|
Top 10 U.S. blunders in Iraq (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
He confused WWI with WWII
troo2dacroo is refering to the battle for Armien in the first WW |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
He confused WWI with WWII
troo2dacroo is refering to the battle for Armien in the first WW |
Well I initially thought of either Juno or Sword, but they were hardly isolated incidents of allied successes and they were by no means fair representations of German defenses during the allied landings sooo ... perhaps you are correct in that he was referring to WW1. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Actually, the oil is under the overall supervision of a multi-international body composed of the UN, world bank, imf, and most importantly the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.
|
Can you explain to me how this would happen if the US wasnt controlling it?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...6058888165.html |
|
|
| Dervish |
Jesus I had a look at this Canadian Heros and that Scottish Military Tradition In Canada there are more "Highlander", and Black Watch regiments than in Scotland! Nova Scotia (new Scotland) regiments too.
Never knew that.
Anyway to the topic at hand. I'd say yes hindsight is a wonderful thing, but so is planning. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
I fail to understand how the US can spend hundreds of billions so far on Iraq, and not expect any financial rewards as a result??? Do you mean to tell me that this is all being done for safety and for the good of the world??? the american citizens themselves whoa re actually paying for this war, lets spend their taxes on colonization under the facade of 'liberation' and fighting 'terrorism'
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/153...illion_a:.shtml |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And there ain't nothin' wrong with that!:) |
Perhaps not from where you’re sitting - but I see a number of serious problems with it.
Firstly, there's the unequivocal support of 'my commander in chief'. Maybe it's just me - but I start to worry when you've got a president parading around in military uniform, being revered as a wartime leader deserving of everyone's support, irrespective of what they're actually doing. I don't support my 'commander in chief (read: Prime Minister). He's a lying little ape who isn't deserving of anyone's respect with regards to his wartime decisions. As for the pro-freedom & pro humane treatment of humane being part, are you sure that launching wars on false pretences is the best way to further freedom and humane treatment of human beings? There's also the fact that there was horrendous planning before the war, thus lessening the chances of Iraq ever becoming a relatively free and democratic state. Lastly, why support the war when it wasn't even waged to further freedom? It was launched because Iraq was allegedly a threat - not so that we could impose a democracy. As for supporting the war - that's your prerogative, but I, for one - disagree.
Now, on to the oil idea. Maybe this is just me, but this 'WAR FOR OIL!' stuff looks a hell of a lot like yet another badly thought out conspiracy theory to me - is there actually any evidence that they did launch the war for oil, circumstantial or otherwise? |
|
|
| occrider |
It's quite simple. Iraqi reconstruction projects which are funded by the United States (you know, that whole $87 billion of American money that congress voted on) are controlled and dispensed by the CPA for Iraqi reconstruction projects. Any and ALL revenue earned by Iraqi oil revenue are monitored and controlled by international monitoring agencies. Make sense? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I fail to understand how the US can spend hundreds of billions so far on Iraq, and not expect any financial rewards as a result??? Do you mean to tell me that this is all being done for safety and for the good of the world??? the american citizens themselves whoa re actually paying for this war, lets spend their taxes on colonization under the facade of 'liberation' and fighting 'terrorism'
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/153...illion_a:.shtml |
tyr this on for thought.
I've said all along that Iraq was not just a kick in the groin to Islamic facism across the globe. It is also a strategic (read big picture,long term) goal for the stabilization of a region that, wherein it's oil revenues will inevitably decline (20-25 yrs.), and with it, it's economy. Sadam Hussein (god love'em) was not going to be part of that strategy if the Sauds and Kuwaitis and the Jordanians and the Iranians and the Americans had anything to say about it.
Most of the house of Saud, more importantly, wanted the cess pool to their north stabilized because they are facing an internal crisis of Islamic facism within their own. Just look at the last few weeks in Saudi Arabia. They too are dealing with monster that wants extremist reform. They want nothing more than stabilization throughout their oil incline, plateau, and ultimately decline. Iraq was going to do nothing but feed that monster for the duration of Sadam's wicked life, then pass it down to his spawn. An idea that just cannot be trusted in the "strategic" sense. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. This conflict was multifaceted.
So when you make some careless, myopic, ill-informed statement that resembles something like "Amerikkka's warring for their oil"
you will be right and wrong. Right in a sense that Iraq's oil reserves cannot be ignored not just by George Dubya, but for the sake of the entire world. The same world that has been buying Iraqi oil at OPEC prices just like Dubya has for the last half century. Wrong in a sense that OPEC's oil WILL dwindle sooner than you might think, and in the long term, it won't matter any more because we got more oil waiting for us. Hell we only import from OPEC 15% of the oil used in this country and it will probably stay that way.
In other words the 15% of the imported oil we buy from OPEC we pay and will continue to pay the same as everyone else, with Sadam or without Sadam and Iraq will be here long after this administration is gone. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
tyr this on for thought.
I've said all along that Iraq was not just a kick in the groin to Islamic facism across the globe. It is also a strategic (read big picture,long term) goal for the stabilization of a region that, wherein it's oil revenues will inevitably decline (20-25 yrs.), and with it, it's economy. Sadam Hussein (god love'em) was not going to be part of that strategy if the Sauds and Kuwaitis and the Jordanians and the Iranians and the Americans had anything to say about it.
Most of the house of Saud, more importantly, wanted the cess pool to their north stabilized because they are facing an internal crisis of Islamic facism within their own. Just look at the last few weeks in Saudi Arabia. They too are dealing with monster that wants extremist reform. They want nothing more than stabilization throughout their oil incline, plateau, and ultimately decline. Iraq was going to do nothing but feed that monster for the duration of Sadam's wicked life, then pass it down to his spawn. An idea that just cannot be trusted in the "strategic" sense. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. This conflict was multifaceted.
|
With respect to the highly secular state that Iraq was while Saddam was in charge I would think the "kick in the groin to Islamic facism across the globe" would have been much more appropiate in Iran and not Iraq. The threat to Saudi Arabia coming from Iraq had nothing to do with Islam or even religion. It was Iraq trying to get control over more oil fields (remember Kuwait?). That's why the U.S. had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. To help if Iraq decided to grab some land again.
The presence of a US army on the holy grounds in Sadui Arabia has been under much criticism from the people, not only in Saudi Arabia but all over the mid-east. The stability of the house of Saud is not something to count on anymore and the US needed a way to get out of Saudi Arabia without loosing it's military presence in the mid-east. Getting a US friendly regime in Iraq, for example, would obviously help out a lot in that respect. I'm not implying that this was the sole reason US went to war with Iraq but I do think it was one of them. Fighting terrorism was definetly not the reason since the war has only widened the recruitment base for anti-american terrorist groups. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzyGreen
Saying that the containment was working is increadibly stupid.
Not only does the UN admit that the Oil for food program was corrupt but also deals with France/Russia/N.Korea were also going on, and thousands of Iraqis were dead from the sanctions. |
Having a somewhat corrupt oil for food program is not a reason enough to invade a country. Thousands of Iraqis are dying now as well as a result of US sanctions.
| quote: | | That also doesn't address Saddam and all his attrocities. |
If that's reason enough to start a war, we should nuke the whole African continent first.
| quote: | | The fact that coalition warplanes were routinely shot at while patroling the no-fly-zones. |
Because they bombed Iraqi military positions.
| quote: | | Saddam kicking out the UN inspectors. |
It was done first by Clinton and now by Bush.
| quote: | | intelligence info that pointed to WMD (True or false, at the time it was believed to be true) |
Obviously false, even at that time as there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claims.
On a side note, I agree with dj Irish. The US needed a new foothold in the middle east, and the whole islamic terror agenda was nothing but a cover up to provide national support for war. If islamists were the problem, Saudi Arabia should have been attacked. The fact that Iraq also has a huge supply of oil itself is just a fortunate occurance, although it certainly did play part. As for the rising prices...well, if not now, they're gonna start rising in the next few years for sure as we start depleting natural oil resources. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's quite simple. Iraqi reconstruction projects which are funded by the United States (you know, that whole $87 billion of American money that congress voted on) are controlled and dispensed by the CPA for Iraqi reconstruction projects. Any and ALL revenue earned by Iraqi oil revenue are monitored and controlled by international monitoring agencies. Make sense? |
Yeah, but the point is that the Halliburton contract (and many other contracts) were decided on and approved by US congress, but then paid for with Iraqi money (from the DFI fund - which does not exist for that purpose) and without independent auditing. $3.9 billion of contracts were handed out by the CPA before any independent auditing occurred, and even after this point the auditing and reporting techniques have been sub-par. The IMAB (the body responsible for conducting these audits) has only really been functional for the past few months, and even then has fairly limited powers. Things are improving now, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these wheelings and dealings over the past 12 months have been done without any of the transparency necessary, you would think, to absolve any suspisions we might have about the allocation of funds by the CPA and other coalition-led bodies. (I linked to this site in the other topic, but it's definitely worth a read: http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org .)
So, I don't know about you, but when I learn that Cheney is involved in obtaining a single-source contract for his former company (of which, I believe, he is still a shareholder and paid a salary?) worth billions, which is then paid for using misappropriated funds taken from an Iraqi humanitarian fund, then forgive me while I don my tin-foil hat and ask for an explanation and greater transparency of government. To be honest, even if this is just conspiracy-mongering without basis, then Cheney and his puppets in the CPA only have themselves to blame - open government goes a long, long way guys! ;) |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Actually, the oil is under the overall supervision of a multi-international body composed of the UN, world bank, imf, and most importantly the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.
Out of curiosity, what battle are you referring to? |
I have no clue. |
|
|
|
|
