[Specop_007]

Like it says. Why do you personally think we're in Iraq?

[jato]

We are in Iraq to establish a strategic presence. To apply force or the threat of force to oil producing countries in order to keep the oil flowing freely to the world markets, thereby keeping the price down and ensuring a cheap supply of energy for the USA.

It won’t work.

I believe it had nothing to do with “terrorismâ€

[jpatti]

We are in Iraq because Saddam Hussein starting selling oil for euros.

[Itch]

You guys are in Iraq? Boy, that sure must suck.

In my humble opinion, I think the government tossed a bunch of meat, and will continue tossing meat over there for three reasons, because just about every plan I've ever heard of usually has three objectives of some kind.

The first reason was to overthrow the dictator of a country using euros for oil transactions. Human rights records and other weak bullshit was used to hide this important fact. After this was done, it would be necessary to put in a new government that would revert to using dollars in oil transactions, so that a few extra jolts could be shot into the dollar.

The second is to establish a strategic supply of oil which could be used for the military to project its power, so that the US can maintain dominance over its emerging enemies.

Then there's the task of fostering our constantly bloating economy for as long as possible. I think that the masters know the fun for the peasants can't last much longer, so they'll try and squeeze a little more power out of them until they feel they'll have an indomitable grip over their populace once globalization fails.

That's how plans seem to work: preparation, an action, and a result.

In preparation for the the fun, the country has been preparing for these situations. The imperceptibly larger military with all the latest, high tech shit being used for weaponry has been built up to perform the three tasks.

With all of the glorious debt getting out of peasants' control, those interested in maintaining control have used it as a way to financially control people, rather than using computer chips or some shit -- which was what some people seemed to be suspecting, although this possibility still has yet to be seen.

The action comes in with total war, where the US will attempt to control the world's oil infrastructure. I personally think they're going to fail, mainly because the US isn't the same as it used to be before 1970, and will not be able to consistely maintain stability over the areas it intends to control.

The result would be a failed military campaign, which could result in some pretty severe behavior from countries failing their objectives, which will give them the tendency to use unconventional measures. If people aren't completely shit eating insane, and there isn't some form of disastrous, desperate action, then the controllers will withdraw their forces and use them to control whatever domestic trouble they might have.

Iraq is probably the late or middle scence of Act I.

[Jack]

[quote="jato"]We are in Iraq to establish a strategic presence. To apply force or the threat of force to oil producing countries in order to keep the oil flowing freely to the world markets, thereby keeping the price down and ensuring a cheap supply of energy for the USA.

It won’t work.

I believe it had nothing to do with “terrorismâ€

[trespam]

I agree with Jato. Secure resources. In a vaccuum, that objective makes sense. Stabilize the middle east. The evidence for WMD was falling apart before they invaded. The administration was in a big hurry: they wanted to create a western friendly Iraq and Chalabi made them think it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't worked out that way.

[trespam]

One other point: I think the admiminstration wanted Iraq to be an example to countries like Iran and North Korea. We take out Iraq and Iran and North Korea shake in their boots.

[Aaron]

As horrible as it is, Iraq is not the most dangerous activity America is engaged in.

Heck, we lost more people to eating Big Mac's while I wrote this post, than the sum total of American's killed in Iraq to date.

Of course a whole lot more of Iraq's natives have been killed, but then again thousands were being killed before America arrived.

Iraq is a political football... We are "shocked" by the death of American soldiers abroad, and ignore the devastation caused around the world by American economic & foreign policy... Shame on us.

Perspective

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'A')s horrible as it is, Iraq is not the most dangerous activity America is engaged in.

Heck, we lost more people to eating Big Mac's while I wrote this post, than the sum total of American's killed in Iraq to date.

Of course a whole lot more of Iraq's natives have been killed, but then again thousands were being killed before America arrived.

Iraq is a political football... We are "shocked" by the death of American soldiers abroad, and ignore the devastation caused around the world by American economic & foreign policy... Shame on us.

Perspective

[trespam]

Do Americans support a war for oil? I think it depends on how the question is posed. Would most Americans volunteer to help rebuild Iraq as part of the effort to secure Mideast oil supplies? I think not. I think they would first look for ways to use oil more effectively. Americans probably will not admit to supporting war for oil if you ask them, though they do through their day-to-day actions. But their day-to-day actions are built on abstraction and distance from the effects and suffering, whether in Iraq or in elsewhere.

I like to use the example of vegetarianism versus eating meat. I think eating meat is fine, but I think the people eating it should be willing to look that cow in the eyes, and then smash its brains out with a rock. Or cut its throat. I guess that's more humane (cow-mane?) way: throat cutting. It would be nice if people were more exposed to the costs of their actions, e.g. visiting a slaughter house.

Maybe that's what we're talking about here. Iraq is just another slaughter house that provides feed our need and greed. (Kind of has a rap-type ring to it).

It's a pyramid folks, and here in America at least, we're near the top, and our boots are smashing the faces of those a few levels down. I'd hate to be on the bottom of that damn pyramid. The neo-classical economists tells us that a rising tide raises all boats. I tend to think that a rising tide can also cover up the boats that don't float, drowning the occupants.

Personally, I think the objective of stablizing the middle east is a good one. The means--in this case the Iraq war as executed by Bush and the neo-cons--is pathetic in my mind. I think additional attempts should have been made to install a military dictatorship similar to pakistan. The path of a slightly less corrupt thug may have been better than nirvana--democracy. Establishing a US presence in the middle east is the next step, so I don't fault the neo-cons for that. Europe and Asia--whether we like it or not--or going to do their own thing. The Middle East and Central Asia is the focus of the 21st century. In that sense, the neo-cons had it right. Because of all the black goo under the ground.

[Specop_007]

Well said trespam, thats exactly how I feel. Americans support a war for oil through their actions, but not in words. Hell, I work with a guy who drives an Expedition nearly daily, but he doesnt support a war for oil. I asked him how the hell does THAT work.
Maybe if Americans actually ACTED like they didnt support a war for oil I could take them a bit more seriously when they SAY they dont support a war for oil.
But, actions speak louder then words. Go ahead and drive that big SUV, drive all over during the day, dont put a solar panel on your house, dont use energy efficient light bulbs or recycle.
But dont frickin tell me you dont support a war for oil while your doing that.

For what its worth, I prefer to slaughter my own animals. Least then I know where they came from, that it was properly killed and I can choose my cuts and how much fat there is.
And at the end of the day, NOTHING beats a fresh cut steak from a cow that was proeperly raised for steaks. Thats some DAMNED good eatin there!

Come out this way sometime, we'll have us an old fashioned BBQ with a pig over the fire and a cowtank full of beer. Thats a hot damn good time right there.

[Carlhole]

Iraq is an Oil Currency War whose objective is to maintain the Anglo-American petroleum hegemonic world order that has existed for nearly a century.

If the world were suddenly able to purchase oil with a basket of currencies including the Euro, the Yen, the Yuan, the Deutschmark, the Dollar, The Pound and the Ruble as opposed to merely Petrodollars, those drastically devalued dollars would all come home to roost. That would ruin the US economy and disable its ability to maintain a $400 billion/year military. Since we are increasingly economically uncompetitive, we need that military in order to maintain American primacy in the world. It's a system that demands war in order to maintain its own existence.

The question is: How much longer can this system be maintained and what is going to replace it?

[k_semler]

1984[quote="Carlhole"]That would ruin the US economy and disable its ability to maintain a $400 billion/year military. Since we are increasingly economically uncompetitive, we need that military in order to maintain American primacy in the world. It's a system that demands war in order to maintain its own existence. /quote]

Please put your seat backs and tray tables in an upright and locked position, we are coming in for a landing in Airstrip One in the year 1984. Be advised that the Thought Police will be interrogating you upon disemarkment of the aircraft, and may refuse you entry to Oceania, and you will be immediately vaporised.

[MonteQuest]

An excerpt from my book:

[quote]Even before the 2000 presidential election, we know that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (CFR) commissioned a “blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminenceâ€

[WebHubbleTelescope]

The Oil Factor
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/10/oil-factor.html

The USA brute forced their way into Iraq because they could.

As the sanctions began to ultimately disappear, Iraq would probably have opened itself up to foreign investment (euros). At that point the US could not use force.

[smiley]

Three million of barrels is not a lot of oil. If the neocons would have wanted they could have invaded Saudi Arabia which has much more oil.

They would have a very good reason too: The hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden was Saudi, and high ranking Saudi's were and are still supporting Bin laden.

I find the argument that that wasn't done because the Ladens were close friends of the Bush family pretty weak. Since when do Republicans like Bush have friends?

I think that the Cons have cooked up a new domino theory like the one that got them in Nam. Imagine that the Arab world becomes united. Imagine an Arab league which actually acts in unision. A league which speaks with power because it controls most of the remaining oil in the world. A 700 billion barrel juggernaut entering the political field. That thought must have scared the hell out of the Cons.

That's why they needed to strike. They needed a presence in that region. Not only military but also political. They also needed to set an example: Don't mess with the US.

And what better country than Iraq. Military it was supposed to be a walkover and morally it could be justified as freeing a country from an evil dictator. Once under US control Iraq would help to keep the Arab world divided.

It was not about obtaining the 3 mbd from Iraq. It was about making sure that the other 19 mbd that are flowing out of that region would never be used as a political weapon against them.

[backstop]

Specop - for all the posts above are among the best I've seen on the issue of Iraq, and doubtless cover aspects of the reasons for war, I still can't make them add up to the facts on the ground.

Some points which are I hope self-evident :

Iraq was not harbouring terrorists (let alone significant offensive weapons) before the war.

The invasion has given massive recruitment to terrorism in general (as well as field training in Iraq) and has raised sympathy for Al Quieda across Moslem countries globally.

Some less common observations :

The war is a piffling small affair and whether it's compared to Vietnmam (50k US dead, for cold war hype) or more recently to the Congo (>3.0m local dead for mineral supplies' control) the Iraq war has been given commercial media coverage out of any proportion to its scale.

The war's effect is the accelerating destabilization of the ME. A whole queue of US policy decisions has demonstrated that intention, yet we are expected to believe both that this outcome is entirely accidental, and also that its high media profile is also accidental. Most of us appear to believe so.

Conclusions:

It seems pretty obvious that destabilizing the ME is liable to diminish the extraction of oil across the region, not expand or secure it for the US, unless the US magics fresh competence into its armed forces and magics away the allies of other ME states such as China, Russia, France, Japan, Indonesia, India, etc.

Therefore IMO we are faced with an evidently intentional advance of the date of peak oil and its outcomes for undefined reasons, and (apart from lip-service-as-usual and renewed nuclear hype) with the mass distraction of popular and diplomatic attention from even considering what the alternatives to oil may be.

Meanwhile >$200Bn has been spent on the military, and not on those alternatives, and billions of people have been further impressed with the importance and irreplaceablity of oil.

Pretty neat for a bunch of pseudo-texans, eh ?

regards,


Backstop

PS Those undefined reasons above are surely the pivot to a full picture of underlying strategy. Suggestions welcome.

[frankthetank]

I don't have anything to add. You've read my mind. Combo of Euros, Oil, World Domination...

Maybe a little payback for daddy Bush?

Oil is like a bad crack habit, and I'm sure a lot of us are still addicted (some more than others).

[Sencha]

Drifter, the choice is yours, but if there was ever any time to take a side, it is now.

I never considered myself a democrat or a republican, I was independent. But, the past four years have inspired me to completely sympathize with and support the Democrats.

I'm not going to say the Democrats are perfect, I'm not going to see they can do no wrong, there probably isn't a political party in the world without some hint of corruption. (One of the biggest advocates for the draft is actually a democrat...)

But the act of taking a side, shows your willingness to stand up and oppose another side that is clearly, obviously and blatantly wrong. A side that proves from day to day, their corruption, stupidity and apathy.

It is sickening, that these conservatives can keep spewing their garbage to the masses. You're not missing anything, especially the propaganda and lie spreading of the neocon, christian extremists.

If you remain an independent, I can respect that, we need people who can view things from a nuetral standpoint. But I hope that you, as well as myself and others who make politics a central part of their lives, that critical thinking will guide our judgements.

Anyone who sits down and thinks critically, logically, looks at the facts and the world for what it is, knows that the conservatives are just as impressionable and weak-minded as the people they are trying to convince. The scariest thing is, they believe in what they're saying.
Stay strong, don't let the radical right-wingers sway you.

[PhilBiker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an conservatives really be this blind and stupid?