MSNBC aired this documentary a few hours ago. Can anyone tell me about it? There doesn't seem to be anything on the internet yet.
'Why we did it.'
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Erm... tl, dr.
What is this thing actually about? Why the administration did it, or why ordinary people were on board with it?
Cause those are different questions with very different answers.
The former.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
That has a very interesting meaning taken out of context.
Berzerker
Deity
oil...
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Is this question "Why did the US go to war in Iraq?" Or "Why did the US administration sell the idea of WMD as a reason to go to war?"
The answer to the first one is oil. The answer to the second is because going to war for oil (blatant self-interest) would have been a more difficult sell than WMD (ostensibly self-defence).
The answer to the first one is oil. The answer to the second is because going to war for oil (blatant self-interest) would have been a more difficult sell than WMD (ostensibly self-defence).
The oil was a factor, but not for the express purpose of making Shell rich.
I'd say that the oil was a motive for geopolitical, not financial, reasons. I think it's fairly established that the Saudis were the main financiers of terrorism. If Iraqi oil was released on the market during the already extremely low value of crude oil in 2003, it would be a disaster for them. That, I suspect, was one of the motives.
You're right that's it's hard Realpolitik, and the government certainly lied to do it, but I don't see how else Realpolitik is done.
You're right that's it's hard Realpolitik, and the government certainly lied to do it, but I don't see how else Realpolitik is done.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well. Certainly Bin Laden was Saudi, and no doubt some other Saudis still do support terrorism. Whether you think that means that the House of Saud finances terrorism, I'm not so sure. It would be a strange thing for them to do, given how much they spend on the reverse (or do they? I confess I don't really know what they spend on what).
And, as far as I can see, geopolitical reasons are just financial reasons taken on the long term.
I agree that Realpolitikers will tell lies any time they feel like it. And they continue to get away with it because the public's memory is short and doesn't properly hold them to account.
And, as far as I can see, geopolitical reasons are just financial reasons taken on the long term.
I agree that Realpolitikers will tell lies any time they feel like it. And they continue to get away with it because the public's memory is short and doesn't properly hold them to account.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'd guess that companies like Haliburton had something to do with it too. They ended up making soooo much $$ on no-big contracts it's not even funny. That the P and VP had such strong links to this company is very telling.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Because he was drunk.
Oil was a factor. But don't forget the extent to which the people who caused it to happen were neocons. That is, people who have a defect in their brain which makes them entirely incapable of understanding foreign policy and national security matters.
In Iraq they were looking at the "short, victorious, war" that they could win on the cheap. And so demonstrate their manliness. And Iraq was also a great target because of GW Bush. Removing Saddam, which is something his father didn't do, was something to show that he really was a man, and not an overgrown child playing at being his father.
The Republican establishment picked GW to be their candidate precisely because really had no character of his own, and so could be managed by those around him. No one ever considered that he might become a war time president, and so expected to actually lead. Least of all himself.
In Iraq they were looking at the "short, victorious, war" that they could win on the cheap. And so demonstrate their manliness. And Iraq was also a great target because of GW Bush. Removing Saddam, which is something his father didn't do, was something to show that he really was a man, and not an overgrown child playing at being his father.
The Republican establishment picked GW to be their candidate precisely because really had no character of his own, and so could be managed by those around him. No one ever considered that he might become a war time president, and so expected to actually lead. Least of all himself.
Bush wanted to be a victorious war time president and he was manipulated into thinking it could be so.
Based on the little I've seen, it seems to just be a carbon copy of the same stupidity- Cheney was the real mastermind, we knew Saddam didn't have WMDs, etc. I don't think there's anything new here.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The question about motivation is a good one though. The most plausible explanation I can think of is rather disturbing. The alternatives just not credible enough.
Similar threads
