Why are we still in Iraq?

You answered your own question quite well.

Hello, flyingpegs, welcome to A2K.

I think there's also the issue with the myopic view that they are right in their endeavors and refuse to hear rebuttal arguments for other opinions. This administration has isolated itself with 'yes men' like no other in my not-so-short lifetime.

The Bush fanatics have destabilized a sensitive area. They have cracked up a once contained country and allowed for the beginnings of civil war and the creation of the largest launching pad for terrorism the world has ever known. Now we stay in the hope that by keeping our finger in the dyke the flood of total disaster won't happen. Out of fear we keep feeding our troops, resources and tax money to this fiasco. We are in big trouble no matter what we do. Bush has basically handed the terrorists a victory, and while Bush goes back for peaceful retirement at his dude ranch, the future generations will be dealing with the damage control.

I think just letting W retire to his dude ranch will not assuage the blood thirst felt by the Islamists. Only a proper Impeachment of W will soften the anger and knowing that America can punish their own miscreants and take corrective action will there be a chance of diplomatic reconciliation. Put it another way if the naughty child of the next door neighbor comes into your house and does a lot of damage, your immediate impulse would be to grab him and spank him. However, to avoid legal action you would inform your neighbor of his child's misdeeds. If the neighbor grabs his son by his ear and give him a whipping you would feel less angry and be open to having normal relations with your neighbor as you know he can take care of his son's misbehavior.

.


Halliburtin has built (via no-bid contracts) fourteen Huge permanent bases in Iraq. Why do you suppose they did that? I'm guessing it was not part of the Iraqi rebuilding effort.


No, I think those FOURTEEN HUGE BASES might, just might, have something to do with protecting oil. "But it's Iraqi oil", you say. Well, technically, yes, it is Iraqi oil, but when you have a carefully hand-picked group of Iraqis "in charge", it would not surprise anyone if, in their infinite wisdom, they decided to sign long term "legal" deals with Halliburton that would give Halliburton et al foothold in that area for decades.


As brilliant as this conjecture on my part may appear to be, alas, I cannot take credit for it.

-------------------------------------
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
http://www.alternet.org/story/43045


2 excerpts:

"...both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry
anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will
be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the
British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell"

"Understanding how Big Oil came to this point, poised to take effective
control of the bulk of the country's reserves while they remain,
technically, in the hands of the Iraqi government -- a government with all
the trappings of sovereignty -- is to grasp the sometimes intricate dance
that is modern neocolonialism."


---------------------------------------

So when is all is said and done, there will definitely be "winners" in Iraq. It just wont be the Iraqi people or the American people. It will be ... SURPRISE !!! ... the big oil companies!


But hey, you keep getting all worked up over abortion and gay rights, ok? Because they really affect your life, unlike corporate greed, wars for oil, more and more tax cuts for the rich, fixed elections, job losses, degrading the constitution by spying on Americans without just cause, etc., etc., etc. You just go on and keep voting in all the same corporate greed mongers and war mongers (a.k.a. neocons, a.k.a. Republicans), because their agenda, which ignores and exploits the middle and poorer classes, hey that's the really MORAL agenda, don't you think? Ignore the poor. Exploit the middle. Health care? Jobs? Fuggettaboutit. Yep, sounds just like what Jesus would do. Raaaaght.


Who was it that said: "People get exactly the government they deserve."


Yep.






Now do you understand why we went into Iraq? Mission Accomplished !

Wow Angie... What a post. Why I haven't seen that much hyperbole since the Clinton impeachment.

I wonder what "huge" means? Is that like "ginormous"? What constitutes a "huge" base in Angieland?

But, all that aside, lets suppose for a moment all the hyperbole were true and that haliburton gets some lucrative oil contracts in Iraq. Lets look at that, shall we?

Who will be working for Haliburton searching for new drill sites? Iraqi's.
Who will be doing the construction of all teh Haliburton headquarters and other facilities? Iraqi's
Who will be working the opil derricks and maintaining the infrastructure? Iraqi's
Who will be taking care of the pipelines and shipping docks? Iraqi's
Who will be collecting taxes on all of the money for oil produced? Iraqi's

What a bunch of losers those iraqi's would be.

Yes, if only those Iraqis would understand how GOOD they have it...

BTW, flyingpegs, the short answer to your question is hubris and woodenheadedness.

My first response to you was to be who would reap the profits. However on second thought when all is settled and the Islamic regime takes over in Iraq, the western oil companies will be given the gate.

I try not to think too much about how my tax dollars have been spent. As much as I like to hope this next election will change things, I just don't see people like GWB and his cronies backing down. Not after they have invested so heavily in this fraud.

.


Wow Mcg, golly gee, I used the word "huge"! Aw shucks, should I have used the word "sizeable" instead?

Talk about grasping for straws. The point is and was "Why the bases if we're leaving? Why the no-bid contracts? Where's the missing $9 billion?" (google it) etc.etc.

And your questions are ludicrous. "No-bid", Cheney pet Halliburton and its subsidiaries are hardly likely to pass on much if any of their gravy to the Iraqis (or to the Americans for that matter in the form of lower oil prices).

Did you even READ the article? It's got actual facts in it. You do remember what facts are? They used to be quite important to people before talking points took their place.

Hey, McG, you know what? I'm clicking this thread off now. It's better that way. I'm not so much into wasting my time anymore with the sad and blind 30% of Americans who still get their information only from FAUX non-News, and who still think the Bush Petro Cartel is working for anyone but itself. God Himself / Herself could arrive on a thunderbolt and tell you Bush and his buds are greedy, destructive, divisive, immoral a$$holes, and if FAUX told you differently, you'd believe them. Good for you. Must be that brainwashing-induced neocon "resolve"!

Hey, go with it. Why leave your comfort zone and change now? If you actually had to begin to process the real truth about what's happened to this country, your head might explode, and that wouldn't be any fun. No, you just stick with your swell guys. And stay healthy; I do so want you and the rest of the 30% to be around for a long time to appreciate the extent of the damage Bush et al have done to this country and to the world.


Enjoy the holidays, McG. I will probably check back some time in January. There are some very excellent minds (Is it ok to say "very excellent?") contributing here, and I do so enjoy hearing what they have to say.


But thanks for your time, and have a spectacular day, ok?

angie

p.s. (Is it ok to say "spectacular"?)




click!

Actually much of the construction work has gone to foreign workers brought into Iraq to work cheaply.

Just a couple of the stories over the last few years...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19228-2004Jun30.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4977078
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-nepal-cash-story,0,2336629.story

Well, perhaps the Iraqi army will use them when the US military is done with them? After all, they are permanent and "huge".

Perhaps next time the military takes bids on a continued service contract, they will pick a different company then Haliburton and they will get the no-bid contracts... like military procedure says it is done.

Sorry to see you go Angie, A2K needs more angry liberals that can't make an arguement and spout off when questioned. Oh, wait, nevermind, we have a plethora of those...

You be sure to have nice holidays yourself. Try to relax and maybe get some reading in.

Why is the U.S. still in Iraq? Here are half a dozen reasons that have nothing to do with a Republican conspiracy to conquer the world for oil and money.

1. Saddam was defeated, but unlike in most other wars the violence has been carried forward by Ba'ath supporters and the Radical Islamic Movement conducting a terror campaign unrestricted by the protocols of war. Perhaps the Pentagon should have anticipated that a conventional victory in such a volatile region would not be enough. The new U.S. military doctrine was proven a success, but the lethality of a small coordinated force needed to be followed on by a massive support echelon. Of course that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

The geographic location of Iraq at the center of the Islamic World has made it relatively easy for "volunteers" to enter the country. Both Syria and Iran have sponsored much of the fighting for their own reasons. Iran in particular provides sanctuary, funding and logistics.

The effort to stem the flow of munitions and terrorists across multiple borders requires a force far beyond the capability of the Iraqi government. Even with Coalition Forces, the task is exceedingly difficult to manage.

2. The chaos created by "insurgents", has increasingly taken on a sectarian complexion where Shi'a and Suni defense militias have been used to attack one another. Iran has encouraged and promoted sectarian violence as one means of seizing regional leadership. Iraq may well be experiencing something similar to Europe's wars of Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Religious wars tend to be among the bloodiest and most destructive of all conflicts. Coalition forces are an important counterweight to the contending parties, though ultimate success in this field is not great.

3. The elected Iraqi government is not strong enough to stand alone against those determined to dominate the future of Iraq. Framing a constitution and forming a representative government is a tough challenge under the best of circumstances. Iraq has no tradition of government where the People as a whole are represented and protected equally. Assassinations of government officials, police and army have compounded the problems and slowed the pace of getting an effective government in place.

Coalition Forces remain the primary element pushing forward toward an effective Iraqi government capable of managing the country's various interest groups with a minimum of violence. Though our October casualty rate seems very high to us, most of the violence targets Iraqi citizens.

4. Terrorist attacks have hampered and slowed the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. Much is made of the difficulty that ordinary Iraqis have to live with. Water and electricity systems are inadequate throughout most of Iraq. Iraqi and civilian contract workers are targeted purposely to foment discord. Sabotage keeps Iraqs oil reserves from being maximized, so the lack of cash hampers the Iraqi governments ability to function.

Coalition Forces provide an important element in guarding the work being done to repair the country's infrastructure.

5. To pull out of Iraq without accomplishing at least some of the reconstruction required would be a diplomatic and military disaster. The Radical Islamic Movement would claim a victory, and terrorist veterans would fan out around the world in search of other opportunities to defeat the West. Confident that they "beat" the West, Iran's nuclear weapons program would accelerate. Iran would almost certainly increase its efforts to dominate Iraq and the region. Those hoping for a more tolerant and representative secular governments in the region would be at the mercy of the Radical Islamic Movement.

6. The risk of expanded violence in the region would likely increase in the void left by the removal of Coalition Forces. Of course that might be mitigated if France, Germany, Russian and U.N. would send forces in to take up the slack. Fat chance of that, right? In the mid to long term, the risk of nuclear war in the region would go way, way up.

Ash, assume that we stay in Iraq for a number of additional years, and the Iraq government actually solidifies. We then leave Iraq and, six months later, the government is overthrown and sectarian and other warfare returns. Thus, all our casualties, treasury, killing of Iraqis, etc., would then be for naught.

Interestingly, there is a very real scenario.

Bush and other Republicans enjoy telling us how they take direction from the military regarding Iraq. Well, our officers increasingly want hard deadlines for leaving.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deadlines31oct31,0,6295222.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It isn't for those of us who have been making this case from day one.

Cycloptichorn

I saw Asherman make a serious attempt to answer the question and I asked myself "why bother? No one really wants an answer." It's good to see I was correct.

So let me get this straight McG;
The US went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
The US went into Iraq to provide Iraqi's with jobs on drill sites.
The US went into Iraq to provide Iraqi's with jobs on Haliburton's payroll.
The US went into Iraq to provide Iraqi's with jobs on Haliburton oil derricks.
The US went into Iraq to provide Iraqi's with jobs on pipelines and shipping docks.
The US went into Iraq to provide Iraqi's with taxes from their own resources.
The US spent several hundred billion dollars to give Iraqi's jobs--jobs that would have otherwise been held by, who, Iranians?
The US army lost several thousand American lives to provide Iraqi's with employment that would have otherwise gone to who, Syrians?

Surely you aren't suggesting that the big winner in this war is Iraq and the big loser is the US.