What are we fighting for?

[TheBreeze]

I’m always amazed when Bush makes some kind of statement about how we are fighting for democracy in Iraq and no one calls him on it — not the press, not democrats; seemingly everyone buys that statement.

Well, the truth is that the Iraqi Constitution does not prescribe a democracy, but rather some kind of religious theocracy. As stated in Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

As you can see, democracy is mentioned in item 2(B), but Islam is prescribed as a fundamental source of legislation and the supreme law of the land in the first two items. So in actuality, when Bush speaks of “democracy” in Iraq, this is what he is talking about: a government in which laws are based on Islam and no law can be made which contradicts the provisions of Islam. Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy to me.

Is there anyone on this board who supports sending American military personnel to fight and die in an attempt to stabilize a government based on Islam? Aren’t Islamic terrorists supposed to be the “enemy”? It baffles me how anyone could support this war knowing what the Iraqi Constitution says.

The next time Bush talks about “winning” and “democracy” and all his other ridiculous buzzwords, remember that even if we “win” in Iraq, this is what we get: a government based on Islam in which no law can be passed which contradicts Islam. This is what Americans are fighting and dieing for.

[blahblahblah]

We are fighting to divide the country into disfunctional warring factions so that it cannot pose a threat to our corporations in the future. As a side benefit, we’ll be able to loot it at will because the population will be too busy fighting one another to notice. We cannot leave because if we do, one of the factions will gain control and they might not let our corporations loot them anymore.

[mydogsarelazy]

Terrorists are not Muslims: they just say they are and hide behind the label of religion.

We are in Iraq because George W. Bush decided long before he was elected that he wanted us to be there for the benefit of oil companies and other corporations.

If what America really wanted to do was to use our immense power and resources to improve situations that really need attention we would be in Africa. Since our armed forces aren’t Oprah, Clinton and Bono are.

JS

[blahblahblah]

We are in Iraq because George W. Bush decided long before he was elected that he wanted us to be there for the benefit of oil companies and other corporations.

I don’t believe that. I think he is really trying to fix that part of the world and bring it into the 21st century. He knows that the US needs allies all around the world and especially in the middle east if we are to have any hope against the extremism that is steadily gaining ground over there because of all of the corrupt governments in the region.

Unfortunately, since it doesn’t look likely that our dream government is going to arise there, we’re going with the classic “divide and conquer” strategy out of the British colonial playbook. That will at least prevent them from being any kind of threat to the US (and our corporations, of course). Bush and Cheney simply overreached. Like Dr. Bovary’s club foot operation in that famous book by Flaubert, they tried to make a bad but stable situation better and ended up making it unstable and worse. I think it was simple hubris and arrogance, not greed that drove their decisions.

[NeetaT]

I really don’t care what we’re fighting for. All I know is that we are killing people who don’t like us. I take the side of the super hawks. I say we kill those who oppose us faster than they can be born. I’m proud to be part of a bellicose nation. I say take to the streets and raise your fists in fury. Proffer the Statue of Liberty a weapon to brandish in the face of our adversaries.

[TheBreeze]

So we’ve got one vote for “divide and conquer” and another vote for “kill ’em all”.

The problem with “divide and conquer” is that Bush’s actions have not further divided the Middle East, but will in fact result in Iran obtaining even greater influence. Before Saddam was taken out, Iraq was controlled by Sunnis. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shias have seized power. As you may know, Iran is also a Shia country. In fact, Iran and the new Islamic Shia government in Iraq are already beginning to join forces:

But he said that the Iranians were in Iraq because “the two countries agreed to solve the security problems.” The Iranians “went to meet with the Iraqi side,” he said.

In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the new bank, which Mr. Uzri said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.

“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said.

Thus, it looks like the “divide and conquer” rationale now espoused by some to justify the war is in fact more vapor just as was the original “WMD” rationale and the later-espoused “democracy” rationale.

The “kill ’em all” strategy might work if all the terrorists in the world were living in Baghdad, but that is not the case. There are terrorits living in Afghanistan, Iran, Africa, Europe — most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabi. North Korea has supposedly developed a nuclear weapon on Bush’s watch and China is ramping up its weapons capabilities. And yet, Bush continues to waste $100s of billions on his Iraq boondoggle.

Given all the other threats to our nation, does it really make you feel safer knowing that a signigicant portion of our military resources are being spent on Iraq? I for one feel more vulnerable thinking about the other threats that have been allowed to proliferate while Bush focuses our entire military effort on Iraq.

[Daniel]

I don’t want to interfere much in your Iraq discussion, folks, but I couldn’t help but notice a common opinion among posters here: that corporations somehow are the evil force behind pretty much everything in the world.

Not only I don’t subscribe to that opinion, but, on the contrary, I believe that corporations are behind almost everything that is good in the world, like progress, technological advance, wealth creation, and, yes, even wealth redistribution to the poor. Private foreign direct investment in the last 20 years in China, India, and the rest of South-East Asia has lifted way more people out of poverty than all the government spending over the last century.

I feel it is terribly shortsighted to blame corporations for everything. Business-bashing has become widely accepted political rhetoric. It used to only come from the left, but it now comes from both left and right. As an example, I think that the ridiculous congressional hearings of oil company executives in the wake of Katrina were a low point for the US Congress and our country.

[mydogsarelazy]

Corporations are just as diverse as people, and I don’t believe that they are “evil.” I do, however, believe that Mr. Bush is using the power of this nation to serve cronies including corporate ones.

I also believe that we do need a war on terror, but that the way we have handled Iraq has helped to spread terror.

After 9/11 we should have initiated a massive effort to do the following:

– Focus our intelligence agencies on radical Islamic groups.

– Seek out and eliminate known terrorists in pinpoint fashion.

– Create a pervasive war of ideas designed to discredit terrorism and make the world understand what this nation truly has to offer.

Should we have made war in Afghanistan? I think yes, it makes much more sense than Iraq does.

If some of you really think we should be in Iraq, why did we have to be lied to in order to justify being there?

JS

[blahblahblah]

I couldn’t help but notice a common opinion among posters here: that corporations somehow are the evil force behind pretty much everything in the world.

You’re misrepresenting the discussion so far. No one has said that corporations are evil. Corporations are not people (although they are recognized as such under US law) and are thus incapable of being either good or evil. They are amoral entities, like jet engines; like jet engines, they can be used for good things as well as bad things.

As citizens, we are collectively responsible for the actions of the corporations of our country. We can control them with our pocketbooks. It is up to us as consumers and engaged citizens to ensure that our corporations do good rather than evil.

[PerryChase]

We are fighting, the “bad guys, the evil ones and the Al Quaeda folks.” Don’t mess with othwerwise, we’ll fuck you up!

[PerryChase]

In all seriousness, we were fighting for out national interest. That means control of the oil so our population can continue to indulge as energy hogs.

The problem is that Bush bet everything on a strategy that went awry — misguided diplomacy and bad military planning.

Bashing corporations is just a legitimate as bashing “welfare mothers” or trial lawyers. The left is only now getting sound bites that stick. But I say let’s not bash corporations too much because they are the source of our wealth.

[blahblahblah]

In all seriousness, we were fighting for out national interest. That means control of the oil so our population can continue to indulge as energy hogs.

I’m not so sure. I think the goal is to prevent the emergence of a rival superpower (China or the European Union) by controlling the supply of oil. Oil is the lifeblood of any modern military, and if China or the EU have all the oil they want, they might be able to surpass the US as the world’s pre-eminent power. By controlling the oil, we control China and the EU (or so the PNAC theory goes).

[PerryChase]

I agree with you CONCHO. By invading Iraq, America was also sending a message to Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations that they’d better not get too cozy with the EU or China. We want our oil suppliers to know that the Petrodollar regime is as strong as ever. America is the only country that gets to pay for oil (and all other trade) in it’s own currency thereby obviating the need for foreign currency reserves.

Iran apparently is beginning to trade oil in Euros.

[blahblahblah]

Iran apparently is beginning to trade oil in Euros.

And remember what happened after the last time a certain oil-rich middle eastern country began doing that…

[Anonymous]

We are fighting to bring democracy to people who will then use this freedom to elect terrorists and radical Islamists who will in turn use their power to launch terror attacks against the West. The Lebanese would elect Hezbolla, the Palestinians already elected Hamas, and were an election held today in Saudi Arabia or Egypt they would also elect radical anti-Western groups. Democracy in the Middle East is not in our best interests right now, and that is the underlying problem. Unfortunately, the best course of action is for us to align ourselves with dictators like we have in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and rely on them to oppress and punish the radical elements in their societies.

[Author]

Posts