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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

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".

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

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. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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 ;-)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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

---

Touché!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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/2...section=justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/2009121...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camelopard

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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/...s-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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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/...s-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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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....