Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here’ [W:124]

[Davo The Mavo]

Morals had nothing to do with Iraq.

 

[Catawba]

We were never Saddam's allies. We abetted both sides in the Iran-Iraq War in an effort to prevent either Iran or Iran from establishing a position of hegemony in the Middle East. We had no desire to see a fascistic Baathist dictatorship lording over Mesopotamia, nor did we aspire to an Iranian mullah state stretching its arms across the Gulf and Iraq. We live in a world of realities and we took some the best choices we thought we had available.

Bull****, we supported Saddam, hell Reagan even had Iraq removed from the terrorist nations listing, and that was at the height of his brutality.

Moreover I cannot imagine what kind of argument you are making. You freely acknowledge Saddam's crimes, but your answer and argument against US intervention to overthrow and destroy his regime, is that while such acts were despicable, the US had relations with Saddam in the 1980's thus... what exactly? It is moral garbage.

Have you ever read the task force report on Iraq, that was made before we invaded?

 

[johnny_rebson]

Never mind, I thought you had discovered some justification for the war against Iraq.

Where were you when they knocked the World Trade Center twin towers down on 9/11?

 

[Catawba]

Where were you when they knocked the World Trade Center twin towers down on 9/11?

Iraq knocked the twin towers down? Shirley you jest!

 

[a351]

Iraq knocked the twin towers down? Shirley you jest!

 

[Sherman123]

Bull****, we supported Saddam, hell Reagan even had Iraq removed from the terrorist nations listing, and that was at the height of his brutality.



Have you ever read the task force report on Iraq, that was made before we invaded?

You seem unable to conflate an ally with an interest. We supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war and we initially put more weight on Saddam due to how poorly they were doing under the strain of Iranian counter-attacks. In the words of Colin Powell "It was a shame they couldn't both lose." Which consequently was our objective: To make two horrendous regimes bloody each other and prevent either from achieving a signal victory or dominance in the region.

As for task force report I don't know what you are talking about. There have been hundreds of 'task force' reports on Iraq, especially in the period between the Iraq Liberation Act and the 2003 Invasion. Which one are you talking about?

 

[Catawba]

You seem unable to conflate an ally with an interest. We supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war and we initially put more weight on Saddam due to how poorly they were doing under the strain of Iranian counter-attacks. In the words of Colin Powell "It was a shame they couldn't both lose." Which consequently was our objective: To make two horrendous regimes bloody each other and prevent either from achieving a signal victory or dominance in the region.

As for task force report I don't know what you are talking about. There have been hundreds of 'task force' reports on Iraq, especially in the period between the Iraq Liberation Act and the 2003 Invasion. Which one are you talking about?

What we showed is that we can support a brutal dictator when it is in our interest and blow the **** out of his country when it is in the interest of big oil. That's your moral ****ing high ground?


Well MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[Davo The Mavo]

It was Henry Kissinger that originally said, "It's a pity they both can't lose." And yes, we played both sides of the fence in that war . . . secretly in the case of Iran, and openly with Iraq. We played the hand we thought was best . . . morals had nothing to do with that either.

 

[Sherman123]

It was Henry Kissinger that originally said, "It's a pity they both can't lose." And yes, we played both sides of the fence in that war . . . secretly in the case of Iran, and openly with Iraq. We played the hand we thought was best . . . morals had nothing to do with that either.

We played the hand we thought was best with the tools we had available to us, that is both a strategic and a moral consideration. What was the most moral outcome of the war given the parameters we had to operate in? We could have done nothing and allowed Iranian offensives to seize Baghdad and establish an arc of rule curving around the Persian Gulf. Or we could have solely backed Saddam and pushed him over the top and allowed him to seize control of Ahwaz and the border regions, perhaps even toppling Khomeini and establishing a curve of Fascistic rule to menace the Gulf and his new citizens. What were our options? Short of invasion to topple one and create a demarcation line, we chose to back both sides and preclude either an Iranian or an Iraqi victory. A strategic end and a moral end can often coincide so long as you accept a utilitarian view of ethics.

 

[Sherman123]

What we showed is that we can support a brutal dictator when it is in our interest and blow the **** out of his country when it is in the interest of big oil. That's your moral ****ing high ground?


Well MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

It had nothing to do with 'big oil'.

 

[Catawba]

It had nothing to do with 'big oil'.

Repeating that to yourself evidently convinced you, but it has not convinced the rest of us.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

We played the hand we thought was best with the tools we had available to us, that is both a strategic and a moral consideration. What was the most moral outcome of the war given the parameters we had to operate in? We could have done nothing and allowed Iranian offensives to seize Baghdad and establish an arc of rule curving around the Persian Gulf. Or we could have solely backed Saddam and pushed him over the top and allowed him to seize control of Ahwaz and the border regions, perhaps even toppling Khomeini and establishing a curve of Fascistic rule to menace the Gulf and his new citizens. What were our options? Short of invasion to topple one and create a demarcation line, we chose to back both sides and preclude either an Iranian or an Iraqi victory. A strategic end and a moral end can often coincide so long as you accept a utilitarian view of ethics.

Morals aside . . . because they do not belong in the conversation . . . we did what we thought was in our best interest . . . period. Sometimes it's as simple as that. It was a strategy based on the Cold War realities of the time and morals had nothing to do with it. The death that war generated seems to indicate that, and the comment that it is a pity both couldn't lose, is a perfect example of just how little morals had to do with it.

 

[Catawba]

US invades Iraq - March 19, 2003

Strategic Energy Policies for the 21st Century
Report of an Independent Task Force convened by Dick Cheney - March 2001

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence,while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas."

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets."

"The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cachentoHpkcw1EJ:www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/strategic-energy-policy-challenges-for-the-21st-century-complete-text-of-the-report-by-the-independent-task-force+energy+challenges+in+the+21st+century&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShdG-PDqO71fc5uFjReJvO8DlMv2Cf42OYI_UIgO7ZbmiBmD3nGvLswByqe86PBiA2KNB8e0xwAk74hubWEXlZ6nZNYaY1fcpjtmv9EWGZDnGP2NLgnFXumQyfswGIC2LnxOOpH&sig=AHIEtbR--nt_IbRGuJyjEdkzTeJq-hEtVQ




Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

 

[Misterveritis]

There decision is our fault? And who's cheering. I merely state a fact. They are free to do as they please.

The fact is that the Obama regime bungled the negotiations.

 

[Misterveritis]

What we showed is that we can support a brutal dictator when it is in our interest and blow the **** out of his country when it is in the interest of big oil. That's your moral ****ing high ground?

Well MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Was there some other reason you were hoping for? Isn't the free flow of oil at market prices worth a war now and then?
If that was the only reason it would be sufficient.

 

[Catawba]

Was there some other reason you were hoping for? Isn't the free flow of oil at market prices worth a war now and then?
If that was the only reason it would be sufficient.

Not a big believer in private property rights eh?

 

[Misterveritis]

We have nothing because we had no business there in the 1st place. A status of forces agreement would only mean more deaths and more expense and for what? Anyone know someone who wants to buy a fortress Embassy the size of the Vatican in Bagdad cheap?

Your views, as wrong-headed as they may be, are clear.

Moving on.

 

[Misterveritis]

Not a big believer in private property rights eh?

LOL.

Why would you say such a thing? Did we seize the oil? No. Is the oil available at market prices? I shall assume, for the moment, that it is.

It no longer surprises me when you make comments that are so far astray. It is what makes you uniquely you.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Not a big believer in private property rights eh?

Do you not understand that cowboy diplomacy is the way to get things done?

 

[Boo Radley]

The fact is that the Obama regime bungled the negotiations.

That's a rather subjective opinion. You realize, it was heading the same way under Bush. The fact is, they don't want us there.

 

[American]

But hey, what's a couple trillion dollars of taxpayers money, tens of thousands of needless deaths, and more than 100,000 wounded or maimed for life.
You have to look at the big picture, big oil is back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years! Mission Accomplished!!!

Big Government is getting back into your pocket starting 1 January 2013. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[iguanaman]

Big Government is getting back into your pocket starting 1 January 2013. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Didn't Clinton say "the era of big govt. is over"? We are going back to his rates. Ones that allowed him to balance the budget of all things. Don't you wish even one Republican Administration had at least reduced the deficit? How is it that that never happened again?

 

[Mycroft]

Didn't Clinton say "the era of big govt. is over"? We are going back to his rates. Ones that allowed him to balance the budget of all things. Don't you wish even one Republican Administration had at least reduced the deficit? How is it that that never happened again?

Actually, I would be happy of Obama just reduced his fricken out of control spending...but that's never going to happen.

 

[Catawba]

Actually, I would be happy of Obama just reduced his fricken out of control spending...but that's never going to happen.

One big waste of spending he cut was by ending the Iraq war, and now winding down the war in Afghanistan.

McCain and Romney (our alternatives) both wanted to remain there indefinitely, like in Japan and in Korea. Obama has also proposed $500 billion in military spending over the next 10 years.

 

[Mycroft]

One big waste of spending he cut was by ending the Iraq war, and now winding down the war in Afghanistan.

McCain and Romney (our alternatives) both wanted to remain there indefinitely, like in Japan and in Korea. Obama has also proposed $500 billion in military spending over the next 10 years.

Unfortunately, Obama is calling for $200 B in new spending in his "plan"...on top of current spending. So...big deal.