BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 10:38 PM

The lies that were cooked up and repeated over and over and over and over and over...

... and over were so BIG and told so many times that BIG MEDIA backed down from the Bush/Cheney/Pearle/Wolfowitz/Rice War Machine so that by the time Hans Blix made his report to the Security Council on Jan. 27, 2003 the War Machine's BIG LIE ***noise*** was so deafening that even today very few people know what Blix told the UN...

The war mongers here and else where have gone to extremes to poke holes in the spirit (and words) of what Blix was trying to tell the world but the bottom line is that the UN wanted the inspectors to prove or disprove the existence of WMDs...

Bush and Co. didn't give a shit what the inspectors would find or not find... They wanted a war... PERIOD!!!

And they got the most fucked up, stupid war since the last fucked up, stupid war (Vietnam) and no matter how much effort T-Bird and his 0boys try to revise, sanitize and use quantity of words over quality of realities historians will get this war right: was fucked up and stupid... PERIOD!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: gnu
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 08:05 PM

Q... "It will be interesting to see how this plays out."

Indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 04:55 PM

"I would do it all over again in a heartbeat."
Dick Cheney.

"To ask if the war was worth it, is not an appropriate question to even ask."
Richard Perle.

"In light of what we knew at the time, the war was entirely correct and necessary for the defense of the USA."
Wolfowitz.

"If it were not for the fact that Iraqi oil pipelines were bombed by insurgents within hours of them being restored, US companies would be pumping that oil directly into illicit tankers today at the taxpayer cost of sustaining and deploying our troops along all 100,000 miles of pipelines.(troop death is an intrinsicly tiny cost) Deploying two troops per mile of pipeline could not and did not effectively defend the oil for the owners of the largest oil companies to steal."
Hackman.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 04:48 PM

The belief was that if we get rid of one bastard all will be well. No-one thought about all the others.

Could be they'll try it again in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 04:09 PM

Its not the oil supply that is at issue it is the revenue attained by exploiting specific reserves. The Oil companies and evidently the Bush Administration want oil to be rare enough to maximize price to just under the point where alternatives become profitable.


"Democracy cannot be imposed on a divided "nation" when the beliefs of major groups omit any basis for equality and democracy. The group which is dominant at the moment will impose its will on the others."

So you are saying that the nation building in both Nations was a waste of time? My question is why were you not saying this 11 years ago? When your guys were "investing" so much money in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 12:51 PM

"Bush's ffort to secure its oil supply." Terribus did a pretty good job of pointing out that Iraq was not important to U.S. oil supply. Check production figures for the period any one will find that he is correct.
Sanctions and the invasion disrupted supplies to southern Europe but not to North America.

I believe that the invasion, as it was carried out, was ill-advised, but Saddam had to be removed. The UN Security Council was offering no solutions. Saddam, with the invasion of Kuwait, the war with Iran and other actions, was destabilizing the entire region.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM

Having seen the state of some tanks near Basra, there ain't no way the depleted uranium remained only inside the tank.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 07:48 AM

Just tell us if you do then.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 05:21 AM

"Do you still support a Western invasion of Syria Jim?"
That nice Mr Cameron and his gang appears to
Stop changing the subject and attempting to make this a one-to-one
Let people get on with the subject in hand.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 05:13 AM

Do you still support a Western invasion of Syria Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 03:50 AM

"A brilliant example of "libralism" at its worst."
Not even Blair's best friends would grace him with the description "liberal".
The Iraq adventure was Bush's effort to secure its oil supply; Blair reciprocated by ramming Britain's head as far up the US anus as it would go - not the action of "a liberal".
Over a million British people took to the streets to protest the invasion - Blair ignored them - not the action of "a liberal".
To some people, anybody faintly to the left of Attila the Hun (or Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer) is a liberal.
Aren't some people funny?   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 03:38 AM

Saddam's "batting averages":

If you dismiss those killed due to the Iran/Iraq War then for a period of 24 years Saddam Hussein murdered on average 154 Iraqi each and every day.

If on the other hand you include those killed in the Iran/Iraq War then his average rate jumps to 282 murdered each and every day.

Apart from that we see the usual hysterical, baseless,ramblings and rants about "The Big, Bad, West".

With regard to the numbers killed due to the March 2003 invasion. On one hand you can swallow "hook-line-and-sinker" the estimated figures provided by a poorly conducted batch-sampled survey which even those who carried it out refused to offer up for critical peer-review, or alternatively you can read the records of those who:

a: Had to treat the injured and gather up the dead (actual bodies - not estimates)

b: Morgue records ("bodies in" and "bodies out")

c: Records of burials and places of burial

Taking the alternative route via various UN and Iraqi sources the total figure comes out at ~150,000.

Of that number ~33,000 were killed by US/MNF/Iraqi Army, which means that the remainder ~117,000 must have been killed by Ba'athist insurgents, foreign jihadi "fighters", sectarian militias or criminal gangs. If you want a comparison of dead to introduce some perspective, then for our members from the USA just take a look along your southern border with Mexico and its drug wars - more people have been killed there than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Take a look at Darfur more people killed there than in Iraq or Afghanistan combined. Take a look at your road accident stats. Afghanistan and Iraq have roughly the same size populations in Afghanistan according to figures recorded since 2006 roughly on average 581,947 people die from all causes each year, over this same period the average figure for those dying sudden, violent deaths due to the ongoing "Taliban" insurrection is ~1,500. Prior to the arrival and intervention of the International Community in Afghanistan as an average Afghan "punter" you stood a 1-in-5 chance of dying a sudden and violent death, now your odds have lengthened to 1-in-272. In Iraq where Saddam killed 154 or 282 per day, since 2003 that dropped to below 40.

Depleted Uranium "dropped" on people?? Well that's a new twist depleted uranium is heavy but "soft" which makes it useless for bombs, but encased in a harder material it makes terrific anti-tank ammunition. Tell me what tank battles were fought in Basra and in Fallujah? None that I can think of. The bit that is supposedly dangerous about these munitions is the dust that may be present after the round has hit something hard (Armoured plating)and "vapourised" (in the case of a tank being hit this dust will be on the inside of the vehicle). Now tell me if these munitions fired by the US and the rest of the "Big, Bad West" are responsible for all those birth defects and cancers, why are there no similar statistics, in communities adjacent to "live fire" ranges in the UK and the USA? As for those birth defects and cancers in Iraq I suppose that we do know and can adopt it as the "Gospel" truth that Saddam's M-24 Hind Gunships could never have fired DU rounds in Basra whilst they were down there helping to kill over 200,000 people between 1st March and 5th April 1991, and that his deliberate poisoning of ground water in the area can be completely ruled out as a factor, whilst the same could be said up there in Fallujah (a centre for his chemical and biological facilities) that their "Health & Safety" record was second to none, even during the period he was "getting rid of the stuff in great haste" but out of sight of international scrutiny (That was the story he told the world wasn't it) - no possibility that that could have anything to do with birth defects and cancers.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 01:25 AM

"The decision to attack Iraq was made at the time with the information available."

Bullshit.

The decision to attack Iraq was made at the time with the information that was fabricated to justify it.

Documented (literally) history has proven this. Your arguments died years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: meself
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 08:53 PM

"The decision to attack Iraq was made at the time with the information available."

Funny - that information was not enough to persuade Canada's prime minister to join the big party .... (Although the leader of the Opposition, one Stephen Harper, was gung-ho .... ).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 07:39 PM

Democracy cannot be imposed on a divided "nation" when the beliefs of major groups omit any basis for equality and democracy. The group which is dominant at the moment will impose its will on the others.

Digression alert:
The multi-billion dollar pipeline from Iran to Pakistan is nearing completion. The U.S. is threatening Pakistan with sanctions.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:50 PM

10 years down the road. What was achieved.
US bases in the Middle East.
Destabilisation of Iraq
Major oil companies, plus the chinese safely ensconced in the Rumaila field and elsewhere.
nano sized depleted uranium particles powdered about where ever
significant fighting occurred.
Genetic damage inflicted on the population because of the uranium.
Many people killed.

This outcome was fairly predictable. Perhaps the outcome gives a reason for the invasion.
The mainstream media will give many reasons that appear reasonable. However the real truth is found under stones in the shadows.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack uncookied
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:43 PM

Teribus - good to see you sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:04 PM

Oh yes, and now they want to do the same thing to Iran which has no WMD's as well.

We'll be saying year later Iran......WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:02 PM

The United States with the help of UK and other countries devastated Iraq and instead of creating stability, they've turned it into a hell hole that even Sadam was unable to do.

They raped the country of its natural resources, destroyed its historic artifacts and museums, incinerated the landscape with bombs containing depleted uranium which will affect future generations of Iraqs and did all of this for "free market" control of oil and strategic political interests. Bush's war will be his legacy throughout the future history books.

The result, the Iraq war was a total waste of human life and resources.

They did not have fully capable WMD resources and that was verified by outside inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:58 PM

It was not a war in Iraq, it was an invasion of Iraq by Western forces, including the US, the UK, and my country, Australia.

A war implies two opposing parties in conflict. Iraq was just sitting there, and got demolished. The US has the biggest military system in the world, but keeps losing wars. Why? because war is now run like a corporation for the profit of those in the arms business.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:24 PM

Q, I think you underestimate the power of free markets and democracy. It is too bad that the chicken hawks were to afraid to try it in the first country they ruined.

How do you think it looked to the world when we took our toys to a new sandbox and went on to make a new mess without even trying to clean up the first one or to finish the job we started.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:00 PM

As long as we have Canada to teach us how to treat the third world...


http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/deadly-cn.htm




The decision to attack Iraq was made at the time with the information available.

As for WMDs, the recorded truck movements from Iraqi military depot storage areas to Syria before the attack would account for the WMD precursors noted as not having been destroyed by the UN previously.


Any discussion of deaths turn into a "jobs saved or created" guessing game, and will give whatever results the person postulating wants to have. Acceptable from a liberal like Obama, but not from a conservative viewpoint ( according to the MCW-Mudcat Common Wisdom)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:47 PM

He's baaaaaack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

Teribus, that is. Yes, he's still rushing forward bravely to the barricades to defend the indefensible, and loyally serving the bloody conquering, world-devouring Anglo-American Empire that he claims doesn't exist.

Your kind is sorely needed by the Anglo-American Empire, Teribus, just like Caesar needed his centurions and Hitler needed his party faithful. Such men can always be found to support an aggressive imperial policy and conquer "the barbarians" and "untermenschen" out there in the hinterlands, thus ensuring that "civilization" will prevail. I bet you're a lot like Winston Churchill, that old rascal...he was one of the most unashamed bloody imperialists that ever lived. He was just lucky that he happened to be opposed by an even worse one at the time: Hitler. It made him look morally decent in comparison. A ravening wolf, after all, looks not bad next to a ravening tiger...if one must make a choice between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:06 PM

Teribus, correct me if i am wrong, but these "predation" figures include the losses suffered by Saddam in the Iran/ Iraq war.

The figeres bear no relation to deaths attributable to Saddam during peacetime.
The per capita income figures were affected adversely by sanctions and are quite meaningless.

In Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the fall of the "dictator" means that the majority of the poor people end up with a worse standard of living.

The lesson is that "democracy" is not always the answer.....and more importantly, is not always democracy.

Blair was wrong, had the Tories been in power the Labour party would have voted no with the majority of the people.....and we never have been involved........Aren't politicians cowardly, self serving bastards?

Stop digging Teribus and admit you were as wrong as your pal Tony.:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:01 PM

Afghanistan will never be a stable democracy. The contending groups are miles apart; their beliefs cannot be reconciled. This has been debated in other threads.

Actions in Afghanistan would have had little effect on the situation in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 01:52 PM

Terribus: Your refutation of Little Hawk largely corresponds with my assessment, but we differ in degree on the reasons and consequences of the war.

I still think the war did nothing to increase stability in the region.
The Israelis and the Iranians could cause a conflagration that would kill millions. The three groups in Iraq continue to kill and maim each other.

Certainly Saddam and his party ruled with an iron hand. The potential was there to reduce the Shia (and Kurds) or drive many of them out; how many would die is speculation but I agree that the number would be high. The potential also was there to draw other nations with large Shia populations into conflict.

I would up the deaths as a consequence of the invasion. Al least 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, many for no reason, in Desert Storm. The number of non-combatant deaths, through military action or through disease and starvation, was more than 100,000, perhaps double that figure (again, speculation).

So, was the war justified? Conditionally I would agree, but with the ability of the air forces to take out defense and supply, it could have been done with much less loss of life.

Now a "nation" is left with the same divisions as before, but with the Shia on top. I fail to see that stability can be attained.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 01:07 PM

The right thing to would have been to listen to Powell, leave the resources in Afghanistan, kill Bin Laden in 2003 or 2004, use the post 9/11 alliance to build Afghanistan into a stable democracy, educate Taliban fighters and give them jobs.

Saddam, Ghadaffi and Assad would have fallen much quicker and more easily, had that been the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:51 PM

Teribus, where are these stats coming from? They are not accurate. The 560,000 to 1,000,000 million is mere speculation to defend the Iraq invasion. Also, the 150,000 deaths that you mention is not right either particularly when you consider the insidious
consequences of depleted uranium dropped on innocent children who will carry cancer related illnesses for their lives. Sadam is not as bad as Bashar Al-Assad and this is truly untrue although Bush's Bogeyman, Sadam, was painted large to defend this heartless ravaging of Iraq by the U.S. leaders and other Brit leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 11:31 AM

Average per capita income before Saddam took over in 1979 = US$12,300
Average per capita income 10-years later = US$750
Average per capita income before the 2003 invasion = US$507
Average per capita income today = US$4,500

Had Saddam remained in power and had he maintained his predation on the population and citizenry of Iraq the number of dead over the last 10 years would be somewhere in between 560,000 and 1,000,000. Instead the invasion and its aftermath caused ~150,000 deaths - 78% of whom were Iraqis killed by fellow Iraqis or "visiting" fellow Muslims.

Given that Saddam would have found out about Iran's "secret" uranium enrichment plants at Qum and Natanz then my guess would lean towards the higher figure of dead as by now we would, in all likelihood, be into the fifth year of the Second Iran/Iraq War - there is no way that Saddam Hussein would sit back and permit Iran to acquire any sort of nuclear capability.

If you think what Bashar Al-Assad (A fellow Ba'athist) is doing in Syria in response to his little "Arab Spring" Revolution is bad - Just think how Saddam and his Sons would have handled any "Arab Spring" in Iraq - for those with no imagination - they would make what Assad has done look like the benign and benevolent attentions of a Boy Scout (In Syria in two years the death toll stands at around 70,000 - In just over one month in 1991 Saddam killed 200,000 Shia Arabs in the South of Iraq).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 11:07 AM

"The embargo came later as far as I know, Jack. Saddam started selling his oil for Euros way back in 2000. The war came in 2003." - Little Hawk

Wrong again LH - The near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Iraq began on the 6th August, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and remained in force until May 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 11:05 AM

Why do you think it was the RIGHT thing to do Mr T? Given the death and destruction involved and the instability of the region, surely it was the wrong thing to do.

Wasn't,asfar as we are concerned, Saddams regime better than a collection of Jihadists and fanatical warlords?

Many interviewees have said that things are much worse now than under Saddam even during the sanctions......they say everything has become so expensive, that they cant afford to buy food to feed their families.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:53 AM

The real reasons - according to Little Hawk were:

1. To punish Saddam Hussein for daring to sell Iraqi oil in Euros in the early 2000's, rather than in US Dollars...and to further punish him for having failed to take out Iran in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and for having then attempted to take Kuwaiti oil, after which he became "expendable" to America since he was no longer a useful and compliant tool of American policy. He had become, in effect, another Manuel Noriega. Once a very handy dictator and local ally...now an embarrassing liability.

I do not think that anyone could give a toss what Saddam Hussein sold Iraqi oil for in terms of currency, Iraq was not that significant a player - up until the invasion of Kuwait he had traded Iraqi oil for weapons ~94% of which he got from in descending order of magnitude Russia, France and China. So that reason is a load of baloney

The "Superpowers" helped both sides in the Iran/Iraq War as nobody wanted either side to win. The war ended in the stalemate everybody in the international community wanted it to.

2. To get control of Iraqi oil by USA and British corporations (the main original reason Britain went in there and took over Iraq in the first place after WWI ended and the Turkish Empire collapsed).

Well that most certainly did not happen, Iraq's oil still belongs to the same owners it has always belonged to - Iraq. The exploration, development and operating licences awarded by the Iraqi Government went to the national oil companies of Iraq's traditional trading partners Russia, France and China. They get paid so much per barrel to produce it, they do not own the oil. Most deals cut have been pegged to commitments to increased field production and if those production targets are not met then the operating oil companies do not get paid a penny for what they do produce. So so much for taking control of Iraq's oil

3. To extend the Anglo-American-Israeli empire into one more nation.

Wasn't aware that such an Empire ever existed - another figment of Little Hawk's imagination, but as a reason it is complete and utter crap.

4. To establish a strong military presence and base of operations directly to the west of the main future target for conquest: Iran.

As far as I am aware there is no strong US military presence or any US bases located in Iraq. Last US soldier left Iraq on the 18th December 2011.

5. The final and key reason was one more logical step in the encirclement of Iran...its ultimate purposes being to cause regime change in Iran, set up a client (puppet) government there, and get full western control of the marketing of Iranian oil...the last major piece of Middle Eastern oil to be taken over by the Anglo-American-Israeli empire.

Let's see now the encirclement of Iran?

Azerbaijan the Caspian and Turkmenistan to the North - No US presence.
Iraq to the West - No US presence.
Pakistan and Afghanistan to the East - US presence inside Afghanistan but I think those guys are busy with other fish to fry and by December 2014 they will be gone
Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and the United Arab Emirates to the South - US base in Bahrain which has been there since the British left it in 1972

Rather a poor job of encirclement don't you think? Regime change will occur inside Iran without any assistance from the outside world.

Oh and of course it must be to get control of Iran's oil just like they got control of Iraq's you mean? I dare say it all might appear plausible to some gullible idiot until of course you look at how little of its daily dose of oil the USA gets from this region.

The actual reason Iraq was invaded and Saddam was removed? To ensure proof positive that the country was disarmed in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687 and that it no longer posed a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Was it the right thing to do - YES it was.

Could it have been handled better - Most certainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 06:07 AM

I think he has become quite mad, Jack.
Saw him at the weekend on TV and he looked as if he had "lost it"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stu
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 06:02 AM

Thanks Ake.

It always amazes me how Blair seems so self-deluded. I have to think he is because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 05:43 AM

Sorry, that was me :0(

S/Jack....in answer to your question...."liberalism" is in essence more social than political, tho' it can often be used as a political weapon. It is not really about right or left, it is a state of mind.

As Blair said its about "doing the RIGHT thing" as we perceive it, regardless of consequences and regardless of all opinions to the contrary. It is a messianic belief that an omelette can be made without breaking eggs. It encompasses a whole range of etherial concepts, like "equality", "democracy" "human rights"etc, which are routinely used as a cover for the perpetration of the most unimaginable horrors.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 13 - 05:27 AM

From the US side, I think the rush to war had more to do with American standing in the "world order".

9/11 was a huge shock to the American people, and those in power realised that to regain status, retaliation of some kind had to be attempted.....but who to retaliate against????

So they picked a suitable bogey man.....a hate figure with massive oil reserves and manufactured a case against him.

Basically, the war was designed to show the world who was boss....and in the end it did....just like Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 09:30 PM

The embargo came later as far as I know, Jack. Saddam started selling his oil for Euros way back in 2000. The war came in 2003.

Here's an article about what I'm referrring to. It's long...

Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq

There are other articles on the Net about it too. Try a Google search, and you can probably find them without too much difficulty.

The reason I have the view of it I do is because I've heard about it, that's all. If I had not heard about it, I'd have some other view, no doubt...but to me it makes sense. Most imperial wars are fought over strategic resources, control of trade regions, and for important financial reasons...not for all the highly emotional stuff that the public is normally told about in our media. The media find that the public are best motivated by emotional stories (like "Saddam is a monster")("he's a danger to the whole world"), not reason, so emotion is what they give them. Besides, would people risk their kids' lives all that willingly for oil and dollars? No. But they'll do it gladly to stop "a threat to our way of life". (Ha! Ha!)

Iraq was never any kind of threat to our way of life...but we have utterly smashed their way of life and completely ruined that country. Then it was Lybia's turn. Now it's Syria's turn. And we're still in Afghanistan (where the "friendly Afghan government soldiers and police are now frequently turning their guns ON the occupying Americans). And we're still killing people in Pakistan. And Yemen. And after that, it's meant to be Iran. All for one simple reason: those people object to being ruled and exploited by a foreign empire that is imposed with American firepower.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: gnu
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 09:00 PM

Where are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:15 PM

You do remember that there was an embargo on Iraqi oil when the war started and it could only be exchanged for food and medicine?

That factor kicks down your theory and "Q's"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 05:24 PM

Here's what Dennis Kucinich has to say about it...his email went out today:

"Dear Friends,

This is an anniversary not to be celebrated, but observed: Ten years ago, the war against Iraq began. It was based on lies. Demonstrable, easily disproven lies. Lies that were so easy to see that back in October of 2002, when the cause for war was being delivered to Capitol Hill, as a junior Congressman I was able to categorically ascertain that there was no cause for war, and distributed an analysis of the War Resolution to hundreds of members of the House. I then spoke to Congress for an hour detailing the false call for war. America needs to move forward, but we can only do so with the truth as our guiding light, and reconciliation as our healing path.

That is why I have called for a process of Truth and Reconciliation, where those who were responsible for taking us to war are brought forth in an officially sanctioned setting, and, under oath, testify to what they knew. The American people must know the truth about the grave decision made by our government to go to war. The families of US servicemen and women who made the ultimate sacrifice, deserve to know the truth. The families of dead Iraqi civilians, who died as a result of the war, deserve to know the truth. Ten years after the war, Iraq is still in turmoil. Ten years after the war, the United States' financial security is threatened by the cost of the war and our long-term physical security has been damaged by the war. How can we recover? How can the people of Iraq recover? How can the world recover? We must demand the truth. We must know the truth. Truth and Reconciliation is the process. It has worked in other countries struggling with their past. It can work in America. Please let me know what you think.

Contribute to Kucinich Action to help support candidates who will stand for the truth, and to help us broaden our reach for an America which tells the truth, an America which focuses on our needs at home, an America which never mistakes offense for defense.

Please read the recent speech I gave to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, for a broader discussion of these themes. The speech is republished today in Truthout.

Here is an excerpt:

We must demand that America, our nation, establish a fully empowered Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, so that those responsible for misleading us into annihilating innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere be brought forward to a public accountability in a formal process of fact-finding, of inquiry, of public testimony, of admission, of confession. There is no other way out of the moral cul-de-sac in which reside the monstrous crimes of mass murder, torture, kidnapping and rendition other than atonement: AT ONE MENT. It is in atonement that we will achieve what Blake called the unity of opposites. It is in reconciliation that the Blakean idea of the contrary nature of God, containing multitudes of humanity, will cause us to understand the fragility of our social compact and the possibility that any of us could be murderer and victim. Without public expiation for the unbridled use of force, the wanton violence we have writ large in the world will replicate, perpetuate and be our own ruin. This is the importance of a formal process of Truth and Reconciliation. We had and have a right to defend ourselves as a nation, but when we go on the offense, the violence that we have visited abroad will inevitably blow back home. The violence we create in the world in turn licenses and desensitizes us to the wanton violence which is exercised in our streets, and unfortunately in our homes. We must understand the causal links. What is outermost presses down upon what is innermost. What is innermost becomes outermost.

Please help continue our own work of truth-telling. Contribute to Kucinich Action today.

Thanks,



Dennis

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 05:02 PM

Hmm. Well, I've read opinions similar to what you say, Jack. And I've heard other sources that say it was primarily because Saddam starting pegging Iraqi oil to the Euro, not the dollar. Could be both, I guess. I'm no authority on the subject.

I think it may just have been very convenient for people like Cheney and Wolfowitz that "W" was so pissed at Saddam. That helped them do what they wanted to do regardless. Yeah, they thought it would be cheap and easy, because they had a huge military advantage over Saddam's badly weakened and ill-equipped forces. They figured it would be a cakewalk. And in conventional terms, it was...but then comes the occupation! No cakewalk.

Hitler thought that way too...every time he launched a new campaign. Even the one in Russia...he said "Just kick in the front door and the whole rotten facade will collapse." Fascists are just natural optimists, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 04:10 PM

"If it was a war for oil we wouldn't have done it.
Because if you look at the consequences, Iraq is now producing less oil, it is more unstable, it has led to disruption of the market."

So the US companies ended up getting short term significant price increases making their existing reserves more valuable along with eventual long term access to Iraqi reserves. It was a win win for US oil companies with O'Reilly spelling out the benefits in plain English in that statement. All the while he is assuming that someone on Earth is stupid enough to buy the assumption that instability and high oil prices are bad for Big Oil.

Are you that stupid Q or you just hoping that we are?

LH, It had nothing to do with the oil markets or whatever you were talking about. Bush was pissed because Saddam had tried to kill his daddy and the Chicken Hawks tried to capitalize on that to grab the then second largest proven oil reserves because they thought it would be cheap and easy. Feith and Wolfowitz spelled out what they thought the cost/benefit would be before the invasion. You can Google them and read it in black and white I am sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:40 PM

Blaming the Iraq war on oil is largely nonsense.

Surricient oil and reserves under US-GB company control outside of Iraq.
No agenda to reduce sales to EU (esp. France) and Russia.

Statement by Dave O'Reilly, Chairman and CEO Chevron Texaco, San Francisco Chronicle, made shortly after the invasion, 2003:

"If it was a war for oil we wouldn't have done it.
Because if you look at the consequences, Iraq is now producing less oil, it is more unstable, it has led to disruption of the market." ----- It just doesn't work for me. There has got to be another reason. I assume that the reason is global security."

My mind is not quirky enough to know what was in the mind of Cheney. He had made a fortune in dealings with the Saddam Hussein regime. Perhaps he thought that the war would cement the hold by the Republicans on the White House and Congress.

At the time, my company (one of the majors) had relationships with EU companies (including the French giant, Total) and had sent technicians to Russia to help with production problems. The reasons were elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Gervase
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 02:21 PM

Whatever happened to Teibus? I remember him getting into a right old bate at anyone who dared suggest that the intelligence was bunk and the motivation spurious. Not a subject on which anyone can have the last laugh, though, given the terrible price that has been paid on all sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM

The real reasons were:

1. To punish Saddam Hussein for daring to sell Iraqi oil in Euros in the early 2000's, rather than in US Dollars...and to further punish him for having failed to take out Iran in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and for having then attempted to take Kuwaiti oil, after which he became "expendable" to America since he was no longer a useful and compliant tool of American policy. He had become, in effect, another Manuel Noriega. Once a very handy dictator and local ally...now an embarrassing liability.

2. To get control of Iraqi oil by USA and British corporations (the main original reason Britain went in there and took over Iraq in the first place after WWI ended and the Turkish Empire collapsed).

3. To extend the Anglo-American-Israeli empire into one more nation.

4. To establish a strong military presence and base of operations directly to the west of the main future target for conquest: Iran.

5. The final and key reason was one more logical step in the encirclement of Iran...its ultimate purposes being to cause regime change in Iran, set up a client (puppet) government there, and get full western control of the marketing of Iranian oil...the last major piece of Middle Eastern oil to be taken over by the Anglo-American-Israeli empire.

Sigg "Hail to the Chief!!!"

One additional possible reason: George Bush's resentment of Saddam for trying to kill his Dad...but if that did play any part, I'd consider it a very minor personal factor in a war which had much more pragmatic and well-planned imperial reasons behind it than Dubya's petty emotional problems. He was just another tool in the big system anyway. I think Cheney was the real boss during that presidency, not Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stu
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 01:41 PM

"A brilliant example of "libralism" at its worst."

I'm not sure by what's meant by "libralism" (sic) in the various contexts you use it Ake, but you seem to suggest "librals" are a cross between the American meaning (left of the far right) and lefties (whatever one of those is). Either way, Tony B.Liar and his acolytes have pretty much sod all to do with the politics of what's referred to as 'the left' as he is (like Straw, Brown and so many others) in essence a Thatcherite-lite pseudo-tory who disappeared up the arse of anyone who had oil or big guns (Dubya, Gadaffii, China, Saudi Arabia etc).

What gets me is there were so many people telling these tits they were wrong about WMDs, it was obvious to anyone concentrating on events as they unfolded there were no WMDs and the weapons inspectors had not finished their work but were finding sod all . . . ah well, all politicians are pretty much the same anyway so what the heck.

That these people have killed so many, caused so much human misery, sanctioned torture and wiped their fat arses on the Geneva Convention, used the whole sorry fuckup to make piles of cash and basically destroyed what little moral authority our governments had left means they should be treated with utter contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 01:10 PM

Iraq was not a product of "faulty intelligence" but a callous disregard for human life by the U.S. media and State Department, including Cheney (a war criminal) and GW Bush's minions.
A strong dictator can't remove three religious groups that don't get along, but he only exacerbates the problem. A fourth dictator involving Christianity by Bush was more responsible for 300,000-to 500,000 children's death. We had no business there except for oil acquisition. Over one million died as a result of Bush's war. Look what it accomplished, a fragmented violence-riven country exploited and forgotten. Less actually less died under Sadam which is even more tragic when you think of it. And women had better equal rights.
Museums and cultural artifacts were destroyed and the legacy of depleted uranium haunts the populace with future health disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 01:00 PM

For Iraq also read Libya. The worst miscarriage of international justice in my not so short lifespan and the saddest bit of history I've witnessed.

When will they ever learn.

g

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:55 PM

Iraq was one of the ridiculous dispositions of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French after WW1.

There are three groups in the "country" who can't get along- Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. It's an impossible situation without a strong dictator. We removed the dictator and a lot of people were killed in the process.

The war to "free" Iraq and dispose of fictitious "weapons of mass destruction," orchestrated by Bush and with the cooperation of the EU including Great Britain, to put it simply, was stupid, unless re-disposition of lands and resources was made part of the solution for "peace."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...10 Years Later--WTF?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:24 AM

I will keep my head down then Ake.