[jupiters_release]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '.')..However, we won't hear a major party candidate for the US presidency make such a demand. I wonder why?

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '.')..However, we won't hear a major party candidate for the US presidency make such a demand. I wonder why?

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') think that involvement in Korean or Vietnam wars was even worst then current adventure.

[halcyon]

Ron Paul has said: just leave.

Repeat: Just leave.

He is a "major party" candidate, even though not necessarily a major "party candidate".

As for the failure, as more time goes by, I'm more and more inclined to agree with the military analysts who say that the failure is by design.

Everything has gone so badly into hell (just as foretold by many analysts and even Cheney himself (although in 1994), that it seems almost unreal.

To not have understood and taken even most of this into account is such a gargantuan show of incompetence, that I think that even US military in all of it's hubris is incapable of such behavior.

As such, the other plausible explanation is malice rather than incompetence:

US want to fail in the interim in Iraq, in order to stay there for in force much longer, to tear it into separate pieces which are easier to govern ("Divide et impera") and to escalate the situation to other countries that they must also control (namely Iran and Syria).

While Iraq oil was an important target in on itself, the situation in Iraq is now a useful pretext for further military operations in the area, especially when you throw in enough of "Al Qaeda" and "international terrorism" and "nucular [sic] weapons". Phantom or real, does not matter. The dice is cast.

This is textbook military politics/propaganda, if one chooses to read a bit.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('halcyon', '
')To not have understood and taken even most of this into account is such a gargantuan show of incompetence, that I think that even US military in all of it's hubris is incapable of such behavior.

[dukey]

people should think about this

what if the war were flawed by design ..

Think about it, if everything went fatanstically, the US would have to leave, no oil contracts .. etc

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') think that involvement in Korean or Vietnam wars was even worst then current adventure.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'V')ietnam was about markets. We did not want to 'loose' a 3rd-world country and it's significant population to another paradigm-self-determination, true democracy, socialism.

[eastbay]

Because we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. We can't leave, and we can't stay. Everything and anything we do will turn out badly. Suddenly leaving could result in more catastrophe than staying forever.


Yes, if the USA departed next week, initially there might or might not be a surge in bloodshed as the civil war ignited. But after a few weeks and months, a stability designed by Iraqi's themselves would prevail. Most civil wars are like this. Remember, this is the scenario that will occur whether the USA departs next week or next decade. Delaying the inevitable for the sole purpose of creating more killing and destruction is pointless and against the national and economic interests of everyone.

What the USA is doing BY DESIGN is making this military occupation drag on with no objective. Thousands more US and other occupation soldiers plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are still waiting to be killed by the Americans. All to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Zardoz, you're right. Most of the dead are probably still walking. Occupation forces are being killed at about the same pace as what the Soviets experienced. At least the Soviets had the common sense to walk away. The USA should have learned from this.

[eastbay]

The whole thing is about taking and keeping the wealth/power, after all.

That's not the entire reason for the occupations, but it's certainly a major reason why these military occupations are occuring.

If it was the sole reason it was a huge miscalculation. The oil sent to the USA after March, 2003, has a very high price tag on it. It would have been a whole lot cheaper to have just paid for it. Remember, prior to March, 2003, the USA had Iraq completely handcuffed. Their economic activities were completely controlled by the US and their military couldn't more anywhere. Essentially, all of their imports and exports were completely controlled by US forces.

Their oil resources were already controlled by the USA. They couldn't export a drop without US approval. The March, 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq was for other reasons, which have yet to be announced and are available only to speculation.

[PenultimateManStanding]

eastbay, interestingly enough, the main Democrat candidates aren't proposing we leave either (and pissing off the base of the Party). True we could have saved a lot of money just buying the oil, but I don't think that's the idea, to save money. I think the idea is to be ready for the big oil shock that's anticipated to be coming down the pike here soon. At some point, I suppose the thinking goes, oil and military power will count for more than money. Democrats drive cars too. Also, Iran is going to become desperate as their oil depletes. War is part of the endgame. No big surprise there as it's been around most of the time anyway going all the way back. You've studied history, you know that.

[eastbay]

The coming oil shock has no bearing on military occupation or not-occupation. And besides, this is not a war, even though we all sometimes call it that. The war ended in March, 2003. What developed since then is a historically classic unpopular military occupation complete with a well organized and increasingly effective popular resistance both in the occupied nation and at home in the occupying nation. All military occupations start eroding from day one.

It doesn't matter what forces within each oil exporting nation control the oil. Oil is fungible. Controlling the destination of oil exports is meaningless in this worldwide economy and will remain so for many years. All readers at this site should know that.

This military occupation may have initially been an mis-guided and idiotic plan to gain control of Iraqi oil, but the cost has far exceeded any potential benefit to the USA and has, since the first day of the invasion, proved to be an increasingly depreciating investment in soldiers and material. In fact, regardless of what is said, it's sole purpose now is to maintain the pace of killing and destruction. Yet all the major US presidential candidates openly support indefinitely continuing the senseless killing and destruction.

Yes, PMS, it seems fewer and fewer are studing history anymore.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') think that involvement in Korean or Vietnam wars was even worst then current adventure.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')he coming oil shock has no bearing on military occupation or not-occupation.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('halcyon', 'A')s for the failure, as more time goes by, I'm more and more inclined to agree with the military analysts who say that the failure is by design.

Everything has gone so badly into hell (just as foretold by many analysts and even Cheney himself (although in 1994), that it seems almost unreal.

[eastbay]

Yes, PMS, I think threadbear said it best about what's taken over in Washington.

All unpopular military occupations do erode over time. If it's popular, or becomes popular, it's often due to a political or economic annexation. In this case, which is the subject, internal historical divisions and animosities are certainly being exploited to their fullest, aren't they. And now we may have Turkey getting into the act.

I said for many years oil will remain fungible, and it's true. It certainly may at some future point require actually forcing tankerloads of crude to change direction and move this way or that... but that future potential scenario has no bearing on the rationale for starting or continuing the utter madness of the Iraq and Afghanistan military occupations.

[eastbay]

Double...

[eastbay]

Will the oil markets be of any import in an out-and-out resource war?

Certainly market forces will have less power over the international movement of oil as we pass that stage of worldwide depletion. It may boil down to who has the strongest military in place. Are we at that point now? No, certainly not. And we weren't in 2003 either. Remember, military forces can move very quickly these days. Having forces in place in hostile territory is just downright idiotic.

When that time arrives the US and China can and probably will move military forces into place, but we're nowhere near that point yet. These two military occupations are kept going at this time for other reasons.

[lateStarter]

Ok. While I have to admit that the current situation looks, smells, and feels like a 'quagmire', it probably isn't from the point of view of the puppet masters. For the troops on the ground and their families and the people of Iraq who'd just like to live at least one day of 'normal' life - yes, this is an enormous CF.

From a strategic POV however, where else would you rather have boots on the ground with PO approaching? Iraq has X known + Y unknown of LSC. How convenient that they are neighbors of Iran (what does Iran have that the US wants/uses/needs?). Plus, they are right next door to KSA, ready, able, and willing to assist as duty calls!

I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would be glad to be stuck in such a situation. At least when the gloves came off, they wouldn't need to play things so politically correct. The US, however, is currently hamstrung with having to appear to be 'Democratic' and a defender of the 'free' world. What happens when that facade collapses?

This is going to get messy...