|
0 members (),
80
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,536
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583 |
I do not think that the US has any hold on the oil in Iraq. But I do think that it was what Cheney et al had in mind. But like everything else in the War in Iraq, they bungled that, too.
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)
Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
I do not think that the US has any hold on the oil in Iraq. But I do think that it was what Cheney et al had in mind. But like everything else in the War in Iraq, they bungled that, too. Scout, THere are very few examples where foreign countries have been able to maintain long term to to control of other nation's oil reserves. Iraq is no exception. I know that the issue of control of the oil was a part of Bush administrations calulations. I have seen no evidence that it was the prime factor in thier decision process. And, FWIW, if you want to maintain control of a country, you do not invade, as the US did, with a force that is inadequate to control the country you are invading. And, when you finally do get enough boots on the ground, you do not let that country sign all of it's new oil deals with non-US companies.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583 |
I do not think that the US has any hold on the oil in Iraq. But I do think that it was what Cheney et al had in mind. But like everything else in the War in Iraq, they bungled that, too. Scout, THere are very few examples where foreign countries have been able to maintain long term to to control of other nation's oil reserves. Iraq is no exception. I know that the issue of control of the oil was a part of Bush administrations calulations. I have seen no evidence that it was the prime factor in thier decision process. And, FWIW, if you want to maintain control of a country, you do not invade, as the US did, with a force that is inadequate to control the country you are invading. And, when you finally do get enough boots on the ground, you do not let that country sign all of it's new oil deals with non-US companies. I didn't say that the Bush Administration was the sharpest knife in the drawer about the Iraq oil. I just said that control of it was what they intended to achieve. I think that was just going to be a bonus. Their main intentions were to enrich the pockets of their defense contractor cronies. That they did very well. 
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)
Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
I didn't say that the Bush Administration was the sharpest knife in the drawer about the Iraq oil. I just said that control of it was what they intended to achieve. I think that was just going to be a bonus. Their main intentions were to enrich the pockets of their defense contractor cronies. That they did very well. This discussion illustrates the futility of such discussions. Why exactly did the bush administration do what it did? It is very hard to say... different members of the group had differnt thoughts and motivations. Just my opinion, but I think GW bush was very pissed that Saddam tried to assaintate his dad... Texans take that sort of thing very seriously. I also think he really thought that he was protecting the interests of the USA. And I think he thought Saddam was a loose cannon that would have to be dealt with sooner or later... and this was the moment to deal with it. And, I also think that he was fool enough to believe that if he just took our Saddam, and gave freedom a chance in the region, that this could be a catalyst that would entirely re-make the whole middle east. And, of course their free market ideology convinced them that the best way to solve most problems is to let the market find a solution.... so they had an abiding faith that if they simply destroyed the bad, then good would emerge. But at this point, I don't think many of them would agree on what happened and why... even if they were talking off the record to friends.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Now, no specultation zeke, no controversey... simple fact, You tell me the single verifiable reason that USA invaded Iraq I never said there was a single reason. I think economics had something to do with it: Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated. The superposition of one class over another is the underlying issue, no matter what name it is given. So whatever new "ism" they come up with, it will always be about economic hegemony. So, as I have already stated on this thread, IMO economic reasons are the motivating factors. The stories that are told to the public to justify wars and interventions are just that, fairy tales. At the risk of repeating myself: I know that there are many stories, the causes I believe are mainly economic. just said that IMO the real motivations were almost always economic I would like to hear from anyone who can find an example of a war or intervention that they believe did not have economic motivation. I have already stated that I think economics IS the MAIN motivation for war.
The reasons are, as others have said, that there is always some economic component, which I think is the main component because power always seeks to entrench itself and guarantee, not just its own survival (as Scout aptly pointed out), but growth (as a form of "immortality"). Political power IS economic power and, in today's world, economic power IS political power. So, by extension, increasing economic power is increasing political power. My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important. Of course I could provide further quotes.... I do not think that any reasonable person would interpret your postings as saying "economics had something to do with it." Economics has "something" to do with almost everything in life (or at least human affairs), But that observation is inconsequential. Economics has something to do with marriage, and divorce, and school, and athletics, and art, and religion.... the list is endless. Is that really the extent of the point that you have been making? Please tell me where I denied saying that economics was the main reason. I have always maintained that point. What I didn't say is that it is the only reason. Surely you see the difference.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Iraq is totally different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources pretty much unexplored, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. Now they are very easy to gain access to. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, US and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the US in a very powerful position, even more powerful than today, to exert influence over the world. SO, since the USA started the war in Iraq, and going by the quote that you provided, is it reasonable to conclude that the USA has a major control of oil profits flowing from Iraq, Please formulate a proposition on this issue that will satisfy your requrirements. Perhaps we can arrange a bet that you will find relevant to the topic. Or. more likely we will return to endless re-parsing of your intended meaning. You just can't stand it when facts are presented.  I have said it more than once: please present an alternative explanation to the one I have presented. If you cannot then don't waste your time and mine. You seem to think that just because you don't agree everyone else must prove it to you. Doesn't work that way. You not only have the right but, I daresay, the obligation to question something. But bring facts to the table and not some vague, subjective arm-waving about "complicated" etc. That is why discussions become sterile.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Their main intentions were to enrich the pockets of their defense contractor cronies. That they did very well. War, like most other things in this U.S. of A. (and in most parts of the world), is a business. A very profitable one, as I have already pointed out. I see no reason to doubt Scout's statement.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
At one point in my life I had a lot of respect for Noam Chomsky, but the analysis that you quoted here, Ezekiel, is so thin as to be laughable... indeed, I did. He was once a dizzying intellect. Now, he is just dizzy. The problem is that he creates a premise, then allows no other explanation than his stated view even when the evidence he adduces doesn't even support his point. Hidden in all of the words is a startling lack of substance.
Libya is probably the least economically-driven conflict currently in the Middle East. There is certainly an economic component, but it was far more about the history of suppression and possibility of freedom than an external push for resources. Now, was there a significant element of economic interest for some of the intervenors? Of course. But the brush is simply not broad enough to paint a majority of them that way.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Almost every conflict in the world can be explained by three word: perceived relative deprivation.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
Almost every conflict in the world can be explained by three word: perceived relative deprivation. How about: gol durned lunatics?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
