Having US companies in control in Iraq ? Could you please let us know of these oil companies that are “controlling” Iraq ? The last time I checked the Democrats were whining about how Iraq was profiting from its oil exports and how the US should stop paying for Iraq’s re-construction.

Context implied control of oil production and refining, not control of the entire country. But you knew that. You always know it, every time you rant.

The new Status Of Forces Agreement was signed with the agreement of a majority of Iraqi legislators and envisions a complete US pull out – no residual presence, no nothing.

I’d like to know how this helps the “controlling” oil companies.

The SOFA does not apply to US corporations under contract. But I’m guessing you knew that too.

Even though you say that you understand that oil is a commodity sold in the open market, you then go to illustrate that you dont really understand that/ or you dont agree with that statement – oil fell to under 40$ a barrel today – where are those oil companies who are supposed to be “controlling” things in Iraq ?

Oil production in Iraq is only at a fraction of what it will eventually be. Could possibly be due to the fact that there’s a WAR going on there. Thus, there is small effect on the market from them at the moment. Oil will go back up in price soon, as OPEC cuts production. The interesting part will be when Iraq is at full production capacity.

Some people like to think that freeing Iraq’s was more than bullshit – cynical Americans like you WHO HAVE NEVER known tyranny will NEVER understand that.

It’s great that some people think that. While it’s not true, it does mean that our propoganda works as designed. It would make me feel great if freeing Iraq was the goal, instead of the side effect. Speaking the truth is not cynicism.

When neo-cons get blamed for pushing the US to a war with Iraq, why is it that no one gives them credit for what they believe in ? You may not agree with such “bullshit” things like freedom, but you now want to deny that this was not a goal ? the whole “domino” theory – that if you establish a democracy in the Arab heartland, it will influence other Arab countries ?

Probably because so much money was spent, and so many people were killed or maimed. This tends to overshadow whatever lofty ideals the neo-cons may or may not have had. The one goal that they do have, that is the bedrock of their entire philosophy, is that the US continues to be the #1 superpower. I’ve already said that I’m behind them on that.

Freedom itself is not bullshit. Being told that a free Iraq is the goal IS bullshit. The goal is to ensure that the flow of energy commerce is not disrupted. A free Iraq simply one route to making that happen. It also happens to be great propaganda for selling war to people who don’t understand the potential impact to the American way of life if other world powers gain control of energy production.

Many people think that democracy promotion in the Middle east is foolish – but almost no one denies that neo-cons believed in the freedom of the moderate Arab world and pushed this as an important reason.

Neo-cons believe in maintaining the position of the US. They pushed freedom in the Arab world as the best route to secure that position. If the middle ease didnt hold such massive energy reserves, it would be ignored.

Also what is this thing about Hussein violating innumerable UN resolutions – or the US Congress authorizing regime change in Iraq in 1998 through the Iraqi Liberation Act under the leadership of DAschle, Dodd and Kerry?

Oil seems to be how ever the only/primary reason according to many people.

Meh. Iraq now understands that the rest of the world will not stand for interruptions in the energy market.

Having US companies in control in Iraq ? Could you please let us know of these oil companies that are “controlling” Iraq ? The last time I checked the Democrats were whining about how Iraq was profiting from its oil exports and how the US should stop paying for Iraq’s re-construction.

The new Status Of Forces Agreement was signed with the agreement of a majority of Iraqi legislators and envisions a complete US pull out - no residual presence, no nothing.

I’d like to know how this helps the “controlling” oil companies.

Even though you say that you understand that oil is a commodity sold in the open market, you then go to illustrate that you dont really understand that/ or you dont agree with that statement - oil fell to under 40$ a barrel today - where are those oil companies who are supposed to be “controlling” things in Iraq ?

“I just HATE being lied to with bullshit about freeing the Iraqi people and Saddam killed his own people and blah blah blah. The US doesn’t care about this stuff, but it needs it to sell the measures necessary to remain #1.”

Some people like to think that freeing Iraq’s was more than bullshit - cynical Americans like you WHO HAVE NEVER known tyranny will NEVER understand that.

When neo-cons get blamed for pushing the US to a war with Iraq, why is it that no one gives them credit for what they believe in ? You may not agree with such “bullshit” things like freedom, but you now want to deny that this was not a goal ? the whole “domino” theory - that if you establish a democracy in the Arab heartland, it will influence other Arab countries ?

Many people think that democracy promotion in the Middle east is foolish - but almost no one denies that neo-cons believed in the freedom of the moderate Arab world and pushed this as an important reason.

Also what is this thing about Hussein violating innumerable UN resolutions - or the US Congress authorizing regime change in Iraq in 1998 through the Iraqi Liberation Act under the leadership of DAschle, Dodd and Kerry?

Oil seems to be how ever the only/primary reason according to many people.

Rather, we’d have simply cut a deal with Saddam. We’d have said “look, stop pretending like you have WMD for a bit and we’ll get the Security Council to end the sanctions. We’ll sign a sweetheart deal and just buy the oil from you.”

Saddam would have thought about it for 1/3 of a second and then agreed.

Everyone would have gone home happy; we get cheap oil, Saddam gets out of the sanctions regime.

Easy as pie.

And anyway what is the logical conclusion to be drawn from seeing the US as complicit?

I guess this is the crux of the discussion. This is my take on it…

The US is not good or evil. The US has only one real interest, and that is keeping the US as a strong, powerful, dominant country. In order to do this, the US must do both good and evil things, and not always in equal measure. Hopefully, the end result will be that the US retains #1 status.

I can accept this, and I don’t need to be lied to and treated by my government like a child who can’t understand the way of things. There is no morality in all of this, there is only survival, and I get that. The methods though, that’s the problem.

During the Reagan Administration someone noticed what was going on in Iraq. They said, “Hey, Saddam’s committing genocide using the tools we gave him. We need to stop this.” and then a bunch of other people said, “Yeah, but our farmers will lose a bunch of money if we do, plus they hate Iran as much as we do now. So, we’ll just sit this one out.”

And even though I understand the way of things, all I can think is, there simply must be a better way to deal with this. But the powers at the time decided to do nothing. It’s not like they were powerless. There were tools at their disposal, and yet still…

I understand that oil is a commodity, but having US companies in control in Iraq helps the US maintain dominance. The entire war, the fledgling democracy, the contracts, it’s all for the future benefit of the US, as our leaders seem to see it. I just HATE being lied to with bullshit about freeing the Iraqi people and Saddam killed his own people and blah blah blah. The US doesn’t care about this stuff, but it needs it to sell the measures necessary to remain #1.

I dunno. I guess most people can’t accept what needs to be done to stay dominant. I guess they do need to be lied to in order to sign on. I’d be very interested to know if the farmers and industry exporting to Iraq during the genocide would be willing to give up their income in order to stop the genocide? Do you think they would? I mean, if they really knew what was going on? I guess that’s why it takes 20 years for this stuff to come out.

Half of “the people” have rejected our current President so I suspect rather than believing the country as a whole has been insulted, they relish any and all insults hurled toward “BusHitler.” They’ve been flingin’ insults themselves for the last eight years, why would they take this one personally?

In what way was an invasion of Iraq securing our energy supplies? Oil is a commodity. Unless it is sold it has no value to the producer. When it is sold it will move through the market. So, one way or the other, Iraq wanted to sell oil, and we wanted to buy it. So one way or the other that would have happened. No invasion necessary. Saddam wasn’t cutting off our supply of oil, just the opposite, we were keeping his oil off the market for political reasons.

You could argue that we desperately wanted US companies to handle the extraction rather than, say, Chinese companies. But the actual drilling is too small an economic interest to fit your conspiratorial theory.

As for #5, every point you made took us back to: US evil, indifferent, and complicit. We are not the puppet masters of the world. Any number of godawful things go on without our involvement.

And anyway what is the logical conclusion to be drawn from seeing the US as complicit? That we should do nothing? Or that we should do something? I’m confused. If we do nothing we’re guilty, and if we do something we’re guilty. Your core principle is: we’re guilty.

Simple question: should we intervene in Congo or Sudan? Should we have intervened in Rwanda? If we fail to intervene aren’t we even more complicit?

And one more: If I grant arguendo that we were complicit in the rise of Saddam, doesn’t that argue in favor of toppling him? Having created the monster, isn’t Dr. Frankenstein the person most responsible for stopping him?

2) I suggested no such thing. The US helped make Iraq into what it was. The US directed and manipulated Iraq for its own purposes. Of course they bear responsibility, but so do we, more than any other country.

3) Yay!

4) Your logic builds on an assumption that is nonsense. I didn’t say we were to blame for anything, anywhere, that we know about. But I think you know that. The US helped bring Saddam to power. The US enabled him with weapons, intelligence, and funds. The US LOOKED THE OTHER WAY during his attempted genocide. The US looked away because we didn’t want to interrupt the commerce or distract Iraq from battling Iran.

5) I will never understand this line of argument. It’s so disjoint and wrought with fallacy that it’s hard to even attempt to have a real discussion. The US is not to blame for Iraq doing horrible things. However, the US does bear responsibility because of complacency.

The US knew of the atrocities at the time, had the power to stop it, and chose instead to DO NOTHING. Chose to keep exporting and collecting a paycheck. It was only when Iraq went off the leash and threatened the energy flow did we choose to do anything. While this keeps energy supplies and commerce protected. It’s a far cry from good and noble.

6) I don’t consider it blood for oil. I make the distinction between oil and energy because it takes significance off of any one country, or that country’s issues. The fact is that the US will go wherever it needs to, and do whatever it needs to, to secure an energy supply. It has to, and I fully understand and accept that. What I don’t accept is the notion that what we do to secure our energy supply is noble or good. Saddam screwed with our commerce and energy, and we destroyed him and his country for it.

We’re not trying to build a free country in the Middle East out of the goodness of our hearts. We’re doing it because it’s the next best thing to a dictator who’s gone off the reservation. We’re doing it so American companies can get a foothold and a piece of the energy pie. The United States is not in the business of extending the blessings of liberty. We’re in the business of business. If it so happens that Iraqis feel blessed by the gift of liberty that my tax dollars have provided, then great.

By no means do I oversimplify the world. Reread your #5 above. If that’s not a drastic oversimplification, I don’t know what is. I just can’t stand it when I hear people from your party tell me how good we are because of the blessings of liberty we’re trying to spread, or somesuch.

The US is all about the US. And you know what? I don’t have to have some convoluted sense of nobility or purpose to get behind that. We do what we do to further our interests, nothing more. If good results from that, then great. If we sit idly by while genocide takes place because stopping it would hurt our interests, well, we’ve already shown that we’re willing to do that too. That’s a hard pill to swallow, and maybe that’s why we need to be lied to in order to start wars. The lies make the pill easier to swallow.

This is what I’d love to hear… I’d love to hear someone say that our latest excursion in Iraq was to secure our energy interests. But instead we get “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction,” or “Saddam killed his own people.” It’s all crap. It’s mixing truth with lies and intentional omissions of our own complacency.

You know? How about just saying, “The US needs to secure its energy supplies. It’s going to cost $3 Trillion in the end, and hundreds of thousands of people will die in the process.” Maybe because people might say “Uh… is there a cheaper way to do this that won’t kill so many people?” People whose interests lie in waging war don’t want to hear this, which while morally repugnant, is understandable.

1) The fact that we failed to accomplish our goal does not in itself invalidate the goal. We try to cure cancer. We fail.

2) We’ve “had a hand in their business” and therefore they bear no responsibility for their own government? Really. Various other nations had a hand in Weimar Germany. Does that mean the Germans are blameless for the 3rd Reich?

3) We agree that we did not force Iraq to start a war with Iran. It’s nice to agree.

4) So we are to blame for anything, anywhere that we know about? Like the mess in Congo? So, it follows logically if we are responsible that we have a moral obligation to act. Right? So, we’re sending the Marines to Congo?

5) Out of curiosity, is there anything for which we are not to blame? Or, to reverse the question does no one but the US bear any responsibility? Does it follow, if we are respnsible for all the evil in the world, and no one else is responsible for their own actions, that we are equally responsible for all the good and no one else deserves credit?

6) The blood for oil meme has some truth to it. But only some. Few political events have single causes. And you’re missing the essential tragedy here, which is the idealism, however much you may dislike it, of people who hoped we could build a free country in the middle east and by so doing extend the blessings of liberty to people who had known only tyranny.

Don’t oversimplify the world: it makes for faulty analysis. It’s not a simple case of U.S. bad, everyone else good. We are sometimes bad. And sometimes stupid. And sometimes heroic. Like any well-conceived character.

As for Mr. Bush screwing up Iraq, you’re kidding, right? It’s like accusing someone of stinking up a cesspool. Iraq was a sh*thole before we got there. It still is one and is likely to remain one.

So then, what was the point of starting a war there?

Had the Iraqi people taken care of their own business they wouldn’t be where they are today.

This is absurd. What business were they supposed to take care of? We’ve had a hand in their business for a very very long time.

The US didn’t force Iraq to start a war with Iran,

No, but the US backed Iraq with funds and hardware.

attempt the genocide of Kurds, carry out murder and torture on an epic scale

No, but the U.S. knew about it and specifically and explicitly CHOSE to do nothing because it would hurt US farm exports to Iraq, which were over $1 Billion at the time.

The Iraqi people have been pretty lousy at self-government.

The US has been a huge enabler of this to enable US commerce.

Turned out we weren’t very good at governing Iraq, either, but our invasion was as much effect, as cause, of Iraq’s status as a miserable, brutal, hate-filled, superstition-addled ghetto.

Our invasion was due to our energy needs, both present and future. Which is something I might be able to get behind if it wasn’t carried out so incredibly poorly.

Iraq has, and will probably always be a money sink for the US taxpayer, and a payday for well connected corporations. That’s the reality. The invasion was in no way/shape/form a noble undertaking.