There's a lot here to discuss. Forgive me for breaking it up into manageable chunks.
Simply pointing out that it was one of many bad reasons the Bush Administration took us to war. First it was because of 9/11; then because they have WMD; then because we're spreading democracy, blah, blah, blah...
The events you describe are not entirely synchronous and not complete. It was well known and established in international circles that Iraq was home to terrorist training camps, which in itself is not unusual as there are also still camps in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. It was also well known that Iraq had WMD's, since Saddam actually used them against against his own people. That is established fact and not speculation. The big factor you missed is Iraq's failure to abide by any of the conditions set in the settlement of the First Gulf War. Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zones and failed to comply with UN inspections. Iraq position as a nation that invaded two of it's neighbors and failed to follow the peace treaty coupled with the fact that it had WMD's and actually used them is justification enough for the second war.
The justification of "spreading democracy" is not accurate. That policy was instituted only after if became clear that Saddam and the Bath Party were to be removed from power. The policy was actually "create a stable democracy" in Iraq. The question of Iraq's political future was so sensitive that Saddam was left in power after the first war just to avoid the inevitable chaos that would ensue in the power vacuum that followed. Once the decision had been made to remove Saddam, the policy of stable democracy was instituted for two primary reasons: A) to avoid the chaos of a completely ungoverned state, and B) to prevent Iraq from becoming a Fundamentalist Islamic Republic under the control of the very same terror groups that abetted in 9/11 such as the Taliban or Al Quaeda. Heaven forbid that the WMD's that we know Iraq had fall into terrorist hands. The big question on everybody's mind now should be "Where did the WMD's go"?
The justification for the war was a bunch of little things added up and oil was a larger-than-average piece.
I would like to see some evidence that oil was a factor, never mind a larger than average factor. It's fine if that's your opinion and you state it as such, but if you are going to do that, I'd like to see the evidence to support such a statement.
Most of the world knew the U.S. evidence was weak, it's a shame the public didn't know. They simply swallowed the propaganda and the same people now are whining about getting out.
To the contrary, the leaders of England, France, Germany and Russia had access to independent intelligence at that time that led them to the same conclusions as the U.S. As mentioned here earlier, American democrats with seats on national security sub-committees with access to the same intelligence also believed this to be true.
Let's use a hypothetical. Country A accounts for a significant portion of the U.S.'s oil, but has a volatile history with China. China starts seeing threats where they don't exist and brings evidence to the world. The world rejects the evidence as paranoia. China decides it can't live with this threat and invades. China claims it will turn the country over when it feels things are safe. Even if it's true, I doubt anyone in the US would feel comfortable with this situation.
Hypotheticals may be useful if they are analogous to reality. In this case, the threat was not based on paranoia and the world did not reject the evidence. The second war did pass the UN Security Council with approval of all major powers (who have a veto on that bodies decisions). Besides, with or without Iraq, the U.S. has no trouble acquiring oil by paying world price on the open market, never mind being friendly with the Saudis. Still, even hypothetically, the war for oil argument holds no substance.
We didn't even feel comfortable when Russia invaded a small country like Georgia.
Well, Georgia was a democracy that was being considered for admission to the EU and that shared a border with Russia. Given Russia's proven history of invading and enslaving it's neighbors, it is safe to believe that this was simply a land grab of a neighboring state. In this case, I'm sure that oil did play a role, since Georgia was in fact a peaceful democracy that presented no threat to it's neighbors or it's own people but is a major source of oil and related pipelines.
We often believe in this country that what we say is taken as the truth around the globe and that simply isn't the case as so many are skeptical of the US especially after the last eight years. Control isn't just direct control, but political influence, indebtedness all fall under the umbrella.
I guess "the proof is in the pudding", as they say. What has America done in the fallout of it's successful wars. The U.S. did not Annex Western Europe after WWII, like the Soviets in Eastern Europe. The U.S. did not Annex Japan, either. South Korea is a free and independent free market democracy. Grenada is not an American colony. American history suggests that America gives over political and economic control to local government as soon as practically possible, as is the current case in Iraq. The myth of American imperialism remains a myth, unless such imperialism is meant to describe the actions of McDonald's or Coca-Cola.
I also want to point out that war isn't always about facts and figures. It sometimes happens for the stupidest of reasons as history has shown.
So true. I was the one that brought up the Ems Dispatch in the other thread. I could also mention the Zimmerman Telegram, which did more to bring the U.S. into WWI than any other factor. Yet sometimes, the reasons given for going to war are actually the reasons for going to war, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
I want to get back to the whole German economy. The premises I see are that Germany's economy was thriving and Germany instituted several economic policies many consider socialist. It has been suggested that this prosperity was illusionary and the Germans were going to use plunder to keep it alive. I can understand using plunder to fund the war machine similar to how the Romans did 2,000 years ago, but I don't recall seeing any evidence that the Germany economy was straining prior to the war. Although, I admit I haven't look that carefully at this. Since you have a history degree, you'd have a better idea than I.
Reparation payments for WWI hamstrung the German economy throughout the 20's and were still in effect when Hitler took over. The desperate economic conditions of that time were the primary factor in Hitler's election victory. One of the first things Hitler did was to repudiate any further reparations payments, then began a massive public infrastructure program. This is not to say that the German economy was any stronger in the 30's than it had been in the 20's, just that the gov't was spending money that it didn't necessarily have. Along with that, Germany threw off it's military limitations prior to the war and started recruiting soldiers and building military equipment with the effect of both lowering unemployment and creating new jobs that could only last in the case of war.
German planners had anticipated the beginning of the war in 1945. They were thrown off when Hitler took back Alsace and Lorraine, but relieved when no war broke out. After further success in Austria and Czechoslovakia, they were cautiously optimistic that Hitler's gamble in Poland would pay off. It didn't and German planners were forced into a war years ahead of schedule. The ultimate goal of Germany's war plans was the grain fields of the Ukraine under the policy of "Liebensraum" or "Living Room", i.e. a place for Germans to settle and grow food for the good of Germany once the Ukraines were removed, i.e. plunder.
It's hard to condense a decade of German economics, politics and social condition into a couple of paragraphs. Suffice it to say that Hitler prepared for war as soon as he took office and the general characterization of the German economy at that time was a war economy. As Tomorrow has so aptly phrased it, preparation for war is good for the economy but needs a war to fuel it.
