Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: KONG1 on October 25, 2007, 12:08:11 PM
-
What War? I've tried this line of thinking out with others, including several History Phds. I'd like to know what you guys think.
I contend the war was over quickly marked by the overthrow of the government and it being replaced. A resounding success. History supports this, and from my studies, what is happening now is historically referred to as a peacekeeping mission.
After VE in WWII there were still hardcore Nazis running around blowing things up, killing people. The overthrow of the standing government marked the end of the war. Those captured before that were POWs and eventually released. Those still fighting, captured later, were just criminals.
This isn't a semantic argument. If we are in a war then the opposition are soldiers fighting for their country. Fact is they're just terrorists fighting for no country, just fighting against us and their own. Most are from other countries.
Every war, US Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, ancient wars, every war has required peacekeeping by the victors.
Now you can be for or against the peacekeeping efforts but they are not a "war". We bandy about the word "war" way to much. war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. History does not support this usage.
Theory is the pubs are calling it a "war" because the funding is for a "war". The dems want to call it a "war" so they can criticize the pubs. The press is calling it a "war" because they're a bunch of dumb-ass journalism majors or even dumber-assed communication majors.
War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
Peacekeeping- The maintenance of international peace and security by the deployment of military forces in a particular area:
Of course all this gets muddy from a historical perspective when discussing what is an internal civil war or an illegal uprising (usually decided by the victor). I have problems trying to classify what's happening in Iraq as a civil war, not just yet....
-
War is over, this is the occupation. I'd like to quote the late, great Col. David Hackworth:
" I do invasions, not occupations".
-
Originally posted by KONG1
What War? I've tried this line of thinking out with others, including several History Phds. I'd like to know what you guys think.
I contend the war was over quickly marked by the overthrow of the government and it being replaced. A resounding success. History supports this, and from my studies, what is happening now is historically referred to as a peacekeeping mission.
After VE in WWII there were still hardcore Nazis running around blowing things up, killing people. The overthrow of the standing government marked the end of the war. Those captured before that were POWs and eventually released. Those still fighting, captured later, were just criminals.
This isn't a semantic argument. If we are in a war then the opposition are soldiers fighting for their country. Fact is they're just terrorists fighting for no country, just fighting against us and their own. Most are from other countries.
Every war, US Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, ancient wars, every war has required peacekeeping by the victors.
Now you can be for or against the peacekeeping efforts but they are not a "war". We bandy about the word "war" way to much. war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. History does not support this usage.
Theory is the pubs are calling it a "war" because the funding is for a "war". The dems want to call it a "war" so they can criticize the pubs. The press is calling it a "war" because they're a bunch of dumb-ass journalism majors or even dumber-assed communication majors.
War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
Peacekeeping- The maintenance of international peace and security by the deployment of military forces in a particular area:
Of course all this gets muddy from a historical perspective when discussing what is an internal civil war or an illegal uprising (usually decided by the victor). I have problems trying to classify what's happening in Iraq as a civil war, not just yet....
No war has ever been won without the use of Total War.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
War is over, this is the occupation. I'd like to quote the late, great Col. David Hackworth:
" I do invasions, not occupations".
We are there under the authority of the democratically elected government and would leave if they asked. Not historically termed an occupation.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No war has ever been won without the use of Total War.
Historically the word "win/won" was applied when the opposing government surrendered or was replaced.
-
The difference between now and then is that the Germans had endured over six years of total war. By the time Hitler shot himself they were mostly so tired of the war that they gave in to their loss. The same could be said for Japan, which watched two of its city vaporized. They too were shocked into capitulation.
Todays pinpoint bombing and tactics that minimize collateral damage hardly shock those who would stand against us into surrender. The war was over so fast that they hardly think there was a war; just an occupation.
-
KONG1, shhhh, you will just upset the librul anti boosh gang.
-
Sounds like semantics. It doesn't matter one way or the other what you call it. It is what it is.
-
if one were to actually think about it...........Yes, the war was won quickly, of course...first world army beating up a 3rd world army. The occupation has been a disaster however.
Although it looks like the steam may finally be running out for the insurgents.
-
Yeah, just semantics. Korea and Vietnam were officially called "police actions". I will agree that what's going on in Iraq today is not technically a war by definition even though getting shot/blown up/kia doesn't feel any differently under an "occupation". I believe that some would have us call the present clash of arms in Iraq a war in the context of "The War on Terror". I dispute the latter. In my view the conflict in Afghanistan could be rightfully referred to as part of the "The War on Terror" but not Iraq. You can guess my reasoning without my elaborating I'm sure (fairly). Whatever, it's still semantics based on different agendas. Getting shot is still getting shot.
-
If you carry a sign that that says "Stop War" what is it you want?
If you carry a sign that says "Stop Peacekeeping" what is it you want?
I'm kinda disappointed. I was hoping for at least one reasonable argument for the peacekeeping effort being called a war. It's not like just a few people call it "the war", everybody seems to call it "the war".
BC said it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, now that's a semantic argument. Whether or not a nation is at war is hardly a matter of semantics, there are implications. For instance, when we capture a combatant. If, as everyone says, it's "a war", then he would be a POW. At the end of "the war" he should be released, which brings up the next question. If the overthrow of the nation is not the end of "the war" then what is. If this is a "war" what exactly would happen to denote an ending? How would we know when to let him go?
Is it the case that the word "war" is so overused and inexact it has been rendered meaningless and indeterminate? What then can be the value of any discussion which uses such an undefined term?
-
Origanally posted by KONG1
War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
Kong, I'd say that if insurgents' qualify as a force of arms, and if they are inside Iraq, then technically, the occupation of Iraq fits the definition of war as you gave it? Especially, as since at the end of the Iraq invasion, was there ever a formal armistice signed, or a peace treaty made with the government of Iraq, formally ending the conflict?
Personally, I say call it a war, and give the men and women who had to serve in it the full VA benefits, and the right to wear a campaign ribbon and come home and join the local VFW. Cheapening it does them a dishonor.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
The difference between now and then is that the Germans had endured over six years of total war. By the time Hitler shot himself they were mostly so tired of the war that they gave in to their loss. The same could be said for Japan, which watched two of its city vaporized. They too were shocked into capitulation.
Todays pinpoint bombing and tactics that minimize collateral damage hardly shock those who would stand against us into surrender. The war was over so fast that they hardly think there was a war; just an occupation.
Thats not entirely true - the occupations of Germany and Japan were conducted quite differently because of the two distinct populaces different states and abilities of post war "compliance" and occupation. Japan was not a defeated nation in the same sense like Germany.
This is as distinct from initial occupation numbers alone ie.
VE day Eisenhower had 61 US divisions in Germany (1,622,000 men) which was then responsible for security -ie. patrolling and checkpoints, de-nazification, and demobing the German armed forces.
After VJ day a occupation force of 370,000 was planned, but quickly fell to 270,000 due to rapid demobilization of US forces, but were boosted by 30,000 constabularies in July 1946 a short term measure until a professional German police force could be trained. By 1947 the US occupying force dropped to 200,000. Germany was broken down under military governors, and any remaining German bureaucracy disbanded. The military was in complete control of all facets of german civilian life.
Democratising was initially small scale. in 1946 communities of less than 20,000 were allowed elections for Lander officials which were responsible for internal affairs (not including security) under the umbrella of the military governors. This allowed the military to maintain the de-nazification process, and also foster a grass roots idea of democracy. Eventually populations of larger than 20,000 were allowed to participate, and eventually the French and British sectors followed suite.
In Japan the initial occupying estimates were 600,00 US, and 145,000 Commonwealth forces. At surrender The Japanese had mobilized 3-4 million troops to defend mainland Japan, and still had 1.6 million in China, and a further a 800,00 spread amongst the pacific and Korea.
Japan however still had a functioning govenment (the Diet) and leadership under the emperor. In the two weeks it took for the occupying forces to arrive, the Japanese had reconstituted the cabinet under the Emperor's Uncle and had begun to demobilized and disarm the Japanese army. Members of the emperor's family were dispatched to garrisons outside Japan to also begin disarmament of Japanese forces. Also the Japanese govt. began a public relations campaign to counter rumors of a violent and brutal occupation.
At the end of August the first occupation force began to arrive which eventually grew to a total of 354,000 US, and 45,000 Commonwealth soldiers. Under request of the Japanese the Army and Ministries were allowed to remain and demobilize their own troops. These ministries were disbanded in December 1945.
After occupation the Japanese govt was allowed to remain basically intact. MacArthur's SCAP (supreme commander allied powers) command communicated directly with the Japanese govt. issuing broad directives, and tasks they were to complete - and let the Diet and bureaucracy debate and devise how. The SCAP of course would intervene whenever it felt necessary. This allowed the bureaucracy to foster and grow which was beneficial because it allowed the Japanese to take responsibility for the problems they faced, and also grew more cordial and responsive to SCAP because the Japanese felt they had some influence to their future. By mid 1947 MacArthur encouraged the Japanese to assume normal govt. responsibilities for all domestic affairs except the economy. Although there was seen to be an earlier mistake when in 1946 the Japanese were purged of all proponents of militarism and aggression, which was categorical not personal based on wartime position not actions, unlike the de-nazification of Germany.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by KONG1
We are there under the authority of the democratically elected government and would leave if they asked. Not historically termed an occupation.
That is an interesting thought. Would we leave if asked? I happen to think that the current admin would not leave, whether they were asked to or not.
-
To the disgruntled liberals any armed conflict that lasts longer then a George Clooney movie is considered an absolute failure, but bring up the failed war on poverty in DC and ask for an exit strategy and watch the glazed look on thier face.
This is the same crowd who's sole purpose it appears is to replace the Ten commandments anywhere its found with Muslim foot baths..
TJ
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I'd say that if insurgents' qualify as a force of arms, and if they are inside Iraq, then technically, the occupation of Iraq fits the definition of war as you gave it?
So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Personally, I say call it a war, and give the men and women who had to serve in it the full VA benefits, and the right to wear a campaign ribbon and come home and join the local VFW. Cheapening it does them a dishonor.
I have to disagree. A peacekeeping mission is equally as heroic, honorable, and admirable as war. What they're doing is in no way cheapened by calling it peacekeeping.
-
I'd like to thank tronski for a very informative post. I think it demonstrates that transitions from war to peace are never quick or easy. Since Iraq also suffers from extraordinary interference from outside forces, the job the military and the administration are doing in Iraq is nothing short of outstanding.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
That is an interesting thought. Would we leave if asked? I happen to think that the current admin would not leave, whether they were asked to or not.
Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.
Kinda like there's "no way" we wanted the French to leave after they played a pivotal role in helping us oust the British in our little shebang 231 years ago. Hmmmmmmm......
Forget not, as well, Malacki, the elected representative of Iraq, already told us to leave not once, but twice.... and he's the puppet of Bush.
I think we all have serious misgivings if we think there would be a pullout if we were forcefully asked to leave. They would more than likely declare the government part of the insurrection.
I'm a little on the fence here... but I don't trust the lying we've been fed the past few years.
-
Origanally posted by KONG1
So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.
Perhaps you could-However, the victors' write the history books. And as this country (and sadly, many Vietnam vets) found out in SE asia, this country does not take questionable military and political actions well.
I would quote the Argentine army after the Falklands' war as an example, though, as it better fits the description of your example.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.
be careful, you might win the war, then what will you do? :O
-
Call the war something else? Sounds like a cop out to me and probably would likely insult the troops on the ground.
The fact is, our Military did a great job fighting the Iraqi Army. In reality it wasn't much of a fight anyway. Our Military has done a great job with what they have been asked to do.
The failures in Iraq to date lay solely on the hands of the political machine that failed to do proper planning for the occupation after the initial invasion. Call it what ever you like the failures of policy at the top of the food chain will continue to plague us in Iraq.
Originally posted by KONG1
Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.
Considering Iraq has formally asked Black Water to leave, yet we are still fighting it. Well in short I'd have to guess Bush's commit lacks much punch.
I'm sure Black Water will likely end up at the very least being scaled back, if not removed all together. It wont be because Bush and Co act on what's right. It will be because of political pressure becomes too strong to continue supporting them.
To this day the White house still tries to portray Black Water as being used only for protection of US govt officials. I know for a fact that our tax dollars are paying BW to guard oil executives in Iraq among others.
-
If we won the war in Germany and Japan why are we driving BMWs and Toyotas?
Shouldn't Germany and Japan be driving Chevys and Fords?
:huh
Mac
-
The term war is a reflection of the curent state of politics today. If it's going to win votes in the net election, it's a war. If it's going to cost you votes then it's anything but war.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Call the war something else? Sounds like a cop out to me and probably would likely insult the troops on the ground.
The fact is, our Military did a great job fighting the Iraqi Army. In reality it wasn't much of a fight anyway. Our Military has done a great job with what they have been asked to do.
The failures in Iraq to date lay solely on the hands of the political machine that failed to do proper planning for the occupation after the initial invasion. Call it what ever you like the failures of policy at the top of the food chain will continue to plague us in Iraq.
You can use the word fail and failure as many time as you like. Considering the circumstances and relative to historical examples things seem to be going fairly well and getting better. I hope you won't be disappointed if the effort doesn't fail. The truly amazing thing is that the administration has accomplished this while the dems try to tear down the efforts of our troops for the sake of political gain.
As to it "would likely insult the troops". Your statement would likely insult the troops that have given their lives to save others in many peacekeeping missions around the world. Still not sure why you would think peacekeeping is a less than heroic undertaking.
I don't see a single argument in your post as to why this is a war and not peacekeeping. I can't take the "it sounds like a cop out to me" reasoning to the panel. I'm supposed to bring back some sort of tangible argument. Anybody help me out here?
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Sounds like semantics. It doesn't matter one way or the other what you call it. It is what it is.
Yep. The high school I went to, all of the staff were either current or ex-military. When my history teacher was talking about his service in World War II and Korea, I made the comment that he was in one war and one conflict. He quickly corrected me when he said, "anytime someone is trying to kill you, it's war not a conflict."
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
"anytime someone is trying to kill you, it's war not a conflict."
Using that reasoning, Reagan was shot in a war because Hinckley was trying to kill him. Kennedy was killed in a war and 50cent deserves a purple heart. Right. Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.
In Korea and Vietnam we treated the combatants like POW's. We called our captured soldiers POWs. In Iraq we don't consider the terrorists POWs and we call our captured guys hostages.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
That is an interesting thought. Would we leave if asked? I happen to think that the current admin would not leave, whether they were asked to or not.
Would we? We haven't been asked, yet you assume we wouldn't. How do you know? Simply put, you don't know either way, so why assume? Political leaning I'd wager, but you're a scientist so you shouldn't give in to such emotions. Please elaborate on why you think Bush wouldn't leave. Thank you in advance.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
You can use the word fail and failure as many time as you like. Considering the circumstances and relative to historical examples things seem to be going fairly well and getting better. I hope you won't be disappointed if the effort doesn't fail. The truly amazing thing is that the administration has accomplished this while the dems try to tear down the efforts of our troops for the sake of political gain.
As to it "would likely insult the troops". Your statement would likely insult the troops that have given their lives to save others in many peacekeeping missions around the world. Still not sure why you would think peacekeeping is a less than heroic undertaking.
I don't see a single argument in your post as to why this is a war and not peacekeeping. I can't take the "it sounds like a cop out to me" reasoning to the panel. I'm supposed to bring back some sort of tangible argument. Anybody help me out here?
First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.
Yea we are doing great in Iraq. Anything wrong has to be the democrats fault... :aok
-
Originally posted by KONG1
Using that reasoning, Reagan was shot in a war because Hinckley was trying to kill him. Kennedy was killed in a war and 50cent deserves a purple heart. Right. Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.
In Korea and Vietnam we treated the combatants like POW's. We called our captured soldiers POWs. In Iraq we don't consider the terrorists POWs and we call our captured guys hostages.
Kong, I do believe we tread waters that we should not swim, here, or anywhere else...I think we should leave it as a fact that if a fella has to face the hell of shot and shell, he earns the right to call it whatever he wants. The rest of us are REMF's at best. It's not our place to say, if we respect vets' as we claim.
-
Originally posted by crockett
First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.
Started the war, won the war. Now just trying to suppress trouble makers from the outside while things are fixed from the inside. Better said: Keeping the Peace to allow Democracy to take hold. Simple enough to figure out.Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Kong, I do believe we tread waters that we should not swim, here, or anywhere else...I think we should leave it as a fact that if a fella has to face the hell of shot and shell, he earns the right to call it whatever he wants. The rest of us are REMF's at best. It's not our place to say, if we respect vets' as we claim.
Actually everybody has the right to call anything whatever they want. Call a cat a car if you want. This is a question concerning accuracy originally asked by someone that faced "the hell of shot and shell".
Once again you seem to suggest that waging war is more noble than keeping peace. If you believe it is, I'd be interested in the reasoning behind it. Also, have you ever considered that calling it a war lends more respect and validity to the enemy than they deserve.
-
Originally posted by crockett
First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.
Yea we are doing great in Iraq. Anything wrong has to be the democrats fault... :aok
And since when do "peace keepers" violate international law?
IF we are to go by US law, international law, and UN definitions of "war"...
A country needs UN security Council approval for "war", which Bush failed miserably to get.. in part because his BS was transparent and in the end, the UN wasn't voting in favor of his half baked lunacy.. even with that ominous looking Photoshopped mobile WMD factory that looked wicked scary.
Otherwise, a nation can fight only in "self-defense" when attacked. Humm, I don't recall Iraq attacking US soil, granted a few years back then are hazy from my drug / alcohol abuse, but I think I'd remember Iraq attacking US soil.
So we have no UN approval, no attack and no worries of Iraq attacking US soil.. meaning Bush violated the following treaties by occupying Iraq:
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928
The UN Charter
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals
The Nuremberg Charter
These ridiculous treaties were put in place to keep the random sociopath who gains power from being an A-hole and starting crap unnecessarily... but the UN isn't AKA "United Neutered" for nothing... standing up to Bush with a final "nope" vote was all the intestinal fortitude they could muster.
All these treaties are the "law of the land" under Article VI of the US Constitution, BTW. So if the UN hasn't approved "war", and congress hasn't declared "war"... where's the war? other than in Bush / Cheney imagination.
All those clever anecdotal cliches our uncles, brothers and friends come up with to define "war" are cool and all that, but the so called leaders of the world have already decided on a definition of war, and it doesn't jive with whats going on in Iraq.
But we're Americans!! dad-gum it!!, we can tell the rest of the worlds leaders to go have sex with themselves!! we have the moral authority (and military and money) to do whatever we want, we don't need no stink'n treaties!! our leaders know the left / right clones unable to formulate thoughts of their own, will parrot the party talking points AS IF they had thought of it themselves. FTW, NWO is on the way beeeiaches, conform or die.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.
Why? I wasn't flying a F4U while Japanese pilots tried to shoot me down, nor was I flying F4Us while North Koreans were trying to shoot me down.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why? I wasn't flying a F4U while Japanese pilots tried to shoot me down, nor was I flying F4Us while North Koreans were trying to shoot me down.
Maybe because a hero like that deserves to be treated like a reasonably intelligent person rather than humored like a senile old grandma. Besides I would agree with his assessment of the Korean war, but that's not the subject of this thread.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
If we won the war in Germany and Japan why are we driving BMWs and Toyotas?
Shouldn't Germany and Japan be driving Chevys and Fords?
:huh
Mac
I think the answer to the question of life, the universe and all that can be found if you can explain why American Jews buy GERMAN Bmw's.
But then again, it is entirely possible that aneurysms can be explained by someone trying to understand why they do it.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Would we? We haven't been asked, yet you assume we wouldn't. How do you know? Simply put, you don't know either way, so why assume? Political leaning I'd wager, but you're a scientist so you shouldn't give in to such emotions. Please elaborate on why you think Bush wouldn't leave. Thank you in advance.
I would say this...
We wouldn't leave for the very reasons we went to Iraq in the first place. We didn't go there to "give Iraqis democracy". We know we didn't go to find WMD's. There was much intelligence that there were none in the beginning.
We went to Iraq for two reasons, and ostensibly even a third....
#1. Oil. We all know it. Don't even try to argue this one.
#2. Bases. We need new bases in the middle east. Nobody else wants us around anymore. Saudis don't like us anymore. Qatar, UAE both want to cut down US presence in their countries. We've ticked off Turkey twice too many times....and Israel has made it clear, no joint basing rights cuz they think a US presence there would only make things worse for them. With the only other base being Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.... amazing how we attack Iraq right when it seems all our basing rights are going buh bye....
#3. Iran. Americans pretty much have grown up to hate Iran.... and this administration HATES Iran. The only thing with Iraq is, it was actually keeping Iran in check the whole time. Iraq was partially a way to put us in a position to keep Iran in check.... A screwed up theory in itself, born from American fright paranoia.
All of these reason are why I think we'd never leave Iraq, even if asked. At least, put scientifically, that's my theory.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I would say this...
We wouldn't leave for the very reasons we went to Iraq in the first place. We didn't go there to "give Iraqis democracy". We know we didn't go to find WMD's. There was much intelligence that there were none in the beginning.
We went to Iraq for two reasons, and ostensibly even a third....
#1. Oil. We all know it. Don't even try to argue this one.
#2. Bases. We need new bases in the middle east. Nobody else wants us around anymore. Saudis don't like us anymore. Qatar, UAE both want to cut down US presence in their countries. We've ticked off Turkey twice too many times....and Israel has made it clear, no joint basing rights cuz they think a US presence there would only make things worse for them. With the only other base being Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.... amazing how we attack Iraq right when it seems all our basing rights are going buh bye....
#3. Iran. Americans pretty much have grown up to hate Iran.... and this administration HATES Iran. The only thing with Iraq is, it was actually keeping Iran in check the whole time. Iraq was partially a way to put us in a position to keep Iran in check.... A screwed up theory in itself, born from American fright paranoia.
All of these reason are why I think we'd never leave Iraq, even if asked. At least, put scientifically, that's my theory.
I would add that Saddam ditched the US dollar for the Euro and was going to sell oil in euros. Iran is about to do something similar, sell oil in euros... and put a crimp in the old "petrol dollar".
When we sell the Saudis et al military stuff, they pay us in US dollars... dollars they got from our oil purchases. They have an excess of US cheddar because currently all oil is purchased in the US dollar. When the euro enter the cycle, EU countries will no longer have to convert euros to dollars, at a loss, to buy oil... the end result being they pay more for oil. Thats all about to change and is pretty much supposed to screw the value of the buck big-time.
-
moray.. your three points are not that far off the mark. You off course make them sound negative but they are essentially true.
I would also say that we knew the sadman had pursued all sorts of WMD's in the past including nukes.. he also invaded kuwait... again... threatening our supply of oil and one of our few allies....
There is no sensible reason to think it would not get much worse under the sadman... he most certainly would have pursued more nukes and WMD's the second he could.. He hated us for kicking his butt in kuwait... we also had bad intel.. the world had bad intel... and.... he made himself appear to have the WMD's with his attitude.
For whatever reason... the attacks here have stopped... I don't really care about that so much... a few hundred thousand less blue voters vaporized is sad but.. there is an up side.
The rest?... yep.. we need oil... no solution.. the democrats won't let us get our own and they won't let us have nukes or even more refineries...
bases? yep.. would be cool to have a friendly one there...
Iran? yep.. they are nutjobs... gonna be problems some day no matter what.
lazs