U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-22-2014, 09:34 AM
 
3,046 posts, read 2,634,925 times
Reputation: 2122

Advertisements

Do you think if oil was not involved that we would have attacked Iraq?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2014, 10:09 AM
 
3,700 posts, read 3,025,705 times
Reputation: 10007
All power is traceable to corporate power, whether it be ostensibly in the hands of government, or the president. Power makes the rules, decides foreign and domestic policy, power is banking and all that can be implied from the realization of what it means to control the currency of the worlds greatest superpower. ALL wars are a matter of decisions being made in order to advance the agendas of power. Oil, that one commodity that we can't live without, the stuff has replaced the notion of currencies as dominant trade mediums, it drives the entire mid east political dynamic, it is the prime ingredient in the recipe of global dominance, and they who control those with the oil, controls all. If one was to view America's military venturing as that of the policeman's duty, then one must ask the question of why this policing is done only when the spoils of such actions goes to the banking/industrialist segment of our society and never in the best interest of those in the occupied nation, nor the American people.

Bush, like all of the puppets in the power theatre, acts from the string pulls, the real masters have political continuity in the two reliable parties, so, the face of power in the White House has little consequence for real power and that is why we will see an endless war being fought, in order to dominate the global economic construct. America must position itself as the controller of resources. China's future well being is ultimately a reflection of American corporate dominance, it serves it's purpose in the global capital construct as the choice of capital's current labor and manufacturing market, but oil isn't in the cards as a Chinese prerogative, so it's "wealth" like that of other emergent economies is hinged upon America's military venturing.

It has little to do with conspiracy theories, that term conjures up the image of poorly lit backroom exploits done in the predawn hours by the likes of Dr Evil characters when in fact this kind of global dominance pursuit is simply couched as something in "America's interests" when spoken about on national news. When power abuses the democracy it inhabits it's always posed as the defender, rather than the offender, "this is something we must do", "our freedom is on the line here", "you're either with us or against us", it is always going to be couched thusly, otherwise most of America would never go along with it. One poster considers the presence of a supposed "opposition" as a threat to the agenda set forth in the edicts of our policy think-tanks, organizations such as PNAC come to mind. Read the PNAC agenda and then consider whether we have a conspiracy or just an incredibly ignorant populace..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 02:19 PM
 
17,895 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile View Post
If you word the question that way, I don't think it's incumbent upon us to advance beyond regarding it as a threat - it's up to radical Islam to advance beyond being a threat. Which is not exactly something I'm holding my breath on.

But I'm unclear what this issue has to do with invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. Iraq was not a state that supported radical Islam, and in fact Saddam probably regarded radical Islamists as an even greater threat than we do. What connection do you see between invading Iraq and suppressing radical Islam?
Actually, that's not correct. Saddam was indeed bankrolling a great deal of the terrorist activity specifically against Israel, such as offering lifetime support for families whose breadwinners committed suicide bombings in Israel.

Saddam did not support organizations like Al Qaeda--which is as dangerous to any standing Muslim regime as it is to the West--but supporting terrorism in Israel was Saddam's effort at maintaining his bona fides in the Muslim world while keeping his own regime in his secular control.

I have no doubt that the neocons in the Bush adminstration--specifically Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney--were perfectly aware that Israel would be the sole beneficiary of an invasion of Iraq. But they also knew they could never sell an invasion to Congress and the public on that basis. Possibly not even to President Bush.

You were correct about the intelligence of "stockpiles" of WMD. Even the Defense Intelligence Agency had leaked before the war that there was no reliable evidence of such, and that what evidence there seemed to be was disputed within the Intelligence Community. That provoked Rumsfeld into creating a special intelligence unit in the Pentagon to "find what everyone else has missed." Huh?

So you have a special group of people--not the professional analysts who had been studying the area for years--who are committed to creating the case for stockpiles of WMD. Lo and behold, using the sources that had been determined "unreliable" by the regular professionals (like "Curveball"), they created a case for stockpiles of WMD.

Over at CIA, it was made clear that the only analyses from the Iraq desk that would ever enter the Situation Room would be those talking about WMD. So those analysts complied, even though piling on caveats ("...the possibility of the converse cannot be denied"). Later, Rice would admit, "We never read the caveats."

In 2003, the Director of Defense Intelligence Admiral Lowell Jacoby (who had been my own boss earlier in the 90s) reported to Congress, "...we had no reliable evidence" of stockpiles of WMD. He did a lot of tapdancing--he was directly disputing his own boss--but the bottom line was that there was no reliable evidence, and the desk analysts at DIA and CIA knew it all along.

They'd tried to leak it. Some had even resigned their posts to tell it. But the nation wasn't listening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 02:21 PM
 
17,895 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vannort54 View Post
Do you think if oil was not involved that we would have attacked Iraq?
If oil were not involved, the US reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would have been the same as the US reaction to the Libyan invasion of Chad. Libya had also been supporting terrorism against Israel and around the world. Libya even had a known WMD facility. But Chad had no oil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 02:30 PM
 
17,895 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty View Post
I said from the beginning, that W. had a woody for Saddam Hussein before he was ever even "elected."...
Bush didn't, but Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz definitely did.

They had written an open letter to Clinton urging an invasion of Iraq. They themselves used to have that letter available online until fairly recently. But you can still find references to it if you Google "Project for the New American Century." Somewhere, the full text of the letter probably still exists on someone's server.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 02:39 PM
 
17,895 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vannort54 View Post
Yea right, like Bush severed all ties with big oil. I'm sure Chaney has stock in them.
His own assets were in a blind trust, but he certainly still knew who his friends were, and he knew they'd still be his friends when he left office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 02:45 PM
 
17,895 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The First Gulf War Left too many Americans with the impression that a second Iraqi invasion would be a cakewalk; people old enough to recall the pressures of the attrition strategy used in the Vietnam era should have known better.
They did know better. It took the retirement of every general who had been a junior office in Vietnam (and the direct firing of the Army Chief of Staff) to get the Iraq invasion going.

I don't think there has ever been an American war or military intervention that experienced as much Army footdragging as the Iraq invasion (although Vietnam came very close--the generals out of the Korean War were not hot on that one either, and Kennedy had to fire a number of them).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top