Iraq > Iran

[Jacob]

I don't even understand why people would seriously ask the question here - Do you really not know the thinking behind the neo-con case for war beyond "ZOMG WE WANT TEH OIL!" or "ZOMG TEHY TRIED TO KILL DUBYA!"? You can disagree with the reasons the neo-cons pushed for war (and you can certainly be offended by their willingness to be dishonest when it came to selling it) without any need to willfully attempt to distort those reasons into some farcical parody.

To be honest, the reasoning is a little hazy for me at is point, between the willing dishonesty and the subsequent political hay making. What would you say was the rational the case for the war?

[Barrister]

I don't even understand why people would seriously ask the question here - Do you really not know the thinking behind the neo-con case for war beyond "ZOMG WE WANT TEH OIL!" or "ZOMG TEHY TRIED TO KILL DUBYA!"? You can disagree with the reasons the neo-cons pushed for war (and you can certainly be offended by their willingness to be dishonest when it came to selling it) without any need to willfully attempt to distort those reasons into some farcical parody.

To be honest, the reasoning is a little hazy for me at is point, between the willing dishonesty and the subsequent political hay making. What would you say was the rational the case for the war?

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

[Jacob]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

It's a trap!

[MadImmortalMan]

Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.

[Berkut]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.

The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.

The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.

The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.

He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.

[Berkut]

Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.

I don't know about that.

Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.

[MadImmortalMan]

Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.

I don't know about that.

Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.

He would have. Saddam was going to get invaded regardless eventually.

[Barrister]

Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.

I don't know about that.

Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.

He would have. Saddam was going to get invaded regardless eventually.

I don't think so.

[Jacob]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.

The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.

The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.

The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.

He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.

I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured. I'd also think that it's fair to say that lack of compliance to Security Council directions is not a reason for the war but rather part of manoeuvring for position.

But fair enough, the primary reason for the war was an attempt to execute on the neo-Conservative agenda to create allies if not democracy through the use of force. So BB's third point was the general reason for a war, while the second point (Saddam was a danger) and variations thereof (some of them lies, some of them true) provided the specifics for going to war with Iraq as opposed to anyone else.

Now whether the variations on the second point included bits about Saddam trying to kill Bush Sr as CdM alleges, or any number of conspiracies about oil and private companies is a bit more muddy, but I think you're right that the primary argument in favour of the war inside the Bush administration was the neo-Con "use force to spread Democracy and gain allies".

[mongers]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.

The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.

The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.

The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.

He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.

So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?

[Jacob]

It's a trap!

Not a trap.

I was interested in Berkut's view, so I'd like to hear it from him (as I did). In addition, I thought BB included some fluffy bits but I didn't want to go down a tangent with them.

[Jacob]

So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?

I think the shine went off the neo-Con halo once the post-invasion turned out to be radically different than their predictions.

Had Iraq gone exactly like Rumsfeld & Co expected I think they'd start leaning on a bunch of other regimes in the area and that Saudi Arabia would feel some of that down the road eventually too. But since the Iraqi situation turned out to be less than ideal, that whole approach is somewhat discredited at the moment.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

is this the "lets celebrate the Paradox-exodus"-thread?

[Barrister]

So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?

I think the shine went off the neo-Con halo once the post-invasion turned out to be radically different than their predictions.

Had Iraq gone exactly like Rumsfeld & Co expected I think they'd start leaning on a bunch of other regimes in the area and that Saudi Arabia would feel some of that down the road eventually too. But since the Iraqi situation turned out to be less than ideal, that whole approach is somewhat discredited at the moment.

Indeed.

Remember it did have the modest benefit of scaring Gadaffi into renouncing terrorism, paying the victims of Lockerbie, and being awkwardly re-accepted into the international community.  I think Saudi Arabia took some token steps towards democracy around that time.

But the last 10 years have shown that for change and democracy to come to a country it needs to come from within (Arab Spring), not without (Iraq).