Iraq was never about oil said ministers

[tankie]

:slap::slap::slap:

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

[Zinja]

This to me is still insufficient to explain why 2003 and at such a price? Why the urgency? The only thing that makes sense to me is this was a grudge war, more like what will happen to Iran if she does not back down. This was unfinished business from 1991.

[Chogy]

It makes complete sense to spend a couple trillion $$ and precious lives and assets to militarily secure oil worth a hundred billion dollars.

Right? I mean, why bother simply buying the oil on the open market from Canada, Mexico, or the other OPEC nations, when you can spend 10X that amount, and then let Iraq sell the contracts to non-U.S. oil companies.

Clear as mud.

[NUS]

It makes complete sense to spend a couple trillion $$ and precious lives and assets to militarily secure oil worth a hundred billion dollars.

Right? I mean, why bother simply buying the oil on the open market from Canada, Mexico, or the other OPEC nations, when you can spend 10X that amount, and then let Iraq sell the contracts to non-U.S. oil companies.

Clear as mud.

You are talking from year 2013 perspective. Back in 2003 they probably expected it to be another Gulf War and Iraq to become a second Kuwait. Never underestimate human stupidity.

Well, at least Iran as a different story. Right?

[USSWisconsin]

Sadam tried to kill his dad.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/d...eds_to_be_read

[Blademaster]

Sadam tried to kill his dad.

Dangerous Minds | Dying vet’s ‘fuck you’ letter to George Bush & Dick Cheney needs to be read by every American

And his dad tried to kill Saddam in the first place.

I have always found that argument to be tenous for justification to start a war.

[Officer of Engineers]

And his dad tried to kill Saddam in the first place.

I have always found that argument to be tenous for justification to start a war.

Would you forget someone who tries to take a swipe at your dad?

[Dreadnought]

If it was the US didnt get any of the lucritive contracts. Which ofcoarse flies in the face of the Bush haters.

[Firestorm]

Would you forget someone who tries to take a swipe at your dad?

Wait, so he used the US Armed forces to carry out a personal vendetta?

If the thousands of US soldiers who were sent to Iraq had been sent to Afghanistan instead, the Taliban would have been history by now.

[Officer of Engineers]

Wait, so he used the US Armed forces to carry out a personal vendetta?

It was a factor but a correct one. Someone who would go through the trouble of trying to assasinate a former US President cannot be trusted with knowledge on how 11 Sept was done.

If the thousands of US soldiers who were sent to Iraq had been sent to Afghanistan instead, the Taliban would have been history by now.

The Soviets had a even bigger footprint in Afghanistan and they too got tired of bleeding.

[Firestorm]

The Soviets had a even bigger footprint in Afghanistan and they too got tired of bleeding.

The Soviets were there to occupy and rule. They had the whole country against them and the US was arming and supplying the resistance.

The US is there to get rid of the Taliban and AQ. Anyone Afghan who doesn't belong to those groups is ostensibly on the side of the US. The US commitment in Afghanistan suffered because their attention got needlessly diverted to the war in Iraq. Had that not happened, the situation might have been different now.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Soviets were there to occupy and rule.

No, they were there to prop up their allies, the Pathan Communists.

They had the whole country against them and the US was arming and supplying the resistance.

And did we ever see Mujahadeens with M16s or even M60 tanks? The one exception were the STINGERs but if you look at the actual kills, it was not a game changer.

The US is there to get rid of the Taliban and AQ. Anyone Afghan who doesn't belong to those groups is ostensibly on the side of the US.

That is too simplistic. Anyone not on the specific warlord side is automatically the enemy regardless if that warlord is taliban ... or communist.

The US commitment in Afghanistan suffered because their attention got needlessly diverted to the war in Iraq. Had that not happened, the situation might have been different now.

It would have been different but I don't see a victory. How can you have a victory when the best you can get is Karzai?

[snapper]

And did we ever see Mujahadeens with M16s or even M60 tanks? The one exception were the STINGERs but if you look at the actual kills, it was not a game changer.

Sir, Given such a case, often possibly enforced along tribal lines, are you suggesting that Afghanistan is 'unconquerable' by a foreign power? If so to what extent would this also be true of Pakistan? In the same way and due tribal allegiance to what extent is Iraq (with the added sectarian and ethnic divides) or Libya 'governable' democratically? Should some countries simply be split up?

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, Given such a case, often possibly enforced along tribal lines, are you suggesting that Afghanistan is 'unconquerable' by a foreign power?

No, I'm saying very few men could do it. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Khan, Timur are those men. Such men are a rarity, even in Afghanistan.

If so to what extent would this also be true of Pakistan?

Pakistan needs a charismastic leader. They did not have one since independence.

In the same way and due tribal allegiance to what extent is Iraq (with the added sectarian and ethnic divides) or Libya 'governable' democratically? Should some countries simply be split up?

It's not our jobs to stop them from doing what they want to themselves.

[snapper]

No, I'm saying very few men could do it. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Khan, Timur are those men. Such men are a rarity, even in Afghanistan.

I would possibly add Alexander.

It's not our jobs to stop them from doing what they want to themselves.

I agree 100%.