Real Reason America Went To War

[mirror]

Ah, just a brief question about your nuclear response.

Where and who would you have nuked?

[err]

In the spring of 2001, the Americans began amassing troops on Saudi soil.  (Dick Cheney (Defence minister under George Bush senior) had been plotting the Iraqi attack for some time, long before Bush was elected, it would appear).  The growing American presence was the last straw....  The Saudi people, especially ones like Osama Bin Laden did not want his country to be the home for the American infidels...

There is a category of dishonesty called "Lying by omission" which I believe this falls under. The US first put troops on Saudi soil at their request after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was the springboard for US and allied attacks to free Kuwait. Afterwards, most Amerians left, but since Iraq was still considered dangerous some US troops stayed to deter future attacks.

After the first Gulf war, most of the Americans went home from Saudi Arabia. In 2001, George Warmonger Bush started sending troops to Saudi arabia in preparation for their upcoming planned war. Note that this commenced before 9/11.

PS. I think the problem is not due to the facts, but rather because of Argus's "not believing due to either ignorance or stupidity, maybe both"

On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his followers lashed out at the infidels. 

bin Laden's group was responsible for attacks on Americans going back to at least 1998, and there are strong suggestions his group was tied in to the original attack on the WTC in 1993. So to suggest that he "lashed out", an interesting euphemism for mass murder, in response to the US gathering forces for a second attack is so much sputum. The attack on the WTC took a long time to organize and was not in response to the US threats against Iraq. It was caused by religious fanaticsm and hatred of those who did not share his religious beliefs and those of his largely ignorant followers.

Because they hated freedom ????

This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for.  They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack.

More sputum. Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region, and a continuing threat to its neighbours. The US decided that something needed to be done to get at the roots of Mulim fanatacism in the middle east. That meant cultural changes. All Arab states were brutal dictatorships, and the only alternative people saw was islamic radicals who were fighting the various governments. Iraq was perfectly located so that if the US could turn it into a reasonable facimile of a democratic state it would provide a lesson to the rest of the Arab world - there is an alternative to Islamic radicalism. The people of Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia could hardly ignore a functioning democratic Arab state next door.

The people of Iran had a fully functioning democracy in the 1950s. The USA (more specifically, the CIA) went into Iran and toppled the Massedegh government and installed the infamous "Shah of Iran". The USA did this because Massedegh nationalized the country's oil. Massedegh had roughly 80% of the popular vote at the time, and ran a totally non-aggressive government. The nationalization was so that the citizens of Iran weren't treated like dogs while only the oil companies American and British employees could ride the busses and go to the theatres. Here's one middle-east case where the USA removed democracy to benefit Big American Oil.

In Saudi Arabia, the USA made a deal with the Saudi royal family (in the 1950s) that still holds today. The USA would protect the royal family from any threats, including democracy, using the American military to guarantee the Saudi royal family's security. In return, the Saudi royal family guaranteed American oil companies access to their oil. Here is another case where the USA has prevented democracy from thriving in the middle east to benefit Big American Oil.

Certainly the oil factored into this. Putting pressure on Saudi Arabia to cut back on its financial support for Islamic fundamentalism around the world would be far easier if the US had some control over Iraq's oil, (and had troops on the Saudi border). Of course, they couldn't say that, nor could they try and say publicly they were trying to reform the Arab world. You just don't say such things.

The Saudi royal family isn't who is financing Al Queda. It is rich Saudi citizens. The royal family want's Al Queda stopped for fear of reprisals against Saudi Arabia, and more specifically, their reign of the country.

So they opted to get CONTROL of one of 10% of the world's oil.... because CONTROL is better than ACCESS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paranoid nonsense. The US is commited to free elections. They are not going to be able to control Iraq's government beyond that. The new government will be supported by the Shiite religious leaders, and they won't need the US for anything. So you are suggesting the US spent a vast fortune, not to mention thousands of lives, to gain control of Iraq's oil for a couple of brief years? Ludicrous.

Had the USA not attacked Iraq, and UN sanctions be lifted, neither the USA nor Britain (or at least their oil firms) would have had a look at Iraq's oil. It was going to Russia, Holland, and France... the deals were in place.

The USA already has its oil companies in Iraq. The main goal has been achieved. Now they have to figure out how to get out of Iraq....

If a new elected government were to try to nationalize the country's oil, the USA could just go in and topple the government (clandestinely, of course) as they did with the Massedegh governent in Iran, and how they tried to do it with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Noone would be the wiser as to who would have killed off the new president, as there is so much violence going on over there anyways....

As a side point, we should look at alternative motives for the Bush administration's attacking Iraq. Everybody in a key position in the Bush administration came from Big Oil... They were all on boards of directors of Big Oil.... And so they shall return to be rewarded for the billions of dollars per year of extra profits that their actions have brought about.... Just like Dick Cheney was rewarded with the CEO position of Haliburton when he, as defense minister, privatized huge portions of the US army and contracted them out to Haliburton.... That is fact... nothing involving parinoia about it...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

"There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."

Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts

I have and have read the book, if someone on the commission thought the info was erroneous, they should have said so at the time. What you have provided is an accusation, not proof, especially when it uses terms like "may well have been".

[flyonthewall]

I dunno, guys. I don't claim any particular insight into US motives, but I just can't convince myself that oil is it. Someone posted earlier about Iraq being the world's second largest oil reserve. I think he needs to rethink that.

If the US really wanted control of vast oil, I truly believe they would look to the north. Now, don't start sputtering about global outrage and how the world wouldn't stand for it. We are the only ones who would be really upset. The rest of the world already thinks we're the same country.

Alberta's oil sands are the richest reserve on the planet. There's that sputtering again!! No, it's not too expensive to extract. Extraction is far cheaper than war. Unless I'm mistaken, the expense argument went out the door when oil blew through 50 bucks a barrel.

What follows is opinion. If the US really wanted oil, they could likely get all of ours, without firing a shot. A few well-places trillions of US dollars, strategically applied, would secure pretty much whatever the You-alls want from Canada, for as long as they want it. I'm not sure they have anybody bright enough to pull it off politically, but I'm confident they could do it financially.

End of rant.

[Black Dog]

I dunno, guys.  I don't claim any particular insight into US motives, but I just can't convince myself that oil is it.  Someone posted earlier about Iraq being the world's second largest oil reserve.  I think he needs to rethink that. 

    If the US really wanted control of vast oil, I truly believe they would look to the north.  Now, don't start sputtering about global outrage and how the world wouldn't stand for it.  We are the only ones who would be really upset.  The rest of the world already thinks we're the same country.

    Alberta's oil sands are the richest reserve on the planet.  There's that sputtering again!!  No, it's not too expensive to extract.  Extraction is far cheaper than war.  Unless I'm mistaken, the expense argument went out the door when oil blew through 50 bucks a barrel.

    What follows is opinion.  If the US really wanted oil, they could likely get all of ours, without firing a shot.  A few well-places trillions of US dollars, strategically applied, would secure pretty much whatever the You-alls want from Canada, for as long as they want it.  I'm not sure they have anybody bright enough to pull it off politically, but I'm confident they could do it financially.

End of rant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm so tired of people missing the forest for the trees on this. Notwithstanding the fact that Iraqi oil is, in theory at least, far cheaper to extract than the stuff from the oil sands (three times cheaper), the oil argument has never been about supply, but about control over access. Prior to the Iraq war, U.S. companies were barred from dealing with Saddam's regime, which meant lucrative contracts were going to Russian, European and Chionese companies. Now, with Saddam gone (courtesy the U.S.A.) those American companies can move to the front of the line. Furthermore, a U.S. military prescence in the region ensures that potential rivals are denied or limited access to oil.

Oil is probably the single most important driver of foreign policy today. I can't for the life of me understand why people are so quick to dismiss the only explanation that makes any sense from a strategic standpoint.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Prior to the Iraq war, U.S. companies were barred from dealing with Saddam's regime,

Not exactly, for there were plenty of shady dealings with many companies, over 2000, I believe. Secondly, according to Gwynne Dyer in the book "Future: Tense", the USA bought over 50% of Iraq's production in the month before the invasion (to top up their strategic reserve).

However, noting China's aggressive approach to procuring oil supplies, the US could not stand idly by and have Saddam sell to the highest bidder (China) given the US' terrible addiction to oil.

[moderateamericain]

no we went for oil. which if you wanna remain the dominate world power in the world, makes strategic sense. Dont want that oil going to China now do we!