Possible reason behind the War in Iraq

I was listening to a radio talk show (don't remember which one) and they made mention of a conspiracy theory that I had never heard of before.
The theory goes, that the true reason behind the so called war on terror and the war in Iraq is not about WMD's or even terrorists. This theory goes that at the end of the Cold War and with the collapse of the Great Enemy Russia, The US goverment needed a new enemy. The one chosen was Islamic / Muslim people the world over.
At first I dismissed this as just general rantings but then I started to think that they actually have some "facts" that may validate their claims.
Look at how the Muslim and Islamic world has been presented to the US people.
For the last few decades, The Muslims and Islamic people have been characterized as being dumb, greedy, not above theft, liars, and generaly people that no one would want to be around. Look at all the various books movies, television shows, news reports and all are basically saying the same thing.
Look at movies such as the Indiana Jones series, Ghunda Din (which is before this time frame but I thought it should be included)

There has been little to nothing in the US media of any kind that show the Islamic or Muslim communities in a good light. Most of the media seems to demonize them instead.
Any thouights comments from fellow ATS'ers?
I myself still find no substance in this theory but it could possibly be substaniated.

I have been Supporting that Theory since I am a Member on ATS.

USA is the Last Empire on this Planet.

USA has the Most Powerfull Military.

USA has the Most Powerfull Economy because of this Military Strenght.

USA has the Most Powerfull Political Influence because of this Military Strenght.

USA has basicly Everybody Else in Check.

With Twelve Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers roaming all the Worlds Oceans, the Influence is Present all over the Globe, since 3/4 of this Planet is covered with Water.

So - how to Maintain this Strenght?

You need an Arch Enemey - a Poweful Enemy. The Great Russian Bear was all of that once, buit since the Fall of the Iron Curtain, USA needed something to get its Military Claws into.

Middle East is the Perfect Place for this.

Lots of Cruicial Natural Resources, Cultural and Religous Difference which can be used as a Powerful Tool for the Propaganda Machine.

An Endless War is a Wet Dream of Every Empire.

That is how it Remains Strong and Number One.

maybe yer right kenshiro , after all the first war against the Muslims was against the Barbary pirates.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the U.S. became a separate country it had little Navy to protect its merchant ships, so in 1784, Congress appropriated $80,000 as tribute, or bribe, to the Barbary states. But continued attacks prompted the building of the United States Navy, including one of America's most famous ships, the USS Constitution, leading to a series of wars along the North African coast, starting in 1801. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the "Marine Hymn".

Use for the money came in 1785, when the dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded $60,000 in ransom for its crew. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks. His objections fell on the deaf ears of a green US government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The US paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say no, although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn. A largely successful undeclared war with French privateers in the late 1790s showed that American naval power was sufficient to protect the nation's
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally.

Decatur and Bainbridge used the pirates' tactics against them. Taking hundreds of prisoners in an attack on Algiers, Decatur bargained for a treaty releasing the United States from any tribute obligations in perpetuity, as well as $10,000 in reparations for damages to the US. By June 30, 1815 the treaty was signed and the threat of Barbary pirates to American vessels was at an end.

No sooner had Decatur set off for Tunis to enforce a similar agreement than the Dey repudiated the treaty. The next year, an Anglo-Dutch fleet, commanded by British admiral Viscount Exmouth, delivered a punishing, nine-hour bombardment of Algiers. The attack immobilized many of the dey's corsairs and obtained from him a second treaty that reaffirmed the conditions imposed by Decatur. In addition, the dey agreed to end the practice of enslaving Christians. Eventually the Barbary states became colonies of France in 1830. France remained the government there for a century.

it looks like America still wants to take their revenge against the Muslim pirates.



[edit on 22-6-2005 by deltaboy]

Have any of you heard of Leo Strauss...If not, read this. May tell you a bit about how the government thinks.

Thanks both Souljah and deltaboy.
I have been going over this for a few weeks now and as I mentioned, there seems to be a lot of evidence, mostly circumstantial, that leads me to believe that the US goverment, regardless of which party is incharge, has been basically brainwashing the american public into believing that the Islamic / Muslim people are a base race that needs to "taken care of".
I have been searching for something more substantial to back this thought but as yet, I have failed to find solid evidence that points the finger so to speak to prove or even to deny this theory.

Off topic but kinda funny

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the "Marine Hymn".

That explains the line in the Tom Lehrer song Send the Marines

Hmmm...

Here is Another "Pirate Story" - This time the Pirates are the US Marines.

Have you ever head about US Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler?

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. . . . Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.

isengrim.com...

All in the Name of the Empire!

Nothing reinforces people's willingness to obey mindlessly like creating a common enemy to unite against.

OBL knows this, so too do the neocons.

Their ideological founder, Leo Strauss, is said to have been fascinated by the TV show "Gunsmoke" for its rigidly simplified moral outlook, a world of clearcut "good guys" and "bad guys" with no middle ground or ambiguities. He considered this ideal for creating a unifying cultural mythos. It's important to note that in Strauss's vision, the elite leadership class did not have to believe in this simplified view, only the ignorant masses.

I don't think there is any singular reason for the Iraq war, but this is certainly among the reasons.

Originally posted by xmotex
OBL knows this, so too do the neocons.

Of course they do, they're singing from the same hymn sheet.

The US has to be at war, I agree.

With so many members of the armed force and all the spending and investment in killing machines.

I do not have figures, but I would not be surprised if a large part of the US economy relies on being at war.

I expect the US to be at war for the entirity of my life time at least.

War actually hurts the US economy by pretty much mandating deficit spending beyond what could be beneficial with the idea of "pump priming." War and the defense industries only end up helping in the short term as new jobs are created to aid in the manufacture of new weapons, but as soon as there is an end to hostilities the economy eventually slumps back to its ormer position and ends up being in a worse position due to the deficit spending.

I agree that an "enemy" of the state is a necessary evil for patriotic cohesion and national unity, but I don't think it is necessarilly the government behind it all. When the media portrays terrorists as being only Muslim I think its just a stereotype which has worked its way into our lives not because the government planted the seed, but just emotional and psychological differences which have prompted individuals to look for anothe enemy or someone to externalize and blame their problems on.

Moron 1 - "Why can't I get no job Cleetus?!"

Moron 2 - "got-derned tarrists blowin' up the wall street! Messycans be invadin' our homeland and takin' our jobs! THATS WHY Bubba!"

Moron 1 - "Dern-straight"

Whether it be Muslim fanatics, immigrants or whoever, people usually need, and enjot creating an "enemy" for their own purposes.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Chris McGee]

Originally posted by deltaboy
maybe yer right kenshiro

, after all the first war against the Muslims was against the Barbary pirates.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the U.S. became a separate country it had little Navy to protect its merchant ships, so in 1784, Congress appropriated $80,000 as tribute, or bribe, to the Barbary states. But continued attacks prompted the building of the United States Navy, including one of America's most famous ships, the USS Constitution, leading to a series of wars along the North African coast, starting in 1801. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the "Marine Hymn".

Use for the money came in 1785, when the dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded $60,000 in ransom for its crew. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks. His objections fell on the deaf ears of a green US government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The US paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say no, although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn. A largely successful undeclared war with French privateers in the late 1790s showed that American naval power was sufficient to protect the nation's
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally.

Decatur and Bainbridge used the pirates' tactics against them. Taking hundreds of prisoners in an attack on Algiers, Decatur bargained for a treaty releasing the United States from any tribute obligations in perpetuity, as well as $10,000 in reparations for damages to the US. By June 30, 1815 the treaty was signed and the threat of Barbary pirates to American vessels was at an end.

No sooner had Decatur set off for Tunis to enforce a similar agreement than the Dey repudiated the treaty. The next year, an Anglo-Dutch fleet, commanded by British admiral Viscount Exmouth, delivered a punishing, nine-hour bombardment of Algiers. The attack immobilized many of the dey's corsairs and obtained from him a second treaty that reaffirmed the conditions imposed by Decatur. In addition, the dey agreed to end the practice of enslaving Christians. Eventually the Barbary states became colonies of France in 1830. France remained the government there for a century.

it looks like America still wants to take their revenge against the Muslim pirates.

sorry for that i was trying to link the source and the computer slowed so i press the edit post twice.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy
maybe yer right kenshiro

, after all the first war against the Muslims was against the Barbary pirates.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the U.S. became a separate country it had little Navy to protect its merchant ships, so in 1784, Congress appropriated $80,000 as tribute, or bribe, to the Barbary states. But continued attacks prompted the building of the United States Navy, including one of America's most famous ships, the USS Constitution, leading to a series of wars along the North African coast, starting in 1801. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the "Marine Hymn".

Use for the money came in 1785, when the dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded $60,000 in ransom for its crew. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks. His objections fell on the deaf ears of a green US government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The US paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say no, although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn. A largely successful undeclared war with French privateers in the late 1790s showed that American naval power was sufficient to protect the nation's
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally.

Decatur and Bainbridge used the pirates' tactics against them. Taking hundreds of prisoners in an attack on Algiers, Decatur bargained for a treaty releasing the United States from any tribute obligations in perpetuity, as well as $10,000 in reparations for damages to the US. By June 30, 1815 the treaty was signed and the threat of Barbary pirates to American vessels was at an end.

No sooner had Decatur set off for Tunis to enforce a similar agreement than the Dey repudiated the treaty. The next year, an Anglo-Dutch fleet, commanded by British admiral Viscount Exmouth, delivered a punishing, nine-hour bombardment of Algiers. The attack immobilized many of the dey's corsairs and obtained from him a second treaty that reaffirmed the conditions imposed by Decatur. In addition, the dey agreed to end the practice of enslaving Christians. Eventually the Barbary states became colonies of France in 1830. France remained the government there for a century.

it looks like America still wants to take their revenge against the Muslim pirates.

Someone actually told me, about a decade ago, a similar story. With the fall of the Soviet Union, and with many of our troops not being needed in Europe, we basically needed a new place to base our troops and a new enemy to keep us busy. They even said that Saddam was on CIA payroll for this purpose. Which wouldn't really surprise me in the least. War is a business in this country. Some of our greatest inventions have come during times of war, and many of our corporations here at home benefit from war. And not just defense contractors, but even a company like Kraft (just using them as an example) because they'd make money off of us feeding our troops. It's amazing the kind of $$ a war can generate at home. In fact, in the long run it probably more than offsets the billions we are currently spending for the war itself.

Kriz_4,
You are correct in that the US needs to be invovled with some conflict in order to sustain itself both economically as well as socially.
Remember that most of our technological advances are based off of technology developed for the military.

You're theory, of course, fully explains the Crusades of the 6th and 14th century's, when Islamic hordes nearly fully enveloped Europe with their submissive and terroristic religious dogma

I do not recal the USA being involved in those.

...or were they Bush's fault too?

CaptainJailew is correct. The whole idea of having a common enemy is certainly useful in obtaining unity (national or otherwise.) This whole S.U. falls concept meaning war on Islam doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me at least. During the cold war the west and the Soviets both made allies with certain Islamic countries, sometimes evening switching the countries around. I could even go back to the most talked about topic of Sykes-Picot (sp?) way way back in the day (though it doesn't really relate to the Soviet Union, it's certainly telling.)

This whole concept goes to the "belly of the beast" concept - we went from one big enemy to many, many smaller ones, a lot of whom are living amongst us in the west (there are very large militant islamic populations in the west, from my experience especially in the US, UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands and the urban Austrian areas to a slightly lesser extent.) But since the end of the cold war up until the later 1990's we did not have major conflict with the jihadists.

I disagree with Souljah on a few of his points - what keeps the US in superpower status has relatively little to do with its military power compared to its cultural, economic, and technological advantage which I don't believe have anything to do with its military which is clearly unsurpassed. Just look at what are the most popular movies, music and brand names (aren't Coca-cola, Marlborough, and Budweiser by far the most common and thus valuable brands in the world? Not to mention Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna,Britney Spears, etc?)

You also have to remember that, despite what you may believe/think there are a lot of very intelligent people in the west's top political positions. They realize that the "rally around the flag" effect lasts only for so long - especially if doubt becomes apparent (re: Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, heck maybe even Granada, maybe.) So if actions are only taken due to fluff, they realize the backlash would not be survivable so they need to base their actions on things are more solid.

I think it is a matter of historical fact that while Europe was in the dark ages, that the middle east was the hieght of political, philosophical and scientific world. Mohamed(SP?), peace be upon him, also gave his word that no christian or Jewish temple be touched and that the Muslims were to protect their Christian and Jewish brothers. Too date, they have kept their word as far as I know, which is more than I can say for the Christian counterparts.

Has anyone here who has condemned these people even bothered to read their Holy Book?

If not, how do you suppose to understand a group of people that hold to that book and it's ideals?

What is it, I forget surrah 9:92 that says that all the non-believers must be killed? I'm not trying to place that in modern terms, because I have some Muslim friends but I don't know if their holy book really has all that much to do with it - organized religion is a way to control people who have more to gain as "holy warriors" than to continue their below-average existence.

I mean, most Germans were Protestant Christians, so should I say all the Nazis were great people because they have to be, I've read their Bible!?