Blaming Russians

[Boethius]

Social and Cultural Feelings - These same RW are so inculcated from birth in Russian culture, that they will forever believe many parts of Russian culture are better than what America offers.  For example, last night my wife and I saw "Swan" Lake performed by the Moscow Ballet Festival associated with the Bolshoi.  As soon as the music started, she swooned and remarked how she grew up with this music, this art form.  I thought it amazing; my wife thought she was in heaven.  She still talks about it today.   I can not think of anything comparable for an AW, other than attending a family reunion and meeting dear family whom she has not seen for a long time.  It is her and I do not want her to lose that part of her soul.

I think it is an association of being a part of something bigger, that you are no longer a part of, as you are living abroad.  That "something" is lost to her.

[Gator]

I think it is an association of being a part of something bigger, that you are no longer a part of, as you are living abroad.  That "something" is lost to her.

So true!   A very astute observation.

[Gator]

Billy, despite any evidence to the contrary that surfaced later, YOU still believe in that WMD nonsense ? You are really hopeless .

I believe Billy is making the point that the generally accepted opinion  prior to the invasion is Iraq had WMD and was hiding them.  Iraq did a good job of hiding them because we never found any. IMO some chemical stockpiles were transacted to Syria and we saw the results..

[Boethius]

I don't know, and neither do you.   There was no oil in Afghanistan.  Go through the list and work backwards:   Granada....Panama..... 

I never mentioned any of those countries, as they were irrelevant to my point.  As for Afghanistan, there was a US desire to built a pipeline through the country.  However, I do believe  the reason for invasion of Afghanistan initially was to capture al Qaeda operatives, which is why it was supported by NATO allies, who also supplied troops.  Not so for Iraq.  That initial rationale morphed into something else,

Speaking of bullshit from someone with Slavic genes....The invasion had many objectives.  World opinion would have gone bonkers if the Brits and Yanks had kept the oil, regardless of Trump saying we should keep the oil.   

It's not about keeping the oil.  It is about making it available for selling abroad by American companies.  Richard Perle, on of the architects of the Iraqi invasion, is on record in an interview stating that "we" will all make spectacular profits from this.  Sy Hersh wrote about this, if you care to examine further.  Donald Rumsfeld, another PNAC neocon, was calling for the invasion of Iraq on September 12, 2001.

No, the invasion was indeed a cake walk as told to me by one of my son's friends who was a Marine grunt in the leading column.  The decisions made afterwards were disastrous.  The hard part was finding the WMD.   I guess we stopped looking a long time ago. 

LOL.  Because they never existed.  Of course the initial invasion was a cake walk.  Just as Operation Barbarossa was a cake walk. 

Bottom Line:  Your claim is false.  We were in complete control to take oil, yet we did not take the oil.  Instead, of benefiting, we wasted trillions in attempting to stabilize the post-invasion Iraq.    We did not keep the oil in Kuwait either.

No, you weren't.


1.  Change of US administration.
2.  Continued small battles in Iraq which resulted in US casualties.
3.  Infiltration by Iran and Syria.


In the aftermath of the invasion, one of the things the US administration promised to do was meter Iraqi oil, so that revenues could be accounted for, and be monitored independently (by the IAMB).  That never happened.  Oil was being sold, but by whom, and to whom, was never disclosed.

[BillyB]

Billy, despite any evidence to the contrary that surfaced later, YOU still believe in that WMD nonsense ? You are really hopeless .

Bush dealt with evidence in the present back then. Later doesn't count. Saddam himself said he made purchases on nuke equipment to get people to believe he's pursuing nukes. Saddam kept old WMDs that were found and has caused permanent illnesses on approximately 600 American troops. It's the liberals who spread a FAKE NEWS story that  Bush lied about why he went to war. They can't accept the fact the facts given to Bush was Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons and constantly violating UN resolutions.

[alex330]

I have a feeling we knew exactly what chemical and biological weapons Saddam had since the CIA sold them to him.

My brother was part of the first invasion and they knew exactly what shots to inoculate our soldiers with.

[BillyB]

I have a feeling we knew exactly what chemical and biological weapons Saddam had since the CIA sold them to him.

My brother was part of the first invasion and they knew exactly what shots to inoculate our soldiers with.

Apparently Saddam didn't turn everything over as required before the second invasion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/world/middleeast/-more-than-600-reported-chemical-weapons-exposure-in-iraq-pentagon-acknowledges.html


Imagine a bad guy out on parole. He continues to break the rules and is now surrounded by cops. The bad guy pulls an object out of his pocket that looks like a gun and the police shoot and kill him. Since the guy didn't have an actual gun, liberals say the cops lied when they said he had a gun just like they claimed Bush lied about why he went to war.

[alex330]

Apparently Saddam didn't turn everything over as required before the second invasion.

There are images of some of the chemical weapons and CIA docs have since been released confirming we knew Saddam was using them on Iranian troops. My brother went door to door in Fallujah. They found caches of leaking chemical or biological agents. Whoever denies there were WMD's is kidding themselves.

Nukes maybe a different story, and that is what everyone wanted to see.

[fathertime]

It's not about keeping the oil.  It is about making it available for selling abroad by American companies.  Richard Perle, on of the architects of the Iraqi invasion, is on record in an interview stating that "we" will all make spectacular profits from this.  Sy Hersh wrote about this, if you care to examine further.  Donald Rumsfeld, another PNAC neocon, was calling for the invasion of Iraq on September 12, 2001.

BINGO!   It came down to oil money, so Americans can get more of it, so they can have our 'agents' like Manafort bribe more politicians, so we can get more even more money...to bribe more politicians to get even more money...etc etc etc....  We Americans are very good at this game, and pretending we are the good guys just trying to help!

Fathertime!   

[Boethius]

There are images of some of the chemical weapons and CIA docs have since been released confirming we knew Saddam was using them on Iranian troops. My brother went door to door in Fallujah. They found caches of leaking chemical or biological agents. Whoever denies there were WMD's is kidding themselves.

Nukes maybe a different story, and that is what everyone wanted to see.

The war with Iran ended in mid 1988. 

Those so called "WMD" were not a threat to the US.

In any event, the original point remains.  The invasion of Crimea, and more importantly, its support by the Russian populace, demonstrates that international norms of behaviour are not important to the oligarchs and FSB that runs the country, nor, apparently, the average Russian.

[alex330]

The war with Iran ended in mid 1988. 

Those so called "WMD" were not a threat to the US.

Most were expired. To the Kurds some were a danger. We went in for oil like you and FT mention, and to reign in our escaped dog.

[Boethius]

Yes, but the rationale for invasion was a "mushroom cloud over New York".  That was never going to happen, and the powers that be knew that.  That rationale was put forward for public support.  No one in the Bush administration believed it, I don't think, other than, possibly, GWB.

[BillyB]

My brother went door to door in Fallujah. They found caches of leaking chemical or biological agents. Whoever denies there were WMD's is kidding themselves.

My Iraqi friend now living in the States said Iraqi troops would go to various homes in his city to hide crates and told the homeowners if they open it or say anything to anybody, they would be killed. But hey, liberals continue to believe Saddam didn't know he had those WMDs there and Bush was lying so he could get all the oil and be super rich.


Over the years I've heard theories of our Presidents doing things so they can create a New World Order, Be the Ruler of the World and be super rich since they belong to super secret elite societies like Skull and Bones. Reagan died and he didn't rule the world. H.W Bush isn't nowhere near running a New World Order. Bush W is out of the spotlight. Why can't people believe Bush W went into Iraq because Saddam did not comply with UN Resolutions and gave everybody the impression he has an active WMD program? It makes too much sense since it's not a conspiracy theory?

[JayH]

America went into Iraq to free Kuwait, not to steal oil. America left leaving Saddam to remain in power. Saddam repeatedly violated UN Resolutions and every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was pursing WMD's. America didn't get a drop of Iraqi oil and the war cost us money so the getting rich scheme is just a theory.

Another typical BB distortion of facts.  It is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Billy-- you attempt to do it often -it just shows that you are not that smart -- and need to resort to a lie or a half truth to help your "case"--pathetic.

The US did get revenue from Iraqi oil-- Iraq were charged for the war by the US who diverted oil revenue.

Additionally -- many of the large oil  producers were beneficiaries -America was in a direct line to benefit-one way or another.

"In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq."

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.



These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

[BillyB]

The US did get revenue from Iraqi oil-- Iraq were charged for the war by the US who diverted oil revenue.

Liberals say the war costed America big money and now you say we made big money. Next time use a news source that is based in facts, not opinion. Even CNN had to put that article in the their opinion section.


Iraq is not a puppet state of America or Europe. Iraq is in control of their oil and their profits. They tell companies all over the world to bid for the right to extract oil on their land. You will see on the list below, most companies who won the right are not Western and many are America's adversaries and economic competitors. If America was truly in control of that oil, we'd take it all.


http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-international-oil-companies-in-iraq/

[Gator]

Yes, but the rationale for invasion was a "mushroom cloud over New York".  That was never going to happen, and the powers that be knew that.  That rationale was put forward for public support.  No one in the Bush administration believed it, I don't think, other than, possibly, GWB.

The debate included nuclear weapons, especially after the news of aluminum tubes and the British seizure of nuclear triggers intended for Iraq in the early 1990s.  However, much more concern was voiced about chemical weapons to include such scenarios as Saddam selling them to Al Qaeda.    More than GWB bought into the WMD theory (remember Colin Powell presenting chemical weapons evidence to the UN?).   And what was the reason the UK joined the US in the invasion?  Excuse me, I forgot that BP coopted the government to invade for oil.

[Boethius]

The UK held an inquiry, the Chilcot Inquiry, that contradicts your assertions.

[BillyB]

It came down to oil money, so Americans can get more of it

Chart in the link below shows after the first Gulf War, for a few years America didn't buy Iraqi oil. We bought some when Saddam was allowed to sell Oil for food exchange which later turned out to be a scandal at the UN. After the second war, America bought less oil from Iraq, not more. America didn't benefit. The war cost us money and Americans didn't see a discount at the pump.


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M


In the link below Trump says America should have taken Iraqi oil so it would've never got into ISIS hands. Left leaning Politifact didn't correct Trump saying we've already taken it because America never took oil. Politifact says taking Iraqi oil after the war would've been illegal according to international law and Politifact claims Trump would be wrong in taking it. Unless conspiracy theorists can come up with proof, I don't buy America claiming Iraq's oil for our own. If America wanted easy to get oil, we'd plant our flag on Canada and Mexico.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/09/should-US-have-kept-Iraq-oil/

[Gator]

The UK held an inquiry, the Chilcot Inquiry, that contradicts your assertions.

FACT:  I asserted nothing other than we did not invade Iraq for oil. 

FACT:  I agree with the core findings of the Chilcot inquiry. 

You and others are blindly saying that we invaded for the oil.  You said that the admin  alarmed the US public about nukes when in fact admin stressed chemical and biological weapons.   I disagreed.   Show me where the Chilcot inquiry said it was about oil. 
 

As typical in these RWD political discussions, people are not seeing the big picture.  So to help you,



BIG PICTURE ABOUT IRAQ INVASION
 

Opening up Iraqi oil to Western companies maybe would be a benefit, but not a goal driving the decision to invade.  The decision to invade was made to accomplish four primary goals:

     1. Conclude something Papa Bush failed to complete, i. e. topple Saddam. . 

    2.  Provide a  permanent base for American troops for future Middle East conflicts in future decades

    3.  Create a democratic government as a model for others in the Middle East to follow.

    4.  Eliminate the possibility that WMD exist.   

Public opinion would not have accepted the first three goals as justifiable reasons to invade Iraq.  Instead, the WMD-terrorist  risk had to be oversold.   And consequently, the Bush administration made a decision to invade.  The decision was disastrous because of faulty intelligence and the wrong decisions made after the invasion about transitioning to a new government. 


The consequences of the Iraqi war IMO  are worse than anything Obama did in his 8 years. 

And we can blame only ourselves and not the Russians!      And we can not blame it for oil. 

[Boethius]

You claimed the argument re WMD was at the time credible. The inquiry concluded that was a lie, though used more diplomatic language.

[Gator]

You claimed the argument re WMD was at the time credible.

This was not a black or white issue.  It was  a question of "certainty" vs. "risk," specifically "perceived risk," and the "consequences" if wrong. 
 

In other words, the issue was not the absolute truth whether Iraq possessed WMD but the possibility that they had some WMD or had the capability to manufacture WMD, and could sell them to terrorists.  If true, the consequences were so huge that the risk, however small,  needed to be eliminated.   

As far as credible argument,  the evidence as presented hoodwinked someone as respectable and knowledgeable as  Colin Powell, and convinced most of the American public of the threat of a possible WMD-terrorist connection.   

The inquiry concluded that was a lie, though used more diplomatic language.

Sure, years after the invasion.  Where were the inquisitors when discussing the decision about how to address the risk? 

You do realize that Saddam's public posture contributed to the perceived risk.  His intelligence staff were evidently smarter than ours, saying the US will never invade because it create a huge disaster that will cost the US $trillions. 

[msmob]

I believe Billy is making the point that the generally accepted opinion  prior to the invasion is Iraq had WMD and was hiding them.  Iraq did a good job of hiding them because we never found any. IMO some chemical stockpiles were transacted to Syria and we saw the results..

Really??!! - another 'expert' on the middle east .. ?))

Was Saddam's regime friendly with Syria and Iran ?

"Shortly after coming to power Saddam claimed to have been informed of a plot against him, supported by the Syrians, and suspended, then later abandoned the plan for unification. In November 1979 both countries officially suspended relations with one another and withdrew their diplomatic missions. Prior to his forced retirement Bakr had expressed to Assad a desire to speed up the process of union, as he feared elements within the Iraqi Ba'ath Party were trying to kill the union plan. However the Iran–Iraq War and Assad's growing closeness with Iran effectively ended any hopes of rapprochement, and in January 1982 the borders between the two countries were closed and sealed and all trade and movement of citizens was stopped[8][9]

Later, Syria joined the coalition that liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in the 1991 Gulf War. Up until the renewal of diplomatic ties in 2006, Iraqi leaders often accused Syria of trying to destabilize their country by allowing Sunni Arab foreign fighters to cross the border Iraq shares with Syria."

Wiki warning - source.... but it is bang on based on my personal experience of the region

[BillyB]

Was Saddam's regime friendly with Syria and Iran ?

based on my personal experience of the region

You seem to know every little detail of what happened in Syria or Iran.

Saddam doesn't have to be friendly with Syria and Iran. A high ranking Iraqi general said they took WMD's to hide in Syria right before Bush W invaded. 56 747's and 27 truck convoys were included. Just because you didn't personally witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Now we got all kinds of Iraqi chemical weapons floating around in the Syrian War. Go figure.

Saddam also flew part of his Air Force to Iran to escape destruction by American planes. I don't need to Google that because I remember the news of it happening when it happened but you may think it didn't happen because you know the region and didn't witness it.

[Gator]

You seem to know every little detail of what happened in Syria or Iran.

Saddam doesn't have to be friendly with Syria and Iran. A high ranking Iraqi general said they took WMD's to hide in Syria right before Bush W invaded. 56 747's and 27 truck convoys were included. Just because you didn't personally witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Now we got all kinds of Iraqi chemical weapons floating around in the Syrian War. Go figure.

Saddam also flew part of his Air Force to Iran to escape destruction by American planes. I don't need to Google that because I remember the news of it happening when it happened but you may think it didn't happen because you know the region and didn't witness it.

Ditto. 

I also recall Iraq flying its aircraft to Iran.  It seemed implausible given the long hostilities between the two countries, yet evidently was preapproved between the two enemy states or otherwise the Iranian air force would have attacked the Iraqi airplanes.

 

[Gator]

Was Saddam's regime friendly with Syria and Iran ?

No, but you should know enough about the Middle East to realize it is possible to make deals with anyone.