Iraq: U.S. definitely was NOT out for oil.

[gloomyDAY]

Why? Well American companies just got spanked by Russia and China for the rights to suck out some oil from Iraq. I just find it sad and really demoralizing that two nations that were strictly opposed to the war in Iraq now control Iraq's oil output for the next 2 decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091219/wl_time/08599194878700

U.S. government is still providing security for Iraq. Not only are America's competitors being protected by American armed forces, but they are being given a hand up and will inevitable gain all the profits. Unbelievable!

[SportscarBruce]

I share your gloomy assessment. :(

Think about it. We send our young to fight in a foreign land, our global competitors reap the spoils, and he or she returns home to find a nation trillions of dollars in debt and stripped bare of maufacturing jobs .

[Hondo]

This thread will die fast because the vast majority of people here don't want to believe that the USA and her allies went to war to remove a dangerous dictator from power and to give the population a legitimate shot at democratic self rule under a code of laws.

Unfortunately, it would appear that not too much research was done on how well the Iraqi population would behave itself without a strong, central figure threatening them. It seems similar to giving a whole bunch of guns to a whole bunch of chimps.

[janvanvurpa]

Why? Well American companies just got spanked by Russia and China for the rights to suck out some oil from Iraq. I just find it sad and really demoralizing that two nations that were strictly opposed to the war in Iraq now control Iraq's oil output for the next 2 decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091219/wl_time/08599194878700

U.S. government is still providing security for Iraq. Not only are America's competitors being protected by American armed forces, but they are being given a hand up and will inevitable gain all the profits. Unbelievable!

Clearly you never read Joseph Heller's amazing book of WWII wheeling and dealing "Catch 22".
Do it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

All I know is when the war was "Bush wants Cheap oil", the price spiked. When the war was to feed profits to the oil companies, the price then was going down. Now it is apparent that the oil companies based in the US are not going to be the winners. So Bush's little adventure there now appears to be what he claimed it was: A fight to rid the world of a threat (even if you and I may disagree on that) and someone who was flaunting and ignoring UN sanctions and dictates as the conditions for ending the first Gulf War. What is more, the US fought to give Iraq a chance to chart a new course, and it appears it isn't a US puppet. I guess the critics will have a heck of a time with this one....

[Tomi]

Its not that simple, the war has been going on for years now, and Iraq has been exporting oil all the time, one condition UN did have to get involved in Iraq was that the oil export figures (amount and prices) and to where, was to be published every year, sofar no such figures has been published, for some reason.

[ShiftingGears]

This thread will die fast because the vast majority of people here don't want to believe that the USA and her allies went to war to remove a dangerous dictator from power and to give the population a legitimate shot at democratic self rule under a code of laws.

Unfortunately, it would appear that not too much research was done on how well the Iraqi population would behave itself without a strong, central figure threatening them. It seems similar to giving a whole bunch of guns to a whole bunch of chimps.

I am inclined to agree with you. I get the impression that forcing democracy in places like Iraq is akin to trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

[anthonyvop]

Clearly you never read Joseph Heller's amazing book of WWII wheeling and dealing "Catch 22".
Do it.
You realize that Catch 22 is FICTION don't you?

[markabilly]

WTF

Our guys die so fing russkies and chinese can get fing rich and control more world supply

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am inclined to agree with you. I get the impression that forcing democracy in places like Iraq is akin to trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

At least now that is their choice. It was offered to them, and last I looked, they have had two elections, and their President is still elected. What is more, most observers said it was a fair election. It is a smug western idea to think they are not sophisticated enough Islamic countries to accept elections and democracy. What they still have now beats the regime of Saddam Hussein.

[janvanvurpa]

You realize that Catch 22 is FICTION don't you?

Of course the STORY was fiction but most semi-literate people understand the idea that truth can be presented in fictional settings in order to explore ideas to people who might otherwise, either by inclination, persuation or congenital deficiencies, but unable or unwilling to image concepts different than what they were used to.

Catch-22 was a brilliant examination of the logic of "the Organisational Man" and the rationalisations used to justify anything, as long as there is a profit to be made.

Obviously, you've never read it, or if you did, failed utterly in understanding the main idea.

[chuck34]

So the cry for so many years was that Bush did it all for the oil and that the US was going to occupy Iraq as some sort of colonial conquest. Now that that has been show to not be the case, the cry becomes what did fight and die for. How much longer will it take for you all to realize that the war was fought for rhe Exact reasons layed out buy Bush; to rid Iraq of a dictator who would do anything (including gassing his own people, ignoring UN sanctions, and God knows what else) just to stay in power?

[gloomyDAY]

How much longer will it take for you all to realize that the war was fought for rhe Exact reasons layed out buy Bush; to rid Iraq of a dictator who would do anything (including gassing his own people, ignoring UN sanctions, and God knows what else) just to stay in power?I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

[markabilly]

whatever----But that is hardly gratitude by the worthless slugs of chinese, ruskies and iraqies, who all have profited at the cost of american lives, and whose contribution was not worth even noting to getting rid of him---or worse, were actively in opposition.

So the price of oil will continue to go up, with this development.

Dumbuts in the US news services are pretty much ignoring this news.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

The Russian and Chinese oil companies are reaping the rewards because the US oil industry wasn't willing to pay the Iraqi government what they wanted in a fair bid process. It is the right of Iraqi's to determine their future at this point....

[airshifter]

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

If the fact that some people will risk their lives to help the lives of others bothers you so much, just make sure you don't join the people in such diplomatic and military efforts.

Though I tend to think there was little if any risk of that based on your following the money attitude.

[gloomyDAY]

The Russian and Chinese oil companies are reaping the rewards because the US oil industry wasn't willing to pay the Iraqi government what they wanted in a fair bid process. It is the right of Iraqi's to determine their future at this point....This is what is so confusing. I'm not sure if the United States is trying to play some kind of game because American oil companies have the money to outbid their rivals. The idea of Iraq pursuing their own future is fine by me, but shouldn't America reap some of the benefits? I mean, the U.S. only fought a war!


If the fact that some people will risk their lives to help the lives of others bothers you so much, just make sure you don't join the people in such diplomatic and military efforts.

Though I tend to think there was little if any risk of that based on your following the money attitude.Oh, please! Let's not go down that route. Johnny got his leg blown off in Iraq to see his Iraqi compatriot have a fruitful and happy life. Yeah, sure buddy.

If you want to help people, join the Peace Corps.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is what is so confusing. I'm not sure if the United States is trying to play some kind of game because American oil companies have the money to outbid their rivals. The idea of Iraq pursuing their own future is fine by me, but shouldn't America reap some of the benefits? I mean, the U.S. only fought a war!

Oh, please! Let's not go down that route. Johnny got his leg blown off in Iraq to see his Iraqi compatriot have a fruitful and happy life. Yeah, sure buddy.

If you want to help people, join the Peace Corps.


That's capitalism man. Maybe the Russky and Chinese oil companies are being subsidized so both countries can have access to that oil? You have to know Obama would NEVER subsidize the US oil industry, nor should he. They made a business decision to NOT over bid for that oil. Simple as that.

[SportscarBruce]

Who here is truly prepared to venture forth into political Not Fly Zones to order to seek out these elusive answers for questions of how and why we fight?

Ah, the good ol' US of A,
Land beholded to Military-Industrial Complex
and a corrupt two-party system
a society in decay
drowning in debt
lead in proxy by
special interest
foreign interest,
and global financial interest.

War is her #1 export
And it has to be.

Why?

Because people half a world away hate us for our our freedoms.

Or so the story goes.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd53Xs6hyM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338408&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who here is truly prepared to venture forth into political Not Fly Zones to order to seek out these elusive answers for questions of how and why we fight?

Ah, the good ol' US of A,
Land beholded to Military-Industrial Complex
and a corrupt two-party system
a society in decay
drowning in debt
lead in proxy by
special interest
foreign interest,
and global financial interest.

War is her #1 export
And it has to be.

Why?

Because people half a world away hate us for our our freedoms.

Or so the story goes.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd53Xs6hyM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338408&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Actually, they do hate you for your freedom. Not to mention most western nations for their freedoms. Just look at Bin Laden's words on the topic...

[gloomyDAY]

That's capitalism man. Maybe the Russky and Chinese oil companies are being subsidized so both countries can have access to that oil? You have to know Obama would NEVER subsidize the US oil industry, nor should he. They made a business decision to NOT over bid for that oil. Simple as that.China's oil company is subsidized. I'm not sure about Russia's.

Any other angles as to why American companies let this one go? Margin of profit? Even the French have a bigger stake in Iraqi oil than America. I know the asking price way high but there has to be some other explanation.

[Mark in Oshawa]

China's oil company is subsidized. I'm not sure about Russia's.

Any other angles as to why American companies let this one go? Margin of profit? Even the French have a bigger stake in Iraqi oil than America. I know the asking price way high but there has to be some other explanation.

Likely they can get what they need from other sources. Saudi Arabia might be one, although many Americans keep forgetting they don't import that much oil from the Middle East. Most actually comes from this hemisphere from Canada and Mexico. It is WHY Canada has been so reluctant not to sign on to any climate change treaties for CO2 output that don't mirror the Americans, because the petrochemical industry of both nations are pretty much symbiotic, at least from our side of the border.

Most of the Middle East oil goes to Europe or Asia...and THAT is why those oil companies would have a bigger incentive to bid on that Iraqi oil.

[SportscarBruce]

Actually, they do hate you for your freedom. Not to mention most western nations for their freedoms. Just look at Bin Laden's words on the topic...

What we've accomplished is akin to invading Italy and Sicily all in order to eliminate the mod.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What we've accomplished is akin to invading Italy and Sicily all in order to eliminate the mod.

Ummmmm no. While I am not sure invading Iraq was a good idea now, at the time, there was some rationale that more than just Dubya was buying. One thing was for sure, it wasn't about the oil so much as making sure someone with oil money didn't buy stuff that was going to make trouble later on. Weak? Ya...maybe in retrospect it is. Not the smartest war ever fought, but much of what has gone on since isn't the fault of you Yanks so much as it is the sectarian stupidity that Iraqi's of all stripes seem bent on carrying out. You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives.

[Tomi]

Not the smartest war ever fought, but much of what has gone on since isn't the fault of you Yanks so much as it is the sectarian stupidity that Iraqi's of all stripes seem bent on carrying out. You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives.

So you think it was the Iraqis them self who made the power vacuum in their country?

[chuck34]

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

Wow good come back, so intelectual. For you to think that I'm saying there isn't anything wrong with the loss of even one soldier is the "antonym of smart". EVERY ONE of our losses (killed or wounded) is a tragedy. But they did die for a purpose, freedom for the Iraqis. What the hell is wrong with that? You seem to be suggesting that if they had died for profit that it would have been ok. Well my friend, THAT is the antonym of smart.

If you can't understand that the war was brought on by the fact that Saddam went around claiming that he had WMD, and wouldn't let the UN in to inspect (which was in clear violation of the treaty he himself had signed, and broken many times). That, again, is the antonym of smart. Then if you can't understand that by making Saddam face the music on his violations that would bring a nice little side effect called Iraqi Freedom, well then I'm not sure you know the definition of "antonym" or "smart"

[Hondo]

Mark, Canada was actually one of the biggest evil doers according to Copenhagen. I'm not up on the technology but apparently Canada's tar sand petroleum production method generates heaps of CO2.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, Canada was actually one of the biggest evil doers according to Copenhagen. I'm not up on the technology but apparently Canada's tar sand petroleum production method generates heaps of CO2.

OH I know. Macleans Magazine had for their December 18th edition the title "Why the World Hates Canada" on it and a big story on how we were being singled out. We produce 2% of the world's CO2, we are a large (REALLY LARGE) nation with sparse population, a cold cold climate in many areas, and a resource economy. We are one of the nations that would have to really cut our lifestyle and economy in knees to meet targets.

AS for the Oilsands? .5% of our total CO2. That means it is .00025% of the world's CO2 output. So we close the oilsands down completely. Boy that .00025% will make ALL the difference. Why we might have global cooling in no time. What a load of crap. Canada was ranked 12th cleanest on the planet by the UN, and we have stringent anti-pollution standards. We don't want global warming, and we dont' want pollution, but as a Canadian I will not be painted as a villan for this it is clear that the Chinese with 40% of the world's CO2 output will not even BE ASKED TO CHANGE. THAT WAS THE LIE OF KYOTO!!!

Assuming CO2 makes this planet warmer, as many of you do, the little nickel and dime measures such as picking on Canada for the oilsands means very little if you are not hitting everyone equally.

[Hondo]

Back during the Bosnia-Kosovo thing, the USA told Milosovich he could leave on his own, or they would throw him out. To sweeten the deal, they offered to set him up with a nice place in Switzerland and a tidy chunk change to live on. He turned it down, got thrown out, and even got jacked on those silly war crimes trials. I like to think I learn from history. When I heard that Bush gave Saddam 24 hours to leave town or he was going to throw him out, I'd have made a deal for a place next to Schumachers and hauled ass. Saddam ended up on a rope.

I'd like to think that if Chavaz or some other fool becomes enough of an annoyance to act on, they'll do the smart thing and take the cash and the condo.

[Hondo]

If it makes you feel better, I like Canada and Canadians!

[Mark in Oshawa]

If it makes you feel better, I like Canada and Canadians!

I feel the love brother...I feel the love!!

We Canadians take such criticism too personally. For most our history, we have always tried to be in the middle and try to use diplomacy and consenses building in human affairs. We don't like being the bad guy or giving ultimatums. That is why many here took that Copenhagen condemnation and turned it on ourselves. There are politicians in this country that piled on that and condemned our Prime Minister for not being out in front of this and cutting our CO2 and being a good little boy. What they forget, and the activists wont care about is the livelihoods of those people in the oil patch. Not to mention the massive tax revenues and money that the industry generates.

All of this climate change political speak is not about the climate in the end, it is about the developed economies of the world feeling guilt and giving money to the poor to keep on polluting. That is what it is when you get down down to it. That and the creation of a world Carbon market where scum like Al Gore make money pretending to be helping the planet. The one company in the US that was so gung ho for a North American carbon market was Enron, and we know how pure their motives were now don't we?

[gloomyDAY]

But they did die for a purpose, freedom for the Iraqis.How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

[anthonyvop]

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?
Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?

[Mark in Oshawa]

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

Unless you fight a war after being directly attacked, any war could be seen as selfish by some. Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it.

As long as the volunteer military grunts on the ground can believe in the mission, which pointy headed intellectuals can say it isn't worth it? It isn't their skin in the game now is it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you think it was the Iraqis them self who made the power vacuum in their country?

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

[gloomyDAY]

Before this thread gets muddled any further I'm just trying to find out the flip side of this story. Something is going on behind closed doors to where the United States stands idly by and allows rival countries to take control of Iraq's oil for the next two decades. 'What's up?' is my question.

Just want some input if you have any ideas.


Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?Okay, let's try to define selfish.

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.

9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.


Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it. :crazy:

Bonkers, and no, I don't think that way!

[Mark in Oshawa]

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.!

The US kept troops over there mainly through the Cold War as a deterrent. They are still there today for that reason, and because the Japanese government WANTS them there. If they didn't, they wouldn't BE there. The presence of a US miltary base of that size in that area says to possible foes such as China or North Korea that Japan is a valuable ally of the US and the US is prepared to defend that ally. The cost of American isolationism is higher than having bases around the world. Ignoring potential enemies with a hate America agenda has never worked in the history of the US.


9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.



The Patriot Act was passed by both parties in Congress and was used to track potential threats in cyberspace communication and hopefully stem any attacks by sleeper cells on US soil. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the FBI and CIA had the power to co-ordinate data and information of threats in and out of the country and their communication to the "head office" in Afghanistan. So the Patriot Act was born. It had to be repassed every year, so the politicians always knew that they had to justify it's existance as an emergency measure. As for the civil rights being abused, in theory yes. Name me one person tho you have met who had their mail read? Name me someone who had their phones tapped? You cannot. We may never know how much was monitored, but the way elint is gathered, the reality is other spy agencies such as SDECE, and MI5, not to mention Canada's CSIS can do covert spying and mail reading of American communications leaving the country to other nations on the CIA's behalf and then warn the CIA covertly of the threat. There are many ways that even without the Patriot Act the US Government can be informed of threats against the USA. The Patriot act was more public relations than people realize.

US citizens still have more civil rights to free speech and unflitered communications than almost any other soceity. The Patriot act didn't do much more than threaten it more in theory than in reality.

[Tomi]

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

The analogy is what Iam speaking of Tomi. Blaming the US for the fact Iraqi's are willing to kill each other unless a brutal dictator is running the country is just silly. The US may have removed the force that was stopping the sectarian strife, but that force (Hussein) was killing 25000 people a year according to many UN and Amnesty International reports. So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

[Tomi]

So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

Yes it would, who has said like that?

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

This last is nothing but speculation, better wait and see, but I belive that there will be some group who feels that they have been unfair treated so the violence will last for long time.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This last is nothing but speculation, better wait and see, but I belive that there will be some group who feels that they have been unfair treated so the violence will last for long time.

Tomi, it is speculation based on the history of nations run by a dictator where there was/is two or three prominent ethnic/religious blocks who cant get along. Yugoslavia? Tito dies and within 10 years the bloodbath in the Balkans makes Iraq look tame. Same situation, take away the power holding the lid on the pot, and it boils over. Whether it is the US Army or just the Grim Reaper of old age taking out the dictator, there is often a lot of violence as there is no repression keeping the lid on things.

[Tomi]

Tomi, it is speculation based on the history of nations run by a dictator where there was/is two or three prominent ethnic/religious blocks who cant get along. Yugoslavia? Tito dies and within 10 years the bloodbath in the Balkans makes Iraq look tame. Same situation, take away the power holding the lid on the pot, and it boils over. Whether it is the US Army or just the Grim Reaper of old age taking out the dictator, there is often a lot of violence as there is no repression keeping the lid on things.

Yugoslavia is not a good example because, they did have no nature resourses, Iraq has, and those are split a little here and there around in the country, there is big resourses where the kurds live too, this makes it much more complicated than Yugoslavia, also the thing that their resourses are now given away to foreign companies will sooner or later give reasons for protests too, I think the Norwegian model would have been far better than this current.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yugoslavia is not a good example because, they did have no nature resourses, Iraq has, and those are split a little here and there around in the country, there is big resourses where the kurds live too, this makes it much more complicated than Yugoslavia, also the thing that their resourses are now given away to foreign companies will sooner or later give reasons for protests too, I think the Norwegian model would have been far better than this current.

We are talking about a fragile state with a multi ethnic mix where there is hatred and distrust between the various groups and their relationship with a brutal leader. Norway has NOTHING in common with this. Yugoslavia had no oil and yet the sectarian violence when the oppressive national government lost control was vicious. It is the SAME dynamic more or less in Iraq. The killing and violence in Iraq was never about the oil. It is because the Sunnis were close to Hussein and seen as in bed with him while the Shiites and Kurd's suffered. The Sunni's had their own grievences too with the oppression of Saddam, so they had sub groups fighting for prominence within THAT community, and then you can add in outside agitatators to keep the stew brewing from Al Quiada and Iranian support for the Shiite militias.

Yugoslavia's template may not be identical but there are huge simlilarities. Any time a country is an artificial construct with numerous ethnic groups inside of it where there is no real national identity except what is imposed by a brutal leader, you have the potential and likihood of an all out bloodbath once that oppression is released. There is no history of diplomacy, only violence from the gov't that was controllign them, and it is the way they settle their issues.

[Tomi]

We are talking about a fragile state with a multi ethnic mix where there is hatred and distrust between the various groups and their relationship with a brutal leader. Norway has NOTHING in common with this. Yugoslavia had no oil and yet the sectarian violence when the oppressive national government lost control was vicious. It is the SAME dynamic more or less in Iraq. The killing and violence in Iraq was never about the oil. It is because the Sunnis were close to Hussein and seen as in bed with him while the Shiites and Kurd's suffered. The Sunni's had their own grievences too with the oppression of Saddam, so they had sub groups fighting for prominence within THAT community, and then you can add in outside agitatators to keep the stew brewing from Al Quiada and Iranian support for the Shiite militias.

Yugoslavia's template may not be identical but there are huge simlilarities. Any time a country is an artificial construct with numerous ethnic groups inside of it where there is no real national identity except what is imposed by a brutal leader, you have the potential and likihood of an all out bloodbath once that oppression is released. There is no history of diplomacy, only violence from the gov't that was controllign them, and it is the way they settle their issues.

Offcourse Norway has something in common, the oil, if you read, i was refering in how to exploit the nature sourses, to do like Norway does with their oil would have been smarter than to give it away like they do now.
I said that I belive the fighting will go on much longer in Iraq than in Yugoslavia because of the oil.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Offcourse Norway has something in common, the oil, if you read, i was refering in how to exploit the nature sourses, to do like Norway does with their oil would have been smarter than to give it away like they do now.
I said that I belive the fighting will go on much longer in Iraq than in Yugoslavia because of the oil.

The key to Iraq's problems Tomi ISNT The oil. Norway has NOTHING in common with Iraq BUT oil. Iraq is a country made up of three groups that hate each other or at best barely tolerate each other. Your assertion earlier was that the US created a power vacuum and it is THEIR fault all the violence occurs. It is MY assertion that whenever a strong dictator or leader holds a country like this together with brutal to strong force, when removed or through his natural death, the country will break into a civil war or at the very least a lot of sectarian violence. IT is like taking the lid off a boiling pot.

If Hussein was left to die of old age, coup or was just assinated, I fail to see how Iraq wouldn't decend into some form of the present chaos, and likely WORSE because the presence of the US troops has likely stopped some of it over time. Your feeling that Norway is applicable is based on oil? It isn't the oil really that matters. There are scores to settle between the three groups, outside agitators with their own agenda's and yes, in the end, a fight to hold the oil, but I suspect the oil is a means to an end. To pay for the power to put the groups in their "place".

[Tomi]

"You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives."
This are your exact words, but the fact is that us created the power vacum that is now in Iraq, its a fact its not an opinion, or do you claim that us never attaced Iraq and started the war?
If Hussein would have died in old age or what ever if's are only speculation, based on nothing really.
What comes to the oil, if a country have only 2 nature sourses sand and oil, its better for them self to control the oil instead of giving it away, Norway could have sold the rights to others too, but they did it the clever way and kept it to them self, I think Iraq should have done the same.

[Mark in Oshawa]

"You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives."
This are your exact words, but the fact is that us created the power vacum that is now in Iraq, its a fact its not an opinion, or do you claim that us never attaced Iraq and started the war?
If Hussein would have died in old age or what ever if's are only speculation, based on nothing really.
What comes to the oil, if a country have only 2 nature sourses sand and oil, its better for them self to control the oil instead of giving it away, Norway could have sold the rights to others too, but they did it the clever way and kept it to them self, I think Iraq should have done the same.


First off, you may not like my speculation but you are extremely naive if you believe Iraq wouldn't be a battle ground once Saddam was removed by old age or a coup. Second of all, I don't think the Iraq of Saddam was any paradise Tomi. Your righteous indingnation over this better have been aimed at Saddam prior to his removal, or you are a hypocrite. Saddam was one of the nastiest humans on the planet, killing close to 25000 citizens he bragged loved him a YEAR. Amnesty International said what a hideous place was the Iraq of Saddam, so spare me this it is all the American's doing the killing.

The point is Iraq has a somewhat functioning democracy now, and yes, they sold the oil rights off, but you would be dreaming if you don't think for a heart beat they will not be getting royalties for every drop of oil. Maybe the people of Iraq will see some of that wealth. Saddam just spent it on what he wanted, and to power his regime, while his people starved. I defy you to defend that Tomi. Go right ahead, you and Eki love freedom and democracy only where you can use the lack of it as a debating point against something the US did...

Oh...by the way..Merry Christmas!!!!!

[Tomi]

First off, you may not like my speculation but you are extremely naive if you believe Iraq wouldn't be a battle ground once Saddam was removed by old age or a coup. Second of all, I don't think the Iraq of Saddam was any paradise Tomi. Your righteous indingnation over this better have been aimed at Saddam prior to his removal, or you are a hypocrite. Saddam was one of the nastiest humans on the planet, killing close to 25000 citizens he bragged loved him a YEAR. Amnesty International said what a hideous place was the Iraq of Saddam, so spare me this it is all the American's doing the killing.

The point is Iraq has a somewhat functioning democracy now, and yes, they sold the oil rights off, but you would be dreaming if you don't think for a heart beat they will not be getting royalties for every drop of oil. Maybe the people of Iraq will see some of that wealth. Saddam just spent it on what he wanted, and to power his regime, while his people starved. I defy you to defend that Tomi. Go right ahead, you and Eki love freedom and democracy only where you can use the lack of it as a debating point against something the US did...

Oh...by the way..Merry Christmas!!!!!

Now you are mixing up things and drifting away from the issue witch was your claim, "You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives."

Yes I belive they get royalties, but they dont control their own sourses, thats a big different, sofar a small part of the fields are in foreign hands, will be interesting to see whats happen to the rest.

Merry Christmas to you too :)

[Hondo]

The "violent, anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives" is exactly how Saddam came into power in Iraq, after screwing up the first attempt. Swift and blinding acts of violence against any opposition was how he stayed in power.

I might add that in a democracy or republic where one party has gained a signifigant majority, the opposition can be effectively killed by rule of law just as effectively as lining up herds of people and shooting them.

The change of any nation's government should be led and policed by that nation's population. If the majority is not willing to undertake the risks of throwing out a tyrant, let them learn to live under the rule of what they have.

If the USA went into Iraq for their oil, we would have it with apologies to no one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tomi...You think because the Iraqi's are allowing foreign oil companies to pump the oil, they have no control. They do. They have sovereignty over their soil, and they can kick out the Russians and Chinese tomorrow if they so choose. Since They never developed an engineering infrastructure and their oil companies, they like the Saudi's rely on foreign oil companies to run the oil industry, but make no mistake, they are getting paid, and they in the end can turn off the taps. Just like the Saudi's, just like any other nation with foreign multinationals running the oil infrastructure.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As for my speculating on the power vacuum theory of why the violence happens vs the natural course of events, believe me, it is speculation, but based on history. If a group of "civilized" Europeans can slaughter and kill many they don't like just based on events of hundreds or thousands of years ago, you have to get it into your mind that the Iraqi's don't need oil to go after each other. Religious intolerance among sects of Islam is real, and is the basis for much of the violence between Sunni's (Saddam's favoured class) and the Shiites (backed by Iranian interests bent on stirring up trouble). They don't NEED the oil to fight over. The Oil in the end maybe the catalyst to make them work together. Factor in the Kurd's who were hated by both groups, and persecuted greatly by the Sunni's and Saddam and you have a mess yes, but whether the US coming in or Saddam being taken out by other means, the tensions are still there.

[Drew]

HAHA pwned!! Maybe next time they'll think twice...

[airshifter]

HAHA pwned!! Maybe next time they'll think twice...

I can only assume you are refering to the people shallow enough to think the war was all about oil. ;)

[anthonyvop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8435151.stm

Yep. Bush and the Big US Oil companies planned it that way!!!!

Some people just can't mask their jealous hatred of the US.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8435151.stm

Yep. Bush and the Big US Oil companies planned it that way!!!!

Some people just can't mask their jealous hatred of the US.

Distrust perhpas? Jealous hatred? I think it is just hatred. Never figured out where it comes from but you guys do make it easy on occasion.

I just laugh tho when all we heard from the chattering classes in the lead up and during the war for Iraq that this was a war for cheap oil and the US oil companies were going to make out like bandits.

The oil isn't cheap, and the only oil companies not making like bandits are the US ones...so maybe, just maybe it was a war about principle. Oooooooooh, they HATE that don't they?

Personally, I think the war was probably a bad idea, but it is done and over with now, and No one can say Iraq isn't looking at a better future. Just took a long time to look that way.

[chuck34]

Come on now Mark, the war COULDN'T possibly have been about principal. Bush is the manifistation of all things evil, don't you know that? He had to have gone to war for evil purposes, it just couldn't have been for anything other than profit or bloodlust or some other sinister reason. Personally (and this is just between you and me) but I heard from my sister's best friend's cousin, who heard it on the internet, so you know it MUST be true, that 'ole GWB was written a check for 10 bucks from Haliburton for each dead American. THAT is the reason he started two wars, oh yeah, and rigged the twin towers with explosives, personally flew the airplanes in by remote, and made sure all the Jews were out because they count agaist him. I heard it on the 'net so it must be true ;-)

[tinchote]

What I don't see mentioned here as a cause of the war is the fact that the USA need to be in war because they need to keep their huge military industry running. Lost of votes to be lost if many weapons' factories start laying people off.

[Hondo]

What I don't see mentioned here as a cause of the war is the fact that the USA need to be in war because they need to keep their huge military industry running. Lost of votes to be lost if many weapons' factories start laying people off.

Hey tin, nice to see you out and about again. You mention a small, although valid point. The real money is in weapons development and having real world conditions to use for testing and proving grounds is invaluable. Look at the poor quality, failure rates, and unsuitability all countries had going into WW II with weapons designed and tested under controlled, laboratory conditions. Look at the stuff we went into Viet Nam with and compare it to what we were using when we came out.

Nice point.

You still holding at 3 or have you been doing a little development of your own?

[tinchote]

Hey tin, nice to see you out and about again.

You still holding at 3 or have you been doing a little development of your own?

Hey, man :)

It was 4 when I left, and it's 5 now :D

[Drew]

I can only assume you are refering to the people shallow enough to think the war was all about oil. ;)

Touché!

[Mark in Oshawa]

What I don't see mentioned here as a cause of the war is the fact that the USA need to be in war because they need to keep their huge military industry running. Lost of votes to be lost if many weapons' factories start laying people off.

They don't need Uncle Sam to be in a war. Lots of proxy wars and violence around the globe.

[anthonyvop]

What I don't see mentioned here as a cause of the war is the fact that the USA need to be in war because they need to keep their huge military industry running. Lost of votes to be lost if many weapons' factories start laying people off.

Really?
So all the wars going on today in which the participants are using AK's and other Russian equipment is just a coincidence?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Really?
So all the wars going on today in which the participants are using AK's and other Russian equipment is just a coincidence?

Ssssh...don't point out the most popular weapon on the planet is a Kalishnokov, the weapon of choice to every underdog terrorist network in the 3rd world.

[anthonyvop]

Ssssh...don't point out the most popular weapon on the planet is a Kalishnokov, the weapon of choice to every underdog terrorist network in the 3rd world.
Because the Russians gave them away like candy to spoiled children. Even today an New AK costs less than $150 Wholesale. A new M-4 costs over $800 wholesale.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Because the Russians gave them away like candy to spoiled children. Even today an New AK costs less than $150 Wholesale. A new M-4 costs over $800 wholesale.

I knew that. Just is evidence of the lie that you Yanks are the only ones in the military supply to start wars game.

[Camelopard]

The US kept troops over there mainly through the Cold War as a deterrent. They are still there today for that reason, and because the Japanese government WANTS them there. If they didn't, they wouldn't BE there.......


It would appear that the Japanese government doesn't want US bases on Okinawa anymore, but the US won't leave:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/13/2791700.htm?section=justin

[Camelopard]

I knew that. Just is evidence of the lie that you Yanks are the only ones in the military supply to start wars game.

Seems that making AK 47's is very good business! Isn't that what life is all about, making money and spreading it around so we can all buy our 'made in the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA' knick knacks?

http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Factories.php


Even companies in the US are selling these weapons and unless I'm mistaken some are even made in the US! Now that is capitalism at it's best!

http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Manufacturers.php#akusa

I really hope they are paying royalties to poor old Mr Kalashnikov (http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/). :)


http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Manufacturers.php

[555-04Q2]

Why? Well American companies just got spanked by Russia and China for the rights to suck out some oil from Iraq. I just find it sad and really demoralizing that two nations that were strictly opposed to the war in Iraq now control Iraq's oil output for the next 2 decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091219/wl_time/08599194878700

U.S. government is still providing security for Iraq. Not only are America's competitors being protected by American armed forces, but they are being given a hand up and will inevitable gain all the profits. Unbelievable!

1. America had no business in Iraq, yet they started a war there. I feel no sympathy at all.

2. America has made billions from the war in Iraq and will make more in the future. Wars are big business.

[anthonyvop]

The US do have quite an extensive customer list:

Taiwan
Australia
UK (although we contribute too)
Israel
Uzbekistan
Singapore
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Kuwait
United Arab Emirates
Algeria
Pakistan
India
Afghanistan
South Africa
Brazil
Chille.. etc etc I won't list them all...

It has been confirmed that the US supplies arms to 18 countries out of the 25 major conflicts occurring around the globe at present.. :)

Only 18? Obama is going to ruin our economy.
BTW Would it be possible to show us exactly how this is confirmed? Can you reveal your source?
Oh and of the 25 how many are supplied arms by Russia?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Seems that making AK 47's is very good business! Isn't that what life is all about, making money and spreading it around so we can all buy our 'made in the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA' knick knacks?

http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Factories.php


Even companies in the US are selling these weapons and unless I'm mistaken some are even made in the US! Now that is capitalism at it's best!

http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Manufacturers.php#akusa

I really hope they are paying royalties to poor old Mr Kalashnikov (http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/). :)


http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Manufacturers.php

Mr. Kalishnikov can sue for copyright infringment in the US, he wouldn't get anything from the Chinese but the courts in the US would give him some love.

As for this fiction the US is the only nation in the arms business, may I remind you little innocent Belgium has done alright, with their FN being used all over the world. Canada, a country not renowned for arms is also big in arms supply. Many nations besides the US make money off of wars, and while the US makes a good buck, they are near or at the top in the supply of Cars, computers, and a gazillions of other products. To somehow condemn them for selling arms to countries around the world is throwing stones in glass houses for many people, espeically in places like Canada or the UK, not to mention elsewhere. Heck...should we condemn the Finns for Nokia Cell phones because one is used in a car bomb to help detonate it? Let's not get silly.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The US do have quite an extensive customer list:

Taiwan
Australia
UK (although we contribute too)
Israel
Uzbekistan
Singapore
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Kuwait
United Arab Emirates
Algeria
Pakistan
India
Afghanistan
South Africa
Brazil
Chille.. etc etc I won't list them all...

It has been confirmed that the US supplies arms to 18 countries out of the 25 major conflicts occurring around the globe at present.. :)

Canada buys arms from the US. We use the M1 carbine now and have F-18's and build the armoured cars the Marines use as well as using them ourselves. Lets be realistic here. The US makes this stuff, nations buy it, the same way other nations buy arms made in Russia, China, the UK, Japan and others. Weapons are a commodity that is sold and traded much the same as any other conusmer product. THe only difference is how nations use them. THAT is where you hold nations accountable, those who use the weapons in unethical conflicts...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Russia and the US are the biggest arms exporters in the world no doubt. The US is still leads the market by a considerable margin. According to some sources they have a 41% market share... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R40796.pdf

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

IT should be noted, that is capitalism. American arms companies are going to sell their product until the government tells them not to. Ditto for the Russians. Since buying arms now is more of a situation of capitalistic sales and less a state policy now than it was, it is only natrual the Americans are better at this arms sales game than the Russians. They have better toys and the companies are better at making sales obviously.

Look..selling arms is part of the world's commerce. To say to the US, you shouldn't sell arms is silly. A lot of nations sell arms, a lot of the time to parties to just HAVE arms. It doesn't have to be afor a political reason, just to arm one's military. The fact some nations are not ethical with their use of arms, or terrorists gain access to them doens't change the fact that arms sales of many products are legal. There isn't some hidden agenda here...

[anthonyvop]

Russia and the US are the biggest arms exporters in the world no doubt. The US is still leads the market by a considerable margin. According to some sources they have a 41% market share... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R40796.pdf

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

I always loved those charts because they always talk in Dollars not in Material.

When the US sells a M-4 Carbine for close to $1,000.00 wholesale and the Russians sell Ak's for under $100 or less the what do you expect?

Also the US tends to sell more Big Ticket Items(Planes, Radars systems, Tanks...ect) than the Russians.

US weapons rarely are sold to insurgents or rebels. They can't afford them

[Mark in Oshawa]

I always loved those charts because they always talk in Dollars not in Material.

When the US sells a M-4 Carbine for close to $1,000.00 wholesale and the Russians sell Ak's for under $100 or less the what do you expect?

Also the US tends to sell more Big Ticket Items(Planes, Radars systems, Tanks...ect) than the Russians.

US weapons rarely are sold to insurgents or rebels. They can't afford them

But then you are answering the statement Ike made when he said: "beware of the miltary industrial complex"......

I am agree with you Tony, but it does lend credence to the faint idea that the military equipment lobby wants wars to sell more toys...I am sure no one on the Boeing board was going to show up at an anti-war rally....