Why was the Iraq war started?
 

Looking back, I've concluded and no I won't do citing cause it's too much work for a msg board, that it was rehashing the old domino theory, in reverse. Just like vietnam war started because of domino theory (scared to death that communism was going to take over southeast asia), the Iraq exercise was a reverse domino theory, once Iraq goes democratic, so too the other middle east countries.

Well, at least that was the intellectual rationale behind the neo-con.

Moe


Are you not looking for causes? Are you looking for an effect due to the war? That if democracy becomes a norm in Iraq, that the rest of the Middle East would follow along?

I just want to see if that is where you are going....

I'm more looking at the cause of the war. It was under the assumption that once Saddam was overthrown and democracy blossom in Iraq, other Middle Eastern nations was going to follow them. Very much the domino theory.

The result of the war is one of stalemate. Democracy in Iraq has risen, though it's very much fragile and anything can happen in the near future. Also, will the US accept anyform of government voted in by the Iraq, ala another Hamas type of government taking over Iraq? Or will the government of America go to the Southeast Asia and Latin America route, propping up dictatorship to ensure it's interest is protected at the cost of democracy?

1. Dubya said it best "Saddam tried to kill my daddy"
2. Oil

if it mattered that much to us to ensure that all countries are democracies, then we would be taking far more action in other places of the world.

Amen AGDee...

Let's remember, the US never finished in Afghanistan (finding a tall dude on dialysis) and pow...right on into Iraq based on faulty intel.

Does anyone ever remember our gov't getting a memo from Iraq that they needed democracy?

lol lol

Yes, but it was in the first Gulf War. Kurds wanted us to go ahead to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam, but we just told them we wouldn't have a problem with it if they did instead of actually helping.

ACtually I was referring to the hunt for Bin Ladin who has Been Hidin'....

I'll give one reason and one reason only (although there are many):

Low hanging fruit. It was much easier to take on Iraq than Iran, and by going into Iraq we were "sending a message" to Iran. I wonder how that message has changed in the last 5 years?

I think this is clearly the Occam's Razor solution, at least from a foreign policy standpoint - the domino effect or not, it's clear there was a geopolitical motive, sort of a "tearing the hole out of the donut" of the region, to stop the rise of some of the Islamic-centered political movements that are particularly against American interests.

Oil/cronyism and revenge, while catchy motives, are likely just happy bonuses, sort of the cherry on top.

I think the 1st Iraqi war is obvious. Oil. The second war according to George Bush is based on a war on terror. Ever since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, the Bush administration has used a battle metaphor, the global war on terror, which to me is an intangible thing. Bush went from a war on terror, to weapons of mass destruction, to mission accomplished.:rolleyes: The people we were fighting then are not the same people we're fighting now. You just can't go into a country, destroy a government (at least not in an Arab country) and put in a government that is supportive to the U.S. and expect that government to stand. Bush is trying to set up a puppet government, and this is what makes him such an idiot. If our troops leave now, the government that's in place is going to have to fight to keep control. The reason why the "Surge" has worked, is because it forced the opposition to flee. If you put the best army in mass into any area, the opposition is going to be defeated. Once we leave, they're going to come back. I could be wrong, but this is just my opinion.

The first Iraqi war was obvious: They had invaded another country and intended to continue invading other countries in a manner similar to Hitler and someone had to stop them. We got them out of that country, put some rules down on them and the UN was inspecting regularly for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I was only 7 years old then, but as I can remember none were found.

There was evidence that Iraq was developing the capability to produce them prior to invading Kuwait. There were times that Iraq told the UN "No way, you can't come and inspect" or kept them away from certain areas. We bombed them a few times on isolated type missions as "punishment" for that when Clinton was in office.

A lot of people were critical that we hadn't taken Saddam out of power during the first Gulf War. We really just pushed him back out of Kuwait and then imposed these inspections and rules. Many thought he should have been assassinated then, but GHWB didn't agree. It was clear when Dubya took office that he was looking for a reason to go into Iraq. He took advantage of the post 9/11 situation to go into Iraq. To this day, I meet people who think we went to Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. I'm incredulous about that.

o.k. that's true. I do remember the 1st part of your post. But "Dumbya" took Saddam out of power, which has now made terror much more active in that country than it's ever been.