Was the Iraq war fought because of a) America's geopolitical interests - mainly that being OIL or b) because Iraq was an imminent threat and most likely possessed WMD that Saddam was planning to use against the USA, (possibly with the help of Al Qaeda)?
What is the first thing the Americans did when they grabbed power in Iraq? http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm edit: not exactly oil, but euros, but it wasn't an option
Neither. It was about ego. Either way, it's been a total waste. The Iraqi's under Saddam, were better for us than they are now-- festering and angry with America. Great strategy! ~String
Its all by the book. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As opposed to before the war, when they were... festering and angry with America. Seems like a wash on that front. Also, even by SciForums standards, the poll options presented here represent a risible lack of sophistication (both in terms of the author's understanding and his framing).
The justification given for invading Iraq was stockpiling of WMDs. But that doesn't mean that was the reason for the invasion. Oil would have been part of the equation, but certainly not the whole story. The Bush family had unfinished business with Saddam, for one thing.
LOOK just pick one or the other. YES there are millions of different reasons but I chose these two in particular because (A) most Americans NOW think it was all one big lie and was all about their OIL (Gen. John Abizaid and Alan Green Span come to mind) and (B) most Americans initially thought Saddam had close ties with AlQueda and Iraq was an imminent threat of such a magnitude we had to invade NOW - - due to WMD. Of the two I simply want to know which you align yourself more closely to. OIL or WMD Michael PS: Note: Both are three letter acrynom so as to be fair Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So just pick one or the other, Michael
There is no one reason we invaded Iraq. There are however, many reasons it made sense. There are several strategic reasons for the war, as well as other, secondary ones like humanitarian ones. As such, regime change had been the stated policy of the United States (as passed by Congress) towards Iraq since 1998. In no particular order: Removing Saddam ended the need for keeping American troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the primary reason cited by al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks in their 1998 fatwa, and the largest motivator for angry young Islamists to join their cause. Removal of our troops from Saudi is the most productive policy decision the US has made toward the Middle East since at least the Carter administration, if not Eisenhower. The royals have had to make major reforms to keep from being ripped apart by internal tensions now that we're not there to back up the regime. Removing Saddam made it possible to end the sanctions on Iraq, which was another reason for the 9/11 attacks as stated in the 1998 fatwa. Removing Saddam ended the need for no-fly zones, which was a third item in al Qaeda's fatwa. Removing Saddam was a dramatic reversal of the US's history of supporting abusive regimes for selfish gain in the arena of realpolitik; a fourth item in al Qaeda's fatwa. Iraq makes an excellent location for troops and combat aircraft to operate out of, since provides access to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. These are the top three sponsors of terrorism in the entire world. Saddam did not like us and he had at the very least ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction like the ones he had used in this past. These could easily threaten our interests in the area either directly, or indirectly as a regional destabilizer. Saddam provided legal justification for the war by repeatedly breaking the ceasefire agreement. Iraq is the most secular and modern of the major Arab countries. This made it the best candidate for a successful transition to a market Democracy among the major Arab states. A Democratic Iraq can provide a role model of an Arab country which doesn't completely suck ass. It would be a good inspiration to reform movements in other Arab countries. Iraq made a great distraction in the war on terrorism. If terrorists want to kill Americans it is much easier for them to go to Iraq than it is to go to America and attack a soft target. I'm not saying the Administration planned Iraq as a roach motel for terrorists, but if they did they were pretty smart. Otherwise it just worked out well. As you can see, there were a whole lot of factors that made Iraq a ripe target for invasion, and as a bonus, it was relatively easy to invade. And before somebody comes in here and brings up the problems after the invasion, remember how this question is framed before posting. Funny story here. During the name game for the the invasion, Operation Iraqi Liberty was among those suggested. Iraqi Freedom was decided upon to follow the convention of the other big one within the GWOT; OEF. But you can't help but wonder how anybody thought OIL would be a good abbreviation for the operational name. For the purposes of your poll, my personal belief is that both were factors. I'm sure petro reserves were seen as a nice bonus, while the WMD justification probably seemed to the architects of the invasion like a good enough pretext to justify the war to the American people. Oops.
Echo3Romeo, The main problem I have is that North Korea had no oil but has built nuclear WMD yet we have taken the sensible and diplomatic route, along with cutting off their fun money and putting the squeeze on them. I feel this is because the spoils of a war with north korea were .. well -nothing. BUT Iraq on the other hand Hoo Hooo HOOOOO Santa has a BIG boyz gift for you GW Jr in the form of oil oil and more oil. Add to this how much Cheney's Halliburton (now in UAE) has scooped out of the our hard worked savings and it all seems like Bull Shit to the average American. The rational behind your #1 is canceled by #5 as AlQueda is obviously not going to be happy with a USA millitary anywhere in the ME. Also #4, we still support whomever advances out interests (see KSA,). Also, the end point of #2 is canceled because peoples lives have become much worse not better. Points #6 #7 are true of North Korea and much worse as they actually said "Hello Hello we're making WMD" - and then made them. They even sent material to Syria recently. #8 I agree with. #9 isn't working out that way as we are creating many more terrorists than there were pre-9/11! I personally think that if Iraq had no OIL like North Korea we would not have invaded. Really THAT was the main reason. What makes me sick is how rich Cheney's buddies have gotten off it. And subsequently Cheney will too when this is all said and done. Now that Halliburton is in UAE you can bet money is being squared away for Cheney when he retires and moves there. I hope that f*cker is caught out. Michael
Hello WMD's are terms used by US government to define Weapons of Mass Destruction. But what really are these WMD's? they are defenses of the country against other countries. IF USA has WMD's, so should any other government. So lets not fall into the governmental control of society by just quoting military tools as WMD's...these are defenses of nations against other nations. Korea, Iran, USA, Russia, France, Germany...all the same.
Your poll is extremely flawed and limited. The war in Iraq was obviously started to benefit the US's geopolitical influence. Oil is a part of it althought its certianly not the only part. Also, I find absolutly nothing wrong with that.
The Iraq war was finally finished because Dem's couldn't pull the trigger on their watch because their mommies had already squeezed their once manly nuts into girlie ovaries.
