USAs involvement in the Middle East

[kasse]

Critics often claim that we're there only for the oil. That might be the main reason, but what's wrong with being interested in oil? Imagine all oil in the world magically disappearing tomorrow. Imagine the terrible consequences! We must of course secure it. Imagine the consequences if Saddam Hussein got to control Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's oil. He would pose a major threat!

Also the critics clai that the wars have been expensice for the American tax payers. Imagine how expensive it would have been if we were suddenly out of oil! The gulf war, for instance, costed us only 9 billion dollars, because we received 36 billion dollars from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to pay for the war.

 

[drankin]

It would be great if we could just access the oil we already have in our own country. What a concept. "But we don't want to harm the habitat". Yeah, it's ok for other countries with much poorer environmental controls to ruin their habitat to provide us oil. It's lunacy.

 

[russ_watters]

Critics often claim that we're there only for the oil. That might be the main reason, but what's wrong with being interested in oil?

You are correct - there is nothing inherrently wrong with the idea of being there partly or even completely for the oil.

Imagine all oil in the world magically disappearing tomorrow.

And it will - not tomorrow and not magically, but it will and relatively soon.

Imagine the terrible consequences! We must of course secure it. Imagine the consequences if Saddam Hussein got to control Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's oil. He would pose a major threat!

And that is a significant part of why the entire western world went after him when that happened.

It is also important to note, though, that there are two separate and only moderately related issues in the Middle East. The Israel issue is only peripherally related to the oil issue.

Also the critics clai that the wars have been expensice for the American tax payers. Imagine how expensive it would have been if we were suddenly out of oil! The gulf war, for instance, costed us only 9 billion dollars, because we received 36 billion dollars from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to pay for the war.

Agreed, though the Iraq mess didn't end in 1992 and wasn't over in 2001, and wouldn't be over today with or without the 2002 invasion. If it is over next year (as planned), it will be because of the 2002 invasion.

When the oil does run out in the middle east - perhaps in a hundred years - the oil rich countries of today stand a decent chance of becomming like the subsaharan african countries of today. An anarchic cesspool.

 

[chayced]

Sadly most of the arguments are lunacy:

We went into the middle east to take their oil! -> Nope, if this were true we would be getting their oil cheap right now. Only a small fraction of the oil we get is from the middle east. Part of the reason we invaded may have been the impending overthrow of the Saudies and the threat of fanatical cutting off the world oil supply, but that is a real threat.

Oil companies have huge tracts of land in the US they could be drilling on but they don't, instead they want to get access to more delicate land to rape pillage and burn. -> Yeah, and captain planet will save us too. When oil companies want to get new land to drill on they first tie up the land with a contract then they explore. If they did it in the other order then any competitor could swoop in and take the prime land without doing the hard work involved with finding it. Also not all oil producing land has oil at the same cost. Shale oil for example is harvestable but not economically feasible at the current cost, a pressurized well of sweet Texas crude on the other hand is worth its weight in gold. Just because the land is under contract doesn't mean anything, neither does showing proof that it contains oil, the real proof is shown if the oil companies are sitting on profitable land and not using it. I have seen no evidence of this and to suggest such means that the oil companies are not in it for their own profit which is crazy.

We destroyed the US economy with the Iraq war! -> I love this one. The current cost of the Iraq war is around 700 billion dollars. Total. That's it, less than the first stimulus package, less than the bailouts. Plus war spending itself is always a 'stimulus package' due to the jobs it creates. It would have been nice to have all these new spending bills estimated in numbers of Iraq wars. Sadly the talking heads shut up about this as soon as the new administration took power, kinda like the death count that used to be on the news every night.


There are too many crazy arguments to list, but until people start thinking they will continue to have traction. Common sense seems to be completely lost.

 

[DavidSnider]

We destroyed the US economy with the Iraq war! -> I love this one. The current cost of the Iraq war is around 700 billion dollars. Total. That's it, less than the first stimulus package, less than the bailouts. Plus war spending itself is always a 'stimulus package' due to the jobs it creates. It would have been nice to have all these new spending bills estimated in numbers of Iraq wars. Sadly the talking heads shut up about this as soon as the new administration took power, kinda like the death count that used to be on the news every night.

What the money is spent on is just as important as how much is spent. I tend to think the money spent in Iraq will be less productive overall than the stimulus money.

 

[kasse]

I hate those conspiracy nuts who claim that the bankers dictate our politicians. Private bankers have as much influence on politics as God has on evolution.

 

[rootX]

A thread about Iraq war critics with almost no critic post in it. Similar to the Bush bashing threads ...
Nonsense.

 

[ThomasT]

My guess as to why we're involved in the Middle East and adjacent places is that it doesn't really have to do significantly with power, money, oil, etc. (ie. greed -- even though this certainly is a factor), but rather it's primarily the view that this area is a focal point in an evolving threat to our way of life.

Destabalization and occupation with the aim of controlling somewhat the area's political leaders and technological development, while at the same time intruducing Western influences, incentives, etc., makes sense as a program of containment and gradual Westernization.

Whether the perceived threat is a real one or not, I don't know. I can only say that I don't want to live like a fanatical Muslim any more than I want to live like a fanatical Christian.

Have our actions helped to minimize this sort of behavior?

 

[kasse]

A thread about Iraq war critics with almost no critic post in it. Similar to the Bush bashing threads ...



Nonsense.

Word! I fully supported President Bush and his war on terror. The American people are fools to disagree with him, and non-patriots can **** off!

 

[cristo]

Private bankers have as much influence on politics as God has on evolution.

Well that's clearly not true!

 

[turbo]

Whether the perceived threat is a real one or not, I don't know. I can only say that I don't want to live like a fanatical Muslim any more than I want to live like a fanatical Christian.

Have our actions helped to minimize this sort of behavior?

Our actions have polarized ethnic factions and have empowered religious extremists and fanatics. According to interrogaters from the CIA and the US military, our military actions in the ME (including prisoner abuse) have been Al-Qaeda's most powerful recruiting tool. It will take a very long time to mitigate the damage, IMO.

 

[turbo]

Word! I fully supported President Bush and his war on terror. The American people are fools to disagree with him, and non-patriots can **** off!

So it's unpatriotic to question the motivation for putting our troops in harm's way when Iraq had noting to do with 9-11? That's some powerful Kool-Aid.

 

[rootX]

Word! I fully supported President Bush and his war on terror. The American people are fools to disagree with him, and non-patriots can **** off!

Yes, I agree it is foolish to disagree with your president. Besides that, everyone who criticizes the Iraq war lacks common sense.

I didn't find anything more than that from the first few posts.

 

[turbo]

Yes, I agree it is foolish to disagree with your president. Besides that, everyone who criticizes the Iraq war lacks common sense.

I didn't find anything more than that from the first few posts.

[hair on fire]Plus, Obama is not even a US citizen![/hair on fire] More flags over here for the photo-op!

 

[ThomasT]

I hate those conspiracy nuts who claim that the bankers dictate our politicians. Private bankers have as much influence on politics as God has on evolution.

Even though those conspiracy nuts are, in general, a despicable lot, I have to agree with cristo, ie., you seem to be somewhat out of touch wrt this issue.

It doesn't necessarily involve 'conspiracies' per se (though this does happen). It also doesn't mean that politicians are 'bought-and-paid-for' per se (though there are some that are). It just means that, generally, being successful in politics involves being part of a network that involves financial 'influences and incentives' and being 'close' to people who can provide them.

Do you think that the considerations of the common people are as important to your political representatives as those of the bankers and other (business owners, power brokers, etc.) people who support their campaigns with significant contributions (both on and under the table)?

The buying of access to 'political' power (in one form or another) has been part of the status quo in every human group or 'civilized society' since the emergence of modern man. In fact, you could probably stretch this to apply to most hierarchical animal groups also.

It's just business as usual for any group no matter what its ostensible political or economic philosophy. That's all.

 

[ThomasT]

Our actions have polarized ethnic factions and have empowered religious extremists and fanatics. According to interrogaters from the CIA and the US military, our military actions in the ME (including prisoner abuse) have been Al-Qaeda's most powerful recruiting tool. It will take a very long time to mitigate the damage, IMO.

Yes, a very long time. One has to wonder if the damage is irreparable. Anyway, it's just a hypothesis that makes sense to me regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and continuing support of Israel.

 

[kasse]

So it's unpatriotic to question the motivation for putting our troops in harm's way when Iraq had noting to do with 9-11? That's some powerful Kool-Aid.

Questioning is fair, but claiming to know that 911 is an inside job, is ridiculous when we know that it was an bin Laden job.

Also, the official reason to invade Iraq was WMD, not 911. We also know that Saddam has financed palestinian suicide bombers, and that he treated his own people like animals.

Some people say Bush didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD, and that the real motive was oil interest. But if that is true, how come he has gotten away with this without anyone putting him on trial?

Could it be that Bush actually BELIEVED the info he got from the intelligence?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Some people say Bush didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD, and that the real motive was oil interest. But if that is true, how come he has gotten away with this without anyone putting him on trial?

Even if we assume Bush invaded Iraq just for oil, what crime did he commit? Mix in the fact that executive privilege keeps anyone from knowing what was planned, and it's tough to say what they did and did not know, and what the true motives were

 

[cristo]

Also, the official reason to invade Iraq was WMD, not 911.

Who said that the invasion of Iraq was in response to the 911 attacks? It was the invasion of Afghanistan that was a response to the 911 attacks.

 

[kasse]

I believe Saddam had tried to make the world believe that he had WMD to appear stronger than he was.

 

[turbo]

Questioning is fair, but claiming to know that 911 is an inside job, is ridiculous when we know that it was an bin Laden job.

I never claimed that 9-11 was an inside job, and it's ridiculous for you to make that assertion.

Also, the official reason to invade Iraq was WMD, not 911. We also know that Saddam has financed palestinian suicide bombers, and that he treated his own people like animals.

The "official" version was a lie and we all know it. The "aluminum tubes" were not suitable for use in centrifuges, and there never was any Niger yellow-cake purchase. Joe Wilson debunked that quite easily, which is why Cheney et al blew his wife's cover as a CIA NOC. Guess what she was working on? Preventing nuclear proliferation, specifically with respect to Iran. Yep! Bush sure knew how to keep the US safe!

Some people say Bush didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD, and that the real motive was oil interest. But if that is true, how come he has gotten away with this without anyone putting him on trial?

He absolutely knew that the "intelligence" was drummed up to give him a pretext for war. In fact, he demanded that intelligence and it was cooked up to satisfy him. He wanted to be a "war president" and said so. Just because the Dems don't have the guts to indict him doesn't mean that he is innocent. I live in a rural, poor state, and lots of our kids join the military, so I have quite a few younger relatives in the armed forces. To me, "support our troops" means "don't start unnecessary wars and get our kids killed".

Wave the flag and stand by W all you want. He is a criminal and he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and the deaths and injuries suffered by our troops. All this from a coward who stayed state-side in Viet-Nam and a VP who claimed countless deferments and never spent a minute in uniform.

 

[kasse]

He is a criminal and he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and the deaths and injuries suffered by our troops.

That's not very patriotic! And remember that now, under Obama, we actually have more troops in foreign countries than under W. Are you saying Obama is a murderer too?

 

[drankin]

I remember a Saturday Night Live episode where they showed Obama speaking but it was Bush's voice. LOL.

 

[turbo]

That's not very patriotic! And remember that now, under Obama, we actually have more troops in foreign countries than under W. Are you saying Obama is a murderer too?

That's ridiculous. Are you in middle school? Obama has to deal with the messes that he was handed. Not a very good situation. And if you have any memory or have done the research, you know that Obama came out strongly against W's war. He's now got to clean things up and disengage, but he did NOT start those wars. That's not a subtle point, but it seems to elude you.

 

[kasse]

Do you think that the considerations of the common people are as important to your political representatives as those of the bankers and other (business owners, power brokers, etc.) people who support their campaigns with significant contributions (both on and under the table)?

There is a maximum sum that you can pay to presidental campaigns. If you want to assert that they contribute with more under the table, that's up to you to prove.

 

[kasse]

Less than 60% are satisfied with Obama. What's wrong with the 40%? Look at all that he has done! Do people think Obama is God?

 

[turbo]

Less than 60% are satisfied with Obama. What's wrong with the 40%? Look at all that he has done! Do people think Obama is God?

Most Republicans and every single racist are dissatisfied with Obama. Under such circumstances his approval numbers are wonderful. But what does this have to do with US involvement in the Middle East apart from trying to change the subject?

 

[kasse]

The "official" version was a lie and we all know it.

We know it wasn't true, but we cannot know it was a LIE! That's two different things. I doubt the leaders would lie to the American people.

 

[Count Iblis]

Critics often claim that we're there only for the oil. That might be the main reason, but what's wrong with being interested in oil? Imagine all oil in the world magically disappearing tomorrow. Imagine the terrible consequences! We must of course secure it. Imagine the consequences if Saddam Hussein got to control Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's oil. He would pose a major threat!

Also the critics clai that the wars have been expensice for the American tax payers. Imagine how expensive it would have been if we were suddenly out of oil! The gulf war, for instance, costed us only 9 billion dollars, because we received 36 billion dollars from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to pay for the war.

Let's consider Saddam's invasion of Kuwayt in a realistic way then. Saddam invaded Kuwayt for economic reasons, Iraq had paid a heavy price for the war with Iran. The US was very pleased with Iraq's decision to attack Iran. Relations between Iraq and the US were pretty good, the US had even held joint naval exercises with Iraq. The US was willing to look the other way when Saddam found it necessary to attack Halabja (because that incident had been provoked by Iran counteratacking in the north with the help of Iraqi Kurds).

So, if the US had simply appeased Iraq when it attacked Kuwayt and let Saddam attack Saudi Arabia too, nothing bad would have happened. Saddam would not have tolerated Islamic fundamentalism. Under Saddam's rule, women would have equal rights in the whole Arab peninsula.

 

[Count Iblis]

Less than 60% are satisfied with Obama. What's wrong with the 40%? Look at all that he has done! Do people think Obama is God?

Go to Russia and ask if people think that Stalin was a good leader. You'll be surprised by how many say: "yes". The same is true if you go to Spain and ask the same about Franco.