Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on January 15, 2013, 04:54:09 pm
-
...this is why: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Latest+American+conspiracy+theory+claims+Newtown+mass/7823274/story.html
Some of the Sandy Hook Truthers, as they've been dubbed, believe last month's mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., was a hoax.
The Obama administration perpetrated the hoax, the conspiracy theorists claim, in order to ratchet up support for tougher gun control measures.
They call themselves Operation Terror, and many of the movement's adherents appear to have ties to the so-called 9-11 truthers who have long held that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job by the George W. Bush administration.
Their theories on the Dec. 14 shooting in Sandy Hook appear to lack any basis in fact, reality or common sense. But Google Trends suggests the movement is gaining momentum with both a Florida college professor and a libertarian Fox News anchor in Cincinnati questioning the official narrative on the events.
On various websites and blogs, some Sandy Hook truthers crow about the "smoking gun" they say proves the shooting was a hoax — a photo of President Barack Obama, backstage at a Newtown vigil two days after the shooting, a young blonde girl sitting on his lap.
They insist the girl is six-year-old Emilie Parker, one of the 20 child victims of the shooting. The Sandy Hook truthers claim her parents slipped up in their participation in the hoax, and allowed their eldest daughter to cuddle up to Obama.
"The story that she was killed at Sandy Hook is not possible, because here she is sitting on the president's lap after the shooting," intones the narrator of a YouTube video, one of dozens of its kind, this one the recipient of more than 260,000 web hits.
In fact, it's the dead girl's little sister.
-
More info on the wackadoodles in this Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_worst_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory_yet/
-
...I hate humanity.
-
...I hate humanity.
-
...I hate humanity.
My response too. And yet, on one forum I frequent (Facepunch), lots of people were jumping to the defence of these nutters because it's "Critical thinking". No, it's not, you idiot teens, it is neither critical nor thought.
-
It's only "critical thinking" in that it's critical that these people stop talking. Forever. Or at least until their brains start functioning properly again. :banghead:
*insert the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" image macro here*
-
Buzz Aldrin once demonstrated a way to deal with such nuts. A punch in the face. This should be made a standard procedure.
-
http://thrdgll.tripod.com/buzz.htm
-
As I've said before, I preferred the days when people just stood around with placards saying 'The End is Nigh!', at least it was easier to tell who the nutjobs were back then.
Nowadays, these people get onto YouTube spouting half-evidence and assumption as fact, create confusion and misinterpret it as 'reasonable doubt'.
I pity the families, for having the memories of their loved-ones insulted, but I also pity the people who swallow this kind of thing whole, who call others 'sheep' whilst being blind to how easily they themselves have been pulled along by their own fears, and by some undefinable need to hate their own Government on a level that goes far beyond genuine criticism.
-
http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DWx9GxXYKx_8
Related video.
Yes, the government managed to pull of a psyop of this size without a single person cracking and revealing the truth. That's what it is.
YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE I HAVE FACTS.
Can't lie about the date bits at the end making me feel a little unease, but those could be effortlessly faked.
-
1. Identify the nutcases.
2. Kill them.
3. Hail the Brave New World.
-
http://thrdgll.tripod.com/buzz.htm
:yes:
on the op, looks like a lot of people are still forgetting to take their meds.
-
http://thrdgll.tripod.com/buzz.htm
Love it, but it needs at least one more panel. :)
-
I really wish I could remember it, but a long time ago a program aired over here (in the UK) and just picked apart the moon landing. Going over point after point after point after point as to why it could be a hoax, way, way more than just the fact you can't see any stars. Anomolies in the recording, things that look different in one shot to the next, as if it might have been shot over several days, and as if they shot everything in one place, even though they went all over the moon. I think there might have been gear on the astronauts disapperaing and reappearing when they're supposed to be at the same location. At least I think that's what it was, my memory is very hazy on that. So don't quote me on any of those facts. It's so frustrating not being able to remember what it was or more clearly, and not being able to show you. But I remember it being enough to make me think it very well could be, and I didn't want to believe it, but there was too much evidence in front of me not to seriously consider it, just about anything else I probably would have flipped right over to the conspiray side. And I'm no conspiracy theorist at all. It was enough to really make me seriously consider whether the moon landing really was a hoax. It doesn't matter too much in this day and age whether it was a hoax or not, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge on the moon landing. I really wish I could have shown you it. I imagine such a thing wouldn't make it on to TV in America.
With Buzz, if you were Buzz, would you punch the guy out? If it was me, and it was true, I'm the man that went to the moon, I'm a hero, I've got nothing to prove. I'm not going to punch the man, I'm just going to laugh in his face. But if I haven't gone to the moon, I've got this guy in my face on TV threatening to expose me, I'm going to shut him up with a punch to the mouth.
I think in the end I just want to say that questioning the moon landing doesn't make you automatically nuts.
-
I think in the end I just want to say that questioning the moon landing doesn't make you automatically nuts.
It makes you automatically a loon because of the vast amount of evidence that is out there and verified. It's like denying the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, or the fact that the planet is round(ish). Eventually, there is a pile of evidence so big that denying it is being willfully blind and therefore a conspiracy-theory nutjob.
As an example, the moon landings resulted in the collection of rock and samples from near the landing sites, the landing was independently verified by several countries hostile to the United States, and the LRO has pictures of the landing sites with the landers in place. Even if everything else had been faked, do you really think hostile nations would give the US the PR coup of saying they were the first nation to land a human on the moon if that wasn't true?
Critical thinking appears to be a lost skill.
-
I think in the end I just want to say that questioning the moon landing doesn't make you automatically nuts.
It makes you automatically a loon because of the vast amount of evidence that is out there and verified. It's like denying the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, or the fact that the planet is round(ish). Eventually, there is a pile of evidence so big that denying it is being willfully blind and therefore a conspiracy-theory nutjob.
As an example, the moon landings resulted in the collection of rock and samples from near the landing sites, the landing was independently verified by several countries hostile to the United States, and the LRO has pictures of the landing sites with the landers in place. Even if everything else had been faked, do you really think hostile nations would give the US the PR coup of saying they were the first nation to land a human on the moon if that wasn't true?
Critical thinking appears to be a lost skill.
Can you show me?
-
Can you show me?
The great thing about the Internet is that I shouldn't have to. However, Wikipedia has a half-decent primer on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
Yes, I didn't just sit there waiting for you. I found this, which looks to be the photographs which you were referring to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2034594/NASA-moon-landing-hoax-New-photographs-silence-conspiracy-theory.html
-
I really wish I could remember it, but a long time ago a program aired over here (in the UK) and just picked apart the moon landing. Going over point after point after point after point as to why it could be a hoax, way, way more than just the fact you can't see any stars. Anomolies in the recording, things that look different in one shot to the next, as if it might have been shot over several days, and as if they shot everything in one place, even though they went all over the moon. I think there might have been gear on the astronauts disapperaing and reappearing when they're supposed to be at the same location. At least I think that's what it was, my memory is very hazy on that. So don't quote me on any of those facts. It's so frustrating not being able to remember what it was or more clearly, and not being able to show you. But I remember it being enough to make me think it very well could be, and I didn't want to believe it, but there was too much evidence in front of me not to seriously consider it, just about anything else I probably would have flipped right over to the conspiray side. And I'm no conspiracy theorist at all. It was enough to really make me seriously consider whether the moon landing really was a hoax.
Seen it. It was a load of poppycock dressed up to sound real. This (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) page does a very good job of explaining how completely wrong it was about everything.
I imagine such a thing wouldn't make it on to TV in America.
The show was made in America.
I think in the end I just want to say that questioning the moon landing doesn't make you automatically nuts.
Asking for the evidence doesn't make you nuts. It makes you a good rationalist.
Starting from the point of view that man didn't land on the moon makes you nuts. If you're going to claim that everyone else is wrong and your minority view is right, despite the ease with which you could get information to make the decision correctly, then you're nuts.
-
Remember, I didn't say I was outright saying the moon landing was a hoax, but that questioning it doesn't make you nuts. I don't want it to be a hoax. I had a huge passion for astronomy when I was younger. The subject still fascinates me, but not to the extent it did back then.
I must try and watch that to see if it matches up with the one I watched. If it's the same one, that's going to be embarrassing. As soon as I saw the word "Fox", that kind of destroyed it's credibility right there. I know I wasn't familiar personally with some of the scientific concepts at the time, but you trust something on TV to get that stuff right. And I probably didn't have internet (or a PC) back then. I'm sure I would have checked stuff out if I did.
Time to find out if it's the one I watched...
-
Questioning that the sky is blue while at the same time refusing to look outside actually does kinda make you nuts, no ? ;)
I.e.: It's the refusal to verify easily verifiable information while pretending some random fantasy is true at the same time.
-
Remember, I didn't say I was outright saying the moon landing was a hoax, but that questioning it doesn't make you nuts. I don't want it to be a hoax. I had a huge passion for astronomy when I was younger. The subject still fascinates me, but not to the extent it did back then.
I must try and watch that to see if it matches up with the one I watched. If it's the same one, that's going to be embarrassing. As soon as I saw the word "Fox", that kind of destroyed it's credibility right there. I know I wasn't familiar personally with some of the scientific concepts at the time, but you trust something on TV to get that stuff right. And I probably didn't have internet (or a PC) back then. I'm sure I would have checked stuff out if I did.
Time to find out if it's the one I watched...
Hey, the show almost convinced me. It does a good job of presenting enough half-truths to sound believable. But when I saw it the first time I noticed that very little time was being given to the other side of the argument so I went online and looked for the counter-evidence. Took me all of 5 minutes to realise what was going on.
Pity the controller of Channel 4 or Channel 5 didn't bother to do that (I forget which one aired this ****). I'm somewhat surprised they didn't get pulled up in front of the ITC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Television_Commission) for broadcasting something so obviously fraudulent as a factual program.
-
Questioning that the sky is blue while at the same time refusing to look outside actually does kinda make you nuts, no ? ;)
I.e.: It's the refusal to verify easily verifiable information while pretending some random fantasy is true at the same time.
Hey, hey, I couldn't do it at the time.
I can do it now, so I am.
And I'm watching the program, and unfortunately it's looking a lot like the one I remember...
Also, what Karojorma says sounds right. I didn't have any kind of TV beyond the five channels either at the time, so it would have been on one of the main five, thus giving it credibility.
-
What is the single most compelling piece of evidence to suggest the moon landings were faked? Seriously.
I think I have actually seen segments of that program before, and was just dumbfounded. Most of the arguments are simply appeals to common sense, but one must remember the lunar environment is very different from the Earth environment, so common sense may lead to incorrect assumptions on how things should look.
-
Well, here's the program we're all talking about if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIy8ZqqK5G8
I'm close to 100% confident it's the same one I watched now. Watch it for yourself and remember I didn't have internet access before you judge me if you haven't seen it before. Because I'm watching it right now, and it's still looking convincing to me. I need to find out why the stuff they're coming up with is bogus now.
I'm glad you say it almost convinced you too, Karojorma. Of course, I couldn't go online like you.
-
With Buzz, if you were Buzz, would you punch the guy out? If it was me, and it was true, I'm the man that went to the moon, I'm a hero, I've got nothing to prove. I'm not going to punch the man, I'm just going to laugh in his face. But if I haven't gone to the moon, I've got this guy in my face on TV threatening to expose me, I'm going to shut him up with a punch to the mouth.
Of course I would clobber him. I've trained for years just to get considered for this mission, spent a week in a dinky capsule, endured 4G accelerations, walked in a clunky space suit on the moon, fell from LEO into the ocean and what do I get? Some guy whose biggest aerospace experience is flying in a comfy airliner or (in best case) a TV station helo saying it was all fake. Try walking up to any other Marine going back from deployment and asking him if all the videos of firefights from Afghanistan were faked. See if you can find your teeth afterwards.
-
With Buzz, if you were Buzz, would you punch the guy out? If it was me, and it was true, I'm the man that went to the moon, I'm a hero, I've got nothing to prove. I'm not going to punch the man, I'm just going to laugh in his face. But if I haven't gone to the moon, I've got this guy in my face on TV threatening to expose me, I'm going to shut him up with a punch to the mouth.
Of course I would clobber him. I've trained for years just to get considered for this mission, spent a week in a dinky capsule, endured 4G accelerations, walked in a clunky space suit on the moon, fell from LEO into the ocean and what do I get? Some guy whose biggest aerospace experience is flying in a comfy airliner or (in best case) a TV station helo saying it was all fake. Try walking up to any other Marine going back from deployment and asking him if all the videos of firefights from Afghanistan were faked. See if you can find your teeth afterwards.
No thanks :D
That's a bit different though, there's no conspiracy theory in place there.
With this moon landing program, with it being on youtube there, we can see in the comments that it's convincing people the moon landing was a hoax, or planting the seeds of doubt in their minds.
It also has a lot of thumbs up vs thumbs down, suggesting people are buying into it.
-
Conspiracy theorists like to talk about the use of critical thinking, but there are some fundamental red flags that come with any conspiracy theory which should automatically put rationalists into cynicism mode.
Critical thinking is the ability to take a conventional fact or idea designed to be accepted at face value, and consider the history, motive, messaging, source, relevance, completeness, factual support or lack thereof, and purpose of that fact/idea. It's an important skill for scientists in particular (and writers) because it means that you're always verifying information through evidence.
When a conspiracy theorist talks about critical thinking (as karajorma said) they discard evidence which does not support their assertion, and focus on pieces of evidence that might.
Conspiracy theory is not unlike the standard method of legal defense - it's not about one damning fact (because that can be easily verified). Instead, is focuses on building doubt in a person's mind by presenting small pieces of fact without proper context or fitting them into the larger picture. Very good conspiracy theorists use misdirection as well, and will often circumvent hard facts they cannot question by presenting pieces of information in the periphery that allude to problems with the larger fact but, when taken in context, are usually meaningless.
The 'best' conspiracy theories take a fact with massive amounts of evidence behind it and tweak it only slightly to suit a political purpose. Thus they turn what should be a straightforward issue into a matter of perspective, and work to skew the perspective of the individual reviewing the conspiracy theory (which is a fairly simple matter).
Conspiracy theories also have a target audience. They're not suited to convincing will-informed rationalists or people who will conduct independent verification. Instead, they target people who often have a fundamental distrust or mistrust of social conventions, norms, people, or governments and a predisposition to belief in unverified truths (schizotypal personality traits - we all have them to a degree).
Quick and dirty ways to identify conspiracy theory:
1. Claims that there is a hidden truth.
2. Evidence is presented in a biased way (focus on one side of the argument).
3. Evidence focuses on a wide variety of small-picture ideas and criticisms and does not include strong core arguments.
4. Theory starts with the premise that the broadly-accepted story is false.
5. Theory deconstructs a mainstream theory, rather than building its own interpretation based on evidence.
6. Theory overlooks or circumvents core facts of a mainstream argument through circling.
7. Tautological reasoning (circular logic - elements of the theory rely on the truth of other elements they've presented).
8. Claims that the theorist has identified something no one else has identified.
9. Political motives that contradict a social or political movement.
10. Charismatic central figures that repeatedly attempt to convince the viewer of the truth of their claim rather than relying on strength of evidence.
I like conspiracy theory in fiction, I just don't like it in society because it preys on people who are unable or unwilling to research information for themselves but who are predisposed to believing in causes. They're closely related to cult phenomena - the same sorts of people fall prey to both.
-
That's a bit different though, there's no conspiracy theory in place there.
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply? Or the bull**** that the US government was behind the events of September 11, 2001 (demolition of twin towers, etc etc etc)?
-
That's a bit different though, there's no conspiracy theory in place there.
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply? Or the bull**** that the US government was behind the events of September 11, 2001 (demolition of twin towers, etc etc etc)?
Dragon said "Try walking up to any other Marine going back from deployment and asking him if all the videos of firefights from Afghanistan were faked."
No one disputes that there is an actual war going on.
I have a friend who believes in that conspiracy. I don't though.
As for the moon, I found this for an argument from the other side:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds2
-
Relevant videos from Loading Ready Run (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/6710-The-NASA-Conspiracy) and Mitchell and Webb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw).
-
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply?
Perhaps not an "oil supply" directly (but come on, really are you gonna tell me that the Dick Cheneys of that administration didn't profit from the war?), but clearly securing the gulf, where Saddam posed a threat to some 40 million barrels a day of oil to the world's economy. That's no "conspiracy theory", many apologists even admitted as such blatantly.
-
That's a bit different though, there's no conspiracy theory in place there.
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply? Or the bull**** that the US government was behind the events of September 11, 2001 (demolition of twin towers, etc etc etc)?
Dragon said "Try walking up to any other Marine going back from deployment and asking him if all the videos of firefights from Afghanistan were faked."
No one disputes that there is an actual war going on.
I have a friend who believes in that conspiracy. I don't though.
As for the moon, I found this for an argument from the other side:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds2
The Fox debacle was discussed by Phil Plait a long long time ago, and his page debunking all that crap was what made him sufficiently "famous" in the net so he could run his blog. Here's the page putting all those "arguments" to shreds: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
-
That's a bit different though, there's no conspiracy theory in place there.
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply? Or the bull**** that the US government was behind the events of September 11, 2001 (demolition of twin towers, etc etc etc)?
Dragon said "Try walking up to any other Marine going back from deployment and asking him if all the videos of firefights from Afghanistan were faked."
No one disputes that there is an actual war going on.
I have a friend who believes in that conspiracy. I don't though.
As for the moon, I found this for an argument from the other side:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds2
The Fox debacle was discussed by Phil Plait a long long time ago, and his page debunking all that crap was what made him sufficiently "famous" in the net so he could run his blog. Here's the page putting all those "arguments" to shreds: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
It is the same link.
Although better than mine, since mine is in the middle of the page somewhere for where I was looking at the time. :D
-
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply?
Perhaps not an "oil supply" directly (but come on, really are you gonna tell me that the Dick Cheneys of that administration didn't profit from the war?), but clearly securing the gulf, where Saddam posed a threat to some 40 million barrels a day of oil to the world's economy. That's no "conspiracy theory", many apologists even admitted as such blatantly.
I do have serious doubts about the Iraq war. I was never in favour of it, and always thought the evidence for WMDs was flimsy at best. Certainly not enough to go to war over.
-
No one disputes that there is an actual war going on.
I'd imagine that if you looked hard enough, you'd find at least one nut who does. This was just an example though.
What do you call the claims the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about the US securing themselves an oil supply?
Calling spade a spade. That's no conspiracy, I don't think US would intervene if they didn't have anything to gain. I think that's sort of a public secret by now.
-
Calling spade a spade. That's no conspiracy, I don't think US would intervene if they didn't have anything to gain. I think that's sort of a public secret by now.
This is the goofiness I'm talking about. The United States gets its oil from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Given the estimated oil reserves in Canada alone, Iraq is irrelevant to the supply of oil to the United States. The invasion in Iraq was not about the supply of oil to the US.
Where the oil supplies in Iraq are relevant are in strategic terms. Luis has hit the nail on the head. Iraq and Iran have been on the US radar for a long-time, and the years following 2001 were a convenient excuse to start some direct intervention on the ground in the region. Iraq has historically-documented used of so-called weapons of mass destruction (their chemical and biological programs did exist at one time), which was exploited by the US administration at the time as a convenient excuse to invade. When it became abundantly clear to everyone that it was a flimsy excuse at best, the PR line became "bringing freedom to Iraqis." Meanwhile, the conspiracy crowd insisted (and still does) that this was about net economic benefit to the US vis-a-vis oil. I have news for these people: the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a net economic disaster for the United States. It hasn't even been a strategic coup, because all it has done is strengthen Iran and splinter existing regional divides further - the law of unintended consequences at work.
So the military engagement in Afghanistan/Iraq had about as much to do with oil as they did with weapons of mass destruction - that is to say, very, very little.
-
Calling spade a spade. That's no conspiracy, I don't think US would intervene if they didn't have anything to gain. I think that's sort of a public secret by now.
This is the goofiness I'm talking about. The United States gets its oil from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Given the estimated oil reserves in Canada alone, Iraq is irrelevant to the supply of oil to the United States. The invasion in Iraq was not about the supply of oil to the US.
Where the oil supplies in Iraq are relevant are in strategic terms. Luis has hit the nail on the head. Iraq and Iran have been on the US radar for a long-time, and the years following 2001 were a convenient excuse to start some direct intervention on the ground in the region. Iraq has historically-documented used of so-called weapons of mass destruction (their chemical and biological programs did exist at one time), which was exploited by the US administration at the time as a convenient excuse to invade. When it became abundantly clear to everyone that it was a flimsy excuse at best, the PR line became "bringing freedom to Iraqis." Meanwhile, the conspiracy crowd insisted (and still does) that this was about net economic benefit to the US vis-a-vis oil. I have news for these people: the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a net economic disaster for the United States. It hasn't even been a strategic coup, because all it has done is strengthen Iran and splinter existing regional divides further - the law of unintended consequences at work.
So the military engagement in Afghanistan/Iraq had about as much to do with oil as they did with weapons of mass destruction - that is to say, very, very little.
Me, I've never thought it was about the oil. War, unless you're going straight in and straight out, either ransacking the place or imposing tribute on the conquered, is not a profitable business.
But there is some agenda there I feel. What did you mean by strategic? Do you have a theory as to why this invasion took place?
-
Strategic, like large-scale. Not securing the oil for us directly, but for whoever actually does get their oil from Iraq. Which I guess was supposed to benefit the US somehow in a roundabout way.
-
Oddly enough, I think this is a side effect, particularly in the US, of a kind of 'guilt' over a string of badly managed interventions over the past few decades, possibly back as far as Korea and Vietnam, or even the founding of Israel. There seems to be an attitude that a country that could behave like that surely couldn't have done something productive like fly to the moon etc.
It's kind of like 'What have the Romans ever done for us' in modern surroundings.
-
Thanks for the help with the Moon, people.
One Giant Leap is much nicer than One Giant Hoax, don't you think? :nod:
-
Heh, don't worry about it, I think most people who watched the documentary at the very least had a 'Hmmm...' moment ;)
-
What did you mean by strategic? Do you have a theory as to why this invasion took place?
Strategic interests - large-scale, long term implications for the security and prosperity of a nation (generally). US strategic interests are served best by stability and friendly nations (not necessarily democracies) in the greater Middle East. The greatest threats to Middle Eastern stability who were not 'friendly' to the US circa 2001-2003 were (in order):
-Iran
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-Pakistan*
-Lebanon
Lebanon was a problem only because it was used as a base for attacks on Israel, which the Israelis dealt with. Minor problem in the region.
Pakistan's government was ostensibly friendly to the United States, but US intelligence had long identified the ISI as being a potential haven for radicals, and the northern regions of Pakistan were known to contain some radical elements. But, Pakistan itself was taking action in those areas to a limited extent.
Afghanistan was invaded because it was seen as the only way to make a very public stand against the state-sponsored terrorism that resulted in the September 11 2001 attacks. Ousting the Taliban was the goal; staying for the aftermath was the unanticipated consequence.
Iraq, #2 on the strategic hit list, had an unstable dictatorial government that recently fought a war against Iran (and lost), then fought a war against Kuwait (and lost), threatened Saudi Arabia (#3 on the US oil supplier list), threatened Israel (one of the only functional democracies on the whole region and a US-friendly country), had used chemical and biological weapons on its own populace, and could easily be painted as a state-sponsor of terrorism even if it wasn't. The only reason the Gulf War didn't flatten Hussein then and there was because the UN limited the scope of the operation. Iraq was a thorn in the side of the whole region. Furthermore, the ideological conflict between Iraq and Iran was still simmering and could have resulted in open war. But, in 2003, the opportunity for military intervention in Iraq arose (based on some definite twisting of the truth, in hindsight). What the administration didn't forsee was that ousting Hussein would lead to a factional civil war in Iraq, which it did, and caused all kinds of other chaos thereby actually strengthening Iran...
...and let's face it, Iran is US enemy number 1, but they're militarily untouchable because they almost never get caught doing the things that everyone knows they're up to. Namely, it would (rightly) be seen as a war of aggression.
The trouble is that, despite a frightening similarity of religious belief, the governments and factions in Iran and Saudi Arabia REALLY don't like each other. Saudi Arabia is only rich and relatively regionally powerful because it is a major source of oil for the world - the whole Persian Gulf is, really. Disruption to that supply could cause economic chaos, and prior to the events of 2003 you had Iraq, Iran, and the Saudis all with extreme dislike of each other and all with respectably powerful (relatively speaking) military's in the region. Iran also has nuclear ambitions (likely for weapons as well as peaceful purposes). That's not good for US strategic purposes. There is no question that reducing Iraq's ability to cause trouble was a strategic objective. I also suspect that Iraq was actually practice for an engagement in Iran - Iran is friendly to China, China needs oil, China's government is full of pragmatists, Iran would dearly like to sell more of its oil, and an Iran with Chinese strategic backing is in nobody's interest. That part is conjecture on my part.
Nevertheless, the military interventions in Afghanistan have had a few strategic effects (I'm not judging these as positive or negative, they simply happened):
- Iraq is no longer a player in terms of regional imbalance. It's too internally conflicted.
- Persian Gulf oil supply to the world is therefore relatively safe, with the only actual threat being Iran and they aren't stupidly about to bite their only real source of revenue.
- The ability of radicals to hide within Afghanistan and support the logistics required to carry out another attack on the scale of September 11 has been eliminated. The pockets of Taliban and Islamic radicals are too busy fighting to blow up girls' schools and kill locals and Afghani/NATO military to worry about grandiose attacks on Western nations.
- The radical-friendly elements in Pakistan's ISI have been largely flushed out (evidence: bin Laden's death inside Pakistan).
- The primary locations of Islamic radical fighters have been pocketed into southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, are being constantly harassed by drone strikes, and pose no strategic threat to Western civilian populations or Middle Eastern regional stability.
- Large contingents of well-trained insurgents who got field experience in Iraq have now returned home and in some cases have successfully co-opted revolutionary actions. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria have all seen the results of this. Egypt now has an Islamist PM, and Islamist forces will eventually take Syria. Hamas in Gaza has been bolstered with new weapons and experienced insurgents.
So, as we can see, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had a definite net-gain on US strategic interests in the Middle East, the law of unintended consequences is now at work. Actions of this magnitude are generally best reviewed with 20 years of hindsight to be properly judged. Regardless, Iraq's oil supply is little more than a footnote in all of this.
-
So, as we can see, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had a definite net-gain on US strategic interests in the Middle East, the law of unintended consequences is now at work. Actions of this magnitude are generally best reviewed with 20 years of hindsight to be properly judged. Regardless, Iraq's oil supply is little more than a footnote in all of this.
I wouldn't call it a foot note. Rather, an opening note.
Strategic interests - large-scale, long term implications for the security and prosperity of a nation (generally). US strategic interests are served best by stability and friendly nations (not necessarily democracies) in the greater Middle East.
And what kind of strategic interests? Those countries have no realistic means to create ICBMs that could hit US. The way I see it, the biggest reason US needs friendly nations in the Middle East is oil. If there was nothing of value here, I don't think they'd bother messing with the region. Controlling oil sources gives a nation enormous political power, and by having friendly nations in the Middle East, US can secure a degree of indirect control over resources there.
-
Did you miss all of what MP-Ryan said? Oil has nothing to do with Iraq. We don't import any from them, and they certainly aren't a puppet state taking orders from the State Department.
-
I wouldn't call it a foot note. Rather, an opening note.
No. Read above.
And what kind of strategic interests? Those countries have no realistic means to create ICBMs that could hit US. The way I see it, the biggest reason US needs friendly nations in the Middle East is oil. If there was nothing of value here, I don't think they'd bother messing with the region. Controlling oil sources gives a nation enormous political power, and by having friendly nations in the Middle East, US can secure a degree of indirect control over resources there.
The primary US strategic interest in the Middle East is security - for both US citizens, and the nation of Israel. Secondary is the security of Persian Gulf oil production and distribution to the world - a failure in that region spells global economic consequences. The fields of Saudi Arabia are the primary concern. The Iraqi fields are an irrelevant "nice to have access to" but by no means a reason to invade. Certainly when Iraq was already producing, selling, and exporting from its fields. The only benefit to the US is employment of American firms, and the economic consequences of the war far outweigh the gains made in those areas.
Saying the invasion of Iraq was about Saudi oil is slightly more correct, but its still only a very small piece of the picture. Mostly, the Iraq invasion was one of opportunity that was seen to satisfy some long-term strategic objectives.
-
Unlike Iraq, I supported Afghanistan. Although I thought they could have persisted with the diplomacy a bit more first (although I'm just about sure now it wouldn't have worked.) But I also thought that they could have tried some sort of power display to intimidate the Taliban into stepping aside and letting us go and deal with the terrorists. Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban was never the original goal, was it? They just wanted to get rid of the terrorist cells there. The training camps.
If I remember right, first they said basically "Get rid of the terrorists" to the Taliban. They refused. So then it was "Alright, let us come and get rid of them for you." And they refused that too. And not long after that, the airstrikes started.
So then, since the Taliban were already warring with the Northern Alliance, they let the Northern Alliance win their ground battle for them, rather than sending troops, by assisting them with defeating the Taliban from the air. We help you take over, you help us get rid of the terrorists...
Of course, it wasn't so simple, was it, and boots ended up having to be on the ground after all, and still are today.
Ah, Islam. The "Religion of Peace." I'm sure if Islam ever converts the World 100%, there'll be no peace, the whole World will be a battleground. They kill each other as much as they kill everyone else. So what you're saying is rather than wanting to take the oil for themselves, the US wanted to make sure the oil flows. I know if I was wanting to destroy one of those countries, targetting the oil to cripple the country would be a high priority military target. The oil wouldn't flow, and prices would skyrocket over here.
Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.
Oh, Bin Laden, I certainly have my doubts there. They seemed to go to great trouble to make sure the body was disposed of ASAP without anyone seeing. Maybe you can do for that what was done with the Moon, but I think he died a long time ago, and this was set up. You've got the man you've been hunting for years and years and years, don't you want to make sure the whole World knows it?
War is the most unpredictable thing. I don't think America properly understand this, the way they wage war so easily, and the way they tell the World of schedules they have. You can't schedule war.
-
War is the most unpredictable thing.
"No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy."
-
Well, the thing Islam has yet to figure out is that it is impossible to run the world. Look at any Empire or Religion and it has a 'critical mass' before fracturing into lots of pieces, Islam is no exception, and the tighter it tries to grip, the less control it will gain. It already suffers from the Sunni/Shiite divide, and that would be just the beginning.
-
Where to begin...
Unlike Iraq, I supported Afghanistan. Although I thought they could have persisted with the diplomacy a bit more first (although I'm just about sure now it wouldn't have worked.) But I also thought that they could have tried some sort of power display to intimidate the Taliban into stepping aside and letting us go and deal with the terrorists. Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban was never the original goal, was it? They just wanted to get rid of the terrorist cells there. The training camps.
If I remember right, first they said basically "Get rid of the terrorists" to the Taliban. They refused. So then it was "Alright, let us come and get rid of them for you." And they refused that too. And not long after that, the airstrikes started.
So then, since the Taliban were already warring with the Northern Alliance, they let the Northern Alliance win their ground battle for them, rather than sending troops, by assisting them with defeating the Taliban from the air. We help you take over, you help us get rid of the terrorists...
Of course, it wasn't so simple, was it, and boots ended up having to be on the ground after all, and still are today.
The Taliban, in addition to being comprised of some genuinely evil people with some genuinely screwed-up ideas about the place of women and human rights in general, was a state-sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, a state-sponsor of attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on Western interests and insurrection in other countries with Islamic fundamentalists.
Had NATO been after "just training camps," bunker-busters, daisy-cutters, and a few special forces regiments would have taken care of it in a few months. Invasion was planned from the start because the Taliban itself had to go. Though the original point was not to install a new government, it was a consequence of flattening the Taliban.
So what you're saying is rather than wanting to take the oil for themselves, the US wanted to make sure the oil flows.
The US, as with any nation, is inherently selfish (this is not a bad thing). It is not in US strategic interest to watch oil prices skyrocket around the world, nor is it in their interest to see instability in the Middle East to the point where there is open conflict. Iraq was a focal point as a potential source of open conflict.
Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.
Hussein was one figure in the military governance structure. More important is to realize that Iraq is a country of at least 4 religions factions, and the Baath party (which ran the place up until the US squashed it) was one of the smallest, keeping their grip through strength of arms.
Oh, Bin Laden, I certainly have my doubts there. They seemed to go to great trouble to make sure the body was disposed of ASAP without anyone seeing. Maybe you can do for that what was done with the Moon, but I think he died a long time ago, and this was set up. You've got the man you've been hunting for years and years and years, don't you want to make sure the whole World knows it?
He was positively ID'd (several times) and immediately buried at sea to avoid a circus, and the broad anger of the entire Islamic world at improper burial. I'm not sure what there is to question there...
War is the most unpredictable thing. I don't think America properly understand this, the way they wage war so easily, and the way they tell the World of schedules they have. You can't schedule war.
I think you're taking a very simplistic view of complex geopolitical events...
-
Oh my god, HLP's discussions of Islam are so laughably frustrating. 'Islam' is not going to figure anything out because 'Islam' is not a thing. There are a huge number of Muslims in the world from so many different cultures and places. There is no monolithic agenda.
Most Muslims do not live in the Middle East. Islam in the Middle East is not Islam in the world.
-
Oh my god, HLP's discussions of Islam are so laughably frustrating. 'Islam' is not going to figure anything out because 'Islam' is not a thing. There are a huge number of Muslims in the world from so many different cultures and places. There is no monolithic agenda.
Most Muslims do not live in the Middle East. Islam in the Middle East is not Islam in the world.
QFT.
-
Agreed, most Muslims, like most Christians, Jews, Sikhs etc couldn't really care less for the 'proposed' agenda of the more extreme ends of their church, they just want to live their lives in moderate peace and comfort, but then, it's not the majority that are causing the problem for all those religions. The main point I am trying to make is that it is impossible for any movement to remain cohesive over an area as large as the Earth. 2000 Years of Christianity has sprouted countless sub-movements and counter-movements etc, and the same fate awaits any concept that passes through lots of cultures.
-
I'm not sure I understand why eliminating Saddam wouldn't help. Even if you had to destroy the whole party, wouldn't that be easier than full scale invasion? And Saddam was regarded as a madman pretty much universally. Surely there'd be a good chance of getting a more agreeable leader just by removing him? If it doesn't work, then you can still launch the invasion anyway.
I was not familiar with Muslim burial customs, so that kind of throws a big spanner in the works of the conspiracy theory. Nobody bothered to point that out on the news, and they were confused as to why it was done that way. I knew they supposedly had him identified in Afghanistan, but it all seems so flimsy. No photos taken, no nothing? No physical evidence to remain? We're just to trust that they're telling us the truth? Why not take evidence, then release it some time after things have cooled back down?
On the last point, I guess I'll have to ask what you think of it. The whole scheduling thing seems the absolute height of idiocy to me. "Oh, we're going to be out of Afghanistan in X time."
If I'm the Taliban, I'm thinking, "great, we'll just lie low in the shadows till then, make them think they've got things under control, strengthen our position as much as possible, then just take back over when they're gone and pick back up where we left off."
It's a morale boost for the enemy. It's like saying "We've only got the stomach to keep going this long. Then we'll be done, just like Vietnam."
Yet if they said "It'll take as long as it takes" you can't do that.
I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.
-
You must be rather young and idealistic.
I'm not sure I understand why eliminating Saddam wouldn't help. Even if you had to destroy the whole party, wouldn't that be easier than full scale invasion? And Saddam was regarded as a madman pretty much universally. Surely there'd be a good chance of getting a more agreeable leader just by removing him? If it doesn't work, then you can still launch the invasion anyway.
Yeah, sure. Kill the dictator to get a more agreeable replacement. That works juuuuuuust fine (Hint: More agreeable to whom?).
I knew they supposedly had him identified in Afghanistan, but it all seems so flimsy. No photos taken, no nothing? No physical evidence to remain? We're just to trust that they're telling us the truth? Why not take evidence, then release it some time after things have cooled back down?
Do you honestly believe things have cooled down? Because I gotta tell ya, they kinda haven't.
On the last point, I guess I'll have to ask what you think of it. The whole scheduling thing seems the absolute height of idiocy to me. "Oh, we're going to be out of Afghanistan in X time."
If I'm the Taliban, I'm thinking, "great, we'll just lie low in the shadows till then, make them think they've got things under control, strengthen our position as much as possible, then just take back over when they're gone and pick back up where we left off."
Yeah, sure. Because that's what they totally did (Hint: It wasn't.). Also, their power structures aren't intact anymore. They can try for a takeover, certainly. But success isn't guaranteed.
Yet if they said "It'll take as long as it takes" you can't do that.
Right, because that's a survivable statement for a politician to make these days. "We'll occupy this foreign country until things are done and over." Yeah, that's gonna go over really well with the electorate. All those years of pumping money into a military operation with no end in sight, constant low-level combat operations with combat losses, that's really a good thing to inflict on your people if you want to get reelected.
(You may feel encouraged at this point to draw a parallel to the allied occupation of Germany 1945 to 1990. I would caution you not to do this, since there are slight differences. Such as the marked lack of resistance to the occupation, and less cultural differences between the occupiers and the occupied.)
-
I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.
If the tool you have is a hammer you suddenly see a lot of nails in the world?
-
its amazing what you can fix with just a hammer
-
It's also amazing what you can break with one ;)
-
"You must be rather young and idealistic."
Why?
I didn't want any conflict in Iraq. What I'm saying is if the goal is regional stability, and you have a madman, why not just remove the madman? And if you're prepared for invasion, you still have that card to play if necessary.
No, I do not think things have cooled down. Need to wait a long time for that. But as far as I'm aware they didn't take any evidence at all.
"Yeah, sure. Because that's what they totally did (Hint: It wasn't.)."
What do you mean?
I don't give a damn about politicians. I care about what's right for saving people's lives. The enemy will cling on when you give them hope with stupid statements. When you make the will of the country to fight look feeble and the enemy people (that's us) look weak.
I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.
If the tool you have is a hammer you suddenly see a lot of nails in the world?
Yes and no. Yes, you're right, that is kind of what I'm getting at. But I wouldn't use a hammer, I'd use something else. A gun maybe and lots of targets to shoot at? I say don't use a hammer, because you can build and create with a hammer as well as destroy. A gun is just a weapon, it exists only to kill.
-
I'm going to spare you the history lesson on Iraq and just say that if the powers that be wanted to take out Saddam, it could have been done since the Gulf War. The Israelis had the capacity for quite some time - it's just that the potential replacements were worse. And when we're talking about the Baath Party, I'm not talking about something like the Conservatives, or Labour. I'm talking about an entire social/religious class of people that ostensibly ran the Iraqi government and military. They also comprised a large part of the military. There is a reason that regime change in Iraq would take more than just a guy with a rifle in the right place at the right time.
You might be confusing "not taking evidence" with "not making the evidence public information." Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda confirmed bin Laden's death as well, as did Pakistani authorities.
As for giving a timeline on occupying Afghanistan (and Iraq)... In order to occupy a country and ensure smooth transition - like Germany after World War 2 - hundreds of thousands or millions of troops are required, along with minimal cultural differences. To put this in perspective, Germany had more allied troops stationed there in 1946 and 1947 than Afghanistan and Iraq had rotate through for the entire duration of the ground wars. The only rational choice for Western politicians was to say we're either staying indefinitely (politically unpalatable) or give timelines for draw-downs and conversion to local forces (which they did). Those timelines were only given after local forces were starting to show they could function independently.
However, as I pointed out earlier, the point in all this conflict was not necessarily the installation of functioning democracies but the achievement of strategic goals, which have, to some extent, worked out.
-
I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.
Y'know, a lot of people like to espouse this view on the United States, particularly those of us not living there, but it actually ignores reality. The US has this reputation of being the great intervener in places where they aren't wanted, but the American government actually shows remarkable restraint in its military endeavours - and is frequently chastised for doing so. Look at the calls for intervention in Syria and Mali, or the old ones for Darfur.
Considering the last 70 years has seen the US, arguably now the world's only superpower, involved in only 6 actual 'hot' wars (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) - only 2 of which acted independently of a broad international consensus - I think they're doing rather well on the military restraint front.
-
On a side-note in relation to Iraq -- If America wanted to create an additional ally in the Middle-East, it could do so by politically endorsing the Kurdish people. They're as far away from Islamism as possible due to the whole Apoism thing, and they have very real national aspirations. Politically, they're secular and nationalist, but without the tyranny often show by middle-eastern secular governments like Iraq and Syria. Indeed, the best democracy in the Middle-East apart from Israel is arguably Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdish rebels in Syria have joined the fight against regime, but for its own reasons; they have control over a lot of the border towns leading to Turkey and some in vicinity to the border with Northern Iraq. But having any meaningful relationship with the Kurds is complicated by America's strategic relationship with Turkey, who is pretty much America's second most important in the region.
-
I'm going to spare you the history lesson on Iraq and just say that if the powers that be wanted to take out Saddam, it could have been done since the Gulf War. The Israelis had the capacity for quite some time - it's just that the potential replacements were worse. And when we're talking about the Baath Party, I'm not talking about something like the Conservatives, or Labour. I'm talking about an entire social/religious class of people that ostensibly ran the Iraqi government and military. They also comprised a large part of the military. There is a reason that regime change in Iraq would take more than just a guy with a rifle in the right place at the right time.
You might be confusing "not taking evidence" with "not making the evidence public information." Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda confirmed bin Laden's death as well, as did Pakistani authorities.
As for giving a timeline on occupying Afghanistan (and Iraq)... In order to occupy a country and ensure smooth transition - like Germany after World War 2 - hundreds of thousands or millions of troops are required, along with minimal cultural differences. To put this in perspective, Germany had more allied troops stationed there in 1946 and 1947 than Afghanistan and Iraq had rotate through for the entire duration of the ground wars. The only rational choice for Western politicians was to say we're either staying indefinitely (politically unpalatable) or give timelines for draw-downs and conversion to local forces (which they did). Those timelines were only given after local forces were starting to show they could function independently.
However, as I pointed out earlier, the point in all this conflict was not necessarily the installation of functioning democracies but the achievement of strategic goals, which have, to some extent, worked out.
Worse than Saddam? Oooh...
Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?
From what I heard on the news, I interpreted it as they purposely took no evidence for some reason. I looked up Al Qaeda:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201
Interestingly, there's a note about conspiracy theorists in there too:
"The release of a statement from "the general leadership" of al-Qaeda may do something to undermine the conspiracy theories circulating in some quarters that Osama Bin Laden is not dead.
However, there will no doubt be some for whom even this will not be enough, who will argue it is not definitive proof."
I must admit I did think that Al Qaeda could just be using it to drum up support if he's already dead in the first place, and before they were pretending he still lived, but at this point we've gone past the point where I am suspicious enough to still think it was a cover up with various people actually coming out and stating they identified the body.
I think there's a third choice. Yes, you say it will take as long as it takes, but you keep the public updated, you make them see that progress is being made, that things are getting done. The media often make it look like all the soldiers are doing is patrolling around aimlessly getting blown up by IEDs. I know that's not the case, but it sure looks like it at times the way things are covered.
I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.
Y'know, a lot of people like to espouse this view on the United States, particularly those of us not living there, but it actually ignores reality. The US has this reputation of being the great intervener in places where they aren't wanted, but the American government actually shows remarkable restraint in its military endeavours - and is frequently chastised for doing so. Look at the calls for intervention in Syria and Mali, or the old ones for Darfur.
Considering the last 70 years has seen the US, arguably now the world's only superpower, involved in only 6 actual 'hot' wars (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) - only 2 of which acted independently of a broad international consensus - I think they're doing rather well on the military restraint front.
I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.
-
Calling spade a spade. That's no conspiracy, I don't think US would intervene if they didn't have anything to gain. I think that's sort of a public secret by now.
This is the goofiness I'm talking about. The United States gets its oil from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Given the estimated oil reserves in Canada alone, Iraq is irrelevant to the supply of oil to the United States. The invasion in Iraq was not about the supply of oil to the US.
Where the oil supplies in Iraq are relevant are in strategic terms. Luis has hit the nail on the head. Iraq and Iran have been on the US radar for a long-time, and the years following 2001 were a convenient excuse to start some direct intervention on the ground in the region. Iraq has historically-documented used of so-called weapons of mass destruction (their chemical and biological programs did exist at one time), which was exploited by the US administration at the time as a convenient excuse to invade. When it became abundantly clear to everyone that it was a flimsy excuse at best, the PR line became "bringing freedom to Iraqis." Meanwhile, the conspiracy crowd insisted (and still does) that this was about net economic benefit to the US vis-a-vis oil. I have news for these people: the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a net economic disaster for the United States. It hasn't even been a strategic coup, because all it has done is strengthen Iran and splinter existing regional divides further - the law of unintended consequences at work.
So the military engagement in Afghanistan/Iraq had about as much to do with oil as they did with weapons of mass destruction - that is to say, very, very little.
Some contradictions in there. The main reason the US was interested in Iraq and Iran was obviously due to oil. Also, I detect perhaps some gaps of reasoning on your part. You seem to agree with me that the purpose of the war was to secure some odd 40 million barrels of oil from the egomaniac Saddam, who had the power to really create a problem in the gulf and damage the entire world economy via the destruction of the petrodollars. Then, you say that it had "very very little" to do with oil.
Of course it was all about the oil. And I'm not even saying that as a "bad thing". Thing is, the egomaniac was playing his hands all the time and who knows where he might have gone with his cruzade against America. He was already dealing with the french to start negociating the oil in euros, which might give a clue on why France was so opposed to the attack. His track record on weapons of mass destruction was abysmal and his behavior regarding his own people really portrayed someone that you just couldn't trust in that area.
All in all, the US may have well "profited" from the war mostly because the alternative might have been catastrophic to the petrodollar. And lets not forget who's profiting with the millions of barrels of oil that are being pumped from its land (the usual sisters as they call it).
-
Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?
No. Now is the point where I tell you to go learn the history. I feel like a history professor trying to explain geopolitics to a grade school kid in this thread. If you're going to engage in discussion, Lorric, it really does help if you know more about it than what flashes up on BBC news from time to time. It's great that you have an interest in the subject - go pick up some books on the history of 20th century warfare,
I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.
No nation deploys its military unless it's in its own interest. The US has been one of the least selfish nations in this regard for the last several decades.
The invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify as a war crime. Unless you'd like to pull a section of the Geneva Convention to back that up.
-
-snip-
American interest in Iraqi and Iranian oil had nothing to do with exploiting those resources and everything to do with the stability of global oil prices and the supply provided by the Persian Gulf. All of that comes secondary to the security implications of the strategy, though.
Middle Eastern oil is largely irrelevant as a commodity to the United States - the Canadian, Mexican, and their own internal reserves more than satisfy their strategic requirements. Where it becomes important is on the variation of oil prices and the various benchmarks. Problems in the Middle East affect prices everywhere, and the US has a massive petroleum dependency. Fluctuations in oil prices dramatically affect their economy, as with most modern democracies.
So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote. First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.
-
Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?
No. Now is the point where I tell you to go learn the history. I feel like a history professor trying to explain geopolitics to a grade school kid in this thread. If you're going to engage in discussion, Lorric, it really does help if you know more about it than what flashes up on BBC news from time to time. It's great that you have an interest in the subject - go pick up some books on the history of 20th century warfare,
I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.
No nation deploys its military unless it's in its own interest. The US has been one of the least selfish nations in this regard for the last several decades.
The invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify as a war crime. Unless you'd like to pull a section of the Geneva Convention to back that up.
And I feel like I'm back at school. Hello there, teacher. How are you doing? :D
Hey, sorry for being frustrating, but I do appreciate you sticking around and answering my questions. You've changed me in a few ways. How do you know all this stuff anyway? I don't mean just on this, but you've been there pretty much every time I've entered into any serious subject matter on here in general discussion and made some impression on me.
I did for a while research quite well on these wars. But I'm just so tired of them now in general, that often only what I see from the media gets through.
On Iraq, I simply see it as an invasion was launched for a reason (WMDs) and that reason was bogus. I bet you'll tell me I'm thinking too simply again. But if someone said you had a powerful weapon and were planning to use it and tore your World apart looking for it, how would you feel?
-
Perhaps its because I grew up during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,but I don't feel like the US has used a lot of restraint on the world stage in terms of resorting to force. (I am an American).
-
Perhaps its because I grew up during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,but I don't feel like the US has used a lot of restraint on the world stage in terms of resorting to force. (I am an American).
There are a lot of Somali pirates, Lebanese, Syrians, Tunisians, etc. who would probably disagree.
Hell, go anywhere in Africa.
-
I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY)
Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.
638 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zf3cUPAa8)
-
So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote. First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.
I wouldn't call it "tangentially" about oil. Rather, it was because of oil, or "about" it in a rather indirect way. Afterall, this strategic economic security requires securing and having a degree of control over an important source of oil. By that, I don't mean oil physically located in Iraq (like many seem to assume), but rather that in the entire Middle East. A "secure" (meaning politically stable, on friendly terms and maybe even reliant on US) source of oil means secure economy, since (as you mentioned) instability in that region could cause instability in oil prices around the world. Ultimately, the whole thing was about manipulating balance of power surrounding this resource. That's sort of what was talking about when claiming that oil was an underlying cause of all this mess. Of course, that's a simplification (and ignores the terrorism aspect, which also played no small part), but you're much better at explaining things in minute detail than I.
Also, people who misunderstand the global politics and economics shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists". Saying that US invaded Iraq because they wanted their oil is a gross misunderstanding of the actual situation (not exactly unexpected from an average Joe not into global politics), not implying some sort of shadowy figures conspiring for something. It's not even a secret, just a poorly known fact of world politics. Of course, the government is primarily playing up noble sounding excuses and terrorism aspect, because it's good for PR. I don't think they'd throw so much money into Iraq if it was really about a flimsy WMD claim and a tinpot dictator oppressing his people. On the other hand, people wouldn't cheer for openly invading a foreign country in order to maintain economic security (especially since many people would read that as "We want to steal their oil!"). The whole point of politics is knowing what to tell to the crowd and what to skip over.
-
I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY)
I don't have time to watch a 60 minute YouTube video. Summary in 250 words or less... go! :D
-
How do you know all this stuff anyway? I don't mean just on this, but you've been there pretty much every time I've entered into any serious subject matter on here in general discussion and made some impression on me.
A B.Sc, a B.A. (both with a fair number of history electives), and a ridiculous amount of reading, not to mention way too much time spent in Internet debates.
On Iraq, I simply see it as an invasion was launched for a reason (WMDs) and that reason was bogus.
WMDs were a convenient excuse. Iraq did have them at one time (chemical, and worked on a biological program), meaning the excuse wasn't entirely fabricated. But the actual invasion was for all the reasons I've talked about in the last few pages.
-
I wouldn't call it "tangentially" about oil. Rather, it was because of oil, or "about" it in a rather indirect way. Afterall, this strategic economic security requires securing and having a degree of control over an important source of oil. By that, I don't mean oil physically located in Iraq (like many seem to assume), but rather that in the entire Middle East. A "secure" (meaning politically stable, on friendly terms and maybe even reliant on US) source of oil means secure economy, since (as you mentioned) instability in that region could cause instability in oil prices around the world. Ultimately, the whole thing was about manipulating balance of power surrounding this resource. That's sort of what was talking about when claiming that oil was an underlying cause of all this mess. Of course, that's a simplification (and ignores the terrorism aspect, which also played no small part), but you're much better at explaining things in minute detail than I.
Also, people who misunderstand the global politics and economics shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists". Saying that US invaded Iraq because they wanted their oil is a gross misunderstanding of the actual situation (not exactly unexpected from an average Joe not into global politics), not implying some sort of shadowy figures conspiring for something. It's not even a secret, just a poorly known fact of world politics. Of course, the government is primarily playing up noble sounding excuses and terrorism aspect, because it's good for PR. I don't think they'd throw so much money into Iraq if it was really about a flimsy WMD claim and a tinpot dictator oppressing his people. On the other hand, people wouldn't cheer for openly invading a foreign country in order to maintain economic security (especially since many people would read that as "We want to steal their oil!"). The whole point of politics is knowing what to tell to the crowd and what to skip over.
If you take that approach, you can boil all strategic objectives in all wars down to competition for resources. That's doing root cause analysis a serious disservice. If you want to boil the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions down to a reason in four words they are: physical and economic security. The economics weren't just about oil either - invading those two countries cost a lot less than a full-scale deployment in a Middle Eastern hot war would.
The conspiracy types I'm talking about are the ones saying the US fabricated various mixtures of 9/11, terrorism, WMDs, the Gulf War, etc because the US wanted to exploit Iraqi oil resources. That's conspiracy bull**** at its worst, and there are unfortunately people who believe that nonsense.
-
I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY)
I don't have time to watch a 60 minute YouTube video. Summary in 250 words or less... go! :D
The wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_power_of_nightmares) does a reasonable job of summing up what the show was about.
-
-snip-
American interest in Iraqi and Iranian oil had nothing to do with exploiting those resources and everything to do with the stability of global oil prices and the supply provided by the Persian Gulf. All of that comes secondary to the security implications of the strategy, though.
Middle Eastern oil is largely irrelevant as a commodity to the United States - the Canadian, Mexican, and their own internal reserves more than satisfy their strategic requirements. Where it becomes important is on the variation of oil prices and the various benchmarks. Problems in the Middle East affect prices everywhere, and the US has a massive petroleum dependency. Fluctuations in oil prices dramatically affect their economy, as with most modern democracies.
So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote. First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.
Right, it's as if you are violently agreeing with me except for the quallifier "it's about oil". The oil market is fungible, MP. Think about that for a moment. And then think who is pumping oil right now in Iraq. The general advocates of the "Oil war !!!one!!!" etc are thinking in simplistic terms, I agree with you, but they are not exactly *off the mark*.
Also, you should really spend any time watching the Power of Nightmares. That and any other Adam Curtis' documentaries. They are the most amazing bunch of docs I've ever seen, period. It's the kind of stuff you may even want to repeat seeing. Pure works of art.
-
Told you it was good, didn't I? :D
-
Told you it was good, didn't I? :D
Been a fan of him for almost a decade now, and I'm sure I've posted every single link I could find of his docs in this forum before. (although no one seemed interested at the time). Really great stuff. And his hear for music is also quite quite good.
-
If you take that approach, you can boil all strategic objectives in all wars down to competition for resources.
This would be a cynical, but generally valid assertion. I imagine that the first time a caveman hit another caveman with a stick was because the latter had something the former didn't. Gaining resources and/or controlling them is a key concept in conventional war, most RTSes and also in politics. While it can't be said that all strategic objectives boil down to this, a great majority of them does. Those who have resources also have money and production capability. If denied those resources, they lose those capabilities. Without an ability to replenish loses and create new equipment, winning a conventional armed conflict is pretty much impossible.
The whole reason guerilla warfare is so difficult and partisans are so problematic is that you can't cut off their supplies and deny them resources, because they're so decentralized. The only way to win against partisans with standard military methods is to kill every single one out there, which can be difficult. If you consider humans a resource (something which is frequently done), then even that way becomes "depriving the enemy of resources".
The conspiracy types I'm talking about are the ones saying the US fabricated various mixtures of 9/11, terrorism, WMDs, the Gulf War, etc because the US wanted to exploit Iraqi oil resources. That's conspiracy bull**** at its worst, and there are unfortunately people who believe that nonsense.
That approach is, of course, utter BS. The most extreme theories pretty much always are. Same as with Roswell. There were people who said "US Government is hiding something about Roswell" and those who said "US Government is hiding a crashed alien saucer that fell near Roswell". The former were right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul), the latter were ridiculous. US might have used WMDs as a convenient excuse and it's hard to argue they didn't got anything out of the Gulf War (and it was tied to oil, it's already been said how), but a conspiracy linking this to terrorism and 9/11 is just ridiculous.
-
What both you and Luis are missing, however, is that I keep saying the economic concern behind the 2001/3 invasions came as a secondary consideration to the security concerns.
Security becomes intertwined with the economics quite rapidly in any analysis, but fundamentally the purpose behind ousting the Afghan and Iraqi governments was to address regional and international security concerns - in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda lost its friendly, unchecked logistical base. In Iraq, the invasion removed a government that was singlehandedly the most likely to start a hot war in the region.
The reason a hot war in the Middle East is so concerning is two-fold: (1) it would inevitably involve Israel, which means the US, and (2) it would dramatically affect global oil prices.
I guess what I'm getting at is there is a conspiracy-bent fetishization concerning oil in the region. Move the same political-religious-resource situation to any other part of the world with any other key natural resource and the same events would have occurred. Thus, oil is only tangential to a root cause analysis. You can't say it's a non-factor, because it isn't, but simultaneously a takeover of Iraqi oil production has no real benefit to the US, particularly given the amount of money it cost in spending and the economic havoc that's resulted in the US.
-
I guess what I'm getting at is there is a conspiracy-bent fetishization concerning oil in the region. Move the same political-religious-resource situation to any other part of the world with any other key natural resource and the same events would have occurred. Thus, oil is only tangential to a root cause analysis. You can't say it's a non-factor, because it isn't, but simultaneously a takeover of Iraqi oil production has no real benefit to the US, particularly given the amount of money it cost in spending and the economic havoc that's resulted in the US.
Of course, the fact that in this particular case the resource in question is oil has somewhat minor relevance. Also, I've said multiple times that it wasn't taking over Iraq oil fields that was important, but rather influencing economics and politics in the region in a rather complex way, thus influencing the oil market worldwide.
I guess that the terrorist security aspect isn't too discussed, because it was played up a lot and generally drawn attention to. Of course, it was no less important to the events, but it's rather well understood and thus comparatively "boring" to discuss. Since this was the "official" reason, though no less relevant, people are inclined to believe that the "unofficial" one was more important.
-
What both you and Luis are missing, however, is that I keep saying the economic concern behind the 2001/3 invasions came as a secondary consideration to the security concerns.
I just don't regard them as separate. I do not think anyone thought Saddam was a serious threat to Israel, and with that war, a complete ****storm has emerged (surged? lol) in the whole middle east and other arabic nations. It's basically a global war that has been created out of an idea of "good-doers" vs "evil-doers", or less caricaturally, which important nations are going to be friends with the US and the western world and which aren't. Which are the ones who will play ball with us and which aren't.
And the *only* strategic importance of Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Kuwait, etc.,etc. is, well, oil. Shouldn't even be controversial, and I'm somewhat surprised to be debating this point with you. Oil is and has been obviously the most important resource in the world, and that gulf ships 30/40 million barrels of them per frakkin day. That is like 40% of the entire world's production.
... but fundamentally the purpose behind ousting the Afghan and Iraqi governments was to address regional and international security concerns - in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda lost its friendly, unchecked logistical base. In Iraq, the invasion removed a government that was singlehandedly the most likely to start a hot war in the region.
Let's separate the issues here. The Afghanistan operation had little to do with Iraq's. The problem with Iraq was that it was a time bomb waiting to explode, and the neoconservative administration decided to stop the problem before it escalated. But that "problem" was oil related.
The reason a hot war in the Middle East is so concerning is two-fold: (1) it would inevitably involve Israel, which means the US, and (2) it would dramatically affect global oil prices.
Yeah thanks for agreeing with me while daring to proclaim you aren't. Israel is nice, but they can hold it on their own, and the Iraq war, if anything, fragilized their strategic situation (Now Iran can just drive weapons and artillery through Iraq with little problems). Also, it might "inevitably involve Israel" in the sense that everyone would be involved. Yes, even the EU.
... but simultaneously a takeover of Iraqi oil production has no real benefit to the US, particularly given the amount of money it cost in spending and the economic havoc that's resulted in the US.
You are conflating the "it's about oil" with the very particular sentence "The US government went to Iraq to steal their oil". They are not the same in two ways. First, the oil market is fungible, and as we have demonstrated, by deciding Iraq's fate they are deciding the oil price's fate, thus they are deciding how much they are paying for it (directly, indirectly, in-indirectly, and so on). Second, if we are to allow the "conspiracy theory" that the Bush administration lied to get their hands on the oil, the argument that it has been "net negative" for the US is misleading at best. Again for two reasons. First, the money spent was not predetermined. In fact, it had been previously calculated by the neocons that such a war would be quite cheap (it would end in weeks!). Second, the fact that the US as a whole is paying the price of that war, it does not follow that those who made the decisions didn't profit from them personally. Such points should be obvious.
-
Argh. Yes, Luis, the strategic importance of the Middle East in general is in its oil reserves. I'm not denying that factor figures prominently in the background. I'm saying the reason for invasion does not lie in the oil reserves themselves, but the geopolitics surrounding them.
Most intelligence agencies had known for two decades that if a true hot war was going to burst into flame, it was going to start in Iraq. It nearly went there in the early 90s. That would likely draw in the major nations in the Middle East, including Israel. At least two of the states likely to get dragged in - Israel and Pakistan - are known to possess nuclear arms. Iran probably doesn't yet, but it's just a matter of time at this point. A nightmare that featured prominently in the heads of US intelligence analysts, I'm sure, is the idea of a tinderbox in Iraq starting a war across the region. This was not an unlikely scenario - while not confuddled with the formal alliance mess, the circumstances in that region are not unlike the Balkans. You may recall the events of 1914. That's not an unrealistic scenario, given that all 5 of the UN security council veto nations have varied interests in the region.
If the region didn't have oil, all the West would care about is Israel and its well-being. But in general, it's missing a big part of the picture to say that the oil reserves of Iraq led to the invasion there. Sure, oil supply played a role but so did much larger security concerns. War profiteering is largely a side consequence, and certainly not motivation for the entire US military and intelligence establishment to support war in Iraq. Also, while certain political elements may have felt the war would be cheap and end in weeks, I can guarantee that's not what the intelligence folks were busy saying in the background. I think at the end of the day the administration didn't care about the cost, they knew an opportunity like 2003 comes around very infrequently.
-
Well now, I see this is still rumbling along without me, ha ha.
I'll start with Karojorma. Ryan, you said you don't have time to watch an hour long youtube video. I've got news for you, it's not an hour, it's 3 hours :D
I went straight to the wiki on that too. It is a lot to watch, so I don't know if I will or not, but it's intriguing. I'd say there's maybe a 15% chance I'll watch it. There's a much better chance that I'll start the video at some point just to see how I feel about it, and if Luis Dias's admiration for this documentary maker is what he says it is, I may well get sucked in from there.
I did watch the 638 clip though. That is astonishing, I wouldn't have thought anyone on the globe could survive the attentions of the CIA for even a fraction of that time. I expect most of the plots were never actually attempted though. I suppose attempt just means that they began making plans, but for most, never implemented them. However, the CIA sound pretty inept with some of the outlandish stuff I read when I wiki'd it. Even hiring the Mafia to kill Castro? That just screams of desperation to me. Perhaps the CIA were but a shadow of what they are now back then. Bet they wish they had access to a suicide bomber, or someone who doesn't care about their own life to kill Castro. It becomes a whole lot more complex when the assassin needs to escape with their life.
I agree with Dragon on not labelling people who misunderstand global politics and economics as conspiracy theorists. Just as what happened with me and the Moon, common sense doesn't cut it in these areas. Ryan told me it was like trying to teach a grade schooler geopolitics. I didn't like that at first, but then when I considered I had to look the word up to find out what it means, I can't really argue with it. While I do understand that the US could never profiteer with the vast expenses this war is sucking out of them, this geopolitics is a subject I have no experience with. I can understand politics to some extent on a national level, but this is a different beast. I often see these organisations of nations as pathetically inept, but maybe there's more to it.
Ryan, I had to look up your B.Sc and B.A. Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts, right?
The WMDs were supposed to be WMDs that could threaten us, we all knew he had the chemical weapons, he had them for a long time. The curious thing though, no chemical weapons were deployed against us in the war. Nothing even remotely WMD.
It is looking likely the US either fabricated the WMD stuff, or sexed up (I remember that term being used over here to argue against it, "sexed up") some flimsy evidence of WMDs to get the go ahead. I'm guessing you're going with the "sexed up" theory, because later you say the US had an opportunity here, where if it was fabricated, they could have fabricated it any time they wanted.
You say Luis and Dragon are missing something, well I'm missing it too. From what I understand from what you're saying, the US invented this WMD pretext to go to war, which is abhorrent for me. This isn't some minor policy that needs a little kick to get it into circulation that people will eventually realise is a good thing later, this is a war, a war in which people will be sending their loved once to fight and die in, which companies and charities will be sending their members into to be targets for enemy combatants. People deserve to know what they're fighting and dying for. Hell, people back home who's wallets are getting stretched thanks to the expense of this war need to know why they are having to make the sarifices that are being forced upon them by this war. And then of course the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been butchered, a death toll way greater than anything Saddam ever inflicted on his own people.
Lying politicians is a big problem for me. And I would guess for most people. The WMDs are at best gross incompetance, but I doubt anyone seriously believes that by now. Iraq for me is a war crime, plain and simple, and if I didn't live in the UK, I'd probably want the involved countries to go bankrupt to pay off the Iraqis for all the damage and carnage that had been done to their country for a lie, simple self-preservation prevents that, and makes me feel dirty.
-
simple self-preservation prevents that, and makes me feel dirty.
You shouldn't. It is not the entire country that is at fault, as a majority of our populace was lied to. It should be those who were in the know and made the decision to go to war that should pay the price while we should try to right what damage we can.
-
We'll see who has the last laugh when FEMA tanks start rolling down the road to send you to the death camps.
You've been warned.
-
simple self-preservation prevents that, and makes me feel dirty.
You shouldn't. It is not the entire country that is at fault, as a majority of our populace was lied to. It should be those who were in the know and made the decision to go to war that should pay the price while we should try to right what damage we can.
Perhaps. But maybe it's because I knew there was something fishy, but didn't do anything. If I'd been among the million souls that took to the streets against it I think I'd be at peace. It was nice of you to say that though.
-
We'll see who has the last laugh when FEMA tanks start rolling down the road to send you to the death camps.
You've been warned.
death camps create jobs. even ones i would take.
-
We'll see who has the last laugh when FEMA tanks start rolling down the road to send you to the death camps.
You've been warned.
death camps create jobs. even ones i would take.
thats assuming i wont pull a shotgun on you. killing things is good therapy.
poes law makes it impossible for you to know if im serious or not. there is a little experiment that can be done to test this. give me a nuke, and if a city gets vaporized then im serious, otherwise im joking. i can tell you i wasnt joking about killing things being good therapy (and also a good source of protein/lead).
-
Lorric:
:welcomeblue:
-
I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY)
I don't have time to watch a 60 minute YouTube video. Summary in 250 words or less... go! :D
i watched it (all of it) and found it quite informative.
-
Lorric:
:welcomeblue:
What does it mean?
-
Nuke is a sociopathic Alaskan redneck who wants to kill everyone and take over the world and not necessarily in that order, and he's one of our favorite people. Deal with it.
-
The WMDs were supposed to be WMDs that could threaten us, we all knew he had the chemical weapons, he had them for a long time. The curious thing though, no chemical weapons were deployed against us in the war. Nothing even remotely WMD.
It is looking likely the US either fabricated the WMD stuff, or sexed up (I remember that term being used over here to argue against it, "sexed up") some flimsy evidence of WMDs to get the go ahead. I'm guessing you're going with the "sexed up" theory, because later you say the US had an opportunity here, where if it was fabricated, they could have fabricated it any time they wanted.
You say Luis and Dragon are missing something, well I'm missing it too. From what I understand from what you're saying, the US invented this WMD pretext to go to war, which is abhorrent for me. This isn't some minor policy that needs a little kick to get it into circulation that people will eventually realise is a good thing later, this is a war, a war in which people will be sending their loved once to fight and die in, which companies and charities will be sending their members into to be targets for enemy combatants. People deserve to know what they're fighting and dying for. Hell, people back home who's wallets are getting stretched thanks to the expense of this war need to know why they are having to make the sarifices that are being forced upon them by this war. And then of course the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been butchered, a death toll way greater than anything Saddam ever inflicted on his own people.
Lying politicians is a big problem for me. And I would guess for most people. The WMDs are at best gross incompetance, but I doubt anyone seriously believes that by now. Iraq for me is a war crime, plain and simple, and if I didn't live in the UK, I'd probably want the involved countries to go bankrupt to pay off the Iraqis for all the damage and carnage that had been done to their country for a lie, simple self-preservation prevents that, and makes me feel dirty.
Welcome to global politics, where the truth is a relative thing.
"Weapons of mass destruction" was a PR line. Nobody - this includes your government - who actually knew what was going on in Iraq in 2003 believed that meant nuclear. WMDs include all CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, environmental) threats. We all knew Iraq had chemical weapons at one point in the recent past. The US 'evidence' presented at the time led other nations to believe that chemical program had been expanded and a biological program (the real fear) started.
Turns out that the forces invading Iraq actually did trip across some chemical weapons, old chemical weapon manufacturing facilities, and some rudimentary bio labs, but nothing on the scale that the American government implied. Most of the Iraqi chemical weapons were destroyed (or smuggled out of country) after the Gulf War.
It was a flimsy excuse all along, but I would be extremely surprised if most of the governments who went along with the invasion didn't know that already.
But again, the invasion of Iraq isn't technically a war crime in the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
-
MP, no one but you mentioned "war profiteering". And of course it's all about "security" and geopolitics. I haven't been saying anything else here. But when you say oil "has little to do with it", I think a neuron might have fused or something, for the main geopolitical interest of that region *is* the oil.
A little interesting side fact: the US department of defense spends something like 350 thousand barrels of oil per day. In current oil's price that amounts to 35 million dollars a day.
But again, the invasion of Iraq isn't technically a war crime in the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
Saddam had practically forfeited any right to rule Iraq after the wide range of crimes he had commited previously.
-
Given that MP has repeatedly demonstrated he understands the importance of oil to the security of the region, I would think it's safe to say he meant "the US directly supplementing its oil supply with Iraq's oil had little to do with it." It seems like you're basically being disingenuous at this point...
-
I'm not. I've been saying MP "violently agrees with me". But then he also says sentences like "oil had very little to do with it". You might want to conflate that sentence with "supplementing US oil with Iraq's oil", but that's not what I read.
-
You actually brought up war profiteering when you talked about the economic benefit to key players within the US.
Regardless, the reason I keep saying that oil had little to do with it is because conspiracy-types fetishize about the oil aspect. Yes, it's a fundamental underlying consideration in every action in the Middle East, but that doesn't make the invasion of Iraq about oil - not unless you also consider every other armed conflict there since 1948 to also be about oil (maybe you do?).
It's like saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and invaded half the Pacific Rim because of oil. Was energy security an underlying factor in the Pacific war? Absolutely. But Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbour and invade all kinds of Pacific countries and territories because of oil, they did it for security reasons (for those unfamiliar, Japan's strategy in 1941 was to grab as much territory as possible while keeping the US in a rebuilding phase, and then go for negotiated settlement to try to retain some of the territory they grabbed, thus ensuring energy and resource security while expanding the Empire).
-
I more or less agree with you (I don't with your analogy with Japan), but let me just clarify one point. When I "mentioned" profiteering I did so because of a logical argument. Notice how I begin to mention it:
Second, if we are to allow the "conspiracy theory" that the Bush administration lied to get their hands on the oil, the argument that it has been "net negative" for the US is misleading at best.
That was more an advice on how not to run that argument than anything else, at the very best.