I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD

Oberon · 08-14-12, 11:39 AM

To be fair, there is a grain of truth in that Sean Penn film in that it's very rare that a politician will give the full true reason for going to war with a nation, with a few exceptions. War is rarely a popular thing, so politically you have to dress it up to make it look acceptable to the people who voted you in to office. Thus satisfying them, whilst solidifying the strategic agenda that you have for this war.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, one can only presume that the initial goals were to disrupt the flow of weapons to Al'Qaeda, create a pro-American state in order to counter Iran, and to shake things up in the Middle East enough that it disrupts any co-ordinated plans against America that had been formulating. Oil may have factored into the equation as well, because let's face it, it's an important strategic resource, just about everything we use runs on it, and every nation which is a strong importer of it is doing their best to secure supplies, China in Africa for example and their quiet support of Iran.
Wars are rarely about bettering society, or preserving lives, if that was the case then we'd be seeing F-18s over Damascus right now.

So where does that leave the average GI Joe? Stuck in the middle of course, they do their job for President and Country, and they do it damn well. They don't question why they're doing it because if you start doing that then the whole structure of the military breaks down, it's been like this since organised military forces came about...as Tennyson put it in the Charge of the Light Brigade "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die."
Was the war in Iraq just? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are many examples of just and in-just wars depending upon the viewpoint of the nations involved, in the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 who was truly the bad guy? Hitler who murdered millions or Stalin who murdered millions?

08-14-12, 11:39 AM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	To be fair, there is a grain of truth in that Sean Penn film in that it's very rare that a politician will give the full true reason for going to war with a nation, with a few exceptions. War is rarely a popular thing, so politically you have to dress it up to make it look acceptable to the people who voted you in to office. Thus satisfying them, whilst solidifying the strategic agenda that you have for this war. In regards to the invasion of Iraq, one can only presume that the initial goals were to disrupt the flow of weapons to Al'Qaeda, create a pro-American state in order to counter Iran, and to shake things up in the Middle East enough that it disrupts any co-ordinated plans against America that had been formulating. Oil may have factored into the equation as well, because let's face it, it's an important strategic resource, just about everything we use runs on it, and every nation which is a strong importer of it is doing their best to secure supplies, China in Africa for example and their quiet support of Iran. Wars are rarely about bettering society, or preserving lives, if that was the case then we'd be seeing F-18s over Damascus right now. So where does that leave the average GI Joe? Stuck in the middle of course, they do their job for President and Country, and they do it damn well. They don't question why they're doing it because if you start doing that then the whole structure of the military breaks down, it's been like this since organised military forces came about...as Tennyson put it in the Charge of the Light Brigade "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die." Was the war in Iraq just? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are many examples of just and in-just wars depending upon the viewpoint of the nations involved, in the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 who was truly the bad guy? Hitler who murdered millions or Stalin who murdered millions?