Skip to main content

View Diary: Why we HAD to invade Iraq (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe, but (none)
    How do you explain the fact that the PNAC (i.e. the Neocons) have been itching to invade Iraq sinec 1991, long before the Euro was even established?  

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:18:52 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  First, the Euro... (none)
      ...was established in 1992 as a trading currency (even though it was not yet issued as a hard currency) to do precisely what the US feared. To be used as a currency in international capital markets and as a basis for comidities such as oil.

      Second, PNAC was not established until the spring of 1997 as a formal entity.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:24:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok (none)
        But how about this:

        The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington think-tank founded in 1997 to advance the power and influence of the United States throughout the world. The ideological birth of PNAC was a February 1992 draft document entitled "Defense Planning Guidance" authored by Paul Wolfowitz, then working for President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as Under Secretary for Policy.

        This draft called for the United States to use its unmatched military power to prohibit any other nation in the world from rivaling the power of the United States, the only remaining superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union, and to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil." This recommendation included military intervention in Iraq to safeguard this "raw material." This document was not intended for public view and after it was leaked to the New York Times it caused alarm among U.S. allies and Congress. It was later revised.

        http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

        And why would they have been fearful of Iraq in particular trading in Euros at this time?  

        Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

        by johnny rotten on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:30:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same reasons as always.. (none)
          Dumping the 2nd largest oil reserve onto the market using the Euro not the dollar as a currency would collapse the US economy and seriously threaten the toppling of the Saudi government which relies on the hundreds of billions in their crude sales to keep them in power, They spent billions on internal security via outside contracting such as the BDM/Vinnel arrangements.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

          by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:36:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is a trivial argument (4.00)
          Why is it not feasable that they had multiple reasons? In the summer of 2002, Saddam was doing a lot more than threatening to trade in euros. He had turned off the spigot. He literally shut down oil production to protest the US campaign to modify the sanctions. At the time I thought, oh no. You've done it now.

          As in, we're already gunning for your sorry ass, and now you want to play games? Idiot.

          As for motives, 1992, after Bush Sr failed to take Bahgdad, there was the big split between the Bush/Powell/Scowcroft folks who wanted to exact power the old way:through the NSA and CIA, and the Wolfy/Cheney/Libby folks who wanted a full blown US military dominance. Bush Sr's failure to move on Bahgdad marked the beginning of a new faction, innacurately called neocon, that would become represented in PNAC.

          Initially, it had nothing to do with euros or democracy. It was about usung the new, post-Desert War power to establish complete military preeminence in regions of national interests.

          Saddam's antics only fueled the flames.

          •  Agreed (none)
            The back-and-forth on when the Euro became a hard currency, etc. was not central to the main thesis and timeline I was putting out there.

            Your points are spot on, and mesh with what I was trying to put forward.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

            by Lestatdelc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:46:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, you are wrong (3.75)
        The euro wasn't established in 1992, but in 1998 (2002 -  bank notes). Here a good point:


        MAHER: Why do you think we did Iraq? I mean, what is the bottom line reason? I assume that you don't think that the reasons given were the real reasons.

        CHOMSKY: I think that the polls taken in Baghdad explain it very well. They seem to understand. The United States invaded Iraq to gain control of one of the major sources of the world's energy, right in the heart of the world's energy producing regions, to create, if they can, a dependent client state, to have permanent military bases, and to gain what's called "critical leverage" - I'm quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski - to gain critical leverage over rivals, the European and Asian economies. If you hold the - it's been understood since the Second World War, that if you have your hand on that spigot, the source of the -world - main source of the world's energy - you have what early planners called "veto power" over others.

        Those are all very - Iraq is also the last part of the world where there are vast, untapped, easily accessible energy resources. And you can be sure that they want the profits from that to go primarily to U.S.-based multi-nationals and back to the U.S. Treasury, and so on. Not to rivals. There are plenty of reasons for invading Iraq.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site