You actually believe this is a "crusade"? That is a definition place on the WOT by those who oppose it and it's methods. It is a fantasy.

No, I don't believe it is a crusade. I believe it is viewed as such by some. If I actually believed it was a crusade I wouldn't have used quote marks :P

I'm sorry, I was just reading about the Brit's wine industry. :o

Your use of the word implies that you support that notion.

I'd bet many more do than will admit it. At least schadenfreude that the terrorist enemy is muslim.

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. Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11; I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.

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.

Can't agree or disagree entirely.


Agreed.

What were those reasons as you understand them?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.