A Question for War Supporters

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

How lame... Basically, this view isn't an objectional take on the war - it's a judgement on the U.S. and what kind of leaders we have.

People with just as much knowledge if not more than you, look at the same facts and evidence, but they come to radically different conclusions. It all just depends on what ideological "lens" you view it from.

U.S is BAD, CORRUPT, HEGEMONY = Iraq was for oil and power.
U.S. is NOBLE, MADE A MISTAKE, TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN = Iraq was about spreading freedom.

Take your pick...

To say that the U.S and U.K invasion was 'a mistake' is ridiculous. You don't invade a country and kill tens of thousands of people 'by mistake'.

Milestone

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

I have an honest question to ask anyone who supports the US led occupation of Iraq, especially thouse who do believe we need to "stay the course".

Given that the situation has deteriorated so badly and that the US military is now stretched so thin, why would you not enlist your services? What speaks against your doing so if you support these actions and want to see "good" prevail?

Because "Ask not what your country can do for you.....Ask what you can do for your country" does not exist in 2006 American culture. (by the way, I'm against the war).

DCGARDEN

Byrnzie wrote:

So you think that if Iraqs chief export had been turnips, that the U.S would have still invaded?

Fucking funny line, but the answer is still YES

Those turnips could have landed in the wrong hands.

The point was to terminate the salads being made in the region. The chef was not playing with a full deck and his little games of come see my kitchen, now get out, oh wait come look, I've got the most potent turnips in the region, but you can't see them, was fucking over -

I hear Iran is full of turnips but the salad in Iraq went so sour, it has prevented the health inspectors from taking the intended action in Iran -

Byrnzie

DCGARDEN wrote:

Fucking funny line, but the answer is still YES

Those turnips could have landed in the wrong hands.

The point was to terminate the salads being made in the region. The chef was not playing with a full deck and his little games of come see my kitchen, now get out, oh wait come look, I've got the most potent turnips in the region, but you can't see them, was fucking over -

I hear Iran is full of turnips but the salad in Iraq went so sour, it has prevented the health inspectors from taking the intended action in Iran -

We should have dropped parcels containing MacDonalds bumper bags on the fuckers. We could have made them so fat that they would have been incapable of fighting a war. That way we could have just run around pushing them over.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

How lame... Basically, this view isn't an objectional take on the war - it's a judgement on the U.S. and what kind of leaders we have.

U.S. is NOBLE, MADE A MISTAKE, TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN = Iraq was about spreading freedom.

So the invasion of Iraq was about spreading freedom? Please elaborate because you have me slightly confused/giddy.

sponger

Without the insurgency, this thing in Iraq would've been over and done with a long time ago. And I don't think anyone with any real authority in our gov. had an inkling of an idea of how much of a problem the insurgency would be.

And, IMO, that was the real mistake. Personally, I don't really care if the invasion was about oil or the war on terror. If it had been about oil, Iraq would've been better off anyway because Saddam would've been gone and the country could've gradually worked its way back to normal. Iraq would be able to rebuild its economy from oil sales and the US could benefit from an increased amount of oil on the market.

And I think that was the plan from the beginning. I don't see anything wrong with that plan, except for the fact that it completely overlooks the whole insurgency question. The insurgency obviously changes things. I'm not a middle east expert or a CIA analyst, so I can't be expected to anticipate things like that.

But, our government does have middle east experts and CIA analysts, so I think it should've been able to anticipate most, if not all, of the complications that could arise from an invasion of Iraq and deposition of Saddam.

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

Personally, I don't really care if the invasion was about oil or the war on terror. Iraq would be able to rebuild its economy from oil sales and the US could benefit from an increased amount of oil on the market.

And I think that was the plan from the beginning. I don't see anything wrong with that plan, except for the fact that it completely overlooks the whole insurgency question.

I think you'll find that it's often the case - please correct me if i'm wrong by presenting even one historical precedent - that when you invade a foreign country with the intention of seizing it's natural resources and reducing the place to an offshore sweatshop, that the natives tend to get a bit restless, and in fact frown upon your 'good intentions' to spread 'freedom and democracy' to them.

sponger

Byrnzie wrote:

I think you'll find that it's often the case - please correct me if i'm wrong by presenting even one historical precedent - that when you invade a foreign country with the intention of seizing it's natural resources and reducing the place to an offshore sweatshop, that the natives tend to get a bit restless, and in fact frown upon your 'good intentions' to spread 'freedom and democracy' to them.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that our intentions were to literally seize their natural resources. I do believe Iraq would have remained the predominant beneficiary of oil revenue. Sure, Halliburton would have thrived from drilling contracts and so on and so forth. But, the idea was to bring Iraq's oil into the oil market, thus creating a more readily available surplus.

The insurgency is not a rebellion against economic oppression by a foreign invader. It is a deliberate effort by Syria and Iran to support a shiite-controlled Iraq. It is being conducted with the hopes that continued instability will render a democratic Iraqi government ineffective, paving the way for a more extremist government that would be receptive to the ideologies of its fanatical neighbors.

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

I do believe Iraq would have remained the predominant beneficiary of oil revenue...the idea was to bring Iraq's oil into the oil market, thus creating a more readily available surplus.

The insurgency is...a deliberate effort by Syria and Iran to support a shiite-controlled Iraq.

This is sheer hypothesis with no basis in fact. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

sponger

Byrnzie wrote:

This is sheer hypothesis with no basis in fact. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

It's just as hypothetical as the opposite. Let's put it this way: The US doesn't exactly have a track record for "seizing" natural resources. Japan is one example. Europe would be another. We do use those parts of the world to support our military operations, but we haven't done much in the way of "seizing." The Native Americans and African slaves don't count for obvious reasons.

And if you need evidence of Iran's and Syria's true motivations for supporting the insurgency, then I would say we have a long way to go before we can meet each other half way on this. You don't really think they are trying to save the Iraqi people from economic oppression, do you?

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

It's just as hypothetical as the opposite. Let's put it this way: The US doesn't exactly have a track record for "seizing" natural resources.

O.k, so disregarding America's recourse to military intervention when they don't get their way through economic warfare, and the threat of force. Do you know anything about the actions of the World bank, and the IMF? Why do the majority of Latin American natural resources head north beyond the Rio Grande?

sponger

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, so disregarding America's recourse to military intervention when they don't get their way through economic warfare, and the threat of force. Do you know anything about the actions of the World bank, and the IMF? Why do the majority of Latin American natural resources head north beyond the Rio Grande?

The problem with using the leverage of world banks to influence Iraq's trade policies and socio-political structure is the existence of OPEC. How can it be guaranteed that Iraq's government would not seek the help of OPEC in ensuring that it be treated equally among other oil producing nations?

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

How can it be guaranteed that Iraq's government would not seek the help of OPEC in ensuring that it be treated equally among other oil producing nations?

Why shouldn't it?

sponger

Byrnzie wrote:

Why shouldn't it?

Exactly. It most certainly would do just that. That's why the US could never realistically expect to have considerable influence over the Iraqi government as long as its oil wells are pumping out oil. Being that Iraq is projected to become one of the largest producers of oil in the world, we can only assume that it will eventually carry the same autonomy as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. As far as I know the US gets on its knees whenever either of those countries snaps its fingers.