Did we invade Iraq just so we could go on to Iran?

[yzerman18]

Ever since we invaded Iraq I've never believed we went there in order to secure the WMD's or to remove Saddam from power. It just never made sense to me that Saddam was a threat to the US. Simply put the man may be a pyscopath but he is no fool, any attack on the US, specifically any connection to a terriost attack on US soil would result in his loss of power by US force. This is just my opinion and you can make the arguement that we did go to Iraq for WMDs.

I have struggled with the real reasons for our invasion. I've always believed that the invasion was about oil and of course it is to some extent. The region has it and we need it, until an economical alternative to oil is made available we will probally always have troops on the ground in the Middle East.

That being said I wondered if the invasion was just the largest armed robbery in the history of the world. I understand our need to secure the region, I fill our cars up w/ 2 tanks a week. I think if it would have been possible for the administration to come out and publicly say "We are going to Iraq to secure the region's oil supply." or "We are removing Saddam from power so that we may lift the economic sancations on Iraq and open it's oil fields up to Western development, this is the best interest of the country." I could have accepted that, I wouldn't have liked it but I believe that ALL wars are fought over economic interest, they may be very personal economic interest.

That being said, oil prices are going through the roof and US armed forces have been unable to secure the flow of oil out of Iraq. The pipelines are sabatoged often. So if that was the reason, were doing a pretty poor job at executing.

So that brings me to my latest theory: Iraq is just a stagging ground or an example of "Island Hopping". It's much easier to amass a large ground force just outside a country's boarder than to invade via the sea. I don't know alot about the military geography of Iran or stratgic points along its coast and boarder.

Anyway, I think more and more people have the belief that the situtation w/ Iran will not be resolved peacefully, at least not by the current administration.

I know that there really are no simple answers to situations like this. So what's everyone think?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's everyone think?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are correct. Invading Iran is the next logical step. Simply killing terrorists will not help unlaess we also eradicate the tyrannical Mullahs perpetuating the radical Islamic doctrine, particularly those in Iran.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

"Invading Iran is the next logical step."

Jimbo is correct: invading Iran is indeed as logical as invading Iraq.

[IrishHand]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[natedogg]

nt

[Jimbo]

Careful Andy, if Kerry is elected you might need some new digs. California is the most reasonable state for the Great Appeaser (Kerry) to sacrifice in order to keep everyone in the Muslim world happy. Then comes Montana, you had better bet that Ray Zee will go down fighting. Hell by the time he is sacrificing Nevada even Chuck may change his mind about printing all his books in Arabic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimbo

[yzerman18]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's everyone think?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are correct. Invading Iran is the next logical step. Simply killing terrorists will not help unlaess we also eradicate the tyrannical Mullahs perpetuating the radical Islamic doctrine, particularly those in Iran.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

So the primary objective is terroist not oil? If that is the case are we headed for Saudi next? I understand that Suadi doesn't expire to be a nuclear power but I'm sure a significant amount of international terrorism is finaced by Saudi nationals.

How many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that there really are no simple answers to situations like this. So what's everyone think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Invading Iraq was stupid. I suspected early on it was a possible feint or just a way to intimidate Iran/N.Korea without invading them and actually facing their nukes.

What I don't understand is if we are so worried about these countries getting nukes, why do we need to invade them? Just send in the precision bombers to blow up their plants!

I'm 100% in favor of flying bombing missions TOMORROW to blow up all of North Korea's suspected nuclear facilities, and Iran's too. I'm 100% OPPOSED to invading them with our armies. It doesn't make any sense.

Which leads me to believe there's more to it than just fear of nukes.

natedogg

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% in favor of flying bombing missions TOMORROW to blow up all of North Korea's suspected nuclear facilities, and Iran's too.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you were told that over half those bombers wouldn't come back home? North Korea boasts an obscene amount of anti-air defenses. It is quite literally the last place in the world I'd want to overfly for any reason.

That's why we have cruise missiles - a lot more expensive than bombs, but a lot less pilots get shot down when they get launched. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Either way, the problem with bombing is that it's an act of war - North Korea would occupy the southern half of their peninsula within short order and we'd have US casualty rates that exceed everything that's happened in Iraq within a day or two.

[Dan Mezick]

The best way to think about Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 is to consider both of these wars and those that follow as:

USA Manifest Destiny 2.0

Think it through and you'll agree.

Also:

...The purpose of Gulf1 was to set up for Gulf2. This explains the end of Gulf1 (ie, the non-march to Bahgdad; the non-removal of Saddam Hussien). Think through the 9MM barrels a day in Iraq that were not pumped for 12 years. There are now (365 days * 9MM barrels a day * 12 years) barrels of oil stored in the ground in Iraq as a result of Gulf1.

During Gulf1 we used allies and the U.N.

During Gulf2 we used neither in any real way.

War is politics by "other" means. Politics is a poker problem

[yzerman18]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% in favor of flying bombing missions TOMORROW to blow up all of North Korea's suspected nuclear facilities, and Iran's too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, the problem with bombing is that it's an act of war - North Korea would occupy the southern half of their peninsula within short order and we'd have US casualty rates that exceed everything that's happened in Iraq within a day or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree w/ Irish's on this. We are not headed for N. Korea anytime soon at least I hope so.

Score a point for the current situtiation in Iraq and possibly Iran is not about WMD's or terrorist. I think most people would agree that N. Korea is/was in a much better position to provide WMD's to a terrorist organization than Iraq was or Iran is today.

[yzerman18]

[ QUOTE ]


Also:

...The purpose of Gulf1 was to set up for Gulf2. This explains the end of Gulf1 (ie, the non-march to Bahgdad; the non-removal of Saddam Hussien).

War is politics by "other" means. Politics is a poker problem

[/ QUOTE ]

I've alway felt that Saddam was left in power after the first gulf war because he was a know quantity and that his removal would result in a power vacum, kinda like what we are faced with now.

I wish the administration would lay out the long term plan for the region. I'm sure a "Democratic" Iraq is not the end plan.

[Utah]

I assume you mean that invading Iran is a terrible idea.

Question - how would your feelings change if a nuclear blast occured in the U.S.?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% in favor of flying bombing missions TOMORROW to blow up all of North Korea's suspected nuclear facilities, and Iran's too. I'm 100% OPPOSED to invading them with our armies. It doesn't make any sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have the ordinance required to destroy the underground bunkers where these things are made and stored. The Bush administration is trying to develope the type of bombs that would be necessary. Kerry was quite clear in the debate tonight that he would cancel that program. If Kerry is elected, we will never have the option of just bombing these types of facilities out of existance.

Stu

[GWB]

Well, I wasn't planning on invading Iran, but you give some good arguments for doing so...

OK, let's DO IT! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

"Simply killing terrorists will not help unlaess we also eradicate the tyrannical Mullahs perpetuating the radical Islamic doctrine, particularly those in Iran. "

Why particularly those in Iran? When was the last time a Shi'ite group attempted a terrorist attack US soil?

[Il_Mostro]

If I were you I would look into the "petrodollar", "petroeuro" argument. The US will be in all sorts of problems if the world moves from US$ as the currency for oil transactions. And guess what, Saddam was in the process of switching from US$ to euro, just as Iran is now...
There's a lot more to this as well, notice that Iraq is the only country in the ME (and probably in the world) that has the possibility to significantly raise its oil production. This at a point when most (don't remember the exact figure) of the countries in the ME are producing less and less due to depletion. The world is facing enormous energy problems in the years to come.

see for example
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.peakoil.net/

[nicky g]

This is too vague to have a sensible answer. Are you assuming such a blast would be from an Iranian bomb?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean that invading Iran is a terrible idea.

Question - how would your feelings change if a nuclear blast occured in the U.S.?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know what agency in the USA governs the safety of your Nuclear power plants, but yes if this happened send in the marines and take over there offices.

Lets see.

Iranians some how facilitate the detonation of a nuclear blast in the USA.

Result. End of Iran, End of its ruling elite.

Turkeys dont vote for christmas.

[andyfox]

A bogus question. It presumes that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, we'd be under danger of there being a nuclear blast in the U.S. Russia has tons of nuclear weapons and is a mess; if you read Putin's comments after the incident in the school, you can't be too confident as to his capability or sanity. Should we forbid him from having WMDs and invade? And those Chinese keep threatening Taiwan and they're Communists besides.

I'm in agreement with President Bush on this one. Diplomacy is the way to go.

BTW, if the blast occurs here in California, as Jimbo suggests, go ahead and cash my check at once. Chances are you'll be cashing it November 3 anyway. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,
Andy

[tolbiny]

My brother just finished reading a book (which i will read when i get home this weekend) that points to the idea that the invasion of Iraq was intended for Saudi Arabia. Not for an immediate invasion, but so that we have a large mass of troops, and an immediate staging ground should the problems in saudi arabia lead to a civil war with a negative outcome (from our perspective) there. Its not to far fetched if you realize we get most of our oil from the Saudi's- not the rest of the middle east.
If the book is any good i will post an exert or two with my opinions later on nexxt week.

[Victor]

others might want to read it..........

[tolbiny]

I don't recall of the top of my head, will post when i get home tomorrow.... BTW Cards sat night? what about popendopenhiemer?