Why does everyone attack the US' benefits from fighting the war?

Question

That's what wars are for, aren't they? For trying to get things that you don't have? Aside from accomplishing your main mission, there's nothing wrong with picking up perks along the way.

Civil War - Union boys fight to keep the Confederacy a piece of the US, and in the meantime free the slaves (the war was NOT about slavery)
World War II - America retaliates from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and later on saves the world from Hitler and ends the Great Depression

Iraq War - America is fighting to establish a democratic government in a breeding ground for terrorists to try to make the world safer, and in the process some corporations are getting a few extra bucks.

What's wrong with that?

(If you think my way of thinking is uneducated (which I'm sure is bound to happen in an issue as touchy as this), say so in a manner that's informative and constructive, not insulting.)

Answer 1

U.S. benefits? they only people you see concerned with this issue would be democrats like they are not corrupt........it is partisan politics as usual, the big picture is preventing nuclear proliferation , imagine if the Iranian dictator/mullah gets a hold of a nuke? want to live life according to them....no basic human rights, religious bigotry, anyone opposed to this war does not have a clue, the big picture is preventing chaos, genocide...helping the peaceful people in the region to have a better life and address our national security, the democrats have no plan for this war, it is a difficult problem that will persist for decades, if the terrorist use a nuke all other problems in this world will pale in comparison.In general I do agree with you and all you people who oppose this war I think your cowards, hey lets have a draft! or are you too busy enjoying yourself to fight for what is right? isolationism and pacifism have been historically shot down.Lets work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons internationally....keep our thumb on the Iranian government and take out the nuke facilities if necessary, if we do not they will most certainly use them on our good friends in Israel, have they not been crapped on enough? oh yeah viet vet I served fourteen years preserving our freedom and proudly display my commendation from Donald Rumsfield....a great man I would certainly like to volunteer but like you I am too old.

Answer 2

america of a gets an particularly small proportion of oil from the middle east, in fact it would desire to stay with out it. the actual reason they are drawn to center east is by the fact different international locations get their oil from there. China, Europe and the the remainder of Asia all remember heavily on it. Israel is only an excuse to maintain the middle east on a knife area so they might truthfully take command of the area as a result controlling the different international locations. If america of a loses impact in the middle east China, Europe and the different international locations won't hear to it as lots. OPEC could be ran thoroughly in a distinctive way if america of a had little impact in the middle east, Russia could probably make each and all of the techniques.

Answer 3

You lost me when you claimed that a intended benefit of the Iraq War was some corporations getting a few extra bucks. Your reasoning is rather simplistic and silly.

The benefit of waging a War against Saddam was to remove a tyranical dictator from power. Anyone who claims that Saddam was not a harborer of terrorism is a fool. Was it also about oil? Yes, oil was one reason but not the only reason. In regards of the oil, it was about who would have control over the oil inside of Iraq. Our government believed that it was in the best interest of the world as a whole that the Iraqi Government (minus Saddam) have control over their oil. Saddam retaining control over that oil and the revenue to help fund his terrorist activities throughout the MiddleEast and potentially against the US at some point in the future was a major reason for the War.

I don't think your way of thinking is uneducated but I do think by the way you decided to word your thoughts you are attempting to instigate a disagreement which isn't what a intelligent person would do.

You don't want people to be insulting to you but you are insulting toward the intentions of our Country. Sorry, I happen to believe that our Country was justified in waging a War against Saddam for multiple reasons.

Answer 4

There is nothing wrong with these kinds of war; War that picks up perks.
After all, as long as it aint your blood or your children's so that the perks can be picked up by somebody else, why worry?. Sure go ahead mate.

And oh by the way Dingdong has just explain in length and breadth the obvious benefit of a True-blue Democracy in Iraq. I do hope that we would eventually have good things to tell our future generation with our blood-tainted hands.

Answer 5

Historically speaking the victor of all wars have gone on to collect benefits. The problem lies in the repeated pattern that the victors always claim that they are winning wars in the interests of the people. They control the power, the media, the message and thus are in a good position to claim that say instilling democracy in the middle East is a good thing when in reality it's about oil and always has been.

Answer 6

While I will agree to a point, that the good in this is huge, the idea of passing lock-tight cleanup contracts to personal friends is more than just a conflict of interest. It's dishonest. And the recent occurrences of this behavior put a whole new meaning to the terms favoritism and conflict of interest.

And yes, the Civil War was about as much over slavery as Christmas is about wearing masks and yelling "TRICK OR TREAT!". :)

Answer 7

Being a veteran of a war, Viet Nam, having seen death and destruction first hand up close in my face and all over my face, I think you need to reconsider your psoition as a hawk and enlist and volunteer for Iraq, as you have no concept of the hell that takes place during combat. War is the end of all reason my friend, ask any comabt vet

Answer 8

Iraq war by all means never fit the top interests of the USA. But its the Israeli top interests to have the Americans do their job with American Money and poor American lives too.

Answer 9

I see your point of view and i can understand how you would think this way.
This is my take on it,
The CIA and the NIS were instructed by the Bush Administration to find evidence to confirm Saddam had Nuclear and Biological weapons Programs actively in use. The CIA and NIS new from the outset that they would find it impossible to do this, because they had no intelligence what-so- ever to give to the Bush administration who were demanding proof. They managed, between them to supply Bush & Cheney a report that was`nt worth the paper it was printed on. Cheney actually visited CIA headquarters, the first Vice President to do so in some 26 years, to apply presssure on the CIA to find something, anything at all for the Bush government could use, in favour of WAR. Cheney even had the gaul to hold a press conference, informing the American public of WMD finds, when intelligence agencies new nothing about it.These agencies said at the time, and have continued to admit, to this day. Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. NONE !! The US and the UK went to war for NOTHING, It takes ONE BULLET TO ASSASINATE A TYRANT, NOT 650 000 DEAD PEOPLE. IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR, pure and simple. And don`t give me any crap about violating UN sanctions, they were devised specifically to entrap the Hussein regime, thus ensuring he had absolutley no choice but to violate them.
I am not defending Saddam in any way, he is a murderer and a very evil man, thats him, not the majority of his people.
I believe that now the US and UK have tested the water, as it were. They have set a precedent where by, you don`t actually need a viable excuse for invading another country, killing it`s people, and wiping out a civilization that has existed for 5000 years.
L.Paul Bremer was the guy put in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq after the " Shock and awe " invasion.
His first task in charge was to fire 500 000 state workers, mostly soldiers but along with them Police, nurses, firemen, teachers, doctors publishers printers et.al.
A month later he introduced phase two, Iraq`s oil based economy was dominated by 200 or s state owned companies they produced everything from window frames to washing machines, he imediately privatised these companies. Then you have order 37, which lowered Iraq`s corporate tax from %40 to %15, then order 39,this allowed foreign companies to own %100 of Iraqi assets outside of the natural resource sector. Even better this allowed foreign investors to take %100 pf the profits out of the country.
Under order 39 they could sign leases and contracts that would last for 40 years.
Order 40 let in the foreign investment banks to operate under the same favourable circumstances.
Vitually overnight Bremer turned Iraq from the most isolated economy in the world into, on paper, the most wide open.The Economist Magazine described Bremer`s reforms as " a capitalists dream "
Senater John McCain described Iraq as " a huge pot of honey that is attracting a lot of flies "
America and Britain have created a blank canvass in which to nurture an economic utopia in which to exploit every single financial opportunity arising from an infrastructure put in place by themselves. They have devised their own set of rules, and created their own"perks" as you put it.
Astonishing, terrifying and truly barbaric.
If you cannot find something trully wrong with what has happened in Iraq, then you have my pity.

Answer 10

Are you truly inferring that the benefit gained by a handful of corporations (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc) is of greater value than the loss of thousands of American lives, and the crippling of tens of thousands of young Americans?