WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.

Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.

I didn't mean the word crusade in my post, my bad. I meant the language and rhetoric used that made people think the administration were going for a crusade. That was used to gain support for the war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either.

Can't agree or disagree entirely.

Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11

Agreed.

I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.

What were those reasons as you understand them?

[DanaC]

What were those reasons as you understand them?

I think there were a number of reasons, some of which were shared by America and Britain; others of which were distinct to each.

1. A controlling stake in an area important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

2. A statement: for America I think that statement was aimed at enemies real and imagined, current and future to the effect that: if you come at us we will tear you limb from limb. Also that here is a superpower at the height of its strength; a way of counterbalancing the apparent rise of other superpowers (such as China).For Britain, I think the statement was more to do with showing we could still be a powerful nation, if only by association, and that we could still 'punch above our weight'.

3. Wars, at their start, as long as they are fought elsewhere and can be justified, however rudimentary and fragile the logic of that justification, are popular. America had suffered a dagger blow to its confidence and this was a way of a. recovering that confidence and b. winning the approval of large swathes of the population by being seen to respond harshly to its attacker: the fact that Iraq wasn't actually involved was conveniently omitted from that public dialogue at the start. Afghanistan was a more logical and justifiable target; but historically unlikely to yield quick victories. Wars are only popular if they yield such quick victories. Iraq had the potential for a fast and 'successful' campaign; with a 'villain' to overthrow and a chance for the population to feel good about what had been done. This reason was shared by the British. Both Blair and Bush had a resurgence of popularity during the early (and 'successful' ) stages of that invasion. Over here we call it 'the Falklands Factor'.

4. There are profits to be made through war; most particularly during the aftermath. Several major companies/corporations with strong links to the Bush administration have made, for want of a better word, a killing out of that conflict. Britain did not want to be left out of that and argued strongly to be a part of the rebuilding process; therefore this, i think, was a reason we shared.

[TheMercenary]

I will agree with number 3.

I think your other three points are bogus and what people want to believe, it borders on conspiracy theory.

[DanaC]

Numbers 1, 2 and 4 are common themes in conflicts going back many years. They are rarely the primary reason, which is why I listed them as a number of reasons.

[TheMercenary]

Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq to get their oil or prop up the defense industry is a conspiracy theorist.

[DanaC]

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.

[Elspode]

I say we just go with Manifest Destiny because God clearly has given the United States the prerogative to kill who we want, take what we want when we want it, and fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

After all, why re-invent the wheel when that attitude was used so successfully to colonize the planet over the past 600 years or so?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.

I agree with Dana. If the Middle East were not a significant oil producing region, we would have relegated it's importance to the same level as Africa. Corporations would still have fought over resources, but the CIA would have not felt it necessary to overthrow a government in Iran, and noone would have felt the need to invade.

Do the anti-conspiracy theorists wish to attempt to deny Operation Ajax?

BTW Dana, I've been listening to BBC America chronicling Tony Blair's attempts to rewrite his own history, a la Cheney. He's been downplaying the same "Iraq had WMD's" argument he made and trying to make the same "We should/would have invaded them anyway" argument. The two of them should take their show on the road together, like Hope and Crosby.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.

Same fucking thing. They don't have much more than sand and we have plenty of that. Don't blow smoke up our skirts.

[Pico and ME]

Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq just to kick terrorist butt is deluded.

[DanaC]

Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.

Agreed, Essential resources are a primary factor in any conflict. Bush didn't want the burning fields in the press again either. Who did?