The other war thread is getting large and cumbersome to read. So, here is a new one asking a more specific question.

As a person opposed to America's current Iraq war I have a difficult time figuring out the reasoning behind this war. To summarize, here is some rational I've read in the recent thread and heard from the general populous:

Bush is an idiot
Bush family vendetta against Saddam
Oil
Saddam is linked to Osama
Saddam as the evil dictator/liberate the people of Iraq
Religious war/Jihad
The new USA National Security Strategy [whitehouse.gov]

Propaganda is still propaganda whether it is coming out of Saddam, Rummi's mouth, or on a peace protester's sign. Can any of you explain to me how any of these (or add others) provide rationale for a massive assault against this particular dictator right now?

Bush is an idiot
Doesn't hold much water. While I may mutter, "what an idiot" or "what a fucking moron" every time I listen to Bush speak I do not actually believe he is an idiot in the full sense of the word. Bush is probably of average intelligence with a learning disability (likely dyslexia). More importantly, Bush is surrounded and heavily influenced by individuals of a greater IQ than he. I have found the current administration to be disturbingly smart and especially cunning when it comes to manipulating public opinion.

Bush family vendetta against Saddam
Again, doesn't make much sense. If anything the Bush family holds a vendetta against Saddam because of the linked assassination attempt against Bush Sr. The argument that Bush Sr. did not finish his Persian Gulf war doesn't work. The objective in that war was to tell Saddam he was not allowed to invade other countries (without our approval). Because of this and the easy comparison of Saddam to Hitler, Bush Sr. effortlessly assembled a broad coalition (including some Arab nations) against Saddam. Does anyone remember, "This aggression will not stand. This aggression against the Kuwaiti people will not stand." The first Gulf conflict ended when the objective was achieved.

Oil
This is certainly one of the reasons, but not one Bush can use as a big selling point. America doesn't get the bulk of its oil from Iraq right now. 'Course having an America friendly government installed and propped in Iraq couldn't hurt Bush's energy plan.

Saddam is linked to Osama
To date Bush has not shared conclusive evidence that would prove this assertion. I find this particularly disturbing when part of Bush's reasoning for this war is it is part of a broader war against terrorism. One might think Bush would jump at the chance to present this evidence if he were truly interested in building an international coalition that includes more of the world's major powers.

Beyond the lack of evidence for this there is also the vast difference in fundamental beliefs in governance between Saddam and Osama. While the two men are from the same sect of Islam, Saddam's government is a very secular brand, the Ba'ath Party, whereas Osama seems to prefer a society in total devotion to Allah ruled by Mullahs.

Saddam as the evil dictator/liberate the people of Iraq
Graham covered part of the difficulty with this rationale here [goats.com].

Religious war/Jihad
Bush is a born-again Christian (read TBN channel, a.k.a. the god channel, religious fundamentalist). With his strong beliefs he is creating a struggle in our constitutional separation of church and state here at home (federal money to religious based non-profits as one example). The paranoid side of me fears an ulterior motive linked to Bush's religion, but this is probably not as likely as his wanting the whole world to be more in line with capitalist values. The larger the market, the more we can sell.

This is not to say that our invasions couldn't be interpreted as a religious war given the majority religion in the USA and the UK and the majority religion of the people we are fighting. This interpretation is likely to make it easier for religiously based terrorists to recruit and strike.

The new USA National Security Strategy [whitehouse.gov]
This topic deserves more time than I have to spend on it right now. I encourage people to read it. Consider the similarities between the recently released NSS and the one proposed by Perle and Wolfowitz during Bush Sr.'s administration. Bush Sr. rejected the earlier version as too hawkish and imperialistic.

I have a difficult time figuring out the reasoning behind this war

You and me both.

Now I'm opposed to the war because I can't see a good reason for the war. But I'm also confused because I can't see a bad reason either.

Bush has little to do with it - he's being advised by a number of very smart people who are, if anything, more hawkish than he is.

Oil is possible, but... Well, $75 billion buys an awful lot of oil, and even more influence over oil. The economics don't work.

The same people who are so pro-war now cared little ten years ago about Hussein, or the Iraqis, or whatever todays justification is. What changed their minds? Nothing obvious.

Religious war? Nope. Iran would make a better target.

Re-election? Again, there were less risky ways to do this.

I really don't know.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#4822):

Bush has little to do with it
Yeah. He's really only a heartbeat away from the presidency.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#4816):


Are you sure you should be replying to yourself?

Oil
This is certainly one of the reasons, but not one Bush can use as a big selling point. America doesn't get the bulk of its oil from Iraq right now. 'Course having an America friendly government installed and propped in Iraq couldn't hurt Bush's energy plan.

Oil may actually have a bigger part in this than it might seem. And I don't mean the obvious liberal knee-jerk (as an liberally obvious jerk, I try to keep my own knees in line) that the war was started to lower the cost of Oil to the oil companies.

It's true that we don't get a lot of our oil from Iraq right now. We get a lot of it from Saudia Arabia. Bin Laden is a Saudi citizen. The Saudis in a lot of ways are really not friendly to America.

Having a plentiful source of inexpensive oil would help America extract itself gently from our troublesome dependancy on a country that we don't exactly approve of or get along with.

Then we could invade them, too. And THEN the cost of oil gets really cheap for the oil companies.

Oh drat. Bad knee!

In Response to zamphir (#4826):

I was attempting to keep the size of the initial post smaller and easier for people to read. I was going to post it all up front until I saw how much I apparently had to say.

I've been doing my best to keep my liberal knees from jerking for the last few weeks; rather, I tried to listen to as many opinions about this conflict I could gather. As you can see, I still don't get why we sped, at full throttle, into this mess.

In Response to zamphir (#4826):

Without going too much into it, does anyone else find it kind of convenient that we haven't heard anything about drilling for oil in Alaska for a while now?

I had stated why I like the war in tha last post, but I think the Bush administartion has other reasons.

I do think it's part of a new National Security policy. Sept 11th seems to have shaken up a lot of people, and I think that the administration wants to go after anyone they think may pose a threat to us. Of course, the threat from Iraq can be debated, but I think this is the main reason behind the war, fear of a threat. The fear had been magnified by the Sept 11th attacks.

I think the Bush is an idiot response is a result of what seems to be some sort of speech impeddlement (ha ha), his unfortunate striking resemblance to a monkey, and the fact that he uses a lot of religious and emotional languige in his speeches. I think a lot of intellectual people read religious content as a throwback to superstitious times and illogical, and not fit to be used in presidential speeches.

I don't think the main answer is oil because I thinkt he cost of the war is more than our potential oil gains. I also think that the US taking advantage of the oil situation would completely destroy the administrations already shaky credibility. I think oil is proboly considered a benifit, but not a primary reason.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#4816):

Bush is an idiot
And the people under him are seriously dodgy.
Storm of Mideast war has gathered over decades [nzherald.co.nz] There are enough similarities there between The current administration and the beliefs of the nazis to scare me more than a little.
The current wave of patriotism is pretty much the same thing that lead to the nazis being elected.
As a suggestion, try using a foreign newspaper (the one I've linked to is quite good), they tend to give you news you don't usually get because it's deemed 'unpatriotic'

Oil
Not a very big public reason, but probably a much larger reason for people such as Cheney and bush. Sure the US gets oil from it;s own soil, but it's not really that abundant or good quality, huge amounts of money have to be put into purification. The oil in iraq, however, good quality (Less money for purification), much, much more abundant, and therefore cheaper to get out. And also oil companies are seeking for the money involved in rebuilding contracts. And certain senior memebers of the government (eg Cheney has big links to halliburton (Used to be it's CEO)) have vested interests in who gets those contracts. It'll be interesting to see who gets them. It'll also be interesting to see how much the media covers it.

Saddam as the evil dictator/liberate the people of Iraq
If that was the reason, then it's failed. Look at the opinions of the people in the area (Hell, look at them before the war) they don't/didn't want the war.Sure a few people wanted the government out, but that's just as true for America as it is for Iraq. All Bush has managed to do in this respect is earn the hatred of the Iraqi populace. All the people want is the ability to live (Water, etc) Before the war they had that, now they don't. Guess who they blame. The USA sits alone, pretty much, in it's view of "Give me freedom or give me death"

Even though there are reasons for war I agree with, the way it's been done has just been utterly appalling, and highlighted several reasons why we should be more than a little suspicious of the current administration.

Just my view, of course.

It's simply about oil, you need to look past the propaganda and see the real story.

Up until recently all oil was traded in US dollars, which means that anyone buying oil must first buy dollars, a major boost for the US economy. In 1999 Iraq decided that it was going to sell it's oil in Euro, the new currency being introduced by the EU. A problem for the US as no one needs dollars anymore.

This is the reason that the Bush administration had decided to remove Saddam. They were going to invade regardless of what the UN said, and send a message to the world that the us dollar is not to be messed with.

This is also the reason that France & Germany are so against the war.

Any other reason is just spin.

IMHO human lives should never be traded for economic benefit. This war should be stopped now.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#5015):

IMHO human lives should never be traded for economic benefit.

Actually, I kinda think that economic benefit is almost the only good reason for trading human lives.

Religious reasons? No. BAD. That way lies madness [nrlc.org].

Freedom? That's a shill for economic benefit. The only time the people are really stirred to revolution is when they are basically starving, or it is very clear that they are giving significantly more in taxes/etc. to their government than they are getting back.

In Response to zamphir (#5018):

The only time the people are really stirred to revolution is when they are basically starving

In responce to that, I question who is starving in this war? Yes the Iraqi people have been opressed, starved and killed by the regieme (and I'm in no way defending Saddam for this). But it's not them that are fighting to remove him, it's the Americans.

Whatever George and his pals say, they are certantly not fighting this war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, or to promote democracy and freedom in the world. Knowing the Americans record, they'll just install another dictator, but one that won't object to selling oil to the US and using US dollars. For God's sake, they were supporting Saddam for years, and providing him with weapons, until he decided to invade Kuwate.

In Response to theave (#5008):

If you're quoting Patrick Henry it should be, "Give me liberty or give me death." [hypermall.com]

Why do I know this? In fifth grade I was assigned to make a clay figurine of Mr. Henry and present a report on him. Who says kids can't retain what they learn in school?

Let's hope we don't create a situation to produce an Iraqi Patrick Henry. There are already similarities between the US fight for independence and the current fighting tactics of some Iraqis. During our revolutionary war the British were pissed Americans weren't lining up for battles. Our revolutionaries did not following the rules of war. Rather, they were hiding behind trees while shooting like some sort of sniper.

Oedipa -

You missed at least one biggie - Iraq has flagrantly violated UN Resolution 1441 for 12 years - it's been a farce.

Having said that, there's nothing in Res 1441 that provides that the punishment for violation is invasion and removal of government.

I think what's most embarrassing for the US is that it's been clear that we were going to have a war with Iraq for a couple of years, and Bush just kept looking until he found a reason that stuck.

Bush' advisers have been wanting this war since 1991, and -I'm sure this isn't news to anyone- even wrote to Clinton advising him to use military force against Iraq.

I think that *is* the real reason for the war - this new policy of preemptive defense that Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. have wanted since before Jr. was even running for the office.

As an American, I really really hope they find a mountain of illegal weapons somewhere marked "Chemical Weapons - Don't Show U.N!" because then we can save a little face.

In Response to BoxJam (#5060):

Iraq has flagrantly violated UN Resolution 1441 for 12 years

Which given it was passed last year is quite a trick! Does Hussein have a time machine? Is the war going to last another 11 and a half years? Does Boxjam know something we don't? Is that ever a bottomless hole to dig out?

And yeah, I do know what you mean. But pedantry is its own reward...

I think that *is* the real reason for the war - this new policy of preemptive defense that Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. have wanted since before Jr. was even running for the office.

Sure, but that's just shifting the focus of the question. Why do Cheney and Rumsfield want a war? I know they do - which is why I've said all along that Bush is fairly irrelevant to the discussion - but why? I don't buy oil. I don't buy helping the economy. I don't buy re-electing Bush. Punishing a rogue agent? Are they really that petty?

As an American, I really really hope they find a mountain of illegal weapons somewhere marked "Chemical Weapons - Don't Show U.N!" because then we can save a little face.

I really, really hope they don't. If the US (and UK) turns out to be right on this, it will make the next largely unjustified invasion of another country all the easier to sell.

In Response to BoxJam (#5060):

Ya know, by about Saturday (the 5th) I started wondering why no one had called me on this one since Res 1441 is why the whole UN debacle snowballed with such vigor. Oo, look I verbed a word.

Graham has done a pretty good job responding to this reason in this thread and the other war thread. This reason seemed tailored particularly for UN consumption. One small problem: it was projectily rejected by more countries than France.

This doesn't make sense to be the reason for war. Containment or at least more aggressive inspections may have worked as well or better than our current course. Something that made no sense to me after watching Powell present this administration's proof of non-compliance to the UN is why we didn't offer armed inspections with satellite and spy plane support? If Bush and pals feel their aerial photos are accurate enough to prove Saddam is playing games and therefore justifies invasion, why couldn't the same aerial photos be used to direct inspectors to a site before the chem/bio weapons have a chance to be driven out of the area?

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#5118):

Something that made no sense to me after watching Powell present this administration's proof of non-compliance to the UN is why we didn't offer armed inspections with satellite and spy plane support?

Armed inspectors is a dubious proposition - forcing armed men into another country could reasonably be seen as an act of war.

On the other hand, American spy planes were made available to the inspectors, and were used, although I do not know to what extent and effect.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5155):

Armed inspectors is a dubious proposition - forcing armed men into another country could reasonably be seen as an act of war.

So, not much different than what we actually did?

Sigh.

In Response to zamphir (#5159):

From before this war started, I always used to get into this argument. I would say that we shouldn't start a war, we should try armed inspectors first. The response was that the Iraqis would just kill the armed inspectors. I'd say fine, then we'd have a case for war.

At this point the pro-war person would bring up some failing of Clinton, or something. Anything to change the subject.

In Response to Evander (#5171):

So how's the weather in Baltimore this time of year?

In Response to Evander (#5171):

I would say that we shouldn't start a war, we should try armed inspectors first.

My argument was similar, but had unarmed inspectors, then armed (or more specifically, unarmed inspectors accompanied by UN troops/bodyguards - physicists with handguns. Shudder.) then, if necessary, war.

I have stated publically that we should never have negotiated with Iraq over spy planes. We should have sent them in, accompanied with a message that "any action taken against them will be viewed as an act of war".

As it was, we committed the act of war. Ho hum.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5176):

The real problem with armed inspectors is that it allows the Iraqis to provoke us into committing an "act of war" before we're "ready".

That is, the scenario goes something like this:
1) Unarmed inspectors - "No, sorry, you're not allowed to go in there, it's Saddam's private bathroom. Yes, it's the size of a warehouse, so what? Oh, you insist on going in? No. You can't."
2) Armed inspectors - "No, sorry, you're not allowed to go in there, it's Saddam's private bathroom. Yes, it's the size of a warehouse, so what? Oh, you insist on going in? You'll have to shoot me. Oh look! He shot an unarmed man. That's an act of war!"

This is why armed inspectors were not an option. A gun is only as powerful as your willingness to use it.

In Response to zamphir (#5178):

Well, yes. But there are easier ways of dealing with this.

We could have used armed inspectors (and I do me inspectors with military escorts) as Saddam's "last chance", deploying them only once we have our army set up to attack. We tell him that we're giving him one last chance, but if any shots are fired by anyone, then we attack full scale.

Anything is worth a try, if it has any chance of preventing war.

In Response to Evander (#5181):

Technically, isn't sending armed personnel into a country with the intent to use violent means to complete a task the thought behind warfare?

Also, everyone keeps saying that this military action (it's not a war unless you declare it which Bush won't do) is about OIL. That's not correct. Oil is only a subset of the true reason.

This 'war' is about MONEY. Cheaper oil means more money, bids on rebuilding Iraq means more money, supplying weapons to a new ruling class in Iraq means more money.

It seems that we spent a lot of money in Afganistan which required an aweful lot of rebuilding and supplying and such but there's no real way to make money out of that endeavor. It's almost as if Bush had nobility on his mind when he did that... hmmm, interesting concept. But nonetheless, we spent a lot of money on an unprofitable nation and now we're trying to make up for it by messing with Iraq to help pad a national and personal wallet that couldn't get enough tax cuts to make their retirements good enough.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#5242):

This 'war' is about MONEY. Cheaper oil means more money, bids on rebuilding Iraq means more money, supplying weapons to a new ruling class in Iraq means more money.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This invasion does not make economic sense. $80 billion is far more than would be needed to achieve the effects through peaceful means. Manipulating the international aid and building grants budgets would be far, far cheaper.

Even if the wildest conspiracy theory I've yet seen is correct, it will take decades to repay the upfront costs. Just sticking the money in a bank account would be as good an investment.

Besides, why are those who own the oil supply bothered about the price? Are Americans really buying less gas because the price is a bit high? No? Then those selling that gas are making more money - since their cut is a percentage of the total.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5244):

This invasion does not make economic sense.

But that is only if what information we have is correct and complete. Whenever I look at everything we are given in regards to information concerning governemental intents and purposes, i feel cheated. This whole ordeal continues to bring up, "WHY?" No one seems to give a definate answer when they are asked this question. Even those who choose to believe in any of the popular notions, humanitarian, regime change for positive, money, etc, seems to do so with hesitancy. It is as if we all feel, on some inward level, that we are being scammed. Everything seems to head toward a conspiracy of some sort because somehow it just seems to fit.