Thread: What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

ejca, et al,

The "Oil Argument" is merely one reason for the invasion of Iraq. But it is not the only reason. In order to understand just some of the impacts coming to bare, I offer the following insight in pieces.

Originally Posted by ejca

I find the war-for-oil argument a bit weak in that there are too many easier targets if it is the intention of the US to secure its oil militarily. Chavez in Venezuela for example. I didn’t buy the same argument during Viet Nam either.

But there is no shortage of learned opinion that AIPAC and other Likud tentacles in the US were most instrumental in starting and furthering the Gulf wars.

Fighting for oil somehow puts an almost positive spin on a nasty and impossible war. That the wars, in fact, are to serve the narrow interests of a tiny bunch of chicken hawks is unfortunately much more accurate.

(COMMENT)

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a very influential "Think Tank." Its membership represented a fully spectrum of diplomatic, political and quasi-military personalities; --- and included some very notable and prominent members of the business community. First, let me shed some light on the personalities involved (Partial List) - and a glimpse into the influence factor.

• Elliott Abrams: Former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and received the secretary of state's Distinguished Service Award from Secretary George P. Shultz.
• Gary Bauer: Formerly White House Office of Policy Development
• William J. Bennett; One of America's most important, influential and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.
• Dick Cheney: Former Vice President
• Eliot A. Cohen: Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the Johns Hopkins University and founding director of the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies
• Midge Decter: Author and editor whose essays and reviews have appeared in Harper's, The Atlantic, National Review, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. Member of the board of the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Security Policy
• Paula Dobriansky: Formerly Under Secretary, Global Affairs
• Steve Forbes
• Aaron Friedberg: Formerly with the office of the Vice President as deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning.
• Francis Fukuyama: Former member of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State, member specializing in Middle East affairs, and Deputy Director for European political-military affairs.
• Frank Gaffney: Founder and President Center for Security Policy, Formerly Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
• Fred C. Ikle: Former Undersecretary of Defense
• Zalmay Khalilzad: Former Ambassador Afghanistan & Iraq, National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives, and prior to that as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs.
• I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby: Former chief of staff and national security advisor to U.S. vice president Dick Cheney
• Norman Podhoretz: Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, co-founded the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD)
• Dan Quayle: Former Vice President
• Donald Rumsfeld: Former Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush from 2001-06; and Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford from 1975-77
• Paul Wolfowitz: Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, head of the U. S. State Department’s Policy Planning Office and three-and-a-half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs,
• Richard Perle: Former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy,
• R. James Woolsey: Former Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey has served in the U.S. government as: Ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE),
• John Bolton: Former ambassador to the United Nations, general counsel for the U.S. Agency for International Development
• Richard L. Armitage: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and Deputy Secretary of State

As early as 1998, the PNAC began a concerted effort to push American Policy towards invasion. The PNAC had a vision and it encompassed the furtherance of the American Hegemony.

Originally Posted by PNAC Statement of Principles 1997

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

These policy statements sound benign in isolation. But when meshed with the concept of a Political-Military Hegemony, the statements become very aggressive in nature. Their execution becomes extremely dependent on extending the shadow of American Military influence in direct support of diplomatic goals and objectives.

Originally Posted by PNAC LTR to POTUS: January 26, 1998

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. ... ... ... We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. ... ... ... If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

The idea was --- for the US to amplify and extend its military influence over the entire Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions. The plan was to capitalize on establishing a large military presents in the center of the region, such that, US diplomatic initiatives would have an obvious and credible military support activity within immediate striking distances (the carrot and stick); and Iraq was an ideal location to support these initiatives for 1500 miles in any direction.

Such an endeavor would require overwhelming domestic support by the people, acquired through the influence of the media, and key personalities. This was originally thought to be justified by the demonization of Saddam Hussein and the accentuated fear from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - an idea from the mid-1990's. Strong industrial support was envisioned by the prospects of oil contracts in support and supply. Unfortunately 911 occurred and set the stage for all the pieces to fall into place. Terrorism became the magic word and the invasion was on. The new conditions set by 911 and the subsequent Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was the tool. WMD was the means to secure domestic support and the major oil companies and defense industry saw an extended profitable opportunity. The media had a story, the population was in fear, the threat was said to be real, and the military was going to war (promotions all around) - new equipment, awards and decorations; and industry was going to profit (all kinds of contracts). Everyone was happy. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, it would last more than a decade. But, more importantly, it was believed that the grateful people of Iraq would be so happy that they would welcome the establishment of a huge military complex in their country. And with that thought in mind, the influence of America's Hegemony would be extended and reenforce the diplomatic influence over the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

In my opinion, public sector intervention in private sector markets should always promote the general welfare and engender a positive multiplier to be an investment that provides for the general welfare of the United States.

I believe USA is now the worst country because its actions destroys lives of people from a number of different countries. Saddam waz a bad guy, but the gov had absolutely no right to invade Iraq. They have no right to Invade Iran either. We have to stop these pointless wars, and it can start by voting for people have no desire to continue these pointless wars.

danielpalos, et al,

This is an interesting concept; but, must be applied in moderation.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In my opinion, public sector intervention in private sector markets should always promote the general welfare and engender a positive multiplier to be an investment that provides for the general welfare of the United States.

(COMMENT)

I believe you are correct, in as much as, the public sector (government) must act in the overall best interest of the people - if and when it intervenes.

Originally Posted by James A. Dorn, The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality

The general-welfare clause of the Constitution cannot be used to justify the welfare state. That clause simply states that the federal government, in exercising its enumerated powers, should exercise them to “promote the general welfare,” not to promote particular interests. The clause was never meant to be an open invitation to expand government far beyond its primary role of night watchman.
Source: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...of-morality-2/

Originally Posted by LYLE A. BRECHT ---DRAFT 3.5---CAPITAL MARKETS RESEARCH-

CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT CAPITALISM IS & IS NOT: Today, there are many flavors of capitalism in the world. There are also manyflavors of capitalism evident in the United States. Thus, to speak of ‘capital-ism’ as a monolithic ‘way of doing business’ in opposition to ‘government’ isnonsense. Today, in the U.S. many if not most industries either receive director hidden subsidies from the federal, state, or local governments (corporate welfarism);receive special tax breaks for their industry; and/or are regulatedin ways that create an unfair advantagefor entrenched businesses over newcompetitors. Thus, capitalism does not mean, and has never meant, a bright-line separation between business and government. It is also a falsehood that “without business profits, government could not exist.” What is more accurate is that without government setting the rules of market exchange (this in-cludes what market exchanges will be protected e.g the market for illegal drugs will not be protected but prosecuted. etc.), businesses could not make profits.
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12548397/P...hich-is-Better

But having said that, the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) in the private sector must also be tempered in consideration of the needs of the people and the nation. It is obvious, that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) cannot be allowed to strip the wealth entirely from the remainder of the people or the nation (the middle and working class); nor, can the burden of government (public sector) be disproportionately upheld by the people or the nation (the middle and working class). Compounding the nature of the capitalist society, the poor, disabled and unemployed (the entire population minus the few and powerful plus middle class) cannot be totally ignored.

There is the question as the the extent to which the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) by the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should be allowed to supersede the needs of the nation and whether such a private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should owe any patriotic duty to the nation, its strength and maintenance of the cornerstone infrastructure (health, science, eduction, and standard of living). Can it be the case that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) can be so free to amass wealth that it can totally ignore the impact on the general Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty to the people or the nation (the middle and working class) and our Posterity of the nation?

Is there a balance to be struck?

Most Respectfully,
R

I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power. As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony
3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

danielpalos, et al,

This is an interesting concept; but, must be applied in moderation.


(COMMENT)

I believe you are correct, in as much as, the public sector (government) must act in the overall best interest of the people - if and when it intervenes.



But having said that, the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) in the private sector must also be tempered in consideration of the needs of the people and the nation. It is obvious, that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) cannot be allowed to strip the wealth entirely from the remainder of the people or the nation (the middle and working class); nor, can the burden of government (public sector) be disproportionately upheld by the people or the nation (the middle and working class). Compounding the nature of the capitalist society, the poor, disabled and unemployed (the entire population minus the few and powerful plus middle class) cannot be totally ignored.

There is the question as the the extent to which the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) by the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should be allowed to supersede the needs of the nation and whether such a private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should owe any patriotic duty to the nation, its strength and maintenance of the cornerstone infrastructure (health, science, eduction, and standard of living). Can it be the case that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) can be so free to amass wealth that it can totally ignore the impact on the general Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty to the people or the nation (the middle and working class) and our Posterity of the nation?

Is there a balance to be struck?

Most Respectfully,
R

In my opinion, our civic obligation ends with official poverty. What excuse could any person in our republic have, if they could not claim to be in official poverty?

kid_x, et al,

Yes, there is the question of US intervention and the legitimacy of such actions.

Originally Posted by kid_x

I believe USA is now the worst country because its actions destroys lives of people from a number of different countries. Saddam waz a bad guy, but the gov had absolutely no right to invade Iraq. They have no right to Invade Iran either. We have to stop these pointless wars, and it can start by voting for people have no desire to continue these pointless wars.

(COMMENT)

There has never been a "right to war." To make war is a capacity of a nation.

v/r
R

danielpalos, et al,

Yes, there are a considerable number of people who believe that the mantra (excessive and rapacious pursuit for wealth and possessions) owes no patriotic duty to the nation or the people.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In my opinion, our civic obligation ends with official poverty. What excuse could any person in our republic have, if they could not claim to be in official poverty?

(COMMENT)

As Gordon Gekko (The main character in the Movie Wall Street) says: "The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. ... ... ... What's worth doing is worth doing for money."

As we've noted in recent history, BIG Business has the power and the intent to maximize the wealth in any fashion it chooses. Whether is was Chrysler or Enron, Fannie Mae or AIG, --- the banking industry in general that was bailed-out by the public. Even today, after the huge bail-out of the financial industry, they are at it again in what is called: the Derivative Market.

There is no allegiance business owes to the investor, the people, or the nation, in unrestrained capitalism manipulated by the rich and powerful. As long as they maximize their wealth, they have no remorse in the pain and suffering they cause, the losses incurred, or the jobs displaced. They are safe in the knowledge that when the bubble bursts, the public sector - held hostage, will bail them out.

It is a fine line between being in the Middle Class and being in Poverty. But, I must acknowledge that your position is the superior position --- as most believe that unrestrained business is preferred; no matter how much the Middle Class must pay-out in bail-outs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Originally Posted by ejca

The Christian and Jewish zionists had been trying to get US troops over there for decades.

9/11 gave them the excuse.

I don't think the US has ever gone to war without its citizens being lied to.

100% true. From the war's beginning I said Bush was a fraud and that the only WMD he would find where those in his drugged up imagination. The Downing Street Memo which brought down Tony Blair's government clearly established that this was a war for oil and war profits. Anyone who denies it is a liar and traitor.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

danielpalos, et al,

Yes, there are a considerable number of people who believe that the mantra (excessive and rapacious pursuit for wealth and possessions) owes no patriotic duty to the nation or the people.


(COMMENT)

As Gordon Gekko (The main character in the Movie Wall Street) says: "The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. ... ... ... What's worth doing is worth doing for money."

As we've noted in recent history, BIG Business has the power and the intent to maximize the wealth in any fashion it chooses. Whether is was Chrysler or Enron, Fannie Mae or AIG, --- the banking industry in general that was bailed-out by the public. Even today, after the huge bail-out of the financial industry, they are at it again in what is called: the Derivative Market.

There is no allegiance business owes to the investor, the people, or the nation, in unrestrained capitalism manipulated by the rich and powerful. As long as they maximize their wealth, they have no remorse in the pain and suffering they cause, the losses incurred, or the jobs displaced. They are safe in the knowledge that when the bubble bursts, the public sector - held hostage, will bail them out.

It is a fine line between being in the Middle Class and being in Poverty. But, I must acknowledge that your position is the superior position --- as most believe that unrestrained business is preferred; no matter how much the Middle Class must pay-out in bail-outs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only our federal Congress is delegated the power to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.