USA Image problem?

All you are saying is that once they join the free world market the Iraqis will be free to do business with whomever they choose and strike the best deal that they can. That is how the free market is suppose to work. It would be strange indeed if some American companies did not decide to invest in the area. If they don't work with the Russians or Chinese it may very well be for different reasons. The Russians struck a deal with Shell and other \western oil companies to develop their deteriorating oil fields and after the oil companies had invested billions and the work was 75% done the Russians reneged on the deal and took back majority holdings in spite of signed contracts. If they operate that way they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting western companies as co-investors.

 

And the middle east is much more stable now that before Saddam?

I know things are not as bad as the media make out however, I cannot see a government strong enough to unite the 3 main factions. Therefore Iraq is more unstable as people will want to take revenge. This means a peacekeeping force used as a buffer zone long enough for the heat to cool down. Or allowing the country to evolve as the people (the ones of power now, not general public) dictate. This can only bring more strife as other countries see that the US although powerful cannot force peace. Countries such as North Korea and Iran, who would be able to put up a more substantial insurgency think they have free reign (see Iraq or Lebanon).

Any country that has had a dictator deposed in recent times has fallen into chaos (Zimbabwe) Other countries where strong leadership has left have also fallen into a similar chaotic style, therefore, keeping Saddam in power and controlling him through the though of losing it has and always had been the better option for a stable middle east.

If that was the reason for invasion.

 

Roel,

I never said that any American company or person would benfit from Iraqui oil. The war simply increased the value of the oil present certain American families enjoy.

It's the old "Goldfinger" scenario, and it worked quite well.

- Greg

:smok:

 

There is a difference between the wisdom of the decision to invade Iraq and the motivation of the decision to invade Iraq. Your remarks question the wisdom of that decision( in hindsight). My comments were primarily directed at those who were questioning the motivation of the invasion.

 

Nah, you'd be attacked as inconsiderate for giving a wheat-based product to people with an intolerance to gluten...

 

My remarks on this have never been in hindsight. I have always had this stance. The motivation was primarily personal never to free people.

There has never been a good enough reason for the invasion, but now it has to be seen through.

 

Regardless of how you felt at the time it is now with the benefit of hindsight that the analysis continues. As to the motivation, neither of us have firsthand knowledge of what the motivation was which leaves us to speculate. We can look to what was expressly said as well as what other evidence exists to try and determine motivation but that kind of anlysis will be strongly influenced by our own biases and preconceived notions.

 

If you look at what was expressly said the reason was WMD.

 

Expressly said by whom and when?

The resolution mentioned WMDs but also

 

This quote is from where please?

The and indicates that the other issues were side issues to get around not going for a 2nd vote in the U.N.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 114-2.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 115-3.html

WMD wrt Iraq.

 

I don't recall specifically where that quote came from. It doesn't matter since it was only to mention the provisions included in the congressional resolution.

read the resolution in it's entirety:

link to resolution:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

 

The majority of paragraghs talk about WMD. QED

 

My prediction (somebody will got this personaly,try not to) that US will loose in Iraq.They invaded and ocupated Iraq,but that was peak,they cannot maintaine peace there.Chaos is eawen worst then in Sadam rules,US lost lives there (US public only statr to be against war when American start to die in larger numbers) and situation will be worst.Only 2 possible scenarios i see:

1.US withdraw from Iraq,and open space for bloody ciwil war,moustly caused by US itself.

2.US hold the ocupation till point when they loose too many lives ,and witdrawn when they got no otther option.

No doubt that US can handle against regular army,but against guerila fight ,they just dont hawe solution (see Vietnam).

So in bouth scenarios,US look bad,especialy coz some EU countrys was against invasion.

 

Right. But now we have gone from "the reason" to the majority of the resolution talks about WMDs. I don't disagree that the belief that WMDs were being concealed was the primary reason given. Just that it wasn't the only reason given.
None of this gives us a look into the mind of the President though which is what we would need to determine his motives for ourselves.
I have no problem taking him for face value and assuming that his motives were consistent with his statements.
Apparently you do.
We shall have to agree to disagree since there is no way to resolve such a disagreement.

 

Without WMD there would not have been an invasion, it was not the reason but the excuse for it. the other 'reasons' were just incidental.

To get into the presidents head just look in an empty glass jar.

 

You are saying that Bush would not have authorized the invasion if he hadn't had information that there were WMDs? I tend to agree.

Bush's resume is not too shabby actually(Harvard etc.).
Flinging personal insults might seem to be satisfying to some but it isn't my cup of tea. I prefer my arguments to have substance but maybe that's just me.

 

Gentlemen, before this heat up, and I can tell that it just might - please stay on topic with the debate. The question is why the US went to war with Iraq. Obviously it's now not so much a question of what the official explanation is, but whether or not you accept that explanation. Grieg does, GP does not.

Methinks it's therefore up to GP to provide some evidence as to why the official declaration is slanted...

 

Roel the official declaration was primarily WMD, even the pice that Grieg posts, yes there was a litlle about war on terror and the UN resolution, but that was just incidental. That is my point.

 

wow,GP...you must be really ,really smart ...gwb was president of his class at harvard, was a jet fighter pilot , was twice govenor of the state of texas (which btw, boasts an economy bigger than many countries in the EU ) .also he was twice president of the world greatest economic and military superpower (still is too, iirc ) ,,,if HIS head is an empty glass jar ,one must presume that yours is at least partially full or even half full...are you a rhoads scholar ? wharton school of business , oxford ,MIT? ...please GP list your great education and lofty achievments that we simple folk (my own mind is ,alas a simple paper dixie cup ,quite dry ) may bask in the glow of your great wisdom and enlightenment ...plus you are also a mind reader too ?with your super high IQ , you must be a very wealthy and powerful man where you live , are you a tribal cheiftan, a government advisor , mabey a head of state?...does GP pehaps stand general practioner ? are you a doctor then...or perhaps GRANDE PRESIDENTE ? please take a moment to focus your great sloshing beaker of wisdom and dazzle us with your awsome resume..if its not a state secret or something...

 

Interesting.
Today German court in Muenchen issued. 13 arrest warants on kidnapinig and torture charges against 13 US citizens and CIA operatives in connection with kidnaping of German citizen (Lebanese born Al-Masri) in Macedonia, his clandestine transport to Afganistan and his torture while in US custody there.
This combined with arrest warants issued by Italian court of Milan (on identical charges in connection with kidnnaping of Italian citizen) shure helps US image on this side of the pond.