Why we are in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
What do you think the goals are?

My own personal opinion is that we invaded Iraq to secure the regions oil reservers.

Its the entire reason we even have an interest in that region of the world.

Before the discovery of oil in the region the US payed little to no attention to the middle east or its politics.
The United States’ relationship with the Middle East prior to the Second World War was limited. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonise almost all of the Middle East region after defeating the Turkish Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the Middle East’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’[2] . American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Middle East.


Thus, there were some connections, which were made between the United States and the Middle East before the Second World War. Other examples of corporations between the US and the Middle East are the Red Line Agreement signed in 1928 and the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement signed in 1944. Both of these agreements were legally binding and reflected an American interest in control of Middle Eastern energy resources, namely oil, and moreover reflected an American ‘security imperative to prevent the (re)emergence of a powerful regional rival’.[4] The Red Line Agreement had been ‘part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies…could control oil prices on world markets’.[5]The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.[6]

On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain. Consequently, political scholar Fred H Lawson remarks, that ‘by mid-1944, U.S. officials had buttressed their country’s position on the peninsula by concluding an Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement that protected “all valid concession contracts and lawfully acquired rights” belonging to the signatories and established a principle of “equal opportunity” in those areas where no concession had yet been assigned.’[7] Furthermore, political scholar Irvine Anderson summarises American interests in the Middle East in the late 19th century and the early 20th century noting that, ‘the most significant event of the period was the transition of the United States from the position of net exporter to one of net importer of petroleum.’[8]

By the end of the Second World War, the United States had come to consider the Middle East region as ‘the most strategically important area of the world’.[9]and ‘…one of the greatest material prizes in world history’.[10] For that reason, it was not until around the period of the Second World War that America became directly involved in the Middle East region.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Middle_East
 

Eghad

New member
Iraq wasn't full Of radical islamists because they were a threat to Hussein. Hussein gave token support to them to be friends with them and keep tabs on them.
Keep your friends close and you enemies closer. Hussein wanted a united Arab nation while Osama wanted a caliphate. They were rivals and one would have eventually destroyed the other. Osama looked upon any Arab leader who had cooperated with the west at any time as an evil to be destroyed. What we did do was give Osama Bin Laden the confontration he wanted with the United States on a silver platter by invading Iraq. He had predicted what is happening now in the United States over the war. He took a page out of Ho's playbook.

The war in Iraq is not winnable by mere military force alone. If we want to win in Iraq we have to get the economy and the Infrastructure back on line. The Iraqis must also step up to the plate and take back sole responsibility for their nation.

performing rituals but a complete system: Religion and government, worship and Jihad [holy war], ethics and dealing with people, and the Koran and sword. The bitter situation that the nation has reached is a result of its divergence from Allah's course and his righteous law for all places and times. That [bitter situation] came about as a result of its children's lovefor the world, their loathing of death, and their abandonment of Jihad [holy war].

Unbelief is still the same. It pushed Abou Jahl-may Allah curse him-and Kureish's valiant infidels to battle the prophet -God bless and keep him -and to torture his companions -may Allah's grace be on them. It is the same unbelief that drove Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi, Hafez Assad, Saleh, Fahed -Allah's curse be upon the non-believing leaders -and all the apostate Arab rulers to torture, kill, imprison, and torment Moslems.

These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
 

gvf

Moderator
Well...they used to think Isreal was the number one threat. Now that we've killed some 30,000+ Iraqis they might change their views.

We didn't kill 30,000 Iragis. We've tried to stop 30,000 Iragis being killed by other Iraqis. Did France kill 600,000 Americans in the Civil War because it aides us - and was the factor that saved the success of - our Revolutionary War?

This is silly. We didn't invade Denmark. We invaded Sadam contolled Irag, who was a mass murderer and war-monger responsible for up to a million dead in his own country and elsewhere in the Mid-East - a good number through the use of weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical.

I don't know if history will prove us successful or unsuccessful in furthering an ultimate stability in the Mid-East, and maybe we should have earlier (or now) turned it all over to the new Iraqi government and hoped for the best (or maybe not, time will tell) - but we are not immoral for stopping a crazed regime that routinely cut out it's own citizens' tongues.
 

nate45

New member
My own personal opinion is that we invaded Iraq to secure the regions oil reservers.

Saudi Arabia- worlds largest supply of oil

Iraq-worlds second largest supply of oil

Iran-is either third or fourth

The U.S. economy would collapse without a steady supply of foriegn oil.

Were in the middle east to bring freedom,spread democracy and fight terror.

Ya right.

Tell me another one.
 

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
We didn't kill 30,000 Iragis

I think he was talking about the intial invasion.

Did France kill 600,000 Americans in the Civil War because it aides us - and was the factor that saved the success of - our Revolutionary War?

Not sure what you are saying here.

but we are not immoral for stopping a crazed regime that routinely cut out it's own citizens' tongues.

You would be correct, but that is not the reason we invaded. We did not invade Iraq because of Saddam's brutality, heck we helped to put Saddam in power in the first place and said nothing about his attrocities until he stopped being our lap dog (invaded kuwait).

saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg


We invaded Iraq to secure its oil reserves from a former henchman gone astray.
 

Antipasta

New member
I have always viewed "cut and run" as an overly simplistic phrase - much like "they'll follow us home." It's designed to elicit the same gut male reaction as "pull out" had regarding Viet Nam. How about, "reassess the threat and redeploy?" Like Afghanistan, where the real culprits are located, and getting stronger.

The idiots that got us into this mess have us sidetracked and talking nonsensical phrases just like them!
 

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Were in the middle east to bring freedom,spread democracy and fight terror.

Especially when you consider that we provide security for the Saudi Royal family, a regime just as guilty as Saddam for violating human rights, in exchange for favorable oil treatyies.

Not to mention that we helped Saddam gain power in Iraq and fully supported him for as long as he stayed on his leash.

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
 

nate45

New member
Freedom_1st

You make good points I agree with you for the most part,but now that we are there and we have to have the oil.

How do we just pullout and not allow Iran to dominate the region and control the oil?
 

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
How do we just pullout and not allow Iran to dominate the region and control the oil?

By reinstalling another Saddam like dictator? Lets face some facts, Iraq is dominated by a Shia majority that will naturally seek close relations with Shia Iran.

Getting rid of Saddam was a blessing for Iran.

I propose that nothing will still stop the eventually shia domination in Iraq and that we may as well pull out now and cut our losses and hope to eventually establish normal trade relations with them as soon as possible.

Not much different then Vietnamn, who now is a trading partner of ours.
 

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Amazing how quickly an intelligent discussion devolves into a shouting match and a propaganda campaign. :(

Freedom_1st said:
My own personal opinion is that we invaded Iraq to secure the regions oil reservers.
The price of gasoline at the corner tells me that if this was the goal, then we have failed. And if this is indeed one of the goals, what of it? Is not a stable oil supply in the interest of our country? Saddam tried to take that stability once when he invaded Kuwait. He continued to defy UN resolutions to allow inspectors and shot at Coalition planes. He was working to destabilize the region. Was it wrong to stop him?

The US supported Italy in WWI and fought against them in WWII.
The US supported the Russians when they were fighting against the Nazis.
The US supported bin laden when he was fighting against the Russians.
The US supported Saddam when he was fighting against Iran.
So what?

You are certainly not so simple as to believe that there are only good guys and bad guys in the world. Good guys don't always stay good guys. Political alliances change. It's a fact. If it weren't, then we'd still be at war with Mexico, Spain, Germany, England and many others. So do me a favor and stick that photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein back on your hard drive and stop bringing it up. It is meaningless.
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
Saddam tried to take that stability once when he invaded Kuwait. He continued to defy UN resolutions to allow inspectors and shot at Coalition planes. He was working to destabilize the region. Was it wrong to stop him?

Nope.

And Iran is next.

No oil, no USA as we know it. Us or them. Simple geopolitics.

And why do you think old Hugo, with all his babbling 60s anti imperialist silliness, keeps selling us oil. Is it becausue we have a Cowboy in the White House. If you feed the bear, sometimes he wont hunt.

War for oil? No problem. I like my lifestyle.

You guys want to bring peace to the Middle East? Make oil irrelevant. Otherwise, if you like to screech "NO WAR FOR OIL", start walking, don't be a hypocrite.

WildthereimoutedAlaska
 

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
The price of gasoline at the corner tells me that if this was the goal, then we have failed

The price of gas has many things that influence it besides supply of oil.

Number of refineries for example, remember when the price jumped due to katriana knocking all those refineries along the gulf coast offline.

Is not a stable oil supply in the interest of our country?

Yes it is, but at what price, and I would argue that meddling in that region in the world has cause more instability, then if we had just not meddled.

Saddam tried to take that stability once when he invaded Kuwait. He continued to defy UN resolutions to allow inspectors and shot at Coalition planes. He was working to destabilize the region. Was it wrong to stop him?

That is another debate in itself, I was just presenting my case that we did not invade Iraq, to liberate its people, or stop a tyrant, but for purely selfish economic reasons, that is all.

The US supported Italy in WWI and fought against them in WWII.

Italy aligned itself with our allies in WWI and enemies in WWII.

The US supported the Russians when they were fighting against the Nazis.

But we did not install the soviet regime in Russia, and actually sent troops to fight the bolsheviks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

We helped install Saddam in Iraq.

The US supported bin laden when he was fighting against the Russians.
The US supported Saddam when he was fighting against Iran.
So what?

Correct, and we know how that turned out, another reason I favor an isolationist foreign policy.

You are certainly not so simple as to believe that there are only good guys and bad guys in the world

Agreed, that was my arguement, the US does not invade countries because it is on a great crusade to spread peace and democracy, it invades countries out of its own self interest. A few here were arguing that we took Saddam out because he was a bad guy, that is false, evidenced by the fact that we helped his rise to power.

So do me a favor and stick that photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein back on your hard drive and stop bringing it up. It is meaningless

I disagree, it serves to illustrate that we did support Saddam and his atrocities at a point in time, and only stopped doing so when he turned against us, thus proving that we do not invade countries to bring them freedom and democracy or any other idealistic notions.
 

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Nope.

And Iran is next.

No oil, no USA as we know it. Us or them. Simple geopolitics.

And why do you think old Hugo, with all his babbling 60s anti imperialist silliness, keeps selling us oil. Is it becausue we have a Cowboy in the White House. If you feed the bear, sometimes he wont hunt.

War for oil? No problem. I like my lifestyle.

Highly doubtful given the president and his neoconservative policies are now politically lame ducks.

So you support oil imperalism? So were you shocked when people flew planes into our buildings then?

So accept that we are imperalist who invade other nations and plunder their resources to maintain our lifestyle?

If you accept that, then you have to realize that will cause a certain backlash, you can not really expect the people of these countries to just lie down for this?

By the way I appreciate your honesty in accepting your imperialist postions versus trying to smokescreen them with silly notions of democracy or freedom.
 

Charles S

New member
I have tried my best to stay out of this, but her goes:

Correct, and we know how that turned out, another reason I favor an isolationist foreign policy.

In todays world it is impossible to be isolationist. Our economy is tied to too many other economies to list. Our withdrawal would lead to our own econmic collapse as well as a probable collapse of the world market. The US can no longer make all the essential items it needs.

Further, from a defensive standpoint isolationism will lead to greater problems.

Isolationism at a national standpoint is the equivalent of living in condition white because if you leave everyone else alone then nothing bad will ever happen to you. There are times nationally when a people must act proactively to protect their interest.

We tried to be isolationist in WWII....Look where that got us. A major US Naval base bombed just to make sure we stayed out of the war in the Pacific.

Isolationism is a good theory, but it will not work in today's political and socioeconomical climate.

I believe that why we entered the war is now irrelevant....the question has become: Where should we go from here?

I personally believe that there are both negative and positive ramifications to any course we choose. The course we choose should, however, reflect who we as a people are, and what we stand for.
 

mikejonestkd

New member
Now I remember why I usually don't post in the legal / political forums....:rolleyes:

been here 20 days and already at 133 posts...almost none of them gun related....
 
Last edited:

Freedom_1st

Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home

-Representative Howard Buffett
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
Highly doubtful given the president and his neoconservative policies are now politically lame ducks.

This isnt a "neocon" thing...its national survival.


So you support oil imperalism?

Ha. Imperialsim? That is made up concept for the geopolitically unsophisticated and non critical thinkers.

It isnt imperialism. It's national survival. Our national interest in remaining a free and economically viable country entails the Arabs selling us and Japan oil. Any attempt to cut off that supply or threat to that supply is an act of war.

So were you shocked when people flew planes into our buildings then?

I've watched two bit terrorists for thirty years. Terrorists are PROXIES for our enemies. Our enemy is and has been for the past 20 years or so, Iran.

Note: In a historical sense, other than the Ottoman interregnum, Iran/Persia has always been the enemy of the West, going way back to the invasions of Greece. I can give you a reading list if you like.

So accept that we are imperalist who invade other nations and plunder their resources to maintain our lifestyle?

How simplistic. We aren't "plundering" anyhting. We are ensuring our fair share to maintain our lifestyle. We pay for what we take.

By the way, democracy and freedom are worthwhile concepts...and they ensure free trade.

But the bottom line is we must protect our oil supply at all costs.

The war in Iraq, bumbling as it is, is part of that. If you don't realize that you need to study history and geopolitics more.

You wouldn't personally like it if a gun was to your head. Why should the nation.

If you complain about the war in Iraq, or make noises about the conspiracy to attack iran that's your right. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Keep in mind that your very presence on this forum is due to OIL. No OIL...no nothing. If you don't want to support a fight for it, don't use it.

WildyoudontlikethatfineletsweanourselvesfromoilbutuntilthenAlaska

PS...Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations. Herman Kahn: On Thermonuclear war. Gibbon, the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire (unabridged please). Sun Tzu. The Art of war. There is a basic reading list to understand the world in a general sense.
 

Charles S

New member
Representative Howard Buffett

Certainly one of the more brilliant and progressive politicians of our time....oh wait...I was think of someone else.

I cannot believe you are quoting Buffett.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top