Professor Higgins, on 21 December 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:
The US, Iran and Israel are allies in Iraq, all allies against the hero of the resistance, Saddam.
Question: If your hero was found in a rat hole after he had so weakened his own capital that it fell almost instantaneously.. what does that say about the
sectarian, racist scumbags that still glorify a CIA operative turned evil dictator
I think you meant that he was the hero of resisting showers while he panzied around like a little biznitch whose pimps in Washginton no longer required his services?
Your Hero of Resistance
Ugly Jinn, on 20 December 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:
So much for not using assumptions and accusations.
It is simple, but those who are biased and have an agenda will choose not to accept it. Let's see what the US wanted to do in Iraq:
- Invade without UN approval = Done
- Use lies of WMD to justify invasion = Done
- Topple Saddam = Done
- Bring Saddam to trial and punish him = Done and Done
- Have a democratic political system = Done
- Have a president who supports the US = Done
- Get brownie points from allys in the region (Kuwait, Saudi, Israel, etc) = Done
- Rape the oil = Done
- Leaving on their own accord = Done
Was it messy? Yes. Were lives lost on both sides? Yes. Was the stay longer than planned? Sure.
The US practically did everything it intended to do on a grand scale. If you don't believe so then present your checklist.
This is a little more thoughtful than a checklist. My point is that the notion that Iraqis were victims throughout the duration of the war by hawkish Americans is simplistic. They gained a lot more than America may have thought they would gain, and they are not turning over when America tells them to turn over.
Oftentimes American interests paralleled or were even dictated by the interests of Iraq. Most of the things on your checklist are things Iraqis wanted to happen.
The bottom line is this: given that the current government doesn't put U.S interests above their own.. was it worth the investment? They aren't a puppet government by any means, and I am sure that would have been the preferred outcome that would have justified the enormous costs.
And when did they "rape the oil." I am not being definitive either way.. and it is certainly amusing imagery, but it is a bit more nuanced than this..
Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
Far from behaving like the war-ravaged, bankrupt country that it is, Iraq heavily weighted the contracts in its own favor, demanding a low per-barrel price and signing bonuses of up to $150 million. Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government's $2-a-barrel fee.
Even simple things like picking foreign contractors over American contracts are also relevant to the equation. This isn't the only time Iraq has done so by any stretch of the imagination..
Edited by Zahratul_Islam, 22 December 2011 - 02:17 PM.