"The real reasons America is invading Iraq" & What are the real motives for the war? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2003, 05:02 PM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 07:37 PM
What are the real motives for the war?

It's obvious that shortly after 9/11 the US Gov started pushing for war on Iraq. I guess, there are real motives behind that. Not one or two but many more. I would like to get your views on that before sharing my opinion.
__________________

__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:30 AM   #2
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 11:37 AM
"The real reasons America is invading Iraq"

The real reasons America is invading Iraq

March 20 2003


George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.

The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.

According to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".


The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?

Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national interests. How?

To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.

The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources.

According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.

It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.

It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.

In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US hegemony.

If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to prevent a rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain the greenback as the world currency.

It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is along for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is impossible to see what Australia will get out of this adventure even if it "succeeds".

Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans don't yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by making everybody else absolutely insecure.

This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq is likely to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an economically powerful China to challenge US hegemony.

Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
dissentmagazine@ozemail.com.au


This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...749824415.html
__________________

__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:37 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:37 AM
This article is missing the main player in all of this. Richard Perle.
He is/was the main influence on Bush's foeriegn policy.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:39 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Why would the US bother to wage war to secure oil deals with Iraq when it'd be much easier to drop the economic sanctions, pretend there's no problem with the regime in Iraq, and just do business as usual? Just like a certain country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wants to do.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 10:14 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Why would the US bother to wage war to secure oil deals with Iraq when it'd be much easier to drop the economic sanctions, pretend there's no problem with the regime in Iraq, and just do business as usual? Just like a certain country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wants to do.
exactly



also...I've lost faith in the middle easts ability to solve it's own problems....If in fact the US wants to play a permanent role in gulf security..it may be the catalyst the gulf needs to finally become soewhat stable.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 02:39 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Why would the US bother to wage war to secure oil deals with Iraq when it'd be much easier to drop the economic sanctions, pretend there's no problem with the regime in Iraq, and just do business as usual? Just like a certain country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wants to do.
Because helping a dictator won`t be very propaganda effective and do not give America more influence in the middle- east region.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 07:00 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono


Because helping a dictator won`t be very propaganda effective and do not give America more influence in the middle- east region.
Why yes, the US does happen to desire to have more influence in the Middle East region. Twisted, sinister things like making sure Israelis don't get blown up by homicide bombers and making sure Islamist psychopaths don't fly planes into our office buildings.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:21 PM   #8
The Fly
 
U2luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: in front of my computer :-)
Posts: 203
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Why yes, the US does happen to desire to have more influence in the Middle East region. Twisted, sinister things like making sure Israelis don't get blown up by homicide bombers and making sure Islamist psychopaths don't fly planes into our office buildings.
and this link should back that claim up quite well. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/a...calstudies.htm
__________________
U2luv is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 12:18 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Otherwise, just let the Saddams, and the Kim Jung Ills in N. Korea, rule the world, or rather continue to hold them hostage. Not to mention a few others who are not so evil, and just slightly evil... etc..etc. Where would Milosevic be now, had the US not stepped in with the Bosina/Serbia war, without UN support, I might add..
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:03 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 11:37 AM
if people think we should invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad man, fine. But I'm sick of Pres. Bush using the deaths of 3000 Americans as an excuse to bomb Iraq. These were innocent people that died and their deaths had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. The US government still has not brought forth real and legitimate proof that Saddam and al Qaeda have a direct connection. Bush just needed an excuse and dumb americans never questioned it.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:12 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Sharky, I couldn't agree more. President Bush's address of a few Monday's ago where he repeatedly invoked 9-11 (in a speech where he was essentially furthering his case for bombing Iraq) to me was pure, unabashed deceit.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:15 PM   #12
Acrobat
 
cloudimani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 483
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Why would the US bother to wage war to secure oil deals with Iraq when it'd be much easier to drop the economic sanctions, pretend there's no problem with the regime in Iraq, and just do business as usual? Just like a certain country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys wants to do.

Why yes, the US does happen to desire to have more influence in the Middle East region. Twisted, sinister things like making sure Israelis don't get blown up by homicide bombers and making sure Islamist psychopaths don't fly planes into our office buildings.
And Americans wonder why people think they're stupid, xenophobic, and anti-Islamic...
__________________
cloudimani is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:26 PM   #13
The Fly
 
U2luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: in front of my computer :-)
Posts: 203
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
if people think we should invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad man, fine. But I'm sick of Pres. Bush using the deaths of 3000 Americans as an excuse to bomb Iraq. These were innocent people that died and their deaths had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. The US government still has not brought forth real and legitimate proof that Saddam and al Qaeda have a direct connection. Bush just needed an excuse and dumb americans never questioned it.
PLEASE do not call Americans dumb. Yes, some (in this case too many) are following our President blindly, but that is out of the fear that the President is continually provoking by bringing up 9/11 during his speeches. That doesn't make Americans dumb, it makes us afraid.
I am as sick of him doing that as you are and tired of constantly correcting people that bring Hussein and 9/11 up together because of it. He's using the memories of 9/11 to get people to go along with him. If you keep repeating the same retoric over and over eventually people, many, will begin to believe it.
When will all this end?
Someone on another thread made a comment about Iran and how Iran is next on Bush's list. One of the replies was that that won't happen yet because 50% of Americans don't believe that Iran was involved with 9/11 YET. I agree with that point only because I see how one sided the news is in this country, I know that many don't take the time to check the facts or get other sides of stories. Isn't that true most everywhere though? On here, many of us are taning that time to check facts, get other points of view, etc. Unfortunately, many don't.
__________________
U2luv is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:41 PM   #14
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Can we please refrain from making personal attacks and generalizing on Americans.

Saying that americans are dumb, stupid and whatever else is an extremely generalistic statement. Dont blame all of us for Bush's decisions.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 04:41 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2luv


PLEASE do not call Americans dumb. Yes, some (in this case too many) are following our President blindly, but that is out of the fear that the President is continually provoking by bringing up 9/11 during his speeches. That doesn't make Americans dumb, it makes us afraid.
I am as sick of him doing that as you are and tired of constantly correcting people that bring Hussein and 9/11 up together because of it. He's using the memories of 9/11 to get people to go along with him. If you keep repeating the same retoric over and over eventually people, many, will begin to believe it.
When will all this end?
Someone on another thread made a comment about Iran and how Iran is next on Bush's list. One of the replies was that that won't happen yet because 50% of Americans don't believe that Iran was involved with 9/11 YET. I agree with that point only because I see how one sided the news is in this country, I know that many don't take the time to check the facts or get other sides of stories. Isn't that true most everywhere though? On here, many of us are taning that time to check facts, get other points of view, etc. Unfortunately, many don't.

I second this request. Please don't assume that God made Americans with a cookie cutter. Despite the war political plurality is alive and well in the U.S. People still have their own political convictions. My political views are not dictated by my government. That was true before 9/11, it was true afterwards, and it's still true now. I haven't believed everything I've read in the newspapers and seen on TV. Ultimately you can't kill ideals. That will always be true no matter what happens. Individual Americans will carry on with doing and saying what we think is fair and good as well as evil and destructive. We're not cancelling our elections.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com