Do u agree with me...

[Harvin87]

Do u agree with me that, looking into retrospective the second Irak war (2003) .. was a complete aggression to a nation?...ressembling the best style of the old Third Reich? ... inventing a stupid pretext (weapons of mass destruction found ) ...and then invading a country.

 

[Moss]

Even if the U.S.'s reasons for invading were subsequently found to be flawed, the U.S. still never had (nor does it now) the intention of occupying and controlling the country and its land as its own (making Iraq into U.S. territory). Unlike the intentions of Hitler who frankly wanted to control as much of the Europe as he possibly could (yes, I realize this is a broad generalization of Hitler's intentions).

So no, I don't agree with you for that and about a million other reasons.

 

[Dachs]

No I do not agree with you.

 

[innonimatu]

I always saw it as aggression excused with false pretexts.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Puting it on one level with the "style" of the Third Reich is of course quite exaggerated. Neither is there any evidence to support the thesis that the USA has a desire to dictate the destiny of the Iraqi people nor that it plans to constantly suppress them. Still the war has brought the Iraq on the US-American side and that not by accident. Just as it is no accident that the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) - Order 39* as well as the Executive Order 13315** enabled the USA to have a lasting control over Iraqi oil (that both opposes the Hague Convention almost goes without saying).
I have come to find that there are so many evidences and hints, which are in parts very strong, that an objective mind has to come to the conclusion, that the war was a simple "aggression to a nation".

So yes I (partially) agree.

*Unlimited rights for foreign investors to do any trade business in Iraq or to buy Iraqi companies
**US-ministry of finance controls complete Iraqi national property

 

[Masada]

Just as it is no accident that the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) - Order 39* as well as the Executive Order 13315** enabled the USA to have a lasting control over Iraqi oil (that both opposes the Hague Convention almost goes without saying).

How does that oppose the Hague Convention?

 

[Harvin87]

Yea, what I said was definetly exaggerated. But on the other hand I think the Irak invasion was a complete joke a comedy, at least they should had came up with better excuses to steal Oil or whatever they are looting there.

Ofcourse Irak was not all "roses" thats for sure... but ... mmm I dont know... everything seems so suspicious... and points to an aggression to a nation.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How does that oppose the Hague Convention?

Hague Convention states, that an occupying power has to recognize the existing law of a country. The only exeption is an absolute necessity. I don't see the absolute necessity in US-American companys flourishing on Iraqi soil.
And to virtually legalize the ransack of a country is prohibitted by common sense as well as international law.

I think the Irak invasion was a complete joke a comedy, at least they should had came up with better excuses to steal Oil or whatever they are looting there.

I agree. But the war happened and Bush was reelected. Therefor it seems the governments efforts to delude the people were still sufficient.

 

[IvanDolvich]

.... at least they should had came up with better excuses to steal Oil or whatever they are looting there.

So you say that the US is stealing oil or other items from Iraq (looting). How exactly do you get that? As far as I know, the Iraqi oil infrastructure has been so trashed by insurgent activity, that little gets produced beyond the needs of the country. What other valuables are there to loot from Iraq? Sadam's Palaces were a joke with unbelievable shoddy construction.

So, no, I dont agree with you. The US stands to lose far more economically from the invasion of Iraq than to gain from it. Question the motivations if you want to, but Iraq will not become the 51st state of the United States.

The war was probably fought because there was a desire to believe that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. The US administration heard what it wanted to hear and that fit with the obstructive and defiant behavior of Sadam Hussein. Was the US wrong? Probably about WMD. But the US, once they were in Iraq, stayed committed to setting up a viable country that will be able to stand on its own. It has not been easy, but progress is being made. A failed Iraqi state along the lines of Somalia is probably the worst outcome and the US has tried to avoid that.
Time will tell.

 

[ArneHD]

[Vickymode]In my opinion, the whole thing was for prestige. America got hit with the "9/11" event, that gives -50 prestige, but also reduces badboy. America needed a few quick wars to get their prestige back up, so they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, both relatively small nations with negative prestige, meaning they only got a -1 hit to prestige when they declared war. Unfortunately for the Americans, they forgot that while their badboy was low, it wasn't THAT low, and now they have traded badboy for prestige.[/Vickymode]

To the OP: No I don't really agree with your assessment of the war.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

'we feel we have the right to enforce democracy, when we're weaking ours everday what hypocrisy'

 

[REDY]

Bush wanted redress of mistakes which his father had done.

 

[Antilogic]

[Vickymode]In my opinion, the whole thing was for prestige. America got hit with the "9/11" event, that gives -50 prestige, but also reduces badboy. America needed a few quick wars to get their prestige back up, so they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, both relatively small nations with negative prestige, meaning they only got a -1 hit to prestige when they declared war. Unfortunately for the Americans, they forgot that while their badboy was low, it wasn't THAT low, and now they have traded badboy for prestige.[/Vickymode]

To the OP: No I don't really agree with your assessment of the war.

I could have sworn you were in EU3 mode...I guess it's whichever Paradox game you like to play.

To the OP: The Iraqi "Conflict" (after all, the Congress didn't officially declare it a war, so it isn't) is an aggressive strike made under (seriously) mistaken intelligence with little regards to an exit strategy and only a grand pronouncement of spreading democracy to the Middle East. The Third Reich made aggressive strikes, but couldn't care less about proving Poland had WMDs. Also, the Third Reich had a much more clear post-invasion strategy. If there was one thing Hitler got right, it was his pre-war planning. Thus, they are not the same.

 

[NKVD]

agression yes, but like Moss said it was not in the intention of occupying it for the next 1000 years. maybe to make this part of the world more stable so the price of oil drops

 

[Winner]

I tend not to agree with people who write "u" instead of "you".

 

[Agent327]

Just as it is no accident that the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) - Order 39* as well as the Executive Order 13315** enabled the USA to have a lasting control over Iraqi oil (that both opposes the Hague Convention almost goes without saying).
I have come to find that there are so many evidences and hints, which are in parts very strong, that an objective mind has to come to the conclusion, that the war was a simple "aggression to a nation".

So yes I (partially) agree.

*Unlimited rights for foreign investors to do any trade business in Iraq or to buy Iraqi companies
**US-ministry of finance controls complete Iraqi national property

Not to mention (again) that the plan to invade Iraq originated some time after 9/11 and well before the WMD pretext was found.

Bush wanted redress of mistakes which his father had done.

While Bush Sr may have made mistakes, his preparation for the Gulf War was not one of them. It seems more likely Bush Jr was constantly motivated by wanting to redress his own mistakes in order to redeem himself in the eyes of his father - and failed utterly. Combining his efforts with Dick Cheney probably wasn't helping either.

 

[Masada]

Hague Convention states, that an occupying power has to recognize the existing law of a country. The only exeption is an absolute necessity. I don't see the absolute necessity in US-American companys flourishing on Iraqi soil.

Economic reconstruction in Iraqi was analogous to the American reconstruction of West Germany or Japan after the Second World War. The sole difference was that there wasn't a Mssr. Krupp or Mssr. Toyoda to deal with; or punish; or what-have-you. It was imperative at the time to resuscitate an economy that was moribund and on the point of collapse and oil provided that opportunity. There wasn't a hope in hell that oil production would be able to start up drawing purely on local talent - most of that had fled elsewhere - and the existing infrastructure was in shambles and couldn't even properly service domestic requirements.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The US stands to lose far more economically from the invasion of Iraq than to gain from it.

For the next couple of years or even decades you are probably right. But US-strategists are not dumb and plan well ahead. And in most scenarios the USA has a lot to economically gain in a few decades.

@Masada
Wild privatization represents by no means the economic reconstruction in post-war Germany or Japan.

 

[Naskra]

Technically, the Iraq invasion was not aggression - it was a continuation of the first Gulf War which had never been resolved by treaty. It was belated counter-aggression.
Domestically, of course, it was continuing the illegal presidential war.
The US government, not just Bush, wanted to be seen to be doing something in the War on Terror.
Iraq, globally unpopular, was the obvious target. Invasion also served to divert attention from the fiasco in Afghanistan.
The one thing Bush could not afford was a repetiton of a 9/11 event. He may have suspected that Iraq was the source of that attack. By that time, the administration had publicly blamed Osama BL for the attack, but no evidence of his guilt has ever been revealed.
The only people deceived by the WMD stuff were those who more than willing to be deceived.
I wouldn't call it aggression, just garden variety murderous stupidity.

 

[Masada]

Wild privatization represents by no means the economic reconstruction in post-war Germany or Japan.

Yes, it bloody well did. The Zaibatsu were effectively arms of the state in Imperial Japan and were deal with accordingly - sixteen were dissolved completely while a further twenty-four were dissolved and reorganized after the war. The same was done in Germany with its Zaibatsu analogues: you don't think that Alfred Krupp or his ilk functioned at arms length from the Nazi regime now do you? I guess you would have been happy with the Ba'thist party members keeping their monopolies and ill-gotten gains as well: the Iraqi oil sector was controlled lock, stock and barrel by its members. In any case those orders didn't didn't "privatize" anything: they merely opened up the oil industry to foriegn investment something which seems completely logical considering the situation of the Iraqi economy.