Why did the US invade Iraq?
"For oil" is not a complete or rational response, please expand your logic. The world has spent over $2T to suppress fundamentalists and seed a democracy (or whatever government) that can represent the people and sustain peace and security. To suggest another motive is insulting and disrespectful to those who have sacrificed so much.
Who is going to get the oil? The U.S. or OPEC? The U.S. is not an entity like a communist or socialist government; it does not own anything. If Iraq were to be conquered and divided up, it would have been done a few years ago already. With the US as the visible leader in this engagement, the US is obligated to not take advantage of Iraq resources and to provide security until the country’s civil war has waned. Anything less would disrupt the peace and security of every nation and make the US appear to be an aggressor which would bring the wrath of the world upon the US.
This war demonstrates the general ability for the U.S. to do the right thing regardless of the fiscal consequence. Conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, and the daily protection of Taiwan remind me that the U.S. does not engage for economical or personal gain. The U.S. represents every nationality. Financially, Americans do not wish to be the International Cops, and the first response is avoidance as in WWI and WWII. However, when a large voice is created and the words Holocaust are reflected upon, the US will ante up the money and resources. The invasion in Iraq is not a US campaign or a Bush initiative, both of these would have played out differently. It is still an international effort, the US contribution is just the 800# gorilla that critics focus on.
I am sorry for Saddam’s arrogance. His stand was clearly to ‘puff’ in front of his country. He should have picked a different nemesis and stance, the US would have continued to supply his regime with weapons that were suppressing civil war. Saddam was a dictator, he used a military force and a disregard for human life to maintain his power and control. It actually worked to control the delicate balance of power among religious fundamentalists, possibly at the expense of the more subdued Kurdish.
In retrospect, it is really a shame that Saddam was ousted. His tyrannical power really balanced the Sunni and Shiite population. I cannot imagine a democracy that can balance and respect the power of each faction in that region; it has become a civil war and fight and a race for dominance.
So with world oil reserves in the Middle East, Russia, US, Africa, and South America that sustain beyond any of our lives (contrary to the fearful estimates of earlier decades), why would you believe that $2T and 100,000 lives is the price that people would pay for oil?
I am very interested in expatriating to the Middle East to assist with growth and development of infrastructure. Can you help me to make this a reality?
5 comments:
...You may be right that we are not there for the oil (only) or for any "imperialistic" reasons. Most people that make the oil accusation, take into account Bush & Cheney's oil past (walks like a duck...must be a duck).
The reason we went there is because, as C. Rice said "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The administration believed that Saddam had his WMDs cocked, loaded & aimed @ the US...& we didn't want to fight the war in our streets, so we went over there...the rest is the quagmire we're still tryin' to figure our way out of.
The Iraqi connection to 9/11 is weak to non-existant. It's Bin Laden we wanted, but we lost him & had to find a scape-goat. Now Saddam's dead & the world isn't any safer without the tyrant--& no, most Iraqis don't want him back.
It was only later that the Bush administration had to "put lipstick on pig" by claiming that we were there to introduce Democracy & freedom to a country that's never had it.
The primary question now, is how to help these people (the Iraqis) out of the mess (war) we created, with the least amount of lives sacrificed (on all sides) in the war that had as an afterthought, rhetorical notions of democracy & freedom!
We all want the war to end!--but how?
...& yes if you can help by expatriating to the Middle East to assist with growth and development of infrastructure, you should--seriously!
The world needs smart, motivated, & friendly people like you, to make things happen!!
Some quote Horace Greeley as sayin': "Go west, young man & grow up with the country" (it was actually 1st said by John B. L. Soule). I'm saying, go to the Middle East & create a better place--they need you!
...just heard 'bout Engineers Without Borders USA:
ewb-usa.org
this may be a place to start with your helping Middle East ideas.
...also noticed that in my 1st entry, I should have written that the Iraqis don't want the likes of Saddam back...since he can't rise from the dead, even if we/they want him to, or not.
...& I meant to say "putting lipstick on a pig." (LOL!!)
Yeah, I see it that way too.
I like the Obama comments "there is no military solution in Iraq" http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/21/ap4040746.html
Its such a peaceful, accurate, but political statement. Hilary is mimmicking this perspective. They are both intelligent enough and sympathetic enough to continue providing security to Iraq, but the statement just sounds sooo good to the Americans who believe their #1 concern is to see US troops abandon Iraq.
While military is not THE solution, any solution will require international troops to provide security while a new culture and government grows.
"Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," Army Gen. David Petraeus said at his first news conference since assuming command last month.
Political negotiations were vital and would require reaching out to "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them," Petraeus said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient."
...one of the main "players" seems to agree with Obama too.
Post a Comment