Re: the concept that the reason for the invasion of Iraq is a confluence of smaller reasons vs. one larger reason: While I can agree with this, to a degree, in theiry, it both has shortcomings in practice and fails as a defense for the administration. A) You can call it unique, sure, but you can construct similarly weighted though differently composed confluences for several other areas. You can rattle off a list of reasons why Liberia or North Korea or Pakistan or Sudi Arabia should be invaded. None of these might pass the litmus test without rhetoric, and likely wouldn't receive popular or global support, but all could easily be seen to surpass Iraq as justifiable. B) When you begin to see that some of the more significant strands in the weave are not only false, but were known to be false by those using them as justification, it belies the idea that an accumulation is sufficient as a backdrop to what sells, and seems more to be motivated by some reason the administration did not feel the public would support, but was throwing everything at the fridge to see what sticks. WMDs stuck, and fom that point on were used as THE reason. Remove that...and the threat...and the 9-11 connection, etc. etc. and the mish mash is reduced even further to ideas we wouldn't have supported, and which even more could apply to almost uncountable nations. Thus the unique conflunce itself as a justification falls apart at the seams. C) That the administration sold the war on a single justification with additional benefits itself tells us what they felt about the support they would get for the confluence justification. D) Even if you consider the additional reasons beyond the false ones used to sell the war, it still wouldn't excuse the administration for misleading us, even if they believed it to be for our own good. Completely antithetical to responsible government, and also almost endemic to despots and tyrants throughout history, possibly including Saddam himself. E) Finally, if oil/profits is even one of the motivations for this war, it is not only reprehensible, it can be justified as saying the war was about oil. If it was in the mix, we don't know that it didn't tip the balance, and in that case, as opposed to other issues already public and already debated, this would be beyond the pale. The other reasons can be argued, whether you agree or not, to be within the purvue of the administration: defending us from threats, exporting our political idealogy, etc. Profiteering most certainly is not, and would color the entire process and more than call into question any and all altrustic/logical rationale for the invasion.
So, you're mad because we've moved off the thread topic? Ok, put the thread topic to the side for a second. Don't get mad. I'm more interested in your contention that "no greed" exist in this administration. Uh, oil? Come on man....you're learning. And please don't compare Cuba to the ME. They are different regions. You might like to jumble them into one big clump of similarity. They are not. Priorities do exist you know? Just a note. I was using a CEO and Coke as examples just so you could get a clear understanding of the people involved and how they think. Maybe to the Democrats and Moderate Repubs. Bot not the Neo-Conservatives.
Put it this way: When we know that a great deal of deception went on in selling the war to our people and our allies, when we know that the primary reasons for the war have either proven false or were already known to be highly questionable to begin with, and when we know that other regions with at least as many accumulative reasons for invasion but lacking in one single motivation, which is also the only motivation which wouldn't and couldn;t possibly fly as a justification in public aren't even being considered for invasion, and in some cases are in fact recieving preferential treatment, it certainly the question, and precludes automatic dismissal of profiteering as a motivation or the motivation. If you want to continue to give the administration, in the face of all known facts, the benefit of the doubt, and draw some subjective line in the sand that they simply wouldn't cross, because...well...they just wouldn't, fine. that's your right. But knowing how many lines they've already crossed, and given the other factos, it is not a logical position to state it as an impossibility, or an indefensible position to say that without Iraq's oil, we wouldn't have invaded.
None of the examples provide the 'confluence' of justifications that Iraq did as we've detailed earlier in the thread. Not really. More like a jury looking at a lot of circumstantial evidence. Some of it may fall into the unconvincing pile but the accumulation of a lot of it can easily convince someone that ultimately they're right on with their assessment. To conclude that some of the information was false automatically means it was for profit is a huge leap. Certainly any knowing false information is not good. Bad administration. Bad! But let's not overstate it. It might be 'like' a decision Saddam would have made (ie without the support of the people) in that specific sense. It does not make Bush - Saddam, or comparable in an on balance evaluation. We don't know if it was in the mix. As I've said previously there is far more reason to believe it was either a 'confluence' or one of the big ones in isolation than money in isolation.
Look, genius. I get mad at MacBeth, ok. You're not a pimple on his ass yet. This is a big non-answer. Go back to my response and see if you can piece your argument back together again. Then I'll respond. That's the way this works, slick.
What does 'Iraq's oil' mean, anyway? Are we saying that we now have access to that oil? Or that we 'own' the oil? Why wouldn't these mad scheming Ceo's just push Bush to normalize with Saddam? We have more to offer Saddam than the French or the German's and a bigger market. Why not just say 'ok, hey's cool now,' and then open the oil market? Why go to war? That just doesn't make sense. And to take it further and say 'well, we'll blow a lot of stuff up that has to be rebuilt, so we'll get those contracts!' seems to be a lot more work than its worth. I mean, geez, can't we assume Cheney can think of better, easier, less dangerous ways to bilk the system out of some cash? Also, the fact that we tried to get the UN to go in cuts greatly against this. Remember that we would not have had the control over the contracts if they had said yes.
Lets get to the heart of the matter... I'm more interested in your contention that "no greed" exist in THIS administration. Why insist that these guys are "angels" or something? Are you saying that this administration has "no greed?"
That was my main point. This is why when you start moving on to other countries, like N. Korea, Cuba, and China, the motives and benefits, of forcing change, differ. Each is treated separately, with different motives (although the long term goal IS globalization). N. Korea, has nukes, they have a standing army, no massive oil reserves...all this has a direct correlation on the decision making and course of action. There is less vested interest of oil/stability of the region, and more towards stopping the problem of nuclear proliferation. Haiti and Bosnia; different reasons too. Iraq is another story. This is why the reasons for war of "preemption" and "imminent threat" are faulty ***reasons***. Well, that's unless one is a neo-con and believe in global change by force. What you tell the American people really doesn't matter. As long as they go along with the story. Again, I'm not saying it's only "money in isolation." But it's a strong factor of motivation; some short term (depending on the region) and more importantly, long term (no matter what region)!
Memories... Let me bring you back to a conversation we had pre-war, wherein I cited an historical example of nations invading other areas in pursuit of their own interests, nominally in self-defense/for humanitarian reasons, which constituted imperialism in spite of the absence of permanent geographic annexation. Athens. During the Peloponnesian Wars. Invaded other aeas not practicing democracy, thus limiting Athens ability to politically influence and economically profit from said regions. They would invade, institute a democractic government of sympathetic locals, stay long enough to stamp out resistance, and leave having ensured that trade with said region would benefit Athenian traders. At the time you called it a charming story, I believe, but pointed out how inappropriate it was as a parallel because the Us wasn't going into Iraq for economic profit, but to defend themselves, I pointed out that every superpower has had pretexts for invading lesser nations in their own interests, self defense being the most common. You said I was ignoring facts like WMDs and the AQ connection, which proved we were acting in self defense, and that only my anti-Americanism made me question the veracity of the administration's claims. Care to revise your position? Or will you, rather, revise the inconvenient points of your arguement but arrive at the same conclusion( The US is different/better than every example in history)? If, as Cheney et al believed, the war was going to be a minor skirmish and we would be welcomed with open arms, it is far, far easier to simply eliminate Saddam ( who was also, recall, saying he was going to go off of the US dollar and onto the Euro as standard) with whom trade would have been highly problematic and subject to competition, and replace him with a government predisposed ( and, dare we say, indebted) to specific ( read administration-friendly) US interests and effectively make them a subject nation dependant on the US ( which accurately describes the situation even in spite of the chaso, no?) I am not saying I personally believe this to be the actual situation, at least not in isolation, as you say, but was responding to your why not scenario. I do believe, however that it easily could have been a significant part of the puzzle, in addition to a faith based reverse domino theory, an existing personal emnity with Saddam, and a means of realizing our alliance with israel beyond material support. I also belive that, in spite of what the intel was telling us, many in the administration chose to see Iraq as a threat, but that's their responsibility.
Well, first your memory is bad. I never said the AQ connection was legit. Look it up. Second, I said then as I continue to say that the removal of Saddam was enough to justify the intervention even if the administration was not justifying it properly. Look it up. Third, I did say Saddam was a WMD threat, although I didn't say it was imminent. I did say it was inevitable, and nothing that has happened has changed that either. I was wrong in that I thought Saddam has SOME WMDs, although not nuclear. It wasn't the yellow cake or aluminum tubes that convinced me of that though, it was Saddam purposely portraying himself as having them and playing games with inspectors. Nope. Don't have to revise anything except my belief that he had WMD. That doesn't change the outcome nor my justifications prior to this. They tried to get the UN to do it, no? That cuts against your argument. Besides they offered no to invade if he disclosed everything, right? That cuts against this and leads me to believe that they saw what they wanted to see, which is that he had WMDs. With the other variables, or confluence, as you call it, the decided to do it. That makes more sense to me than removing Saddam by invasion. I guess I don't think they're that callous, despite what are admittedly serious cases of lying/misleading the public. Of course. We are all familiar with your love of being the devil's advocate, which usually corresponds with your NOT believing what you are arguing for. But it could. I think your last sentence sums up what I believe.
YOU IDIOTS..................................... the oil in Iraq is worth trillions of dollars...the expense of the war is far below of what the U.S is going to benefit from JUST OIL..... By the way the U.S uses more oil than any other nation...not by a little but by ALOT...i don't have the figures on my finger tips and don't feel like getting them....too lazy anyway oil is what runs the economy......war usually increases jobs and increases the economic situation for the two countries at war...don't want to explain the economics...will take too long ..... anyway it's ALL ABOUT THE OIL...if you think otherwise your loyal idiot.
