financeguy said:
Imperialism - well, how else is the image of the soldier putting the Stars and Stripes over the statue of Saddam to be interpreted, particularly when seen through the eyes of the Arab world?
Simplistic thinking to say it's about oil? No, I disagree. It is about oil though not necessarily in an OBVIOUS sense. I see it as being about sending a message to new world powers - particularly China - that 'the West' is prepared to go to war to protect oil resources. If you can come up with less 'simplistic' analyses, I'm all ears!
In relation to your references to the left, it is interesting that those with a certain view on issues such as Iraq are assumed to be on the left. I do not identify myself as being on the left, and would resist the label.
Are you aware that numerous leading members of the former United Kingdom CONSERVATIVE government expressed reservations about the Iraq war?
I do not see the neo-conservatives as true conservatives, incidentally, rather I would see them as radicals.
Iraq represents something new -- i don't quite know what it is yet, but i think that the US in the 20th century is not at all like the UK of the 19th, so i don't know where "US imperialism" (stated as if this has been an ongoing project for some time now) comes from. as for the flag over Saddam, a battle had just ended. give me a break. don't read more into it than was there. was it tacky? yes. was it indicative of a secret conspiracy? no.
i agreed that oil was a consideration, but you yourself said it was about "oil" and "US imperialism." sending a message to china -- as they themselves work out contracts with Iran -- was certainly a consideration, i'm sure, but far, far from the most important. my point is that it's really easy to scream "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" or "NO IMPERIALISM" -- and believe me, i've been to several Left Wing rallies in Europe, and this type of idiot-speak poisons the whole demonstration, i think.
as for other motivations for the invasion of Iraq, i'll give you some:
1. the benefits of setting up a democracy in the Middle East
2. a Hussein-free Iraq would ensure the safety of Saudi Arabia and allow the US to get their airplanes out of Saudi Arabia (remember: this was one of OBL's justifications for attacking the WTC)
3. the engineering of a middle class within Iraq that has a vested interest in the stability of society -- Tom Friedman has his "McDonalds Theory," where countries that are stable enough to have a McDonalds don't go to war with each other
4. scare the shit out of Iran and Syria -- send the message that, "we'll invade you too" -- kind of the "Crazy Ivan" theory
5. send a message to the UN that resolutions must be backed up with force in order for the UN to actually be more effective in the future
6. attempt to reverse/make amends for the US Cold War-era policy of supporting the worst of the worst of dictators, so long as they were anti-Communist
now, you can agree or disagree with any of these reasons. you can come up with all sorts of arguments agains them, or point out how the policy as it was implemented (and coupled with an appaling lack of post-war planning) was not ideal for achieving these goals. you can argue that the scare-the-shit-out-of-Americans via the boogeyman of WMDs is indcative of a really weak rationale to begin with. and i'd agree with you.
all i'm saying is that it's much, much more complicated than "oil" and "imperialism."
and, please, what do you mean by "imperialism"?