It's actually pretty easy to explain. Oil is the new gold, and Iraq has one of the top reserves in the world. You want that gold in friendly hands or unfriendly hands? Does money buy power? You do know that oil executives were brought in for post-war planning about the oil fields, right?

I'm not saying that we went to war for the oil, but wars throughout history are fought for precious commodities, but usually packaged under nationalistic propoganda. Why would you think it was any different this time?

Like I said, not very simple to explain. Please tell me how, exactly, this will work to the US' benefit? Are we going to suddenly start importing more oil from them? It makes more sense to import from the countries we do now. We didn't buy much of their oil before...why now? I do know oil executives were brought in for post-war planning...makes perfect sense to me that we would do so to get their oil fields up and running as fast as possible again. One of the rather big blunders about the pre-war planning was that we would be able to pay for Iraqi reconstruction with oil profits, and found out that their oil infrastructure was in horrible condition. If it was about the oil, it would have been much, much simpler to agree that Saddam had disarmed, cut a deal with him under the rug, and imported large amounts of oil with no war.

Silly me, but I tend to think we went to war for the stated purposes.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Silly me, but I tend to think we went to war for the stated purposes.

I do not think we went to Iraq for oil but I do believe we went to get revenge for 9/11. Once it was clear we were not going to find OBL, and with a public and world opinion looking for retribution, we decided to go after what was supposed to be an easy target.

Iraq had a no-fly zone, closely monitored by U.S and British war planes so they were no threat to America, that much is clear to any honest person. Without an airforce, they were easy pickings and our intelligence predicted the Army would be overrun in days, and the people would rejoice and their freedom. The only tricky part was to actually get Hussein, which we did, and the people, for reasons we decided not to worry about, were not welcoming us as heroes as we were led to believe.

Since the idea of revenge was not going to fly, they relied on the fact that we sold Iraq weapons in their war against Iran, so we were pretty sure he had them. What our intelligence did not pick up was the fact that the weapons were gone.

Our efforts to create a democracy at the point of a gun is the mistake our administration is repeating.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Uhhh...the vast majority of weapons in the Iraqi arsenal were French and Russian. The US provided very few actual weapons (if any)...what we provided during the Iran-Iraq war was more like intelligence on Iranian movements.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

the vast majority of weapons in the Iraqi arsenal were French and Russian.

That is true in terms of conventional weapons. Russia in particular was the largest supplier of arms, with France second by a long shot.

The US provided very few actual weapons (if any)...what we provided during the Iran-Iraq war was more like intelligence on Iranian movements.


The U.S is also widely believed to have provided Iraq with biological/chemical weapons technology. That is one of the main reasons we suspected they had them, we gave them the ability.

I agree that we also provided intelligence support but considering how our intelligence is working, that may not have been a good thing for them, but it probably worked out okay for Iran.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I would be interested to hear the reference for us selling them bio/chem weapons technology...I'm not sure I buy the "widely" believed part...

I think we suspected them mostly because we found all of the stuff after Desert Storm.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I would be interested to hear the reference for us selling them bio/chem weapons technology...I'm not sure I buy the "widely" believed part...

Well, maybe since I believe it I extrapolated it to many :)

Now, this link does implicate numerous U.S Corporations and not specifically the government, but if they were involved, you would have to think it was done with at least implicit approval.

http://foi.missouri.edu/...d/uscorpsiniraq.html

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I duly went to the link, and I remain skeptical. Not to say that it isn't possible that one or some US or international firms provided perhaps dual-use technology to Iraq, or perhaps genuine weapons information on the sly. But some of the companies listed there didn't meet the common sense test...Eastman Kodak for rocket technology? Carl Zeiss for chemical weapons? Dupont for nukes? I also note that the story says that these firms "allegedly" supplied said technology, and offers no further proof, other than to say the list "seems" to come from the documents turned over by Iraq. Not exactly proof positive, if you ask me. And, supposing that the Iraq documents did list these companies, who's to say that Iraq didn't manufacture this list out of thin air? It would explain the highly suspect pairing of companies like Eastman Kodak with rocket technology, or an optics firm like Carl Zeiss (which is German company, BTW....the US division is just a subsidiary) with chems. Like the article said, Iraq would have been keen to discredit the US in its hunt for Iraqi WMD by casting it as culpable in Iraqi weapons development.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I'm not completely sold on the report but do find it hard to believe that Iraq would be able to pull out this list from thin air. The article also notes the numerous German corporations with ties to Iraq which most people would not have a hard time believing, but when U.S Corporations are named, it is suddenly bogus.

I believe that in the 70's/80's, we were so concerned with the spread of Iran's fundamentalism, that we would stop at nothing to prevent it from spreading. This includes ensuring Iraq had the capability to defend itself and turning a blind eye to their development of WMD. It was only when Iraq started engaging in aggressive acts themselves, and we witnessed the madness of Hussein, that we found ourselves in a bit of a bind.

This is why I don't blame Bush entirely for the war, this happened long before his watch, but it is the result of us meddling in other countries affairs. We meant well and the Iranians were the big threat that had to be stopped but it is nothing but irony that we invade another country due to their development of WMD on the technology we sold them.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008