LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI will not make my views known as of yet as I am interested in hearing other peoples views. Question as it is phrased could possibly be a little less loaded but no matter what your stance it is an invasion, so live with the question as it stands.
To liberate the Iraqis from the Tyrannical Saddam
To expand the PNAC sphere of influence and secure natural resources and rebuilding contracts.
To find and remove any and all WOMD in Iraq.
I dont know.
I will not make my views known as of yet as I am interested in hearing other peoples views. Question as it is phrased could possibly be a little less loaded but no matter what your stance it is an invasion, so live with the question as it stands.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
where's the option that says, because daddy bush got people to advise baby bush to, and mummy blair was too scared not to go along with it. that is unless mummy planned on securing some of those "natural resources" too.
just my opinion due to the fact that i haven't really read much about how much liberating and supporting they are doing for the iraqi people, that and liberating some people that just so happen to be sitting on a proverbial gold mine is a little coincidental.
Well, the US dived in first, against the principles of almost every other country IIRC, and the UK backed them as we are paranoid about losing their support or respect.
The reasons I think the US President decided to charge in regardless were, in no particular order:
- to be seen to be taking a stance against terrorism and oppression (votes)
- to distract the US population away from the crap state of their economy and get them fired up with national pride (votes)
- oil (money)
- to be remembered in the history books (ego)
It frightens me that someone so clueless manages to attain the primary position of power on the planet - he seriously seemed to think once Iraq was occupied and controlled it would all be over, then he thought it would be over once Saddam was found, now he's saying they will pull out by the end of June when it looks nowhere near a stable environment...
~ I have CDO. It's like OCD except the letters are in alphabetical order, as they should be. ~
PC: Win10 x64 | Asus Maximus VIII | Core i7-6700K | 16GB DDR3 | 2x250GB SSD | 500GB SSD | 2TB SATA-300 | GeForce GTX1080
Camera: Canon 60D | Sigma 10-20/4.0-5.6 | Canon 100/2.8 | Tamron 18-270/3.5-6.3
Supposedly to find WOMD.
R-points pyramid scheme is NOT allowed on HEXUS. Please do not add it back again - thank you.
Poll edited with a new WOMD answer. Let me know if you want your vote changing.Originally Posted by Ice Kay
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
I think its a mixture tbh. I voted to remove tyrannical saddam as after the WOMD saga was exposed this seems to be the main area the governemts were cocentraing on with regards to propoganda...
In reality i think maybe bush wanted oil and building contracts.
Why not vote for "reality"?
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
I voted i don't know.
We went in because GWB asked Blair to. Thats the only reason as far as i can see.
GWB went in i think because he was advised to. Why?
Those are probably pretty close. I think he went to war because he could not easily get any further in Afghanistan, and he had no idea how exactly he was going to deal with Al-Queda and fulfill his promises to rid the world of terrorism, so he turned his mind somewhere else, and took the easy option. Iraq. He didn't need the military might of the UK - but he needed a puppet in europe to try and appease the EU, so as not to look like it was just another hot headed bush going to war. The puppet served its purpose. Unfortunatly for us.
Butuz
Am I right in thinking that most of you are on a bank holiday today?
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Why would today be a bank holiday? Its a thursday.
Butuz
Thanks for changing the poll Beenster, I had messaged Saracen but I took it he was on holliers today.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Well there is very little activity and I know my fiancee is on a bank holiday and the Germans are on one too which is why I have nothing to do today.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Nope, but only just logged on. I've amended option one using the exact wording in your PM, but it looks like Beeny did most of it already
Why did they invade? The simple answer is (in my view) ........... 9/11.
Let me explain. 9/11 changed policy. Bush has said it several times - the gloves are off.
What I take that to mean is that for years, terrorists have been attacking the US in one way or another (car bombs, embassy bombs, US Cole, etc) and the US has always sworn to "bring the perpetrators to justice" and, usually, saying that is about all they do.
Then 9/11 happened. Al Qaida kicked a sleeping bear, and it got pis..... erm, annoyed.
The result, the bear woke up and changed policy. The most overt signs of that are Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, before anyone says that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida, I know that, and I don't think it is the point. The point, I believe, is a seed change in US policy. After 9/11, the US has decided to get rather more proactive in defending themselves and their interests. I have no doubt that oil was a consideration, but I believe it is simplistic to assume it's the entire reason. I'm inclined to believe Bush when he talks about defending the US national interest, and about ending a threat to the stability of the entire middle east. THAT, I believe, is why Saddam went. From what I can see, WMD was certainly a part of the calculation. Whether the US (and UK) intelligence on the extent of Saddam's WMD stockpiles was right or wrong, I don't know. Maybe it was right, and they have been hidden or moved (maybe abroad), maybe the intel was wrong (which seems likely). What does seem clear is that Saddam certainly had intentions in that department and, given the chance, was quite capable of using them.
So, was WMD a reason or an excuse. Dunno. What about his human rights record? Excuse or reason? Again, dunno. But even if it was an excuse not a reason, I'm certainly not sorry to see Saddam's regime go. I do feel that the US has made severe mistakes in Iraq, not least of which is abysmal planning for what happened AFTER the war. But I also feel that the acid test is not what Iraq is like 6 months or a year after Saddam fell, but 5 years, 10 years or 20 years later.
Iraq COULD be a modern, prosperous and wealthy state, with it's citizens far better off than they have been in a long time. It could be a force for stability and the seeding of democracy in the middle east - and THAT may well have been high on the US's list of reasons. But whether it works out that way remains to be seen.
I do feel that the reason for the US invading Iraq is the overall change in policy caused by 9/11 - the removal of the gloves. The message seems to me to be that NOW, the US is FULLY prepared to use military force as and when it feels it is needed, to protect it's interests. If nothing else, it is sending a VERY clear message to other governments and dictators - you are NOT necessarily safe sitting behind your own borders. Libya certainly seems to have got the message, and it remains unclear who else might have been acknowledging it behind closed doors. One wonders at the degree of cooperation Pakistan (and especially Musharref) have been providing over Afghanistan, despite what seems to be opinion on the street in Pakistan, ...... and WHY Musharref is so cooperative? What other ears have been bent in private? Remember what Bush said (State of the Union address I think) ....... paraphrasing, "either you're with us or you're against us". Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. I think he meant that neutrality is not an option on this issue.
Oh, and there's another major factor too. The breakdown of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War. And the fact that the other "super-powers", Russia and China both have terrorist (and Islamic terrorist at that) problems of their own, so aren't likely to directly confront the US over it's escapades in this area. It gives the US rather more of a geopolitical free hand than would have been the case had the Soviet Union still existed and been prepared to mobilise to protect it's interests. Now, the interests of the US and Russia are far closed than they have been for a long time.
So you voted for the government line while believing something else, kinda defeats the purpose of having an opinion, no?
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
I believe 9/11 was a catalyst nothing more, I dont think it changed any policy, it made covert actions overt, it allowed the PNAC plans free-reign.
hmmm suspect reasoning this, personally I think the US/UK have been terrorising people for years.
Afghanistan has natural gas and neeeded a pipeline, Iraq has/had oil.
Surely putting the reins on Israel would be a much better way to stabilise the middle East? Is it a case of one bad apple in the pile or is it a case of a pile of bad apples with one good one? I find it hard to believe the latter.
Hmmm dont agree with this logic at all, when specific reasons such as torture of citizens etc are cited and the "liberator" uses these same methods then the argument is already lost. Personally I think US is an extremely racist country and looks upon the Arabs as "untermenschen" and you only need to look at the popular press to know how racist the UK can be.
So they are trying to put right the mess they made there in supporting Saddam and supplying him with weapons?(and no Saracen I still cant convince you on this one maybe but I am convinced that they supplied Saddam with weapons and technology to create them)
Musharraf is a dictator, again exposing the double standard that is so sickening about this. Hmmm so I'm against that is clear anyway, would I want to be with that? In this paragraph you acknowledge PNAC influence.
The fact that the end of the cold war lead to no enemy and no work for the arms industry, Carlisle Group would be getting all jittery about their million dollar bonuses.
Personally I am a cynic, I have lived in Saudi Arabia as a child while my father worked for a French company on building work. I always disagreed with the US and UK foreign policies, it is unrealistic to say that the British are only tagging along as they were the masters of Empire in their day and want to bring their experience to the table as they know about occupation and specifically have previously occupied Iraq (quelle surprise?) and pick up any scraps that are knocking about with regard to cheap fuel deals or building contracts.
On a side note am glad to see the new government in India, lets hope they make some changes and at least kick out McKinsey consultants.
It's the economy stupid!
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote