Iraq: The Missing Billions

Freedom?
Freedom to steal.

"A Den of Thieves" is a book that I read about the Corp.. raiders. This thievery extends to the Govt.

BBB:

You know, I never thought about that! I just kind of bought the broken pipieline story (Don't ask me why, DUH).

You're probably right ... the Bush Cartel has probably been pumping oil out of there like crazy!!

Anon

Am I sensing a hint of anti-Bush enthusiasm. You're probably right. I mean, I'll bet Bush went over there with his military and made 'em all pump oil for his personal reserves (sarcasm). Perhaps you have failed to recognize that at the beginning of the war we had an armored battalion parked in Kuwait, which has much more oil than Iraq. I hope you are not suggesting we are after oil. I've heard a lot of anti-Bush/Gov't. sentiment on these forums, however, you all fail to present facts in a logical manner. I don't know what your all upset about, but quit whining and cooking up conspiracy theories.

Jakart:

Read up on your facts and then come back and try again!

Anon

Really? What facts have you added to the conversation? It is typical of liberal idealism to represent emotion rather than facts. So, perhaps you should be the one looking up the facts. By the way, you're avatar is offensive. Are you an American citizen? If so, I suggest you exercise your right to leave.

Jakart,

Try to respresent your side with more dignity.

Jackart:

Ok, here's a couple of facts ...
1. Saudia Arabia is number one in oil reserves.
2. Iraq is number two in oil reserves.

Wherever Kuwait is, they rank well after Iraq!

Therefore your quote ...



was wrong! There's a fact for you! It helps your credibility on this board if you stick with TRUE FACTS!

I can't tell you how happy you've made me that you find my avatar offensive ... it was meant especially for you! Get used to it, you're going to see it a lot!!

As for my leaving ... don't hold your breath !!!


Anon

Anon,

As you know I disagree with the war categorically. But while you have, indeed, caught Jakart in a slip up I think the deeper point about whether the war was about oil or not is more important.

I happen to think the war in Iraq was one of the worst actions taken by the US. But I disagree that it was motivated predominantly by oil.

Craven:

That's one you and I get to disagree on then!!

Anon

Fair enough.

Actually I'd have to go with Craven on this one. I think the oil was a factor, but that excercising power was the primary objective.
PS: Anon..I love your avatar! The "love it or leave it" mentality is the sort of attitude favourable to totalitarianism!

That's the primany reason I'd cite. Of course to the ones who justified said exertion the primary reason is probably cited as being related to security concerns and said use of power was a means to an end but to me this is not a mere logomachy.

In the Project for the "New American Century" there seems to be a desire to alter the US m.o. more than any simple security concern.

An appeal to security was included, but the general gist of the whole group seems to be that they think that though the Cold War has ended and we have won we need to now agressively distance ourselves in the lead.

Fair enough, but they also seem to be of the opinion that an unused military is a wasted one and that securing the lead means that a reversal of the damages they percieve liberalism to have caused during Vietnam is key.

Vietnam was the last time hawkish policy both reigned in America and got to play geopolitical chess with no hold barred. War weariness is a lesson the military has since learned and in all the comparisons the left makes about America they fail to note the most critical. That the military has learned their lesson and have mastered war weariness deriving the left of a powerful political sentiment.

Now the campaigns are fast, lightning fast. The reporting done from the war theater is now under increased military control.

I think this is more about the comeback of the hawkish policy. 9/11 is used as a form of justification but this was not a movement hatched after 9/11. And the moves proposed by this line of thinking have little to do with preventing a 9/11 at all.

This is why tactics the left used in Vietnam aren't going to work. The more hawkish leaders have figured out the way to circumvent it. The speed of the wars leaves little time for the war weariness to really peak.

This is one reason I think that if the left overdoes the "opposition" platform they will shoot themselves in the foot. Most Americans might have concerns about how things are going but the "bring 'em home" left is undermining the left's chances at preventing a coup.

Preventing another 10 years means the left has to reinvent itself. The hawkish right (as opposed to teh moderate but '9/11ed' right) sat back and learned their lessons. They modernized warfare, learned to manage wartime PR and is learning to make the case for the geopolitical chess moves.

I really hope the left can get it together fast. And IMO for them to do so they need to swing center and hold against the swing to the right. Let the extremity of the current position become appenet by being centrist rather than a counterbalancing extreme.

Re the "Love it or leave it" attitude: to me it's the mentality of one who ownes something. If it's YOUR house then you can say that. Now when it's a country I think the individual shows an inordinate sense of ownership.

Guess I'm wondering at your use of "inordinate." I would probably substitute "innapropriate." A sense of "ownership" in the US is admirable for any citizen, but should be moderated with the knowledge that it is not singular and proprietary. A "love it or leave it" attitude implies that the person embracing this line of reasoning is, in actuality, afraid that more hold opinions counter to his than agree with him. Again, the stifling of dissent has a long tradition in forms of government that are absolutist and totalitarian. I prefer to hope that despite current trends in government, the US will not trudge down this path. I would then posit that dissent is neccesary for the mechanics of democracy to function.

Same difference, it's the shareholder who owns one share thinking this makes him CEO.

This is something of a digression - but - the US has been in Iraq for only, relatively speaking, the blink of an eye - yet, I sense some war-weariness developing. Do others agree with this? Is the government control over reporting being maintained? What do you think continued casualties in Iraq will mean?

I'm still not convinced this was a war for oil. If we wanted free oil, why didn't we continue on to Baghdad after Gulf War I? And why am I still paying nearly $1.50 for a gallon of gas? I kind of wish it was a war for oil.

As far as WMD's are concerned, GWB has not been the only person on the planet to claim Iraq had some and was devloping others; so I don't think WMD's were a lie made up by GWB. Clinton made the same claim along with agreement from the UN. Plus I believe some traces of WMD have been found: the Euhprates River (I think that's the right one) has been tested, and bio/chem weapon traces were found in the water.

There is some war weariness, nothing significant yet.

CQ,

It doesn't matter who made it up, it matters that one president justified an unprovoked war based on them.

Comparing it to what others have said is absurd, people say stupid things all the time when one of them invades another nation for it he has differentiated his brand of stupidity from that of the rest.

I admit my earlier statement was off. Let me show you some important details. According to World Oil, Kuwait had 98.9 billion barrels of crude oil reserves. Iraq had 115 billion barrels of crude oil reserves (As of Jan. 1, 2002). If this was a war about oil we would have settled with Kuwait. The difference is not astronomical and Kuwait has no real military presence. No, this war was about justice and defense for all peoples. To be honest, I don't care if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not (though they do have all the necessary materials). Have you considered the fact that Saddam is responsible for the deaths of 2 million of his own citizens. This is horrendous, especially considering that this number is a staggering 11% of Iraq's population. One in ten people died at his hands unjustly. No, this war was not about oil.

Here is something else I find interesting. Republicans have decided that it is best if we pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Democrats would like Iraq to pay us back a large portion of that amount in oil revenues. Hmm, I thought you were suggesting that Bush was after oil. Do not be fooled, Bush has too much integrity to do what you are suggesting.