but there were people using this idiotic line of logic, some in high places in government. I find this scary not for the conspiracy but for the level of stupidity among people making critical decisions for us....

There certainly appears to be some stupidity going on here however, I'm more inclined to believe it was a scratch my back, I'll scracth yours mentality. Maybe this thread could have read, Corporation sponsored Crime.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

There certainly appears to be some stupidity going on here however, I'm more inclined to believe it was a scratch my back, I'll scracth yours mentality. Maybe this thread could have read, Corporation sponsored Crime.

Oh I agree, but the fact that its in the process of backfiring horribly on them--since yes, the French and Russians will (in fact, are) get back in very quickly, which they SHOULD have forseen--makes it stupidity mixed with dangerous hubris too....

 

Cheers,

Buffy