“America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq”

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

From a security perspective, the security, stabilization, and reconstruction of Iraq (the latter to reduce the risk of it becoming a failed state) are important to US foreign policy and defense interests.

How important? 250B/yr worth of importance? I think we have far greater uses for that sort of money. If we could pull the troops and just contribute 50B/yr (matching their 50) in infrastructure work, that would be an acceptable step forward. But it seems more like a chasm than a step.

Money is not the single metric I would use to determine importance. (And I don't suspect you would either.)

Most of the supplemental money does not go for reconstruction as the numbers you cite suggest.

It's a good question at its core for which I don't have a good answer, especially not one that would not make other posts of mine look short by comparison.

I do think there is some self-perpetuation of the importance of the Middle East as a region, which the US & western powers have helped perpetuate/sustain over the last 100 years and of course, is tied to oil ... & now Iran's alleged nuclear (weapons) program. Tried to pose/explore some of those questions in this thread last fall.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Is Ambassador Crocker insinuating that rising fuel costs are a direct result of the US led invasion of Iraq?

No, I don't think that was the intention of his comments. More observation.

Quote

Is there any reason to believe that fuel prices would not have increased had our CinC not made the ill-advised decision to invade the country?

Not as high as they have risen over the last 4 years. Iirc, during the invasion and immediately after was a dip in crude oil prices. But no, I don't see anything to suggest that OIF is the *leading* cause of current crude oil prices.

I would suggest the largest cause of high crude oil prices is demand, largely from China (distorted and subsidized) and India. Secondary causal factors, subject to variance in order, include supply (no more decaying dinosaurs to make oil); less "cushion" in stocks by OPEC countries; and risk premia due to uncertainty in the Middle East (OIF is probably a contributing factor here), Venezuela, and Africa. If the US unilaterally withdraws from Iraq, risk is likely to increase and crude oil prices along with it.

Quote

We need to be responsible for our actions.

Concur most heartily. I do believe the USG is trying to be. Execution & implementation of those intentions are proving to be much more challenging than initially anticipated and requiring long-term efforts.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

What does the price of oil have to do with it? We broke it, it's our responsibility to make amends.

huh? In war, the loser pays. And let's not forget they were the aggressor.

Generally, the country that is initially invaded is considered the aggressor. Iraq was the country that was initially invaded, not the US. We were the aggressor. We invaded preemptively, on bad intel, for what turned out to be no legitimate reason, or at the very least, no reason that was given to the US citizens (or any of the world's citizens), The US Congress or the United Nations.

So, I guess in your world, if someone comes and trashes your house, as long as the beat you up in the process then they should not be liable for the damages they've caused?

Quote

Somehow all of Iraq's neighbors seem to be able to build themselves lot of shit with oil money. Many buy lots of German cars and grand palaces, while a few look to the next century (Dubai, for example).

It's funny the things a country can afford when they are not having to rebuild an infrastructure that was destroyed in an unjustified invasion.

Quote

Anyone who has finally escaped financial dependence on their parents knows that's it's better to spend your own money as you see fit.

And anyone who has survived a car accident that was not their fault wants their car fixed and medical expenses paid by the at-fault party.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How important? 250B/yr worth of importance? I think we have far greater uses for that sort of money.

I agree. We should have considered that before we invaded. More accurately, those that made the decision to invade should have listened to those that did consider that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Generally, the country that is initially invaded is considered the aggressor. Iraq was the country that was initially invaded, not the US.

Everyone seemed happy to make jokes putting words into my mouth, but back pedaled out of the entire thread when I wrote "Kuwait 1990."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Everyone seemed happy to make jokes putting words into my mouth, but back pedaled out of the entire thread when I wrote "Kuwait 1990."

Here's the thing: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had zero to do with the invasion. We were the ones that would not let the weapons inspectors do their job. We were the ones who took it upon ourselves to enforce no-fly zones that weren't authorized by the UN.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Iceburner 0]

Quote

Quote

Everyone seemed happy to make jokes putting words into my mouth, but back pedaled out of the entire thread when I wrote "Kuwait 1990."

Here's the thing: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had zero to do with the invasion. We were the ones that would not let the weapons inspectors do their job. We were the ones who took it upon ourselves to enforce no-fly zones that weren't authorized by the UN.

i keep seeing replys about the UN not authorizing the US into the war or anything else...but nobody seems to care that the UN is by far one of the most corrupt agencies i can think of....many nations use the UN through bribes to get what they want....the french, germans, and russian leaders were given money to say they were against the invasion, even though the UN resolution in Iraq said that it was up to saddam to prove to the UN that he had no WMD's by such n such date, which he failed to do. I also think it's funny how people agree that saddam was a bad man, but want the US out of his former country and now are saying that what's happening in Darfur is horrible and the US and UN should do something about their country....I agree that mistakes were made in hadeling the iraq war, but being the monday morning quarterback is always easy. Give me a break. How long were we in japan and germany after WWII? how long were we in Korea...o yea, the US is still there. Everyone expects a 3 day war and then it's all over. Rebuilding a country takes time and money. Hell, the french only decided to enter the revolution after there was hope that we'd win, and even then they weren't around to help us rebuild....and their culture was similar to ours....it's a whole differnent ball game dealing with a culture that is vastly different from the "west's" and advances are being made through lessons learned from mistakes. If the US and other countries back out of iraq now, it will only lead to future problems.

[Iceburner 0]

i'd also like to add that it's a real great boost in morale to see crates of new french weapons in iraq....thanks a lot to our "allies"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Everyone seemed happy to make jokes putting words into my mouth, but back pedaled out of the entire thread when I wrote "Kuwait 1990."

Here's the thing: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had zero to do with the invasion. We were the ones that would not let the weapons inspectors do their job. We were the ones who took it upon ourselves to enforce no-fly zones that weren't authorized by the UN.

and you probably believe Hillary's story about snipers then too. What a load of BS. Saddam's soldiers with guns are what prevented the weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. Maybe Clinton (no, probably) should have ordered an immediate air strike of the building being protected, but to say that he and the US were at fault - sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.

Iraq invasion of Kuwait and subsequent failure to roll over after surrendering had everything to do with the second war. But why it didn't happened till then had everything to do with 9/11, which gave the White House the political capital to engage in the first significant land war since Vietnam. Until then, the President could only send wave after wave of tomahawks.

[ElJosh 0]

Quote

If an univited "guest" comes to your house and takes over, kills your kids, smashes your stuff, are you to blame for damage caused trying to evict him?
You seem to forget that we were NOT invited to Iraq.

Saddam didn't but the Kurds have been asking since the late 80's and most of the Iraqis that I worked with and around were sure as hell happy that I was there.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[ElJosh 0]

Quote

Quote

Eh? YOU attacked THEIR contry - who where they being aggresive to?

I think it was their looking at the sky in the no fly zone and going neener neener neener that really set the stage for the invasion.. King George really does not like to be taunted like that.

If by neener you mean targeting and shooting at our aircraft in a UN sanctioned no fly zone...
~El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I also think it's funny how people agree that saddam was a bad man, but want the US out of his former country and now are saying that what's happening in Darfur is horrible and the US and UN should do something about their country....

That's a question about which I think a lot. Not so much looking back to Operartion Desert Shield/Storm & should the US have removed Hussayn then or OIF but looking forward. Do you think the US should intervene militarily in Sudan?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>Saddam's soldiers with guns are what prevented the weapons
>inspectors from doing their jobs.

Per Hans Blix, they were not preventing him from doing his job.

>Iraq invasion of Kuwait and subsequent failure to roll over
>after surrendering had everything to do with the second war.

Bullshit. It had everything to do with PNAC. They wanted that war no matter what.

>But why it didn't happened till then had everything to do with 9/11,
>which gave the White House the political capital . . .

That's definitely true. The administration used 9/11 as a pretext to invade, thinking (correctly) they could just wave the flag and use it to silence any dissent.

[ElJosh 0]

Quote

Bullshit. It had everything to do with PNAC. They wanted that war no matter what.

Yeah so? They want lots of wars. They really have very little pull. All they really are is a group of lobbyist that want military build up because they are all tied to companies that profit from military contracts. Both the house and senate supported this war. Only a hand full of countries opposed it and they did that because they were involved in shady deals with Iraq.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

and you probably believe Hillary's story about snipers then too.

The old standby- the facts don't support your claims, so you bring up a Clinton. To use your words, "What a load of BS."

Quote

What a load of BS. Saddam's soldiers with guns are what prevented the weapons inspectors from doing their jobs.

If you can remember back to 2003, The UN weapons inspectors wanted more time to finish their jobs, since they hadn't yet found any evidence of WMD. We wouldn't give them the time they needed, because the conclusion they would reach was going to be one counter to the pro-war propaganda coming from the white house. Gen. Colin Powell had even gone on the record early in Bush's first term that we knew Iraq posed no significant threat to anyone, including close neighbors.

Quote

Iraq invasion of Kuwait and subsequent failure to roll over after surrendering had everything to do with the second war.

Ummm … no. Sorry. Our faulty (fabricated?) intelligence is what led to the second war.

Quote

But why it didn't happened till then had everything to do with 9/11, which gave the White House the political capital to engage in the first significant land war since Vietnam.

Please explain how Desert Storm was a less significant ground war than OIF. Is it because there was a clear mission and GHW Bush listened to his military leaders? What about OEF? Do you not consider it a significant war?

Quote

Until then, the President could only send wave after wave of tomahawks.

And enforce unauthorized no-fly zones.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>They really have very little pull. All they really are is a group of lobbyist . . .

Really? Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were lobbyists with no power in Washington? An odd view of history.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Bullshit. It had everything to do with PNAC. They wanted that war no matter what.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah so? They want lots of wars. They really have very little pull. All they really are is a group of lobbyist that want military build up because they are all tied to companies that profit from military contracts.

Uh.. have you actually looked a a list of the members of PNAC????

IT is a comprehensive who's who in this administration

And yes... they have all PADDED their portfolios nicely with the results of the war profiteering that they led the way in implimenting.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ummm … no. Sorry. Our faulty (fabricated?) intelligence is what led to the second war.

Quote

But why it didn't happened till then had everything to do with 9/11, which gave the White House the political capital to engage in the first significant land war since Vietnam.

Please explain how Desert Storm was a less significant ground war than OIF. Is it because there was a clear mission and GHW Bush listened to his military leaders? What about OEF? Do you not consider it a significant war?

Read what I wrote in the middle. You can talk about Blix in 2003, but that doesn't erase the numerous incidents over the prior decade where the inspectors were held back at the door, and then trucks run out the back. Ultimately this lead Clinton to send in more air strikes. If they were actually meeting their mandate, he wouldn't have done that, would he? Saddam had a history of stepping as far over the line as possible, and then jump back when the backhand came. He failed to see the climate change in 2002, or had no alternatives left. Bush wasn't giving him any more chances. Saddam was a known recidivist felon and only the best behavior would have stopped the war.

As I said, the 2001 attacks gave the White House (regardless of the occupant) the ability to do what they wanted - take out SH. In 1991, Bush was quite worried about the costs of a ground invasion that went all the way to Bagdad. In 2003, his son had an America that was too angry to remember Vietnam anymore.

Though as it turned out, taking Bagdad was quite easy. Casualties were low, like in Desert Storm. DS, iirc, had a death rate comporable or lower than normal training - being a soldier is never a safe job. It was in the ongoing (and perhaps unnecessary) occupation that our losses mounted.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Iraq invasion of Kuwait and subsequent failure to roll over
>after surrendering had everything to do with the second war.

Bullshit. It had everything to do with PNAC. They wanted that war no matter what.

Again...all that "proof" it was PNAC, it was the oil companies, it was etc etc etc... and *still* no impeachments?

Must not be very good "proof" after all...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>all that "proof" it was PNAC, it was the oil companies, it was etc etc etc..
>and *still* no impeachments?

1) I never claimed "it was the oil companies."

2) Writing up a political plan, getting your people elected and into the administration and then implementing what you put in your plan is not an impeachable offense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

2) Writing up a political plan, getting your people elected and into the administration and then implementing what you put in your plan is not an impeachable offense.

Though a shockingly high number of Americans on both side of the fence believe this to be true.

Impeachment is not the same as a recall.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Bullshit. It had everything to do with PNAC. They wanted that war no matter what.

Yeah so? They want lots of wars. They really have very little pull. All they really are is a group of lobbyist that want military build up because they are all tied to companies that profit from military contracts.

How so?

While a number of prominent PNAC affiliates (e.g., VP Richard Cheney, former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, former USD-Policy Doug Feith, and former ASD Richard Perle [Pres. Reagan’s admin]) did/do have connections to private firms, the most interesting one, imo, is former DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz, who did not have the extensive corporate connections (if he had any before 2000).

Imo, Wolfowitz genuinely believed in the power of democracy and the free market and that the US should intervene militarily to advance those goals. He did not consider containment to be effective and had long advoctaed for "pre-emptive" use of the US military to advance US foreign policy and American ideals.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Imo, Wolfowitz genuinely believed in the power of democracy and the free market and that the US should intervene militarily to advance those goals. He did not consider containment to be effective and had long advoctaed for "pre-emptive" use of the US military to advance US foreign policy and American ideals.

Yeah that is easy to do when you sit behind a desk and none of your kids or you are in the crosshairs of an enemy. Like almost all the others in this administration he did a fine job of ducking out of any kind of uniformed service.

He is just another example of the Patriotic CRAZY BRAVE right wing.. as long as it is someone elses blood and suffering.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Read what I wrote in the middle. You can talk about Blix in 2003, but that doesn't erase the numerous incidents over the prior decade where the inspectors were held back at the door, and then trucks run out the back.

The fact of the matter is, he had gotten rid of his WMD's. And we invaded when he was cooperating with the UN inspections. The important part of his surrender in 1991 was to give up the weapons, not the inspections themselves. They were only to verify that he had given up the weapons as he claimed, which we now know was true.

Quote

Ultimately this lead Clinton to send in more air strikes. If they were actually meeting their mandate, he wouldn't have done that, would he?

Just because Clinton did it doesn't make it legal or right.

Quote

Saddam had a history of stepping as far over the line as possible, and then jump back when the backhand came.

That's not at all unusual for many sovereign leaders.

Quote

He failed to see the climate change in 2002, or had no alternatives left. Bush wasn't giving him any more chances.

Considering Bush & Co. went out of their way to try to connect Iraq with 9/11, knowing that there was no such connection, it seems highly unlikely that Bush didn't have plans to invade Iraq long before 2002.

Quote

Saddam was a known recidivist felon and only the best behavior would have stopped the war.

He was fully cooperating with the UN inspectors when we invaded. We were only able to get authorization for the invasion by presenting incorrect intel to the UN, intel that many felt was wrong at that time, but we claimed that we knew for a fact that Iraq had WMD's and the capability to employ them with only 45 minutes notice.

Quote

In 1991, Bush was quite worried about the costs of a ground invasion that went all the way to Bagdad.

He didn't have the authority to take Saddam out of power. Legal implications aside, he probably realized why it would have been a stupid idea to remove Saddam from power with anyone to fill the power vacuum.

Quote

In 2003, his son had an America that was too angry to remember Vietnam anymore.

In 2003 his son wasn't smart enough to understand why removing Saddam from power would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. I wonder if he has comprehended that lesson yet.

Quote

It was in the ongoing (and perhaps unnecessary) occupation that our losses mounted.

Unnecessary? Given the ill advised invasion and removal of Saddam, the occupation was unavoidable. Anarchy in the Middle East was in no ones best interest. The lack of order now pales in comparison had we just left and let the country succumb to the ensuing lawlessness.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's not at all unusual for many sovereign leaders.

Your entire posts falls apart because of this presumption of sovereignty. When you lose a war and sign terms of surrender, you've lost that. Welcome to the real world. Big countries pick on little ones. Losers in wars (esp ones they start) get crapped on by everyone, save those who can make a franc doing otherwise.

It's very odd to call US actions illegal yet not hold Iraq to the terms of its contract re: the surrender.

Quote

Considering Bush & Co. went out of their way to try to connect Iraq with 9/11, knowing that there was no such connection, it seems highly unlikely that Bush didn't have plans to invade Iraq long before 2002.

The plans exists in 1991. There's no question of this. The plans were always present if the circumstances arrived. And as soon as he sent the vast armada out to the ME, they were going in. They were not going to wait in the hot sun during the summer of the Middle East, nor were they going to be recalled, diminshining their threat value. That's why Bush's finally ultimatum to the Husseins was written in terms that would never be acceptable. Had Saddam actually said, "ok, you win," Bush wouldn't have had any idea what to do.

BTW, you're abusing double (sometimes more) negatives a lot in your writing lately. Usually it's clearer to say what you really think, like, Bush planned to invade Iraq long before 2002. However, that will probably seem silly, since I doubt he thought much about anything other than winning the election/court hearings until January 2001. And didn't think about Iraq specifically until after he was done hiding in Sept of 2001. 3 months is hardly a long time.