Do you believe the Iraq war is about terrorism or natural resources?

[canis582]

I won't blame you if you think the former because that is all that the media ever says. But here is the thing: Do you think the war was increased or decreased the chances of a domestic attack? Would war supporters be glad if another 9-11 occurs?
----

Despite all the pundits saying 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here', did the war planners of the war have that in mind at all, outside the obvious propaganda value of that arguement? Do Cheney and his cabal actually believe that statement?

Canis582's perspective of history tells me that practically all wars since the begining of time have been fought over natural resources, but have had various rationales. The Iraq war is no different. Does anyone on this board think our nation would be spending a billion per week on that occupation if Iraq's main exports were burkas and bongos?

The middle east's oil has been described as the 'greatest strategic prize in the history of the world.' I believe Bush and Cheney's failure to effectively plunder those resources is grounds for eternal exile to a poor province of Mexico.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
The middle east's oil has been described as the 'greatest strategic prize in the history of the world.' I believe Bush and Cheney's failure to effectively plunder those resources is grounds for eternal exile to a poor province of Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, for a second I thought you were against might-makes-right and taking by force whatever you can get. Turns out you just think we're not plundering efficiently enough?

[AzDesertRat]

saddam tried to kill GW's dad--it's about revenge.

[bkholdem]

I think it is about power and control, over american citizens. Terrorism is the excuse to make and keep americans afraid so the government can continue to sheer them like the sheep they are, and now they are praising them for it and insisting that it is necessary.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't blame you if you think the former because that is all that the media ever says. But here is the thing: Do you think the war was increased or decreased the chances of a domestic attack? Would war supporters be glad if another 9-11 occurs?
----

Despite all the pundits saying 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here', did the war planners of the war have that in mind at all, outside the obvious propaganda value of that arguement? Do Cheney and his cabal actually believe that statement?

Canis582's perspective of history tells me that practically all wars since the begining of time have been fought over natural resources, but have had various rationales. The Iraq war is no different. Does anyone on this board think our nation would be spending a billion per week on that occupation if Iraq's main exports were burkas and bongos?

The middle east's oil has been described as the 'greatest strategic prize in the history of the world.' I believe Bush and Cheney's failure to effectively plunder those resources is grounds for eternal exile to a poor province of Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's about natural resources, but it's about making sure a "terror state" does not have control of those natural resources. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, its goal seems fairly apparent. It's about making sure we have ties to the oil in the region and that it's not controlled by dictatorships who are enemies of the United States.

It's not as simple to just propose it as a dichotomy. "Terrorism or Oil?" It can be about both. And keep in mind, I'm referring to terrorism very loosely, as it applies to a "terror state", i.e.; a violent dictatorship. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism within our own borders, other than the fact that terrorism in the US was used as a reason for the invasion.

One thing is for sure, anyone who says it's not about oil is just stone cold lying (perhaps to themselves). It's all about natural resources. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly has admitted as much.

[Mr Rat]

I think it is one of two things (or both?):
-To allow a big USA footprint in the middle-east for short to long term strategies
-or, for diversionary tactics

I could be wrong, maybe it is oil or revenge or some other reason...but the two I listed seem more probable to me (I know, oil should be the most probable for most people)

[tomdemaine]

Boy are your faces going to be red when they find those WMDs.

[zasterguava]

The US government could clearly care less about terrorism. This answers your question.

[canis582]

Vagos, I am glad you expanded on this topic.

What makes a "terror state"? For US planners, the form of government or the level of internal repression is not an issue. Rather, it is dependent on the level of obedience that a nation exibits toward the US's strategic goals.

Governments that allow the US unfettered access to their natural resouces in exchange for arms and political protection are considered allies, while nations which seek to use natural resources to alleviate suffering and poverty are attacked. The best example of this is the current propaganda war against Hugo Chavez for attempting to use his nation's oil wealth to advance the interests of the citizens of that country rather than US business interests.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't blame you if you think the former because that is all that the media ever says. But here is the thing: Do you think the war was increased or decreased the chances of a domestic attack? Would war supporters be glad if another 9-11 occurs?
----

Despite all the pundits saying 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here', did the war planners of the war have that in mind at all, outside the obvious propaganda value of that arguement? Do Cheney and his cabal actually believe that statement?

Canis582's perspective of history tells me that practically all wars since the begining of time have been fought over natural resources, but have had various rationales. The Iraq war is no different. Does anyone on this board think our nation would be spending a billion per week on that occupation if Iraq's main exports were burkas and bongos?

The middle east's oil has been described as the 'greatest strategic prize in the history of the world.' I believe Bush and Cheney's failure to effectively plunder those resources is grounds for eternal exile to a poor province of Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly I don't get the rationale behind if we don't fight them over in Iraq they'll be on our soil fighting us in the U.S. How hard is it to get into Mexico and come into to the U.S. from Mexico just like any illegal does? Maybe the getting into Mexico is the hard part. Don't know why it becomes easier if we're not in Iraq though. My crap detector tells me that there's a lot of disinformation being spewed by the current administration about Iraq and what's going on there. However, I think it's clear we're dealing with an administration that's dominated by incompetance much more than cunning and cleverness FWIW. Even if they had some devious plan to confiscate Iraq oil, they don't have the capability to execute the plan effectively IMO.