What is the real motivation(s) for this war?

Are WMDs really the reason?

Is there a need to secure Iraqi oil reserves so that the US does not depend on Saudi reserves?

Or is it just the need to kick ass after 9/11 whether or not there is a real connection with Al-Qaeda?

Have I left any off the list?

[Skeptical Greg]

All of the above..

Diogenes :

I think the problem in Europe is that we have been given vast amounts of propaganda that this is about the weapons of mass destruction, but very few people believe that is the real reason. When that argument was seen to be failing we got loads of propaganda about links with Al-Qaeda, and very few people believe that either. This war is about oil reserves, political control and imposing regime change in Iraq.

So why are we continually told it is about WMDs and Al-Qaeda?

People are sick of being lied to and having their intelligence insulted.

[The Don]

How about

"Distract the voters from the poor economic record"

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Diogenes :

So why are we continually told it is about WMDs and Al-Qaeda?


Probably because the politicians know that if they hinted it might be even partly about oil, they would be jumped all over. I think Diogenes is right - it's all of the above, in part. But there are large numbers of people who think that oil is an iniquitous thing to fight over even though it's vitally important, in reality, so that aspect gets played right down.

[edthedoc]

Oil, oil, oil, oil, more oil, votes and because his father did it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Diogenes :

I think the problem in Europe is that we have been given vast amounts of propaganda that this is about the weapons of mass destruction, but very few people believe that is the real reason. When that argument was seen to be failing we got loads of propaganda about links with Al-Qaeda, and very few people believe that either. This war is about oil reserves, political control and imposing regime change in Iraq.

So why are we continually told it is about WMDs and Al-Qaeda?

People are sick of being lied to and having their intelligence insulted.

So, is this a poll, or " who agrees with me "?


One's intelligence is insulted, only if they deem it so..

[Kodiak]

Technically, all of the above, but mostly oil and region stabilization (AKA protect Israel).

[Doubt]

I would say 4 out of 5 of the above.

I don't buy into the gaining control of the Iraqi oil. We would not need to control it. Ignore all the rest and Iraq would be quite happy to sell oil to anyone.

We do need to make sure that there is no threat to the world oil supply, or we are all in deep do-do. This guy has a Stalinist mentality and that makes him a threat.

The one thing that really bothers me is what to do after he is gone. Having US troops doing occupation duty means they are not available to be deployed elsewhere.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by The Don
How about

"Distract the voters from the poor economic record" Important omission.

As per Doubt, was there a threat that Iraq was going to stop selling oil, and therefore cut its own throat? And securing Iraqi oil in case the Saudis do so? Are we worried that they might?

[corplinx]

The real motivation for this war is to get back Tom Selleck's mustache from Saddam. Him flaunting it publicly on his own lip is a slap in the face of every american.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by corplinx
The real motivation for this war is to get back Tom Selleck's mustache from Saddam. Him flaunting it publicly on his own lip is a slap in the face of every american.

Saddam stole it from Mario, not Tom Selleck. We're going to war to protect Nintendo's copyright and to give Electronic Arts the chance to make another Desert Strike-style game.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Diogenes :

I think the problem in Europe is that we have been given vast amounts of propaganda that this is about the weapons of mass destruction, but very few people believe that is the real reason. When that argument was seen to be failing we got loads of propaganda about links with Al-Qaeda, and very few people believe that either. This war is about oil reserves, political control and imposing regime change in Iraq.

So why are we continually told it is about WMDs and Al-Qaeda?

People are sick of being lied to and having their intelligence insulted.

Because it is. It's complex Geoff. It's about all of the above and more. I clicked all the boxes. They are all pertinent.

-Rick

[patnray]

I'm with The Don. Bush created an artificial crisis before the last election do draw attention from his failures and lend urgency to electing a congress that will back him. Look for another crisis to be created before the next election, but not resolved until afterwards.

[shanek]

I voted for #s 3 and 5, and would also write in "To boost the President's populatiry rating so he can ride it into re-election."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Saddam stole it from Mario, not Tom Selleck. We're going to war to protect Nintendo's copyright and to give Electronic Arts the chance to make another Desert Strike-style game.

There was an F-16 flight sim for PC, called ' Return to Baghdad '..

Never really did very well.. This could be a great opportunity to re-market it..:)

[Plutarck]

All Of The Above, and probably some other reasons I'm not thinking of at the moment.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek
"To boost the President's populatiry rating so he can ride it into re-election."

I might go along with that. Evidence?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Plutarck
All Of The Above, and probably some other reasons I'm not thinking of at the moment.

There is at least one or two that I'm not thinking of either..:D

[Number Six]

I think part of it is 9/11 angst. Part of it might be true concern that Iraq would give Al Qaeda real weapons, although ironically the approach must just be making that more likely. Part of it is that it's in Israel's neighborhood. Part of it might be a Bush family vs Saddam thing. Part of it might be that since 9/11 the US is going to take a more pro-active "We're going to export democracy" strategy, but given the religious and ethnic sensibities over Iraq, this step is only going to be successful if the war is really quick and if the Iraqi people are cheeing in the streets and throwing flowers at American soldiers coming into Baghdad, which is far from certain.

I really don't get the oil thing. It's not like Saddam has a bunch of oil that he refuses to share and so we're trying to make him. He'll sell as much oil to anyone as he's allowed to. If the US wanted as much Iraqi oil on the market as possible the thing to do would be to drop all the sanctions and let Saddam do what he wants short of invading another country.

I don't know what's going to happen and I think it's a very dangerous situation for both the short term and the long term. But the "US is invading Iraq for oil" stuff just doesn't make sense to me.

[Jon_in_london]

All of the above + economic distraction

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
I might go along with that. Evidence?

Not directly, but Bush has to know that all of history's popular presidents presided over a war or some other kind of major conflict.

[Richard G]

http://politicsandprotest.org/

THIS is what we are fighting for. Don't forget it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Diogenes


There was an F-16 flight sim for PC, called ' Return to Baghdad '..

Never really did very well.. This could be a great opportunity to re-market it..:)

Try playing "Ace Combat III" on the Playstation 2. Much fun...

[Drooper]

I can't believe people still buy into this oil nonsense. There is no sensible logic that can support this assertion.

1) The US is not/would not be able to annex Iraq. The oil is in, or rather under, Iraq. Invasion or no invasion it will continue to be within the Iraqi sovereign domain.

2) If iraqi supplies come back on line, this will have no measurable effect on prices. Price is the name of the game in OPEC and production is shifted around to maintain it.

Originally posted by Drooper
I can't believe people still buy into this oil nonsense. There is no sensible logic that can support this assertion.

1) The US is not/would not be able to annex Iraq. The oil is in, or rather under, Iraq. Invasion or no invasion it will continue to be within the Iraqi sovereign domain.

2) If iraqi supplies come back on line, this will have no measurable effect on prices. Price is the name of the game in OPEC and production is shifted around to maintain it.

Drooper....

Where do you think the real Al-Qaeda links are?

Iraq?

Or Saudi Arabia, where Osmam Bin Laden came from, and where most of the funding for Al-Qaeda comes from?

The United States cannot currently deal with the Al-Qaeda in Saudi because it needs Saudi oil.

Just a thought.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


Not directly, but Bush has to know that all of history's popular presidents presided over a war or some other kind of major conflict.

It seems to me that Bush (of all people) would know that this doesn't work to get someone re-elected.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Drooper....

Where do you think the real Al-Qaeda links are?

Iraq?

Or Saudi Arabia, where Osmam Bin Laden came from, and where most of the funding for Al-Qaeda comes from?

The United States cannot currently deal with the Al-Qaeda in Saudi because it needs Saudi oil.

Just a thought.

Interesting post Geoff....food for thought.

-z :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It seems to me that Bush (of all people) would know that this doesn't work to get someone re-elected.

Oh? It got Lincoln re-elected. It got Kennedy re-elected. It got FDR re-elected interminably.

[headscratcher4]

It got Kennedy re-elected

:confused: 1961-1963.

Do you mean it got Johnson elected?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


:confused: 1961-1963.

Do you mean it got Johnson elected?

Perhaps it got Kennedy killed? ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
:confused: 1961-1963.

Do you mean it got Johnson elected?

Johnson, yeah, not Kennedy. Oops.

(And technically, I guess, he wasn't re-elected since he wasn't elected before; but he did become elected after holding office, kind of the same thing.)