The real Anonymii?

AnonGirl wrote:Okay. So Bush starts the second Iraq War. Let's say his motivations Oil and profits for his corporate buddies.

So he talks to the generals about the importance of securing oil. They understand that. But they also understand the importance of strategic security and what's necessary in wars. Oil or not, you have to defeat an army.

Then soldiers are recruited and told they're fighting terrorism, or fighting for freedom.

So, now we're at war. Why? What's the true reason?

Well...the guys on the ground are fighting for freedom and anti-terrorism. Their actions will reflect these beliefs....and this is what they will tell the people the meet in Iraq.

The generals want to conserve their forces and secure oil, so their actions reflect those goals. Simple enough.

Bush wants the oil. His actions reflect that goal. But the actions of the troops are only very loosely tied to that goal. If a soldier is faced with saving lives or saving an oil pump, they'll likely go for the lives. Because they're working from a moral center of spreading freedom.

So. What's happening in Iraq? What's the True story? The Truth depends very much on who you talk to. We can look at outcomes, and try in infer the truth, but we only end up with opinions. But it's absolutely True for the soldier on the ground, working from their moral understanding, that they're doing their best to help spread freedom. Unfortunately, the main tool the solider is given is the gun. If they were building schools and hospitals, they'd be doing a better job. Ask any soldier, and they'll agree with that.

So, there are three subjective Truths here (Bush, generals, and soldiers), and one set of objective facts (the outcome). To say it's True that we went into Iraq for oil is totally wrong. To say BUSH wanted to go into Iraq for oil may be true, but we can't ever really see his real motivation unless he tells us, and even then he has a subconscious that may have influenced him. So we're stuck with theories (beliefs).

So we can look at the outcome, and see that spreading freedom hasn't worked, and for most soldiers, we failed in that regard. Maybe they were able to help the people there, and can take consolation in that. For the generals, the security zone has been a limited success. For Bush? Who knows. I don't really care, to be honest. Maybe he honestly thought he was spreading freedom, and was convinced of that by Cheney. Maybe Cheney just saw an opportunity, and utilized Bush's march for 'freedom'.

Point is, this is a great example of how Truth is extremely slippery, and we need to be careful.