What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

And that is completely flat chart, with absolutely no adjustment for inflation or monetary exchange values. And it totally ignored everything else in it's factors. World supply and demand, greed, and one of the largest factors, FUD.

FUD (and now speculation) are the largest drivers of oil prices. For example, look at that giant spike at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. Oil rose dramatically after the Revolution, then suddenly flatlined then decreased after Iraq invaded Iran. And it then dropped almost as fast, and stayed there even during the shellings and counter-shellings Iran and Iraq made at each other. Even during the era of the Tanker War, when both sides were attacking the tankers of neutral nations all through the area. But where is the increase? With your claim, then the price should have continued to rise even more, but that was simply not the case.

In fact, the largest spike once adjusted for inflation is undoubtedly the 1979 Iranian Revolution spike. Although this was more to do with their decrease in production, and nations like the US having to find new sources. The Gulf War spike was almost a joke, since it was largely the same thing. Kuwait was one of the largest suppliers of oil for the UK and Europe, and their scramble to find another source caused a small short term jump in prices.



A common site in Europe, I wonder where the name of this chain of gas stations came from?

But by the time the war actually happened, the price had already pretty much returned to pre-war prices. The rate hikes in the last decade have much more to do with speculation then anything else.

Besides, why should we upgrade their infrastructure? That is their job, not ours.

 

It would have been cheaper than the general warfare or our common offense in that region. Paying higher fuel prices merely for the sake of politics can be considered a form of double taxation.

 

The Iraq war was immoral and illegal. If the US and its allies actually cared about Iraqis, they would have ceased funding for Saddam's regime years before, plus they would have ended earlier sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands - way more than Saddam ever did.

 

As I said before, I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power. As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony
3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

 

That's a bit much. There are probably worse policy decisions - like arming extremists in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Indeed, and the fact the US supported Saddam for so long doesnt really help their case of humanitarianism.

Plus he also posed little to no external threat at that point in time.

But then elites would not have profited and policy makers would be more insecure about the future (although that is also debatable).

 

That's like saying Hitler kept the Germans and Jews from slaughtering each other. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds during his reign. I don't think mass genocide is keeping the peace.

This is arguable. He caused a lot of regional instability during the Iran Iraq war that killed millions. I think a U.S. backed quasi-democracy right nextdoor to Iran acts as more of a foil.

This is generally correct. These same extremists didn't hesitate to come to Iraq during the war to get killed in MASS by U.S. forces. These same extremist forces also completely alienated themselves from the Iraqi population in 07/08.

To me, this is your most important point. Was the war worth it for America in terms of money and lives? I think it's too early to tell. Conflicts like the war in Iraq often create ripples that don't fully materialize for decades. Many of the anti-war/pro-war crowd have ADD when it comes to geo-politics. They expect entire societies and countries to change overnight. If in 30 years Iraq is a pretty stable place, akin to say Turkey, the war may have been worth it. If not, then I think we'll have to conclude otherwise.

 

Was he killing kurds in 2003? Can you point out where? Also, when he was killing them, he was doing so with full backing form the US and UK, which gave and arms and funding at the time - also to Turkey which conducted similar operations.

Again a completely shallow and false point since the US funded and aided Saddam during the war. Also, the best foil would be the US backing off out of the region.

Yeah because that justified killing thousands of innocent people Most of these extremists did not exist before the war's commencement. The war on terror sparked global backlash - some being violent.

LOL!

It was a complete failure. US foreign policy is becoming increasingly dangerous to the US itself. 9/11 was the biggest wake up call to that effect - you obviously woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

First of all, the US set Saddam up to rule over Iraq.

Then we arranged for the war between Iraq and Iran. We also set up the Iranian side too.

Then we gave permission to invade Kuwaite. Then we accused Iraq of doing what we gave permission to do.

Then we gave an ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwaite.

When they did withdraw, we betrayed Iraq's withdrawal by attacking them.

Then President Bush 1 went on international TV and told the Iraqis to revolt against President Hussein and the US would help them. When they revolted, President Bush betrayed them.

The US starved the bombed cities of Iraq and continued bombing Iraq for 10 years or so.

When Bush 2 decided to invade Iraq for "democracy", President Hussein offered the USA all the oil it wants at the cost of production, military bases and a peaceful secure change of regime.

The plan of the Neo-Cons was to follow through on their Pearl Harbor Plan to have many wars to enrich themselves with trillions of dollars stolen from both the Iraqi people and the American people.

Millions of dead, maimed, poisoned people and wrecked lives later and most USers are still blaming the poor Iraqis for our love of lies and war.

It all could have been avoided if America was following its Declaration of Independence Mandate “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,”and to have “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Since Lincoln's Communist revolution of 1861, the American people have become "a hoodwinked, dishonored people with collective insanity" and lust for war, lies, suffering and destruction to enrich the super-rich.

 

I think there is something to be said of peoples positions before and after the war. Many believe the war to be unjust because the best reasons to have invaded were not argued. Its simply ridiculousness. It is a facet of the anti war argument to say that because we were lied to, the war was unjust. They don't argue on the basis of weather it was good or not to remove Saddam, because they know they would loose that debate. They place all their arguments on the administration overstating their main argument to go to war. I completely agree with the Anti-war that we should have been given all the information and could have done without the sensationalization by the Clinton and Bush administrations. However, I think that they believed if they did not sensationalize it, they would not have gotten the support to do what needed to be done. Because people in america are such local thinkers that they simply can not understand how an unstable part of the world tens of thousands of miles away can effect them. Americans simply don't think that way because they are so infused into their own lives here in the U.S. they don't have to think that way. Arguing that the administration may have overstated the argument they made to go to war does not make the war unjust, it just means they overstated their argument.

I believe the war was just and was a war that needed to be fought and would have been fought at some point either way. During the cold war we supported some shady and in some cases downright bad individuals and militias against russian influence. Many people try to forget that we just have come out of a cold war. Mostly because the ultimate fear was never realised. But they never ask themselves why this ultimate fear of nuclear war was avoided. They simply don't care because it did not happen. That is the thinking many of these anti war have. The reason it did not happen is because we involved ourselves in several proxy wars fighting off russian influence in areas of the world both sides needed to keep the other side from financially strangling the other side. We eventually won out and financially strangled the USSR by means that when you look at them out of context, were quite apauling. Yes, we supported meniacle dictators and factions of extremists. But we did these things in the context of the cold war and to prevent, what could have been, one of the most destructive conflicts in human history. Which the casualties of, would have dwarfed all the wars in the history of mankind. That is what we were up against and the context of what we had to do, must be though of. Yes, we supported dictators. We supported almost anyone that would fight against russian influence. Now that the threat of a nuclear conflict has been greatly reduced, we are not left with an area of the world that is now the next biggest threat as a result of preventing, at the time, the greatest threat of all time. We have a responsibility to correct this because we have created it. And in many cases, we simply cant just tell these dictators, "Sorry, your no longer needed, kindly step down and allow for democratic elections". We are going to have to right the wrong by force. Billions of people are still living under the rule we had to impose on them thru proxy in order to protect the entire world against the ultimate battle. Now we need to come to terms with that and fix it. It is our morale obligation to do so.

 

You are 100%%%%%%%%% right. Very well said.

 

At first glance it would look more like an finishing war since we didn't finish him in the first Gulf war. Yet, under closer details it seems that Suddam was supplying explosives to terrorist groups and probably was using U.S. money to fund those groups. Remember Suddam had millions in U.S. dollars in his palace. So imagine if it was found that the U.S. was actually funding the terrorist it was seeking to destroy. Which if this was the case the reason for invasion couldn't be couldn't be said out loud thus you say they have WMDs invade, and pay off the locals in the following years so that the ones who know about it keep silent.

 

Have you ever heard of "PetroDollars"? The US Dollar has been the international currency of the oil trade for almost 40 years, because of it's stability and resistance to inflation and deflation. Oil bought from Venezuela by Spain are paid for in US Dollars, even though the US is not involved at all. This was a decision made by OPEC decades ago (and no, not influenced by the US, there was an Oil Embargo against the US at this time).

 

From my understanding, supply side economics was supposed to supply us with better governance at lower [prices in our mixed market political economy as a form of promoting the general welfare of our republic.

 

You know nothing about Bosnia .. nothing about the conflict between the Croats and Serbs .. nothing of the political situation there or what transpired.

So quit talking about things you have no clue about as if you do.

 

Support of maniacle dictators such as Suharto in Indonesia, Duarte in El Salvador, Noriega, Saddam Hussain, in Guatamala, Nicaragua and so on .. had zero to do with the "cold war" or the threat of nuclear war?

One day perhaps we will know the purpose of going into Iraq and I would be interested to hear any plausible theories.

What I can tell you is what we were not there for. We were not there because Saddam was a bad guy to his people ... period.

What is also true is that we were not there for WMD, because of a forged letter from niger about uranium, because Iraq was an "imminent threat to the US" or any other of the rediculously stupid reasons given.

 

That our federal Congress is only delegated the power to Tax, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

You want to know something? I honestly could not care less about the "political situation". I could urinate on the "political situation" for as much as it matters to me.

When I see genocide, when I see civilians slaughtered purposefully, when I see mass graves full of victims who were chosen solely for their race or where they live, I am sickened. And I want to see such barbarity ended, and I could not care less who is to blame.

It can be Muslims killing Muslims like the Kurds or Shi'ites in Iraq. It can be Muslims killing Christians like in Armenia. It can even be Christians against Muslims like in former Yugoslavia. It can be Christians against Jews as in Nazi Germany. I could not care less about religion, politics, or anything else.

I could not care less about politics when it comes to genocide. And if somebody thinks that politics and "understanding the situation" is of any importance in justifying or defending genocide, then I find myself greatly lowering my respect for that individual as a human being. Because absolutely nothing in my eyes can justify such behavior.

Nothing.

 

Sorry for the long delay... I have been away for a while.

Saddam was indeed supplying training and equipment to arab nationalist terrorists... many based in Israel. He did not, however, have any interest in supplying those same things to Al Qaeda whose stated overriding Raison d'être was the elimination of the secular nation states in the region and recreate a caliphate that was congruent with the former caliphate of old.

There are lot's of terrorist organizations in the world... not all of them are a threat to the United States per se. Radical IRA cells in Ireland.... not a threat to the US.... the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.... not a threat to the US.... and the list goes on and on.

We were attacked, not by Iraq, not by Islam, not by arabs, but by a handful of Islamic extremist lunatics belonging to an organization called Al Qaeda. THOSE GUYS ARE THE TERRORISTS WE SHOULD BE SEEKING TO DESTROY. period. Capture them all. kill them all. bury them publicly in a mass grave and fill the hole with pig's blood. Get medieval on them... but we shouldn't be storming around the world killing people who have no connection whatsoever to the folks that killed us.

 

But he also did not hesitate to aid them either if he thought he could get away with it.

In 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (future leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq) was given medical care and even a prosthetic leg in a hospital run by the Hussein family after he was wounded in Afghanistan. While he may not have been much of an active supporter, he would give them (and any other terrorists) if he thought it could help harm the United States.

Well, those organizations you list are not really a threat to anybody. The IRA ordered a cease to all activities, and was officially disbanded in 2005.

The Tamil Tigers agreed to a cease fire in 2006, and was disbanded in 2009.

Yes, there are a lot of terrorist organizations around the world. And most of them are regional efforts, and do not attack targets other then the one they are hostile towards. The IRA was such an organization at war against England, but they generally did not attack any other targets other then the British power structure or military.

This does not make them better or worse, but their selection of targets makes them less likely to get other nations involved.

The PLO during most of it's time was this way. Radically violent against Israel, they would however attack other targets, such as airports in Rome, crusie ships, aircraft, and even try to take over countries to turn them into bases. But as they saw world opinion turn against them, they toned down their overtly violent goals, which let another group that was violently radical (Hezbollah) to take their place.

 

At the time Zarqawi received treatment in Iraq, he had no association with AQ nor with any group that espoused the downfall of the secular regime in Iraq.

The PLO has never targeted US soil or US interests. Neither has Hezbollah. I could care less if Saddam gave them aid... so did most every other secular regime in the region. Saddam's support for regional arab nationalist organizations that employed terror was of no more consequence to us than Syria's support for those same organizations, or Iran's, or Saudi Arabia's even. Certainly not reason to start a war with him when our real enemies were still a viable threat against us.

 

• Iraq had nothing to do with WMD. Politicians sold the wrong ticket.
• Iraq was only peripherally connected to global terrorism. Insofar as it was an autocratic state that terrorists were opposed to, we actually helped the terrorists by taking down an autocratic arab state.
• We took down an autocratic arab state that we could justify by 17 UN resolutions, only a cease fire in effect - we were still at war with Iraq.
• We did so justifiably to end ethnic and religious cleansing. Just war theory states you can invade a country committing genocide or imprisoning its people. Iraqis were imprisoned.
• The real reason was to crack the iceberg that was Middle Eastern autocracies. The same objective of Osama bin Laden, I might add.
• 10 years on, the MB holds a plurality in the disbanded Egyptian Parliament and the Presidency.

 

There are plenty of autocratic arab states. Iraq, at least, was serving a realpolitik purpose that we benefitted from vis a vis Iran. That we had an extremely tenuous "justification" dating back to the first Gulf war was not realistic rationale to launch a full blown shock and awe aerial assault followed by an invasion and conquest and ten year occupation of Iraq, especially when the enemies who actually DID attack us were still on the loose.

If we were so righteous and pure in our motives to end ethnic and religious cleansing, we would have not stopped before toppling Saddam in that first war. And we certainly would not have urged the shiites to rise up against him and tacitly imply our support if they did only to sit back and watch them get slaughtered by him WHEN they did. Saddam could no longer get at the Kurds and he was not committing genocide against the shiites in Iraq for YEARS prior to 9/11. If we were so righteous and pure in our motives to end ethnic cleansing, why did we do nothing about Idi Amin? Why did we do nothing about Rwanda, or Darfour? Why did we do nothing when Assad's daddy was slaughtering his own people in Hama?

Your after the fact attempts at justification do nothing to turn the sow'e ear of a dumb decision to invade Iraq into some silk purse of a diplomatic stroke of genius. It doesn't even pass the straight face test.

 

I see that you are the board's vocal opponent to the Iraq War. and so it goes...

The 17 resolutions, and 10 year old cease-fire, are what allowed us to re-escalate conflict there. Other countries in the ME didn't have these against them.

The Iraqis were long in imprisonment, as well as other countries. But we aren't interested in invading those other countries because they are not geopolitically significant. You need a valid reason and you need a geopolitical motivation. Still, this represents the Just War Theory reason for invading. It was not wrong to go in.

The previous reasons would not have built the necessary public opinion in the US to go in. So they used WMD as the "immanent threat". That the threat of terrorism, post 9/11, was the context within which we went, was a convenience, and they let this assumption stay uncorrected and even highlighted it.

The previous 3 points is what go us there, but had nothing to do with the geopolitical reasons why we went.

Iraq was a special geopolitical case: the fulcrum of the conflict between Sunni and Shia; the fulcrum between Kurds and Arabs. It had education, a middle class, minorities. WMD, Just War Theory and 17 UN resolutions all had nothing to do with the geopolitical reasons for going there.

We certainly did go in with a geopolitical reason in mind. We invaded Iraq to crack the geopolitical iceberg of the broader ME. The results are being seen all across the ME and outlying Islamic countries; throughout the Islamic world. The entire context has changed for all countries, externally and internally.

Ergo, our invasion of Iraq had geopolitical consequences.

Interestingly enough, the geopolitical targets of our invasion of Iraq was NOT Iraq. So, sad as the current situation is in Iraq, it bears no consequence on the real geopolitical results, other than emphasize that external powers interferring in another state does not bring the consequences hoped for in that state and so other people in Islamic countries better figure out a way to change things internally.

The question is, are you interested in discussing the real geopolitical reasons for invading Iraq, or are you still stuck on the justifications, 10 years on? I mean, get a life already...

 

I guess I am just morally opposed to invading countries who have not attacked us and have not declared war on us or an not a real threat to our security in any way simply because we'd like to rearrange the "Risk" boardgame board to our liking. As a retired Naval Officer, I know full well that our military is the muscular arm of our foreign policy, but I believe that intervening in the affairs of other countries simply to move pieces around some hypothetical chess board is abhorrent.

I lost friends and colleagues in both Iraq wars... I actually have quite a stunning life, but I will not forget those who gave their lives in what I, to this day, believe was an exercise in stupidity.

 

The moral justification comes from Just War Theory. Saddam imprisoned his people. There was no active genocide underway, but external interference, to prevent unjust abuse and imprisonment, is just.

Thank you for your service, sir. I was a grunt, myself.

Unfortunately, many scholars of Just War Theory agree and think our invasion of Iraq was unjust. I figure that that determination was made for two reasons: 1) this justification was never [strikethrough]proclaimed[/strikethrough] [highlighted or emphasized] and 2) they are political determinations against the US playing chess.

The fact is that our Foreign Aid to these Islamic countries are moves on the chess board. We materially support autocratic regimes, supposedly to maintain external security for these countries, but in fact these governments use the aid to suppress and oppress their own people. This does not go unnoticed in the Islamic world.

Today, the US finds itself supporting the Syrian rebels, against the minority Alewite autocratic regime, and the MB in Egypt. Maybe we can change our tune to the benefit of all people there and regain some trust. That trust is severely eroded since the UN declared the state of Israel, who do not extend such basic human rights to Palestinians, such as one person, one vote...and many other actions outside of Palestine, in the broader ME and Islamic world.

The fact that external western assistance of Israel (read US military and economic support) allows Israel to actively, strategically suppress the economic development of Palestinians, then the Israelis have the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing gall to turn around and criticize the Palestinians for not creating Paradise so they should not be allowed to have a state, is beyond the pale. For 120 years, some jews have strategically invaded Palestine (1881: 10,000 | 2012: 8 million), to change the demographics, and actively suppress the Palestinians. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.

I am very sorry for your losses. Y'all's efforts were not in vain, at least in my Book. God bless you and your comrades in arms.

I will never forget them either, although I did not know them. I will never forget that our actions in Iraq were the finest moments of the exercise American principles since WW II (ignoring all the selfish reasons). We not only empowered the suppressed majority in Iraq (Shia), we showed the Islamic world that they too can change their governments. Now look at them, God bless them.