Is Iraq War a justice war?

  • News
  • Thread starter yu_wing_sin
  • Start date
  • #1
yu_wing_sin
78
0
Is Iraq War a justice war?

According to our Asian political views, America invaded Iraq has following bad intentions:

1: Iraq is the world's second oil production contry, Bush wants to control Iraq's oil source to keep the economic of US.

2: USA wants to press Iran and Syria, and control the East Asia.

3: Bush wants to fame in history, so he used the pretext of terrorists to gain the fame. As Asian knows, Bush is a very cunning president, saying lies never feels shame, he made lies to deceive world's people for beginning wars.

To give Iraq a democratic gov is only Bush a pretext, robbing Iraq's oil source is just the right reason.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Somehow I'm happy Iraqis got rid of Saddam, but I'm not sure if their situation would be better now. Anyway it was an unfair war and Bush had no right to attack Iraq.

PS I totally agree with your reasons.
 
  • #3
outsider
24
0
Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?
 
  • #4
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Only Asia?
 
  • #5
outsider said:
Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?
Unfortunately, now that he has been reelected, the rest of the world is probably less inclined to disassociate him from the rest of Americans.
 
  • #6
outsider said:
Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?
It takes a great deal of sophisticated analysis to understand that what is in the interests of the wealthy is very often against the interests of ordinary people. Even highly educated people do not always see this.

Was 'the war in Iraq' in the interests of 'the American people'? Was it in their interests to finance such a huge military operation with both funds that could have been spent better in other areas and with soldiers' lives? Of course not. But do all ordinary US citizens understand this? I don't think so. It was certainly in the interests of: armament manufacturers, construction companies, etc, etc. that the US citizens finance this war and thus open up new 'markets' and subsidise the profits these companies would otherwise not have made.

If even US citizens don't understand this, I don't see that there is a great chance that people living elsewhere will. My guess is that most people would judge that 'Americans' are to blame. They are wrong - but nevertheless, this is probably what they would think.
 
  • #7
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,109
18
alexandra said:
It was certainly in the interests of: armament manufacturers, construction companies, etc, etc. that the US citizens finance this war and thus open up new 'markets' and subsidise the profits these companies would otherwise not have made.

I still claim, that no matter what was the real agenda for Iraq, it failed.
 
  • #8
fourier jr
757
13
here are bill blum's (www.killinghope.org) reasons:

Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East.

Idealism: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Oil: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down.

Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.
 
  • #9
vanesch said:
I still claim, that no matter what was the real agenda for Iraq, it failed.
Ah, vanesch - it is certainly looking shakey at the moment. It does seem to have failed (or at least, it was not easily achieved - has not yet been achieved). The problem is, when you start taking such gambles (as the US administration has done), you have to be aware that the gamble may not pay off. So, I would agree with you that the US admin's play has not yielded the expected/required results. And you may even be correct that they *have* lost (though the evidence is yet incomplete - the scenario has not yet been fully played out; it is, however, playing itself out right now as more and more US taxes are poured onto the gambling table). Let's see, heh? You're probably right, but the game hasn't ended yet...
 
  • #10
DM
161
0
alexandra said:
Was 'the war in Iraq' in the interests of 'the American people'? Was it in their interests to finance such a huge military operation with both funds that could have been spent better in other areas and with soldiers' lives? Of course not.

In order to ratify this statement and ideology, The Bush administration should've held a national referendum. The same applies for Britain, the majority of citizens did not wish to go to war but not having the choice to vote meant that Tony Blair would use our name in the 'War on terror'.
 
  • #11
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,109
18
fourier jr said:
here are bill blum's (www.killinghope.org) reasons:

Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East.

Yes, we now see how Iran is shivering before Almighty US Army :smile:

Idealism: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Uh, still too early, but I don't hear them sing yet :smile:

Oil: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down.

Well, Europe took itself down all by itself, didn't need the US for that :blushing:, and yeah, the oil is flowing, the price in $ is plummeting :rofl:

Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

As long as it respects the Sharia, there will be no problem :smile:

Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire

Until the Chinese will stop buying T-bills :rofl:

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.

Hope it is made of VERY THICK armourplate... and I wouldn't want to drink the water !
:devil:
 
  • #12
DM said:
In order to ratify this statement and ideology, The Bush administration should've held a national referendum. The same applies for Britain, the majority of citizens did not wish to go to war but not having the choice to vote meant that Tony Blair would use our name in the 'War on terror'.
The same thing happened in Australia, DM. Mass demonstrations were organised against the invasion, and really (because of the seriousness of this decision), it should have gone to a national referendum - but no... 'we' 'elected' (God) John Howard and 'gods' do as they please, don't they? I certainly don't agree with Australia's involvement in this mess - but then again, I wasn't given a chance to air my views, was I? And *this* is what we so proudly call "democracy". Ha!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
DM
161
0
alexandra said:
The same thing happened in Australia, DM.

Yes, indeed.
 
  • #14
yu_wing_sin
78
0
outsider said:
Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?

In Asian view, the Iraq War reflects the American essence, they think American essence is bad and arbitrary. Now also Europe abandons America, USA has not many friends, some "friends" are only pretended.
 
  • #15
yu_wing_sin
78
0
Lisa! said:
Only Asia?

Also the European...
 
  • #16
Burnsys
64
0
Also here in South america
 
  • #17
outsider
24
0
yu_wing_sin said:
In Asian view, the Iraq War reflects the American essence, they think American essence is bad and arbitrary. Now also Europe abandons America, USA has not many friends, some "friends" are only pretended.
You know, just due to the discussions on these boards and knowing human nature... I think this IS the essence of America... It's hard enough to convince individuals who are supposed to be thinkers... without a doubt, most of the the non-thinkers actually accept the stories we see on television. So the world does have a right in believing that Bush represents America as he certainly does. It important, though, to point out that NOT all American's share his sentiments. It is a great shame and irony that this so called FREE system does not fully permit for a means to oppose his actions. We are free to talk to deaf ears.
 
  • #18
pattylou
303
0
outsider said:
You know, just due to the discussions on these boards and knowing human nature... I think this IS the essence of America... It's hard enough to convince individuals who are supposed to be thinkers... without a doubt, most of the the non-thinkers actually accept the stories we see on television. So the world does have a right in believing that Bush represents America as he certainly does.

Please don't lose sight of the fact that half of the vote went to Kerry, and kerry supporters were almost all very passionate in their dislike for bush.

In that sense, he doesn't represent America, only half of it. And many of them voted for him passionately, for a single reason such as his stand on abortion, or his tax philosophy, or his "straight shooter" stance. The war was very much ignored by the Bushies during campaigning. (This is my recollection and opinion, I don't have a source handy to reference this.) Domestic issues were given for why they supported him (read: Tax breaks) making the response to Katrina even more ironic.
 
  • #19
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,109
18
pattylou said:
Please don't lose sight of the fact that half of the vote went to Kerry, and kerry supporters were almost all very passionate in their dislike for bush.

In that sense, he doesn't represent America, only half of it. And many of them voted for him passionately, for a single reason such as his stand on abortion, or his tax philosophy, or his "straight shooter" stance.

I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good. After all, I think in world history, the US has been the most "benign" superpower that has ever been ; most great empires in the past where MUCH MORE agressive. I think that Bush's philosophy must have been "what's good for the US is good for the world" and in a way, this would have been true if it were an enlightened view.
The Iraq war was probably based upon a "hidden agenda" which had something "good" (in the above view) to it: ousting a dictator, removing threats, install a US-friendly democracy, etc... were seen to be good for the US AND good for the world ; ok and some stuff was especially good for the US and Cheney's buddies but that was the cherry on top of the cake.
The problem is that these people had in their book also that lying and cheating for the greater good was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, hence the stories about WMD, links to 9/11 etc... And getting angry at the rest of the weasly world for not taking up the courageous stance that would improve life for everybody.
The problem is that they screwed up dearly (and in fact ran into a trap that was set up for them by OBL!). And by the same book that allowed for cheating and lying in the first place, you also never admit you were wrong.
In doing so he brought more damage to the US (and slightly more to the rest of the world) than he ever intended. But once this crew will be gone, and the US will have gone through a kind of purgatory, things will improve.
 
  • #20
outsider
24
0
vanesch said:
I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good. After all, I think in world history, the US has been the most "benign" superpower that has ever been ; most great empires in the past where MUCH MORE agressive. I think that Bush's philosophy must have been "what's good for the US is good for the world" and in a way, this would have been true if it were an enlightened view.
The Iraq war was probably based upon a "hidden agenda" which had something "good" (in the above view) to it: ousting a dictator, removing threats, install a US-friendly democracy, etc... were seen to be good for the US AND good for the world ; ok and some stuff was especially good for the US and Cheney's buddies but that was the cherry on top of the cake.
The problem is that these people had in their book also that lying and cheating for the greater good was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, hence the stories about WMD, links to 9/11 etc... And getting angry at the rest of the weasly world for not taking up the courageous stance that would improve life for everybody.
The problem is that they screwed up dearly (and in fact ran into a trap that was set up for them by OBL!). And by the same book that allowed for cheating and lying in the first place, you also never admit you were wrong.
In doing so he brought more damage to the US (and slightly more to the rest of the world) than he ever intended. But once this crew will be gone, and the US will have gone through a kind of purgatory, things will improve.
i don't think the bush admn deserve your benefiy of the doubt... as you said.. there was a hidden agenda, and he is more preoccupied with his agenda than helping the poor... i believe the statistics say that louisiana has the highest concentration of poor blacks... they do not support bush,so that may be an explanation for the lack of priority... there should have been a reaction from the feds at latest by day 2... it was all over the news... whats with the hold up? anyhow, remember that colin powell left the team... what's the reason for that?
 
  • #21
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
"The world should be at war, so the US will be at peace". Perhaps that's Bush policy!
 
  • #22
DM
161
0
vanesch said:
I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good.

Perhaps you'd like to explain that to the relatives of the killed innocent. Just as Bush and all of his allies support the argument "Iraq is an excuse for terrorism", your "benefit of doubt" is an excuse for all of the ignorance and neglect up to this date. There's no room for benefits of doubt in my opinion.
 
  • #23
Someone once told me that there is no black and white, it is all gray. I disagreed with the argument that somethings are black and white.

Examples;

You cannot be slightly pregnant.

Dead is dead.
 
  • #24
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
DM said:
Perhaps you'd like to explain that to the relatives of the killed innocent. Just as Bush and all of his allies support the argument "Iraq is an excuse for terrorism", your "benefit of doubt" is an excuse for all of the ignorance and neglect up to this date. There's no room for benefits of doubt in my opinion.
Vanesch is one of the more outspoken critics of Bush and his Admin here. Personally I'm glad to see that some of you are more objective and don't think Bush to be the personification of evil. Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.
I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.
 
  • #25
Smurf
396
3
I disagree with Vanesch. The cause of the invasions were to make money for the arms and oil companies. They were very much successfull in their goals.
 
  • #26
Smurf
396
3
TheStatutoryApe said:
Vanesch is one of the more outspoken critics of Bush and his Admin here. Personally I'm glad to see that some of you are more objective and don't think Bush to be the personification of evil. Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.
I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.
I don't really think it's worth trying to figure out exactly what Bush's personal role was. We can discuss the foreign policy of the US without needing to regard the personal roles of every individual behind it.
 
  • #27
Smurf
396
3
alexandra said:
My guess is that most people would judge that 'Americans' are to blame. They are wrong - but nevertheless, this is probably what they would think.
The population of the United States is perfectly responsible for the actions of the governing body that represents them. I can't see any way you could make a case against this, how can americans not be responsible?
 
  • #28
kat
39
0
Government of the people...and by the people. Of course the United States people are responsible for the good and the bad.
 
  • #29
Smurf
396
3
I take it all back, I never meant it! It was a joke! :uhh:
 
  • #30
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
Smurf said:
I disagree with Vanesch. The cause of the invasions were to make money for the arms and oil companies. They were very much successfull in their goals.
--------------------------
I don't really think it's worth trying to figure out exactly what Bush's personal role was. We can discuss the foreign policy of the US without needing to regard the personal roles of every individual behind it.
As your former statment would indicate the goals of the individuals responsable for US foreign policy and their level of real influence and decision making are very important. However I don't agree that the purpose of the war was to make money for arms and oil companies. As Vanesch stated it was a sort of cherry on top. Those that stand to profit from an action are definitely more likely to support it but that profit isn't necessarily the whole reasoning for the action. I'm sure many of you may not agree but I believe there are some incredibly intelligent people working in the US government and military. These people are the ones that I believe come up with the ideas such as the Iraq war and they find ignorant and unintelligent people such as Bush to push their agenda for them. Most of those that are profiting monetarily are dupes essentially receiving a pay off for their complicity, in my opinion. This is why I think that it is important to recognize the players in the game for who they are.
 
  • #31
Smurf
396
3
TheStatutoryApe said:
As your former statment would indicate the goals of the individuals responsable for US foreign policy and their level of real influence and decision making are very important.
Actually no, the idea that Americans are responsible for the actions of the US government is a macro-political view. This is almost opposite to the interactionist micro-political view that would examine individual's personal actions and reasoning.
 
  • #32
outsider
24
0
TheStatutoryApe said:
Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.
Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get. They will pretend to be your friend until the right time to snuff you out.

People who lie try to give reasons and explanations, but the reasons change over time and the story changes over time as the true intentions are still hidden. Now, this time it's oil. When the truth becomes apparent, a way of tying the lies with the truth are necessary... so there you go. Mastermind groups work together to plot and ploy... Amway was my experience. :redface: I've experienced my unfair share of dishonesty in my life...

this isn't my best writing, but it's hard to explain how the criminal mind works... it's a tangled web and all perceptions are skewed purposely... deny, deny, deny!
 
  • #33
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
outsider said:
Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get.[ect...]
I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...
 
  • #34
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Well perhaps he's doing something good for his country, but I don't think anything in the world would be more valuable than humans' lives. He doesn't value his countryman life and his country's reputation in the world. If he wants to continue in this way, US hatred will increase more and more. And it has a negative affect on US's security and Americans' security in the world! We're always talking about how dangerous terrorism is, but we usually don't ask ourselves why terrorism exists. What's the terrorists' motivation.
 
  • #35
outsider
24
0
TheStatutoryApe said:
I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...
he doesn't work alone.
 

Suggested for: Is Iraq War a justice war?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
195
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
622
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
880
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
247
Replies
13
Views
395
Replies
140
Views
12K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
232
Top