82 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Ten years ago today the United States' invasion of Iraq began.  President George W. Bush announced, "This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome except victory."  Well...

 

4,487 Americans killed, over 32,000 wounded.  And for what?  First we were told there were "weapons of mass destruction," the dreaded WMD, but that proved to be a chimaera (which is a fancy way of saying "lie").  Then we were told we were "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."  Then...  Then we were just there, and it didn't really matter why any more, because now the whole place had gone to shit (thanks to us) and we couldn't very well leave, could we?  Because then Iran (gasp!) would step in and take over.

 

So where are we, ten years later?  Iraq is a nominally independent, nominally democratic country that is, in fact, ruled by a small cadre of well-connected political hacks, all on the take from the US.  It's an American fief in all but name, and none of its neighbors see it as anything different.  It remains a hugely unstable factor in an unstable region, and would quickly fall apart if not for the millions upon millions of dollars we continue to pour into it.

 

190,000 total lives lost (70% Iraqi civilians).  That's the blood.

 

2.2 trillion—trillion—dollars.  That's the treasure.

 

It wasn't worth it.

[Redezra]

Aaaaand it's still shit

 

 

Well done indeed

[Manoka]

There were WMD's, but they had degraded to a point where they wouldn't be very dangerous. He was supposed to give them up and he didn't, he was supposed to do a lot of things in multiple agreements that he never did.

 

The fact he would try to use them, intended to, and attacked other countries, violating numerous treaties (as if we thought he would follow them) and trying to wage genocide, again. Halajba poison gas attacks, Anfal genocide, things could have been a lot worse if we didn't invade in 91 let alone stop him the second time around, when he tried AGAIN, because we weren't willing to completely eliminate him and his forces the first time.

 

 

He would have wiped out all the Kurds, millions more of his own people. Destabilized the entire middle east into a massive war.

 

The best way to put it is, the vast majority of people in Iraq are alive, and woman have rights; holy hell, men have rights.

 

 

As awful as it is to ever have to wage war letting a mad men do whatever he wants is in no way a better alternative.

 

As far as money goes, the 2.2 trillion comes from the fact oil prices went up. We were getting cheap oil from Iraq; now we aren't. If we wanted oil, we would have just let Saddam do whatever we wanted; is that cheap oil worth the blood and genocide of millions? Not really imo. Any detriment to our economy would be inevitable since saddem can't be trusted anyways. So the 2.2 trillion dollars are indirect effects on our economy which, again, were inevitable and if sustained would be clearly immoral.

Edited by Manoka, 19 March 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[Princess xR1]

Even if the WMD was a cover, we still did a great humanitarian favor to the area.

[Alyster]

Economically this war could pay itself off in two regards:
 
 
a) Saddam Husein planned to start selling iraqi oil for euros instead of US dollars. The States literally have no idea how much dollars they have circulating the world. They don't even have a good idea how to calculate it. If the dollar would lose its' position as the sole leading currency it could hurt the US economy very badly. If the second biggest oil producer in the world changes its' dollars for euros, the dollar's rating will fall, starting a chain reaction.

b ) After the initial occupation of Iraq, the oil reserves, factories and pipelines were denationalised. Majority of that went to US based corporations. In fact European and other world companies lost majority of their bids no matter how good their offers were. Thus the States took control of Iraq in a classical neo-colonial way: they control the economy in sectors they need to and leave all the rest of the problems for the local government. Only thing the oil companies needed from the government, the security, was provided by the States.

 
 
So on the economical side we're talking about huge sums of money: money that was spent on the war; money that was saved by dodging potential losses and money that was gained taking control of the local oil reserves. And let's not forget who president Bush represented - the corporations.
 

Even if the WMD was a cover, we still did a great humanitarian favor to the area.

Ha-ha good one. 

Edited by al-Yster, 19 March 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[Manoka]

Uh... I actually believe that most of the oil went to France and China >.<

 

http://www.time.com/...1948787,00.html

 

 

There's a few others.

 

Point is we didn't get any of dat oil. : P

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

He didn't say we got it, he said we sold it.  US companies dominate the oil sector in Iraq, chief among them Halliburton.

 

I never heard the thing about the euros, though.  That's interesting if it's true.

[Redezra]

This all seems horribly depressing.

[Manoka]

This all seems horribly depressing.

[Manoka]

I can't really see why you want to make this thread.

 

It's incredibly painful for me to talk about.

 

 

Also no, 50% of the oil proceeds are going to rebuild Iraq and like none of it is going to U.S. companies.

 

7 billion dollars did go to Halliburton to dig out the oil, but the entire project is almost entirely under military control and hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to China and other countries.

Edited by Manoka, 19 March 2013 - 07:59 PM.

[King Biscuit]

2.2 Trillion Dollars = Moon Base for reals.

 

Instead what do we do?

Yup, that's right, kill brown people(no offense brown people) for their oil.

'Merica.

Fuck Yeah.

[Redezra]

The protoss should fix this.

[PrinceVegeta]

2.2 Trillion Dollars = Moon Base for reals.

 

Instead what do we do?

Yup, that's right, kill brown people(no offense brown people) for their oil.

'Merica.

Fuck Yeah.

 

I'm brown. :c

 

But I'm not there kind of brown.

[Alyster]

About Hussein's euro policy: Ron Paul 'The End of Dollar Hegemony'

 

http://www.lewrockwe...ul/paul303.html

 

 

 

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein — though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O'Neill.

 

 

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

 

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

 

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

 

But nice point about the fields Manoka. I must have missed some news. Though yes it seems in 2009 Iraq auctioned a lot of its' oil fields and CNPC and Lukoil were major winner there, followed by the likes of BP, Shell, Statoil etc. Seems like Obama failed at his duties. Dick and president Dumb-Dumb, both ex members of boards of large oil companies, had set up a very good starting point for the US companies in Iraq with the war. Obama sold it to the chinese. Man, even if he hates republicans, pulling the strings there would have still been in his country's best interest. 

[Manoka]

Well, not all the terrorists are "brown" per say.

 

Arab technically classifies as caucasian and the nationalities have been staggering; for instance, we invaded Afghanistan when the terrorists at 9/11's nationality were largely Saudi Arabian, because that's where their headquarters was, But Suadi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Iran contributed; hell, there's been legitimate American born American citizens fighting on the other side. So no, it's not really "brown", so much as, terrorists, it's an ideology.

 

 

As well, 2.2 trillion wasn't spent directly on the war, but backlash from not having cheap oil.

 

Likely, the war was never over oil, since we could have simply NOT embargoed Saddam, hell, became allies with him, funded him, let him wipe out the entire middle east including Iran, told everyone we were tired fighting other people's wars (which we are), and then got Iran's oil too. But what did we do? Invade.

 

 

If it was for oil lol?

 

There'd likely have been no invasion to begin with, it was a calculated cost of the war long before we ever invaded.

 

 

Oil could be 1.50 a gallon right now.

 

Maybe you could Blame America for that, but it would have been blood money anyways.

Edited by Manoka, 20 March 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[PrinceVegeta]

The whole war to me, could have been avoided if the USA, of all the countries to say they are the "best country", should have just dropped oil and used their heads to come up with alternative forms of fuel/energy. Then they wouldn't need any oil.

 

The war just goes to show the USA has lost a lot of focus on technological progress, and thus is why progress, is what should be focused on rather than profit. Without progress, things digress. It's not going to stalemate, because nothing on this planet is infinite. Therefore a lot of bad things happen when you don't progress, such as wars, poverty, civil unrest, etc. Then there's the individual human who has to deal with stress, anxiety, fear, rage even.

 

All could be avoided, if we could just stop, and think about where our civilization is going. But no...we just think about how our respective country is going and not about each other, like a REAL CIVILIZATION should. I sometimes wonder if humanity ever will grow up...that in itself is more depressing than this thread.

[Manoka]

Well, we could create alternative forms of energy, but like, lol, how do we just do that?

 

We should just make fusion?

 

 

And go!

 

Make fusion!

 

 

It's a little harder than that; by 2020 we *might* have an ITER fusion reactor that can produce 10 times more energy than it's input but it's only a 500 megawatt reactor and it's 16 billion dollars.

 

Assuming all of that is transferred into electricity which likely only 40% of thermal energy will be utilized in electricity due to issues with efficiency, assuming the container walls don't melt, that's 200 megawatts. Assuming 100% operating capacity, that's 1.752 terra watts a year. The U.S. alone consumes 4000 terra watts annually. That's a need for 2280 reactors.

 

 

How much does each one cost? Well it doesn't exist yet but due to problems in achieving high strength materials, 16 billion dollars. Most of it is in fact, not research costs, but high strength material costs, so mass production is likely going to be MORE expensive, but. The U.S. spends 400 billion dollars on electricity annually, and 1.2 trillion on energy (and we use 25,000 terrawatts of energy, gasoline being ridiculously cheap). Assuming 36.8 trillion dollars, for 2300, at 16 billion per, over 20 years that would be 1.84 trillion a year for electricity, or 4.6 times more expensive. Which is only like 1/8th our total energy supply.

 

That's assuming the fusion reactor works, which it might not, and it's only designed to last 5 minutes, and not produce electricity.

 

 

The upside is that Russia, the U.S., and China have all been working together on this project since 1985; before the soviet union fell.

 

So believe it or not, we are trying to progress, but it's harder than saying "just do it".

Edited by Manoka, 20 March 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Alyster]

Likely, the war was never over oil, since we could have simply NOT embargoed Saddam, hell, became allies with him, funded him, let him wipe out the entire middle east including Iran, told everyone we were tired fighting other people's wars (which we are), and then got Iran's oil too. But what did we do? Invade.

 

Not embargoed

Being allies

Fund him

Let him attack middle eastern countries, including Iran

 

You did all of that in 1980s

 

Not attacking Iran wouldn't mean cheaper oil in the long term. Sure they dropped from 2.6 million barrels a day to current 2 million barrels per day. But they still needed modernization and old regime wasn't capable of it; they lacked the machinery and they weren't allowing out siders to their oil fields. Also Hussein, who's pissed off at the US is a much easier pick for the growing Chinese market. Sure CNPC has some contracts since '09, but most of it is going to Europe, including the Russian Lukoil. 

 

Moreover US has been enjoying unfairly low petroleum prices for some time

Edited by al-Yster, 20 March 2013 - 03:46 PM.

[Manoka]

Likely, the war was never over oil, since we could have simply NOT embargoed Saddam, hell, became allies with him, funded him, let him wipe out the entire middle east including Iran, told everyone we were tired fighting other people's wars (which we are), and then got Iran's oil too. But what did we do? Invade.

 

Not embargoed

Being allies

Fund him

Let him attack middle eastern countries, including Iran

 

You did all of that in 1980s

 

Not attacking Iran wouldn't mean cheaper oil in the long term. Sure they dropped from 2.6 million barrels a day to current 2 million barrels per day. But they still needed modernization and old regime wasn't capable of it; they lacked the machinery and they weren't allowing out siders to their oil fields. Also Hussein, who's pissed off at the US is a much easier pick for the growing Chinese market. Sure CNPC has some contracts since '09, but most of it is going to Europe, including the Russian Lukoil. 

 

Moreover US has been enjoying unfairly low petroleum prices for some time

 

We reluctantly intervened in the Iran Iraq war, but the predominate strength of Iraq came from Russia.

 

Ak-47's, PKM's, T-54's, Mig's, these are all Russian brand products, not U.S. : P

 

 

At some point we decided to cut ties with Iraq as they got too ridiculous.

 

At one point we were allies with Russia you know, during WWII, and now we are allies with Japan and Germany.

 

 

It doesn't mean some big conspiracy or that we secretly supported the whole thing, just that we tried to be diplomatic to begin with.

Edited by Manoka, 20 March 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[Alyster]

That's bit demagogic about the Germans and Japs. 

 

But in Iraq's case we're talking about one and the same regime that you supported and then attacked. Not just the same country, the same regime, the same leader. And we're not talking about a Cold war front in Iran-Iraq war; we're talking about an anti Islamic front. Iran had had a revolution in 1979, after which the whole of NATO and WPO supported Hussein in the war. Iran was something new, something mad, it had to be put down. So just because the russkies gave more guns doesn't make the US' case any smaller.

 

But it's really irrelevant. I just found funny how you wanted to result to the old methods you had already tried. Do you know how they define insanity sometimes? Trying to do something over and over again, expecting a different result. Not calling you insane, just found it amusing.