Americans can't accept real reason for Iraq war

[Zool]

http://eardrumbuzz.com/cape/chapter%20three.html

One major thing that Americans don't understand is how the US occupation has congealed opinion in the Middle East. The peoples of the many countries in that region simply do not believe Americans are conflicted about their government's invasion of Iraq. Sure, our domestic protests make some headlines, and a few angry opponents of the war show up on TV. But to Arab people throughout the region, America is seen as a solid block of greed. To their eyes, the US paid almost nothing for the country-a few thousand soldiers and a few billion dollars for the second largest proven reserves in the entire region. It is a prize of inestimable value. One, to them, worth fighting for. Many of the Arab states are ruled my men who quietly admired Saddam's boldness in taking Kuwait, even as they feared him. If those leaders had American power, they would not hesitate to use it. So they have no problem seeing why US forces came to Iraq: because they could.

Both the leader's of the Arab states and the people in their countries have reached a consensus about American motives. They understand aggression; they have seen it 'up close and personal.' The very idea that Americans might think they have paid a high price for such a prize, is completely incomprehensible to people living in the region. The rhetoric in the US press about "they hate us for our freedom", and how America wants only to bring democracy to the region, or to protect Americans from dictators like Saddam Hussein, just does not play in the Arab street. In fact, it is ridiculed as simple-minded rhetoric and believed by no one. The idea that some Americans might actually believe that our government's motives are not a bald faced power grab are not even on their radar.

The irony is that the rest of the world is largely unaware that Americans cannot bring themselves to believe this is an uncomplicated power grab. Outside observers see our coming election as a referendum on American military intervention. While the American people, lied to by successive administrations on the fundamental influences that drive US foreign policy, are precluded from any real debate. Candidates, from both sides of the aisle, totally avoid the real issue. They thrash through the shadows, framing this as the war on terrorism, mixed with proposals for domestic programs. The real issue cannot even be raised for debate, because raising it would beg the question of who really runs the government. That issue is OIL, its central role in our presence in the Middle East, what completely unacceptable choices are now forced upon this country due to our oil dependency, and what the real economic challenges are that the nation faces when we do withdraw. And withdraw we must.

There is no support in the world for this oil grab. Everybody in the world, outside of the US, knows that's what it is. The reason the present administration is willing to risk everything politically to stay in Iraq is because they know that withdrawal will fundamentally change our role on the world stage, in the long run, and cause severe economic hardship for American Business, in the short run. When it comes to Iraq, they are not ideologues, they are pragmatists. They desperately want to keep the party going.

Man, that is so true it is scary..

[johnhpus]

Yeah, I agree, and it's a shame. The average people (in my area, at least) are absolutely brain-washed by propaganda like Fox News.

I actually would have had more support for the invasion of Iraq if it had been laid out honestly. The idea that "that guy is an ass, and he has something we desperately need for the future, and we should take it while we can" actually holds appeal to me. Sure many innocent people have suffered. But the taking of a vital resources without pretext has long been the motive of governments and emperors, and it's only the modern media which shows us the real costs of war that has changed that.

So again, it was a completely dick move, but far easier to swallow if the real point was simply to gain possession or at least control of one of the world's most important resources.

[VictorMoran]

I actually would have had more support for the invasion of Iraq if it had been laid out honestly. The idea that "that guy is an ass, and he has something we desperately need for the future, and we should take it while we can" actually holds appeal to me. Sure many innocent people have suffered. But the taking of a vital resources without pretext has long been the motive of governments and emperors, and it's only the modern media which shows us the real costs of war that has changed that.

That’s quite an appalling statement. Maybe you want to reconsider that line of thinking.

[reptor]

Oh, so it's OK to expand the empire violently if the real reason is told to you... but of course!

But others might have a problem with that. Eventually enough other countries are going to say "Enough!" and then we have WW III in which USA gets wiped out.

I got this idea from an American history professor. I think it's a very possible scenario, it's just a matter of time. 50 years? 100 years? I don't know. Maybe. No-one knows. But all empires this far came to an end, why should we assume that the American Empire doesn't do the same. What the "neoconmen" want to achieve is to gain total domination of the World before enough of the others get to the "Enough!" stage.

What I think is that the end of the American Empire comes sooner if you continue doing what The Bush Administration has been doing, and if you try to do what the "neoconmen" want. So if you are smart then you don't listen to them, and your Empire might last a bit longer.

[syedhs]

What has happened is Iraq had been invaded, it was an invasion - period. In summary, if you hear about the good news about Iraq's being reconstructed while "democracy" is being delivered, it simply means that all the American and its allies companies are being invited to re-construct Iraq with Iraqi oils. And that is one of the ways to pay back all the trillions of dollars being poured earlier to "restore the democracy".

When a country is invaded, it means the resources are being extracted unfairly with the main profiteer being the invader. Much like in the past with the Brisith Empire sucking dry all countries under its umbrella, but sugarcoated with 'democracy', 'freedom' and the likes. In this regard, if you read in the news about big guys shaking hands with all the smiles in the face, remember that there are lots of hidden and ugly twisted deals that hide behind it. Henry Kissinger would definitely love to give you a good lengthy lecture on this.

[warmi]

But the taking of a vital resources without pretext has long been the motive of governments and emperors, and it's only the modern media which shows us the real costs of war that has changed that.

The only problem with your reasoning is that we haven't taken any of their resources and it doesn't look like we will.

It was simply just another crusade.

[syd]

The only problem with your reasoning is that we haven't taken any of their resources and it doesn't look like we will.

mmm I know that american governement has recruited private mercenaries to keep the oil. so... what to conclude?

[warmi]

The only problem with your reasoning is that we haven't taken any of their resources and it doesn't look like we will.

mmm I know that american governement has recruited private mercenaries to keep the oil. so... what to conclude?

You mean 5 years ago they had some guys protecting this stuff from people who wanted to blow it up ?
That's your evidence ?

Man, you are so out of touch it is not even funny ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/05/europe/iraq.php


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/05/europe/iraq.php

[Game_Ender]

If a candidate for President can score points by mentioning how much money Iraq has while we spend on our money to supporting our forces, you can be pretty sure we aren't taking any of there oil.

[johnhpus]

Alright, I can see how my statement would have seemed callous. What I meant to say is that I can understand waging war for resources. I don't condone it in this case.

And by saying I would "more support" the war if it was openly for control of oil, I meant that it's at least a motivation that I can understand. I would hate to think our leaders are so incompetent that the false specter of WMDs really led us into Iraq.

Also, don't think the U.S. doesn't control Iraqi oil just because we're not hauling it out hand over fist. Our government's control of the oil may be tenuous but we've guaranteed our access to it in a way we never could have through Saddam. Iran, Venezuela or Russia may cut us off, but now Iraq, at least, cannot.

By the way I would gladly accept subsistence farming and living in a shack if it meant that innocent people wouldn't suffer in this war or others.

[Minthos]

Yeah I agree with johnpus. Of course the war was about oil (and about war, keeping the defense industry rolling and all). Of course the US leaders lie to everyone and make up excuses for the war, because greed isn't an acceptable reason in the international society. I don't like war and never would have, but at least I would feel a little better if they had been honest about it.

What galls me the most though, is not how the US government acted but how readily people accepted it not only in USA but also in Europe. It's as if politicians have credibility. If Russia or someone had invaded Iraq and said the same, everyone - the russian people included - would understand the pretext was false. And the western world would dare to say it in public.

[Zool]

It was simply just another crusade.

What, you mean that the US govt did the invasion and the fact that they invade a country with "the second largest proven reserves [of oil] in the entire region" didn't even cross their mind ?
Did they do it to.. look for the holy grail or something ? (And you talk about "out of touch"..)

The only problem with your reasoning is that we haven't taken any of their resources and it doesn't look like we will.

You are missing the point. They didn't intend to get a hold of the oil and exclude everyone else from getting a drop. It's about controlling it and creating another Saudi Arabia, a stable oil pumping country, member of OPEC, with a govt friendly and obedient to the US call.

How successful or not they were is beyond the point, but the article that you posted shows that at least they are making some progress, "upgrading" the oil infrastructure of Iraq, with the possibility to put Iraq in the No1 place of oil producing countries:
http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.c ... -enormous/

[warmi]

It was simply just another crusade.

What, you mean that the US govt did the invasion and the fact that they invade a country with "the second largest proven reserves [of oil] in the entire region" didn't even cross their mind ?
Did they do it to.. look for the holy grail or something ? (And you talk about "out of touch"..)

The only problem with your reasoning is that we haven't taken any of their resources and it doesn't look like we will.

You are missing the point. They didn't intend to get a hold of the oil and exclude everyone else from getting a drop. It's about controlling it and creating another Saudi Arabia, a stable oil pumping country, member of OPEC, with a govt friendly and obedient to the US call.

How successful or not they were is beyond the point, but the article that you posted shows that at least they are making some progress, "upgrading" the oil infrastructure of Iraq, with the possibility to put Iraq in the No1 place of oil producing countries:
http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.c ... -enormous/

There is a vast difference between making sure a resource is available on world markets ( for everyone to buy) and "taking it".

In any case, you should ready up about neoconservatives ... it is way beyond just oil.

It was mainly a crusade ... an action based on a long-standing political plan.
Frankly, these people (neocons) are no different than your average activist liberal politician ( in fact most of them ARE former liberals) - the kind that thinks he/she knows best what is good for other people and is not afraid to employ the power of a government to make that happen.
Necons are exactly like that , the only difference is they do it on a global scale using military as their tool.

[VictorMoran]

mmm I know that american governement has recruited private mercenaries to keep the oil. so... what to conclude?

You mean 5 years ago they had some guys protecting this stuff from people who wanted to blow it up?
That's your evidence?

No just some guys like you want to portray warmi, he means over 100,000 private military personal working in combat missions with no accountability in Iraq and Afghanistan,
at a military cost of over 6 times that of the regular US armed forces. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2KQYWmpArw

Mean while in congress the president and his cabinet were lying to congress about the role of these people in the war.
These people were operating in secret until they were exposed because the crimes were so heinous that they could not be hidden by anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpbEjdwL ... re=related
The video is not targeting practice, it is real footage of how these criminals operates. They are charged for the bullets, so they have to make each bullet count for a kill.

Take a look at that man, Erik Prince, search for interviews with him by Henry Waxman, and some statements by other of his people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMARWBKS ... re=related

The man is also a Christian Religious fanatic that believe he is in crusade mandated by God, and that killing Muslim is not a crime because he is doing the word of God, in fact he called it "a noble operation".
Sound very much like the same thing Osama Bin Laden say about American.
I guess Religion Fanatics are everywhere, it just happens that the Christian are in the winning side, but in any other context that man would be tried and hanged for war crimes.
The man is known as the Oliver North of the Bush Regime.
So warmi, maybe it is you how are out touch with reality.

[warmi]

Erik Prince is just a guy running a contracting company .. he has no say in anything.

I guess Religion Fanatics are everywhere, it just happens that the Christian are in the winning side, but in any other context that man would be tried and hanged for war crimes.
The man is known as the Oliver North of the Bush Regime.
So warmi, maybe it is you how are out touch with reality

In any case, didn't I just say that it was a crusade and NOT a simple oil grab ?

Read before you post.

[johnhpus]

What do you mean when you say it was a crusade? I don't think they were out to capture the Holy Land for religious reasons on this one.

[warmi]

What do you mean when you say it was a crusade? I don't think they were out to capture the Holy Land for religious reasons on this one.

I mean it in a general sense ... a crusade is something executed by people driven by ideology/religion and not just pure greed or even common sense.

[VictorMoran]

Warmi I do not know how to tell you this, so I will just say it.
When you start to say that a crusade is a long standing political plan, a military invasion is just a simple crusade, that Neocons are just plain people that want to use global scale military as their tools.
You start to sound like Timothy R. McVeigh.

I am worried about you man, A crusade in not and has never being a good thing, if I were you I would stop using that word and more importantly stop explaining why the war is crusade.
You know comedians start making fun of people when they do that. It is what happened to this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_70Kbdpow

[warmi]

Warmi I do not know how to tell you this, so I will just say it.
When you start to say that a crusade is a long standing political plan, a military invasion is just a simple crusade, that Neocons are just plain people that want to use global scale military as their tools.
You start to sound like Timothy R. McVeigh.

I am worried about you man, A crusade in not and has never being a good thing, if I were you I would stop using that word and more importantly stop explaining why the war is crusade.
You know comedians start making fun of people when they do that. It is what happened to this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_70Kbdpow

I seriously have no idea what are you talking about so I will stop responding to your posts.

[Zool]

There is a vast difference between making sure a resource is available on world markets ( for everyone to buy) and "taking it".

Yeah, I'm with the former. "Controlling oil production" and "having more influence on OPEC" doesn't exclude "making sure a resource is available on world markets ( for everyone to buy)". At least not until the resource starts to run out .

It was mainly a crusade ... an action based on a long-standing political plan.
Frankly, these people (neocons) are no different than your average activist liberal politician ( in fact most of them ARE former liberals) - the kind that thinks he/she knows best what is good for other people and is not afraid to employ the power of a government to make that happen.
Necons are exactly like that , the only difference is they do it on a global scale using military as their tool.

Are you sure it wasn't the Jews that did it?
http://www.gregpalast.com/was-the-invas ... onspiracy/

But one question at the forefront of the minds of many on both the Left and the Right is sure not to be asked: Did the Jews do it? I mean, after killing Jesus, did the Elders of Zion manipulate the government of the United States into invading Babylon as part of a scheme to abet the expansion of Greater Israel?

After all, you know who is in control when the Government Bails Out Jews:
http://illinoisanswp88.wordpress.com/20 ... -out-jews/

[warmi]

Are you sure it wasn't the Jews that did it?

That , I think, is purely accidental.

Jews tend to be on forefront of all radical movements and neocons are just that - a complete departure of what used to be the mainstream of republican foreign policy.

Their ideas have much more in common with Che Guevara’s style than with Kissinger - they too want to remake the world, using military force if necessary, the only difference is that they are warriors for liberal democracy as opposed to some socialistic utopia, but they are just as radical and just as inconsiderate of people they want to "help" as was Guevara.

[Zool]

they too want to remake the world, using military force if necessary, the only difference is that they are warriors for liberal democracy as opposed to some socialistic utopia

Ok, so how come there wasn't ever any pressure at all for liberal changes to non-democratic countries under the influence of US (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.).
And from all the non-democratic countries all over the world, the fact that they picked a country with huge oil reserves is.. "purely accidental" ?

Cuba is right next door you know, no need to go that far to.. "liberate" a country.

[warmi]

You could argue all day long but what's the point given that no oil is being "stolen" from there ...

Do you have any kind of evidence ?

[syedhs]

Regarding crusader, even European "crusader war" in the past is actually the war of seeking the wealth and gold. If I have the time, I can paste here the relevant information about this.

[weshowe]

After you put all the bull malarkey aside here, you are left with the fact that Saddam Hussein was a fanatic who invaded another country (Kuwait), using gang rape of wives and daughters, in their home in front of the husband and other children, as a weapon of repression.

He fought a bloody war with Iran for ten years; the U.S. stood aside there and let those two out-of-control governments beat each other senseless. Sadly, we also stood aside while chemical weapons were used on Iraqi citizens.

Then Mr. Hussein started publicly funding terrorism, by paying the family of suicide bombers that attacked Israelis $25,000. There may be people that hold different opinions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but promising what is a small fortune for someone to kill Israeli civilians is terrorism, period. No religious beliefs are required to see that is wrong.

People that want to talk about bad U.S. intentions forget that right after Mr. Hussein was deposed, Mr. Ghadafi, another loose cannon and sponsor of terrorism (this guy funded the bombing of a Scottish jet airplane, killing all on board) essentially surrrendered.

You can talk tough all you want, if people think you'll never do anything about it, as Mr. Hussein admitted in his debriefings after his capture, then they will just thumb their noses and go yadda-yadda. Give Ghadafi credit for recognizing the error in that assessment.

So you guys can huff and puff all you want about oil and uranium and call George Bush a liar, but a significant number of Americans still believe Mr. Bush is a patriot, that he has made the world safer and has more gumption than any of the leaders in Europe do.

Were it not for the Constitutional restriction on term limits for President, I would vote for George Bush a third time. And were I able, I would have pulled the handle to the trap door where Hussein was hanged. He was as evil as Hitler; "if ever a man needed dyin', he did".

<* Wes *>