In a recent column for Worldnetdaily, columnist Pat Buchanan asserts the following:



While you may not agree with his views or find them totally repulsive, he does bring up a good point here, one that I think is a main reason why a lot of us don't see eye to eye about the war. That is-what is this war truly about? We hear that it is about option number 3, but I fail to see it as being the reason for the conflict in Iraq and far-flung places like Malaysia. Perhaps that is just me, I will be looking forward to responses on these questions.

Questions for debate:

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

Remove oil from the scenario and there is no actual reason to be there. The WMDs were never uncovered and the first order of business was to rebuild those oil production facilities. Perhaps I'm a little cynical but I have seen very little reason to think this is about anything other then oil.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

As is typical of Buchanan he makes an excellent argument for a minority view. Its no secret that Saudi Arabia wanted us out of their country and a couple of bases in Kuwait seems inadequate. I'd have to agree for the most part but I'd say he is describing a secondary issue.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

Cheney and Halliburton have been opposed to economic sanctions and if commercial/economic reasons were the goal then its mission accomplished. If on the other hand it was to bring democracy to the Middle East it is a dismal failure, at least at this early date.

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

I wish I knew what it was all about, I NULLed my vote in the poll because I couldn't really make a decision. I'm hoping that by discussing this I can work out my own thoughts as well as hearing others. I am definitely very flexible in this area to form a new opinion.

Option 3, We are doing this to stop Al Qaeda and Terrorism, is the stated party line but I don't buy that. The other options while plausible all sound too conspiracy theory-ish and don't have good evidence supporting them (at least right now).

So, why is it not about Option 3? To me the answer to that is pretty clear - Iraq really had nothing to do with terrorists. We have of course debated this at length here at AD but the simple fact is the 9/11 commission did not believe they had ties to 9/11 and no substantive proof has been offered for "other" ties outside 9/11.

Additionally, the list of charges against Hussein is very interesting in proving this point as well.



If you'll notice, not one of those charges (except maybe Kuwait) has anything to do with Americans, American Interests or Terrorism. This leaves me with the question in my mind, 'If Saddam was clearly associated to terrorists, why not charge him for it since he will clearly be found guilty on the other counts?' The only reason I could come up with for not going that route is that there isn't even close to enough evidence to paint him in that light, so we are back to the Saddam was a bad man argument basically.

One of the biggest things that does lend credence to those other explanations in the poll is Afghanistan. I think we would all agree here that the United States was justified in attacking Afghanistan. But, why didn't we finish the job? Why didn't we concentrate on installing a Democracy there? In hindsight, it seems to me that Afghanistan was more of a nuisance to this administration than a real objective - "Ok let's get this over with so we can move on".

But, if our goal really was to destroy Al Qaeda and stomp out terrorism wouldn't we have hit Afghanistan much harder, much faster, with more force (and numbers) and then stayed to help rebuild? Many of the problems that cause terrorism could be corrected in this country, but I don't think we did anything more than get in there drop a few bombs and deploy special forces and leave. If we did, the media sure hasn't reported on it. Where are the reports about Afghani elections, democracy, infrastructure building and a constitution? I sure haven't been exposed to them.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?
I personally don't think that is what the war is about, it seems to me that Buchanan wants to paint this war on terror as some kind of Jihad between the muslim extremists and "the West". In that respect he is largely using the same logic the terrorists use in their propaganda.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?
Given these two options only I would be inclined to say that we are trying to install rules friendly to our commercial interests.

We have a long history of installing leaders in countries, very few of them have been Democratic. Heck we backed Saddam because of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.

In the final analysis it seems to me it is all about $$$$ most of the time, and Democracy is just the icing on the cake.

I still don't know what the motivation is for Iraq, it could be one of these two or none of the above.

Of course leave oil in the scenario and you still don't have a reason to go in.


The administration could have gotten more oil form Saddam a whole lot cheaper and with less political risk, etc. simply by joining France and Russia in the push to drop sanctions.

The war was indeed about WMD, the administration thought they were there... they weren't. Now its about stability in the country and democracy in the Middle East... as well as trying not to make the whole venture look like a failure.

We are interested in letting Iraqis have democracy both for their sake and ours. An Iraqi democracy will likely be easier to deal with and embarss other less free nations in the region.

Plus who can resist the idea of helping to free millions of people when you're in perfect position to do so?

None of the poll options equate with Bush's stated reasons for going to war: removing Saddam. The closest would be removing unfriendly rulers, but that option is too broad. This war was about Saddam, pure and simple.

The war could have been avoided had Saddam removed himself. It could have been avoided earlier had Saddam shown a willingness to cooperate fully. The regime defeated in the first Gulf War sought to dictate terms to the victor. Wisely, we would have none of it.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?
Buchanan states many truths which are completely unrelated to the Iraq war. What exactly the date June 28 has to do with anything is a matter for numerologists. Bush stated his reasons: Saddam and his unwillingness to comply with his agreements to the international community. This includes WMDs, but was not limited to WMDs. Saddam's Iraq was unwilling to comply with its international agreements. The cease fire agreement, inspections protocols, and treatment of internal dissenters are just some of the issues involved.

I don't understand why some continue to see boogiemen when the obvious answers are perfectly satisfactory.



OK, he is correct here.

Buchanan goes on:


. So the Islamicists are actually happy that we are in Iraq now? They would rather have us than Saddam? I find that one hard to swallow. Yes, Saddam is gone. He was ostensibly a "secularist". He certainly did not enforce religious fatwas on his people. He didn't need to: his secret police enforced whatever whimsical law that he decided was law. Saddam was the highest power in Iraq, why would he give some measure of authority to some uppity religous mullahs?


See: Buchanan is an isolationist. He thinks that the US can hide under a rock somewhere and these "anti-American Islamic revolution" types are going to go away, I guess. As I posted in the "Isolationism" thread, the US cannot ignore world problems.

This Islamic fundamentalist movement has been growing for decades. They have a different world view than we do. As a matter of fact, their world view does not even include us in it.

The basis of the Iraq was Saddam. Saddam, in and of himself, was the largest threat to stability in the Middle East. Our inability to trust Saddam after his actions is what caused this conflict. His lack of compliance caused this conflict.

The threat of a rogue nation with WMDs (either technology or stockpiles) and a willingness to explore terrorist sponsorship was a combination we could not allow to fester.

In the aftermath, the removal of Saddam presents an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to foster a democracy in the Middle East. It is an opportunity for terrorists and Islamo-fascists to flex their muscles and bully the population of Iraq.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?
For stability reasons, the answer is: we will if we can. For ideological reasons, we are not going to force something on the Iraqi people. Stability is in the interest of peace. Stability is the basis of commerce. There is no trend beyond Iraq. The plural nature of the question is a little curious.

That is not correct Amlord, President Bush's stated reason for going to war with Iraq was to rid it of WMD. Had Saddam disarmed himself of the WMD (which he didn't have), Bush would have never attacked, according to him anyway.

Below is the relevant text from an address to the nation on 3/17/2003 which outlines the reasons in his own words, nothing out of context or spun through the media. This is what he told the American people.









Bush dedicates a few sentences to saying that the Iraqi's are going to be free, they should be happy, etc.


No where in the speech does it advocate Democracy for Iraq, or freeing the Iraqi people as a reason for the invasion. It does state several times that the reason for the War is weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties to Al Qaeda.

Both of these have been proven false for the most part, and it seems that now we are cahging our reason-of-the-month to Saddam was a bad man.

Something Bush says does seem to support the argument that it was for oil and money though:

Reading between the lines: "don't destroy your oil wells, we NEED them, I mean it is for your benefit."

Edited to add: The little oil thing was meant to be a little bit of a sarcastic joke, I apologize if anyone believed I considered this a reason for the war

Surely Cube Jockey you would not criticize the rational that the war was for liberating the Iraqis because the subject garnered only a few lines in the speech....

and then point to an arbitrary interpretation of one line in the speech as evidence of an oil war.

...because that would be silly.

That said I agree that by far the biggest reason for war was the threat of proliferation of Iraqi WMD, it would help the case if people gave up this patently illogical oil nonsense, though.

From the same speech on how Iraq could avoid war:


It was Saddam himself that was a threat. Only with Iraq gone could there be a "free Iraq".

At that point Amlord, it was an ultimatum, not a justification. If the justification for invading Iraq were "to remove Saddam" then we would have cited all of the human rights violations he committed as well as part of that justification.

That one sentence is taken out of context from the whole speech and the months leading up to it. The focus and point of the speech was that Iraq had WMD and had ties to terrorists which made them a threat to us, therefore we were invading.

Somehow my brain has a problem registering the idea of George Bush,Cheney,Rove,etc. going to Iraq to liberate the people because of the goodness of their heart. If you had mentioned Halliburton or putting some of their friends or companies in a position to make a bundle of money, I would have believed you.



"This patently illogical oil nonsense" is no more illogical than the NON EXISTENT WMDS. But he was a big bad boogy man. Now that was a logical reason?

I voted "oil" - though I think it is too simplistic of a reason- lucrative no bid contracts would be more accurate LOL

Just about every school kid in Alaska knows a tad about how the oil biz works, and knows that the oil biz is a tad more complex than just going in there and pulling it out of the ground exclusively by one guy or group (like there would be a giant field of oil rigs that have a big "owned by GW Bush" on the side of them )

However- there are more than one way to skin a cat- and the war on Iraq GW could only see as a win-win for him and his buddies.

Saddam is a bad guy- no debate there- easy to run a PR campaign against. GW, despite his obvious , um, lack of intellect, could see that his core constituentcy would buy into any invasion of Iraq, and I am sure Karl Rove could explain to him (slowly) that it is very difficult to unseat a prez in the middle of a war, no matter how badly you screw it up.

As CJ showed very nicely, GW SOLD this war on WMD- and for no other reason, despite whatever spin is now being placed on it by GW supporters and his spinmiesters. As CJ said, removing Saddam and sons was an ulitmatum, not a reason to go to war. Powell's entire pitch to the UN was about WMD, nothing else of substance.

So to me, there are two reason we went to Iraq:

1) to attempt a "wag the dog" scenario
2) Lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq- the Bush family have used the middle east as thier personal money spigot for some time- why change now?

In the early months of 2001 (before 9/11), the Pentagon was considering reducing patrols for Iraq no-fly zone enforcement, or stopping them altogether. That’s not a position someone hell-bent on an invasion for oil would take. And “wag-the-dog”? Bush was hardly lacking in popularity before we made active plans to go into Iraq. His popularity at that point was among the highest in presidential history.

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?I nulled my vote because I think it's a combination of the first four. Yes, we have a vital interest in the oil of that entire region (not just Iraq), we wish to have stabililty and friendly government to maintain stability there, guarantee our oil supply, and (ironically) prevent terrorists from wanting to kill us.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about? Partially correct, but nothing is ever that simple.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy? Both, but of course primarily the first because it would benefit us the most.

Yes I agree... there is no one reason that we went to war. Of course, I have to maintain that the war isn't really accomplishing any of these goals , but these are all part of the initial reasons for war.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

Rulers "friendly" to us? I think toady is a bit more accurate. And for not only commercial/economic reasons, but also for the image of America as a preserver of democracy.

Mrs. Pigpen



Bush's popularity was not that high in the early months of 2001 or in March 2003 before the Iraq invasion. See the site below.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

As the chart will show his popularity (average of major polls) in the period of Jan-March of 2003 was 57%. That is definitely not even close to the highest in presidential history.

In fact if you look at the chart, it show a steady decline in his popularity from 90% + to 55% just prior to the invasion.

No, I believe one of the reason for the Iraq war was to get the American public's eyes off the economy and his declining popularity. His adminstration decided a little war is always nice to get peoples attention off the bad news.

The only thing that went wrong was that the Iraq war caused more problems than it solved. They had no backup plan and didn't have the slightest idea what to do after the invasion was over. They have bungled it so badly that now the Iraq war is the major concern(according to the latest polls) among Americans instead of the economy.

So Bush did accomplish what he set out to do. To get the American public's attention from the economy. But he is in more trouble now than before.

This adminstration has given the perfect example of how to completing screw up a war. Maybe that was the best thing for the public to see. Bush is not the golden boy that Karl Rove wants you to see.

What is the war in Iraq truly about?

The closest thing on the poll to what I believe was to maintain our presence in the region... personally, I think "security threat" should of been an option...

I believe the war in Iraq was truly about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the region, and the world at large. There were those of us who were fed up with being shot at while enforcing the rules. Fed up with non complince. Fed up, period. So, we took action.

And before people chime in with claims of legality, lets talk about reality. When a resolution stipulates that failure to comply will be met with serious consequences, that doesn't mean sanctions. That doesn't mean embargoes. It means force. And if you failed to see that then I don't know what to tell you.

How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

Well, I believe he's got the right concept, but not in this instance. Saddam was using Islam to garner support for himself so he could stay in power. But in the war on terror and the insurgency in Iraq now, this is where Buchanan is right.

To the insurgents and Al-Qaeda & Co., this is a holy war. This is a crusade. And as much as one would chide Bush for his choice of words, (and by no means would I advocate a 'crusade') the truth is, that's how they see it. The American way of life, the Western way of life, is too vulgar and liberal for them to stomach. In their minds, Fundamental Islam = Power and Control. And the culture of the west (which is dominantly Judeo-Christian) is a threat to that belief.

Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

That's a hard one. In the end, the Iraqi people will decide what they want. We may have our input, but in twenty years, Iraq may be a thriving democray or a Muslim Theocracy.

So are we trying to install a puppet regime? No, that won't happen. The Iraqi people won't tolerate that. Would it be bad if we had a working relationship with them? No.

Armlord:




Armlord are you saying that we can go to war with France to remove Chirac, or with Britian to remove Blair?? Removing Saddam is what we did, but why did we do it. We can not go to war simply because we don't like a leader. There has to be a threat, right?

Ms. P



But the reason there are terrorist attacks is because we were there in the middle east. Also, I doubt that we want to prevent terrorist atacks all together. We are a democracy, history repeats it self, but we never grasp it. Every war, especially in democracies, must have heros and villians. Terrorist acts allow us to fill that role. As long as there are terrorist attacks there will be a good part of our society who will accept this reasoning to keep a foothold in the middle east.

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

That's a pretty broad question. Most wars are 'about' a combination of things, and I assume the "war in Iraq" is no different.

I believe it is about trying to instill some peace and stability in a very troubled part of the world, a part which also has important strategic and economic impact for all of us. Yes, that includes the Europeans.

It is also about trying to bring a halt to about twenty five years of terrorist attacks on the West in general and the US in particular, attacks in which the governments of the Arab world have turned a blind eye, or even assisted. In other words, the war in Iraq, like the war in Afghanistan, is best seen as a campaign in a bigger struggle.

It's about America trying to spread it's values abroad, in the belief that the American system is best. And it's about getting rid of an exceptionally murderous dictator and ending the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe that was Iraq.

And probably many more things which I have not mentioned.


2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

I think he is correct, at least in part. There are people who view our presence as odious and corrupt. Of course, their objection is to our presence on the planet, not in "the region", so unless we are going to colonize Mars sometime soon, we had best come up with some way of dealing with them. In the modern age of television and the internet, our way of life is always going to be "in their face" and infuriating to them. Of course, we could do some things to placate them, like not writing gay marriage into the US constitution. Any takers?


3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

I don't see why you think this is an either/or proposition. Does one preclude the other?

One implication of your question is that we might install rulers who are friendly to us for "commercial/economic reasons". How does that work exactly? Lets suppose that we install a puppet government that is friendly to "us". (By us I am referring to the West in general.) What specific economic gains do you see us accruing as a result? And what is the likely impact on the Iraqi people?

It's interesting that the one and only reason that we (British) followed you into war in Iraq was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, and it's not even a option...The horrible thing is that it problably shouldn't be.

What is the war in Iraq truly about?
I have absolutely no idea. I really don't. I am not cynical enough to honestly believe it was some sort of shadowy, crooked, back-alley scheme between Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, and the order of the Skull and Bones to secure cash and oil.

I honestly do believe that on some level it did have to do with WMD. Or at least, Bush was led to believe that WMD existed. Apparently, they didn't. To me, that is inept leadership--but we digress.

From his speech on 3/17/2003 it appears as if terror, at least in the 'afraid' and not the 'Al Qaeda' sense may have been a factor. But not in the way that the administration continues to assert. I find it hard to believe that if Al Qaeda/Islamic Terrorism had been more of a motivating factor to go to war, that Bush & Co would not have asserted it more boldly. To me, it seems that the Republicans began to posit this angle more heavily after the WMD thing had failed.

And that is basically my point--the reasoning behind the war shifts according to the circumstances. First WMD because that's really scary. Then terror. Then Democracy. The true motivation behind Iraq may have been all of the reasons in the poll, or it could have been none of them. Will we ever know?

Maybe Saddam should have been removed from power. However, I feel that the grave injustices he committed have been reduced in severity by the Bush administrations continued "flip-flopping" on the reasons for the Iraq War.

How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?
Being a Democrat, I find it odd that I agree with Pat Buchanan occasionaly. However, this is not one of those times. I think Buchanan might be on to something here concerning his Samuel Huntington-esque idea of a great 'Clash of Civilizations'. But, I don't think this Clash theory really had anything to do with Iraq.

Again, I have no clue what Iraq was about. But, I don't think that Bush & Co saw themselves embarking on some sort of modern day Crusade. Or for that matter a war against the 'Axis of Evil'. I believe that was mostly propoganda.

Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?
I think we mostly are interested in the former. I mentioned that I am not cynical enough to believe that the administration went to war for oil and . However, I am not enough of an idealist to believe that they actually really were interested in seeing the Iraqi people 'be liberated'. Sure, George. We're going in there to hand them 'their freedom'.

I don't think this last question really had much bearing in the decision to go to war.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

I agree that many in the middle east view Americans and America as corrupt. To a large degree they are correct. To a large degree they are also incorrect. I think that Hollywood carries much of the blame in convincing people of American corruption (mostly uneducated people). American movies are full of vulgarity, violence, hatred, and immorality; representing the worst of America. Often these movies are their only window into American culture. People who don't really know America view these movies as typical American life. I can speak from some personal experience having lived in a third world country. People would watch American movies and believe them to represent normal American lifestyles.

"nebraska29",

I found this poll and was reading along fine till I noticed this comment thats quoted. How can Malaysia not be part of the war on terrorism? It's location has nothing to with it's use or non use by terrorists. Being a far flung place or not, it's still a predominantly muslim country, and it is still, far flung or not, a favorite spot for terrorists.

Acording to the BBC Malaysia has a population of 24.4 million. And acording to Time Magazine "Muslims make up two-thirds of the population..." a pretty good size recruiting pool I would say. Something like just over 16 million muslims to recruit a little sympathizing help from.

Not only is Malaysia "a perfect place for terrorist R. and R." but also acording to the same time article and many others it has been the site in the past for many important terrorist meetings. "The most notorious gathering of al-Qaeda operatives took place in January 2000 and involved two hijackers who died in the suicide attack on the Pentagon, the roommate of a third hijacker and at least one of the suspects in the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Zacarias Moussaoui, the Algerian-born French citizen now in custody in Virginia—the so-called 20th hijacker—also made several visits to Malaysia."

Clearly if any place on the planet was a good place to hunt for killers, assuming that is considered a worthy goal, then Malaysia must be one such place. A place to find them and stop them before they kill again.

Anyway, just something I noticed in my readings.

You are absolutely correct, Gibu. Malaysia does play a significant regional role in the GWOT. Elements of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Ngruki network, etc. have long had operational elements and support links in Malaysia, although Indonesia seems to be more of a focal point for their operations.

A good backgrounder on Malaysia from CRS, albeit a year old: Malaysia: Political Transition and Implications for US Policy
In the summary, the report states that it ...sets the political transition in Malaysia of 2003 within an historical context and discusses key aspects of the bilateral relationship including trade, counter-terrorism cooperation, defense ties and Malaysia’s external posture as it affects American interests....

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

I see too many people here relying strictly on what was said in determining this. As is the case with almost anything political, what was said is seldom completely in synch with the real motivations. Rather, a decision is made regarding an issue, then a decision is made on how to present that to the public. In this particular issue, there was the further issue of how to present the issue to the UN so as to garner support for their predetermined course of actions. WMD was chosen as the best path to garner the desired support--it only makes sense then that all public statements would then fall in line with that decision. This is how politics works, and it shouldn't come as any big surprise to anybody here. In fact, it would only be surprising if this were not the case.

What were the other factors leading to the war in Iraq, and why was WMD chosen as the 'point message'? Here's a partial list of other reasons for the war, mostly related to the impact the situation in Iraq was having on Middle Eastern sentiment against us:

1. Many of the reasons stated by the Islamic terrorists for their hatred of the US centered on our troop deployments there, all necessitated by the situation with Iraq.
2. Iraq's continued non-compliance with the UN resolutions regarding the cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War fostered the 'US is a paper tiger' sentiment.
3. One of the reasons the US intelligence committee failed to detect the attacks of 9-11 is that too many resources/too much attention was devoted to Iraq.
4. The social conditions were dreadful in Iraq following the UN sanctions, and the US was getting the blame for this in the Middle Eastern world, further spreading terroristic sentiment against the US.
5. It was clear that it would require a fundamental shift in the politics of the Middle East to curb the growth of terrorism there.

As you can see, although I believe this list of issues to be very valid, none would individually rise to the level likely required for UN support of action. WMD presented the best case to take to the UN.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

I think Buchanan is basically correct in these statements, although, as others here have stated, he is only capturing part of the picture.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

Well, we're certainly not going to go about installing rulers who are unfriendly to us, are we ? As others here have stated, I don't think these two options are mutually exclusive. Rather, there is a sum of these and other factors (security, strategic interests, etc) that guides any international diplomatic position.

I think the role of oil in this is also misunderstood. Oil, or more directly, supply of oil, is currently a vitally important strategic interest to the US. The Middle East is the primary supplier of oil. Therefore, it is in the US's strategic interest to ensure that the situation in the Middle East won't impact our supply of oil from the area. This is not done for the benefit of 'big oil'--unless of course you count Aramco in that group . Rather, it is done for economic benefit of the entire country. In fact, big oil would be the group benefiting if the supply of oil from the Middle East were cut off--they could then charge much more for the oil they could supply, thereby reaping larger profits.

I would like the chance to respond to your reasons, piece by piece, below.

"2. Iraq's continued non-compliance ... fostered the 'US is a paper tiger' sentiment"

I think you have a good point here. In Osama bin Laden's fatwa he mentioned the illusion among Arab nations that the United States could not, or would not, be able to sustain casualties in a bloody war--partially due to the democratic process. If memory serves, bin Laden cited Somalia.

This may somehow be construed as a legitimate reason for war, but to me, I cannot see how it validates our invasion of Iraq.

"3. One of the reasons the US intelligence committee failed to detect the attacks...."

It appears as if your rationale is: if we bomb the crap out of the place, which apparently did not have WMDs and thus was not a legit threat, then we can focus on other threats in the future?

Again, I cannot see this as valid. This would assume that Iraq was a serious, imminent threat. Or that the Bush administration was doing this to cover for their mistakes re: 9/11.

"4. The social conditions were dreadful in Iraq following the UN sanctions"

This is true, and I love the point. I believe bin Laden noted this as well when trying to rally Arab anti-American sentiment.

However, was the war really the best way to handle this? Would a full-scale invasion really somehow reverse Arab feeling towards the Iraq condition?

Absolutely not! It would be folly to even assume so (and, indeed it was).

"5. It was clear that it would require a fundamental shift in the politics of the Middle East to curb the growth of terrorism there."

Yes, but would violence solve the problem? I think not. I cannot fathom the level of close-minded group-think that would be required to even consider this a possibility.

In all though, I think your points do show what the war might have really been about: shifting the political balance of power in the Middle East.

However, I recall the administration arguing that it was necessary for our immediate safety. That Iraq actually possessed serious WMDs, and that they could even, in the near future, build a nuclear weapon. That is my main problem with the war, and the administration.

I feel that they were just not honest with us.

To answer the poll i voted for the number 4 choice. But after reading Hobbes post it garned some more questions for me.

Like Hobbes said the reason why WMD was the main point brought out to the UN is that is what the sanctions were all about trying to maintain Saddam from getting anymore WMD or reconstituting his WMD programs.

But then I wonder when Bush got the consent for weapons inspectors why did he not allow them to finish there job.

I know this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory but it does seem plausible even though the congress said it was flawed intelligence but here it goes. Bush stopped the weapon inspectors cause he either knew or found out pretty quickly that there were no WMD, which in turn would not garner him a chance to remove Saddam from power. But would rather give the UN the assertions that since no WMD can be found that Iraq should have the sanctions lifted. After all the humanitarian reasons are not the reason for the sanctions at all. I for one was against the war in Iraq from the start because I thought it took our eyes off the the true threats, but even if Saddam did have them the weapon inspectors could and probably would have found them with their track record for finding the weapons that Saddam did not want found in the past.

HMM seems like the ex-weapon inspectors were right when they said it was highly inprobable of Saddam still having anything, if having some stuff not in large amounts or also that it being to old to be of any good.

My take on this is because removal of WMD was not the goal--removal of Saddam was. Most of the issues we were having with Iraq, even including the potential WMD, were because Saddam was in charge, WMD or not. As long as that remained the case, the status quo was essentially going to continue. This was not deemed acceptable (I think with very good reason)--therefore there really wasn't any point in continuing with the inspections--none of the outcomes of that would have helped the administration accomplish what it wanted--note that this is the case whether inspections were 'successful' or not. There were also two other related points against allowing the inspections to continue. First, we had been down this path many times before, and Saddam had taken steps to hinder the process each time. For inspections to be successful, there had to be cooperation from Saddam, and that just wasn't going to happen. In fact, lack of cooperation itself constituted violation of the cease fire agreements. Also, Saddam had a long history of using inspections as a delaying tactic, first causing them to be suspended, then, after long delays, allowing them again, just to repeat the process. I believe at some point this cycle had to be stopped, especially given the effects outlined in my list.

NJS6:

First, allow me to reiterate that none of these reasons, when examined separately, make a resounding case for the invasion--they have to be grouped together. Basically, its like circumstantial evidence--each piece could be explained away, but, when viewed as a whole, they present a much more convincing argument. That being said, here are my responses to your comments.

2. Agreed that Osama originally fostered the 'paper-tiger' sentiment from Somalia. It was then continued after the lack of response to the bombings of the Nigerian embassies and US Cole. The Iraq situation was but a continuance of that. However, since it was also the only one state sponsored, it did present a different case, and one which took on added significance given our post 9-11 stance on state sponsored terrorism (not that Iraq was doing that, but it did present an opportunity to send a clear message--one which Libya, for one, seemed to have received).

3. re: excessive intelligence focus on Iraq:


Well, actually I was thinking more that Saddam's continued non-compliance required extensive monitoring and analysis, which was a drain on our intelligence resources. Removing the need for that monitoring presented the only solution to this problem, and removing Saddam was probably the only way to remove that need. Note that we did not discover that the threat was 'not legit' until after the invasion--had that not taken place, we would still be devoting excessive resources to the monitorning and analysis. I would say, though, that this was not one of the main factors in the decision, but just another straw on the camel's back.

4. re: the effect of sanctions...



This is somewhat true, in the short term (although I would characterize the general Middle Eastern attitude as 'wait and see', which is probably a step forward even in the short term). However, note the only reason sanctions were in place were because of Saddam. As long as he remained, the sanctions were likely to continue, and the only way to remove him and his regime was through force.

5. re: fundamental shift...



In general, I would agree with this statement. Iraq, though, given all the other issues with Saddam (both his effects on us, and his terrorism and treatment of his own people), created an environment where invasion was a more presentable solution. Also, given the other factors with Iraq creating anti-US sentiment in the area, it would make diplomatic solutions in other areas more difficult. Again, it is the total of these issues that creates this environment--none of them individually rises to that level.



I think it was this, combined with the indirect role Iraq was playing in the war on terror. I think the administration did feel the WMD was a valid 'potential' threat, and that even the potential was not acceptable. Then, when the other factors were considered, there really was only one possible solution. Saddam's regime had to be removed, and there was only one way to do it. As I stated in Artemise's Pacifism thread, in another time and place we might get to where this could have been resolved diplomatically, and I would love it if we were there now. But given all the factors involved here, I didn't see that as a realistic possibility, leaving only one course of action. The long-term effects of that action won't be known for many years, rendering any judgements as to its success irrelevant until then.

What is the war in Iraq truly about?

Establishing global hegemony. I had to go with option one - preserving our presence in the Middle East - though that is only part of it. Our presence in the Middle East is a step in the strategy which encompasses every continent on the planet. The PNAC members who run this administration make no bones about it.

Oil money looks like the reason for this whole adventure, but it's really just a bonus to keep campaign contributors interested. The real strategy is much larger - and more frightening.

How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

Buchanan is absolutely correct in his analysis. Real conservatives like Buchanan have been onto the neocon agenda from the start of our illegal invasion of Iraq. He is also right in his conclusion:
Unfortunately, the neocons who operate George W Bush and set all of his foreign policy will never threaten the Middle-Eastern base that they already have - Israel - by promoting Palestinian justice, would not dream of compromising their imperial aspirations, and could not possibly consider extracting themselves from the internal affairs of Iraq. It would defeat their entire purpose.

Buchanan is right again in that Americans once stood against everything that the Bush administration stands for. He is equally correct in including both parties here. The Democrats - especially a Democrat like John Kerry - are not all that different from the neoconservative Republicans - at least in their short-term goals. Neither wants to ruffle the feathers of the Zionist constituency, both think they need to appease their corporate backers, and neither can resist the compulsive need to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries - even if it is for different ends.

Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about democracy (if they did, they might try practicing a bit of it at home) nor does it give a damn about the people of Iraq. This is all about power and money and establishing a Middle-Eastern foothold for American hegemony. This is why, if the Bush administration gets its way, there will be a US military presence in Iraq forever. "Friendly" rulers are, of course, prerequisite to this end - and if the new government of Iraq isn't "friendly" - or wants our troops out - it will not last. Unless, of course, we effect our own regime change in the meantime.

I would say Hobbes analysis of the situation at the time the decisions were made is probably as accurate as any I have ever seen. Just look at things at the time.

September 11 really did change the way things are forever. We were going to stop the terrorists before this could ever happen again. Right next to that though was Saddam who has had and USED WMD in the past. The pressure to drop the sanctions was growing stronger and stronger all the time and the resources to just keep him in check were a big strain with no end in sight.

Option one
The easy thing to do would have been to drop sanctions and belly up to the oil and business contracts buffet like France was really looking to do.... but then he would be completely free to rebuild his WMD stockpiles in the future. It's not like he gave up wanting to control all the oil in the region and in turn having a strangle hold on the worlds economy. Make no mistake, he wasn't going to learn his lesson like that guy in Libya did. At some point down the road he would have had the WMD to either use covertly such as through alquada and distract us from a new invasion, or even just use them himself as an outright bully tool in his own neihborhood. Helping terrorists use a dirty bomb on us would have been easiest and kept us pretty busy elsewhere for a long while though.

Option Two
Just maintain the status quo. As Hobbes so skillfully pointed out though this was just keeping our forces tied down that could be used elsewhere (no more two war doctrine after Clinton got done with the military) , and keeping us stuck in a region were our presence was just giving the terrorists an excuse to hate us (they would have found a new one since they want to blame us for all there problems and they won't have to take responsibility for them). The Sanctions were only hurting the people of Iraq and not Saddam who made even more money then before just smuggling in stuff. Time was against us, the longer it went on the worse it got and stronger the resentment. At some point suicide bombings here on our own streets in the name of dying Iraqi children may even have become a reality. No, the status quo was a very poor option considering the important work we had in front of us for the foreseeable future.

Option Three
Remove Saddam. This was painful in the short run but really was the only option that protected us in the long run. Who knew he didn't have WMD? He had a pretty strong track record for liking them, using them, and aquireing them every chance he got. He was not cooperating in any way, inspectors weren't even allowed in for a long, long period of time. No matter how thin the evidence may have been, I'm certain if you asked anyone in charge before the invasion about the chances of finding WMD, I'm sure you would have gotten whole pay checks bet on finding them. You get rid of whatever he does have (he has to have some, right?) and eliminate the chance he ever will have them in the future. Iraq won't fall apart, they hate him as oppressive as he is. Just go topple him, show off the WMD he had, and get back out once a government is set up. Were out of the area finally, were ready to continue the war on terrorism with our full strength committed to the war on terrorism, we don't have to worry about Saddam anymore or that he might help the terrorists to gain power in his region. As a nice little bonus Iraq can now become a stable democracy and go back to being an ally in the area.

Clearly mistakes were made. Do you think anyone would make claims they knew would be found to be untrue eventually? Who would claim the war was over WMD if they even suspected there may be even the remotest chance there wouldn't be any found? The mistake was not in why the war was fought, only in how it was executed. No war is perfect, mistakes are made before, during, and after every war. That doesn't mean though that it was wrong to forcibly remove an evil dictator that had no plans to go anywhere anytime soon on his own.

Unfortunately I have to agree that none of this polls choices are really adequate to explain the reasons. I do feel a need to point out though just how short sighted it is to choose oil money. It would have been much more profitable to drop the sanctions and start buying and in turn selling to customers the Iraqi oil. France and Germany was all over that option, they couldn't wait to start doing normal business again. Plus the contracts to rebuild an Iraq no longer under UN sanction?? Whoa, tons of cash there. The oil companies always makes there margin no matter the price at the pump. The damage to the economy from increased fuel costs is way worse then a status quo being maintained on oil prices. A war is the worst choice for a president wanting to keep the economy healthy to get re-elected.

I chose War on Terrorism, but only because the urgency to resolve this sooner rather then later probably wouldn't have been there without the war terrorists have forced upon us.

I'd say that has to be the operative question here. Although there are some people on this board (not including myself) who could answer in the affirmative, I think you'd be hard-press to find too many in the US government.

...and the idea isn't the work of those dastardly neo-cons, take a look at my signature to see that unilateral action against Iraqi WMD is a non-partisan venture.

WMD was the reason for war, precisely because it looked plausible at the time. While notions like "oil" or even hegemony seem to me to suffer from a logical deficit.

Perhaps an explanations of how such a scheme is supposed to work would be in order, since it seems to me we could have "preserved our presence in the middle east", without lifting a finger.

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

I think this war was based on false intelligence; weapons of mass destruction and an Iraqi tie to al-Qaeda. I think Bush is too arrogant to admit he was wrong and is continuing to fight a wrong war. I think he should have said, "My administration, the world, and I received bad intelligence, and in hindsight we should not have gone into the war. But what's done is done, and if we pulled out of Iraq we would leave them in a state of chaos, but we feel this should be a world effort so we will do something under U.N. control". But of course, he didn't say that and I seriously doubt he will anytime soon. Of course, it was Bush's fault that he received bad intelligence; he appoints the people and he could have gotten intelligence from other sources (say maybe we let the U.N. finish their inspection ). I also think there was a mixture of some other reasons; oil, Saddam, etc.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

I think it's a mixture of both. We want to spread democracy, but who could say no to having another ally?

(Edited for spelling)

All I can really do is ditto this. If you go to the Project for the New American Century website the neo-conservative agenda is laid out quite clearly. You will see familiar names on the site Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush (Jeb).

Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

Here is where I am uncertain. Conservatives have long argued that democracy, capitalism and freedom are intertwined but have seldom acted on this belief. I think the neo-cons may well see democracy as a means to an end. That a democratic nation is more likely to be an economic ally and be less of a threat to world peace.

I found this section very interesting. WERTZ.... Could you do me a favor please and provide a source for this. Im sure there is one, but I looked all through that very long thread that was your only link in this posting and couldn't find it (I very easily could have missed it though). Colud you help me out and point me a little more directly to the original source please.

Also.....

Would you mind expanding on this a little more for me please. In what way does this "keep campaign contributors interested". Do they profit in some way from this? Is it easier to bump say a 10% margin just as an example up to 15% when prices are high, or when they are low? Prices at the moment are higher, so I am just asuming that your choice would be higher as well. Is this an incorrect conclusion? I understand your not claiming it's the reason, "just a bonus", but a bonus in what way?

Thanks a bunch for helping me out on all this.

Here look at these:

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives By Zbigniew Brzezinski

A Little history on the author

This book written by the former national security adviser to Carter details exactly what your asking for gibu, its a heady read I'm sure, but revealing nonetheless. Its one of literally hundreds of books that detail the same thing and rehash the same arguments. Another good example is Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta

It is fairly well understood by all but the american public, that the US has used the marines and other military branches as arms for the political machine that focuses on US interests. Heres a good article from www.commondreams.org: "World Knows our Foreign Policy Better Than We Do "

Don't have time to read it? I understand, heres a telling quote from an interview with a foreigner:

Alarming huh! Gibu, the information is there, just pick a book that isn't licensed to someone who sits on a board of (or works for) a company that profits off of these hypocritical foreign policy decisions, like Fox News. Should you pick up a book by sean hannity, etc, you can assume it will be full of bare bones reasoning, and mostly demonize the liberals crap. You wont find real foreign policy critique from the neo-conservative side, just flag waving.

Replace "freedom" with "trade" and you have your answer. I would also suggest you use the term "Low Intensity Democracy," as well, because that is what the U.S. has been spreading overseas for the last 25 years.



That's my working description of "Low Intensity Democracy" from another thread. Unfortunately the paper in question isn't available online (with the exception of the executive summary.) The point remains the same. Further insight into the Neoconservative agenda can be distilled from Jean Kirkpatrick's work. She distinguished between dictatorships, and came up with two classifications:

Totalitarian freedom and Authoritarian freedom. To her the Authoritarian model allowed economic freedom, whereas the other didn't, and neither allowed any real political freedom. Political freedom was however irrelevant. According to her work economic freedom produced a more stable government, and one that was more likely to accomodate American interests. (Kirkpatrick was a member of the Reagan administration.)

What we are seeing in Iraq is a slow move towards a Low Intensity Democracy installed in a similar fashion to similar governments in Hait, Nicaragua, etc. The difference is that those governments were installed with the efforts of local support and aided by covert American military intervention. In Iraq's case the U.S. military did all the heavy lifting; with the effect of that particular vector being ignored by the same people who charted an alternate path. If you want to know what this war is about I suggest you look at documents like "The Crisis of Democracy" and "Discriminate Detterance" (which was adopted as policy by the DOD in 1990); they are both published and both outline the factors involved in American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Interesting responses, what follows are comments regarding the postings of others that I found to be thought-provoking, or just plain provoking!. Gibu’s first posting asked about my remark on Malaysia. By no means did I mean to state that it wasn’t important in the war on terrorism. The point that I made was that I doubted option #3(overthrowing governments to obtain some economic benefit) could be the case since if we were out to get plunder, we would concentrate on key areas, rather than say......the Philippines or Malaysia.

I believe that Cubejockey’s concern:



Is answered completely by Hobbes in his assertion that in formulating policy, the administration tried to choose the best argument to go to war. At the same time, I’m amazed at the degree that even in it’s faulty nature, the American and British administrations carry the flawed cause to the hilt. The Brits have carried it so far, that there was an organized *cover-up* that was recently admitted. I find this very troubling, since this kind of behavior threatens the very livelihood of representative government. The BBC took a shellacking for being correct, as it, and not Tony Blair was exonerated in a recent report. The British government and minister Alistair owe the BBC an apology. Would it have been that hard to admit errors and change rationale as opposed to hiding the truth from the people and their elected representatives?

Turnea


The problem with this assertion is comparison. We are active in a region that is rich in a natural resource. It isn’t too far-fetched to state that the reason why we are in the middle east, and not say-the interior of Africa handling problems, is due to oil, or the lack thereof. We can’t be everywhere at once, but I would wager that we have done more for nations with resources than those without. Yes, you could mention the likes of Haiti or Bosnia, but I would argue that those campaigns were the policies of an administration that was bent on a more benign foreign policy. Not to mention, Clinton received a lot of criticism for his "humanitarian" based foreign policy. Not only that, but look at Gulf War I. The Kuwaiti government hired a big PR firm and used lies(Incubators & baby story) that was told through the eyes of an eyewitness(should've been known a a lie-witness since she was the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter!) and we went to war. Can Sierra Leone persuade us? Could other African nations do likewise? The only reason we get even token involvement in African disputes is when the congressional black caucus throws a fit, hence our tiny armada near Sierra Leone.

Not only that, but is it not unseemly that the Vice President's old company received the plum job of reconstruction in Iraq?? Is anyone here seriously maintaining otherwise in the no-bid award system? The old federalists and republicans created banks to enrich themselves and their allies, I fail to see how modern day politicians with corporate ties do not carry this out at the present day. We have also set up an economic system in Iraq that is very favorable to us. Labor unions?-banned. Taxes?-minimal. The good 'ol boys have it good in Baghdad.

Amlord:


I would disagree with this assertion, there were hints that we would soon tackle Syria or Iran, and recently, the September 11th committee report links Iran to helping Al-Qaeda in attacks that occurred in 2001. Neocons have wanted us to take on Syria and Iran, I would imagine with this news just two hours old as I type, that Iran will face some intense pressure, as will as our president. The Neocon vision is to get rid of unfriendly dictators, and who is to doubt that the Neocon intellectuals hold sway in this administration? Given their strong influence, I'm inclined to this reason for the war, at least it's in the top two in my opinion. For more on this group that is the "invisible hand" of foreign policy, click here.

Amlord


I don’t buy this at all. Well before the war, Iraq and Kuwait began mending fences through a new peace agreement signed at the Arab summit. The Baghdad-Kuwait Accord was carried out without the threat of U.S. invasion.

Personally, I'm down to two options -the war is about replacing foreign leaders who aren't sympathetic to our interests as inspired by the Neocons. Option number two?-$$$$$ Right now, I'm leaning towards the first.

Well, I'm convinced. We obviosly misjudged the poor man Saddam. He was really a great statesman of our time and not a ruthless murderer and torturer. If he says he won't ever invade again I tend to believe him. He wouldn't have lied just to get the other arab nations at the conference to support him in his dispute with the US. I'm sure once the trade sanctions were lifted eventually some day he would have never dreamed on breaking his word and invading after all, especially if he had aquired a serious weapon like nuclear weapons or something. We have been all wrong about him. I wonder though...... When he was borrowing money from Kuwait in the 80's to kill Iranians in that little skirmish they had (it takes money to put that nerve gas on scuds you know), I wonder if he mentioned to them that they were actually citizens of Iraq, but don't worry we'll pay these loans back anyway.


We could have it good in Iraq without a war. We could have the same system in place just by dropping the trade sanctions. I don't remeber taxes and labor unions being issues under Saddam. He was a changed man for sure having made nice with Kuwait and all, but I think we could have gotten him to give us some nice, no labor union (how dare they), exclusive contracts in exchange for not opposing the lifting of the sanctions. France was all over the lifting, we didn't even have to appear unseamly enough to lift them, just not oppose lifting them. Halibuton and every one else in Iraq now could have been all over that just as well and with less public scrutiny as well.

The war has caused spikes in fuel costs that in the short term are not good for our economy. If it's about dollars, the a president that needs to get re-elected is going to opt for no war that may or may not hurt the economy just in time to be voted out of office. Instead the wise move is to do business with Iraq and secure the best contracts for domestic companies in exchange for the political favors. No economic ping ball that way, everything is positive for us and no negatives. And now that we can trust the guy since he's recognizing Kuwait as a seperate country and all, we don't even have to worry about him wanting WMD's anymore and the future security threat of lifting those sanctions isn't even a worry anymore. Cool !!

Good to hear from you Gibu!, hope things are going fine down there in Jayhawk...er..uh...wildcat country. I bet this will surprise you, but I disagree! here's why: The words "murderer" and "torturer" are rather arbitrary. Were the dictators that we supported-Suharto, Pinochet, and Marcos saints by comparison? We are only concerned about international "madmen" when they don't follow our ways. It's only when they deviate from the line, that we start to hurl invectives at them. Augusto Pinochet oversaw the deaths of over 3,000 people. Suharto? he is credited by some reports of up to 500,000 deaths The average American is told that certain leaders are "ruthless murderers" and most people don't analyze how that is a rather subjective statement.



And if he does, he'll be polite and ask for permission like he did in '91.






You are mistaken as to who actually took the initiative on that. The Kuwaitis didn't didn't start it, the U.S. asked them to do so. Reagan even pleaded with the leader of Italy to give helicopters. You can read that and more here.

Not only that, but we knew about the killing of Iraqi citizens(Kurds) and the official Reagan administration view was-who cares?





Ahhhhhh, very good point. He could've played it safe and and the election in hand before embarking on the war during his "lame duck" session. I say fire Karl Rove and hire Gibu for president Bush! You're good at handling puppets right Gibu?? Just teasing you guy, it's nice to have people here with a sense of humor. At least the guy I supported in 2000 invented the internet. You have me doubting more and moer the $$$$$ & oil barrel reason.

Hehehe Nice post Nebraska29, and thanks. Hopefully my sarcastic (attempts at) wit are sharp enough so that nobody will misunderstand. I've never been accused of ever being too subtle though.

Hey, be careful with the wildcat, jayhawk personal info though, don't want you collecting any strikes now do we.

I had almost given up hope of ever convincing you of anything but I really do feel the oil argument really is very short sighted and a lot of people tend to just throw that out and leave it at that as if it's a primary reason and not just a supporting reason. I will most definitely agree though that oil is a huge factor in our economy and that does make it's stable supply one of our nations bigest priorities and keeps it a priority until we convert over to all windmill farms or tidal generators or something. We can do fine without Iraq's oil though, have been for some time. You could even make a case that keeping Iraq's oil off the global market keeps the supply artificially low and in turn makes the oil companies more money then if they dumped it back on the market and drove the prices back down. I don't feel this is the case myself, because the companies always make there margin of profit no matter the cost, but the case could be made. The one factor it does play though is that the region as a whole does need to continue pumping it out at a steady stream. Without that steady stream the trucks that bring you your food are suddenly costing way more to operate and your lettuce salad is now ten bucks. This is a regional thing though and if we knew Saddam was never going to be a problem again and never try to control anyone elses oil again we could happily do without his oil probably till the guy keels over in his sleep. Thats as far as the money / oil angle goes though.

I need to thank Hero and others for the links. I had read a little on Neoconservatism in the past, but a couple of the links were great. Hero, Nebraska29, both bring up some issues concerning our global support of non-democracies, and attempts at supporting democracies and I have some questions.

First, isn't democracy for people other then ourselves a worthwile goal in and of it's self? I personally having benefited from the freedoms my democracy provides would say yes, but thats just silly me. I have heard some (and I know nebraska29 has as well) try to make the case that it is not. Democracy is a difficult thing that we ourselves have been working on for over 200 years and yet we don't always get it right. It does however liberate people in the long run once implemented half way well and is the only path to a greater global equality (not that I'm nesisarly in favor of global equality). The point that some try to make is that even if it is good for us it may not be whats best for everyone and we have no business imposing it on everyone else. I would say democracy is a worth while goal though but not every democracy is the same and doesn't have to always look like ours. What ever form it does take though, people will always yearn to be free and determine there own future. It's just a human trait no matter how repressed it is or how difficult it is to revive.

I understand the point about supporting some dictators only when it's in out interests and then replacing them with democracies when they are not serving in our best interests. I understand fully how hypocritical this may seem, I really do. My question about this though is what is the alternative?? We may be way richer and more powerful then anyone else, but still there is only so much we can do at any one time. How do we prioritize things? Do we try to do everything at once no matter whether we can or not? Nothing will get accomplished in that case and things will only end up worse. Do we do nothing? Again nothing will get accomplished and things will only turn out worse no matter what Buchanan may try to say. Do we do what we can but only randomly? This time stuff may get done but we may end up weaker in the long run and unable to accomplish any more in the future. Do we do only easy stuff? do we do only hard stuff? I don't see it as a crime to do what we can do and is in our self interests to do. Why even have a government if were not interested in our collective good as a country. Why would we want to do things not in our own self interests? I would say the key is to do what we can, as much as we can, and is in our own self interests in a responsible and moral way. This not always easy to be sure, but I would think a worth while goal. Ideally the world will continue to improve until conditions are good for all of us. I know what that sounds like, but I would have thought Marxism sounded even more nuts and look at how that took off for a while.

I would also have to say that not only is it a prioritizing issue, but a common sense issue as well. The correct course for dealing with one regime is not going to be the correct course for dealing with every regime. It doesn't matter if things work out peachy in Iraq, that set of circumstances will never apply in any other case again. If one solution fits all then I'm sure North Korea will be a little suprised when we eventually get around to invading them. Most times I would think baby steps are most appropriate. Get in, get them hooked on what trade and other relations with us can do for them and then move them more towards democracy as well. This is a long process and requires a great deal of patience and perciverence, but but I would say is worth while and it's our duty as citizens to make sure our government stays on track with it. This seems to be slowly but surely working in China, perhaps though we need to just drop that and invade so that things look better to the average arab on the street?

I have been reading more on Neoconservatism as I mentioned and I have to say that several people make it sound like a very evil, insidious thing indeed when mentioning it. My question to them would be what are the alternatives? Point me to a link that explains a better plan. If there is one then I'm all ears, I'm willing to learn. These guys seem to have a well thought out plan and I would say thats a good thing. We can all see in the aftermath of Iraq how planning to not need a plan works out. Why would we squander such an opportunity to further our own interests? Come up with a well thought out alternative that seems to have at least a chance to work and I'm all over it.



Hugo, I would tend to agree with "a democratic nation is more likely to be an economic ally and be less of a threat to world peace." Democracies just don't as a rule declare war on each other and solve things militarily. Oh if only they would though..... Canada is just ripe for the picken I would say, and who wouldn't like to take a turn at the French just for the fun of it? But really though, democracies have a pretty tough time rallying support among the people for naked aggresion. Wars depend on at least one side not fearing the wrath of the governed. It's not impossible though. I could see a case for regional hatreds stirring up the masses in say an independent Palestine, or in India, but I think it gets way more difficult as time goes by and if both sides are a free, self determining peoples. Who wants the economic hit that bad? There you go. You want a good reason to bring democracy to all. It will end warfare. Once every person on the planet is a citizen of a fully realized and independent democracy, there will be no more wars. Cool!! Ok, perhaps not, but it's at least worth a try. Might be a ways off in the future anyway. I don't think I'll hold my breath.

Anyway, this is all probably just a big long winded thread jack. Sorry if it is.

Hey, Nebraska29, I just thought of the answer to this.... For the answer, just go back to your Eddie Izzard !!!

Cool! Even better, in my Neocon refresher course I seen one think tank that claimed to be "Not just a think tank, but a main battle tank in the war of ideas!" How cool does that sound. If only they would hire me. Hehehe

Very funny!! You know I'm not good with even simple human interaction!

Thanks again Nebraska29.

Only partially edited for stupidity.