4 of 10
4
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 05 July 2013 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 28 June 2013 11:31 AM

There’s been discussion as to how and why we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the justification was, objectively the ends justified the means.
Whoaaa they say!  That’s awful!
We invaded Iraq for oil.  Elementary. Everyone knows this.
There are growing sphere’s of influence in the world that are unique to history. At least back until the time of trade with China and wooden ships.
At that time China was a pretty big player in World Trade. So was India. India was different..she was always subjugated by foreign powers.(Persia, Britain etc.)
China after being relegated to a non-player in world trade and undergoing her own internal and external problems(Opium Wars, Spice Wars, Wars with Russia, wars with Japan, wars with the US. Sectarian conflict etc..) just kind of fell off the map.  Disappeared. 
India too was ravished and left to her own devices economically.
Not anymore.
Now contrary to what many people might think about Global trade and world unity, these powers are growing.
Like I have said many times in other threads, we have begun to feel the effects of their growth.
If you’re a Wall St investor, you’re feeling the effects short term in the present growth of those 2 economies.  You are making a bundle.
If you are a worker in Europe or the US not so much…
Iraq was a great ally of the US as much of the Middle East was…for oil. We all know this.
The Middle East, although we wouldn’t know this because we only pay attention to Israeli-Middle east conflicts and occasional Muslim Terrorist news splashes actually has their own economic destiny unfolding in real time.
IE, they too are feeling the crunch of those 2 superpowers. Others too.(the whole world is brewing up.)
If you don’t think that China or Russia or India doesn’t have designs on Middle Eastern Oil you had better wake up.
And it isn’t about globally traded shares of oil. It isn’t about Shell or Exxon. It’s not about who is communist or who is capitalist. Who’s a democracy and who is a dictatorship. It’s about who exerts control over those oil rich areas.
Who’s willing to placate or subjugate the Middle East most effectively-that’s what it’s about.
Obviously deep seated strategic policy analysts for decades have known these times were coming.  I’m sure this was all predicted after WWII.
Plans were being discussed then. There’s no doubt about it.
Now many of you can have expressions like…“Well we need alternate energy sources!” “We can all get along!”  “Oil is traded publicly-there’s no need to fight over it”. 
That’s all irrelevant.  And most of it is wrong. Because long term oil strategic planning doesn’t take into account Markets, peace, or alternate energy sources.
it takes into account SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. Wrong or right…that’s the facts.
Now I will end this by taking on a character….
Ned Beatty in “Network” talking to Howard Beale in the conference room…
Every single person on this Forum and friends and family of everyone you know, has their veins awash in oil.
Your blood is made out of oil! Your life is oil.

Give up using it, then.  Let us know how you get on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 12:00 PM

You clearly placed the statement with reference to the terrorism’s tactical advantage within the context that suggests that they use a technology and tactical advantage. If you didn’t mean this, the sentence is inappropriately placed.


That doesn’t follow.  I mentioned the historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks.  Your criticism crosses the border into pedantry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 12:00 PM

I wish you and others would stop accusing one another of being conspiracy theorists as the term, conspiracy, can describe logically any two or more people decided to act in some way together that opposes any other outsider group. I urge those who choose this to attempt to prove that no conspiracy theory is even possible before they assume that someone else is being irrational. The term is a relative term. In contexts to skepticism, we usually apply “conspiracy theorists” to refer to people who claim conspiracies with dubious possible claims, not real ones. If you believe a false claim of conspiracy has been made, you must show why merely labeling it with the associative conspiracy [dubious] theories should be made.

Of course real conspiracies exist.  Watergate was a conspiracy.  9/11 was a conspiracy, albeit among the 20 hijackers (only 19 made it on the planes) and their al-Q’aeda handlers of bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and perhaps some others.  It was not a conspiracy among Jews or Bush, etc.  “Conspiracy Theory” as used in the skeptic movement is usually taken to mean paranoid and unfounded theories that are irrational.  For example, the claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States is a conspiracy theory.  It is paranoid, irrational and unfounded.  Likewise with the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy (or that he wasn’t the only shooter.)  Ditto for the CT that the Moon landings were faked.  The claim that the Iraq war was for oil also fits the definition.  What did the Skeptoid article I posted on the first page of this thread file the claim under?  Conspiracies!  If the OP opposes the war, fine.  That’s their right.  Call it wrong.  Call it evil.  Call it stupid.  Call it a mistake.  But don’t call it a war for oil.  That’s a conspiracy theory.  And me calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory (as thousands of skeptics use the term all the time) is not an ad hominem.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Lois-Give up using it, then.  Let us know how you get on.

Lois, do you see yourself as being able to follow the threads flow of discussion in the near future?
I know you have mix-ups in other threads…
I also notice you like to “crow” alot.  Try coming up with something useful for comments.
Please?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

*  Enforce UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687.

OK, do you have the Votes on that?  What countries voted yes and what countries voted no?
Real important!  Very relevant.

*  Oust Saddam Hussein and his regime.

Yeah.

*  Eliminate any WMDs Hussein may have had. 

That would be an obvious objective if one is invading another’s country.

*  Help create a free Iraq so not only can its people have a chance at better lives, but to lessen the possibility of Islamic terrorists from Middle-Eastern nations setting up shop there.

How did that work out?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

I’m not talking about invading Iraq like the Germans invaded the Caucuses for oil.
It’s not that simple.  If you think oil wasn’t considered in the whole deal you are naive.
I thought we were up to speed on this?
If Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable than we attacked to stabilize Iraq. And Iraq was becoming unstable due to sanctions.  UN sanctions.
The last thing we needed was an unstable Iraq, considering long term oil supplies and the shakiness of that region. Period!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 01:17 PM

Lois-Give up using it, then.  Let us know how you get on.

Lois, do you see yourself as being able to follow the threads flow of discussion in the near future?
I know you have mix-ups in other threads…
I also notice you like to “crow” alot.  Try coming up with something useful for comments.
Please?

Do you see yourself as able to follow a line of reasoning? I know you have failed in this time and again on other threads.

Try coming up with something rational for a change instead of the ignorance you espouse. 

I always know when I’ve made some points you can’t respond to because your next post will contain an ad hominem attack. It’s the perfect indication that you’ve lost the debate and have no rational argument.


Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 01:30 PM

I’m not talking about invading Iraq like the Germans invaded the Caucuses for oil.

Your opening line lent itself to that impression.

It’s not that simple.  If you think oil wasn’t considered in the whole deal you are naive.

Of course oil was considered.  Hopefully everything was considered.  But considering the world oil supply is not the same as invading Iraq for oil.  Is it?

I thought we were up to speed on this?

To whom do you address that question?

If Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable than we attacked to stabilize Iraq. And Iraq was becoming unstable due to sanctions.  UN sanctions.
The last thing we needed was an unstable Iraq, considering long term oil supplies and the shakiness of that region. Period!

Iraq’s unstable now.  It’s not a candidate for a U.S. attack, and wouldn’t be even if Geoge W. Bush was now serving his fourth consecutive term.  Instead, we’ve probably have a status of forces agreement in place that kept sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to lend stability until Iraq itself is more stable and adequately able to defend itself from its neighbors.

Iraq was led by a crazy guy very interested in developing WMD with which to strike at neighbors, domestics (Kurds and other problem groups) and potentially U.S. targets.  Or provide those materials to entities that would conduct such attacks while providing plausible deniability to the Hussein regime.  The war was about security.  It was not a war for oil, though oil played a role in the overall Middle East strategy.  Regardless of our relatively poor diplomatic relationship with Iraq, we can live with Iraq’s decisions about who gets its oil because the regime is not nearly the type of risk to security that Hussein’s regime represented.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 01:24 PM

How did that work out?

The situation is improved, although not as good as it could have been with better diplomacy from the U.S. side.  With a status of forces agreement in effect there’s a good chance Sunni extremism could have remained tamped down successfully.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 05 July 2013 12:51 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 12:00 PM

You clearly placed the statement with reference to the terrorism’s tactical advantage within the context that suggests that they use a technology and tactical advantage. If you didn’t mean this, the sentence is inappropriately placed.


That doesn’t follow.  I mentioned the historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks.  Your criticism crosses the border into pedantry.

It doesn’t bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.

Rocinante - 05 July 2013 01:12 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 12:00 PM

I wish you and others would stop accusing one another of being conspiracy theorists as the term, conspiracy, can describe logically any two or more people decided to act in some way together that opposes any other outsider group. I urge those who choose this to attempt to prove that no conspiracy theory is even possible before they assume that someone else is being irrational. The term is a relative term. In contexts to skepticism, we usually apply “conspiracy theorists” to refer to people who claim conspiracies with dubious possible claims, not real ones. If you believe a false claim of conspiracy has been made, you must show why merely labeling it with the associative conspiracy [dubious] theories should be made.

Of course real conspiracies exist.  Watergate was a conspiracy.  9/11 was a conspiracy, albeit among the 20 hijackers (only 19 made it on the planes) and their al-Q’aeda handlers of bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and perhaps some others.  It was not a conspiracy among Jews or Bush, etc.  “Conspiracy Theory” as used in the skeptic movement is usually taken to mean paranoid and unfounded theories that are irrational.  For example, the claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States is a conspiracy theory.  It is paranoid, irrational and unfounded.  Likewise with the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy (or that he wasn’t the only shooter.)  Ditto for the CT that the Moon landings were faked.  The claim that the Iraq war was for oil also fits the definition.  What did the Skeptoid article I posted on the first page of this thread file the claim under?  Conspiracies!  If the OP opposes the war, fine.  That’s their right.  Call it wrong.  Call it evil.  Call it stupid.  Call it a mistake.  But don’t call it a war for oil.  That’s a conspiracy theory.  And me calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory (as thousands of skeptics use the term all the time) is not an ad hominem.

You are missing the point. “Conspiracy Theory” has become a derogatory statement for those people who argue claims that the one who uses the term presumes has no rational grounds. As a fair skeptic, I think that one cannot presume another persons position as untenable by simply classifying it as, a “Conspiracy Theory”, without either a rational argument to prove it or asking questions of another to determine their reasoning. Everything’s not black or white…especially in social aspects. It is also irrelevant that some author got published presenting the view that a search for oil is a “Conspiracy Theory” on this site.

As it relates to this topic, I ask you and Bryan why it is so absurd to presume that the war in Iraq did not have anything to do with oil? First, tell me how such thinking is impossible. If you think that something is impossible to rationalize, what is this evidence? How I’m hearing it is like a parent who defends their child by claiming, “He could not possibly do such a thing. It is just not in him.” While this statement could be true, the court would require a justification for the claim that something is impossible for anyone, or why this parent feels that their is an exception for their child.
  I also asked, but did not get a response to why, even presuming Iraq had nothing to do with oil, how do you claim the particular interest in Iraq over other countries who needed America’s help more?

 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: 05 July 2013 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 03:41 PM

It doesn’t bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.

Meaning what?  Explain yourself in feedback.

As it relates to this topic, I ask you and Bryan why it is so absurd to presume that the war in Iraq did not have anything to do with oil?


It’s not absurd to presume the war in Iraq had something to do with oil.  It’s absurd to state or imply that the war in Iraq was conducted primarily to preserve access to oil.  That argument makes no sense.

First, tell me how such thinking is impossible.

I don’t see the point of the request, apart from doing damage to a straw man.

If you think that something is impossible to rationalize, what is this evidence?


I’ve already stated that the U.S. had an interest in preserving market access to ME oil (including Iraq’s).  But it doesn’t matter who gets it under those conditions.  There’s no need to “control” the oil, as one person put it.  The aim is to keep oil receipts from flowing into the pockets of entities that pose a security threat such as Saddam Hussein.

How I’m hearing it is like a parent who defends their child by claiming, “He could not possibly do such a thing. It is just not in him.” While this statement could be true, the court would require a justification for the claim that something is impossible for anyone, or why this parent feels that their is an exception for their child.

I’m not sure how you’re managing to succeed in overlooking the alternative you’ve been offered.  The primary reason for intervention in Iraq was security, not oil.  Perhaps I can dream up a suitably derogatory analogy to illustrate the point.  But then again maybe I don’t feel like doing that.

I also asked, but did not get a response to why, even presuming Iraq had nothing to do with oil, how do you claim the particular interest in Iraq over other countries who needed America’s help more?

What could be easier?

We had documented evidence of Iraq’s history of producing dangerous WMD along with a long history of defying UN resolutions and the terms of the UN-brokered ceasefire that occurred after the Desert Storm invasion.  No other nation that encourages terrorist activity could have garnered more international support for regime change (taking into account the fact that dealing with Afghanistan was already underway).  Three nations prevented strong UN support for prompt action against Iraq:  China, France and Russia.  The latter two can have their reluctance traced directly to the large amount of money they were owed by Iraq.  Iraq purchased the vast bulk of its armaments from France and Russia on credit.  For some reason many people think the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein.  Not true.  We armed Iran (when it was controlled by the Shah) and only reluctantly helped Iraq in its long war against Iran when Iran was on the verge of overrunning Baghdad.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Your opening line lent itself to that impression.

I thought I had laid down a basic dynamic.  I always tend to simplify, hoping people can draw conclusions based on my broad strokes.
I’m usually wrong about that.  No, obviously I didn’t mean that WWII scenario type invasion.
I had expressed somewhere that sometimes countries attack to stabilize and secure resources that are already at hand.

Of course oil was considered.  Hopefully everything was considered.  But considering the world oil supply is not the same as invading Iraq for oil.  Is it?

Considering how the Iraqi Oil supply fits into the World oil supply is closer to the mark.

To whom do you address that question?

Rocinante, who I originally started this discussion with.  He’s the one I thought would be up to speed on my brief descriptions of the various ways in which
nations will protect or procure resources.  These ways are complicated, I’m not going to go into the many layers of strategy and allied interests and spheres of influence etc etc…This is why I thought we could be up to speed on the general ideas behind these dynamics. 

Iraq’s unstable now.  It’s not a candidate for a U.S. attack, and wouldn’t be even if Geoge W. Bush was now serving his fourth consecutive term.  Instead, we’ve probably have a status of forces agreement in place that kept sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to lend stability until Iraq itself is more stable and adequately able to defend itself from its neighbors.

I believe the SOFA is no longer valid…in fact I know it isn’t. They cancelled that. The Iraqis did. I’m 99% sure of that.

Iraq was led by a crazy guy very interested in developing WMD with which to strike at neighbors, domestics (Kurds and other problem groups) and potentially U.S. targets.  Or provide those materials to entities that would conduct such attacks while providing plausible deniability to the Hussein regime.  The war was about security.  It was not a war for oil, though oil played a role in the overall Middle East strategy.  Regardless of our relatively poor diplomatic relationship with Iraq, we can live with Iraq’s decisions about who gets its oil because the regime is not nearly the type of risk to security that Hussein’s regime represented.

Well like me you can paint with broad strokes..that’s fine. Like many I’m not convinced of the whole WMD story.  After all there was no evidence of WMDs of any kind discovered.  And as far as security goes..well that goes hand in hand with oil.  You know this. You’ve said as much in this last paragraph.

All in all, surprisingly I think we are closer to an understanding than any disagreement here…If you feel differently..fire away.
I think the topic is pretty wide ranging and complex for a brief discussion here.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 12:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 06 July 2013 12:15 AM

Considering how the Iraqi Oil supply fits into the World oil supply is closer to the mark.

Invading Iraq for oil?

Broad brushstrokes.  Hmmm.  It’s worth pointing out that you drew provisional agreement from a poster on the basis of U.S. imperialism.

I believe the SOFA is no longer valid…in fact I know it isn’t. They cancelled that. The Iraqis did. I’m 99% sure of that.

You’re right.  I had a typo in my statement that may have confused your understanding of what I was saying.  The Iraqis negotiated hard with Obama on a new SOFA.  Foreign policy analysts judged that al-Maliki needed to appear against the continued U.S. presence to appeal to the average Iraqi.  On the other hand, Iraq didn’t have a military capable of providing adequate security.  I’m judging that President Obama didn’t have much interest in preserving the U.S. presence in Iraq (kind of undermines his “end the war” promise) and that a different president would have been tougher in getting adequate concessions from al-Maliki while leaving him some populist credibility.  Long story shorter, we’d have a SOFA today that kept forces in Iraq capable of responding to terrorists.

I’m not convinced of the whole WMD story.  After all there was no evidence of WMDs of any kind discovered.

There’s not a bit of doubt that Iraq produced large quantities of WMD.  The only question is what happened to them.  Most of it was apparently destroyed without the documentation called for in the ceasefire agreement.  Stupid?  Incompetent?  Crazy like a fox?  The Duelfer Report, iirc, said Hussein wanted Iran and other hostile neighbors to think he still had WMD.  That’s a hard impression to sustain while documenting for the UN that you’ve destroyed your WMD.  So Iran was supposed to believe that Iraq had WMD but many liberals seem to think it was never plausible that Iraq still had such weapons.

Hussein could only win that game long term if no nation of the West was willing to call him on his failure to live up to the ceasefire agreement.

And as far as security goes..well that goes hand in hand with oil.  You know this. You’ve said as much in this last paragraph.

Many people think that the Iraq War really was directly about gaining control of Iraq’s oil resources.  Your post played strongly to that belief, whether or not it was your intention.  Most of your subsequent clarifying statements are reasonable, but they also tend to make your opening statement look like some form of hyperbole.  It’s appropriate for you to walk it back a few steps.

All in all, surprisingly I think we are closer to an understanding than any disagreement here…

If we can’t enter an argument without at least some hope of finding common ground then it seems pointless to try.  grin

Oil’s a big part of the picture in terms of international security and multiple national interests.  But it’s not the reason the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein.  I covered some of the multiple reasons for acting against Iraq when we did in another very recent post.  Iraq had largely accomplished on its own one of the Bismarckian requirements for the successful use of war as a political tool:  Political isolation.  Iraq’s history of belligerence and interest in WMD technologies were essential elements of the decision to wage war on Iraq.  Oil was not an essential element.  Iraq could have been more barren of oil than Afghanistan and still drawn the same attention from the U.S. at the same point in history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 02:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Invading Iraq for oil?

Broad brushstrokes.  Hmmm.  It’s worth pointing out that you drew provisional agreement from a poster on the basis of U.S. imperialism.

Where did I mention imperialism?  In any event I clarified my intention of the original post.  Are you going to keep bringing that up?
I don’t understand what you mean by “provisional agreement from a poster…”
Again I didn’t mention any imperialism. That’s probably you reading too much into that because your used to countering those arguments.
We invaded Iraq to make sure a stable, friendly regime was in place to ensure future oil contracts. If you want to call that “getting rid of a crazy man, that’s ok”


I’m judging that President Obama didn’t have much interest in preserving the U.S. presence in Iraq (kind of undermines his “end the war” promise) and that a different president would have been tougher in getting adequate concessions from al-Maliki while leaving him some populist credibility.  Long story shorter, we’d have a SOFA today that kept forces in Iraq capable of responding to terrorists.

How do I respond to this?  You’re “judging”?  The bit about having forces there still today to respond to terrorists is….Anyways this has nothing to do with the point of this OP.  Also this paragraph is a bumper sticker.  I get it.  You don’t like Obama.

There’s not a bit of doubt that Iraq produced large quantities…...it was never plausible that Iraq still had such weapons.

This goes well outside my interests and the scope of this OP.

Hussein could only win that game long term if no nation of the West was willing to call him on his failure to live up to the ceasefire agreement.

And this is… conjecture….?  It begs the question why did Saddam get rid of his WMD in the first place.

Many people think that the Iraq War really was directly about gaining control of Iraq’s oil resources.  Your post played strongly to that belief, whether or not it was your intention.  Most of your subsequent clarifying statements are reasonable, but they also tend to make your opening statement look like some form of hyperbole.  It’s appropriate for you to walk it back a few steps.

I’ll decide what is appropriate for me. The Iraq war was about not losing control of any share in Iraq’s oil resources.  I clarified that above in subsequent posts.
The part about sometimes nations must use force to maintain resources.

Oil’s a big part of the picture in terms of international security and multiple national interests.  But it’s not the reason the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein.  I covered some of the multiple reasons for acting against Iraq when we did in another very recent post.  Iraq had largely accomplished on its own one of the Bismarckian requirements for the successful use of war as a political tool:  Political isolation.  Iraq’s history of belligerence and interest in WMD technologies were essential elements of the decision to wage war on Iraq.  Oil was not an essential element.  Iraq could have been more barren of oil than Afghanistan and still drawn the same attention from the U.S. at the same point in history.

How do you know? Conjecture on your part again. Certainly oil was an essential element when Paul Wolfowitz told the American people that Iraq could pay for the War costs with their oil. Sounds like an essential element to me.  Am I missing something. Just at face value that sounds like an essential element!
But of course as we have co-alluded to here in these posts, Oil is certainly a “part of the picture in terms of international security and multiple national interests”  There was also the corrupt “Oil for Food” program…..remember that one?  We starve your nation out with sanctions(and blockades are easily interpreted as war) and then hold food for ransom until you pay with oil.
I’m done. You can have the last word.

[ Edited: 06 July 2013 03:17 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 03:41 PM

It doesn’t bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.

Meaning what?  Explain yourself in feedback.

I was not following all your other arguments with others to this your claim that you mentioned “...historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks.” It was irrelevant to my initial response to you. When you respond to confirm or deny something I’m trying to find clarity in your position, instead of affirming your positive stance, you just inquired how I interpreted you. All I can gather is that you deny my interpretation of your position without positing what you mean.

Just to clarify: You believe that oil was an insignificant contributor to the cause for going to war? You are also presuming that VYAZMA implied that oil was not only the significant factor to war but the only one. Correct?

Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM

As it relates to this topic, I ask you and Bryan why it is so absurd to presume that the war in Iraq did not have anything to do with oil?

It’s not absurd to presume the war in Iraq had something to do with oil.  It’s absurd to state or imply that the war in Iraq was conducted primarily to preserve access to oil.  That argument makes no sense.

First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
and…

Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM

First, tell me how such thinking is impossible.

I don’t see the point of the request, apart from doing damage to a straw man.

...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?

Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM

If you think that something is impossible to rationalize, what is this evidence?

I’ve already stated that the U.S. had an interest in preserving market access to ME oil (including Iraq’s).  But it doesn’t matter who gets it under those conditions.  There’s no need to “control” the oil, as one person put it.  The aim is to keep oil receipts from flowing into the pockets of entities that pose a security threat such as Saddam Hussein.


This answers what I was asking above. So, then, my next question is why is it irrelevant that the U.S. gains from the booty of war, even if eliminating a threat from every other nation? I ask this with this in mind: If the U.S. chose to fight on the basis of moral integrity for the whole world and to enable them to have a better ideal, then why benefit from it at all?  It would be like if I chose to be a good Samaritan by saving a woman from getting her purse stolen and then turn around and just offer myself what she has in her wallet on the basis that I did her a favor. You may have well been the original thief. At least then you are direct and sincere to steal. But taking her money after volunteering to save her is even more deceptive. In fact, how would she even know that you didn’t set the original thief in action so that you could be her ‘savior’?

Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM

How I’m hearing it is like a parent who defends their child by claiming, “He could not possibly do such a thing. It is just not in him.” While this statement could be true, the court would require a justification for the claim that something is impossible for anyone, or why this parent feels that their is an exception for their child.

I’m not sure how you’re managing to succeed in overlooking the alternative you’ve been offered.  The primary reason for intervention in Iraq was security, not oil.  Perhaps I can dream up a suitably derogatory analogy to illustrate the point.  But then again maybe I don’t feel like doing that.

This answers more of your position I wasn’t clear about earlier. You believe “security” was the primary reason for intervention. To help create an analogy, it might be helpful to define “securtiy”—it is too generic to argue. What security threat existed to the U.S. at the time of the declaration for war? If this behavior is just, do you think that it is okay to convict one of your own people in anticipation of a crime? That is, a thought-crime?

Bryan - 05 July 2013 11:57 PM

I also asked, but did not get a response to why, even presuming Iraq had nothing to do with oil, how do you claim the particular interest in Iraq over other countries who needed America’s help more?

What could be easier?

We had documented evidence of Iraq’s history of producing dangerous WMD along with a long history of defying UN resolutions and the terms of the UN-brokered ceasefire that occurred after the Desert Storm invasion.  No other nation that encourages terrorist activity could have garnered more international support for regime change (taking into account the fact that dealing with Afghanistan was already underway).  Three nations prevented strong UN support for prompt action against Iraq:  China, France and Russia.  The latter two can have their reluctance traced directly to the large amount of money they were owed by Iraq.  Iraq purchased the vast bulk of its armaments from France and Russia on credit.  For some reason many people think the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein.  Not true.  We armed Iran (when it was controlled by the Shah) and only reluctantly helped Iraq in its long war against Iran when Iran was on the verge of overrunning Baghdad.

But the UN did not find justification for war and did not believe the claims by American Intelligence—the Americans didn’t even feel it was even necessary to produce the evidences they kept hidden from the UN. For example, they did not present the person who supposedly gave the Americans reasons for WDM in mobile facilities. The guy declared he lied to them later. But if the U.S. Intelligence community was truly mistaken on some minor fuck up, how were they so wise as to assure this evidence couldn’t be measured by the UN? You can’t argue supporting the UN while also going to war without their consent. You’re just picking and choosing the stuff you like and ignoring what you don’t.

 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
 
 
   
4 of 10
4