NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an example of what could be considered almost indoctrination. A phrase gets bandied around so much (in this case 'war for oil') that loads of people are acutally believing that its true. This article shows just how wrong that phrase is

Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil". At first this seemed to be only a claim by the usual suspects that quickly moved onto certain editorial pages. But it entered the Presidential campaign with Congressman Dennis Kucinich' s preposterous claim on "Meet the Press" that Iraq contains five trillion dollars' worth of oil, syllogistically followed by the allegation that such an amount of oil is the obvious reason for an invasion. The allegation was countered on the program forcefully by Richard Perle, but we can expect to hear it again. Not only is the allegation base, but the logic is flawed and the numbers are wrong.


How Congressman Kucinich could come up with 5 trillion dollars for the value of oil in Iraq is a mystery. The flagrant misrepresentation in this assertion seems to be an attempt to trivialize an invasion as motivated by a business decision on behalf of one of the left's favorite scapegoats - the oil business. Such a characterization fails on the basis of being an extremely bad business decision.

All wars are fought for economic reasons if staying alive and not being enslaved are included as economic benefits even though difficult to quantify in dollars and cents. An invasion "for the oil", however, implies an objective which is tangible, quantifiable and has a price posted on a daily basis. A war "for the oil" thus can be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.


Iraq produces a bit more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) now. This production rate fluctuates in a range of about 0.5 million bopd depending on the mood of Saddam, how he wishes to impact the oil price and various actions of the UN. The actual amount can only be estimated because the amount of smuggled oil is not known accurately. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its production rate is allocated by the UN and is not part of the OPEC quota system.


The most common concern regarding the possible effect of an invasion on oil production is that oil operations will be disrupted during military action. Disruption probably will reduce world supplies and drive oil prices up on the world markets for a short-term. A less probable, but nevertheless real, concern is that Saddam will sabotage or contaminate the fields and cause supply disruptions and higher prices for a medium to long-term. So the most likely outcome of an Iraqi invasion is a reduction of supplies and increased prices; clearly an additional cost attributable to an invasion, not a benefit, and exactly contrary to a claim that the invasion is "for the oil".


If we consider a post-invasion situation in which the disruptions and price effects of the invasion have passed and damage to the fields has somehow been prevented, Iraq would again be producing at about its current rate. It produces at that rate now. Where is the gain?

Estimates of the costs to the government of the United States for an invasion of Iraq seem to be mostly between $50 billion to $200 billion. If we invade Iraq for oil, the U.S. government must be able to derive a benefit from the oil greater than this cost. What is not clear is how Washington would be paid back for the war.


Governments can charge taxes and fees. The United States will not be intending to occupy Iraq, but to establish a new government. The new government will be expected to honor international commitments and contracts, particularly debt repayment. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion. The United States has no taxing or fee-charging authority in Iraq. If the United States did, by brute force, impose a tax on Iraqi crude, it could not be an add-on to the market price at which crude is sold in the international market or no one would buy it. If that crude is taxed on the net to Iraq, it must be a fee taken from the Iraqi government share and could not be more than about $3 per barrel without imposing an intolerable burden on a country which the United States will be trying to stabilize economically and politically. The United States government currently pays about 4 percent for long-term (10-year) money; that corresponds to $4 billion per year for a 100-billion-dollar war. A $3-per-barrel tax will bring in about $2.4 billion per year; not enough even to pay the interest on the cost of the war.


But suppose American companies are given the contracts to operate the fields. The United States government can still only recoup cost by taxing the oil, or income thereon, produced by the U.S. companies. Russian and French companies have interests which would be honored for diplomatic reasons. A reasonable limit of about $3 per barrel still applies and in this case it would not be on all the oil but only on the part which American companies produce so the gain would be even less than in the case cited above.


Investment required to find and develop oil supplies is generally in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per daily barrel of production in the United States and $5000 to $12,000 internationally. Some production can be developed in Saudi Arabia for as low as $3000, but foreign companies are not allowed to operate in Saudi Arabia. For a total investment probably between $10 billion and $20 billion, supplies can be developed elsewhere to replace the 2 million bopd of Iraqi production; much cheaper than the cost of an invasion and without the risks and unpleasant aspects of military action.


Could we increase production in Iraq after an invasion? Yes, but that increase would also require investment just as it would anywhere. We can make that investment in Iraq if the opportunity is available or elsewhere if it is not. But in Iraq any investment for oil would be increased by the large sunk cost of the war. That cost is not justified by the amount of oil production. Nothing is changed by an invasion and the cost of the war is still a large cost without any return based on oil.

From a political and diplomatic standpoint, the United States will probably not be able to impose any taxes or fees on the production nor take any competitive advantage for American companies. As noted above, immediate objectives will be to encourage formation of a stable government and political system. Control and administration of the oil industry will probably remain in the hands of Iraqis. First priority will be to rehabilitate the existing wells, fields, facilities, and infrastructure that are quite dilapidated after years of isolation from modern technology, services, and materials. Except for the costs of this rehabilitation, oil income will probably be used for general governmental purposes to rebuild the country and its infrastructure and services. Therefore, any expansion into development of new fields will probably require foreign capital and a significant increase of activity by foreign companies. Privatization of the fields is not a practical possibility, so foreign investment and activity will be in the form of contracts for which the operating, fiscal, procurement, labor, liability, insurance, accounting, legal and regulatory terms must be established. Such a process is subject to lengthy political and bureaucratic delays.

So not only can the United States not receive any direct payback of the cost of the war from the oil, but any significant increase of Iraqi supplies will probably not be realized for a few, or possibly several, years.

As a business decision, invading Iraq "for the oil" is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan "no war for oil" is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons.

Shhhh! You're being too rational! You'll scare them! :D

All wars are fought for economic reasons if staying alive and not being enslaved are included as economic benefits even though difficult to quantify in dollars and cents.

So the US went to war with Iraq to save itself from death or slavery?

"Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than..."

I stopped reading right here. If you want to find someone unbiased, or at least not so blatantly so, then I might read what they believe. Adriatica, I've read your posted stuff before, its drivel.

I see a fatal flaw. He assumes Bush is rational.

I stopped reading it and decided to ignore it the second it called the US liberal left "politically and morally bankrupt".

I may have missed something, but it seems to me that this article misses the point that, while the US government requires oil far more than it does money, so surely the payoff would be worth it? I dunno, that sounded a lot more coherent in my head...

I may have missed something, but it seems to me that this article misses the point that, while the US government requires oil far more than it does money, so surely the payoff would be worth it? I dunno, that sounded a lot more coherent in my head...
[ Looks at Adriatica II ] See what I mean???

Waitaminute...

The man who worked for oil companies is saying that the war wasn't for oil and that those who claim it was are 'Morally and politically bankrupt'?


I smell a large pile of biased shit...

Estimates of the costs to the government of the United States for an invasion of Iraq seem to be mostly between $50 billion to $200 billion.

...should just be noted that the cost of the invasion of Iraq, to the US alone nevermind the rest of the coalition, has already reached $320 billion.

And remember, a war being for oil doesnt necessarily mean it is for cheap oil or whatever.

Personally I think the war was fought for a number of reasons, all about spreading American influence and power across the world, but in terms of oil:

While it does not secure America cheap oil, what it does do is secure the states a great deal of influence over many other nations supplies of oil. I dont think the States has taken much oil from Iraq for a long time, but other countries did, such as China, Russia and France. I dont really expect the neo-cons to pass over a chance to control those nations' oil supplies.

There are two alternative possibilities.

1) They really did go to war for the oil supply, but they fucked it up.

2) They went to war for oil supply destruction, and got it right, because Western oil companies have tripled their profits and the world's economies have not collapsed.

I prefer to go with 1), as it is a more sane gamble to start with.

Incidentally, wars for oil do not necessarily have to have anything to do with economic reasons - national energy security is a quite different matter to financial motives. I do agree that no oil company ever discussed it in the boardroom, but only because that sort of thing fits into the national security rather than private corporate realm.

The attack on "liberals" is a straw man argument. This is largely a security discussion, rather than something to do with morals, or private wealth.

I stopped reading right here. If you want to find someone unbiased, or at least not so blatantly so, then I might read what they believe. Adriatica, I've read your posted stuff before, its drivel.

So no actual arguments against it then?

Chellis, I've just read your post. Its drivel.

A phrase gets bandied around so much (in this case 'war for oil') that loads of people are acutally believing that its true.

Question for you: was the first Gulf War about oil?

So no actual arguments against it then?

Chellis, I've just read your post. Its drivel.

To be fair old boy, when the first line of your article attacks the 'US Liberal left' as being 'Politically and morally bankrupt', and is written by a former Oil executive/worker/advisor, it can hardly be seen as objective or even making a lot of sense.

[ Looks at Adriatica II ] See what I mean???

Wow, just can't let it drop can you, even if I made a fairly valid point - the US does an oil supply far more than it needs money - after all, what good is money when the economy it's based on collapses from lack of what it's based on? Surely then it would make sense that securing a supply of oil would be worth more than the money said oil is worth?

Whether or not they actually pulled that off is a different matter, the motive would still be there.

As with all large and long running "projects" or ideas mooted by any group, it had a number of reasons why it was considered a "good" idea by the people behind it, one of which was oil. The following details now defunct plans to privatise Iraqi oil, and mentions the pre NYC idea of replacing Saddam via a coup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

It was never primarily about oil. Shrub believed that he was doing the right thing (but then again he never believes he does anything wrong) avenging Daddy's honor by burning geopolitical capital going after Hussein. His NeoCon handlers just loved the fact that they'd get control of Iraqi oil in the process.

So no actual arguments against it then?

Chellis, I've just read your post. Its drivel.

I have an argument. Your source is extremely biased, and so isn't trustworthy to believe without other sources being involved.

I have an argument. Your source is extremely biased, and so isn't trustworthy to believe without other sources being involved.

Bias is not an arguement in itself. Bias has to be shown in the content not just the providence.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/Businessweek/BW/2003/03_17_2003.pdf

Bias is not an arguement in itself. Bias has to be shown in the content not just the providence.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/Businessweek/BW/2003/03_17_2003.pdf

So calling the 'Liberal left' 'Mortally and politically bankrupt' isn't bias?

the US does an oil supply far more than it needs money

But they're obviously not going to lose money invading a country for a certain amount of oil that will sell for less than the amount of money needed for the invasion. That's like saying that you're going to steal a pretzel and pay a $100 fine when a pretzel only costs $1. Why not just buy a pretzel instead of stealing it and being forced to pay a fine?

Bias is not an arguement in itself. Bias has to be shown in the content not just the providence.

Not really. Its a pretty obvious connection that someone extremely hateful toward liberals will do anything in their power to discredit them, including misinterpreting the facts to do so.

I did start to scan through it, though. Written before the invasion even happened. Mentions only the monetary value of oil, not the geopolitical value, makes lots of assumptions, especially about the US priorities and attitude toward other nations.

Like I assumed it would be, drivel.

So calling the 'Liberal left' 'Mortally and politically bankrupt' isn't bias?

It does not detract from the argument in any way. I can say E = MC ^ 2...poopyface and it would not be flawed. Sure, it's biased, but it's also factual and true. Refusing to read a intelligent take on the whole war for oil thing because it contains some bias would be missing the forest for the trees. Skip over his obvious bias and understand his point -- his argument is right on.

So calling the 'Liberal left' 'Mortally and politically bankrupt' isn't bias?

Its statement of opinion, not fact. Opinions by there very nature are biased.

Its a pretty obvious connection that someone extremely hateful toward liberals will do anything in their power to discredit them, including misinterpreting the facts to do so.

Great! Then disprove him or show which facts he misrepresented. Debate his argument. Oh, wait! You can't, because he's 100% right. Hitler or the Dalai Lama could have written that, and it wouldn't make a difference -- you're focusing too much on slandering the man who wrote that beceuase you know his argument is irrefutable. Very clever evasion.

It was never primarily about oil. Shrub believed that he was doing the right thing (but then again he never believes he does anything wrong) avenging Daddy's honor by burning geopolitical capital going after Hussein. His NeoCon handlers just loved the fact that they'd get control of Iraqi oil in the process.

NeoConservatives aren't interested in oil. NeoConservatie foreign policy thinking with regard to the Middle East is that past American (and Western) support for authoritarian governments in the region has angered and radicalised the people of the Middle East, and Islamists have been more than happy to channel that anger into terrorism against the United States and the West. To win the war for minds and hearts in Middle East against the Islamists, NeoConservatives believe the United States should pressure authoritarian governments to democratise or remove the governments with military force, pre-empting Islamists before they can indoctrinate the public and channel their hatred Westward.

But they're obviously not going to lose money invading a country for a certain amount of oil that will sell for less than the amount of money needed for the invasion. That's like saying that you're going to steal a pretzel and pay a $100 fine when a pretzel only costs $1. Why not just buy a pretzel instead of stealing it and being forced to pay a fine?

Because, to follow the analogy, there is little food in the world, and its fastly declining. Stealing the pretzel will allow you to live a bit longer, or you can sell it later for big profits.

Not really. Its a pretty obvious connection that someone extremely hateful toward liberals will do anything in their power to discredit them, including misinterpreting the facts to do so.

Thats an assumption. Its not proof. You have to prove that he misrepresnted the facts so as to claim that they are flawed.

It wasn't about Oil (although a number of oil-companies liked the idea because they'd get long-term access to some fields, and because of reconstruction).

It was about this (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

Because, to follow the analogy, there is little food in the world, and its fastly declining. Stealing the pretzel will allow you to live a bit longer, or you can sell it later for big profits.

But instead of stealing a pretzel you can just buy it! A pretzel costs $1 dollar to buy and $100 dollars to steal. It's not a very difficult decision.

Great! Then disprove him or show which facts he misrepresented. Debate his argument. Oh, wait! You can't, because he's 100% right. Hitler or the Dalai Lama could have written that, and it wouldn't make a difference -- you're focusing too much on slandering the man who wrote that beceuase you know his argument is irrefutable. Very clever evasion.

He's 100% right? Thats amazing. Written before the war even started, he made every assumption perfectly correct, and you know this without any corroborating sources at all. I'm impressed.

His argument is stupid. He isn't even arguing that the war wasn't about oil, he argues that the war wasn't about economic profit in the short run from oil. I completely agree.

But they're obviously not going to lose money invading a country for a certain amount of oil that will sell for less than the amount of money needed for the invasion. That's like saying that you're going to steal a pretzel and pay a $100 fine when a pretzel only costs $1. Why not just buy a pretzel instead of stealing it and being forced to pay a fine?

No that's the point - they need oil, they have money. The situation, pre-war, was apparently very unstable, and the supply of oil was therefore somewhat unpredictable, not to mention unreliable.

Therefore, rather than buy unreliable oil supplies, doesn't it make sense for the US to expend a resource they have far too much of (money and military power) to gain control over one they need far more than both of those, and is far more valuable to them.

But instead of stealing a pretzel you can just buy it! A pretzel costs $1 dollar to buy and $100 dollars to steal. It's not a very difficult decision.

The analogy isn't very good.

Having a source of oil will give america geopolitical power in the future. The oil in iraq, total, would bring america lots of money if it could all magically turn into money into US banks. The point the guy in the article makes, is that the US won't make money because it can't be produced fast enough to offset the cost of the war.

America couldn't buy the same amount of oil for an equal or lesser price than the cost of the invasion. Just the usable/sellable part. In the long run, america will have more accessable oil for a longer period of time, which is much more important than just short term profit.

Therefore, rather than buy unreliable oil supplies,

But the oil supplies aren't unreliable. Even though the price is steadily increasing, buying oil would be much more profitable than going to war for it, both in the long run and in the short run.

The War in Iraq was not about economic profit for the United States....it was about getting rid of a brutal despot and tyrant that was a threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the world...it was about getting rid of a ruthless dictator who massacred his own people for amusement, and it was about deposing the regime of Saddam Hussein because he possessed weapons of mass destruction and it was not in the best interest of the world for him to possess those weapons

Therefore, rather than buy unreliable oil supplies, doesn't it make sense for the US to expend a resource they have far too much of (money and military power) to gain control over one they need far more than both of those, and is far more valuable to them.

But buying oil doenst in itself use up oil to do. Where as the US needs oil to fuel all the tanks, jets, jeeps etc it used in the war so the US would have just been better off buying the oil as they ultimately would have had more of it anyway.

In the long run, america will have more accessable oil for a longer period of time, which is much more important than just short term profit.

That is extremely debatable. The amount of oil in Iraq isn't in itself enough to make a considerable dent in the US oil production and it would be cheaper, barring some extreme instability, for the US to purchase oil from abroad. Iraq's oil isn't limitless, so in the long run it won't be that profitable. Of course, you have yet to show how the US is getting Iraqi oil -- is it sneaking it to the US in the middle of the night?

But the oil supplies aren't unreliable. Even though the price is steadily increasing, buying oil would be much more profitable than going to war for it, both in the long run and in the short run.

No, it wouldn't, because america can't afford an equivilent amount for the same price. They can only afford a similarly accessible amount for the same, or better price. In the long run, it will help america, economically and geopolitically.

The War in Iraq was not about economic profit for the United States....it was about getting rid of a brutal despot and tyrant that was a threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the world...it was about getting rid of a ruthless dictator who massacred his own people for amusement...

None of which were valid legal reasons to go to war given the UN resolutions.


...and it was about deposing the regime of Saddam Hussein because he possessed weapons of mass destruction and it was not in the best interest of the world for him to possess those weapons

Apart from the fact that he didn't.

So it was either an illegal war or one carried out on the basis of fiction?

Of course it was for oil. What are you, some sort of a conservative? ;) But it was likely for oil or Bush thought he was playing a video game, where you can just turn it off if things go wrong.

It wasn't about Oil (although a number of oil-companies liked the idea because they'd get long-term access to some fields, and because of reconstruction).

It was about this (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

Wise men think alike. :)

The War in Iraq was not about economic profit for the United States....it was about getting rid of a brutal despot and tyrant that was a threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the world...it was about getting rid of a ruthless dictator who massacred his own people for amusement, and it was about deposing the regime of Saddam Hussein because he possessed weapons of mass destruction and it was not in the best interest of the world for him to possess those weapons

Here here!

Apart from the fact that he didn't.

Apart from the fact that we did not find any. It is possible that he got rid of them or sold them. Of course, whether or not he actually had WMDs is tangential to the point -- he refused to comply with UN regulations consistently, and did not leave the US any other option except to enforce the power of the UN.

Apart from the fact that he didn't.

Would it be better to wait till he did and then go and get him, or do it while he was developing them and thus not as much a threat?

But the oil supplies aren't unreliable. Even though the price is steadily increasing, buying oil would be much more profitable than going to war for it, both in the long run and in the short run.

But if the oil is controlled by someone who a) bears the US little good will to start off with and b) would probably profit more from withholding the oil from them at some key point (I'm talking about Saddam here btw) then, no matter how much you can pay, it will be useless if the seller won't sell.

That is extremely debatable. The amount of oil in Iraq isn't in itself enough to make a considerable dent in the US oil production and it would be cheaper, barring some extreme instability, for the US to purchase oil from abroad. Iraq's oil isn't limitless, so in the long run it won't be that profitable. Of course, you have yet to show how the US is getting Iraqi oil -- is it sneaking it to the US in the middle of the night?

It surely isn't limitless, but its very deep. Its oil reserves are worth many billions, if not reaching the trillions, of dollars, and thats at current prices. We paid a flat price for oil(Bought in bulk, lets say), and can sell it for much more as time goes on.

I never said the US is getting iraqi oil yet. It doesn't need it yet. It will need it when peak oil starts impacting us heavily.

It will need it when peak oil starts impacting us heavily.

And by then Iraq will be a sovereign nation and a successful democracy that will not be obliged to give any of its oil reserves to the US.

Would it be better to wait till he did and then go and get him, or do it while he was developing them and thus not as much a threat?

Assuming he did, you mean. Fuck, iraq even agreed to let weapons inspectors back in. When he started developing them again, then we could get into the action process again.

Would it be better to wait till he did and then go and get him, or do it while he was developing them and thus not as much a threat?

Assuming that he would've done so of course. This is getting quite Minority Report-y methinks.

The War in Iraq was not about economic profit for the United States....it was about getting rid of a brutal despot and tyrant that was a threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the world...it was about getting rid of a ruthless dictator who massacred his own people for amusement, and it was about deposing the regime of Saddam Hussein because he possessed weapons of mass destruction and it was not in the best interest of the world for him to possess those weapons

Lessee

Brutal Despot/Tyrant? Yes. Threat to the world. Not so much...
Possessing Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Nope, not found.
Threat to the US? Not really.
Killer/Tyrant? Yes, but many more who were, and are, worse. The NK leadership, for example. Or Mugabe.

Of course, whether or not he actually had WMDs is tangential to the point -- he refused to comply with UN regulations consistently, and did not leave the US any other option except to enforce the power of the UN.

Which means that the claim that he was deposed for possessing WMD's was a falsehood.

I added an edit to my earlier post concerning the other reasons given and the UN resolutions prior to reading this one, by the way.

And by then Iraq will be a sovereign nation and a successful democracy that will not be obliged to give any of its oil reserves to the US.

Yeah yeah yeah. We'll see about that. Most likely it will remain a government thats, for all intents and purposes, a puppet government.

I find it far more likely it will hit civil war, however.

But if the oil is controlled by someone who a) bears the US little good will to start off with and b) would probably profit more from withholding the oil from them at some key point (I'm talking about Saddam here btw) then, no matter how much you can pay, it will be useless if the seller won't sell.

Saddam cutting or limiting oil supplies to the occident would be playing a game of chicken. One the occident could afford to play much more than he could. In the end they would both be loosing money but the occident has far more to loose and Iraq would be in the red long before the ROW.

Assuming he did, you mean. Fuck, iraq even agreed to let weapons inspectors back in. When he started developing them again, then we could get into the action process again.

Hehe - I guess great minds really do think alike :D

Here here!

'Hear! Hear!', shurely?

Are you also claiming that he did possess WMD's?

Saddam cutting or limiting oil supplies to the occident would be playing a game of chicken. One the occident could afford to play much more than he could. In the end they would both be loosing money but the occident has far more to loose and Iraq would be in the red long before the ROW.

Or he could've sold it some other, more Iraq-friendly country. Problem solved for Iraq - lots of money, and you're not supplying the country you a) hate and b) will invade you.

Or he could've sold it some other, more Iraq-friendly country. Problem solved for Iraq - lots of money, and you're not supplying the country you a) hate and b) will invade you.

Small problem, the demand in those countries isn't nearly as high and because of all the Iraq friendly countries being just as poor as Iraq itself the situation would only delay the inevitable. Delay it to such a time by when the Occident would have run plan B (IE invest more heveyly in Russian and Afriacan oil)

'Hear! Hear!', shurely?

Are you also claiming that he did possess WMD's?

See earlier post to that regard.

it was about getting rid of a brutal despot and tyrant that was a threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the world...

Brutal despot and tyrant - yes

Threat to ME - hardly (after GW I and sanctions)

Threat to US - ROTFL

Threat to world - ROTFLMAO

There are many a brutal despots and tyrants the US is still supporting NOW (forget about the past, I am talking about NOW).

Lets start with the Al Saud monarch and Pervez Musharraf.

As we speak, Musharraf's army is using US supplied arms (ostensibly to catch Osama:rolleyes: ) to kill Balochis.

http://www.balochvoice.com/Army_Operation/Bombing_5-1-06.html
Pictures of Gunship helicopter and damage houses, unexploded rockets fired by fighter jets and crater's created by powerful bombs fired from jets

*Warning* - gruesome pics in the link. Mods pl tell me if I am crossing lines here.
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11692/index.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/opinion/23thu2.html?ex=1147060800&en=d115cd7e5f909b2a&ei=5070
The Musharraf army has been largely equipped by the United States. Just as America's image was helped in the region when American Chinook helicopters flew over Kashmir to give aid to that Pakistani province after the major earthquake last October, so, too, is that image damaged when American-supplied Cobra helicopters and F-16's attack civilians in Baluchistan.

Hey, but it is ok as long as he is "our son of a bitch", right ?


because he possessed weapons of mass destruction and it was not in the best interest of the world for him to possess those weapons

The irony here being that those WMD's which were such a threat to the free world being in the hands of a whimsical madman like Saddam could not protect Saddam from the invasion by US.

I never bought into the war-for-oil knee-jerk reaction either. I don't think the PNAC had much to do wit it either, although they'd certainly like to take credit. I think different people in the administration had different motives for wanting to go to war with Iraq. Bush, Cheney, and the Defence Department wanted to finish un-finished business in Iraq. Foreign policy hawks never forgave Bush Senior for not removing Saddam in 1991 and wanted to correct that mistake. The State Department on the other hand, saw that international support for sanctions was declining as Saddam continued to parade starving Iraqis on TV for the international media to broadcast, and governments around the world increasingly grew weary of prolonging sanctions that did nothing to harm Saddam, harmed civilians instead, and kept millions of barrels of oil everyday off of international markets. Since Saddam had never given up on his regional ambitions and probably would have eventually restarted his weapons programme covertly if sanctions were lifted, the State Department preferred to get rid of Saddam in 2003 rather than wait until 2013 when, freed of international sanctions, he might have been much stronger militarily.

Small problem, the demand in those countries isn't nearly as high and because of all the Iraq friendly countries being just as poor as Iraq itself the situation would only delay the inevitable. Delay it to such a time by when the Occident would have run plan B (IE invest more heveyly in Russian and Afriacan oil)

Not as high, but there are a lot more of them. One big slice of cake versus lots of small slices... dunno which would be more benficial to Iraq, not an economics student, but you can bet that none of those smaller countries would get it into their heads to invade Iraq either - mainly because they probably wouldn't be able to pull it off with any degree of success.

'Hear! Hear!', shurely?

Are you also claiming that he did possess WMD's?
I only need to hear it once! My hearing's fine!
And stop calling me "Shurely"!
:D

See earlier post to that regard.

So Iraq was invaded because it didn't have WMD's then?

So Iraq was invaded because it didn't have WMD's then?

No. Because he was an evil tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands, of course.





Which, of course, misses the fact that, although he was undoubtedly one of those, there were far worse dictators/tyrants killing far, far more people in the world, and considerably nearer to the US, as well as being more dangerous. North Korea, anyone?

Just goin what we do day in and day out, i'd say that there is a 85% chance were in iraq for the right reasons, 15% were in for the wrong reasons. This is largely based on the fact that the majority of our operations either A. are to aide the politcal process B. aide in infrastructure building or C. security for civilians or the most prevalent for my company D. training iraqi forces. I think the only mission in there that could be thought of as trying to gain influence is in D. This is because if you are of the incorrect belief that the iraqi gov't is merely a puppet one, that you could say that we are really building our own forces in that nation. I understand all the arguments saying that we went for oil, but i'm not seeing any proof beyond the possiblity of a motive.

So Iraq was invaded because it didn't have WMD's then?
That would appear to be the case. *nods solemnly*

Perhaps a better measure of ideological pursuits (and qualification thereof) is what isn't there as a reason instead of what is.
That would qualify a lot of this administrations' bullsh*t.

Do liberals actually say that we went into Iraq to finance the US government? I have never heard that argument.

Of course I have heard that big oil whispered into some friendly ears in order to help themselves out. I have also heard that the democratization of a major OPEC nation would destablize their pricing capabilities, and that we are worried about the growing Asian markets infringing our oil supplies, but I have never heard anyone say that the US government thought that they would make money out of the deal.

Just goin what we do day in and day out, i'd say that there is a 85% chance were in iraq for the right reasons, 15% were in for the wrong reasons. This is largely based on the fact that the majority of our operations either A. are to aide the politcal process B. aide in infrastructure building or C. security for civilians or the most prevalent for my company D. training iraqi forces. I think the only mission in there that could be thought of as trying to gain influence is in D. This is because if you are of the incorrect belief that the iraqi gov't is merely a puppet one, that you could say that we are really building our own forces in that nation. I understand all the arguments saying that we went for oil, but i'm not seeing any proof beyond the possiblity of a motive.
There's a couple of people waiting for your "classified/declassified information" you were talking about a few threads back. Perhaps you'll indulge them?

I don't think the PNAC had much to do wit it either, although they'd certainly like to take credit.
You read the link (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), right? And the signatories?

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney. Those were the three people who created this war. And all three are signatories.

Not only that, but the war fits exactly their scheme: Go in, destroy dictatorship => Instant Democracy => Instant American Ally in war for global "military leadership".

And another signatory, who has since quit PNAC and Neoconservatism makes the link pretty obvious:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715180,00.html

There's a couple of people waiting for your "classified/declassified information" you were talking about a few threads back. Perhaps you'll indulge them?

If you would look at my actual words from that thread you would see that i merely said that i had an additional resource for getting information that you do not have. And i used that as an argument for being more informed that who ever i was arguing against. I didnt say that i had some "uber leet" documents. Civilians:rolleyes:

If you would look at my actual words from that thread you would see that i merely said that i had an additional resource for getting information that you do not have. And i used that as an argument for being more informed that who ever i was arguing against. I didnt say that i had some "uber leet" documents. Civilians:rolleyes:

And what is that source?

If you would look at my actual words from that thread you would see that i merely said that i had an additional resource for getting information that you do not have. And i used that as an argument for being more informed that who ever i was arguing against. I didnt say that i had some "uber leet" documents. Civilians:rolleyes:
No, you were even called on it by Verdigroth as your information being quite easily cross-referenced by CNN. YOU should look at the actual words on it.
And save your retrocaste pseudoelitism.

And what is that source?
My job. I thought that was obvious.

So it was either an illegal war or one carried out on the basis of fiction?

It was, in retrospect, an illegal war carried out partially on the basis of flawed intelligence. However, it was also morally justified and the correct decision. Freeing an oppressed people from a genocidal, megalomaniacal monster shouldn't be a crime.

No, you were even called on it by Verdigroth as your information being quite easily cross-referenced by CNN. YOU should look at the actual words on it.
And save your retrocaste pseudoelitism.
I dont see how he couldd have "called" me on it if he didnt even know what i was talking about.

Civilians:rolleyes:
Babykillers. :rolleyes:
Hehehehe...

I have also heard that the democratization of a major OPEC nation would destablize their pricing capabilities, and that we are worried about the growing Asian markets infringing our oil suppliesd (other parts of post removed)

Firstly, I do not believe Iraq was for oil. However, I want to add that:

Democratization would not destabilize their pricing capacity because prices are set by the market. However, opening the market to foreign investment would decrease prices by increasing supply and that is much easier when a democratic regime is in place. The Middle East has gigantic amounts of undiscovered oil and the oil fields being exploited are producing at levels far below their optimal rate due to tight control. All of the Middle East has major opportunities for discovery, but they're not being undertaken.

This is because foreign investment is almost entirely blocked for political and economic reasons; the number of wildcat wells drilled in Saudi Arabia is less than 1% the amount in the US and the exploration budget is less than 5% the amount in other oil producing regions, and considerably less than nearby African states. So, they have a lot of controlled "proven" oil but little or no independent exploration which enables them to have huge control over production levels, which in turn affects the world oil markets' supply and pricing.

On a side note:

If you recall, the reason why oil fell to $10 in 1998 was due to the fragmentation of OPEC and the Asian financial crisis. Now, we have a unified OPEC and a powerful Asian economy driving oil demand which is producing $70/barrel oil and heavy speculation.

Babykillers. :rolleyes:
Hehehehe...
If only that was even close to true.

I dont see how he couldd have "called" me on it if he didnt even know what i was talking about.
So far, you're not being particularly convincing that you're in the know yourself.

My job. I thought that was obvious.
You are again endorsing The Corneliu Maneuver.
Ask The Cat-Tribe and Verdigroth for further clarification.
Or perhaps, reread the thread.

It was, in retrospect, an illegal war carried out partially on the basis of flawed intelligence.

So, in your opinion the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was an illegal war, the Gulf War was a legal war, but the recent invasion of Iraq was illegal?

Its pretty simple in my mind.

Iraq is sitting on top of 200+billion barrels worth of crude oil. At the current price of oil, being about $38 per barrel from opec nations at the moment, thats a possible 7.5 trillion dollars worth of oil. Even if its not all accessible at once, its there for the taking. Also not accounting that oil prices are raising much higher than inflation, so the price will only raise incredibly higher, being much more worth it in the future.

Does the US want that controlled by a saddam hussein who hates america and would likely cut off america when it needed oil most(heavy peak oil period), or would america rather have a puppet government who is happy to send america oil for the forseeable future? Hell, want to know the main fuck up of the article?

Crude oil price in 2002: About 24 dollars
Crude oil price in 2005: $38(And going up into 06)

Is a 3 dollar tax on a 24 dollar barrel of oil the max one could "reasonably" charge? Lets assume the author(who again, gives no other sources) is correct. Well, we could now tax at the least 4.5 dollars, but really even more than that because oil profits are rising greatly(so more can be taken with a similar profit as before). So even if oil prices didn't keep rising, which they are, taxing the production of oil would just about pay for the war.

(Note: Yes, his figures for the price of the war are wrong, but he also doesn't take into account the fast growing price of oil. They cancel eachother out, imo).

If only that was even close to true.
Do I detect a hint of wishful longing in that sentence? :eek:

Straughn, you put too much emphasis on that one spectacular article. From what i remember (may be wrong seeing as its been a rough two months) i said that i considered myself more informed because i was experiencing. I was making the primary source. You are reading the tertiary source. There is a huge diffference. And too the issue of the thread, you are looking at potential motive, i am looking at actual evidence.

Civilians:rolleyes:

Is that why you're cleansing Iraq of them so wonderfully? :p

(Not you personally obviously)

Is that why you're cleansing Iraq of them so wonderfully? :p

(Not you personally obviously)


Uhh, we're not. We put our lives on the line everyday for those civilians.

Do I detect a hint of wishful longing in that sentence? :eek:
I'll chime in here now to point out that anyone who names themselves after a specific group of people is, in some fashion, intending to represent that group in argument here. And others, deliberately the exact opposite, for example ... The UN abassadorship.

Uhh, we're not. We put our lives on the line everyday for those civilians.

So they commit suicide?

Its pretty simple in my mind.
Iraq is sitting on top of 200+billion barrels worth of crude oil. At the current price of oil, being about $38 per barrel from opec nations at the moment, thats a possible 7.5 trillion dollars worth of oil. Even if its not all accessible at once, its there for the taking. Also not accounting that oil prices are raising much higher than inflation, so the price will only raise incredibly higher, being much more worth it in the future.

The price of the OPEC basket is now $67.5, making 200 billion barrels equal to $13.518 trillon dollars or slightly larger than the entire GDP of the United States. However, it is certain that there is considerably more oil than that, given the utter lack of exploration in the richest part of Iraq and Iran's oil fields

Nevertheless, there is only so much oil that could be produced at any given time; Saudi Arabia produces around 11 million bpd (although that amount is greatly reduced due to a lack of foreign investment/competition...a private firm could produce a good deal more with equal maintenance of reserves).

Even if Iraq were to produce 20 million barrels, that's only $496 billion per year
or somewhat higher than the US Defense Budget. This does not include natural gas production, which would add more to that total.

So they commit suicide?
Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.

Firstly, I do not believe Iraq was for oil.

I don't either, I think it was an attempt to democratize the middle east, with the thought that it would generate US allies. Whoops.

However, I want to add that:

Democratization would not destabilize their pricing capacity because prices are set by the market. However, opening the market to foreign investment would decrease prices by increasing supply and that is much easier when a democratic regime is in place. The Middle East has gigantic amounts of undiscovered oil and the oil fields being exploited are producing at levels far below their optimal rate due to tight control. All of the Middle East has major opportunities for discovery, but they're not being undertaken.

This is because foreign investment is almost entirely blocked for political and economic reasons; the number of wildcat wells drilled in Saudi Arabia is less than 1% the amount in the US and the exploration budget is less than 5% the amount in other oil producing regions, and considerably less than nearby African states. So, they have a lot of controlled "proven" oil but little or no independent exploration which enables them to have huge control over production levels, which in turn affects the world oil markets' supply and pricing.

On a side note:

If you recall, the reason why oil fell to $10 in 1998 was due to the fragmentation of OPEC and the Asian financial crisis. Now, we have a unified OPEC and a powerful Asian economy driving oil demand which is producing $70/barrel oil and heavy speculation.

OPEC's mission statement:

OPEC’s mission is to coordinate & unify the petroleum policies of Member Countries & ensure the stabilization of oil prices in order to secure an efficient, economic & regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers & a fair return on capital to those investing in the petroleum industry.

OPEC was created mainly to protect oil producing nations from western oil companies. Western oil companies largely had control over Middle Eastern oil production up into the 60's and as a result kept prices low. OPEC created a leveraged position for those countries to control the production and maintain the wealth of that production.

The more open a market becomes to the west, and the less control governments have over the oil production of these countries, the less control OPEC has over oil prices.

Straughn, you put too much emphasis on that one spectacular article. From what i remember (may be wrong seeing as its been a rough two months) i said that i considered myself more informed because i was experiencing. I was making the primary source. You are reading the tertiary source. There is a huge diffference. And too the issue of the thread, you are looking at potential motive, i am looking at actual evidence.
Actually, what i addressed you with first was the issue that a person who also has first-hand experience (7 years of military and the last ones the whole "war"), being Verdigroth, was providing you the challenge of qualifying your claims of special privy to information. What you provided, as he posted, was quite easily garnered through media outlets such as CNN. To anyone observing, that would disqualify you as a special or intimate source with info that can easily be gleaned by a quick google ref.
So it isn't a matter of me "reading the tertiary source", it's matter of someone with actual first-hand experience saying you haven't proven any more reliable than tertiary experience.
And instead of proving otherwise, as you'd claimed to do after your "absence", you have done no such thing.

As per the issue of the thread, plenty of other people are already on top of that argument.

Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.
Life must be very easy for you.

Time for the wisdom of Albert Einstein!
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.

So the coalition troops are compeltely clean of innocent blood.

Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.

Given that the coalition haven't even seen fit to keep a record of civilian casualties* how can you be so sure?



* "We don't do body counts."

Life must be very easy for you.

Time for the wisdom of Albert Einstein!
Einstein was good at physics, not warfare.

So the coalition troops are compeltely clean of innocent blood.
Of course not, but there was no intent to kill innocent but a forward policy to prevent it.

Given that the coalition haven't even seen fit to keep a record of civilian casualties how can you be so sure?

To be fair, the insurgents are far more indescriminate in their killing.

So, in your opinion the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was an illegal war, the Gulf War was a legal war, but the recent invasion of Iraq was illegal?

Right on.

Time for the wisdom of Albert Einstein!

Einstein was a genial mathematician, but nothing more. I guess he also thinks that the Allied involvement in WWII was just murder? Heck, who cares about the Jews? Let the Nazis kill them -- let's not go to war against them because it would be murder. And yes, the majority of Iraqis killed are done in by insurgents, terrorists, sectists, etc., and not American soldiers who are trying to maintain order and are risking their lives to do it.

Given that the coalition haven't even seen fit to keep a record of civilian casualties* how can you be so sure?



* "We don't do body counts."
Due to the fact that we engage fairly often and havn't incurred civilian casualties. However, in my 2 months in country so far, plenty civilians have been killed by insurgents and terrorists.

A side note to straughn- this kinda thing is what im talkin bout.

Uhh, we're not. We put our lives on the line everyday for those civilians.

No you are not.

You are doing your job for the US military whose job is to protect American interests. Now sometimes it may involve protecting civilians and sometimes it may not, depends upon what your interests are at that time.

Stop portraying it to be altruistic, because it is not.

Einstein was good at physics, not warfare.

If only every other human could say the same thing.

Einstein was good at physics, not warfare.

Surely the fact that he wasn't good at warfare is the whole point - he refused to take any part in it, so why on earth would he be good at it?

And Einstein was a thinking human being just like anyone else in the world - that gives him at least as much right to comment on issues of morality.

No you are not.

You are doing your job for the US military whose job is to protect American interests. Now sometimes it may involve protecting civilians and sometimes it may not, depends upon what your interests are at that time.

Stop portraying it to be altruistic, because it is not.
We are not protecting America here. We havn't had to do that for a very long time. To tell you the truth, i dont see a lot of americans that i would want to fight for. If you just look at our SOP that you will see that one of our main objectives is to win over the iraqi populace as a whole. That is not going to change.

Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.

Yes, because the US military has had no hand in killing, intentionally or not, civilians.

Here's something to think about: Were insurgents and terrorists killing civilians before the US invaded? No? Assuming the blatant obvious connection, the US is indirectly(or at times directly) responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in iraq.

Stop portraying it to be altruistic, because it is not.

Yeah, trying to save the lives of Iraqis and rebuild their country isn't altruistic. We can only aspire to be as good as you, Aryavartha, and let Iraq go to hell in a handbasket by inaction. The soldiers in Iraq are risking their lives to help people they don't even know, and for what? To be criticized by people who smoke pot and call them baby killers?

We are not protecting America here.

American interests, as seen by the administration. BIG difference.

If only that was even close to true.
Oh come on. You can't control the path of any bullet. The first ricochet, and it's all up to chance. At that point, the only question is why you are discharging a firearm in someone else's country. ;)

Surely the fact that he wasn't good at warfare is the whole point - he refused to take any part in it, so why on earth would he be good at it?

And Einstein was a thinking human being just like anyone else in the world - that gives him at least as much right to comment on issues of morality.
Sure he has the right but it doesn't make him correct. By his logic, we should have let hitler take the world to save a few lives. We should accept our situations and never try to better them. He made those comments from the safety of his comfy life. Not in that of someone who could benefit from war.

Einstein was good at physics, not warfare.
*Swoosh*
That was you, missing the point by miles.

The point is not warfare, the point is that some people prefer to give up their higher cognitive functions to follow orders. They are ordered what to think (for example, "the others" (tm) are the bad guys, we never do anything bad) and they do. And as such, there is quite an amount of wasted brain materials there.

As for the truth that the civilian killing is part of the US routine as well...
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
This source is a lot more trustworthy than pretty much anything that could ever come from the States.

Yeah, trying to save the lives of Iraqis and rebuild their country isn't altruistic. We can only aspire to be as good as you, Aryavartha, and let Iraq go to hell in a handbasket by inaction. The soldiers in Iraq are risking their lives to help people they don't even know, and for what? To be criticized by people who smoke pot and call them baby killers?

Really?

Take the amount of people that have died after the invasion and take a guess if it would have been the same if the invasion had not taken place or the aftermath was managed better than how it actually happened.

Oh and I have never smoked pot nor have even touched it. I would like to though...seeing how it would magically make me a hippy liberal...:D

A side note to straughn- this kinda thing is what im talkin bout.
Do you mean the person you're quoting, you're talking about, or the fact of civilian casulties by insurgents? Because i agree with Verdigroth there in the fact that i can easily get that from CNN or my daily dosage of Paul Harvey. It isn't special information. Is that what you're talking about? Please clarify.

By his logic, we should have let hitler take the world to save a few lives.
Nothing like justifying Iraq using Hitler, hey?

Yeah, trying to save the lives of Iraqis and rebuild their country isn't altruistic. We can only aspire to be as good as you, Aryavartha, and let Iraq go to hell in a handbasket by inaction. The soldiers in Iraq are risking their lives to help people they don't even know, and for what? To be criticized by people who smoke pot and call them baby killers?
And even to be criticized by people with no affiliation to either pastime.

Uhh, no i'm pretty sure it is the terrorists and insurgents doin the civilian killing. Strike that, i know it is.

Due to the fact that we engage fairly often and havn't incurred civilian casualties. However, in my 2 months in country so far, plenty civilians have been killed by insurgents and terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2904911.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,927148,00.html

By his logic, we should have let hitler take the world to save a few lives.

Which was exactly what we were doing, until hitler declared war on america. Nice analogy.

Oh come on. You can't control the path of any bullet. The first ricochet, and it's all up to chance. At that point, the only question is why you are discharging a firearm in someone else's country. ;)
1. Um i think that it is called aiming if im not mistaken

2. There aren't really many surfaces here where a bullet will get a great deal of ricochet off of. The bullet usually either goes into the dirt or skids across the surface when it hits the ground. Most bullets going at a building will get imbedded in the wall due to the structure of most middle eastern buildings.

3. I don't really think that it was their country when we came. More Saddam's and all his top level officials.

Sure he has the right but it doesn't make him correct. By his logic, we should have let hitler take the world to save a few lives. We should accept our situations and never try to better them. He made those comments from the safety of his comfy life. Not in that of someone who could benefit from war.

And you are correct? By his 'logic' Hitler should never have declared war on anyone. By his 'logic' mankind would never have gone to war at any point. By his 'logic' we would be free from agression to focus on higher, more noble things. Damn - seems like a real pisser of a world eh?

Gun-nuts:rolleyes: :p

Which was exactly what we were doing, until hitler declared war on america. Nice analogy.
Did i say that we were right to stay out of the conflict for that long. No.

Take the amount of people that have died after the invasion and take a guess if it would have been the same if the invasion had not taken place or the aftermath was managed better than how it actually happened.

I never said that the US wasn't indirectly for many civilian casualties. However, the soldiers themselves are not. They are trying to salvage the remnants of Iraq and rebuild the shattered country. Yes, the US started the war, which caused sectarian violence, which killed Iraqi civilians. I don't see where US soldiers fit in, however. They are trying to save those very same Iraqi civilians from being killed and are trying to protect them from the sectarian terrorists. Protest the war, the administration, etc., but not the soldiers. Their actions are noble and altruistic, and they deserve our respect.

I would like to though...seeing how it would magically make me a hippy liberal...:D

Of course. The active ingredient in marijuana is di-liberal oxide.

And you are correct? By his 'logic' Hitler should never have declared war on anyone. By his 'logic' mankind would never have gone to war at any point. By his 'logic' we would be free from agression to focus on higher, more noble things. Damn - seems like a real pisser of a world eh?

Gun-nuts:rolleyes: :p
That is never going to happen and you know it. By us refusing to go to war, we allow others to rule us. That is not acceptable.

Nothing like justifying Iraq using Hitler, hey?

No, more like disproving a stupid quote using Hitler, hey.

This is an example of what could be considered almost indoctrination. A phrase gets bandied around so much (in this case 'war for oil') that loads of people are acutally believing that its true. This article shows just how wrong that phrase is
As soon as Bush started sabre rattling with Iraq in 2001, many people, myself included, could see that oil would play a significant role, if not primary role, in any planned invasion. Many of the anti-war protestors in 2002, and 2003 waved signs to this effect.

http://www.bartcop.com/georgesays-oil-up.jpg

I was a "believer", long before you considered making this thread and long before the US invaded Iraq. More and, more people are waking up to that fact.

Edit: The residual benefits to families named Bush and Cheney are also noteworthy.

3. I don't really think that it was their country when we came. More Saddam's and all his top level officials.
Oh please. That wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in any court.

Did i say that we were right to stay out of the conflict for that long. No.

Nor did I say you did. My point was, these altruistic things don't happen. I can't think of one war which was ever waged to free a people, or bring democracy to a nation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2904911.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,927148,00.html

I would venture to blame these killings on terrorists and insurgents. You don't know what it is like to hear about a few guys who you were friends with being blown to bits by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint. After that, when a car refuses to stop after warning shots, you get a little trigger happy to preserve your life.

Nor did I say you did. My point was, these altruistic things don't happen. I can't think of one war which was ever waged to free a people, or bring democracy to a nation.
American revolution.

Of course. The active ingredient in marijuana is di-liberal oxide.
Perhaps (a poster) can end that happy libuhl-bashing bullsh*t so often employed by researching how many drug addicts resulted from the Vietnam incident, and (they)'ll shut the hell up about it.
But probably not.

Take the amount of people that have died after the invasion and take a guess if it would have been the same if the invasion had not taken place or the aftermath was managed better than how it actually happened.

How are we to figure in those deaths caused by sanctions put in place by the West prior to the invasion?

That is never going to happen and you know it. By us refusing to go to war, we allow others to rule us. That is not acceptable.

You don't have to actively invade countries to remain safe. Look at the vast majority of nations in the world; they aren't declaring war and attacking nations, and they stay safe.

Having a defensive military is great. Sad too, for the simple fact one is required. However, the vast majority of people are fine with a defensive military. Active, invading ones are much different.

American revolution.

Thats different. That wasn't a war to free people, it was a war to free themselves. No country has ever gone to war to free another group of people.

You don't have to actively invade countries to remain safe. Look at the vast majority of nations in the world; they aren't declaring war and attacking nations, and they stay safe.

Having a defensive military is great. Sad too, for the simple fact one is required. However, the vast majority of people are fine with a defensive military. Active, invading ones are much different.
Sorry if i made it seem that i was saying that in defense of OIF. I wasn't. I said it before, we havn't had to defend our country for a very long time.

I would venture to blame these killings on terrorists and insurgents.

So the deaths are the responsibility of insurgents who only started fighting becuase they got invaded by a set of foreign powers, yes?


You don't know what it is like to hear about a few guys who you were friends with being blown to bits by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint.

And you do?

After that, when a car refuses to stop after warning shots, you get a little trigger happy to preserve your life.

So, you would describe yourself as 'trigger happy' then?

You don't have to actively invade countries to remain safe. Look at the vast majority of nations in the world; they aren't declaring war and attacking nations, and they stay safe.

Having a defensive military is great. Sad too, for the simple fact one is required. However, the vast majority of people are fine with a defensive military. Active, invading ones are much different.
Case in point, how many people here actually believed that Saddam ruled America before we "so righteously" overthrew him and "liberated" his piece of dirt? The military actually believe that?

Thats different. That wasn't a war to free people, it was a war to free themselves. No country has ever gone to war to free another group of people.
France was in on it also.

No, more like disproving a stupid quote using Hitler, hey.
1) Quotes can't be "disproven".

2) You didn't do any such thing. As was said before, for your argument to work you'd have to assume that there was a difference between the Nazis and the people who fought the Nazis. If you consider war to be murder and not righteous, then there is no such difference and your argument breaks down.

3) You're still missing the point. The quote in this context was about the nature of the soldier's "mind", not the morality of any given war.

I would venture to blame these killings on terrorists and insurgents. You don't know what it is like to hear about a few guys who you were friends with being blown to bits by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint. After that, when a car refuses to stop after warning shots, you get a little trigger happy to preserve your life.

And again, if the US hadn't invaded iraq, this would all be a non-issue.

France was in on it also.

Yes, it was. Not to bring freedom to america; more to gain an ally in the free world, and deal a blow to the british empire at the same time.

Case in point, how many people here actually believed that Saddam ruled America before we "so righteously" overthrew him and "liberated" his piece of dirt? The military actually believe that?

Was this an error?

So the deaths are the responsibility of insurgents who only started fighting becuase they got invaded by a set of foreign powers, yes?
Like i have said before, war is only justifiable if for a greater good. They a fighting for a worse iraq. That is not justifiable.



And you do?
Yes.


So, you would describe yourself as 'trigger happy' then?
I've never killed a civilian. So i would have to say no.

Yes.

_______

I've never killed a civilian. So i would have to say no.

So, your earlier connection between the two doesn't hold?

You don't know what it is like to hear about a few guys who you were friends with being blown to bits by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint. After that, when a car refuses to stop after warning shots, you get a little trigger happy to preserve your life.

And again, if the US hadn't invaded iraq, this would all be a non-issue.
And again, if the insurgents and terrorists hadn't fought against the people they are supposedly fighting for, this would all be a non-issue.

So, your earlier connection between the two doesn't hold?
Just b/c i wasn't pulling the triggers doesn't mean that i wouldn't have.

Yes, it was. Not to bring freedom to america; more to gain an ally in the free world, and deal a blow to the british empire at the same time.
So you're gonna go ahead and assume motives again.

And again, if the insurgents and terrorists hadn't fought against the people they are supposedly fighting for, this would all be a non-issue.

It doesn't change the fact that america indirectly caused these deaths. I'm not defending terrorists or insurgents that kill civilians, but giving america is appropriate blame in the situation.

So you're gonna go ahead and assume motives again.

I'm going to "assume", based on the vast agreement by historians, yes. Sorry if I don't doubt everything that I don't have 100% proven fact of.

Was this an error?
No. Thank you for allowing me to redeem myself though, if that be the case. *bows*


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10909318&postcount=121
That is never going to happen and you know it. By us refusing to go to war, we allow others to rule us. That is not acceptable.
Put into context ....

So you're gonna go ahead and assume motives again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_Wars

After that, when a car refuses to stop after warning shots, you get a little trigger happy to preserve your life.


...of course making such a judgement depends on firing off the warning shots soon enough. "You just fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!", as the Captain in charge of one of the checkpoints said.

So, you blame the insurgents when the men on the ground consider themselves to have made at least two errors?

...of course making such a judgement depends on firing off the warning shots soon enough. "You just fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!", as the Captain in charge of one of the checkpoints said.

So, you blame the insurgents when the men on the ground consider themselves to have made at least two errors?
I seriously doubt that that quote was actually made seeing as a Captain is not in charge of a 15 man checkpoint.

I seriously doubt that that quote was actually made seeing as a Captain is not in charge of a 15 man checkpoint.
Oh come on, you should know better than anyone else that there is a time and a place for everything. You use what you've got at that moment in time.

I seriously doubt that that quote was actually made seeing as a Captain is not in charge of a 15 man checkpoint.

I'm just wondering how you know that this particular checkpoint was staffed by 15 people?

Certainly the official report makes no mention of the staffing level:

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=18

I'm just wondering how you know that this particular checkpoint was staffed by 15 people?

Certainly the official report makes no mention of the staffing level:

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=18
Remember what USMC leathernecks was saying about their proxy to highly sensitive information, and what they can get that the average "civ" can't get ... :rolleyes:

Oh come on, you should know better than anyone else that there is a time and a place for everything. You use what you've got at that moment in time.
That sounds familiar ...

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Rummy

That sounds familiar ...

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Rummy
My grandfather commanded a brigade when his rank only permitted command of a battalion, while the big cheeses were lost or stuck in a traffic jam. The paper soldiering with all the hierarchies and nice orderly columns of numbers, goes out of the window the moment you have to do something for real.

My grandfather commanded a brigade when his rank only permitted command of a battalion, while the big cheeses were lost or stuck in a traffic jam. The paper soldiering with all the hierarchies and nice orderly columns of numbers, goes out of the window the moment you have to do something for real.
As i understand it, that's the whole point of spending so much time with pointed cadence and structure of command on base. Until you've ranked, of course.
Like any reflex, it's to be conditioned for the right response (if possible) so that there really doesn't need to be much thinking. Therefore if you can't keep your cool, you follow the commander who is supposed to.

Of course, as you say, mortal peril puts everything in a different light.

I'm just wondering how you know that this particular checkpoint was staffed by 15 people?

Certainly the official report makes no mention of the staffing level:

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=18

I thought it was common knowledge that you don't staff a checkpoint with a company or even a platoon. 15 people is usually the max amount of people at a checkpoint. And the quote that report:In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime, the soldiers exercised considerable restraint to avoid the unnecessary loss of life. Just thought that that needed to be emphasized.

But the oil supplies aren't unreliable. Even though the price is steadily increasing, buying oil would be much more profitable than going to war for it, both in the long run and in the short run.

I understand that Saddam wanted/threatened to shift the trading currency from the US dollar to the Euro. That would have been a big hit to the US oil trading practice I think.

Besides, when you buy oil, the seller can always choose to sell it to another person. Looking at the growth of China and India, it's easy to see where they could send their goods to as opposed to the US. Even with the sanctions going.

Invading and controlling the oil fields however, ensures that only your hands get to be in the cookie jar.

So from a strategic sense, yes, the invasion did involve oil as one of its goals.

I thought it was common knowledge that you don't staff a checkpoint with a company or even a platoon.

So, the entire eyewitness report from an embedded reporter is little more than an outright fabrication?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61229-2003Mar31?language=printer

I never said that the US wasn't indirectly for many civilian casualties. However, the soldiers themselves are not. They are trying to salvage the remnants of Iraq and rebuild the shattered country. Yes, the US started the war, which caused sectarian violence, which killed Iraqi civilians. I don't see where US soldiers fit in, however. They are trying to save those very same Iraqi civilians from being killed and are trying to protect them from the sectarian terrorists. Protest the war, the administration, etc., but not the soldiers. Their actions are noble and altruistic, and they deserve our respect.

I am not disrespecting the American soldiers there. But I also do not agree that their motives are altruistic and actions noble.

Yeah, saving a civilian is noble and great and all. But I believe in nobility in both the ends and the means. When the ends is protecting American interests, the means are not noble although an individual soldier might do good things in his daily life in Iraq.

correctomondo. The war in Iraq was not for oil. It was to scapegoat Saddam for the sep 11 terrorist attacks.

correctomondo. The war in Iraq was not for oil. It was to scapegoat Saddam for the sep 11 terrorist attacks.
While, of course, refusing to pursue Osama bin Laden ...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
-Both OBVIOUSLY Shrubya

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1018.gif

:In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime...

Err... You might want to expand on what terrorist attacks the Iraqi [b]regime[/b[ commited.