What is motivating Bush ?

[Mr Sleep]

Obviously Bush's think tank will have taken into account the issues of neighbouring countries but I question how much this important fact has been taken into account.

It is a fact that nearly every country surrounding Iraq wants to occupy it, if only to stop the other countries. If Bush succesfully removes the Hussein party from office (if you can call it that ) then there are several other nations that are going to infringe, I have considered that perhaps it is an effort to destablise the countries in that area. However I can't see what that agenda acheives, accept maybe to test out the MAD theory.

So my conclusions are basically more questions, why exactly would Bush want to invade Iraq is questionable, it is possible that the surface answer is true, that in fact they want to remove the chemical and nuclear weapons from the grasp of Iraq. Either that or they are appalled by the tyrinnical works of Hussein but again I find that difficult to believe.

[Scayde]

I wish I were as eloquent as DW, or HLD, when it comes to making my views known. But if you can tolerate my plain speach, and differece of opinion, I will try to answer as intelligently as I can. I support Bush in this. I don't think he is a war monger, but I am opposed to the over interdependance that we have on the UN. I believe in the sovereignty of a nation, not just the US, but any nation. I feel the ultimate resposibility a leader has is to the country he represents. There was much debate in this country over the propsals in question. Bush had a closed doors meeting with the oposition. Almost with out falter, they came out in support of the President. I feel he had compelling evidence to show them, which we may not be privy to..But be that as it may. It is not the fundamental reason for my support. I know in todays world, an isolationist policy is not only impractical, but suicidal.I maintain however, that a nations right to defend itself, or enforce it's interests abroad lies not with the UN, but with in its own borders. World opinion, while it is important .. is not paramount.. IMHO

Please overlook typos and errors

[Chanak]

I normally loathe to post my opinions on subjects like this (I say this every time ), but to be truthful and completely honest, I support Bush's stance of military intervention in Iraq.

I was in the military during Desert Shield/Storm in the last decade...er...make that millenium ...and had a number of friends (and a brother-in-law) in the 24th Infantry Division, which is based at Ft. Stewart, Georgia. They were among the first units to go to that theater of operations. There is always a measure of press blackout necessary for security reasons - as hard as that may be to swallow - and so a number of conflict-realted occurrences were not reported to the public at large. One such occurance was sniper activity against the coalition forces. A number of other incidents occurred during the long wait they had to endure in the desert...which does not suggest a foe that was simply engaged in a sovereignity and territorial dispute.

That aside, I believe that the regime of Saddam Hussein has more than demonstrated it is worthy of international condemnation. As far as I was aware, US forces respected Coalition objectives during Desert Storm by halting at a designated area in Iraq...for the goal was not to occupy Iraq.

Is that the goal now? I am not sure. However, Saddam Hussein has certainly convinced me that he is very much the villian. As I have stated previously, I do not particularly like President Bush...but I support him in his decision, and I respect him for sticking to his guns, so to speak, despite public opinion polls. (I am sure that shall invite some flaming...flame away. )

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Scayde
I maintain however, that a nations right to defend itself, or enforce it's interests abroad lies not with the UN, but with in its own borders. World opinion, while it is important .. is not paramount.. IMHO

When one takes into account Nuclear weapons this theory however isn't quite plausible, a nuclear attack on another country can destabalise the entire world meaning it is the problem for everyone, from the Eskimo's right down to New Jersians.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
When one takes into account Nuclear weapons this theory however isn't quite plausible, a nuclear attack on another country can destabalise the entire world meaning it is the problem for everyone, from the Eskimo's right down to New Jersians.

Sleep, the very fact that we have nukes, helps to insure they will never be used. I stand by my position.. a sovreign land must defend it's self, and its interests, first and foremost. the world community at large, taking second to this responsibility

[/-\lastor]

Actually I've been b*tching my whole life that someone should take care of Saddam Hussein. And I know a whooooole bunch of other people who did think and say the same, but the way Bush is trying to do it is just plain stupid. He just makes a list of unreasonable demands and his main argument is "or else". Even with his 15 inch thick skull he KNOWS it will piss off the world. But he just goes on with it.
Frankly I don't even think his main motive is to get a war going. He just wants the rest of the world to be pissed at America so the american patriotism flares up again and he gets an excuse to distance the US even further from the rest of the world.
War would be just an extra to increase patriotism and economy even more.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Scayde
Sleep, the very fact that we have nukes, helps to insure they will never be used. I stand by my position.. a sovreign land must defend it's self, and its interests, first and foremost. the world community at large, taking second to this responsibility

It doesn't quite work like that, you take into account that a developing country will know the causes of Nuclear fallout. I seem to recall discussing my theory about this in the other recent DW Bush thread. Check it out, the MAD theory is ludicrous in my opinion. You might want to rent a book by Martin Amis called Einstein's Mosters, it is a fascinating read and provides a great commentary on the arms race.

Oh I agree that a soverign land must defend its own turf...it is the responsibility of a leader that has been elected into office to look after the people who put him there. However it is debatable whether Bush got their legitimately or not, we all know the stories.

[Chanak]

@Sleep:

When one takes into account Nuclear weapons this theory however isn't quite plausible, a nuclear attack on another country can destabalise the entire world meaning it is the problem for everyone, from the Eskimo's right down to New Jersians.

The Cold War served to establish a delicate nuclear balance...it was one showing their gun to another showing their gun. Both could shoot, but knew they would die as soon as they pulled their trigger. The cold reality of the existence of nuclear weapons cannot be overlooked by simply wishing they didn't exist...I wish they didn't exist, and so does everyone else. When such a weapon of mass horror and destruction falls into the hands of a power that continually, by their actions, thumbs their noses at the balance...it is a dire thing, indeed. If there is any question concerning the Hussein Regime's outlook on the rest of the world...why not do a bit of research?

However it is debatable whether Bush got their legitimately or not, we all know the stories.

Now you know this has very little - in fact, no - relation to the issue, Sleepy.

@Scayde:

Sleep, the very fact that we have nukes, helps to insure they will never be used. I stand by my position.. a sovreign land must defend it's self, and its interests, first and foremost. the world community at large, taking second to this responsibility

There comes a time when something must be done, and malaise on the part of the international community cannot deter a response. I agree with you - if the US is able to respond (which we are), then conscience would dictate action. I admire Bush for acting on this.

[Tybaltus]

Come on. Dont fool yourself. US is in the war for the oil. We want money money money. Iraq is just an easy target, so we target them. Its simpler than what is talked about. Cause whats talked about is a cover up.

[leedogg]

I don't care what it is really about(money or weapons). Sodamn Insane(as I like to call him) IS hiding weapons and doesn't want to show his hand(not that he would want to). We should force it, and I don't care who doesn't like it. The UN made resolutions and are now not wanting to stand behind what they said. If he does have mass destruction weapons, I feel there is no doubt that he will use them.

I say we go in(and we are), UN or not. It's not like the UN is REALLY gonna offer any assistance anyway.

And tyb- If we make some money off of it, all the better.

Personally, I don't care for Bush, But I am tired of the USA not taking action just to save face with the rest of the world.

My 2 cents-
Leedogg

PS-No we don't want to mess with CHINA! They are the superpower nowadays.

[HighLordDave]

I don't pretend to know what Dubya is thinking and I don't buy what he is saying.

Dubya claims that Iraq is an imminent threat to the security of the United States and the rest of the world. This is despite the fact that there is no clear or overwhelming publicly-available evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the World Trade Tower or Pentagon attacks. This is despite the fact that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has nuclear (note I used the word nuclear, not radiological) weapons. This is despite the fact that the Iraqi military does not have the capacity to deliver its stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons any further than a medium-range Soviet SCUD will take them. This is despite the fact that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly backed down when challenged and has shown that he will not do anything which would precipitate an invasion or massive military retaliation.

I believe that Dubya is going after Iraq because he needs a boogeyman and since Osama bin Laden has disappeared and been rendered ineffective, he needs someone else. Iraq is a convenient target because the American people, the only constituency Dubya has to pander to, already doesn't like him. If Dubya wanted to go after other people who are a greater threat to international security (ie-the North Koreans), he would have to spend a lot of time, energy and money manufacturing them into an enemy.

It is my opinion that Dubya's campaign against Iraq is an effort to dictate the terms of the upcoming election by drawing attention away from the area where he and the Republicans are weakest: the economy. The budget surplus which was finally achieved after years of responsible monetary policy in the 90s has essentially erased thanks to the "tax cut" and the "war" on terrorism. All of the economic indicators are down and people are getting ancy. Next to the state of the economy, the single biggest factor in an election is war & peace. If the election is about foreign policy and the "war" on terrorism, then the issues on which the Republicans are weak cannot haunt them (much).

I think that we are not fully prepared for a war. Americans have shown in the past a disdain for long, drawn-out conflicts and invading and occupying Iraq would be nothing but long and drawn out. Victory in this war is not an issue; we will win it. However, the United States has been very unsuccessful at nation-building. In the long term, we would be pouring billions and billions of dollars into Iraq, and I doubt that we will see any return on that investment besides the resentment of the Muslim world. Of course, the long term is something that neither Dubya nor the other hawks in the US see; this war will probably out live all of their political careers.

@Tybaltus and mental_nomad:
I don't believe this war is about oil, except that the threat of war is driving up oil prices (both foreign and domestic) and it just so happens that our president had his family fortune come from oil. The Gulf War was about oil because it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein was prepared to march further into Saudi Arabia to seize some of their oil fields. Iraq has no such capability now and is not in a position to control any more of the oil market.

The United States has had a firm policy of not seizing land in the middle east, even though we could take the oil fields at will, because we don't want to occupy that land as long as the Saudis et al are willing to sell us the oil cheaply. Since the end of the Second World War, American policy in the middle east has been one of stability. We've maneuvered things so that no single country is dominant in the region. We basically control what weapons the Egyptians and the Saudis have, Lybia is isolated and we've backed both Iran and Iraq to make sure that neither is in a position to expand beyond its borders.

I do not believe that this policy is going to change even if we occupy Iraq for any length of time. We simply do not have the resources to occupy Iraq and bilk it of its resources.

[Tybaltus]

Well actually, Im just stating all I know. Im not really a political person, so I hardly belong in this conversation. But the only real strong POV that Ive heard (In other words outside the media cause the media is corrupt) basically talked about the oil issue. I actually have no personal stance in this issue. The only thing I think is that all wars can be resolved, if there was a true understanding.

[AntiChrist]

I'll support a war as soon as Bush shows some proof of what he's accusing Iraq of. I don't know his motivation now, nor do I care. All that matters is what he tells us his motivation is, and he has shown no proof that his motivation proves true. I will not support a war because Bush tells me that he has proof. Only when he shows me that he has proof.

[Obsidian]

Accusations and proof are very different things. But there are a couple key factors, that make me mildly in support of action vs. Iraq.
1) Tony Blair and his labour gov't is pretty opposed to exacting power on other nations, the fact he is so heavily in favour of this makes me think they have something on Iraq that hasn't been yet shared with the rest of the world. Why it hasn't I don't know.

2) The current gov't in Iraq is one that deserves to be taken out. Saddam is a madman, who treats his own people terribly. If he were quietly assasinated, I'd be rather pleased. Men like him don't deserve to be leaders.

Some points that make me wary of an attack however include the definate possibility of collateral damage. And secondly, if and when Saddam is removed from Iraq, what happens? He's been in power a very long time, and when he goes, there will be a vacuum effect. No one knows what will happen for all the adjoining states will vie for power, as will all the internal forces. The result, a bloody war over Iraq, which is geographically pretty big.
Even more terrifying, is if the US makes Iraq a colony, or protectorate. Something I would not put past a nation demonstrating such imperialistic tendancies.

[Nightmare]

In the "right to defend ourselves" argument that Bush has used, he stats that the US should strike Iraq first before Iraq attacks them (even though there is no public evidence that they will attack the US). Using that "right to defend ourselves/pre-emptive strike" argument, doesn't Iraq have the right to attack the US, from their point of view, if they use that argument?

[AntiChrist]

Originally posted by Obsidian
Saddam is a madman, who treats his own people terribly. If he were quietly assasinated, I'd be rather pleased. Men like him don't deserve to be leaders.

The same could be said of some..."other"...leaders

[Sojourner]

Bush has yet to make the case that an attack from Iraq is imminent. If there is clear evidence that Iraq is such a danger, Bush had better show it now. Right now, his motives are suspect, to say the least.

Given what I know now, the warhawks are seriously under-reporting the costs of this war, if it goes ahead. Are Americans really prepared to pay it on the basis of shaky evidence?

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Obsidian
1) Tony Blair and his labour gov't is pretty opposed to exacting power on other nations, the fact he is so heavily in favour of this makes me think they have something on Iraq that hasn't been yet shared with the rest of the world. Why it hasn't I don't know.

I actually have (a copy of) the official document released by the Blair administration citing the reasons for attacking Saddam, from what I have read (which is most of it) there is nothing new or different in that report to suggest he is more of a threat apart from the fissile material thing that we have heard so much about. As for Blair not being militaristic, I am not so sure, I can't recall a situation where he refrained from exacting power on other nations...plus it is questionable how much power the Blair administration really has compared to someone like the US

If there is other proof that comes out after an attack has begun the British intelligista will not be pleased, releasing a document pertaining to why Iraq is a threat and then leaving out vital information would not go down well.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It is my opinion that Dubya's campaign against Iraq is an effort to dictate the terms of the upcoming election by drawing attention away from the area where he and the Republicans are weakest: the economy. The budget surplus which was finally achieved after years of responsible monetary policy in the 90s has essentially erased thanks to the "tax cut" and the "war" on terrorism. All of the economic indicators are down and people are getting ancy. Next to the state of the economy, the single biggest factor in an election is war & peace. If the election is about foreign policy and the "war" on terrorism, then the issues on which the Republicans are weak cannot haunt them (much).

For some excleent satire from the onion you might want to read this. Note when it was written and how prophetic it is. (BTW it is satire)