Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Iraq War.

To continue Houndawg and Gannie's debate about war for oil here's a little diddy from Glenn Greenwald about revisionist history:

Since some commenters, notwithstanding Frum's revelation, remain absolutely horrified by the suggestion that oil was a significant factor in attacking Iraq - perish the thought! - here is what Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq, had to say about that war:

"Of course it's about oil, it's very much about oil, and we can't really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who's now fought in the middle east for six years – my son-in-law's fought there for four years, my daughter's been over there, my son has served the nation – my family has been fighting for a long time."

And here is what the current US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said about the Iraq war back in 2007 (via Dick Distardli):

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan added in his 2007 book: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." What other evidence do deniers need before accepting this obvious reality?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... aq-war-oil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If it had been about 9/11 we'd have carpet bombed the Saudi's and the Yemeni's. Although I'm still waiting on some of that $.89/gallon gas.

Desert Storm was absolutely about oil. There's no other reason to liberate such a country full of silver spoon entitled brats like Kuwait.

That said, OIF was less about the oil than DS, but I'm sure the old "stability in the Middle East is in America's interest" was a major factor.

But last I heard it was simply because GWB was just a petulant boy who wanted to pay Saddam back for trying to kill Daddy, right? Or solely to enrich Satanburton?


Sent from the center of the universe.

I've long believed/ said that wars are fought for economic reasons but its the ideology that is sold to the population.

CID1990 wrote:Desert Storm was absolutely about oil. There's no other reason to liberate such a country full of silver spoon entitled brats like Kuwait.

That said, OIF was less about the oil than DS, but I'm sure the old "stability in the Middle East is in America's interest" was a major factor.

But last I heard it was simply because GWB was just a petulant boy who wanted to pay Saddam back for trying to kill Daddy, right? Or solely to enrich Satanburton?


Sent from the center of the universe.

Yep, there were multiple justifications, but I think the neo-cons truly believed OIF would also create a bulwark in the middle east to help spread American style democracy.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Desert Storm was absolutely about oil. There's no other reason to liberate such a country full of silver spoon entitled brats like Kuwait.

That said, OIF was less about the oil than DS, but I'm sure the old "stability in the Middle East is in America's interest" was a major factor.

But last I heard it was simply because GWB was just a petulant boy who wanted to pay Saddam back for trying to kill Daddy, right? Or solely to enrich Satanburton?


Sent from the center of the universe.

Yep, there were multiple justifications, but I think the neo-cons truly believed OIF would also create a bulwark in the middle east to help spread American style democracy.

Well, this was the face of "American style democracy" at the time-


So how can anyone blame them for not conforming..

The Shia and the Sunnis haven't been able to get along for centuries, so what's a full scale invasion followed by a vacuum-inducing hasty retreat going to accomplish? Throw in the Ba'athists and the Iranians trying to create additional wedges and it was a doomed operation from the start.

The world is a better place without Saddam and his kids, but at least he kept the country intact. It's messy now as they try to sort out what they'll do.

ASUG8 wrote:The Shia and the Sunnis haven't been able to get along for centuries, so what's a full scale invasion followed by a vacuum-inducing hasty retreat going to accomplish? Throw in the Ba'athists and the Iranians trying to create additional wedges and it was a doomed operation from the start.

The world is a better place without Saddam and his kids, but at least he kept the country intact. It's messy now as they try to sort out what they'll do.

The neo-cons were a naive and idealistic group of gung-ho cowboys out to change the world.

UNI88 wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:The Shia and the Sunnis haven't been able to get along for centuries, so what's a full scale invasion followed by a vacuum-inducing hasty retreat going to accomplish? Throw in the Ba'athists and the Iranians trying to create additional wedges and it was a doomed operation from the start.

The world is a better place without Saddam and his kids, but at least he kept the country intact. It's messy now as they try to sort out what they'll do.

The neo-cons were a naive and idealistic group of gung-ho cowboys out to change the world.

And they're still around...

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote: The neo-cons were a naive and idealistic group of gung-ho cowboys out to change the world.

And they're still around...

They may be thick sculled but I think they've learned a little from the past decade so they're not quite so naive.

It is still scary though ...

What is really shameful, past all the lies about nuclear weapons and the like, is the fact that we used our dollars, our kids blood, and our credibility in the world to deliver most of Iraq to Iran. Something they had tried to do by themselves, but could not.

Way to fucking go GWB and associated ass hats, way to fucking go..

There wasn't a person at the time that didn't think they had WMDs. You won't convince me otherwise today. Did they have Nukes? Not likely but that is not the only WMD. They certainly had various forms of chemical weapons. I really do grow tired of the people that haven't spent a day with their boots on the ground whining about not finding WMDs. FFS, give me 10 years and I can hide Obama's failures in the desert.

Bottom line is Saddam is gone and no longer raping sheep and running his big mouth. And as far as the war goes, I am not convinced we would could have done anything differently as far as the start of this phase of it. We really should have just gone forward the first time we were there(Gulf War 1, Desert Storm, whatever it is called now). I say that having been one of the boots on the ground that would have been doing the job the first time. I've wrestled with that question myself many a time. While I was in country, I thought we made the right call to stop. I think George Sr. was being compassionate and let that factor into his decision, maybe to much. We should have beat the crap out of his regular Army and that is basically where we got to when it stopped the first time. If we would have gone then, this area would have been long settled one way or another. We might not of even had some of the other bad stuff happen, who knows. Hindsight........

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:There wasn't a person at the time that didn't think they had WMDs. You won't convince me otherwise today. Did they have Nukes? Not likely but that is not the only WMD. They certainly had various forms of chemical weapons. I really do grow tired of the people that haven't spent a day with their boots on the ground whining about not finding WMDs. FFS, give me 10 years and I can hide Obama's failures in the desert.

Bottom line is Saddam is gone and no longer raping sheep and running his big mouth. And as far as the war goes, I am not convinced we would could have done anything differently as far as the start of this phase of it. We really should have just gone forward the first time we were there(Gulf War 1, Desert Storm, whatever it is called now). I say that having been one of the boots on the ground that would have been doing the job the first time. I've wrestled with that question myself many a time. While I was in country, I thought we made the right call to stop. I think George Sr. was being compassionate and let that factor into his decision, maybe to much. We should have beat the crap out of his regular Army and that is basically where we got to when it stopped the first time. If we would have gone then, this area would have been long settled one way or another. We might not of even had some of the other bad stuff happen, who knows. Hindsight........

Aren't we basically out of Iraq nowadays? Personally I thought the whole thing was over when W said "Mission Accomplished".

Wedgebuster wrote:all the lies about nuclear weapons and the like... Way to fucking go GWB and associated ass hats, way to fucking go..

You're a moron when it comes to this.

89Hen wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:all the lies about nuclear weapons and the like... Way to fucking go GWB and associated ass hats, way to fucking go..

You're a moron when it comes to this.

Says you and Dick Cheney.

Wedgebuster wrote:What is really shameful, past all the lies about nuclear weapons and the like, is the fact that we used our dollars, our kids blood, and our credibility in the world to deliver most of Iraq to Iran. Something they had tried to do by themselves, but could not.

Way to **** go GWB and associated ass hats, way to **** go..

Most here probably aren't old enough to remember that the supreme irony is that Saddam was installed in power by the Reagan admin to be a counterweight to Iran.

We probably would have let him have Kuwait if he hadn't started talking about decoupling his oil from the US dollar. Now we need to find another counterweight and get them to start bleeding each other dry like back in the day.

bluehenbillk wrote:Aren't we basically out of Iraq nowadays? Personally I thought the whole thing was over when W said "Mission Accomplished".

We're waiting for Iraqi oil to pay for the war.

bluehenbillk wrote:Aren't we basically out of Iraq nowadays? Personally I thought the whole thing was over when W said "Mission Accomplished".

For the most part, but we still have and will for a long time, have a presence.


I'm not defending Bush, but wasn't that Mission Accomplished Banner in acknowledgement of the end of the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment and not the end of combat operations? I could be wrong.

Ibanez wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Aren't we basically out of Iraq nowadays? Personally I thought the whole thing was over when W said "Mission Accomplished".

For the most part, but we still have and will for a long time, have a presence.


I'm not defending Bush, but wasn't that Mission Accomplished Banner in acknowledgement of the end of the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment and not the end of combat operations? I could be wrong.

That was the spin after everybody stopped laughing when Bush announced the end of major combat operations.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:There wasn't a person at the time that didn't think they had WMDs. You won't convince me otherwise today. Did they have Nukes? Not likely but that is not the only WMD. They certainly had various forms of chemical weapons. I really do grow tired of the people that haven't spent a day with their boots on the ground whining about not finding WMDs. FFS, give me 10 years and I can hide Obama's failures in the desert.

Bottom line is Saddam is gone and no longer raping sheep and running his big mouth. And as far as the war goes, I am not convinced we would could have done anything differently as far as the start of this phase of it. We really should have just gone forward the first time we were there(Gulf War 1, Desert Storm, whatever it is called now). I say that having been one of the boots on the ground that would have been doing the job the first time. I've wrestled with that question myself many a time. While I was in country, I thought we made the right call to stop. I think George Sr. was being compassionate and let that factor into his decision, maybe to much. We should have beat the crap out of his regular Army and that is basically where we got to when it stopped the first time. If we would have gone then, this area would have been long settled one way or another. We might not of even had some of the other bad stuff happen, who knows. Hindsight........

Guys like you and Cid1990 who served over there are owed a huge debt of gratitude for your committment.

That being said, there may not have been people who questioned the existence of WMD's but there were many that questioned the threat level that they posed. Throw out all the conspiracy theories for why we went there and at the end of the day, OIF was still a mistake. Even if it eventually turns into a garden of western democratic Eden somewhere down the road, it will still be questionable whether it was worth it. Bush and Cheney own this legacy.

Anything else is revising very recent history.

-
That f'-N Hillary lied to us

I hope that liar never runs for any political office ever again and if she does her lies from the past and present come back to bite her big fat ass

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

houndawg wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:What is really shameful, past all the lies about nuclear weapons and the like, is the fact that we used our dollars, our kids blood, and our credibility in the world to deliver most of Iraq to Iran. Something they had tried to do by themselves, but could not.

Way to **** go GWB and associated ass hats, way to **** go..

Most here probably aren't old enough to remember that the supreme irony is that Saddam was installed in power by the Reagan admin to be a counterweight to Iran.

We probably would have let him have Kuwait if he hadn't started talking about decoupling his oil from the US dollar. Now we need to find another counterweight and get them to start bleeding each other dry like back in the day.

Most here have no memory when facts debunk their particular partisan point of view.

The best $4 Trillion the US has ever spent.




Not really. It is funny to see Republicans bitching about $1 million for arts, etc, when they gave DUMBYA a blank check to fight his personal war, and refused to find a way to pay for it other than debt.

dbackjon wrote: Not really. It is funny to see Republicans bitching about $1 million for arts, etc, when they gave DUMBYA a blank check to fight his personal war, and refused to find a way to pay for it other than debt.

Thank goodness this administration got a handle on that out of control debt.