Why we invaded Iraq

Politics and Social Issues
61
It doesn't bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.
Meaning what? Explain yourself in feedback. I was not following all your other arguments with others to this your claim that you mentioned "...historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks." It was irrelevant to my initial response to you. When you respond to confirm or deny something I'm trying to find clarity in your position, instead of affirming your positive stance, you just inquired how I interpreted you. All I can gather is that you deny my interpretation of your position without positing what you mean. Just to clarify: You believe that oil was an insignificant contributor to the cause for going to war? You are also presuming that VYAZMA implied that oil was not only the significant factor to war but the only one. Correct?
As it relates to this topic, I ask you and Bryan why it is so absurd to presume that the war in Iraq did not have anything to do with oil?
It's not absurd to presume the war in Iraq had something to do with oil. It's absurd to state or imply that the war in Iraq was conducted primarily to preserve access to oil. That argument makes no sense.
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose? and...
First, tell me how such thinking is impossible.
I don't see the point of the request, apart from doing damage to a straw man.
...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
If you think that something is impossible to rationalize, what is this evidence?
I've already stated that the U.S. had an interest in preserving market access to ME oil (including Iraq's). But it doesn't matter who gets it under those conditions. There's no need to "control" the oil, as one person put it. The aim is to keep oil receipts from flowing into the pockets of entities that pose a security threat such as Saddam Hussein.
This answers what I was asking above. So, then, my next question is why is it irrelevant that the U.S. gains from the booty of war, even if eliminating a threat from every other nation? I ask this with this in mind: If the U.S. chose to fight on the basis of moral integrity for the whole world and to enable them to have a better ideal, then why benefit from it at all? It would be like if I chose to be a good Samaritan by saving a woman from getting her purse stolen and then turn around and just offer myself what she has in her wallet on the basis that I did her a favor. You may have well been the original thief. At least then you are direct and sincere to steal. But taking her money after volunteering to save her is even more deceptive. In fact, how would she even know that you didn't set the original thief in action so that you could be her 'savior'?
How I'm hearing it is like a parent who defends their child by claiming, "He could not possibly do such a thing. It is just not in him." While this statement could be true, the court would require a justification for the claim that something is impossible for anyone, or why this parent feels that their is an exception for their child.
I'm not sure how you're managing to succeed in overlooking the alternative you've been offered. The primary reason for intervention in Iraq was security, not oil. Perhaps I can dream up a suitably derogatory analogy to illustrate the point. But then again maybe I don't feel like doing that.
This answers more of your position I wasn't clear about earlier. You believe "security" was the primary reason for intervention. To help create an analogy, it might be helpful to define "securtiy" -- it is too generic to argue. What security threat existed to the U.S. at the time of the declaration for war? If this behavior is just, do you think that it is okay to convict one of your own people in anticipation of a crime? That is, a thought-crime?
I also asked, but did not get a response to why, even presuming Iraq had nothing to do with oil, how do you claim the particular interest in Iraq over other countries who needed America's help more?
What could be easier? We had documented evidence of Iraq's history of producing dangerous WMD along with a long history of defying UN resolutions and the terms of the UN-brokered ceasefire that occurred after the Desert Storm invasion. No other nation that encourages terrorist activity could have garnered more international support for regime change (taking into account the fact that dealing with Afghanistan was already underway). Three nations prevented strong UN support for prompt action against Iraq: China, France and Russia. The latter two can have their reluctance traced directly to the large amount of money they were owed by Iraq. Iraq purchased the vast bulk of its armaments from France and Russia on credit. For some reason many people think the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein. Not true. We armed Iran (when it was controlled by the Shah) and only reluctantly helped Iraq in its long war against Iran when Iran was on the verge of overrunning Baghdad.
But the UN did not find justification for war and did not believe the claims by American Intelligence -- the Americans didn't even feel it was even necessary to produce the evidences they kept hidden from the UN. For example, they did not present the person who supposedly gave the Americans reasons for WDM in mobile facilities. The guy declared he lied to them later. But if the U.S. Intelligence community was truly mistaken on some minor fuck up, how were they so wise as to assure this evidence couldn't be measured by the UN? You can't argue supporting the UN while also going to war without their consent. You're just picking and choosing the stuff you like and ignoring what you don't.
62
Scott Meyers-...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
There's nothing in it that is impossible. That's exactly what happened. But the whole point of my OP here is that it wasn't a fallibility. It's essentially what had to happen. To maintain a course of oil consumption the way we do in the West.
63
Scott Meyers-...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
There's nothing in it that is impossible. That's exactly what happened. But the whole point of my OP here is that it wasn't a fallibility. It's essentially what had to happen. To maintain a course of oil consumption the way we do in the West.
Sorry, by 'fallible', I meant the presumed capacity to be immune to moral culpability, not the capacity of error. I should have chosen a different word or words.
64
Where did I mention imperialism? In any event I clarified my intention of the original post. Are you going to keep bringing that up? I don't understand what you mean by "provisional agreement from a poster..." Again I didn't mention any imperialism. That's probably you reading too much into that because your used to countering those arguments.
I'm pointing out that somebody who disagrees completely with me about the reason for the war (not you) found that your post agreed with his view that the war was all about oil. I point that out because you're saying that's not what you were saying ... though apparently you want to walk the statement back and not walk it back at the same time. I say that because you're still saying the same thing though in different words: Bold emphasis added:
We invaded Iraq to make sure a stable, friendly regime was in place to ensure future oil contracts. If you want to call that "getting rid of a crazy man, that's ok"
 The security reasons did not primarily have to do with oil. You fairly consistently offer a contrary impression with your words. It's "hope and change" style rhetoric (its meaning is flexible).
Also this paragraph is a bumper sticker. I get it. You don't like Obama.
The "bumper sticker" is history summarized. Obama has conducted foreign policy with abundant ineptitude. He failed to secure a SOFA. That's history. I'm simply noting that his failure was used to bolster his claim of having ended the war. The truth is that the bungled agreement put a good outcome for the Iraqi people in greater jeopardy. Al-Maliki shares the blame for playing a political game with the agreement. It has nothing to do with personal dislike for either man.
There's not a bit of doubt that Iraq produced large quantities......it was never plausible that Iraq still had such weapons.
This goes well outside my interests and the scope of this OP.
It touches on the real reason for the war, which is indeed outside the scope of your OP. ;-)
Hussein could only win that game long term if no nation of the West was willing to call him on his failure to live up to the ceasefire agreement.
And this is... conjecture....? It begs the question why did Saddam get rid of his WMD in the first place.
Nope. I answered that question. His gambit works if he can string the UN along indefinitely. He regarded the West as his chumps in some respects. He successfully cheated the system for years (including the corrupt UN-run oil-for-food program). Hussein's beliefs were justified until Bush gave him a real ultimatum.
I'll decide what is appropriate for me. The Iraq war was about not losing control of any share in Iraq's oil resources. I clarified that above in subsequent posts. The part about sometimes nations must use force to maintain resources.
You've decided to eat your cake and have it.
How do you know? Conjecture on your part again.
I have better support for my assertions than you do for yours. If "how do you know" is an effective rebuttal then apply it preemptively to you own posts. It'll save us all a lot of time.
Certainly oil was an essential element when Paul Wolfowitz told the American people that Iraq could pay for the War costs with their oil. Sounds like an essential element to me. Am I missing something. Just at face value that sounds like an essential element!
Wolfowitz was talking about rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, not about restocking U.S. bombs and other armaments, nor about footing the bill for G.I. pay or benefits. Again, your argument relies on ambiguity. Wolfowitz's comment was intended to reassure those opposed to "nation building" expenses that Iraq could foot the bill for rebuilding itself. http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/16/paul_wolfowitz_and_the_eternal_return_of_energy_optimism
But of course as we have co-alluded to here in these posts, Oil is certainly a "part of the picture in terms of international security and multiple national interests" There was also the corrupt "Oil for Food" program.....remember that one? We starve your nation out with sanctions(and blockades are easily interpreted as war) and then hold food for ransom until you pay with oil. I'm done. You can have the last word.
The sanctions were put in place as part of a ceasefire agreement. So, yes, you can regard them as a type of war if you wish. That war never ended. Military hostilities were paused by the ceasefire agreement. It was a part of "war" that the Hussein government agreed to in order to keep control of Iraq at the tail end of the Gulf War.
65
I'm pointing out that somebody who disagrees completely with me about the reason for the war (not you) found that your post agreed with his view that the war was all about oil. I point that out because you're saying that's not what you were saying ... though apparently you want to walk the statement back and not walk it back at the same time. I say that because you're still saying the same thing though in different words: Bold emphasis added:
We invaded Iraq to make sure a stable, friendly regime was in place to ensure future oil contracts. If you want to call that "getting rid of a crazy man, that's ok"
Vyazma-Post # 19 June 30th....We don’t just attack to get resources!! We attack to protect resources we already have.
What am I walking back Bryan? We invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and installed a new regime.
It touches on the real reason for the war, which is indeed outside the scope of your OP. ;-)
Right the WMDs...that was the cause of the war. Why did Saddam get rid of his WMDs? You didn't answer that one?
You've decided to eat your cake and have it.
Vyazma-Post # 19 June 30th....We don’t just attack to get resources!! We attack to protect resources we already have.
What am I walking back Bryan?
Wolfowitz was talking about rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, not about restocking U.S. bombs and other armaments, nor about footing the bill for G.I. pay or benefits. Again, your argument relies on ambiguity. Wolfowitz's comment was intended to reassure those opposed to "nation building" expenses that Iraq could foot the bill for rebuilding itself.
All I know is Wolfowitz was talking about using oil to pay for things. Again, sounds like Oil was considered to be an essential factor. Right?
The sanctions were put in place as part of a ceasefire agreement. So, yes, you can regard them as a type of war if you wish. That war never ended. Military hostilities were paused by the ceasefire agreement. It was a part of "war" that the Hussein government agreed to in order to keep control of Iraq at the tail end of the Gulf War.
And he agreed to trade oil for food. Under duress. Again sounds like oil was an essential element. Tell me what Countries in the UN were against this program or the invasion of Iraq? Would it be the other countries that have opposing interests in the Iraqi oil? Yes, yes it would. And by that I mean, interests in seeing who is the leader of that nation. Because that nation is nothing but Oil. That's all Iraq has. Oil. And the leader of such a nation gives out the favors. Period! Going back to CC's question I would have to say that we basically failed. The puppet government that we installed crumbled. And Iraq is now right back where it started.
66

Rocinante, in all honesty, does this still sound like a conspiracy theory to you?
In all honesty, I haven’t mentioned any of the Condy Rice or Cheney talking points about WMDs. I haven’t mentioned Halliburton.
None of the usual stuff.
I have kept it objective and actually justified the reason for invading Iraq for purposes of resources.
There’s nothing in any of my posts that could even be construed as hyperbole, rhetoric or falsities.
If there is, please point them out. Let’s get to the bottom of the conspiracy. Theory or otherwise.

67
It doesn't bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.
Meaning what? Explain yourself in feedback. I was not following all your other arguments with others to this your claim that you mentioned "...historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks." It was irrelevant to my initial response to you. When you respond to confirm or deny something I'm trying to find clarity in your position, instead of affirming your positive stance, you just inquired how I interpreted you. All I can gather is that you deny my interpretation of your position without positing what you mean. In the paragraph to which you responded I wrote this: "The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it." It makes no sense to take the plane attacks in the context of a successful war. That was a successful attack, not a successful war. Your ridicule of boxcutter technology fails to respect the context. The technology on which terrorist tactics ultimately rely for their political success is their ability to remain undetected, not their boxcutters or explosives.
Just to clarify: You believe that oil was an insignificant contributor to the cause for going to war? You are also presuming that VYAZMA implied that oil was not only the significant factor to war but the only one. Correct?
Oil was a relatively insignificant factor in the decision to go to war in Iraq, correct. VYAZMA far overemphasizes the role of oil in that war (even in his clarifying statements), and I do not say he claims it is the only reason. I claim that his phrasing allowed him to win apparently ready agreement on that point with one who thinks oil and imperialism were the impetus for the war.
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
Security from terrorist-style attacks, especially those employing WMD.
...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
Since the theory isn't falsifiable we have to take it seriously? Is that the idea? I'm not interested in wasting my time on an argument *that* pointless. The war-for-oil theory doesn't fit the facts for reasons I've already mentioned. Feel free to read them and respond to them.
So, then, my next question is why is it irrelevant that the U.S. gains from the booty of war, even if eliminating a threat from every other nation?
It's not war booty. It's the benefits of trade. Your sentence construction seems amiss somehow. I don't follow the latter half of your question. Is it why we don't attack every nation that doesn't give us the benefits of free trade? I've already covered that (political isolation stemming from history of belligerence and failure to hew to its ceasefire agreement).
I ask this with this in mind: If the U.S. chose to fight on the basis of moral integrity for the whole world and to enable them to have a better ideal, then why benefit from it at all? It would be like if I chose to be a good Samaritan by saving a woman from getting her purse stolen and then turn around and just offer myself what she has in her wallet on the basis that I did her a favor.
To complete the analogy, what are we taking from Iraq's wallet?
You may have well been the original thief. At least then you are direct and sincere to steal. But taking her money after volunteering to save her is even more deceptive. In fact, how would she even know that you didn't set the original thief in action so that you could be her 'savior'?
Indeed, how do we know that Pumpkin Man isn't responsible for the whole mess? To complete your analogy, what was originally stolen from Iraq by the original thief, be he Pumpkin Man or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You believe "security" was the primary reason for intervention. To help create an analogy, it might be helpful to define "securtiy" -- it is too generic to argue. What security threat existed to the U.S. at the time of the declaration for war? If this behavior is just, do you think that it is okay to convict one of your own people in anticipation of a crime? That is, a thought-crime?
Remember the ceasefire agreement that Iraq was violating every day or so? Do you really think that's properly analogous to a "thought-crime"? To review: Iraq agreed to destroy WMD it unquestionably possessed (if Iraq destroyed its WMD then Iraq had to possess WMD or else it had nothing to destroy). Iraq was required to provide documentation of this destruction to the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq failed to produce that documentation, along with many other failures to keep to the terms of its agreement. Iraq, apparently intentionally, continued to present the impression to the international community that it possessed WMD capabilities.
But the UN did not find justification for war and did not believe the claims by American Intelligence -- the Americans didn't even feel it was even necessary to produce the evidences they kept hidden from the UN.
And I explained to you why. All of the intelligence services of our allies believed that Iraq continued to possess WMD. The UN does not make any such judgments. The UN's role was to conduct inspections. The inspection team never confirmed the "material breach" regarding possession of WMD. Yet it may well have found justification for restarting the war if not the the politics involved with France, Russia and China. As I just explained to you, Iraq owed France and Russia a ton of money (for weapons and a nuclear reactor). Do they get paid if Hussein is ousted from power? Debt forgiveness was a major political issue in the international decisions on whether to support the war against Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/baker_12-16-03.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/international/europe/22CND-RUSS.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
For example, they did not present the person who supposedly gave the Americans reasons for WDM in mobile facilities. The guy declared he lied to them later. But if the U.S. Intelligence community was truly mistaken on some minor fuck up, how were they so wise as to assure this evidence couldn't be measured by the UN? You can't argue supporting the UN while also going to war without their consent. You're just picking and choosing the stuff you like and ignoring what you don't.
Baloney. The ceasefire didn't place the burden of proof on UN inspectors. It placed the burden of proof on Iraq. I don't argue "supporting the UN." I simply mentioned that the ceasefire agreement that paused the Gulf War was brokered by the UN. Iraq was bound by that agreement regardless of what entity brokered it.
68
What am I walking back Bryan?
You ought to walk back the claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. But you keep restating it in different words.
We invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and installed a new regime.
For oil?
Right the WMDs...that was the cause of the war. Why did Saddam get rid of his WMDs? You didn't answer that one?
We don't know that the WMD were destroyed. For the bulk of it, there's no documentation of its destruction. We presume they were destroyed because we lack good evidence for other alternatives such as shipping them to Syria (we have evidence of caravans to Syria, but nothing solid regarding the contents). I said the question is answered because if Hussein can present to Iran the impression of possessing WMD without documenting their destruction *and* strings the UN along indefinitely then he doesn't need WMD. He obtains deterrence wrt Iran and satisfies the corrupt UN enough to eventually get sanctions lifted. And after that it's pretty easy to reconstitute WMD programs.
Vyazma-Post # 19 June 30th....We don’t just attack to get resources!! We attack to protect resources we already have.
What am I walking back Bryan?
You should walk back the claim that the U.S. attacked Iraq for oil. But you'd rather change it to the hardly more respectable claim the the U.S. attacked Iraq to protect its oil interests. Neither claim is true as a primary explanation for the Iraq War.
All I know is Wolfowitz was talking about using oil to pay for things. Again, sounds like Oil was considered to be an essential factor. Right?
An essential factor in paying for Iraqi infrastructure, yes. An essential factor in the decision to wage war, no.
And he agreed to trade oil for food. Under duress.
Duress isn't so bad when it comes after you invaded Kuwait and deliberately set a bunch of oil wells on fire. One should expect a bit of duress after that. Otherwise you get no ceasefire, you're ousted from power and more people on both sides get killed. The bad part was the way the UN and Hussein used the program to work around the sanctions regime.
Again sounds like oil was an essential element.
It was an essential element of the oil-for-food program, yes. An essential factor in the decision to wage war, no. We didn't even know until after the war had started that the oil for food program was corrupt. http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631
Tell me what Countries in the UN were against this program or the invasion of Iraq? Would it be the other countries that have opposing interests in the Iraqi oil? Yes, yes it would. And by that I mean, interests in seeing who is the leader of that nation. Because that nation is nothing but Oil. That's all Iraq has. Oil. And the leader of such a nation gives out the favors. Period!
I'm not following your logic (and I'm suspicious that once I do it won't add up). Plenty of countries obtained oil through OFF. But the scamming went on mostly through Russia, France and China, three of the nations that opposed the war. So oil (specifically illicit oil profits delivered by Hussein) was probably the top reason those nations opposed war with Iraq.
Going back to CC's question I would have to say that we basically failed. The puppet government that we installed crumbled. And Iraq is now right back where it started.
We never installed a puppet government, unless you count the interim governing authority (a type of transitional government). The Iraqis themselves opted for a parliamentary system, with the type of mixed success one might expect in a nation with three major religious-ethnic groups. The government is inefficient and corrupt, but probably one of the best in the Middle East (not counting Israel). Iraq isn't back where it started at all. Iraq is not any kind of serious threat to its neighbors, and its leader has no obvious designs for regional conquest. At worst, al-Maliki harbors ill will for the Sunnis who formerly led Iraq and enables at least some oppression of the Sunnis. Hussein was awful. Al-Maliki is about average and not a dictator at this point. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
69
Bryan-You ought to walk back the claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. But you keep restating it in different words.
Why? Are the words I'm using describing a more accurate picture of the reasons we invaded Iraq. They are harder to dispute. It's much easier for you to reute claims of imperialistic aggression to take over oil reserves. The way I put it though is much harder for you to refute. In fact your posts are peppered with conciliatory allusions to my points.
We invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and installed a new regime.
For oil?
We installed a new regime that would be friendly to us and our allied oil interests. You bet. Obviously Saddam wasn't gonna sell us anymore oil. Unless we threatened his people with starvation in return for oil. Oil for food? That even sounds bad! And as you conceded that "blockade" is a form of warfare..well then, that alone justifies the fact that we went to "war" for oil! Oil for food. For food!
We don't know that the WMD were destroyed.
I asked why Saddam got rid of his WMDs.
For the bulk of it, there's no documentation of its destruction. We presume they were destroyed because we lack good evidence for other alternatives such as shipping them to Syria (we have evidence of caravans to Syria, but nothing solid regarding the contents).
I asked why Saddam got rid of his WMDs!
I said the question is answered because....
I asked why Saddam got rid of his WMDs.
if Hussein can present to Iran the impression of possessing WMD without documenting their destruction *and* strings the UN along indefinitely then he doesn't need WMD. He obtains deterrence wrt Iran and satisfies the corrupt UN enough to eventually get sanctions lifted. And after that it's pretty easy to reconstitute WMD programs.
I asked why Saddam got rid of his WMDs. You still haven't answered that question. Despite the fact that you somehow have a strong understanding of the inner workings of his mind and strategy.
You should walk back the claim that the U.S. attacked Iraq for oil. But you'd rather change it to the hardly more respectable claim the the U.S. attacked Iraq to protect its oil interests. Neither claim is true as a primary explanation for the Iraq War.
I don't have to walk back anything. I like the use of the word "primary" here. Very tasteful.
An essential factor in paying for Iraqi infrastructure, yes. An essential factor in the decision to wage war, no.
If the decision to wage war brings up the subject of infrastructure rebuilding, then in this case oil played a major part in the decision to wage war. Simple logic.
It was an essential element of the oil-for-food program, yes. An essential factor in the decision to wage war, no. We didn't even know until after the war had started that the oil for food program was corrupt.
The whole idea of an oil for food program is corrupt. It's morally reprehensible on it's own merits.
I'm not following your logic (and I'm suspicious that once I do it won't add up). Plenty of countries obtained oil through OFF. But the scamming went on mostly through Russia, France and China, three of the nations that opposed the war. So oil (specifically illicit oil profits delivered by Hussein) was probably the top reason those nations opposed war with Iraq.
So? Plenty of countries obtained oil from Iraq before Oil for Food too. Plenty of countries are obtaining oil from Iraq today-including China.
We never installed a puppet government, unless you count the interim governing authority (a type of transitional government).
Yes, that's the one.
70
It doesn't bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.
Meaning what? Explain yourself in feedback. I was not following all your other arguments with others to this your claim that you mentioned "...historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks." It was irrelevant to my initial response to you. When you respond to confirm or deny something I'm trying to find clarity in your position, instead of affirming your positive stance, you just inquired how I interpreted you. All I can gather is that you deny my interpretation of your position without positing what you mean. In the paragraph to which you responded I wrote this: "The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it." It makes no sense to take the plane attacks in the context of a successful war. That was a successful attack, not a successful war. Your ridicule of boxcutter technology fails to respect the context. The technology on which terrorist tactics ultimately rely for their political success is their ability to remain undetected, not their boxcutters or explosives. bin Laden's expressed objective was to cripple our economy. Perhaps instead of gauging this war in military terms we should ask if bin Laden did accomplish his objective? In a game of chess a relatively small sacrifice to gain a positional advantage can create long term defensive problems for your adversary. All we did since 9/11 was spend a lot of life and treasure and nothing has changed except a few faces. I can imagine a better use of those resources. We might be energy self sufficient if we had thrown a trillion+ dollars in developing new technology and not have to rely on that dirty fossil stuff anymore.
71
It doesn't bother me in the least how one speaks if they are capable of explaining themselves in feedback.
Meaning what? Explain yourself in feedback. I was not following all your other arguments with others to this your claim that you mentioned "...historical features of successful wars, not successful attacks." It was irrelevant to my initial response to you. When you respond to confirm or deny something I'm trying to find clarity in your position, instead of affirming your positive stance, you just inquired how I interpreted you. All I can gather is that you deny my interpretation of your position without positing what you mean. In the paragraph to which you responded I wrote this: "The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it." It makes no sense to take the plane attacks in the context of a successful war. That was a successful attack, not a successful war. Your ridicule of boxcutter technology fails to respect the context. The technology on which terrorist tactics ultimately rely for their political success is their ability to remain undetected, not their boxcutters or explosives. As with chess, there is more to the strategy of war and diplomacy than raw aggression--something our government, our military and a large part of the population have yet to learn, for which wel all pay a tremendous price in personnel, resources and reputation. Lois bin Laden's expressed objective was to cripple our economy. Perhaps instead of gauging this war in military terms we should ask if bin Laden did accomplish his objective? In a game of chess a relatively small sacrifice to gain a positional advantage can create long term defensive problems for your adversary. All we did was spend a lot of life and treasure and nothing has changed except a few faces. I can imagine a better use of those resources. We might be energy self sufficient if we had thrown a trillion+ dollars in developing new technology and not have to rely on that dirty fossil stuff anymore.
72
They are harder to dispute.
Only in terms of volume.
We installed a new regime that would be friendly to us and our allied oil interests. You bet.
Our Chinese allies? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Obviously Saddam wasn't gonna sell us anymore oil. Unless we threatened his people with starvation in return for oil. Oil for food? That even sounds bad!
Oil for food was a corrupt UN program, not a corrupt U.S. program. The U.S. made it hard for Saddam to sell oil, period (because he used the profits to arm Iraq). "Security Council Resolution 687 makes economic regeneration conditional on the destruction of Baghdad's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons potential under U.N. supervision." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-04-07/news/1991097053_1_iraq-acceptance-persian-gulf
And as you conceded that "blockade" is a form of warfare..well then, that alone justifies the fact that we went to "war" for oil! Oil for food. For food!
Good grief. Good luck with that handful of straws. Okay, the UN declared war on Iraq for oil through the OFF program. President Bush invaded Iraq for separate reasons related to security. Can we agree now that the UN is a joke? Do you really want to pretend that you weren't talking from the beginning about the coalition Bush put together to invade Iraq? You think *anyone* will buy it? "We invaded Iraq for oil. Elementary. Everyone knows this." Right. You were talking about the OFF program the UN started in 1996. That was the "invasion" you referred to. Let's take VYAZMA seriously.
We don't know that the WMD were destroyed.
I asked why Saddam got rid of his WMDs.
I hadn't considered the possibility that you were conducting an exercise in pedantry. We don't know what happened to the WMD, whether destroyed, hidden in Iraq, or shipped off to Syria (or another destination). The question takes it for granted that we know Hussein got rid of the WMD either by destroying them or shipping them away. If Hussein ordered the weapons destroyed, he probably did it to comply with the ceasefire resolution enough to avoid (he thought) triggering an invasion while failing to comply with the requirement to document their destruction in order to appear strong to his neighbors in Iran.
You still haven't answered that question. Despite the fact that you somehow have a strong understanding of the inner workings of his mind and strategy.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/saddam_hussein_maintained_wmd_illusion_to_fool_israel/
I don't have to walk back anything. I like the use of the word "primary" here. Very tasteful.
Of course you don't *have* to walk back anything. But you should, to save face. The ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War shoved a stopper in Iraq oil exports until the UN, as you say (heh) invaded Iraq through the OFF program. Later, as an incidental occurrence, Bush sent in occupation troops or something. Yours is a hideously distorted version of history.
If the decision to wage war brings up the subject of infrastructure rebuilding, then in this case oil played a major part in the decision to wage war. Simple logic.
You misspelled "illogic." An attacking country is not obligated to rebuild the nation it attacked unless, as in Iraq's case wrt its invasion of Kuwait, it formally agrees to pay for reconstruction. Reconstruction is not a necessary expense for invasion, therefore it is not a primary consideration wrt conducting an invasion. You're mixing up consideration for the consequences of waging the war with the actual impetus for the war. The U.S. could invade Iraq and ensure it was completely free of WMD, but if Iran sweeps in the next day and takes control of Iraq there's hardly any net gain since Iran is a regime of similar character wrt support of terrorism and possession of WMD. In the interest of security, we wanted a regime capable of standing against Iran and uninterested in pursuing illicit weapons programs. Or, as you would put it, "for oil."
The whole idea of an oil for food program is corrupt. It's morally reprehensible on it's own merits.
We'll remember that next time you want to trade the gasoline in your car's gas tank for a bag of groceries.
So? Plenty of countries obtained oil from Iraq before Oil for Food too. Plenty of countries are obtaining oil from Iraq today-including China.
So if the invading countries aren't getting the oil and if the invading countries are actually cutting off oil exports (cutting off exports to themselves!) your narrative falls to the ground. Look for it there.
We never installed a puppet government, unless you count the interim governing authority (a type of transitional government).
Yes, that's the one.
So you're saying the Iraq invasion failed in part because the interim government "crumbled." What is it you mean by that, other than the interim government was intentionally dissolved when the Iraqis established their own government just as the U.S. and its allies had planned?
73
bin Laden's expressed objective was to cripple our economy. Perhaps instead of gauging this war in military terms we should ask if bin Laden did accomplish his objective?
I'm not prepared to credit bin Laden with engineering the mortgage securities meltdown. You?
In a game of chess a relatively small sacrifice to gain a positional advantage can create long term defensive problems for your adversary.
What's the problem with "defensive problems" if nobody takes advantage of them? Tick off for me the list of skyscrapers destroyed using civilian planes since 9-11. I'm having trouble remembering any.
All we did since 9/11 was spend a lot of life and treasure and nothing has changed except a few faces. I can imagine a better use of those resources. We might be energy self sufficient if we had thrown a trillion+ dollars in developing new technology and not have to rely on that dirty fossil stuff anymore.
We've thrown tons of money at developing new technologies. Nothing's changed except a few faces. ;-)
74
We installed a new regime that would be friendly to us and our allied oil interests. You bet.
Bryan-Our Chinese allies?
Yeah, that's what happens when you lose a war....hello? You don't get to control spoils or write history. You should pay closer attention to that last part.
Oil for food was a corrupt UN program, not a corrupt U.S. program.
Who was the main enforcer of the blockade?
And as you conceded that "blockade" is a form of warfare..well then, that alone justifies the fact that we went to "war" for oil! Oil for food. For food!
Good grief. Good luck with that handful of straws.
Yeah, that's always the reply of people who have no response around here..it's either a strawman, a tu quoque fallacy, a red herring or some other neat sounding BS. That's exactly what that blockade was! We we're the main enforcers of that blockade and we held people captive and starved out for oil. Those were our naval vessels in the Persian gulf and at least half of the aircraft were ours. So we took part in the blockade of food for oil. And you agreed that a blockade was war. Therefore we took part in a war for oil.
Okay, the UN declared war on Iraq for oil through the OFF program.
The Oil for Food program was a United States idea, that the UN agreed to. The UN usually agrees with just about everything the we want. Except for China and Russia, who usually vote against what our interests are.
President Bush invaded Iraq for separate reasons related to security.
If security means gaining and maintaining secure oil contracts through a new, pliable leader then yes I agree. If security means keeping the Persian Gulf area and the Iraqi oil fields secure I agree.
Can we agree now that the UN is a joke?
Probably not. Just like we probably can't agree that most of the UN members went along for the ride during the Iraq debacle. By that I mean the US and it's allies sometimes use the UN for legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Do you really want to pretend that you weren't talking from the beginning about the coalition Bush put together to invade Iraq? You think *anyone* will buy it?
Buy what? Of course I was talking about the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about here? Are you attempting to change my words around? Is it that hard for you to argue against my argument? Since we started you have tried to convince me that I was arguing about something else. You keep doing this. It funny. "We invaded Iraq for oil. Elementary. Everyone knows this." Yeah, that's a simplified statement of fact. I have since elucidated further on that statement. But I stand by it. The funniest part is that you have basically agreed on 75% of it.
Right. You were talking about the OFF program the UN started in 1996. That was the "invasion" you referred to.
No, Bryan, just like you said the War never ended from the first Gulf War. The blockade, the inspectors, Oil for Food, the second Invasion..it's all interconnected. The Bush Cheney Invasion was just a part of the ongoing saga that started from the first Gulf War. It was always primarily about oil.
Bryan-The sanctions were put in place as part of a ceasefire agreement. So, yes, you can regard them as a type of war if you wish. That war never ended. Military hostilities were paused by the ceasefire agreement. It was a part of “war" that the Hussein government agreed to in order to keep control of Iraq at the tail end of the Gulf War.
I hadn't considered the possibility that you were conducting an exercise in pedantry.
Well, I am. Let's see if you can answer the question now.
We don't know what happened to the WMD, whether destroyed, hidden in Iraq, or shipped off to Syria (or another destination).
But I thought you knew everything...?
The question takes it for granted that we know Hussein got rid of the WMD either by destroying them or shipping them away.
But I thought we invaded Iraq because we thought he still had WMDs?
If Hussein ordered the weapons destroyed, he probably did it to comply with the ceasefire resolution enough to avoid (he thought) triggering an invasion while failing to comply with the requirement to document their destruction in order to appear strong to his neighbors in Iran.
I love reading your little conjecture bits. So in your theory Saddam was like a High School student who was trying to hide the mail from his parents because he was afraid of a bad report card in the mail? But bragged about to his fellow students because he wanted to appear cool.
Of course you don't *have* to walk back anything. But you should, to save face.
Save face? You're joking right? You do realize that you are in the vast minority here? Save face? You're like the last person on Earth who buys the complete Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld package. I'm guessing you live under a rock.... Lot's of people have lot's of crazy ideas about how the war was fought for oil. Lot's of people have very accurate representations about how the war was fought for oil. Almost nobody totes the whole Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld line. Nobody bought that BS when it was in progress, let alone now. If those idiots could have just told the US people the basic, reasons for going to war(which would have included securing oil resources that were in jeopardy), they would have been so much better off.
The ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War shoved a stopper in Iraq oil exports
Yeah. Note the word "oil".
until the UN, as you say (heh) invaded Iraq through the OFF program.
A program designed by the United States, and largely enforced by the United States.
Later, as an incidental occurrence, Bush sent in occupation troops or something.
Yeah, blockades can't go on forever. Is any of this not true? You let me know. If the decision to wage war brings up the subject of infrastructure rebuilding, then in this case oil played a major part in the decision to wage war. Simple logic.
The whole idea of an oil for food program is corrupt. It's morally reprehensible on it's own merits.
We'll remember that next time you want to trade the gasoline in your car's gas tank for a bag of groceries.
What does that even mean? Are you slipping further? Why would I trade my gas for groceries? Nobody is preventing me from buying groceries! WTF? Do you have any good points?
Vyazma-So? Plenty of countries obtained oil from Iraq before Oil for Food too. Plenty of countries are obtaining oil from Iraq today-including China.
Bryan-So if the invading countries aren't getting the oil
What do you mean? The US and her allies are getting oil from Iraq. Probably not at the terms that they had hoped for.
Bryan-and if the invading countries are actually cutting off oil exports (cutting off exports to themselves!)
What does this mean? Who cutting oil exports? If anybodies cutting oil exports from a region(Iraq), then it must be because the price is too high. China can outbid us there. As the article from the NYT that you cited stated. That's certainly a consequence of our bungled adventure there.
We never installed a puppet government, unless you count the interim governing authority (a type of transitional government).
Yes, that's the one.
So you're saying the Iraq invasion failed in part because the interim government "crumbled."
Where did I say that? Are you trying to demand what I'm saying again?
What is it you mean by that, other than the interim government was intentionally dissolved when the Iraqis established their own government just as the U.S. and its allies had planned?
Yes, see right here! You are trying to fabricate things I never said. I said we installed a puppet regime that obviously was going to be friendly to our Allied oil interests. We were not counting on the massive civil war that followed our invasion.
75
We installed a new regime that would be friendly to us and our allied oil interests. You bet.
Bryan-Our Chinese allies?
Yeah, that's what happens when you lose a war....hello? You don't get to control spoils or write history. You should pay closer attention to that last part.
Your argument is of the style of a conspiracy theory argument. You simply arrange the facts to fit your theory. Since we don't control the oil in post-war Iraq therefore we lost the war, regardless of whether the expected goals prior to the war are substantially met. If the U.S. controls the oil, then we won the war for control of oil. If the U.S. doesn't control the oil, then the U.S. lost the war. Is there any way to falsify the theory?
Oil for food was a corrupt UN program, not a corrupt U.S. program.
Who was the main enforcer of the blockade?
The U.S. We were blockading trade including trade for oil. We were keeping ourselves from trading the oil that we supposedly need to control. Your next move, of course, is to argue that our blockade that kept us from the oil we need and allowed other nations to benefit in turn forced us to go to war (and lose) in a bid to control the oil. Though in the interim the U.S. was getting the lion's share of the non-corrupt trade in OFF Iraqi oil.
Good grief. Good luck with that handful of straws.
Yeah, that's always the reply of people who have no response around here..
Yeah, that's always the reply of a person who replied without thinking to keep reading the reply that follows. Pfeh.
Those were our naval vessels in the Persian gulf and at least half of the aircraft were ours. So we took part in the blockade of food for oil. And you agreed that a blockade was war. Therefore we took part in a war for oil.
No, the trade embargo (not a blockade as such) included oil. So the blockade was to prevent the trade of oil that we need so badly we'll go to war for it. It was the UN that cut the deal to allow trade in oil, which went to illicitly benefit France, Russia and China--the nations opposed to the invasion. So it was a non-invasion by those nations for oil and illicit cash.
Okay, the UN declared war on Iraq for oil through the OFF program.
The Oil for Food program was a United States idea, that the UN agreed to. The UN usually agrees with just about everything the we want. Except for China and Russia, who usually vote against what our interests are.
1) You need a supporting citation for your claim that OFF was a U.S. idea adopted by the UN. 2) In your view, was the right move to simply ship food at the expense of those trying to limit Iraq's power to Iraq, where Hussein could sell the food and profit to support his military (similar to the N. Korean pattern of the past few decades)?
President Bush invaded Iraq for separate reasons related to security.
If security means gaining and maintaining secure oil contracts through a new, pliable leader then yes I agree. If security means keeping the Persian Gulf area and the Iraqi oil fields secure I agree.
It doesn't mean that in either case. That's what "separate reasons" means.
Probably not. Just like we probably can't agree that most of the UN members went along for the ride during the Iraq debacle. By that I mean the US and it's allies sometimes use the UN for legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Doubtless that's true, and it's a silly game to play with the Security Council made up of nations with veto power who oppose the U.S. routinely. One wonders why China ever agrees to anything.
Of course I was talking about the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about here? Are you attempting to change my words around?
*You* are trying to change your words around. You're trying to use the OFF program, offered by the UN with its ceasefire agreement but not accepted until 1996 as your proof that the U.S. engaged in war tactics for oil. As if that somehow supports your assertion that the 2003 invasion was for the purpose of securing oil access.
Is it that hard for you to argue against my argument?
It's so hard to argue against your argument that I have to resort to reductio ad absurdum. ;-)
Since we started you have tried to convince me that I was arguing about something else.
Okay, so you're apparently not arguing that the OFF was the war for oil you were talking about. So what do you have left to support your assertion that the invasion directed by Bush was a war for oil? It's not the way we now control the oil. China does that, so we lost the war, in the view you've stated. What evidence have you got?
You keep doing this. It funny.
Right. It's so funny that I'll use it to distract from the mountain of evidence you'll produce in favor of the Bush's war for oil theory that does not rely on the assertion that the OFF program was a war for oil. Just watch me.
"We invaded Iraq for oil. Elementary. Everyone knows this." Yeah, that's a simplified statement of fact. I have since elucidated further on that statement. But I stand by it. The funniest part is that you have basically agreed on 75% of it.
Really. Which 75 percent? Be specific.
Right. You were talking about the OFF program the UN started in 1996. That was the "invasion" you referred to.
No, Bryan, just like you said the War never ended from the first Gulf War. The blockade, the inspectors, Oil for Food, the second Invasion..it's all interconnected. The Bush Cheney Invasion was just a part of the ongoing saga that started from the first Gulf War. It was always primarily about oil.
Therefore you need no supporting evidence? What's the upside for the U.S., exactly, of invading Iraq when we're getting the bulk of the oil distributed through the OFF program? You don't get interconnectedness only when it's convenient for you. The Gulf War was about oil security as well as protecting state sovereignty (Kuwait). We didn't want loose cannon Hussein controlling the bulk of ME oil for reasons already discussed. But obviously oil was a minor concern if we cut off the oil almost completely for five years before allowing Hussein to trade oil for food (the right thing to do, apparently was to support Hussein's people for him and underwriting his despotic behavior). The guy is perfectly willing to sell us oil if he can have a free hand in building up his military and threatening his neighbors, mind you. Why aren't we cool with that? It's really all about oil, isn't it? And that's why we also intervened in oil-rich Nigeria around that same time. Oh, wait ... http://www.earthrights.net/nigeria/news/atlanticmonthly.html
We don't know what happened to the WMD, whether destroyed, hidden in Iraq, or shipped off to Syria (or another destination).
But I thought you knew everything...?
If that's what you think then you don't respond appropriately. :-) Reductio ad absurdum. Now do your "you didn't answer the question" dance again.
The question takes it for granted that we know Hussein got rid of the WMD either by destroying them or shipping them away.
But I thought we invaded Iraq because we thought he still had WMDs?
Is it you who knows everything or is it me? Make up your mind.
I love reading your little conjecture bits. So in your theory Saddam was like a High School student who was trying to hide the mail from his parents because he was afraid of a bad report card in the mail? But bragged about to his fellow students because he wanted to appear cool.
I love reading how you interpret news reports and professional analysis as my "little conjecture bits." Do you have an affirmative argument for your position on the Bush invasion of Iraq that doesn't rely on claiming OFF was a war for oil?
Save face? You're joking right?
It's probably too late.
You do realize that you are in the vast minority here?
Better that than a tiny minority. ;-) I'm not concerned about people who will agree with you despite your failure to produce any plausible affirmative argument. I'm hoping that even people inclined to agree with you can see the lack of any plausible argument on your part.
Is any of this not true? You let me know.
The only thing potentially relevant is your claim that the U.S. came up with OFF. Is it my responsibility to disprove what you say or is it your responsibility to support your own arguments?
What does that even mean?
It's reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.
Why would I trade my gas for groceries? Nobody is preventing me from buying groceries!
Well, according to the implications of your argument they *should* prevent you from buying groceries if the only thing you can offer of value is the gas in your car. Because it's immoral. Right?
Bryan-So if the invading countries aren't getting the oil
The US and her allies are getting oil from Iraq. Probably not at the terms that they had hoped for.
So then we half won the war? Or just 45%? Or what? If the aim was to get oil and we're getting oil then we won, right? But you said we lost.
What does this mean?
Trade embargo. Remember?
China can outbid us there. As the article from the NYT that you cited stated. That's certainly a consequence of our bungled adventure there.
No, it's a result of China willing to engage in high-risk investment since a nationalized oil industry doesn't answer to shareholders.
So you're saying the Iraq invasion failed in part because the interim government "crumbled."
Where did I say that?
"Going back to CC’s question I would have to say that we basically failed. The puppet government that we installed crumbled. And Iraq is now right back where it started."
Are you trying to demand what I'm saying again?
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Unfortunately it doesn't make much sense no matter how much explaining you attempt. It makes progressively less sense, if anything. You don't remember saying that we failed in Iraq in answer to CC's question ("Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?")?
What is it you mean by that, other than the interim government was intentionally dissolved when the Iraqis established their own government just as the U.S. and its allies had planned?
Yes, see right here! You are trying to fabricate things I never said.
No, I'm asking what you mean if the obvious (absurd) meaning isn't the one you intended. You'll answer the question?
I said we installed a puppet regime that obviously was going to be friendly to our Allied oil interests. We were not counting on the massive civil war that followed our invasion.
Right, but on the other hand we were planning on a very limited lifespan for the coalition governing authority. The poor condition of Iraq's oil industry was well known in advance of the war. The degree to which the CGA looked with favor on allied oil interests was effectively irrelevant. To benefit from the situation we'd need favor from the government established by the Iraqis. Again, your argument makes zero sense. The civil war certainly slowed development of Iraq's oil resources, but it did little to slow the establishment of Iraq's autonomous government. http://www.meforum.org/2958/occupying-iraq http://www.economist.com/node/1702288
76
We don't know that the WMD were destroyed. For the bulk of it, there's no documentation of its destruction. We presume they were destroyed because we lack good evidence for other alternatives such as shipping them to Syria (we have evidence of caravans to Syria, but nothing solid regarding the contents). I said the question is answered because if Hussein can present to Iran the impression of possessing WMD without documenting their destruction *and* strings the UN along indefinitely then he doesn't need WMD. He obtains deterrence wrt Iran and satisfies the corrupt UN enough to eventually get sanctions lifted. And after that it's pretty easy to reconstitute WMD programs.
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
Security from terrorist-style attacks, especially those employing WMD.
...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
Since the theory isn't falsifiable we have to take it seriously? Is that the idea? I'm not interested in wasting my time on an argument *that* pointless. The war-for-oil theory doesn't fit the facts for reasons I've already mentioned. Feel free to read them and respond to them.
You apparently have a double standard on what you accept as having logical relevance. You presume that there is a lack of evidence to presume that any arbitrary person could be capable of going to war for oil (or any desired resource). George Bush is just one such arbitrary being. Therefore, you presume that one must default to everyone's innocence to be so callous. So how does this work with the assumption that the lack of evidence for WDM in Iraq derives the positive assumption that he must have certainly had them but secretly got rid of them! Can I not similarly argue that Bush wanted to go to war for oil but secretly hid his motivation for oil by masking it as a war on terrorism?
77
"The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it." It makes no sense to take the plane attacks in the context of a successful war. That was a successful attack, not a successful war. Your ridicule of boxcutter technology fails to respect the context. The technology on which terrorist tactics ultimately rely for their political success is their ability to remain undetected, not their boxcutters or explosives.
I'm not certain why you are differentiating between 'attack' and 'war' here? If 9/11 is diminished in your mind as being relevant to successful terrorism due to technology and tactical advantage because you don't consider it an act of war, what such technical and tactical advantages do the terrorists have in war?
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
Security from terrorist-style attacks, especially those employing WMD.
You haven't established (A), that Iraq had WMDs, (B), how such presumed WMDs had significant threat to the U.S., who has the most WMDs in the world with more significant threat to every other domain in the world. The U.S. went to war unilaterally: that is, without the democratic forum agreement of the United Nations. This invalidation of the UN makes any evidence you put forward to supporting anything they discovered earlier invalid as you only arbitrarily authorize their wisdom. Any decisions you claim the U.S. made based on UN findings, therefore are useless. Example: you cannot use,
Iraq agreed to destroy WMD it unquestionably possessed (if Iraq destroyed its WMD then Iraq had to possess WMD or else it had nothing to destroy). Iraq was required to provide documentation of this destruction to the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq failed to produce that documentation, along with many other failures to keep to the terms of its agreement. Iraq, apparently intentionally, continued to present the impression to the international community that it possessed WMD capabilities.
to defend a U.S. justification for war.
78
We don't know that the WMD were destroyed. For the bulk of it, there's no documentation of its destruction. We presume they were destroyed because we lack good evidence for other alternatives such as shipping them to Syria (we have evidence of caravans to Syria, but nothing solid regarding the contents). I said the question is answered because if Hussein can present to Iran the impression of possessing WMD without documenting their destruction *and* strings the UN along indefinitely then he doesn't need WMD. He obtains deterrence wrt Iran and satisfies the corrupt UN enough to eventually get sanctions lifted. And after that it's pretty easy to reconstitute WMD programs.
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
Security from terrorist-style attacks, especially those employing WMD.
...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
Since the theory isn't falsifiable we have to take it seriously? Is that the idea? I'm not interested in wasting my time on an argument *that* pointless. The war-for-oil theory doesn't fit the facts for reasons I've already mentioned. Feel free to read them and respond to them.
You apparently have a double standard on what you accept as having logical relevance. You apparently have a gift for taking statements out of context. I said nothing at all about "logical relevance." I talked about theories and falsification, and there's no double standard. You nicely clipped away the context of questions based on whether an idea was even logically possible. Well, the Pumpkin Man is logically possible. If we look into theories about war for oil based on mere logical possibility then we also need to consider the Pumpkin Man.
You presume that there is a lack of evidence to presume that any arbitrary person could be capable of going to war for oil (or any desired resource). George Bush is just one such arbitrary being. Therefore, you presume that one must default to everyone's innocence to be so callous.
My argument has nothing at all to do with arguing for what any person might be capable of doing or not doing. My argument is based on the historical facts. It's a fact that we were getting more oil from Iraq before the war than we're getting now. Bush promised that the Iraqi people would decide what happens with their oil after the war, and the evidence suggests that he kept that promise. Even if Bush is secretly 100% obsessed with controlling Iraqi oil we ought to have some kind of evidence apart from his personality profile to actually show that he ordered the invasion of Iraq for the sake of controlling its oil reserves. What evidence do you suggest we look at?
So how does this work with the assumption that the lack of evidence for WDM in Iraq derives the positive assumption that he must have certainly had them but secretly got rid of them!
It works as two complementary straw men you've constructed. Saddam Hussein did not "secretly" have WMD. The WMD were admitted to the UN after inspections in the 1990s (after the Gulf War, inspectors were shocked by how much more advanced Iraq was with its WMD programs than world intelligence agencies had surmised). Iraq, by agreement, was bound to account for the destruction of its admitted WMD stockpiles. Iraq accounted for the destruction of a minority of its WMD stockpiles. My presumption is that the WMD Iraq admitted having were either destroyed, hidden or moved. The only possibility I'm overlooking is that Iraq seriously over-reported its WMD stockpiles after being busted several times for under-reporting their stockpiles. That option is pretty far-fetched and would still leave us with confirmed stockpiles unaccounted for in Iraq's reports on weapons it destroyed. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=GPO-DUELFERREPORT&fromBrowse=true
Can I not similarly argue that Bush wanted to go to war for oil but secretly hid his motivation for oil by masking it as a war on terrorism?
You can make that argument if you wish, but it bears no similarity to my arguments. Have fun explaining how Bush hypnotized Clinton's CIA director into helping him present Iraq as a security threat.
79
I'm not certain why you are differentiating between 'attack' and 'war' here?
Because I'm referencing the principles of war as a political tool a la Otto Von Bismarck, the man who united Germany by repeated application of a set of principles. Bismarck conducted short and successful wars to unite Germany with Prussia pulling the strings. After citing Bismarck's principle I identified an aspect of terrorism that accounts for its appeal to nations that lack money to pursue advanced conventional arms. Attacking the WTCs with passenger airplanes was not a war. No opponent was defeated. Those attacks have little if anything to do with Bismarck's principles, regardless of your attempt to tie them together.
If 9/11 is diminished in your mind as being relevant to successful terrorism due to technology and tactical advantage because you don't consider it an act of war, what such technical and tactical advantages do the terrorists have in war?
An act of war is not a war. Successful wars result in winners and losers over a longer term (and broader scope) than individual battles or acts of war.
You haven't established (A), that Iraq had WMDs,
Inspectors found WMD in Iraq. I linked the Duelfer report for you in my previous reply. But maybe the Pumpkin Man slipped the weapons inspectors hallucinogenic mushrooms before they thought they examined WMD and it was all an illusion. Plus he gave their cameras and testing equipment hallucinogenic mushrooms, too. It's possible.
(B), how such presumed WMDs had significant threat to the U.S., who has the most WMDs in the world with more significant threat to every other domain in the world.
I don't see why I need to establish anything about the threat represented by Iraq's WMD. It was the judgment of the intelligence services of the U.S. and its allies (even the French) that Hussein had WMD at the start of the Iraq War. The evidence suggests their beliefs were sincere. France certainly had no reason to back up the assessment politically, given France's formal opposition to the invasion. In the end, the decision had to be made on incomplete evidence, which is often the case in war because the enemy doesn't want you to know what he's doing.
The U.S. went to war unilaterally: that is, without the democratic forum agreement of the United Nations.
Hurray for customized definitions. Have you ever considered the possibility that an individual veto power fundamentally undermines democracy?
This invalidation of the UN makes any evidence you put forward to supporting anything they discovered earlier invalid as you only arbitrarily authorize their wisdom.
How's that supposed to work?
Any decisions you claim the U.S. made based on UN findings, therefore are useless.
Why? How does it follow that the work of UN inspectors is invalidated by the reluctance of the UN to act because of, for example, veto power exercised by nations gaining illicit benefits through the OFF program?
Example: you cannot use,
Iraq agreed to destroy WMD it unquestionably possessed (if Iraq destroyed its WMD then Iraq had to possess WMD or else it had nothing to destroy). Iraq was required to provide documentation of this destruction to the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq failed to produce that documentation, along with many other failures to keep to the terms of its agreement. Iraq, apparently intentionally, continued to present the impression to the international community that it possessed WMD capabilities.
to defend a U.S. justification for war.
Why not? Apparently you regard the UN as a type of international god. But the UN found itself guilty of corruption in administering the OFF. Yet if the UN rejects the UN's own authority in running the OFF cleanly, doesn't that undermine the UN's case against itself? This is the type of logic you'll apparently ask me to accept. It's not a good idea for anybody to accept logic like that.
80

Bryan,
Your so fixated on assuring us that oil is insignificant. Let’s presume you are correct and try telling us why Iraq posed a bigger security concern for the U.S. than the other issues of other countries that the U.S. ignored? Why Iraq over North Korea? What of all the other concerns did Iraq pose against others, then, that required special interest? It couldn’t be humanitarian concern for others…Rwanda and Sudan could have used your sympathy more. The WDM concern is way more significant in a country like North Korea!! They have nuclear capabilities! North Korea has a better ability to destroy America than the “uncertain” ones that Iraq supposedly had.

We don't know that the WMD were destroyed. For the bulk of it, there's no documentation of its destruction. We presume they were destroyed because we lack good evidence for other alternatives such as shipping them to Syria (we have evidence of caravans to Syria, but nothing solid regarding the contents). I said the question is answered because if Hussein can present to Iran the impression of possessing WMD without documenting their destruction *and* strings the UN along indefinitely then he doesn't need WMD. He obtains deterrence wrt Iran and satisfies the corrupt UN enough to eventually get sanctions lifted. And after that it's pretty easy to reconstitute WMD programs.
First, is there any primary cause that you believe is the significant factor and, if so, what do you propose?
Security from terrorist-style attacks, especially those employing WMD.
...Second, what would be so non-sensible that oil could be a sufficient cause? What is so impossible to presume that the George Bush administration is incapable of going to war for the sole purpose of oil? Are they immune to fallibility?
Since the theory isn't falsifiable we have to take it seriously? Is that the idea? I'm not interested in wasting my time on an argument *that* pointless. The war-for-oil theory doesn't fit the facts for reasons I've already mentioned. Feel free to read them and respond to them.
You apparently have a double standard on what you accept as having logical relevance. You apparently have a gift for taking statements out of context. I said nothing at all about "logical relevance." I talked about theories and falsification, and there's no double standard. You nicely clipped away the context of questions based on whether an idea was even logically possible. Well, the Pumpkin Man is logically possible. If we look into theories about war for oil based on mere logical possibility then we also need to consider the Pumpkin Man. You clearly implied that the assumption that the U.S. could possibly go to war on the bases of oil as a significant factor is lacking evidence and that because of such should be dismissed because you cannot confirm something on missing evidence. Yet, you find that although WDMs were not found in Iraq, you are allowed to create a story that though plausible, cannot even be disproven -- unfalsibiable!! This is no "straw man" argument as I have not misrepresented your views. You will be deliberately be distracting and ignorant if you do not respond to a reason why the U.S. chose Iraq over other world concerns that raised more humanitarian threats taking oil out of the motive!