Possible Motive behind Iraq War

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I've been thinking a lot about the ongoing war in Iraq and trying to figure out what the Bush Administration's true motives for continuing to have troops there might be. The theory I've come up with is that they are using the Iraq War as a way to condition soldiers into fighting civilians in an urban setting for use someday on American soil. I saw a piece on CBS last night about a young soldier talking about being shot at one minute then seeing the shooter walking calmly down the street two hours later.

I'm beginning to believe that our soldiers are being mentally conditioned into being able to kill whomever their commander orders them too, be they civilian, unarmed, or even American.

Any thoughts? Am I way off base with this?




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Not a bad point actually. Seriously with Bush you never know. I think the oil is also a big factor for him. And I also read that he's going to leave it to the next president to bring the troops back. What a douche!



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The Illuminati.

That's my answer. Understand the fact that our soldiers are already trained for this. That's pretty much 75% the point of why the National Guard carries guns. To deal with a rebellion. The other 25% is in the slight chance that they are needed for a foreign problem



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Oil was always the motive now you have hold of the World's second largest pool of oil ...you have to keep it

All I can say is it took you a long time to realise it.......Most of us understood that years ago

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Pleiadian Recon]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
1. To stop terrorism where it starts, the madrases(holy schools) If Islamic Leaders are able to preach hate about the west terrorism will never stop. If we can stop these leaders from preaching it we will triuph over it, eventually.

2. Personally I felt the motive before the war, was to create a democratic and peaceful middle east. This would be done first by easing the tension between Israel and Palestine by diverting some of the Palestinian resources(money/equiptment) and suicide bombers away from Israel and to make the new battle ground, Baghdad. This would give Israel and Palestine more or less a window in which they could negotiate free of conflict. So far it is to early to judge its results.

Also remember, Iraq is in the center of the middle east so at first it will be a beacon of a battlefield for Arabs and Muslims to fight over, however if we can ever control the violence it could turn into a beacon for democracy.

Personally I believe the U.S. is trying to spread the role of democracy further in the world at the same time trying to corner the remaining dictatorships and Communist Countries.

I don't believe the Cold War ever died I just believe it went dormant and morphed a bit, we are seeing the continuation of the Cold War play out in Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.

I believe China and Russia are using the middle east like pawns in a giant game of global chess, right now the U.S. is attempting to take out this pawn, hopefully we dont get taken out pursuing it, I have faith in the U.S. and I believe eventually we will come out on top.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
1. To stop terrorism where it starts, the madrases(holy schools) If Islamic Leaders are able to preach hate about the west terrorism will never stop. If we can stop these leaders from preaching it we will triuph over it, eventually.


This confuses me, as the madrases in many of the other middle eastern countires are far more radical. In fact, the Sunni faction spent most of its time in Iraq trying to contain their Shiite majority, thus depleting their energies.



2. Personally I felt the motive before the war, was to create a democratic and peaceful middle east.

This is essentially the neoconservative vision as espoused by Dick Cheney's longstanding policy statements. At best, the middle east would become a collection of democracies. At worst, it would be a collection of dictatorial pseudo-parliaments with favorable repression tactics. I think this is close to the administration's loftier goals. But, in my opinion, the reason Iraq was chosen was that it was convenient and weak, not because of its madrases.



This would be done first by easing the tension between Israel and Palestine by diverting some of the Palestinian resources(money/equiptment) and suicide bombers away from Israel and to make the new battle ground, Baghdad.


What if it works the other way around? What if the fanatical regimes in place and recently elected see this as the wolf at their door, thereby investing more resources in terrorism and conventional military assets (nukes for Hamas) rather than new cars and palaces on the mediteranean?



This would give Israel and Palestine more or less a window in which they could negotiate free of conflict. So far it is to early to judge its results.


I suppose Cheney might have believed this, but I don't think he did. As for being too early to judge the results, I disagree. I think the results played out recently, and contradict your theory. Perez is calling Iran "Satanic" and Iran is saying "We have nukes and by the way Israel should be wiped of the map wink wink". That's just my opinion. I don't think this is just rhetoric.

I think this has escalated to the point where the Iranians and the Syrians are aware that the United States is succesfully digging in deep bunkers in Iraq, and that they will be next. Where we go next will depend on whether we think nukes or certain terrorist sponsors are a more important catch.



Also remember, Iraq is in the center of the middle east so at first it will be a beacon of a battlefield for Arabs and Muslims to fight over, however if we can ever control the violence it could turn into a beacon for democracy.

This seems logical. However, my assessment before the war was that the Baathists to the West, Shiites, and Kurds would not get along and that this was unlikely. In particular, I was also concerned about the potential for violent organized crime in the central triangle, as that seems to be the tradition there (for example, Sadaam Hussein's youth.) The kurds have been relatively well behaved because they are (1) happy and because (2) Turkish special forces have been killing their more aggressive elements.



I don't believe the Cold War ever died I just believe it went dormant and morphed a bit, we are seeing the continuation of the Cold War play out in Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.

I agree with this. Its spot on.



I have faith in the U.S. and I believe eventually we will come out on top.


Ok, but as for me, I don't usually apply faith in determining the outcome of a war. Based on my assessment of the situation, I feel that chaos is going to win in Iraq, especially if refugees start to flee the cities (yet to be manifest in mass).

Yet the US doesn't really care, as long as we can dig some deep bases and establish an efficient operations center.

In brief, the reason we invaded Iraq was to enact the Cheney doctrine. The reason for choosing Iraq was that it was convenient.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
As I have heard, the main reasons for going into Iraq is for the OIL. It was one of the few countries that produced alot of oil in the region. Controlling that supply would mean profit for the Bush family. Consider this, the Bush family is in thick with the Saudi Arabian government. Contracts and deals, supporting them and representing their interests is all big business, and especially for the Bushes. After all who do you think represents the Saudi interest here in the US when dealing with different firms? Bush Senior.
Saddam Hussain was not well liked in the Arabian world, and many of its leaders would want him replaced. Hence who better to do it than the US? And especially if you know that by going in and taking him out, you have to put a replacement in? Who better than to put in a person who you hand pick? I think the Saudi's have a hand in it, and are going through the Presidency to do it.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
I think the oil is also a big factor for him.


Duh! Oil is big for ALL American Presidents!




And I also read that he's going to leave it to the next president to bring the troops back. What a douche!


Of course he is! The job in Iraq will not be finished until after 2008.

-- Boat

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Boatphone]





top topics
 
0

log in

join