The Real Reason to Bomb Iraq

by metatron 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  There's a lot of nonsense about the coming Iraq war that's floating about.
  There's a lot of dumb editorials and knee jerk comments about oil and George Bush.

  The reality is: they can't publically discuss the real reasons why a war with Iraq
  is desirable.Here's the real motivation - they want to create a progressive secular
  Arab regime and fend off Muslim fundamentalists.

  Comments about Bush's IQ are off the mark and foolish. Bush is surrounded by some
  extremely intelligent and crafty people - Rice, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld in
  particular. Reagan was very popular and successful - surrounded as he was with
  similar state craft types - while he played the crowds.

  They can look at a map and see Iraq bordering Turkey with a proud secular tradition
  of government. Former Soviet- Muslim states have restive fundamentalist troubles.
  Iran's theocrats are trying to hold on to power while young people grow tired of
  their corruption. Give disaffected Muslim youth a car, a job, and pop music
  and things might look very different in ten years.

  By seizing control of Iraq, pressure can be brought to bear on the Saudis, who fund
  terror - it's leverage.

  Encouraging democracy in Arab nations is generally dumb because they are often eager
  to elect radical Islamists. Freedom will have to come slowly - and rebuilding a nation
  in the manner of Germany or Japan looks like a very attractive option.

  This is brinksmanship at its best - trying to change the Arab world before they all
  get nuclear weapons and try to wreck civilization with radical Islam.

  And - it just might work!

  metatron
• 

  Satanus

  Here's the real motivation - they want to create a progressive secular Arab regime and fend off Muslim fundamentalists.

  In saddam, they already had this. Hence the years of war w iran, and it's ayatolla. Here is a book biography of saddam. It shows that.

  http://www.rfausa.com/Nita/nita.html

  I suppose it presents the positive side/avoids the negative. But then the negative side has been well presented already, hasn't it?

  SS

  Edited by - saintsatan on 13 January 2003 18:32:0
• 

  metatron

  Saddam is a secularist - but the 'progressive' part is questionable. Frankly, I'd rather see someone come up

  with a new energy supply and let them all regress into the glorious 15th century lifestyle they all aspire to.

  metatron
• 

  Shutterbug

  I've always thought that a base in the western desert of Iraq could control the entire region. Turkey to the north, Iran to the west and Saudis to the south. They wouldn't dare start trouble with a good sized US Air Base within minutes of them.
• 

  Bendrr

  Regardless of the reasons for a war with Iraq, the one sure thing is that the U.S. and allies will indeed win. I've said before that of course oil is a major reason and rightly so. This is also a war against the radical faction of Islam that preaches death to all non-muslims. That faction had 8 years of Clinton in power and in that time got very bold. They figured that we'd just bomb an aspirin factory or empty building in response to 9/11 and then cry for a while and forget about them.

  A quick and harsh invasion of Iraq is going to give them just the example they need to see.

  Mike.
• 

  Satanus

  He encouraged women to get educated, get into politics and business. He wiped out illiteracy in 3 yrs. He promoted the arts. He funded archeological excavations.

  Maybe he made his country too progressive, hence a threat to american oil interests in the region.

  SS
• 

  ThiChi

  Metatron:

  I agree with your observations.... It is very interesting that countries like France publicly oppose the US views regarding this issue, however when the vote comes in, they side with the US at the UN. It will be very telling if this trend continues.........
• 

  Satanus

  Bendrr

  This is also a war against the radical faction of Islam that preaches death to all non-muslims.

  Do you mean the wahabi's? Aren't they mainly in saudi arabia?

  SS
• 

  bigboi

  I like what you say here Metatrona nd it may very well be one of the intended outcomes of our current focus on this region. However, I just can't ignore the money factor involved in this. I think profits from oil have to figure very prominently in this.
• 

  back2dafront

  Comments about Bush's IQ are off the mark and foolish. Bush is surrounded by some
  extremely intelligent and crafty people - Rice, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld in
  particular.

  Just cuz your buddies are intelligent doesn't mean you are - DUH.

  And just cuz you graduated from Yale doesn't mean a hill of beans when you're part of the most powerful family in the world. I'm not saying the guy is dumb, but he has not proven to be a very WISE president either, which is just as important as intellect.

  Seeing how the Bush family is deeply involved in the OIL BUSINESS, it would only make sense that he'd finagle his power in the political world for his own monetary gain. You have to understand that anyone in that position would be very tempted to do so, correct? How far he has taken it/will take it....who knows, but it only stands to reason that the probability of personal gain is VERY HIGH.

  There ARE other energy options - all it takes is a little research and less GREED to realize that.

  http://www.phoenixproject.net/

  Other countries are well on their way to putting alternate energy sources into use. A wise President would have the ability to see that the USA, the biggest polluter and largest resource drainer in the world, should be LEADING the way in this endeavor. But, obviously, to do such a thing will not be profitable for the oil business (which our President is deeply into) and would mean huge sacrifices on every Americans part, and evidently nobody is concerned about it or sees the importance of it. Canada recently signed the Kyoto treaty, realizing that it will mean lots of sacrifices on their part. Bush probably hasn't even read the whole thing.

  It's kind of like the parent that doesn't save in advance for his child's college education - although they want them to go to college in the future, they'd rather use the money now for other personal reasons. When the child gets of age, they'll think about it then.

  It could work - they could come into the money down the road and everything could work out fine, but what if they don't? Personally, I'd rather be the WISER parent that would put away money in advance for my son/daughter, thus gauranteeing a college education for them in the future.