Oil and the Lies of Bush and Co.
I Don't Know
Oil and the Lies of Bush and Co.
~Following My Own Flow~
There are just so many reasons: We didn't want Saddam to use a WMD or sell it to some of the other freaks in the region, which gave us an excuse to invade and gain control over the oil, which helped us develop a democracy, trading partner, we developed our military strategy and R&D, we are gaining valuable intel in the region. I mean...there are so many clear reasons and value adds that I have to ask why we would we not want to go to war in Iraq? Iran is next hopefully too. We need to fight as that is what we Americans do. We will put a bullet in your arse like Toby Keith said, because it's the American way from the revolutionary war, civil war, spanish american, ww1, and 2, korean and almost ww3 (bay of pigs), Vietnam, persian gulf and probably I missed a few, but war is an art that we do to survive either directly or projecting our strength to arseholes like enemies in the past: Putin and potential future enemies: Hugo MACHO Chavez and akmamamiaakminajihad the leader in Iran. It's a necessary art we choose to do and that is why we are on top. OH SAY CAN YOU SEE, BY THE DAWNS EARLY LIGHT...
Iraq's had a vote in 2006 or 7 about our troops getting out of Iraq. The vote's where 80% for our troops to get out of Iraq but Bush ignored the vote's.
Really? Somebody started this thread and didn't invite me early on? I can't believe that there are people out there still clinging to their designed hypocrisies and ignorance. This isn't a Bush thing. Not a Clinton thing. It is an American thing. The choices?
-Atomic Bomb? Sure.
I Don't Know? C'mon.
When 9/11 happened, our critics (weak Americans as well), lunged at the opportunity to blame America for its behaviors during the Cold War. They whined and complained about our "supports" and our outright decisions to cater to "our" dictators as we rushed to beat the Soviets to the punch at their own game. But with the game won, none of these hypocritical oil using whiners complained about the twelve year game in the Middle East as we maintained Saddam Hussein for the UN's mindless, corrupt, and cowardly prescription upon an entire region in the name of "stability." Nobody cared about any starving Iraqi for twelve years ("No War For Oil," but starvation and oppression for oil while looking away seemed just fine). Deployed military units in "Kurdistan" to aid in the humanitarian crisis Hussein caused was just as fine as well. Dictating his comings and goings was just fine too. And every time Hussein played his games and sent his troops towards the borders, it didn't matter that we continually and exponentially raised the number of troops in the desert.
But come Osama Bin Laden's misleading and scapegoat making love letter to these critics, and they bit. They gave it legitimacy and pointed at America. They "understood" his anger at how America had behaved over the decades during the Cold War (while delivering careful disclaimers that no one deserves a 9/11 type attack upon them.) They could "understand" where America needs to correct itself. Of course, Bin Laden's declarations that the "starving children of Iraq" and the "presence of American troops" in the Middle East quickly got shoved out of focus when it came time to correct and address just that. Quickly, Hussein's "sovereignty" (as if he really had any for twelve years) became more important than correcting past mistakes. Suddenly our Cold War mistakes they used to preach about became insignificant. The hypocrites were shown for exactly what they were - Leftist preachers without conviction (Of course, a religious preacher seems to never be able to escape a mistake by them.)
Those that have studied this region and understands it's historical importance to the world and the tribal allegiances that cause so much turmoil and slaughter over the decades and centuries, understand that Iraq's current given opportunities represent perhaps the last chance this Arab region has to get it right. There were many reasons for Iraq....
1) WMD was the excuse, but without definitive proof to counter the dictator's lies, who had authorized his military jets to fly over Saudi and Jordanian air space as late as 2002, it was go time.
2) This failed region needed a shock in the right direction and with Iraq's population of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, it was go time. And since this involved a Syrian and Iranian support to encourage violence between the tribes as we became audience to an entire region of fighters traveling for the chance to kill and American or a rival Muslim tribe (gang) member, their failure or success will prove more about their capabilities as a regional people than it does about American might (but be prepared when our critics speak on the weakness of America when it comes to absolving an entire Arab society of their personal responsibilities).
3) Oil? We were getting it just fine beforehand so.....whatever. If this is what the critics cling to as they pump gas, fill their houses with plastics, and electronics then this should shed more light on our ignorant critics than anything else. Unless....their point is that Saudi Arabia's "stability" was a (the?) goal, which seems to be too much for our simpleton critics to portray so I'll do it for them. But...let's move on.
Given that America didn't simply seek the next dictator to take over after the last one proved too troublesome to the region, maybe our critics have been too harsh about the whole affair. Maybe giving these tribal "nomads" an opportunity they would not have gotten otherwise (we owed them this since the Gulf War by the way) proves that we are and have moved on from the UN's idea of what is supposed to bring "stability" to entire regions. (Oh...and in case people want to come to the rescue of the UN.....didn't they just complain to the international court about their call for Bashir's arrest because it may disrupt the "stability" operations going on in Darfur? That’s UN justice. ..so screw your UN defenses.)
But in the end, our critics will scream and complain about the same old boring things. They will continue to refuse responsibilities towards Arabs as they scream that they wouldn't have slaughtered each other if only America continued to deface its values and continued to embrace and maintain the brutal and oppressive dictator. If only America would have continued to carry the burden for the rest of the Western world and blindly obeyed the UN's prescriptions upon entire regions then this oppressive, brittle religiously concreted, and exponentially terrorists embracing Arab civilization between Cairo and Islamabad would have seen the light and delivered itself beyond its black hole existence. And they will deny this region’s historical thirst for slaughter while arguing that religious monsters at every level would deny their God his ultimate tribal weapon. Or that oil really doesn’t matter all that much on a global scale (World Wars can be started over assassinations, border arguments, or national embarrassments but never over a valuable global resource or God, you see).
President Bush wasn’t the great thinker. And he certainly couldn't recognize when his advisors represented the absolute definition of the worst our nation's leaders had to offer. Bush made the correct decision to end our overdue Cold War mission in Iraq. We wound up doing a good thing very badly – thanks to the Rumsfeld coven of misfits and idiots. And it is this badly that most critics focus on. Unable to fathom an understanding of this civilization or what we were doing for the past twelve years, they will remain aghast over what was inevitably going to happen one way or another. It was good for our long term security because this region was quickly embracing the dark side of humanity and Iraq produced an opportunity. It was good for Iraqis because after almost a century of being forced together within unnatural borders and decades under “our” dictator’s bayonets, it was time to let them sort out their tribal hatreds and just maybe become the example for the rest of the Middle East (in which plenty of moderate Arab Muslims have been seeking). But even with our action in 2003, seeking the foreign devil to blame for all their failures may had reached a point irreversible for this civilization without mass civilizational slaughter. Pakistan’s tribes place a huge question mark upon nuclear weapons while living through a cold war with India’s nuclear arms. Iran’s religious monsters are seeking the nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia and Egypt represent the Arab strength in the region and will not sit on the nuclear sidelines with Iran in the race. Nuclear religious toys are on the way. Men like Osama Bin Laden are plenty in this region. Dropping 4 airliners on American soil was quite satisfying for his media goal and his God. I guess his God doesn't rate a good old fashioned mushroom cloud?
Our long term security is dependent upon a truly stable Middle East. Not the UN’s idea of stability but the same kind of stability the rest of the modern and successful world has. One without dictators behind their militaries. One without a nuclear Cold War. And one without the exponentially growing religious fanaticism that oppression and ignorance breeds. Saddam Hussein was as much the answer to this region's problems as Osama Bin Laden.
And Europe? Bordering neighbors of this region? They believe that they can halt the negative flow of this region simply by ignoring the obvious thorns or by stopping a small locally groomed terrorist plot in their nations. But they are wrong. At least we have the Atlantic Ocean. Even England has the English Channel.
Last edited by MSgt; 09-12-09 at 11:39 AM.
Wow, Gunny! That just about says it all!
I said from the beginning that I thought going into Iraq was ingenious. I agree about Rumsfeld; he was into streamlining the military and missed the more pressing issues. Prognosis looks much better now that Gen. Petraeus has developed an intelligent plan. It was always about security at the community level.
Afghanistan seems to be all about drugs.
Your description of the tribal strife leads me to ask your opinion of the latest from the Brits in regard to Libya. I just heard that they have had SAS training Libyan troops in counterinsurgency techniques. This seems outrageous to me. I don't trust them, Libya. Have an opinion?
We AREN'T at war with Iraq. This is a loaded question.
We are not at war with IRAQ, first of all. Second of all, what is going on right now is not a war. People dying in a country does not mean we are at war with that country nor does that mean there is a war.Come on how can you say that we are not at war. Dude people dieing out there.
Last edited by Lakryte; 09-12-09 at 02:07 PM.
So what exactly are our Soliders fighting over there if it is not a WAR?
~Following My Own Flow~