If Bush lied about reasons for war, is it really a bad idea?

Question

I am not saying that we should have gone to war for oil, but is it really a bad idea to have an army sitting on top of the second largest oil reserve in the world? Some day 20 years from now if we have control of that oil will people say that Bush was a visionary. Remember what they said about Seward when he purchased Alaska? Putting this in military section because I am not trying to get political answers hoping more of historical, philosophical type answer if that makes sense.

SSsracing this is a hypothesis read the qustion before you spout off, you only make yourself look foolish.

Again before you answer, read the question.

Okay for the final time---read the question.

MY QUESTION IS NOT SAYING WHETHER BUSH IS RIGHT OR WRONG---NOW!!!!
i AM AKING IN THE FUTURE IF WE HAVE THAT OIL WILL PEOPLE LOOK AT IT IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT.

Thanks Webned and CS for your answers. I agree with you totally CS, but do you think people 20 years from now will care, or will they just be glad happy with owning the oil.

Answer 1

From an ethical perspective, the ends do not justify the means. Even if Iraq would have become a splendid democracy, we would have discovered an energy source under the sand that doesn't pollute and is highly efficient, and Israel/Palestine are finally secured: that does not jusify knowingly misleading people into a war. Lots of good things and bad things can occur from an action. You cannot judge an action based upon the fantastical possibilities (either positive or negative) that may occur.

Instead, you need to honestly and accurately discuss the issue and the advantages and disadvantages and let the people decide. As a public official, your responsibility is not to invest in possibilities, but instead to allow the people to decide the best course of action. This requires clear, coherent, and supported arguments. Other arguments: rhetorical, religious, or speculative arguments are simply not ethical for a public official making policy decisions.


Later/Edited Response to Asker:
The invasion of Iraq, I think will be judged primarily through the lens of President Bush. If the right is able to paint him as a man driven by a higher cause (whether that be democracy or religion), then I think benefits from Iraq will be greatly appreciated. If the left is able to paint him as a man driven by greed or ignorance, then the issue may be viewed very differently.

For example, Richard Nixon (with Henry Kissinger) did one of the boldest foreign policy moves in the world by opening permanent relations with Communist China. The end result has been far more profitable for Americans than the Iraq war ever will be. Heck, we wouldn't be able to type these answers right now if it weren't for that summit. However, this is largely forgotten or people take it out of his hands (and give full credit to Kissinger), probably because of the Watergate Scandal and the Vietnam issue. The result is that people will probably not view the war in a vaccum, but instead will attach its value to Bush's Legacy. If the question is put as: Bush lied, was it still good? I suspect people in 20 years will say 'no' because they'll view it through the lens of the lie....regardless of material benefits.

Answer 2

When Bush took office he ended our national nightmare of peace and prosperity. On January 3, 2000 the S&P 500 closed at just under 1425. Right now it's below 870. The Dow was at 11013. It's going to close today well below 8500. Nasdaq was at 4210.98. Today it'll close around 1550. Here's some accomplishments of deregulation and trickle down economics. Jobs in the this country increased over the last 8 years by 2%. That's the worst job rate growth in this country in the last 7 decades. To make it worse 10% of that figure were jobs created by the housing bubble. You may have your shorts in bunch over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but without them Bush would have the worst job creation record in a century. As a final point on the economy, even if you disregard the recession, this economy grew a paltry 2.1% a year. That is also the worst performance record in over 50 years. As far as the war goes, you and the birth certificate fanatics are the few remaining people who believe there is some connection between Iraq and 9/11. Even Bush has said there isn't any. Yes. He was a very bad President.

Answer 3

It is a recognized truism that history is written by the winners. What many people fail to take into account that "winner" is a very fluid term. The chances that we will still be in Iraq in 20 years are virtually nil since the political backlash against the occupation will almost certainly result in a pullout, just as happened in Nam. If we pull out with no long term benefits to the country for the expenditure in lives and resources Bush is the likeliest choice for a scapegoat. The winners will be the politicians who use his failed policy to take power in the U.S., not the U.S. people as a whole. Your Seward analogy, you might also include Jefferson, who purchased the Louisiana Territory, is historically inaccurate and therefore meaningless. In both cases those territories were acquired peacefully and within international law, and both became states through the will of the people living there. Iraq was invaded and occupied by military force, like France and Poland in WW2, and are fighting back through guerrilla warfare, just as France and Poland did in WW2. Worse, the longer we stay the lower our popularity and support world wide becomes, and less likely we will be to get widespread support abroad in the future. Add this to the fact that the Middle Eastern oil reserves are not unlimited, and even if we do control the Iraqi oil, what do we do when it runs out? Invade someone else? That would blacken not just the reputation of Bush and the Republican Party, but that of our Nation as a whole.

Answer 4

You do know that Bush is not the only President that has had us over there right?

I'm not bashing your post, but Clinton and Bush Sr. also had us there, we never left the area. And I don't know what things were like prior but I'm sure we weren't far from there. So credit for being in the area should go to all those before Bush as well.

Also we aren't there because of oil. We're there because of terrorism. I know the Iraqii's did not do 9/11, however Bush said we'd fight all terrorists and help all countries who are being bullied, so that's exactly what we are doing.

On a side note. The land has been fought on since the beginning of time. I think there is more to the story than anyone knows. And I don't mean anything concerning politics, much much deeper than that, and much older than the US or any other country. The land is cursed.

Answer 5

You forgot one thing - it's someone else's oil, and they have a right to be upset with us if we assume control over it. If I were to assume control over your possessions, you'd call me a thief, would you not?
By taking so cavalier an attitude, you would be guaranteeing a future of strife. You risk alienating a great many others besides those whose oil you've stolen, and not just because of the oil. In taking control, you have left an entire nation in chaos. There is a profound moral implication to all of that, and whether or not you care, a great many others do...not the least of which are your own countrymen who feel you've dishonored our nation in the eyes of the world.
Do you realize that right now, foreign investors could shatter our economy by dumping the dollar? They do that, and all the might of our Armed Forces would dissipate faster than the smoke of a single candle. The only thing that saves us from that fate is the lack of agreement amongst the economies of the rest of the world. And there is talk going on right now in those other nations/economies about doing it to teach us a lesson. I'd be worried if I were you...

Answer 6

If you are arguing that we need the oil for the future then I disagree. We have spent over 500 billion dollars so far for Iraq. We spent 300 billion to subsidize and lower cost for oil companies. For 800 billion dollars we could have built up renewable energy such as wind farms and subsidized solar power for homes and probably cut our oil needs in half. We could have been implementing alternative fuels for cars. We could have been funding alternative fuel research in universities. We blew 800 billion dollars worth of our chance to be energy self sufficient in the future. In 20 years maybe we will be sitting on the last of the largest oil reserves. So what. If the world is still oil dependent then we will be at war to keep that reserve because everyone else will want it too. If its not then we will have wasted allot for something of no value.
I hope that was not our reason for Iraq. I think we went to Iraq to keep a strong military presence in that region. To bolster Israel and keep the terrorist target out of our own country. I hope those are the reasons anyway.

Answer 7

For economic reasons , yes its not a bad idea. How he planned this idea of going to war, is why GW Bush is so hated by others. He should take care of his own house ( the US ) before sending troops to Iraq. Washington was given warnings way before 9/11 happened ! Costing several thousand New Yorkers to be killed from that attack. Still has not captured the people responsible, he only cares about stablizing Iraq. Meanwhile who is watching the US Borders if everyone is in IRAQ ???

Now Bush has sent more of US soilders to Iraq . Neither Him nor his daughters, or Dick Cheney, will ever fight in a War. Thats why he is so hated. He just shows no compassion for the people that pay his salary .

Answer 8

From 911 to Iraq. From Iraq to Iran. From Iran to Palestine. From Palestine to Islam worldwide. Religion versus oil. It's not worth it. Your people died. Their people died. Sadness. Regret. Brokenheartedness. Now people are not sure why they go into Iraq. False reports. Wrong reports. Finger pointing everywhere. Everyone demands to be recognized. People will not see Bush as a visionary. They will remember him as the person who ordered the war. May be the only good is bringing down Saddam and his empire. Other than that, there is no hope in this country. The oil would not last you forever. In fact, oil is getting less and less. It takes billions of years for oil to come about and it does not take that long for it to be used up. After that, what would we use ? Or may be by that time, Vulcans will come along.

Answer 9

Ignoring any moral stance - let's assume that in twenty years from now the US army (and others ?) are sitting on (by then ?)the largest oil field in the world, what does it buy you ?

Are you prepared to fight off China, India, Russia, to keep it ?
If energy supplies (note, not just oil) are that scarce would they be willing to cede it to the US ?

If you did manage to keep all of it to yourselves, how long does that keep you in oil ? More importantly - what is going to happen when that runs out and you still have no alternate energy supplies ?

The developed world can keep going the way we are and have more difficult situations handed to our children, or we can change our energy use and it's management now and save a lot of grief for our children.

Answer 10

If it is true that we did go to war for oil (which we did not), in which ways has the military gained control of the oil? How many oil fields has the Army secured? If we in fact went to war for oil and are siting on top of the 2nd largest oil supply, why have gas prices skyrocketed? If we owned the oil there now, we would not be price gouging ourselves. Forget 20 years from now....we do not control the oil now, we will not control it then.