Issue: Foreign Policy:Pretext to invade Iraq (What people forget about Iraq)

[jon_perez]

The standard line is that the government used 9/11 and WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq and had no other good reason other than to steal Iraq's oil. But I think we have forgotten or left out a few important details than makes that action less absurd or unconscionable than is generally portrayed by anti-neocon propagandists.

Consider:

1. This was the plan even during Clinton's time. Why?

The US was bleeding billions with a standing force defending Kuwait. I don't think anyone believed Kuwait would be willing to spend to defend itself against any new Saddam attack. No one trusted that a badly humiliated Saddam would stand pat if US forces left. Which is why everyone, including Clinton, was itching to remove Saddam.

Defending Kuwait was a horribly expensive burden. I suspect that the initial idea was that removing Saddam would cost the US less, but the moment the government got the support for it from the American people, Bush and Co. suddenly got all sorts of new, and not so wise, ideas.


2. Is it about oil?

Yes. But it was also about protecting Kuwait bec. of commitments to it as an ally. It was also about living up to the mess created by foreign policies initiated many decades ago by presidents well before Bush and Clinton. Saddam was put there by such foreign policy so in a sense, Bush did right to remove and undo the mess created by the CIA (all the way back to Kennedy's time if my history is correct), but of course the effort to get out of one mess led to a yet bigger one.


On a closer look, Ron Paul's position is not as simplistic as the fact that he is against Bush or the war: Bush is not to blame for the war, Congress is.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul387.html

"The president 'mismanaged' the war, they say. 'It’s all the president’s fault,' they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war."

The assertion that Ron was against the war from the beginning is a simplification because he did tell fellow congressmen that if they wanted war they should have declared it themselves instead of passing the buck to Bush.

Our man Paul does know how to put a skillful spin on things but in a way that I do not find disingenuous at all. He does not really hide the facts and if you are smart and dig deeper you actually understand how adroit but appropriate (and non-deceptive imo) his sound-bite packaged presentations (read: dumbing-down) are.

 

[buffalokid777]

The standard line is that the government used 9/11 and WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq and had no other good reason other than to steal Iraq's oil. But I think we have forgotten or left out a few important details than makes that action less absurd or unconscionable than is generally portrayed by anti-neocon propagandists.

Consider:

1. This was the plan even during Clinton's time. Why?

The US was bleeding billions with a standing force defending Kuwait. I don't think anyone believed Kuwait would be willing to spend to defend itself against any new Saddam attack. No one trusted that a badly humiliated Saddam would stand pat if US forces left. Which is why everyone, including Clinton, was itching to remove Saddam.

Defending Kuwait was a horribly expensive burden. I suspect that the initial idea was that removing Saddam would cost the US less, but the moment the government got the support for it from the American people, Bush and Co. suddenly got all sorts of new, and not so wise, ideas.

First of all....The plan during Clinton's time...was made during "Daddy's Time" before Clinton. Here's a sweet little article to get you up to speed on the stuff the Neocon talking heads that gave you this crazy idea might have left out....

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_6103630

While Clinton may have taken a few assassination attempts at Sadaam...He still refused a full out invasion, despite from prodding by the Neocon warmongers over at PNAC....

If anyone really thought a full out of invasion would be cheaper than defending Kuwait....I would have seriously thought they had a screw loose...and reality has shown anyone who did beleive that just how costly it turned out to be.

You say we were bleeding Billions defending Kuwait each YEAR? Now we're bleeding Billions A DAY occupying Iraq.

Hey don't get me wrong....I can't stand Clinton either... It's no wonder Daddy the HW and Clinton are bestest friends as our current George the W said in a state of the union address. A Neolib like Clinton is no better than a Neocon like Bush. They are simply different wings of the same bird...

2. Is it about oil?

Yes. But it was also about protecting Kuwait bec. of commitments to it as an ally. It was also about living up to the mess created by foreign policies initiated many decades ago by presidents well before Bush and Clinton. Saddam was put there by such foreign policy so in a sense, Bush did right to remove and undo the mess created by the CIA (all the way back to Kennedy's time if my history is correct), but of course the effort to get out of one mess led to a yet bigger one.


On a closer look, Ron Paul's position is not as simplistic as the fact that he is against Bush or the war: Bush is not to blame for the war, Congress is.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul387.html

"The president 'mismanaged' the war, they say. 'It’s all the president’s fault,' they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war."

You do have a point about it not being ALL Bush's fault....congress deserves some of the blame......for as you say "Passing the buck" after being spoonfed false intelligence by the Neocons

The assertion that Ron was against the war from the beginning is a simplification because he did tell fellow congressmen that if they wanted war they should have declared it themselves instead of passing the buck to Bush.

Our man Paul does know how to put a skillful spin on things but in a way that I do not find disingenuous at all. He does not really hide the facts and if you are smart and dig deeper you actually understand how adroit but appropriate (and non-deceptive imo) his sound-bite packaged presentations (read: dumbing-down) are.

Here I think your assertion that Ron was against the war from the beginnig is a simplification is simply untrue...the link you posted above has this also written in it

"According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States."

Ron Paul

Ron Paul also voted against that authorization....just as he would have been forced to vote against declaring war due to his beliefs as stated.

Also on last thing...was it about Oil....

Check out the book "Armed Madhouse" by BBC Reporter Greg Palast

It has some documents he got out of the Oil industry documenting their plans for Iraq before we went in there, if they could ever get someone into power to go for it....they finally found a willing ally in George the w

Interesting read for the uninformed.

 

[jon_perez]

First of all....The plan during Clinton's time...was made during "Daddy's Time" before Clinton. Here's a sweet little article to get you up to speed on the stuff the Neocon talking heads that gave you this crazy idea might have left out....

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_6103630

With or without WMD, Saddam was still a threat to the region and specifically Kuwait.

While Clinton may have taken a few assassination attempts at Sadaam...

I don't believe this was the case...

He still refused a full out invasion, despite from prodding by the Neocon warmongers over at PNAC....

DUH, of course!! It was a very risky political manuever that could very easily hurt Clinton and his party. Even Bush had to wait for a 9/11 before he would dare sell the idea to congress and the population.

Congress, even with such a rationale, was too timid to accept responsibility and passed the buck to Bush. Smart move, because now we see how the war backfired badly and Bush, not them, gets the blame.

If anyone really thought a full out of invasion would be cheaper than defending Kuwait....

Of course it would be more expensive in the short-run, but it could have been deemed cheaper to get it over with than to perpetually station half a dozen divisions in Kuwait waiting for Saddam to be toppled (which it looked like the sanctions were failing to do).

Here I think your assertion that Ron was against the war from the beginnig is a simplification is simply untrue...the link you posted above has this also written in it

I said it was a simplification but I did not intend to mean that it was untrue. Ron WAS against the war for the most part, but I believe he could also see the reasons why _some_ might have thought it was necessary and thus wanted Congress to take responsibility for it. If Congress had decided to vote for authorization to go ahead with the war (instead of passing the buck to Bush), Ron would not necessarily have gone against it. One possible scenario would be to go to war with Saddam and expand the borders of Kuwait in a way that makes it far easier and less expensive to defend. Of course, the UN would never allow this which perhaps leads to the complex reasoning behind why Paul does not think membership in the UN is a good idea as it handicaps foreign policy.

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States."

I don't think anyone now believes Iraq ever posed a direct threat to the United States. However, it did pose a threat to Kuwait - an ally - which the US was committed to defend. This rationale though, was not enough to sell the public on the idea of full-blown war to remove Saddam.

Even the first Gulf War - to liberate an occupied Kuwait - could not be sold to the American public, it was claimed, until they coached the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to cry on TV and claim that Iraqi soldiers were snatching Kuwaiti babies away from incubators (why on earth they would do that was not explained, but it sure supposedly did galvanize the US public into supporting the war).

Also on last thing...was it about Oil....

Yes, ultimately of course. But having to defend Kuwait as an ally and the desire to stop incurring vast sums doing that could also have played a role in that decision. (The point being that there were practical rather than malevolent reasons) The problem with the neocons could be that they weren't content with just removing Saddam and "making Kuwait safe", they realized that they had to end up running Iraq as well because the resulting power vacuum led to unpredictable consequences. Keeping Saddam in power but neutering his army would have been one option and *might* not have resulted in a power vacuum, but I guess they decided getting rid of him was simpler and it turned out this was fraught with unintended consequences as well.

"Entangling alliances" with middle-eastern states is exactly what brought this whole mess about and it was created well before the neocons were around, way way back to when the Kennedy-era CIA put Saddam in power.

So finding scapegoats in the form of neo-this, neo-that for today's f_ck-ups ignores the underlying causes that have their roots in the history of many decades ago back when your parents and possibly grandparents chose their government and voiced their public opinions. Mainstream americans did not have too many problems with the CIA back then and still don't up to today.

 

[buffalokid777]

Kuwait and the region may have been threatned by Saddam, but the probablity of him actually trying to attack another country after the first gulf war was extremely low.

The first gulf war left Saddam with his military reduced to about 1/3 pre kuwait invasion....it lead to sanctions and the loss of his WMD.

Keeping that in mind, I think he would have know it would be suicide for him if he tried to attack Kuwait once more.

And yes, you are correct, In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.

Why did the CIA want to carry out a coup on Iraq then? Because when Qasim came to power in 1958 , he carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go and be replaced with a puppet leader like Saddam.

As long as Saddam remained a CIA puppet....all was good....when he finally wouldn't do what they want....they wanted him gone too....

But even back then, one of the reasons they wanted Saddam in and Qasim dead was still oil.....

While this may have started long before I was born....The Neocons in my opinion make excellent scapegoats for the mess in Iraq....They are the ones who pushed to go in there....they are the ones who convinced the conservatives to just rubber stamp what they wanted to do...they are the ones who labled as anyone not with them as against them and also unpatriotic for not going along with them.

They got a lot of good conservatives to go along with some bad things that hurt our country all in the name of patriotism. I was so happy when the conservatives finally stood up to the neocons last year and said NO to Bush/Neocon comprehensive immigration bill. They sold out the conservative based and hoped they could get the neolibs to get all the liberals to tow the line and rubberstamp it and try to ram it down our throats this year so Bush could finally sign it....so far they've been defeated.

This is why I like Ron Paul so much....He has integrity....he did what was right all along....one of only 6 republicans to think for themselves and not authorize going into Iraq....everytime he makes the distiction between conservatives and neocons...I just love it. I think both the Neocons in the PNAC and Neolibs in the DLC are just too radical to be in charge of the parties they control and are bad for America. I'm glad more and more people are waking up to what they are doing. And I hope both the true conservatives and liberals take back they're parties from these neo nutjob radicals.

 

[Mattsa]

Oil for Euros

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar hegemony

 

[buffalokid777]

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar hegemony

Oh that definately plays into it....Just like how the saber rattling got turned up a few notches when Iran started talking about taking Euros too....

But that's not all....Big oil wanted Iraq's oil off the market for a long time....and thanks to the invasion, they finally got what they wanted....and are reaping the profits everyday....look at gas prices.

Now you see people starting to introduce plans to split Iraq in 3...Kurds, Shia, Sunni...

This is what big oil wanted all along....A balkanization of Iraq, a perpetual civil war keeping Iraq's oil off the world market indefinately so they can reap bigger profits.

Big oil has way too big a hold on way too many politicians....they need to start financing the wars they want on their own buck, instead of doing it on the cheap by spending big bucks to get enough politicians in who will do they're bidding and send our Army to fight their corporate wars at the expense of the American taxpayer. For a 200 million investment in political donations over the past 15 years....big oil is reaping whirlwind profits by the Iraq invasion and American taxpayers will be paying for the 500 billion+ bill. Unreal more politicians can't see this.

 

[nayjevin]

this is absurd

He still refused a full out invasion, despite from prodding by the Neocon warmongers over at PNAC....

DUH, of course!! It was a very risky political manuever that could very easily hurt Clinton and his party. Even Bush had to wait for a 9/11 before he would dare sell the idea to congress and the population.

Congress, even with such a rationale, was too timid to accept responsibility and passed the buck to Bush. Smart move, because now we see how the war backfired badly and Bush, not them, gets the blame.

Congress was too timid to accept responsibility to perpetrate an unjust war? If you have to 'sell' the idea to go to war, you shouldn't be at war. This whole thread is an absurd analysis.

War is not about political blame. If it is just, and necessary to protect your country (defined: it's citizens) you do it. Otherwise, you don't. Saddam has never been a threat to the self-defense of our country.

The way a country should be defended is precisely the way an individual should be defended. Murder is justifiable in self-defense only, and only in defending the self against the threat of physical harm. You can't kill someone in defense of your bank account, or gas tank.

 

[Ponce]

I like the way that no one even mentions the state of Israel in passing as one of the reasons (if not the main one) for invading Iraq......and maybe even Iran.

Sometimes is hard to ignore the elephan in the living room.

 

[JSPasswaters]

Quote from Oct 11, 2000 Presidential Debate between Gore and Bush:

"We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."


Sounds like the war plans were made before he even took office.


JSP

 

[buffalokid777]

Quote from Oct 11, 2000 Presidential Debate between Gore and Bush:

"We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."


Sounds like the war plans were made before he even took office.


JSP

They were made before the election by big oil.

See BBC reporter Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse book for more info!