3 million barrels day and rising vs. 2.9 million and falling.
Not bad, even if 8 years late on the Hansmeister neocrazervative timetable.
The problem is we're not taking a "war booty" cut.
Not only that, but China is getting it all.
Imperialism epic fail. :(
Yeah. I mean, what the fuck did we fight for?
We ain't got not oil, price at the gas pump still sky high.
I thought we were fighting for oil. I guess I was wrong.
Yep. You were wrong Siege.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Yeah. I mean, what the fuck did we fight for?
We ain't got not oil, price at the gas pump still sky high.
I thought we were fighting for oil. I guess I was wrong.
Well I thought we were fighting to free the people of Iraq from a blood thirsty clique of maniacs. Maybe you should re-examine why you fight?
I don't know about siege but I was there for China.
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
I don't know Raz. Siege was a mercenary from the start, undoubtably hoping that cheap oil would help him in his political campaigns. The rest of the country was solidly against WMDs and in favor of freedom.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Yeah. I mean, what the fuck did we fight for?
We ain't got not oil, price at the gas pump still sky high.
I thought we were fighting for oil. I guess I was wrong.
Lulz, you were fighting to avenge Texan honor.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
No, it's that nobody can be bothered to remember it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 06:46:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
No, it's that nobody can be bothered to remember it.
Okay, what was it?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:55:16 AM
Okay, what was it?
Nobody tries to whack Poppy Bush and get away with it. Don't mess with Texas. Giggity.
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 12, 2012, 06:34:50 AM
I don't know about siege but I was there for China.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 07:12:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:55:16 AM
Okay, what was it?
Nobody tries to whack Poppy Bush and get away with it. Don't mess with Texas. Giggity.
It would be pretty sad if this really was the 'reason'.
I'd almost prefer to here it was actually some operation lift from the far out conspiracy theory playbook, rather than something that dumb and 'non-national interest', if you see what I mean.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what CdM says regarding the reasoning for the Iraq war.
Quote from: mongers on August 12, 2012, 10:30:39 AMI'd almost prefer to here it was actually some operation lift from the far out conspiracy theory playbook, rather than something that dumb and 'non-national interest', if you see what I mean.
Then ask yourself this: Would a President Al Gore and a Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke have invaded Iraq?
But no...stack your administration with a bunch of neocon we-didn't-finish-the-job leftovers from Desert Storm itching over Iraq the moment they assumed the White House, toss in a President that despised Saddam Hussein before he even took office over trying to whack his Daddy, add an orchestrated lie campaign to connect a Baathist dictator to a Wahhabist 9/11 because Americans can't tell the difference between their dune coons, and you have the war you want.
CdM is right. As soon as w bush was elected I told friend we would be at war with Iraq during his first term, because saddam tried to kill daddy.
Less than a year later we get 9/11 (not implying it was an inside job), then lies about wmds and Iraqi connections to the attack and voila, son is finishing daddy's work.
I was not surprised.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 10:32:43 AM
I wouldn't put too much stock in what CdM says regarding the reasoning for the Iraq war.
To greatly understate the matter.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 10:32:43 AM
I wouldn't put too much stock in what CdM says regarding the reasoning for the Iraq war.
No matter, reasoning didn't have much to do with it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the oportunity to tke out Saddam in itself made the war worth it.
It was a good cause.
However, I would have strongly preferred if we had got the oil as well.
There is nothing wrong in making a profit for national interest sake while fighting an evil dictator.
Looking back on it, if we had got the oil, it would have made everything more worthwhile.
Instead the enemies of the US have got the oil.
Very fustrating, to put it mildly.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:14:00 PM
Instead the enemies of the US have got the oil.
Very fustrating, to put it mildly.
Oil is fungible.
It is movable and traded internationally and priced on international markets.
So no one has "got it" and yet everyone has it.
The Chiense buy a lot of ME oil because it is more convenient to ship from the Gulf to China than to ship from the North Sea or the western hemisphere. If they didn't buy that oil they would buy oil somewhere else, and the effect on supply and pricing would be exactly the same.
The US war could have been (and was by some) justified as a war to secure access to oil as a "public good" for international markets, but even seen that way, it didn't work out so well . . .
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
Heck, people still argue over what the ACW was about after 150 years.
Only racists. ;)
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2012, 06:48:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
Heck, people still argue over what the ACW was about after 150 years.
Yes, there is a clear right and wrong answer on that one.
squee
The strawman that nobody knows what the Iraq war was about shall live a long and fruitful life, I am sure.
Crap like "Why didn't we get our oil!" and "We went to war because they tried to kill Dubya!" is just too infantile and tasty to let go.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 08:18:57 PMCrap like "Why didn't we get our oil!" and "We went to war because they tried to kill Dubya!" is just too infantile and tasty to let go.
Nah...sacrificing all that blood and treasure just to hand it over to the Iranian sphere of influence as it develops over the next several years is simple comfort enough. No reasons or accountability necessary.
Berkut has an opinion, and of course since it's Berkut's opinion it's also the objective truth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 08:24:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 08:18:57 PMCrap like "Why didn't we get our oil!" and "We went to war because they tried to kill Dubya!" is just too infantile and tasty to let go.
Nah...sacrificing all that blood and treasure just to hand it over to the Iranian sphere of influence as it develops over the next several years is simple comfort enough. No reasons or accountability necessary.
Arguing whether it was worthwhile or not is only made more difficult by your strawman regarding the motivation of those who pushed for war.
Holding anyone accountable is made more difficult by refusing to understand or even acknowledge the reasons for war.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 09:18:04 PM
Arguing whether it was worthwhile or not is only made more difficult by your strawman regarding the motivation of those who pushed for war.
OK, torch-bearer of Objective Truth(tm), what were the motivations?
QuoteHolding anyone accountable is made more difficult by refusing to understand or even acknowledge the reasons for war.
And they were?
And please, by all means, parrot the WMD angle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 09:18:04 PM
Arguing whether it was worthwhile or not is only made more difficult by your strawman regarding the motivation of those who pushed for war.
OK, torch-bearer of Objective Truth(tm),
You are going to lose me in any try at an actual discussion if you decide you want to try to confuse me by imitating Raz.
We should keep working on a new Status of Force agreement and bring back US troops to Iraq with permanent bases.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
You are going to lose me in any try at an actual discussion if you decide you want to try to confuse me by imitating Raz.
No, I really want to know your explanation how the reasons for going to war in Iraq were exactly as advertised.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
You are going to lose me in any try at an actual discussion if you decide you want to try to confuse me by imitating Raz.
No, I really want to know your explanation how the reasons for going to war in Iraq were exactly as advertised.
Why in the world would I put forth such an explanation?
There are options besides exactly as advertised, oil, and "omg they tried to kill daddy!"
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 07:35:18 PM
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2012, 06:48:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
The fact that nobody can agree on what the war was even about almost a decade later tells us why the public has so turned against it.
Heck, people still argue over what the ACW was about after 150 years.
Yes, there is a clear right and wrong answer on that one.
Well, that's half true.
The south clearly attempted to secede in order to preserve the institution of slavery, despite denials from certain quarters and the attempts of some people since then to obscure the issue. But not everyone who fought for the south did so because they wanted to uphold slavery, and the north for the most part didn't fight to end slavery.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Yeah. I mean, what the fuck did we fight for?
We ain't got not oil, price at the gas pump still sky high.
I thought we were fighting for oil. I guess I was wrong.
price at the pump sky high? thought you lived in the us. petrol is practically free there.
Good thing this thread went into the direction of Democrats and Republicans debating the Iraq war. We haven't had enough of that in the last 9 years.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2012, 09:18:04 PM
Arguing whether it was worthwhile or not is only made more difficult by your strawman regarding the motivation of those who pushed for war.
OK, torch-bearer of Objective Truth(tm),
You are going to lose me in any try at an actual discussion if you decide you want to try to confuse me by imitating Raz.
Don't read my posts.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 12:45:44 AM
Why in the world would I put forth such an explanation?
Then don't give be shit about mine.
QuoteThere are options besides exactly as advertised, oil, and "omg they tried to kill daddy!"
Sure there are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2012, 05:28:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 12:45:44 AM
Why in the world would I put forth such an explanation?
Then don't give be shit about mine.
I cannot believe you are getting your panties twisted up over the idea that someone might find your "They tried to kill daddy!" mtivation for why the US went to war with Iraq less than compelling.
Quote
QuoteThere are options besides exactly as advertised, oil, and "omg they tried to kill daddy!"
Sure there are.
Glad you could figure this out. It only took 12 years!
Quote from: Tyr on August 13, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
price at the pump sky high? thought you lived in the us. petrol is practically free there.
That has got to one of the stupidest things I've read in quite a while.
you have it cheaper than I do, so STFU.
they (we) also have to drive more. So overall americans probably pay more for gas.
Quote from: Tamas on August 13, 2012, 08:02:39 AM
you have it cheaper than I do, so STFU.
Oh no, Beets told me to zip it. I'm scared.
Americans crying over fuel prices is the most annoying thing ever after Anime.
Quote from: Tamas on August 13, 2012, 08:16:44 AM
Americans crying over fuel prices is the most annoying thing ever after Anime.
u mad bro?
yeah, u mad.
Euros, and especially Brits, don't typically drive several hundred miles to grandma's house. They're also less likely to live 20+ miles from work.
I think I'll take advantage off the almost free gas and fill up my Challenger and drive somewhere today.
Problem is, I just don't know where. Hoosier land? Kentucky? Towards the giant oven mitt up north? Into deepest darkest Cleveland? The urban combat zone of Youngstown? ZANESVILLE.
post your suggestions here for me to ignore. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 13, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
post your suggestions here for me to ignore. :)
Caliga's house!
Quote from: HVC on August 13, 2012, 08:05:24 AM
they (we) also have to drive more. So overall americans probably pay more for gas.
if you designed your cities better it wouldnt be such an issue. :p
but tamas has the gist of it. americans whining about high fuel prices is like arabs complaining about a sand shortage.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 10:32:43 AM
I wouldn't put too much stock in what CdM says regarding the reasoning for the Iraq war.
FYPFY :cool:
Okay, that was too tempting to pass up. :blush:
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
Glad you could figure this out. It only took 12 years!
What were your reasons for going to war with Iraq in July 2000, then?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2012, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 13, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
post your suggestions here for me to ignore. :)
Caliga's house!
Gross. One mistake and I go too far past Louisville and its suburbs and I'm in deliverance country. The chicken on a stick in that gas station still frightens the hell out of me.
Quote from: Syt on August 13, 2012, 08:24:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
Glad you could figure this out. It only took 12 years!
What were your reasons for going to war with Iraq in July 2000, then?
Berkut went to war because he felt that Iraq was not abiding by the Ceasefire.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 13, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
I think I'll take advantage off the almost free gas and fill up my Challenger and drive somewhere today.
Problem is, I just don't know where. Hoosier land? Kentucky? Towards the giant oven mitt up north? Into deepest darkest Cleveland? The urban combat zone of Youngstown? ZANESVILLE.
post your suggestions here for me to ignore. :)
One of those island on Lake Erie.
Quote from: Tyr on August 13, 2012, 08:23:34 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 13, 2012, 08:05:24 AM
they (we) also have to drive more. So overall americans probably pay more for gas.
if you designed your cities better it wouldnt be such an issue. :p
Too much land :D
Quote from: Syt on August 13, 2012, 08:24:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
Glad you could figure this out. It only took 12 years!
What were your reasons for going to war with Iraq in July 2000, then?
I didn't go to war in July 2000.
I am not sure I even understand why this is debated - the reasons (and justifications) for Iraq Round 2 are pretty well understood - I don't really think I have anything to add to the actual serious conventional wisdom for why the US went to war.
Noting that it wasn't because the Shrubbery was mad the Iraqi's tried to kill his dad or that it wasn't some nefarious plot to grab the worlds oil (both of which are simply infantile) doesn't somehow make me the standard bearer for the ACTUAL reasons.
I don't even understand why people would seriously ask the question here - Do you really not know the thinking behind the neo-con case for war beyond "ZOMG WE WANT TEH OIL!" or "ZOMG TEHY TRIED TO KILL DUBYA!"? You can disagree with the reasons the neo-cons pushed for war (and you can certainly be offended by their willingness to be dishonest when it came to selling it) without any need to willfully attempt to distort those reasons into some farcical parody.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 13, 2012, 08:24:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
Glad you could figure this out. It only took 12 years!
What were your reasons for going to war with Iraq in July 2000, then?
I didn't go to war in July 2000.
Sorry, I meant: Why did you want to go to war with Iraq in July 2000 (12 years ago)?
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 08:45:10 AMI don't even understand why people would seriously ask the question here - Do you really not know the thinking behind the neo-con case for war beyond "ZOMG WE WANT TEH OIL!" or "ZOMG TEHY TRIED TO KILL DUBYA!"? You can disagree with the reasons the neo-cons pushed for war (and you can certainly be offended by their willingness to be dishonest when it came to selling it) without any need to willfully attempt to distort those reasons into some farcical parody.
To be honest, the reasoning is a little hazy for me at is point, between the willing dishonesty and the subsequent political hay making. What would you say was the rational the case for the war?
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 08:45:10 AMI don't even understand why people would seriously ask the question here - Do you really not know the thinking behind the neo-con case for war beyond "ZOMG WE WANT TEH OIL!" or "ZOMG TEHY TRIED TO KILL DUBYA!"? You can disagree with the reasons the neo-cons pushed for war (and you can certainly be offended by their willingness to be dishonest when it came to selling it) without any need to willfully attempt to distort those reasons into some farcical parody.
To be honest, the reasoning is a little hazy for me at is point, between the willing dishonesty and the subsequent political hay making. What would you say was the rational the case for the war?
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.
The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.
The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.
The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.
He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 11:39:48 AM
Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.
I don't know about that.
Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 11:39:48 AM
Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.
I don't know about that.
Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.
He would have. Saddam was going to get invaded regardless eventually.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 11:39:48 AM
Sorry, but president Al Gore would have done it too.
I don't know about that.
Of course, the question is not whether or not Gore would have done it - the question is whether or not Bush would have done it absent 9/11. That was the actual watershed moment when administration policy radically changed in regards to Iraq.
He would have. Saddam was going to get invaded regardless eventually.
I don't think so.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.
The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.
The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.
The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.
He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.
I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured. I'd also think that it's fair to say that lack of compliance to Security Council directions is not a reason for the war but rather part of manoeuvring for position.
But fair enough, the primary reason for the war was an attempt to execute on the neo-Conservative agenda to create allies if not democracy through the use of force. So BB's third point was the general reason for a war, while the second point (Saddam was a danger) and variations thereof (some of them lies, some of them true) provided the specifics for going to war with Iraq as opposed to anyone else.
Now whether the variations on the second point included bits about Saddam trying to kill Bush Sr as CdM alleges, or any number of conspiracies about oil and private companies is a bit more muddy, but I think you're right that the primary argument in favour of the war inside the Bush administration was the neo-Con "use force to spread Democracy and gain allies".
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.
The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.
The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.
The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.
He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.
So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 AMIt's a trap!
Not a trap.
I was interested in Berkut's view, so I'd like to hear it from him (as I did). In addition, I thought BB included some fluffy bits but I didn't want to go down a tangent with them.
Quote from: mongers on August 13, 2012, 12:24:34 PMSo how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?
I think the shine went off the neo-Con halo once the post-invasion turned out to be radically different than their predictions.
Had Iraq gone exactly like Rumsfeld & Co expected I think they'd start leaning on a bunch of other regimes in the area and that Saudi Arabia would feel some of that down the road eventually too. But since the Iraqi situation turned out to be less than ideal, that whole approach is somewhat discredited at the moment.
is this the "lets celebrate the Paradox-exodus"-thread?
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 12:32:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 13, 2012, 12:24:34 PMSo how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?
I think the shine went off the neo-Con halo once the post-invasion turned out to be radically different than their predictions.
Had Iraq gone exactly like Rumsfeld & Co expected I think they'd start leaning on a bunch of other regimes in the area and that Saudi Arabia would feel some of that down the road eventually too. But since the Iraqi situation turned out to be less than ideal, that whole approach is somewhat discredited at the moment.
Indeed.
Remember it did have the modest benefit of scaring Gadaffi into renouncing terrorism, paying the victims of Lockerbie, and being awkwardly re-accepted into the international community. I think Saudi Arabia took some token steps towards democracy around that time.
But the last 10 years have shown that for change and democracy to come to a country it needs to come from within (Arab Spring), not without (Iraq).
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
I cannot believe you are getting your panties twisted up over the idea that someone might find your "They tried to kill daddy!" mtivation for why the US went to war with Iraq less than compelling.
I can't believe you don't think that was just icing on the cupcake for the neo-con planning for an Iraq strategy the moment they took office. It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.
I agree that oil was not the reason for going to war the second time around. Even the neocons weren't that clueless. However, some war hawks (Perle, Wolfowitz) were happy to sell the war by arguing that the costs would be minimal because Iraq's oil resources would allow the war to "pay for itself".
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 12:23:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.
The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.
The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.
The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.
He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.
I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured.
I think that is mostly accurate, although I do think there are ways to interpret it more or less egregiously. Meaning that I suspect that the administration really did believe Saddam had a WMD program of some sort, they just couldn't prove it, and so were willing to lie about it - after all, they were pretty sure they would find them after the fact, so thought it safe to fib a bit prior.
But yes, I do think the entire WMD angle was part of selling the war, not the primary reason for war.
Quote
I'd also think that it's fair to say that lack of compliance to Security Council directions is not a reason for the war but rather part of manoeuvring for position.
No argument from me, although that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid issue.
Quote
But fair enough, the primary reason for the war was an attempt to execute on the neo-Conservative agenda to create allies if not democracy through the use of force. So BB's third point was the general reason for a war, while the second point (Saddam was a danger) and variations thereof (some of them lies, some of them true) provided the specifics for going to war with Iraq as opposed to anyone else.
Yep. Iraq was a target of opportunity for the neo-con agenda.
Quote
Now whether the variations on the second point included bits about Saddam trying to kill Bush Sr as CdM alleges, or any number of conspiracies about oil and private companies is a bit more muddy, but I think you're right that the primary argument in favour of the war inside the Bush administration was the neo-Con "use force to spread Democracy and gain allies".
Exactly.
What I find frustrating is that I think there is actually a very important discussion that needs to be had about GF2, what went wrong, what went right, and what we should learn from it - but mostly is is lost in partisan crap like "Dubya just went to war because they tried to kill his daddy!" which people seem to just swallow, regardless of how ludicrous it is.
I guess it is still to soon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 12:58:44 PM
I agree that oil was not the reason for going to war the second time around. Even the neocons weren't that clueless. However, some war hawks (Perle, Wolfowitz) were happy to sell the war by arguing that the costs would be minimal because Iraq's oil resources would allow the war to "pay for itself".
Certainly true. That argument was definitely made.
IN retrospect, it is pretty ludicrous - but on the other hand, I don't think anyone had any idea what the cost was going to be - even the hawkiest hawk would have blanched (I think) if the actual cost had been known ahead of time.
And THAT of course raises the next question - Did it have to cost that much?
Was the incredible cost inevitable, or the result of the incredibly inept execution?
Quote from: mongers on August 13, 2012, 12:24:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East
Do you agree with this, Berkut?
In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.
The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.
The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.
The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.
He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.
So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?
LOL, you know, I had a rahter long post prepped about exactly that - how GF1 was really much more a cynical, economically driven war than GF2, and used the example that we pretty much fought GF1 to protect two human rights abusing monarchies from a dictatorship in order to secure oil supplies.
But I ditched it because I didn't think it would evoke much useful discussion.
Of course, the more on point response is that the neo-con position would be that the campaign to bring democracy to SA is going nicely - they have a nominally democratic neighbor, and that will inevitably force them to move towarsd more democracy themselves.
Cue comments about how the Arab Spring was driven by the example of free elections in Iraq, etc., etc.
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2012, 12:23:18 PM
I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured.
Disagree. Iraq had impeded the first UN mission at every turn, to the point that they were eventually limited to inspecting their own hotel rooms for WMD. Iraq then continued to impede the Blix mission. It was a reasonable inference that these were the actions of a country trying to prevent discovery of their illegal WMD stockpiles and/or programs. It was certainly not the logical reaction of a country with nothing to hide.
US troops (I'm guessing British as well) invaded Iraq with the expectation that Saddam could use WMD against them. Forcing your own troops to wear bulky, hot NBC suits that impair combat efficiency is a pretty elaborate ruse to perpetuate a hoax.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 01:08:37 PM
IN retrospect, it is pretty ludicrous - but on the other hand, I don't think anyone had any idea what the cost was going to be - even the hawkiest hawk would have blanched (I think) if the actual cost had been known ahead of time.
And THAT of course raises the next question - Did it have to cost that much?
Was the incredible cost inevitable, or the result of the incredibly inept execution?
War is rarely cheap.
The First Gulf War cost the US about $100 billion in 2011 dollars. A lot of that was offset by financial contributions from allies who didn't send troops but of course we had to know we weren't going to get much of that the second time around.
Given: (1) the mission the second time around was much broader and included the need for reconstruction and singificant post-war presence of some kind, (2) given the US component of the military force was going to be much higher proportion of the total force and (3) the First Gulf War was a remarkably efficient operation, I would think that any cost estimate under $250 billion would have been unreasonable. Of course, the actual cost was multiples of that still.
Regardless of the predictability of the cost, the notion of paying for that cost (whatever the number) with Iraqi oil revenue was at best extremely naive. After Gulf 1, there could be no illusions about what Saddam would do to the oil production infrastructue if we came hard to take him out. And the experience of Gulf I was that it took about 6 years to get production above 1/5 of the prewar peak level. True that was with partial sanctions, but also with a native regime with dictatorial powers.
As a quibble Joan, I believe Wolfowitz talked about paying for reconstruction costs out of oil revenues, not the costs of troop deployments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 01:54:34 PM
As a quibble Joan, I believe Wolfowitz talked about paying for reconstruction costs out of oil revenues, not the costs of troop deployments.
The point is that oil revenues couldn't reasonably pay for the cost of reconstructing just the oil wells and pipelines themselves, much less anything else. That was knowable in advance.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.
Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.
Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.
Oh, for the Cokehead-in-Chief it was sufficient enough. Remember, he was the anti-Gore, all feelings and gut instincts and loyalty and shit. And surrounding himself with policymakers like Jim Woolsey feeding into it, and yeah, you take a potshot at the family patriarch, you're going to get invaded.
Doesn't anybody watch
Frontline anymore? Christ.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2012, 02:26:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.
Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.
Oh, for the Cokehead-in-Chief it was sufficient enough.
Except that it wasn't. Bush opposed neo-con pressure to attack Iraq until 9/11. So clearly is was not sufficient enough.
Quote
Remember, he was the anti-Gore, all feelings and gut instincts and loyalty and shit. And surrounding himself with policymakers like Jim Woolsey feeding into it, and yeah, you take a potshot at the family patriarch, you're going to get invaded.
Doesn't anybody watch Frontline anymore? Christ.
That really sounds great until you realize it doesn't make any sense. But don't let the complete lack of evidence or reason stop you, it never has before.
I though it was all a conspiracy to get us out of EUOT and into Languish. :unsure:
Eventually, Saddam would have done something stupid and triggered war anyway. Don't forget he got Clinton to bomb his ass too.
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 13, 2012, 02:41:49 PM
I though it was all a conspiracy to get us out of EUOT and into Languish. :unsure:
Johan's long arm at work? He sacrificed Uglyduck in the doing, but that was no great loss in Sweden.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 13, 2012, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 13, 2012, 02:41:49 PM
I though it was all a conspiracy to get us out of EUOT and into Languish. :unsure:
Johan's long arm at work? He sacrificed Uglyduck in the doing, but that was no great loss in Sweden.
I think in the end it was for the good of us all, including Uglyduck.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2012, 02:36:59 PM
That really sounds great until you realize it doesn't make any sense. But don't let the complete lack of evidence or reason stop you, it never has before.
When somebody tries to whack you, I hope your son ignores it.