10 of 10
10
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 11 July 2013 04:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26

Bryan,

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Bushes are an oil family and have a long history in the oil industry. Cheney was an executive in the largest well drilling company in the world. The “Halliburton Loophole” is specifically important for well drilling operations.
Their knowledge of the dwindling supplies of oil was probably deeper and more detailed than anyone else in the country at that time and yes, GW may have had an extra incentive to teach Hussein a lesson as an example not to mess with the US.  Kinda like the “shock and awe” campaign.

In fact, it would have been justifiable to go to war for securing a vast oil resource from a madman and for the nation’s security. At least that would be an honest declaration. As Vyazma said, the oil for food program was an attempt to use Iraqi oil in exchange for food, not money.

Not only did Wolfowitz declare in an aside comment that “the oil will pay for the war”, but later this comment had to be publicly rescinded and clearly restated that the US would not expect any oil compensation for the war.

IMO, WMD (and it’s inevitable billowing mushroom cloud) was just a better PR vehicle as it was an acceptable cause for UN participation, where any mention of oil would have isolated the US from the rest of the world immediately. Of course, the UN (as well as Congress) believed the scrubbed CIA data (again with oversight from Cheney himself).

Even a five star general was misled into testifying that those aluminum pipes he held up in front of the world, were the smoking gun proving Hussein was at least planning nuclear capability. Later this great general resigned, I am sure without being asked.
I find it strange that no nuclear physicist inspected these aluminum pipes for nuclear suitability before certifying their authenticity? Or was that also scrubbed? It seems inconceivable that no inspection and analysis was performed prior to deciding yes, that’s the key evidence. WMDs!!!

It makes sense that we have a National security interest in any oil rich country. The liberation of Kuwait is a clear example. But I ask, who would dare use a nuclear weapon on another country?  Everyone, including the most deranged dictator knows that that would mean suicide.

But everyone bought the WMD sales pitch, except the ones making the pitch. There was a small clip of GW at an exclusive dinner party, where he was looking under tables and chairs, and jokingly smirked, “No, no WMDs here”. I got sick to my stomach when I heard that callous remark about an imaginary great national cause, which cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives.

You bet it was about oil. Everything today is about oil, everything! The worlds economy is literally fueled by oil. That has been known a long time by the oil industry. They are no fools. But we still have shrill uneducated voices yell “drill baby drill” as if that is the answer to all our woes.

War is the business of the military industrial complex and Oil provides the capability.

[ Edited: 11 July 2013 05:37 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 11 July 2013 04:52 AM

Bryan,

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Bushes are an oil family and have a long history in the oil industry. Cheney was an executive in the largest well drilling company in the world. The “Halliburton Loophole” is specifically important for well drilling operations.

I don’t see how either factoid affects the reasoning behind the Iraq War.  Explain the importance of remembering them.

Their knowledge of the dwindling supplies of oil was probably deeper and more detailed than anyone else in the country at that time and yes, GW may have had an extra incentive to teach Hussein a lesson as an example not to mess with the US.  Kinda like the “shock and awe” campaign.

Why does that make more sense than teaching Iraq a lesson for not hewing to its UN-brokered ceasefire agreement and a host of UN resolutions, many of them pertaining to Iraq’s responsibility to destroy its stockpiles of WMD?

In fact, it would have been justifiable to go to war for securing a vast oil resource from a madman and for the nation’s security. At least that would be an honest declaration. As Vyazma said, the oil for food program was an attempt to use Iraqi oil in exchange for food, not money.

Where is Iraq supposed to get money when it already owes billions to France and Russia as well as to other governments?  You haven’t really been following this argument, have you?  Iraq has one way to pay for stuff:  Oil.

Not only did Wolfowitz declare in an aside comment that “the oil will pay for the war”, but later this comment had to be publicly rescinded and clearly restated that the US would not expect any oil compensation for the war.

Made-up quotations are fun, aren’t they?

Provide a real quotation and then it’s worth discussing.

IMO, WMD (and it’s inevitable billowing mushroom cloud) was just a better PR vehicle as it was an acceptable cause for UN participation, where any mention of oil would have isolated the US from the rest of the world immediately. Of course, the UN (as well as Congress) believed the scrubbed CIA data (again with oversight from Cheney himself).

And now we conveniently ignore the fact that the intelligence services of all of our allies (including France) agreed with the assessment that Iraq had WMD?  What was France’s interest in supporting the myth?

Even a five star general was misled into testifying that those aluminum pipes he held up in front of the world, were the smoking gun proving Hussein was at least planning nuclear capability. Later this great general resigned, I am sure without being asked.

The Duelfer Report concludes that Hussein continually planned to pursue nuclear capability.  And it’s normal for a Secretary of State (that’s the role Powell filled in the Bush administration) to resign without being asked.

I find it strange that no nuclear physicist inspected these aluminum pipes for nuclear suitability before certifying their authenticity? Or was that also scrubbed? It seems inconceivable that no inspection and analysis was performed prior to deciding yes, that’s the key evidence. WMDs!!!

A nuclear physicist probably wouldn’t have the engineering know-how to judge the suitability of a tube for use in a centrifuge.  And even a suitable expert on engineering is relying on judgment, because sometimes ad hoc engineering works better than expected.  At the bottom line, the imported tubes were on a proscribed list of import items.  Iraq knew it was bringing in something it wasn’t allowed to have.  At best, Iraq was (innocently!) importing tubes for military rockets or missiles.

It makes sense that we have a National security interest in any oil rich country. The liberation of Kuwait is a clear example. But I ask, who would dare use a nuclear weapon on another country?  Everyone, including the most deranged dictator knows that that would mean suicide.

Ever heard of asymmetrical warfare?

But everyone bought the WMD sales pitch, except the ones making the pitch.

Obviously?

You bet it was about oil. Everything today is about oil, everything! The worlds economy is literally fueled by oil. That has been known a long time by the oil industry. They are no fools. But we still have shrill uneducated voices yell “drill baby drill” as if that is the answer to all our woes.

Look, we’ve been over this part of the discussion already.  The U.S. was getting more oil from Iraq under OFF than it got afterward.  And there’s no reason not to let Hussein sell the oil just like anybody else unless he represents a security threat.  It’s not just about the oil.  It’s about how abjectly stupid it would be to allow a power-mad dictator to secure all the oil he’d ever need to power his war machine, and about making sure no entity engaging in asymmetrical warfare was able to act on his behalf.  As pointed out above, the Bush administration apparently in every way lived up to its promise to leave the fate of Iraq’s oil resources up to the people of Iraq, as expressed through their democratic system of government.

War is the business of the military industrial complex and Oil provides the capability.

But not in Saddam Hussein’s case.  He was a genuinely nice guy.  Why were we harassing the poor man?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Bryan isn’t debating, he’s simply baiting. Playing naive and diminishing other people’s capacity to reason without cause is part of his strategy. He’s already skimmed over all the relevant evidence in this thread, ignoring what he didn’t like and attacked frivolously to insignificant issues. His attacks are a reflection of his own faulty reasoning. It’s psychological, not logical. And no, I’m not trying to insult you, Bryan. I just think you either need to step back and take a breath or play fair. You obviously have some emotional bondage to the right-wing philosophy that’s affecting you.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 11 July 2013 11:22 AM

And no, I’m not trying to insult you, Bryan. I just think you either need to step back and take a breath or play fair. You obviously have some emotional bondage to the right-wing philosophy that’s affecting you.

Regardless of what you’re “trying” to do, your argument perfectly fits the pattern of the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.  You use the personal attack to dress up a superficial attack on the substance of my argument.  Supposedly I’m skipping over evidence (no examples).

You accuse me of diminishing other people’s ability to reason “without cause”—again without evidence.  With VYAZMA I allowed him to demonstrate with examples his willingness to interpret all evidence in support of his claim (oil and vinegar salad dressing potentially supports his claim that Iraq was a war for oil).  No problem with that reasoning, IYO?

In Write4U’s case, I’m doing what you claim to do in this post, point out evidences skipped over—except I actually give examples.  And you attack me for it.  Because I’m supposedly not debating but simply baiting.  Cute.  Maybe I’d win points for principled debate from you if I used your techniques.  I’d simply tell Write4U that he’s skipping over evidence without giving him any examples.  True debate, Scott Mayers’ style.  Or is it necessary to throw in a bit of psychologizing?  You tell me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 11 July 2013 10:54 AM
Write4U - 11 July 2013 04:52 AM

Bryan,

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Bushes are an oil family and have a long history in the oil industry. Cheney was an executive in the largest well drilling company in the world. The “Halliburton Loophole” is specifically important for well drilling operations.

I don’t see how either factoid affects the reasoning behind the Iraq War.  Explain the importance of remembering them.

A vested interest in the oil in the region.

Their knowledge of the dwindling supplies of oil was probably deeper and more detailed than anyone else in the country at that time and yes, GW may have had an extra incentive to teach Hussein a lesson as an example not to mess with the US.  Kinda like the “shock and awe” campaign.

Why does that make more sense than teaching Iraq a lesson for not hewing to its UN-brokered ceasefire agreement and a host of UN resolutions, many of them pertaining to Iraq’s responsibility to destroy its stockpiles of WMD?


It had, the UN could not find any WMD activity. The conclusion was that the facilitie were mobile and hard to trace, speculation at best.

In fact, it would have been justifiable to go to war for securing a vast oil resource from a madman and for the nation’s security. At least that would be an honest declaration. As Vyazma said, the oil for food program was an attempt to use Iraqi oil in exchange for food, not money.

Where is Iraq supposed to get money when it already owes billions to France and Russia as well as to other governments?  You haven’t really been following this argument, have you?  Iraq has one way to pay for stuff:  Oil.

Wolfie stated “pay for the war”

Not only did Wolfowitz declare in an aside comment that “the oil will pay for the war”, but later this comment had to be publicly rescinded and clearly restated that the US would not expect any oil compensation for the war.

Made-up quotations[/url] are fun, aren’t they?


Yes as long as they are true.

from the record,

Rove’s claim is simply not true. In fact, days after the U.S. invasion, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for reconstructing the country, i.e. a cost of the war. “The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,” he said.

Another underestimation of the true cost of the war by about 800 billion and its duration by about 10 years. Why are you so apologetic?

IMO, WMD (and it’s inevitable billowing mushroom cloud) was just a better PR vehicle as it was an acceptable cause for UN participation, where any mention of oil would have isolated the US from the rest of the world immediately. Of course, the UN (as well as Congress) believed the scrubbed CIA data (again with oversight from Cheney himself).

And now we conveniently ignore the fact that the intelligence services of all of our allies (including France) agreed with the assessment that Iraq had WMD?  What was France’s interest in supporting the myth?

From what information?  There weren’t any WMD. We looked before during and after the war. There were no WMD. Where this this certainty that the were WMD come from?

Even a five star general was misled into testifying that those aluminum pipes he held up in front of the world, were the smoking gun proving Hussein was at least planning nuclear capability. Later this great general resigned, I am sure without being asked.

The Duelfer Report concludes that Hussein continually planned to pursue nuclear capability.  And it’s normal for a Secretary of State (that’s the role Powell filled in the Bush administration) to resign without being asked.

Usually it is normal, this one was not after the scandal.

I find it strange that no nuclear physicist inspected these aluminum pipes for nuclear suitability before certifying their authenticity? Or was that also scrubbed? It seems inconceivable that no inspection and analysis was performed prior to deciding yes, that’s the key evidence. WMDs!!!

A nuclear physicist probably wouldn’t have the engineering know-how to judge the suitability of a tube for use in a centrifuge.  And even a suitable expert on engineering is relying on judgment, because sometimes ad hoc engineering works better than expected.  At the bottom line, the imported tubes were on a proscribed list of import items.  Iraq knew it was bringing in something it wasn’t allowed to have.  At best, Iraq was (innocently!) importing tubes for military rockets or missiles.

Oh we are down to makeshift WMD now? Iraq cannot import aluminum pipes? Where does it say that?

It makes sense that we have a National security interest in any oil rich country. The liberation of Kuwait is a clear example. But I ask, who would dare use a nuclear weapon on another country?  Everyone, including the most deranged dictator knows that that would mean suicide.

Ever heard of asymmetrical warfare?

This was not an asymmetrical war. It was a war against a sovereign country with a standing army.

But everyone bought the WMD sales pitch, except the ones making the pitch.

Obviously?

Obviously we went to war without verifiable intelligence that Iraq had WMD.  That’s a fact no?

You bet it was about oil. Everything today is about oil, everything! The worlds economy is literally fueled by oil. That has been known a long time by the oil industry. They are no fools. But we still have shrill uneducated voices yell “drill baby drill” as if that is the answer to all our woes.

Look, we’ve been over this part of the discussion already.  The U.S. was getting more oil from Iraq under OFF than it got afterward.  And there’s no reason not to let Hussein sell the oil just like anybody else unless he represents a security threat.  It’s not just about the oil.  It’s about how abjectly stupid it would be to allow a power-mad dictator to secure all the oil he’d ever need to power his war machine, and about making sure no entity engaging in asymmetrical warfare was able to act on his behalf.  As pointed out above, the Bush administration apparently in every way lived up to its promise to leave the fate of Iraq’s oil resources up to the people of Iraq, as expressed through their democratic system of government.

Yes, including making fasle statement before the UN.

War is the business of the military industrial complex and Oil provides the capability.

But not in Saddam Hussein’s case.  He was a genuinely nice guy.  Why were we harassing the poor man?

For his oil!

[ Edited: 11 July 2013 05:17 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 10
10