It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)War in Iraq(55 posts)(55 posts)
(55 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
TVs_Frank: I'm gonna blame the guy that deserves ALL of the blame for this mess:

Britain
I agree. Lord British has screwed things up enough as it is. Just ask the Gargoyles.
Posted June 15, 2014
u.s. policy as relates to the execution of empire, has had the affect of radicalizing resistance, ratcheting up extremism. The prosecution of this neo-war using airborne assassins against stateless enemies, has been recruitment boon. And more. It should be no surprise that open war comes here again. The u.s. is patently doing all the wrong things and for wrong reasoning. And then, then there are the death dealers whose ambitions are served by war. As if enemies are being prepared for our sons and daughters to fight. War like this becomes a shackle.
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
movieman523: "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them."
Lord Augustus each time bawling,
As he fetched his head a crack,
"Varus, Varus, General Varus,
Give me my three eagles back!"
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Avogadro6: Well, that's an interesting way to put it. Are there really people that sincerely belive invading Iraq did the world any good?
avatar
Emob78: Sure. Haliburton, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Bechtel, GE, BP, Exxon, Blackwater, it's actually a pretty long list.

Perhaps I phrased my answer wrong. What I meant was the stability that was created by western governments in order to facilitate a period of no bid contracts and manipulated peace via the American and British controlled Iraqi puppet government. Stability is certainly a subjective term, no more so in regards to mid-east policy. One man's stability is another man's anarchy.
Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?
avatar
real.geizterfahr: Well. Look at it the other way around... Just imagine I'm a military force, completely outclassing the American forces and I'm invading the USA. Yes, they might shoot down one or two of my helicopters, but I have a few hundred helicopters more sitting there. They can't beat me. They kill one of my soldiers? I'll send a drone and kill the Top 10 of their leaders. Why? Because I think the President and his staff are bad people. They're holding up a system where a hand full of super rich people makes more and more money out of the very poor population. This is evil and this evil has to be purged.

After a couple of years I've succeeded. The White House isn't anymore. It's the Red House now. Some random communist is ruling the land now. Everyone is equal, no poor, no rich. The only thing the USA had to sacrifice, was Freedom of Speech and other things that could endanger my system. That's sad, but necessary to make everyone happy - my happy, not your former, false happy. However... Since I've succeeded and the USA is now a happy land of comrades, I call my superior military troops back home.

Now... What do you think will happen? Won't Americans take back their country from that ridiculous communist that someone else put in the White House?

Yes, Saddam was a bitch. I don't think it was the USA's business to remove him, but that's another story. But what happened afterwards... You can't force a country to become democratic and to elect the right people. It's desirable that they do so, but you can't force them. But that's exactly what happened there. They (US and allies) fought a war against everything that was wrong in the eyes of the western countries. But Iraq isn't a western country. It was to expect that things go haywire as soon as the military forces leave.
So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?
Post edited June 15, 2014 by Elmofongo
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?
My theory would be that it was never the objective to get Iraqi oil, as they would never get away with that, it was to destabilize the region so middle easten oilprices would rise so that drilling America's own oilreserves would be profitable.
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?
avatar
Strijkbout: My theory would be that it was never the objective to get Iraqi oil, as they would never get away with that, it was to destabilize the region so middle easten oilprices would rise so that drilling America's own oilreserves would be profitable.
So Iraq is dependent on America's oil thus increasing profit for American oil companies. Sinister...
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Tychoxi: ...an artificial country constructed after World War 2.
avatar
chean: It was actually after World War 1, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered and then ruled the area (as artificial provinces) for most of the previous few centuries.

*exits pedant mode*
That's completely right! Sorry, for my blunder. Keeping in mind which countries where created by world powers after which war can be a burden at times!
Post edited June 15, 2014 by Tychoxi
Posted June 15, 2014
lol to raise oil prices they will sleep with terrorist
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Strijkbout: My theory would be that it was never the objective to get Iraqi oil, as they would never get away with that, it was to destabilize the region so middle easten oilprices would rise so that drilling America's own oilreserves would be profitable.
avatar
Elmofongo: So Iraq is dependent on America's oil thus increasing profit for American oil companies. Sinister...
Not at all, the USA is now no longer dependent on oil from the middle east which was the goal of the neocons and that could only happen if the oilprices would rise globally so drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska would make a profit which would never have been possible if they had to compete with cheap Arab oil.
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: So Iraq is dependent on America's oil thus increasing profit for American oil companies. Sinister...
avatar
Strijkbout: Not at all, the USA is now no longer dependent on oil from the middle east which was the goal of the neocons and that could only happen if the oilprices would rise globally so drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska would make a profit which would never have been possible if they had to compete with cheap Arab oil.
So thats why Gas Prices are so high. Because back than we were using Cheaper Middle Eastern oil.
Posted June 15, 2014
The US wasn't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at all. Despite everything Bush tried to do to connect them to Iraq, Al Qaeda had basically zero presence there.

Now their affiliates are going around taking over cities. Progress, I suppose? :(
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?
Absolutely. Ive been saying that for over a decade and only now are people starting to pay attention to this crap. Was he a good man? No. Of course not. But he had the region stabilized and he was anti AL-Quada. Removing the Saddam regime was one of the best things that could have happened for militant islamists in the region. It was just a matter of time before this happened. The writing was on the wall the moment the we decided to invade and destabilize the region. Why is this surprising to people?

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Quada. How people still think this after so long is just mind-numbing. I

avatar
babark: The US wasn't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at all. Despite everything Bush tried to do to connect them to Iraq, Al Qaeda had basically zero presence there.

Now their affiliates are going around taking over cities. Progress, I suppose? :(
This. It's terrifying how few people think that Saddam = Al Qaeda. Of course you can blame the Bush administration's obfuscation, but there comes a point where the people themselves are responsible for their own actions and ignorance. 2 seconds on Google could clear that misconception up, but nobody bothers anymore when they're fed talking points and lies.
Post edited June 15, 2014 by jeffreydean1
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?
avatar
jeffreydean1: Absolutely. Ive been saying that for over a decade and only now are people starting to pay attention to this crap. Was he a good man? No. Of course not. But he had the region stabilized and he was anti AL-Quada. Removing the Saddam regime was one of the best things that could have happened for militant islamists in the region. It was just a matter of time before this happened. The writing was on the wall the moment the we decided to invade and destabilize the region. Why is this surprising to people?

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Quada. How people still think this after so long is just mind-numbing. I

avatar
babark: The US wasn't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at all. Despite everything Bush tried to do to connect them to Iraq, Al Qaeda had basically zero presence there.

Now their affiliates are going around taking over cities. Progress, I suppose? :(
avatar
jeffreydean1: This. It's terrifying how few people think that Saddam = Al Qaeda. Of course you can blame the Bush administration's obfuscation, but there comes a point where the people themselves are responsible for their own actions and ignorance. 2 seconds on Google could clear that misconception up, but nobody bothers anymore when they're fed talking points and lies.
I am fairly young (21) and I barely payed attention to Iraq and Afghan war, I was only 9 years old when 9/11 happened.
Posted June 15, 2014
avatar
jeffreydean1: Absolutely. Ive been saying that for over a decade and only now are people starting to pay attention to this crap. Was he a good man? No. Of course not. But he had the region stabilized and he was anti AL-Quada. Removing the Saddam regime was one of the best things that could have happened for militant islamists in the region. It was just a matter of time before this happened. The writing was on the wall the moment the we decided to invade and destabilize the region. Why is this surprising to people?

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Quada. How people still think this after so long is just mind-numbing. I

This. It's terrifying how few people think that Saddam = Al Qaeda. Of course you can blame the Bush administration's obfuscation, but there comes a point where the people themselves are responsible for their own actions and ignorance. 2 seconds on Google could clear that misconception up, but nobody bothers anymore when they're fed talking points and lies.
avatar
Elmofongo: I am fairly young (21) and I barely payed attention to Iraq and Afghan war, I was only 9 years old when 9/11 happened.
Think I was like 18 at the time.
Posted June 16, 2014
avatar
Emob78: Sure. Haliburton, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Bechtel, GE, BP, Exxon, Blackwater, it's actually a pretty long list.

Perhaps I phrased my answer wrong. What I meant was the stability that was created by western governments in order to facilitate a period of no bid contracts and manipulated peace via the American and British controlled Iraqi puppet government. Stability is certainly a subjective term, no more so in regards to mid-east policy. One man's stability is another man's anarchy.
avatar
Elmofongo: Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?
avatar
real.geizterfahr: Well. Look at it the other way around... Just imagine I'm a military force, completely outclassing the American forces and I'm invading the USA. Yes, they might shoot down one or two of my helicopters, but I have a few hundred helicopters more sitting there. They can't beat me. They kill one of my soldiers? I'll send a drone and kill the Top 10 of their leaders. Why? Because I think the President and his staff are bad people. They're holding up a system where a hand full of super rich people makes more and more money out of the very poor population. This is evil and this evil has to be purged.

After a couple of years I've succeeded. The White House isn't anymore. It's the Red House now. Some random communist is ruling the land now. Everyone is equal, no poor, no rich. The only thing the USA had to sacrifice, was Freedom of Speech and other things that could endanger my system. That's sad, but necessary to make everyone happy - my happy, not your former, false happy. However... Since I've succeeded and the USA is now a happy land of comrades, I call my superior military troops back home.

Now... What do you think will happen? Won't Americans take back their country from that ridiculous communist that someone else put in the White House?

Yes, Saddam was a bitch. I don't think it was the USA's business to remove him, but that's another story. But what happened afterwards... You can't force a country to become democratic and to elect the right people. It's desirable that they do so, but you can't force them. But that's exactly what happened there. They (US and allies) fought a war against everything that was wrong in the eyes of the western countries. But Iraq isn't a western country. It was to expect that things go haywire as soon as the military forces leave.
avatar
Elmofongo: So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?
It is. Well, energy as a whole, not just oil. We've got fracking and smacking and cracking like never before. Drill pads everywhere, just like the 80s all over again. Yes, we're definitely in a boom. And where I live in the south/midwest we have gas for almost a buck cheaper than anywhere else in the country. Why? Because of access and abundance to cheap oil.

But don't forget, while the mid east conflict helped stabilize oil, its overall effect on supply is actually marginal. We don't get as much oil from the middle east as we used to. We actually get quite a lot of it from central and south America, plus lots of areas in the Gulf of Mexico. What the west really benefited from was the war-industry. All those supply convoys had to have truck drivers. All those ambassadors had to have body guards. All those air conditioners at the bases needed repairmen. War is big business. People don't understand how much money can be made in war. A friend of mine was tempted by a job offer to drive trucks for one of the big oil companies as part of a contract. He told me they were offering some drivers close to 60 grand a MONTH to drive for them. The reason why the price went so high? Because supply convoys were being attacked on an almost daily basis. The danger had gotten to the level that no one wanted to drive those trucks any more, so the asking price went up and up. How much would it take for you to get shot at? Apparently, for some people it was 60 thousand dollars a month.That's insane money, but so is being shot at while trying to do your job.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)War in Iraq(55 posts)(55 posts)
(55 posts)