War in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

I honestly believe that all this talk about the oil is bullshit. At best, it would have been seen as useful in quicky creating a secure democracy. Everything else is just boringly cynical.

 

[Iron]

Yeah what a load of bullshit. How cynical would you have to be to think that one of the world's most valuable and scarce resources might motivate people to do the wrong thing? What is wrong we the world when we suspect politicians, our most trusworthy citizens, of being motivated by greed? For shame!

You assume that the decision was highly rational. Also, it's outdated to think that control of resources must be physical.
I think that there were a variety of naive, cynical, misguided and political motivations for the invasion, but dont insult yourself by believing that oil was primary.
America wanted to kick some arse, and Saddam had always topped that to-do list. Everything else, official or not, are periphery.
imo

 

[Aryanbeauty]

if you even read the article you quoted you would realise the person urinated on was one of 24 killed civilians.

Yeh, terrorists when killed suddenly became innocent civilians, similar things happened in Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

 

[Iron]

I assume no such thing. When did I say that or anything suggesting that? In fact in an earlier post I actually conceeded that maybe the US' motivation is that they're "just fuckwits." My position is basically the same as yours, that oil is one of many reasons (some rational, some irrational) for the invasion. The key point is that none of those reasons was a genuine need to disarm Iraq because they posessed WMD.

Yeah. This stupid war, and that lying son-of-bitch johnson.

 

[onebytwo]

Yeh, terrorists when killed suddenly became innocent civilians, similar things happened in Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

no. so you didnt read, even the first paragraph, of the article, did you?

what happened to the US' "bullet proof evidence"?

if the americans wanted to "free" iraq why didnt they do that in 95 or in 2000, and finally get rid of sadam? sounds like their failure to find WMD immediately conjured up the notion that iraq needed to freedom, and that "iraq's imminent threat" disappeared

 

[Atilla89]

You make it sound so simple. Are you a military expert. Because I simply cannot believe that once corridors of "no go zones" are estabished terrorists and insurgents are suddenly powerless. Surely securing a country is a safer way to secure oil than simply taking a few sites, calling them "no go zones" and assuming everything will be fine.

I am not but it is very logical. Why sercure an entire country rife with insurgency? It makes much more sense to secure limited areas of importance rather then wasting troops patrolling towns and villages which have no resources (I am talking valuable resources here not crops). The terrorists will not be powerless they might be able to launch the occasional assault but getting close to the road will be almost impossible due to the amount of troops monitering it. If you had 100,000 soldiers patrolling certain roads leading to the Persian Gulf from the Oil Stations and garrions patrolling around the oil stations themselves it will be very hard for terrorists to sneak in. Unlike now in Iraq where the U.S. Army has to patrol the whole country which would not make the Oil War theory viable because it is just such a waste for resources and human lives.

Of course even if this were possible the US still wouldn't do it. They have to secure Bahgdad and other locations to create an appearence in the world arena that they are doing the right thing and liberating the Iraqi people.

Why would they need to do that? America invades a country what is the rest of the world going to do? Try and stop it? America invaded Iraq without the UN's approval, nothing happened! America is that powerful that it doesn't need a pretext. If America came out to do and said we were lying we really are shipping out oil what do you think the rest of the world would do? There would be obvious outrage at first maybe a boycott of American goods but ultimately nothing.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

no. so you didnt read, even the first paragraph, of the article, did you?

what happened to the US' "bullet proof evidence"?

if the americans wanted to "free" iraq why didnt they do that in 95 or in 2000, and finally get rid of sadam? sounds like their failure to find WMD immediately conjured up the notion that iraq needed to freedom, and that "iraq's imminent threat" disappeared

I read the article and I know those Iraqis probably knew who put roadside bomb near their homes or it could be themselves. Yes killings of civilians were wrong and that is why they are on trial right now. If US authorities condoned indiscriminate killings of civilians as you tried to portray them, these soldiers would be declared heroes and will not be in front of a court of law today.

Because they can choose the time that suits them. Its NONE of your business to tell them when to invade other countries whatever the cause maybe. It is their prerogative.

meanwhile:

Iraqi president: U.S. troops should stay By JASON KEYSER, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 11, 3:51 PM ET



CAMBRIDGE, England - Iraq's president, worried about growing opposition in Congress to funding for the war, said Friday he believes U.S. and British troops will need to stay in Iraq for one or two more years to help stem the bloodshed.



Jalal Talabani told students at the University of Cambridge that all of Iraq was safer because of Saddam Hussein's ouster and that many people were living "normal" lives.

"I think within one or two years, we will be able to recruit our forces and prepare our armed forces and tell goodbye to our friends," he said.

Talabani's visit comes as the Baghdad government is growing concerned about rapidly deteriorating support for the war in the United States and Britain. The government has dispatched senior officials to Washington this week to warn U.S. lawmakers that pulling out troops would have disastrous consequences.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a draft bill that would fund the war only through July. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, but it indicates the war's unpopularity among U.S. lawmakers and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

"We are concerned," Talabani said. "We hope that Congress will review this decision and help the American army to stay until the Iraqi army will be able to replace them and to protect the security of Iraq."

He offered assurances that Iraq's leaders were doing everything they could on the political front to pursue reconciliation among divided ethnic and religious factions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_talabani A clear snub to Onebytwo and a few other peoples here Iraqis begging for US troops to stay

 

[onebytwo]

I read the article and I know those Iraqis probably knew who put roadside bomb near their homes or it could be themselves.

:rofl:

Because they can choose the time that suits them. Its NONE of your business to tell them when to invade other countries whatever the cause maybe. It is their prerogative.

yeah thats quite typical of the US but when it comes to aussie troops and their involvement, then, being an australian born citizen, it is my business.

meanwhile: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_talabani A clear snub to Onebytwo and a few other peoples here Iraqis begging for US troops to stay

haha, ask any human in iraq if they prefer tanks, bombs, drones, curfews, raids, blood, starvation, displacement in their lives over stability, as their was during sadams rule, and see the answer you get.
these people think
different:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2BjFEhrVlY
looks to me more like they're begging them to piss off
meanwhile the US army demonstrates its finest, the only way it knows how http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJgX62RV0Zg
the iraqis wouldnt be too happy being treated like this everyday, damn that guy at the end why is he picking his nose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcttrIoDV0&mode=related&search=

 

[Atilla89]

"Haha, ask any human in iraq if they prefer tanks, bombs, drones, curfews, raids, blood, starvation, displacement in their lives over stability, as their was during sadams rule, and see the answer you get."

:rofl: Lol! Seriously that was one of the funniest things you have said. You're saying that Saddam provided stability! So those wars with Iran and Kuwait as well as using chemical weapons on his own civilians killing hundreds is your versian of stability! Again lol!

"These people think different:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2BjFEhrVlY
looks to me more like they're begging them to piss off"

You don't seem to get it onebytwo, on one hand you have an insurgent leader who hates America for whatever reasons and on the other hand you have the Iraqi Government begging for the U.S. to stay so that they can sufficiantly train their security forces. Also you must remember that it is because the U.S. invaded that these people can demonstrate, do you think they could demonstrate under Saddam? At least now they have a democracy where they can voice their opinions all because of the U.S.

"Meanwhile the US army demonstrates its finest, the only way it knows how http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJgX62RV0Zg"

I agree, I think what these soldiers did was disgusting but you have to put things into context, during the war there was widespread looting done by the Iraqis and many of them ignored the U.S. when it said to stop the looting. As well as this, the video is obviously edited so I wouldn't totally trust it even though I condemn the soldiers for doing what they did.

 

[onebytwo]

:rofl: Lol! Seriously that was one of the funniest things you have said. You're saying that Saddam provided stability! So those wars with Iran and Kuwait as well as using chemical weapons on his own civilians killing hundreds is your versian of stability! Again lol!

dont laugh too hard, i get cramps when i do that.
is iraq more stable today than it was 10 years ago?
chemical weapons? oh yeah, that was the thing the US didnt have a problem with at all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GO54yJ_hsQ

You don't seem to get it onebytwo, on one hand you have an insurgent leader who hates America for whatever reasons and on the other hand you have the Iraqi Government begging for the U.S. to stay so that they can sufficiantly train their security forces. Also you must remember that it is because the U.S. invaded that these people can demonstrate, do you think they could demonstrate under Saddam? At least now they have a democracy where they can voice their opinions all because of the U.S.

haha, so now youre saying that the words of those at the top over ride those demonstrating on the streets, you must have some perverted definition of democracy. they wouldnt have had to demonstrate against any occupation if the US hadnt meddled in its affairs.
so now the goal of the US is to train security forces, holy shit, first it was WMD's (failed, none at all), then it was sadam(failed, now replaced by a more sinister enemy), then providing stability(definite fail, no questions), now its training security forces( isnt looking too good) and getting ready to piss off(hopefully they can get that right).
oh no, all those protestors are supporting muqtada, thus making them supporters of terrorism, how is the US able to tolerate this?, scramble the jets, i say.

 

[S1M0]

:rofl: Lol! Seriously that was one of the funniest things you have said. You're saying that Saddam provided stability! So those wars with Iran and Kuwait as well as using chemical weapons on his own civilians killing hundreds is your versian of stability! Again lol!

Saddam did provide stability. He ruled Iraq with an iron fist, and that kept the different islamic, christian and kurdish,etc groups in check. Although he did commit a lot of attrocities on his own.

This shows your ignorance, saddam did provide stability, but he also provided oppression and an iron fist.

 

[physician]

I honestly believe that all this talk about the oil is bullshit.

Oil plays much more of a role in politics than many of us seem to realise. As we all know, oil is the 'black gold' of today.

Ever stop to think why Oil prices shot up when British sailors were captured in Iran? Only to go down again upon their release?

Once supply disruption fears that accompanied the Iraq-Iran war and the Iraqi invasion of kuwait dissipated , oil prices began to slide dramatically.

The September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation prompted a surge in oil prices to levels far higher than those targetted by OPEC during the preceeding period.

OPEC itself has a considerable influence on international oil prices. The countries included in OPEC for those who dont know are as follows;

Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Algeria, Indonesia, UAE, Qatar, Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and only recently Angola.

OPEC countries currently contribute approximately 40% of world oil production.

Besides this latest development, international oil prices have been on the rise, due to a number of factors, including the hurricanes in the Americas, the legal and supply woes of Russia’s Yukos, and the continuing violence in Iraq, which has undermined attempts to return the country’s oil production to pre-war levels, leading to security of supply fears, even though Iraq has been able to increase its exports to 2.5 mb/d.

http://www.opec.org/opecna/press releases/2004/pr162004.htm

From all of the above, the point to be noted is that the Oil industry is probably the most powerful industry at the moment. It would be ridiculous to think Oil had nothing to do with America's interest in the Middle East.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

:rofl:


yeah thats quite typical of the US but when it comes to aussie troops and their involvement, then, being an australian born citizen, it is my business.

No the date chosen by US is NOT your business, regardless of your place of birth or citizenship. US did not force austrlia to join the war , Australia voluntarily went to war to support USA.

haha, ask any human in iraq if they prefer tanks, bombs, drones, curfews, raids, blood, starvation, displacement in their lives over stability, as their was during sadams rule, and see the answer you get.
these people think
different:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2BjFEhrVlY
looks to me more like they're begging them to piss off
meanwhile the US army demonstrates its finest, the only way it knows how http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJgX62RV0Zg
the iraqis wouldnt be too happy being treated like this everyday, damn that guy at the end why is he picking his nose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcttrIoDV0&mode=related&search=

You spent too much time trolling youtube.

Iraqi President, Prime Minister, Parliamentarians begged US troops to stay. That is more important than someone from australia who have nothing to do with Iraqis, calling US troops should withdraw bwa ha ha:rofl:

They were very very happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they celebrated his death not only in Iraq but also in Australia and around the world. The only reason Iraqis are unhappy about US presence is because of Muslim Terrorists and their sympathiser like you. You are probably celebrating those daily bombings and killings of Iraqis by sunni and alqaeda suicide bombers so you can continue your whinging and put a blame on US, despite those monstrous atrocities and daily suicide bombings are committed by your fellow fundamentalist muslims in the name of Islam.

From all of the above, the point to be noted is that the Oil industry is probably the most powerful industry at the moment. It would be ridiculous to think Oil had nothing to do with America's interest in the Middle East.

Anyone who can breath probably knows that US interest in the middle east has everything to do with Oil. The area have little value without oil because the people in there does not produce anything of value. However, most people who claimed that US steal Iraqis Oil are wrong. Buying is NOT stealing.

 

[onebytwo]

No the date chosen by US is NOT your business, regardless of your place of birth or citizenship. US did not force australia to join the war , Australia voluntarily went to war to support USA.

no Australia did not voluntarily go to war, john howard did, without consulting his own people, thats the difference.

Iraqi President, Prime Minister, Parliamentarians begged US troops to stay. That is more important than someone from australia who have nothing to do with Iraqis, calling US troops should withdraw bwa ha ha:rofl:

youre right, they shouldnt be listening to me, they should be paying more attention to the people they are trying to "liberate". if the shiites had that kind of turn out and show that kind of disapproval of the US' presence, we can only imagine the reactions of the sunni's. the atrocities we hear so much of are the sunni demonstrations.

Anyone who can breath probably knows that US interest in the middle east has everything to do with Oil. The area have little value without oil because the people in there does not produce anything of value. However, most people who claimed that US steal Iraqis Oil are wrong. Buying is NOT stealing.

from what i was able to decipher, i gain you are trying to say that apart from its oil, the mideast is a shithole. good, now you agree the war is all about oil. is it fair to impose the full brutality of war on a civilian population for the unnecessary benefit of others? buying oil by starting war is worse than theft

 

[MaNiElla]

youre right, they shouldnt be listening to me, they should be paying more attention to the people they are trying to "liberate". if the shiites had that kind of turn out and show that kind of disapproval of the US' presence, we can only imagine the reactions of the sunni's. the atrocities we hear so much of are the sunni demonstrations.

ummm what do you exactly mean by that ??
I agree with all the other parts of your posts, but i just dont think that the atrocities that you speak of, are a result of sunni demonstrations, if thats what your trying to imply....

 

[Atilla89]

“is iraq more stable today than it was 10 years ago?
chemical weapons? oh yeah, that was the thing the US didnt have a problem with at all.”

Personally I would have a problem with it but it was a domestic issue, alleged WMD’s were an international issue. You know America, they fight when something concerns them, that didn’t. But your changing the topic you’re arguing that Saddam provided stability I have clearly showed that he didn’t. Right after Saddam was pushed back from Kuwait there was an attempted revolution, just showing the love, eh? Anyway you should see the movie Three Kings.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GO54yJ_hsQ”
That Vid was disgusting *gags*
“haha, so now youre saying that the words of those at the top over ride those demonstrating on the streets, you must have some perverted definition of democracy.”

Um, those people are giving support to insurgence leaders – they are in the minority the government isn’t, it is quite clear what the Iraqi people want when their elected leader (voted in by majority) wants the U.S. to stay or did the notion of democracy escape you?

“they wouldnt have had to demonstrate against any occupation if the US hadnt meddled in its affairs.”

No, they wouldn’t have the right to demonstrate if the U.S. had ousted Saddam.

“so now the goal of the US is to train security forces, holy shit, first it was WMD's (failed, none at all), then it was saddam(failed, now replaced by a more sinister enemy), then providing stability(definite fail, no questions), now its training security forces( isnt looking too good) and getting ready to piss off(hopefully they can get that right).”

Whatever…

“oh no, all those protestors are supporting muqtada, thus making them supporters of terrorism, how is the US able to tolerate this?, scramble the jets, i say.”

Already have don’t worry that’s why he is in hiding.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

no Australia did not voluntarily go to war, john howard did, without consulting his own people, thats the difference.

John Howard cannot go to war on his own decision. It has to be a cabinet decision as it was. John Howard as the Prime Minister and his cabinet represent the australian people. Their decision is australian decision. You cannot have plebiscite or referendum on every decision made by the Cabinet and there is NO requirement to consult the people under australian constitution to go to war. It is their prerogative to decide. NOT you. Your business is limited to who you choose to represent you at the parliament and that is how parliamentary form of government operates.

youre right, they shouldnt be listening to me, they should be paying more attention to the people they are trying to "liberate". if the shiites had that kind of turn out and show that kind of disapproval of the US' presence, we can only imagine the reactions of the sunni's. the atrocities we hear so much of are the sunni demonstrations.

They definitely listened to Iraqi people, shiite are the biggest benefactor of the invasion. a few thousand religious nuts demonstrators does not represent Iraqis as a whole, Their president, Prime Ministers and Lawmakers represent Iraqis. and those people begged US to stay for at least another 2 years.

from what i was able to decipher, i gain you are trying to say that apart from its oil, the mideast is a shithole. good, now you agree the war is all about oil. is it fair to impose the full brutality of war on a civilian population for the unnecessary benefit of others? buying oil by starting war is worse than theft

Yes it is a shithole. Long before there was Saddam Hussein in the area US and its predecessor Britain always had interest in the region because of Oil. The full brutality of war you were talking about are continually brought by Your fellow muslims not by US Forces. You can only blame suicide bombers who kill innocent people not the one who did not kill. US buying of Iraqi Oil did not start with war, they bought Iraqi oil before there was saddam, they bought under saddam and they continue buying after Saddam. Therefore, buying OIL by starting war did not happen, because buying started almost half a century before the war started.

So why did the US ask Saudi Arabia to reinstate it's policing of OPEC years ago?

Because Oil is the US' largest import.

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to argue. However I agreed that Oil is important and crucial to any country's economy and US will do everything at its disposal for oil supply security. It could be diplomacy or war.

 

[Atilla89]

“Are you serious! You seem to think the only way insurgents can attack if they are physically in the vicinity they are trying to attack. They are notorious for using rockets, highjacking vehicles, taking hostage ect. ect.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that it is impossible for a force to take a road that is being continuily guarded in the middle of a desert. There is no cover to sink in as there is in an urban environment. For an insurgent to use RPG (unguided) they have to get close to be assured of a kill. The U.S. Army would easily see these people coming (night vision and lack of cover in the desert).
“America may have the sheer military might to do just about anything. But military strength is not the only relevant factor. America would prefer to have a positive perception in the international community.”

If they wanted a better a better perception of themselves then they would have gotten the UN’s approval before invasion. I personally think they didn’t care. As to the IC, why would the U.S. give a damn? America’s allies agreed, that’s all that is needed, its not like the IC could boycott or put a trade embargo on the U.S.; half the countries in the world buy America’s products or have a huge market for their products in America.

“My point was never that oil was the decisive reason for the invasion.”

That’s not what it came across to me.

“As I've said many times it was one of many. But a geniune need to disarm Iraq or to help the Iraqi people was never one of them. Obviously no weapons have been found so the US resorts to the latter justification "we wanted to depose Saddam Hussien's brutal regiem." What about all the other brutal regiems in this planet. When is America bringing them to an end? Do you seriously believe America went into this war with the intention of helping the Iraqi's? Seriously, I'd be really interested to know.”

America went to war for many reasons I don’t know all of them but there was a lot of them. Only one of them gets a lot of media attention – WMD’s. However America also went to dispose of Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people which is what they should have done straight after the first Gulf war and this would have saved many lives. As to your last point it is true America can be hypocritical that way, they do things for their own benfit – like all countries in the world.

 

[marthastuart]

Australian troops are there for one reason:

Howard bends forward, and Bush enters from behind.

No, not WMD's as reported, that 'intelligence' was fabricated, it's not for oil, it's for the simple fact that America armed Suddam and now thought:

"Gee, we haven't bombed anything in a while, let's go again."

 

[Atilla89]

Australian troops are there for one reason:

Howard bends forward, and Bush enters from behind.

No, not WMD's as reported, that 'intelligence' was fabricated, it's not for oil, it's for the simple fact that America armed Suddam and now thought:

"Gee, we haven't bombed anything in a while, let's go again."

Your simplistic response is so typical and so wrong. America armed Saddam because they followed the simple doctrine of my enemy's enemy is my friend in this case Iran was the enemy so they backed Iraq.