I could be wrong, but it seems like the US has ulterior motive for Iraq invasion. Like, easier access to Iran?

Question

I know that Bush's 'war on terrorism' is just a facade for covering up his real intentions. All this time I thought maybe his real motivation for invading and occupying Iraq was all about oil. But I'm beginning to think there's more to it than that. I'm thinking it's still about oil, but on a much larger scale. I think Iraq was just a stepping stone, strategic placement of US armed forces. Suddenly the focus has changed, and all eyes are on Iran and their "Nuclear intentions". As if there isn't enough crap to deal with over there already! Now we have to worry about a major confrontation with Iran too? If I could ask the government just one question, and they HAD to be totally honest in their answer, I'd say, "Allright Bush- No more B.S. What are we REALLY doing over there???" I wonder what he'd say...

Answer 1

Actually, you read my mind. If you look at where Iran is and where we are, you will see that Iran is completely surrounded by us. I am not a fan of the Iranian government, but I can understand why Iran is looking to gain Nuclear weapons. They are surrounded by their enemy. They cannot beat us conventionally and they know this. Their only hope of standing up to the US is nuclear weapons.

Iran however should not be viewed as the victim either. They also want to become the Islamic 900 pound gorilla in the middle east. They want to be the shot callers in the Middle East. Combine nuclear weapons in an area that has the most oil in the world and you have one really dangerous country.
(Ahmadinijad has claimed that oil should be around $200 a barrel and he wants to take oil off the Dollar and replace it with the Euro which would crush the value of the dollar)

You are unfortunately right I feel. Iraq was another piece of the puzzle to confront Iran.

Answer 2

I think that would be a stupid reason to invade Iraq of all countries. Iran and Iraq were mortal enemies so if the US really wanted to take down Iran, allying ourselves with Hussein would make more sense. It would make more sense from a national security standpoint too, since nothing had changed in Iraq since the last invasion in the 90s, unlike Iran who has admitted seeking nuclear power and has also threatened death to another sovereign nation.

If what you are saying is true, going into Iraq was the stupidest move to make. Hussein was keeping the Shi'ite population down, which is now in charge and very sympathetic to the majorly Shi'ite Iranian government. If the US is forced to leave Iraq, Iran will end up having a much larger slice of the asian pie - an exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Of course, I think this whole argument makes way too much sense for the current administration to figure out, which is probably why we are getting our a.s.s kicked in Iraq for pretty much no gain whatsoever.

Answer 3

Remember, during his speech when he became a president he said he will destroy the axis of evil in this world, and he name the following country: Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, in that order. He invaded Iraq and was able to control their Oil. He sanctioned North Korea, and it back down. Now he is in the process of convincing our citizens that Iran is evil, If we invade Iran, we will have three fourth control of world oil. I just wonder, war is costly. If the trillion of dollars that we spend in Iraq alone including the lives lost, we could have been successful in finding an alternative energy in little than 5 years. Iran will be the next Iraq, I just hope that our planners have learned their lessons on how to control the chaos of war, and rebuilding a country that is friendly with Amerca.

Well we will soon find out wont we?

Answer 4

Truthfully it is about a long term strategy to secure American interests and power. Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a larger world picture.

It is about oil, but it's also about security, not just physical, but cultural and financial. I think with Bush and Cheney it is personal, as Sadaam and Bin Laden betrayed his CIA father in a big way.

I also think they are collaborating with the Saudi Government and their interests. All the U.S. actions have been extremely beneficial to the evil House of Saud, who are horribly more murderous than Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein combined. That's who we should have taken down. But they own us, and Islam would never tollerate an invasion of Mecca.

Answer 5

He would tell you that to tell you would be a breech of national security.

However, I agree with you. I have always seen this as being a large part of the agenda and I think that it is a worthy one.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with camping out on the border of your greatest enemy. In fact, not doing so is totally remiss.

Bush has always known where we need to be.

EDIT: The fact that so many do not agree does not make him wrong, which is another thing he would tell you.

EDIT: It is astounding that so many still have to be 'convinced' that the government of Iran has evil intent toward the west.

Answer 6

He would lie right through his teeth, the damn crook!!!!!!! I too agree it is somewhat about oil but it is also to get to Iran, just look at how are troops surounded Iran by being in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are strategically placed there for a reason.

Answer 7

way incorrect, and a great style of folk observed it that way from the beginning up. If we had to do it as quickly as extra, might we commerce 6000 US squaddies and over one hundred,000 lives of harmless civilians, and trillions of greenbacks, for the effect that we see good now? Edit @ hexa: in the abode, the Dems voted against the Iraq conflict decision, 126 to eighty two. The Pubs voted FOR it 215 to six. yet we save listening to that the Dems voted for it, non the fewer. Conservatives are people who initiated the conflict and additionally people who voted for it, so dollar up and extremely own as much as the effect of your movements, you may no longer rewrite history.

Answer 8

Um, hello!!! You're right on track there...have you seen the movie or read the book 'Bush's Brain'? If not, you should...along the lines of Farenheit 911. I would also recommend a sort of renegade independent film called 'Loose Change' (a lot of hype and probably a lot of BS in there, but enough questions to fire one's curiosity). Another good one is 'Jesus Camp'...absolutely horrifying!!And, to answer your last question, he'd probably say something like, "little lady, don't you worry your pretty little head about that...you should be spending your time barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and/or at a "christian" evangelical church."

Answer 9

Anyone who believes Dubya's folksly "charm" that it was a cut and dried case of removing a "bad guy" from power is really naive in the extreme. Of course there's more to it : much, much more even.

Answer 10

Iran was certainly the bigger picture. And he will have to invade soon if he's going to do it. I do not believe there is another president that would take us into another war right now.