General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
question everything
(49,545 posts)and, I suppose, be close to Iran. And, if needed, protect the Gulf kingdoms.
This is why the Brits, after WWI drew the maps so arbitrarily. To have access to the oil fields. They were the ones who laid the oil pipes in the first place, all the way to the Mediterranean.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)It's true, all the regional conflicts seem to center on areas that were the subjects of colonialism/imperialism. I know it goes much farther back than that but that seems to be the breaking point.
My go to analogy is we have to learn to stop pissing in other peoples sandbox before we don't have so many enemies in the world.
question everything
(49,545 posts)There were many tribes - really, this is what they were/are - in the Ottoman Empire. And they lived next to each other more or less at a peaceful co-existence. But Britain and France drew arbitrary borders and declared them states. In Iraq, they put the Sunnis and the Shiites and the Kurds in one country. And they installed the two sons of Sharif Hussein as kings in Trans Jordan and Syria. When Syria was given to the French, the kings was transferred to Iraq. From there, many claim stemmed the mistrust of the West.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)All of the attempts of the western nations to exploit other nations and their misguided actions fomented divisions that we live with today. Your response shows that you have a more detailed understanding of the issues than I but the effects are so similar whether discussing South America, Central America, Africa, or the Middle East. When another nation tries to exert undue influence they will be seen as enemies.
liberal N proud
(61,041 posts)And Rummy was mad at his old friend Saddam
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)and the oil supply.
It's that cut and dried.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Spread free-dumb and democracy.
Saddam gassed his own people.
Revenge for 9/11.
Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.
But really, because O(il) I(srael) L(ogistics).
And because war is a racket.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)pscot
(21,044 posts)But then I'd have to kill you.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and therefore it is very easy for politicians to goad us into wars against people of color.
and the war itself was convenient for many reason: oil, halliburton, the general war machine that benefits, a distraction from domestic policies etc.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)and the non-compete contracts to re-build what we destroyed.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)he, unlike Becevich, a graduate of West Point and who lost a son in the latest Iraq adventure, was a veteran of another of our alphabet soups. He was a Right Winger but never saw the "muscular use of force" as the solution or a religious item. I am betting those who have seen the results first hand...
valerief
(53,235 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)...in his effort to kill Poppy Bush, using weapons of mass destruction made from vials of Niger Yellowcake!
I mean c'mon! Isn't it obvious?
Lex
(34,108 posts)and showing enlargements of pictures of where the WMDs were going to be found. ALL those assholes should be in jail.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Oil, spreading Democracy, ludicrous belief it would allow the US to control the Middle East, guaranteeing a 2nd term for 'W', all of these, IMHO were reasons that one or more Bush admin members had in mind.
sakabatou
(43,964 posts)It we never about the WMDs.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)"yeah we havent had one of those lately."
UTUSN
(73,264 posts)GP6971
(34,040 posts)showing up Dad......finishing what his Dad didn't. All the other legitimate reasons cited here are just smoke screens for Dubya trying to one up his father.
struggle4progress
(121,369 posts)but it's in the interest of various existing companies to pump the world dry, since that doesn't require immediate changes in their behavior. Those folk want us to project US military power in the Middle East, as part of maintaining the status quo. That's why we invaded Iraq under former oilman GHWB and under his son GWB. GHWB didn't develop political support for the project and had to pull out. GWB constructed wide political support, not only by tying the invasion to the 9/11 attacks, but also by buying corporate support by offering lucrative unmonitored contracts. The object of the GWB-gang was to destabilize the entire Middle East and then to escalate. The destabilzation project didn't have all desired effects in the GWB years but it was, unfortunately, partly successful in the longer term. And large-scale military operations require establishing logistical systems and operational goals which together possess enormous political inertia. So it's been politically difficult to leave Iraq, and some of the deliberately-induced deterioration of the situation there contributes to the difficulty of leaving
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)So number one is ego.
Number two is history as several have stated above. I recommend a book Desert Queen by Janet Wallach which shows the lead up the the U.K. drawing the lines which are now country borders in the middle east.
Skittles
(161,781 posts)Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
moondust This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Fight them there so they don't fight us here. Remember?
What are you, a terrorist? Why would you question such a thing?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Saddam stopped listening to us. And by listen I mean obey.