I'm interested to know how many people on the site believe that Iraq was invaded because George Bush genuinely believed that Saddam Hussain was a 'clear and present danger' and how many believe that this was a pretext for 'regime change'?
Note: I'm glad Saddam has been deposed but that's not the point of the post.
Originally posted by ianpickeringThe question as stated is largely irrelevant because you are presuming that
I'm interested to know how many people on the site believe that Iraq was invaded because George Bush genuinely believed that Saddam Hussain was a 'clear and present danger' and how many believe that this was a pretext for 'regime c ...[text shortened]... lad Saddam has been deposed but that's not the point of the post.
George Bush acts on his beliefs. This is not how political decisions
are made in America.
All politicians surround themselves with advisors whose primary
role is to advise the politician on what decisions will result in him
having a minimally negative image or a maximally positive image
in the eyes of the people. Right and wrong only enter the picture
to the extent of considering the people's assessment of what is right or
wrong and how that will affect the politician's image.
So, you could rephrase the question, Did Bush's advisors feel
that telling the public that they were going to war against a
clear and present danger was the best course of action for Bush's image?
Then the answer would clearly be yes.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by ianpickeringOil. Iraq has enormous reserves. Everything else is a lie.
I'm interested to know how many people on the site believe that Iraq was invaded because George Bush genuinely believed that Saddam Hussain was a 'clear and present danger' and how many believe that this was a pretext for 'regime change'?
Note: I'm glad Saddam has been deposed but that's not the point of the post.
Originally posted by CribsSure, public opinion plays a part (When the poll ratings are low and it's near election time) , but more important is the question:
The question as stated is largely irrelevant because you are presuming that
George Bush acts on his beliefs. This is not how political decisions
are made in America.
All politicians surround themselves with advisors whose primary
role is to advise the politician on what decisions will result in him
having a minimally negative image or a maximally posi ...[text shortened]... e best course of action for Bush's image?
Then the answer would clearly be yes.
Dr. Cribs
Will going to war stimulate our 70% (weapon manufacturing based) economy and line the pockets of the powers that be?
In the USA, the answer to these 2 q's is invariably "Yes".
More notably, the question "Are we attacking the guilty party?" is completely irrelevant as Farenheit 911 proves!
Originally posted by howardgeeyou sure do like that movie huh...
Sure, public opinion plays a part (When the poll ratings are low and it's near election time) , but more important is the question:
Will going to war stimulate our 70% (weapon manufacturing based) economy and line the pockets of the powers that be?
In the USA, the answer to these 2 q's is invariably "Yes".
More notably, the question "Are we attacking the guilty party?" is completely irrelevant as Farenheit 911 proves!
Originally posted by CribsOf course. But were the advisors correct in this belief? If not, why did they believe going to war with Iraq at all was good for Bush's image? It's far more interesting to study how politicians try to impress the public than simply to state that they want to create a good image for themselves.
So, you could rephrase the question, Did Bush's advisors feel
that telling the public that they were going to war against a
clear and present danger was the best course of action for Bush's image?
Then the answer would clearly be yes.
Dr. Cribs
Economists used to model the government rather idealistically as a maximiser of overall utility (ie the government acts in the public interest). Now some of them model it as a maximiser of electoral success. The difference is, at times, rather worrying.
In any case, I don't think it's quite true that all political decisions are made to win votes, as this does not explain the gap between political parties. Usually politicians have a few things they want to do with their power, whether it's securing American interests in the Middle East or discouraging the teaching of evolution in schools. Politicians don't just follow opinion, they shape it to some extent, otherwise they wouldn't have any power and the whole game would be pointless.
Originally posted by usmc7257Probably the most important movie ever made!
you sure do like that movie huh...
Have you seen it yet?
It brings to light the deep rooted level of corruption within the most powerful nation in the world. ("All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"😉.
Finally the public are presented with evidence which when previously stated would lead them to label you a "red" or "Liberal" or "Left wing lunatic" or whatever.
Most rational well-balanced people are forced to admit and confront what the more politically aware amongst us have known for years:
"America is run by the Multi-nationals". They are not out to "HELP" the rest of the world; rather they are out to "MILK" it dry.
And the film quotes my all time favourite book: "1984". Read it?
Originally posted by howardgeeI think a lot of people treat it more as a fictitious story than a documentary.
Probably the most important movie ever made!
Have you seen it yet?
It brings to light the deep rooted level of corruption within the most powerful nation in the world. ("All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"😉.
Finally the public are presented with evidence which when previously stated would lead them to label you a "red" or ...[text shortened]... ut to "MILK" it dry.
And the film quotes my all time favourite book: "1984". Read it?
Our Australian prime minister has just received a letter from 43 previously senior defence officers and diplomats, including 2 chiefs of defence, stating that our going to war with America was based on lies and now puts us at much greater risk. Thanks fo absolutely nothing America.
Originally posted by STANGman what are you gonna whine about next? i forgot your country is perfect in every way.
Our Australian prime minister has just received a letter from 43 previously senior defence officers and diplomats, including 2 chiefs of defence, stating that our going to war with America was based on lies and now puts us at much greater risk. Thanks fo absolutely nothing America.
One of the main problems in the US at the moment is that Bush's father and many of Bush jr's advisors have double roles.
Not only do they advise the president, they are more often than not highly paid members of organisations.
These organisations are not "the mother Theresa foundation for poverty prevention" or "The better to give than recieve club", these are organisations which make money in oil, weapons, building contracts, etc.
The war on Iraq (and Afghanistan) has left these 'advisors' personally richer than they were without the war.
So, even if Bush did think the war was just and noble (which I very sincerely doubt), his advisors' objectivity was comprimised from the start.
Now, we can all hide under the desk and pretend that it was just a glitch, a mis-understanding or failure on behalf of the intelligence services and
We can all hide behind our false morality and say: "Yeah, but the world is a better place without Saddam."
But the truth of the matter is that thousands of civilians have died because of a systematic conflict of interest at the very top of US politics.
I reckon if I was American I would be well pissed off. Not only having my name smeared by such blatant nepotism, but having my child sent off to die to make these bastards richer.
Reasons to beat the crap out of Iraq:
2 trillion cubic feet of oil sitting under saddam's butt.
American military bases now located in the heart of the Middle East for all of eternity. Along with the 700 or so others that we already have scattered throughout the world.
We get to install a government that will "work with" the U.S.
American airbases in Iraq make it easier to bomb the daylights out of Iran or Syria should they give us any trouble.
Wars always stir up patriotism back at home.
The Iraqi army sucks.
Socializing a war and privatizing the profits is good for certain sectors of corporate America.
Why would Bush or any other politician in America care about the "downside" of War? After all, they don't have to fight them... So to them there is no downside.
And last, but certainly not least, a whole new selection of hot Iraqi babes for the mail order bride business.
:-)
Originally posted by wibAdd to this:
Reasons to beat the crap out of Iraq: ...
Saddam was an embarassment to the US administrations that worked with him earlier.
The war has added military support for Israel. Eventually this will help make Israel more secure. Israel is important as the only democracy in the region. (correct me if I have this wrong.)
[The oil itself has seemed to me to be minor reason, as it doesn't matter how it gets to market, only that it does. I think more at issue, is the wealth that the oil brought to Saddam to support his regime.]
P.S. I almost forgot: The war ended sanctions!