War in Iraq

[IrishEyes]

Maybe this thread could have read, Corporation sponsored Crime.

Nah, this one is about the war in Iraq. It was started because the other one, SSC, had so much of the Iraq stuff in it that it was getting bogged down.

However, this thread seems to be moving along quite nicely,

and I am liking the way it is going.

(oops, sorry, that's for another thread. :hihi: )

[infamous]

Nah, this one is about the war in Iraq. :hihi: )

Very true Irish, but you know everyone has their own personal reasons for why they either approve or disapprove of the war in Iraq. Personally, I believe we needed to be involved militarily for several reasons, non of which may have been the actual reasons our government got involved. In any event, we may never know the exact reasons our government had in mind, what makes the difference for me at least, is; I think it needed to be done.

[Qfwfq]

I am amazed that this is so often repeated. Even smart folks (like you, Q) repeat this mantra.

Note Bio that I was replying to Infamous. I'm fully aware that the whole thing goes far beyond just the oil that's on Iraqi soil. It even goes a bit beyond oil.

 

since the world oil market is fungible

You recited this mantra before and I replied at the time. :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

Their thinking was based on the notion that if Saddam was still in power, all the contracts would go to the Russians and the French and they wanted all the action. Of course this was sheer stupidity from a geopolitical standpoint, and once a free government is in place in Iraq, they're probably going to find they get a better deal with the French and the Russians and the net-net will be the same.

Sure enough, one day Hussein said he would break the tradition of oil being sold for US$ and gladly accept euros for it.

How dare he!!! :hihi:

 

I'll agree that the "no blood for oil" crowd is a little looney on this topic

;)

A little looney? All right, drop bombs on people for the reasons it was done for... with or without the farce of excuses.

 

but the fact that the oil lobbists were so active in trying to get votes on the war resolutions shows that they had an interest. It was not the reason, but there were people using this idiotic line of logic, some in high places in government. I find this scary not for the conspiracy but for the level of stupidity among people making critical decisions

Certainly a point. However, the conspiracy is quite a dire thing too.

 

In the past few years, who has terrorized the US citizen more, Osama bin Laden and the taliban, of Bush and his puppeteers?

 

Look at how the second mandate was won.

[Biochemist]

That's the irony. The oil-folks (e.g. Cheney) want this *not* so that *America* gets more oil, but so that American *oil companies* get more control of what's there....but the fact that the oil lobbists were so active in trying to get votes on the war resolutions shows that they had an interest.

So, let me recap.

 

1) You are agreeing there is no argument that the US is advantaged in terms of oil quantity by the oil in Iraq

2) Your contention that the US administration moved for the benefit of their "oil buddies" is that those buddies wanted Iraq freed up for business purposes

3) You think that the oil companies were incorrect in their expectation that they could get Iraqi oil contracts anyway

4) Their lobbyists thus reflected this uninsightful view

5) Bush is guilty of bad decisionmaking becasue he took a position that was suported by oil industry lobbyists that many think was a senseless point of view.

 

Thus, you are arguing that Bush took a position in support of his "industry friends" even though the position did not advantage them, but he was too thick to see it.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to believe that he thought Iraq was a threat? I did.

[Biochemist]

Sure enough, one day Hussein said he would break the tradition of oil being sold for US$ and gladly accept euros for it...

This just proves that Saddam was an egomaniac. Changing the denomination of the barrel does not change the price. The US does not demand that oil be priced in dollars. OPEC does.

[Buffy]

Tee hee! Its fun to be in the middle! I get attacked by Q from the left and Bio from the right! Whee!

 

Q: All I mean is that the "loonies" overstate the conspiracy side of the equation, and as I'm about to tell Bio, I don't really think that was the *primary* reason for going to war...

 

Bio, you always go one step further in your recaps...

1) You are agreeing there is no argument that the US is advantaged in terms of oil quantity by the oil in Iraq

Yep!

2) Your contention that the US administration moved for the benefit of their "oil buddies" is that those buddies wanted Iraq freed up for business purposes

Yep!

3) You think that the oil companies were incorrect in their expectation that they could get Iraqi oil contracts anyway

Yep!

4) Their lobbyists thus reflected this uninsightful view

Yep!

5) Bush is guilty of bad decisionmaking becasue he took a position that was suported by oil industry lobbyists that many think was a senseless point of view.

Ooooooh! One toke over the line sweet Mary! In my opinion Bush II's *primary* motivation has *always* been to get back at "that guy who tried to kill my daddy" (background: Saddam sent an unsuccessful assassination team to try to kill Bush I on a visit to Kuwait *after* he was no longer president), and secondarily because his "team" provided him with info that backed his own justification that Saddam was a threat which he honest to God believes. So:

Thus, you are arguing that Bush took a position in support of his "industry friends" even though the position did not advantage them, but he was too thick to see it. Wouldn't it be easier to believe that he thought Iraq was a threat? I did.

I'm in the Molly Ivins camp: Bush II is actually a nice guy and has good motives, but he's a geopolitical munchkin (i.e. he's not your typical Trilateral Commision type like his daddy is). He's also got strong opinions, and that's allowed the more selfish types to take advantage of him by giving him the data that backs up his reasons (above), for their own purposes. Bush didn't push the CIA to change their assessments: it was the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Feith neo-con crowd who've been pushing for the New World Order (first proposed of course by Bush I). The neo-cons goals are *much* more expansive than "getting the terrorists": they want to remake the entire middle east: somthing which in itself is not necessarily a bad goal, they just seem *totally* oblivious to the Law of Unintended Consequences and are so sure of themselves that they have not even bothered to prepare for what has actually occurred (i.e. near anarchy, which was forseeable and could have been extensively ameliorated if they'd bothered to listen to their own intelligence and defense people). There are a few like Cheney & Feith who go a bit overboard in my view in scratching the backs of their buddies, but the true-faithful-neo-cons tolerate them because they have money/power to let them do their geopolitical machinations.

 

I guess its fun to try to discount my arguments by saying I disagree with the goals, but actually, the goals are ultimately noble, but their executed so stupidly that we'll never get the credit and we'll unlikely benefit anywhere near as much as we could if we handled it without being such selfish, blind boors. As I like to remind people: when Clinton wanted to invade Iraq for the same "humanitarian & threat to our friends" reasons, the Republican party was apoplectic about "we have no interest in nation building."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

 

I guess its fun to try to discount my arguments by saying I disagree with the goals, but actually, the goals are ultimately noble, but their executed so stupidly that we'll never get the credit and we'll unlikely benefit anywhere near as much as we could if we handled it without being such selfish, blind boors.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

I agree with your take on the situation Buffy, couldn't have expressed it any better myself. Excellent commentary full of truth. Deserving of some reputation points in my opinion.

[Qfwfq]

This just proves that Saddam was an egomaniac.

In what way?

 

Changing the denomination of the barrel does not change the price.

Of course it doens't affect the price of oil, or at least not directly. What it does affect is the importance of the US$.

 

OPEC does.

I'm no expert, enlighten me as to why it would be in the interest of OPEC.

[Qfwfq]

Tee hee! Its fun to be in the middle! I get attacked by Q from the left and Bio from the right! Whee!

Tee hee! I know what it's like! Whee!

 

I'm not "attacking you from the Left". :rolleyes: I'm criticizing you from the lofty peaks of Reason Itself, founded on the Truth Of Facts. :naughty:

 

Q: All I mean is that the "loonies" overstate the conspiracy side of the equation, and as I'm about to tell Bio, I don't really think that was the *primary* reason for going to war...

I don't overstate the conspiracy side. I simply have noticed things smelt fishy, starting in the days following 911 and more things struck me odd since. Also, I don't buy the use of the expression "conspiracy theory" as a way of dismissing legitimate questions and objections.

 

Which reason was the primary one?

 

I guess its fun to try to discount my arguments by saying I disagree with the goals, but actually, the goals are ultimately noble, but their executed so stupidly that we'll never get the credit and we'll unlikely benefit anywhere near as much as we could if we handled it without being such selfish, blind boors.

Which goals do you mean? I'm a bit lost in the stream of confusion. :friday:

 

I might even be persuaded that "W is a real nice guy, pity only that he's such an a. h.", but things strike me about his involvement too. Mostly, when the president of a democratic nation, especially with the system in which the President is He who embody's the executive and even in a very single-man manner, says "You're either with us or against us!", I find there's something odd about it. I shudder even more with the fact that it's exactly what Berlusconi has been trotting after.

 

As I like to remind people: when Clinton wanted to invade Iraq for the same "humanitarian & threat to our friends" reasons, the Republican party was apoplectic about "we have no interest in nation building."

Obviously, they had no interest in nation-building dun by Dem. :angel:

:smart:

[paultrr]

Tee hee! I know what it's like! Whee!

 

I'm not "attacking you from the Left". :rolleyes: I'm criticizing you from the lofty peaks of Reason Itself, founded on the Truth Of Facts. :naughty:

 

I don't overstate the conspiracy side. I simply have noticed things smelt fishy, starting in the days following 911 and more things struck me odd since. Also, I don't buy the use of the expression "conspiracy theory" as a way of dismissing legitimate questions and objections.

 

Which reason was the primary one?

 

Which goals do you mean? I'm a bit lost in the stream of confusion. :friday:

 

I might even be persuaded that "W is a real nice guy, pity only that he's such an a. h.", but things strike me about his involvement too. Mostly, when the president of a democratic nation, especially with the system in which the President is He who embody's the executive and even in a very single-man manner, says "You're either with us or against us!", I find there's something odd about it. I shudder even more with the fact that it's exactly what Berlusconi has been trotting after.

 

Obviously, they had no interest in nation-building dun by Dem. :angel:

:smart:

I tend to agree myself, especially given a bit of photos our papers here tended to miss from the day of 911. There is a photo out there on the net that was taken by a bystander as the second Jet hit the second Tower. In that picture in the background one can see the Contail of a Military jet that was in pursuit of that second jet. It's doing a hard bank as the other jet impacted the tower. My question is if they where that close then why didn't we shoot that jet down before it hit the tower and why wasn't the fact that we almost had that second jet published. Given the fact that we now know that Saddam did not have any WMD's, that the information from Intel was bad to begin with, that as far as a connection to the Taliban goes there was no direct connection where is the justification for being there at?

 

PS: you have to search back through all those old 911 photos. Look at those of the second tower at moment of impact and pay attention to the background on the left upper side of the pictures. The Contail resemblies that of an F-16 doing a hard bank. Sorry I do not have a direct link anymore. It was something I noticed about 2 days after 911 and did not save the direct link at that time.

[pgrmdave]

Assuming that this is true (there seems to be some debate), what would you have a fighter do in those circumstances? Shoot at the plane so that it crashes into NYC? I don't think that there would be any good way to have stopped the planes once they got over NYC.

[Qfwfq]

In an area like that, the jets could have been there far earlier once the highjacking had occured. Most passengers had been telling about the situation for quite a while.

 

There are standard procedures that can be used before resorting to shooting the plane down, it was done successfully to force Abu Abbas to land at Sigonella after the Klinghoffer episode. BTW, guess who commanded that mission?

 

If the 911 kamikazis couldn't be forced to land, they could have been prevented from hitting the towers, which was far worse than if they had been shot down. Look at the accident not long after, NYC, I can't remember whether Brooklyn or Bronx or what but the consequences were nothing comparable. The passengers of the last 911 jet voted to prevent it from striking target, once they knew about the other three jets. Twenty minutes elapsed between the first and second impact. Who could have blamed the air force and gov't for not having saved the passengers, if nothing better worked?

 

Apart from what the outcome could have been, there was no whatsoever attempt. In an area thick with air force bases mostly meant to protect the population.

[Michaelangelica]

Five years of carnage and despair in Iraq

 

* Published on 17/03/2008

. . .

No-one knows exactly how many people have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. According to the largest survey, carried out jointly by the World Health Organisation and the Iraqi Government and published last January, more than 150,000 people had been killed by June 2006. The UN reported that almost 35,000 people were killed in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available.

 

The continuing problem of insecurity has hampered efforts to restore order, but even when the Iraqi authorities have been in a position to uphold human rights, they have largely failed to do so. Trials are routinely unfair with convictions on evidence allegedly obtained under torture, and hundreds of people have been sentenced to death.

Five years of carnage and despair in Iraq, News, Amnesty International Australia

Over 60,000 Iraqis are held in detention by the US-led Multi-National Force and Iraqi authorities. Most are detained without charge or trial and many have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. Women have experienced gender-based violence, such as physical attacks, sexual assaults and killings.