The Real Reason we Invaded Iraq

This only hit me today when I heard the news that Saudi Arabia had said they would support Iraqi Sunni's if the US leave.

For a long time I couldn't understand why the US would invade Iraq to introduce democracy. It made no sense. The Iraqis would elect a religous Islamic govt, just the opposite of what we wanted.

Then it hit me--We invaded Iraq in order to divide the Islamic nations in the middle-east.

Think about it. The US knew the demographics. They knew the Shiite (possibly with aid of kurds) would control any elected govt. They have the numbers. The US knew this would create tension and probably civil war with Sunnis.

Add to this the destroying of the Iraqi infrastructure (schools, hospital) and the disbanding of the police and army. The US wanted to set the stage for the total internal breakdown of Iraq into factions. And they are achieving it.

The Islamic world is divided mainly between Shiite and Sunni, and now they are at war in Iraq. Muslim against muslim. Iran is stepping up, Suadi Arabia is stepping. The conflict could spread. It is starting to spread now.

So there's the reason. It certainly favors Israel's agenda (weaken the arab world). However, there is no way we'll leave Iraq unless forced. It will be essential to keep substantial military force their to guard the oil.

What do you think?


mod edit, spelling

[edit on 15-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Yeah that's good what you got there , would never of thought about it like that.

Well like you said, it does appear to be working, divide and conquer at its best. It would be interesting to see what happens if the US do indeed leave anytime soon, who would step in and such like. Only time will tell.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by UKTruthSeeker]

Actually, I think it was a miscalculation. For me, there are several reasons why the US invaded Iraq, none of which are the publicly advertised ones:

• control Iraq's oil resources
  
• privatise Iraq's infrastructure and sell it off to US corporations
  
• prevent Iraq from selling its oil in Euros, which would tend to destabilise the dollar
  
• gain another strategic foothold in the Middle East
  
• support the plan, outlined in "A Clean Break - a Strategy for Securing the Realm" - of making the middle East safe for Israel
  

I think Cheney was sincere when he said "we will be welcomed as liberators", and if the US had been sincere about liberating Iraq, troops would have been withdrawn ages ago and Iraq would be a proper democracy by now. However, the Iraqis very quickly realised that there was an asset-stripping agenda and began to unify to kick out the invaders. It was at that point that the covert action to divide Sunni from Shia (who, it should be remembered, had lived peaceably enough in the region for over a thousand years) was initiated. Bombings of mosques, car bombings, and the formation of sectarian death squads (concurrent with the arrival of John Negroponte, who had been in charge of death squads in El Salvador in the eighties) began a cycle of violence that has spiralled out of control.

A civil war makes it very difficult to get the kind of stability necessary to extract the oil.

However, two pieces of evidence support the OP's theory: first, the plan for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions has been kicking around for some time, since before the invasion, in fact; and second, oil prices rise in times of shortage, and that benefits the oil companies who control Bush.

I still think it was a miscalculation though: I think they really believed it was going to be a "cakewalk".

I have to admit that I've wondered the same thing.

When the US pulls out of Iraq there will be a war between the Sunis and the Shias. It could pull in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Selling weapons will once again be a profitable endeavor.

It will also take the focus off of Isreal.

Life is interesting

I agree with Rich, though might add the following opinion:

- Oil, Oil, Oil. To the extent possible; Controlling who has it, who pumps it, who gets it, how much it costs - especially as politically potentially &/or unreliable sources are growing on the international scene (Venezuala, Iran, Russia, etc.).

- Payback to Saddam et al for making an attempt on the 'Ole Man Bush's life.

- Redemption for not finishing the job the first time around.

- As per wildbob and Rich, above. Very astute and right on the money IMHO. Whether it'll work or not is another question entirely. Let's just admit that so far, "Not all has gone according to plan...".

BTW - any guesses why we're not "wasting time and resources" on places like Darfur, Pyonyang, or Sri Lanka? These places are just as desperate for 'democracy' if not more so. Answer: they have NOTHING we need or want - nothing worth fighting for... Sad perhaps, but true...

I think "W" went after Saddam because Saddam sent hit men to get his dady after his dady was no longer in office.

It was a Family feud plain and simple. "W" is way to simple minded to pull off or think up any of these super conspiracies.

"W" has ruined America in his 6 years on so many levels. It is like having a terrible "two year old" as president.

"W" does not have the brain power to pull off anything so deep. His henchmen are all yes men (and women).. well the ones that are still with him that is.

Only two more years hopefully he wont bring us down to far to recover.



[edit on 15-12-2006 by Xeven]

Originally posted by Xeven
I think "W" went after Saddam because Saddam sent hit men to get his dady after his dady was no longer in office.

I absolutely agree with you Xeven. Bush jr so much as admitted it in a speach he gave where he said one of the reasons was Saddam tried to kill his father.

The president of the United States used it's military might to try and settle a personal score. He went after Saddam cause Saddam went after his daddy.

This is something I believe.

I agree with most of the previous postings but I think where the danger really lies is if the wole area blows up into an expanded regional war, Iran may block the Persian Gulf so US Navy cant exit, and is vertially sitting ducks in a barrel if the Iranians both block the straight of Hermez and attack the US Navy in one swoop.

Also, there is the real risk if Iran did enter the war of invading Kuwait and effectively cutting off any land based exit for the US trrops, only leaving a very risky operation of flying troops out of Bagdad over hostile enemy ground that WILL be armed with surface to air missiles.

What had started off as a good idea by the US of A could easily engulf them in the biggest quogmire they have ever seen and risking the annihialation of all the troops they have left there.

Answer, they will resort to massive nuclear reataliation on the regional adversaries, resulting in Russia and China firing up and possibly threatening to get involved.

Result, World War 3 on all fronts, nukes used on all corners of the world to minimize personal threats, the collapse of the international community and economy and the start of a new dark age.

Please do not snob this off as fantasy because it will only take the smallest stuff up in the area from this point forward to set off a chain reaction that will end in this way.

i love how a bunch of ignorant misinformed posters just love expressing their fantasies about US troops being slaughtered and overrun, first of all our airforce would not allow this, if things got that hot in the region you would see mass navy and airforce mobilisation along with more ground units so infact NO. no iraqi nor iranian force will ever overrun US forces simply because the US would not allow itself to be put in that position.

continue disrespecting the strongest military in the world in an indirect fashion by assuming it would just be sitting there sleeping while iran moved forces.

iran controlling the straight of hermez from the US in an engagment? man seriously get a reality check .