Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-04-2017, 06:20 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,895
Iraq before and after US intervention

I was thinking about Iraq today, the Iraq of the 1990s and the Iraq of today. Back then Iraq was ruled by the ruthless Saddam Hussein and his sons and relations, mostly from Tikrit. The minority Sunnis held sway over the Shi'ite majority and imprisoned, tortured and killed their leaders, and used poison gas on their communities. Saddam in effect ran a private fiefdom which included the whole of Iraq. This was a country most of whose inhabitants lived in constant fear and terror.

Now look at present-day Iraq. It is far from perfect and has had a terrible problem dealing with its Sunni citizens. But the country is now ruled by the majority of its people. Its army, helped and trained by the Americans, is starting to win its battles against ISIS and reclaim the territory it lost both to ISIS and the Kurds. The country now enjoys, as is natural, excellent relations with its neighbour Iran. And to any Iraqi who remembers the long nightmare of the conflict between the two countries this has to be seen as a huge step forward.

The economy is slowly growing and while unemployment is still a problem the figures are nowhere near as grim as they were (40-60% in 2003 as compared to 16% in 2016).

In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them. Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
  #2  
Old 11-04-2017, 06:25 PM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them. Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
The million dead civilians, in a country that now has a population of 37 million, might have something to do with it.

A common objection is also the fact that the intervention was done pre-emptively and explicitly lacked U.N. support, setting our foreign policy back to that which was accepted in 1216 before the Magna Carta.
  #3  
Old 11-04-2017, 07:10 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by AI Proofreader View Post
A common objection is also the fact that the intervention was done pre-emptively and explicitly lacked U.N. support, setting our foreign policy back to that which was accepted in 1216 before the Magna Carta.
You're thinking of the Peace of Westphalia. A few centuries later but still a few centuries in the past for us.

No way I'm going to rehash the Iraq war, but I'll just note that the OP's claim that "In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them" is laughable on the face of it since the Kurds just declared independence. And the only reason da-Esh was able to establish a stronghold in Iraq is because the Sunni Arabs do not think the government represents them.

Last edited by John Mace; 11-04-2017 at 07:14 PM.
  #4  
Old 11-04-2017, 07:22 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,338
The US invasion of Iraq was like curing a cancer through massive doses of chemotherapy. Sure, it killed the cancer - and 14 years later, the patient is now in better condition than before - but the intermediate cost was horrific, with the chemotherapy destroying all kinds of good cells and hair and whatnot.

The cancer could have been cured through other, easier and perhaps much less damaging ways.
  #5  
Old 11-04-2017, 07:24 PM
Kimera757 Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 276
Iraq's current government is very friendly with Iran. The US knocked off a bad guy and put in a vacuum replaced by bad guys from Iran and (until recently) ISIS. As a democracy it is incredibly weak. I rate this a minor improvement.

Ethnic cleansing levels have dropped, possibly because no Shia have Sunni neighbors and no Sunni have Shia neighbors in Baghdad. This is Zap Brannigan/Killbot problem-solving.

I was thinking of a different source (one that focused on the capital), but here's one I found from 2015: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6787731.html

Quote:
Sectarian and ethnic cleansing by all sides in Syria and Iraq is becoming more intense, ensuring that there are few mixed areas left in the two countries and, even if the war ends, many refugees will find it too dangerous to return to their homes.
The minor improvements resulted in the deaths of many people, in part because a horrible dictatorial vaguely communist strongman, who did in fact murder thousands of opponents, was also (shockingly) preventing the murder of even more people by at least two factions of religious terrorists.

If you arrest or otherwise remove a high-ranking criminal, you often see a large number of murders shortly afterward, as the crook's followers duke it out with rivals both in and out of their organization in an attempt to fill the vacuum. However some people might not care too much about these deaths; for the most part it's criminals killing criminals for the rights to sell drugs in a certain patch, use certain smuggling routes, etc. When there's outrage, it's often because an innocent person was killed in a drive-by targeting a rival crook. While tragic, the innocent person wasn't being deliberately targeted, and the number of such deaths are usually low. The police and prosecutors don't see such deaths as the inevitable result of arresting the mob boss.

It turns out that if you arrest or otherwise remove a dictator, the rivals fight over ruling the people, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. It's a lot easier to kill innocent civilians, even accidentally, if you're using tanks, artillery and rocket launchers than the hand guns and machine guns that might turn up in a mob war. It turns out if you blow up a lot of infrastructure, it can result in the deaths of innocent civilians. It turns out if you drop a lot of bombs on a country, it can result in the deaths of innocent civilians. It turns out if you wreck a government, you cripple the police force, which means more crime, and can result in the deaths of innocent civilians. (DeBaathification...) It turns out if the ruling faction is seen as being backed by outsiders, they get attacked by other factions, which won't necessarily target party members or soldiers, but things like ... post offices, which can result in the deaths of innocent civilians. (When Tito took over Yugoslavia, he would attack government facilities such as post offices, then set up his own. Now the locals had no choice but to pay Tito's goons to deliver and receive mail.) It turns out if you knock off one faction leader, they could be replaced by another faction leader, who might even be worse, or at least be horrible toward a different group of victims... which can result in the deaths of innocent civilians.
  #6  
Old 11-04-2017, 08:46 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,276
40% unemployment in 2003 was pre invasion?
  #7  
Old 11-04-2017, 09:11 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
40% unemployment in 2003 was pre invasion?
No, those figures were intended to show the general rise of the economy since the chaos of the war. Actually under Saddam unemployment was generally low as dictators always find uses for idle hands, just as the Nazis put Germany to work again.
  #8  
Old 11-04-2017, 09:50 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,276
If your point is to show that the invasion was a success, comparing stats now to stats that were caused by the war is extremely disingenuous.
  #9  
Old 11-04-2017, 10:21 PM
Fubaya Fubaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,818
The fact that this is not asked in Arabic reminds me of those republican panels on women's issues that's full of old white guys. It's easy to see a few things that are better and pat ourselves on the back from 7,000 miles away, but what would the Iraqis say?

"Hello, sir. Your GDP is now up to 2000 levels and you no longer have a dictator, was it worth losing half your family and friends, living through years of war and surviving the horror of ISIS?"

Many don't think so.

If Iraq goes through a 100 year renaissance where they become the most enlightened nation and the leader of the free world, then we'll debate it. But so far it looks like all we did was kill a million people and make things absolutely horrific for 15 years or so. We shouldn't be able to hide that shame behind a couple statistics that are slightly better.
  #10  
Old 11-04-2017, 10:46 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 16,508
How much did it cost (in $ and lives - with the meter still running) to achieve those arguable gains?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #11  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:11 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 12,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
Well, as others have pointed out, your blandly rosy picture of Iraq in 2017 is lacking some significant details. I'll let them hash that out with you. Suffice it to say that there are relatively few in the country who would say things are markedly better, and they are almost certainly the Shi'ites who are now top dog and imposing their own will (with the help of Iran) on the Kurdish and Arab Sunni minorities.

I will focus instead upon a different point: a people can only be free when they truly wish to be free. Imposing "freedom" upon a people will only produce extended chaos if the people of that nation are not yet ready to embrace the trappings of being "free". We see numerous examples of this all over the world, from former colonies in Africa (most of which are now brutal dictatorships) to "freed" former soviet republics, etc. That means that waging war to remove a dictator, on the theory that doing so will liberate the people and allow them to experience freedom, is rarely a successful endeavor.

And, indeed, that's been the case in Iraq. As we prepared for war, many in the Administration asserted that the Iraqi people would, upon being liberated, immediately embrace Western-style democracy and liberty. There were those, like me, who argued that was unlikely, since the traditions to support such democratic behavior were not in place. Now, you have a bit of chaos that purports to be democratic, but in reality is anything but (see: Kurdish self-rule issues). Indeed, it's doing so poorly at running itself that the so-called Islamic State was in many places hailed as a force of good, when it first arrived.

And, if we are going to go to war to "liberate" people who are suffering under repressive regimes, when do we take on Robert Mugabe? How about the Ayatollahs of Iran? The leader of North Korea? The regimes of various central African states, which engage in ethnic cleansing?

It's a damned slippery slope if you start doing that. And it will probably avail you very little.
  #12  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:29 PM
madsircool madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AI Proofreader View Post
The million dead civilians, in a country that now has a population of 37 million, might have something to do with it.

A common objection is also the fact that the intervention was done pre-emptively and explicitly lacked U.N. support, setting our foreign policy back to that which was accepted in 1216 before the Magna Carta.
The million dead figure is not supported by the evidence.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/c...ivilians/iraqi
  #13  
Old 11-05-2017, 01:46 AM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
The million dead figure is not supported by the evidence.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/c...ivilians/iraqi
Um, your own link admits it is full of shit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Link
Because not all war-related deaths have been recorded accurately by the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition, the 165,000 figure for civilians killed from 2003 to 2015 is lower than the actual figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Link
At least twice as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.
Not to mention it's from 2015 and an extremely random source.

Actual estimates I've seen range from the Lancet's 650,000 to numbers as high as 1.3 million. The actual number, though hard to calculate exactly because of poor record-keeping and refugees fleeing the country, is probably around 1 million. It's almost certainly that much if you include deaths in Iraq from ISIS/the resulting civil war, which were a direct consequence of the war. I'm not especially interested in re-hashing this, but this article does a relatively good job explaining why the numbers are consistently under-reported by the media:

https://www.alternet.org/story/15170...hy_we_let_them
  #14  
Old 11-05-2017, 03:22 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
An intervention? Like Operation Barbarossa was actually a field trip.

Well, the illegal invasion of Iraq on entirely bogus pretexts (paging Colin Powell) was a success, militarily speaking.

The first catastrophic failure was the occupation, the attempts to install client leaderships, bring a MaccD to every street corner, etc.

The second catastrophic failure was to leave huge power vacuums, subsequent filled by al-Queda, ISIS and affiliates, armed with $billions of abandoned US hardware.

The third catastrophic failure has yet to take full form but will likely involve hundreds, and possibly now thousands, of well-trained (by ISIS) fighters returning to their countries of origin.

I should add the on going crisis of upwards of 3 million refugees - some likely floating lifeless in the Med as we speak - continues.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe

Last edited by up_the_junction; 11-05-2017 at 03:25 AM.
  #15  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:49 PM
Nema98 Nema98 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: City of Angels and Devil,
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You're thinking of the Peace of Westphalia. A few centuries later but still a few centuries in the past for us.

No way I'm going to rehash the Iraq war, but I'll just note that the OP's claim that "In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them" is laughable on the face of it since the Kurds just declared independence. And the only reason da-Esh was able to establish a stronghold in Iraq is because the Sunni Arabs do not think the government represents them.
The Kurds did declare independence, and the fact that such a referendum was held illustrates that Iraq is more democratic than under Saddam Hussein. Also the Kurds' gamble backfired, similar to what happened with the Catalans IN Spain.

The reason ISIS was able to gain a foothold in Iraq is because of some disaffected elements, but also because the military up and fled. There were several factors at stake. But for the most part, no one preferred ISIS to the Iraqi government, regardless if they were against it.

Now the Iraq war was initiated under false, or faulty pretenses. It destroyed the country and left at least a million dead. America's foreign policy and credibility was set back.
  #16  
Old 11-12-2017, 11:35 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,636
Let's also talk about the status of women.

From here

Quote:
Abuse of women since the invasion

Many people feel it is due to the ongoing terror wrought in this land that brings so much oppression to women. Prior to the arrival of forces in Iraq in 1991, Iraqi women were free to wear whatever they liked and go wherever the chose.[87]:105–107 The Iraqi constitution of 1970 gave women equality and liberty in the Muslim world, but since the invasion, women’s rights have fallen to the lowest in Iraqi history.[87]:105–107

Since the invasion in 2003 "Iraqi women have been brutally attacked, kidnapped and intimidated from participating in the Iraqi society".[88] Yanar Mohammed, an Iraqi feminist, "asserts unequivocally that war and occupation have cost Iraqi women their legal standing and their everyday freedom of dress and movement".[89] She continues by arguing that "The first losers in all these were women".[89]

Arising from their fear of being raped and harassed, women have to wear not only the veil, but must also to wear the black dress in order not to attract attention. In an online edition of Guardian, the reporter Mark Lattiner reports that despite promises and hopes given to the Iraqi population that their lives were going to change, Iraqi women's lives "have become immeasurably worse, with rapes, burnings and murders [now] as a daily occurrence."[90]
Pre-invasion Iraq was a reasonably secular society. Saddam's second in command was a Christian. That kind of thing is unlikely to happen today.


The main thing is that there are many nasty dictatorships around the world. We really don't need to go in and destroy the country in order to save it, especially on the basis of lies. And especially when the cost was IIRC, somewhere over a trillion dollars.
  #17  
Old 11-13-2017, 04:27 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
... The economy is slowly growing and while unemployment is still a problem the figures are nowhere near as grim as they were (40-60% in 2003 as compared to 16% in 2016).
Let me get this straight. To show how bad Saddam-era Iraq was, you quote a figure from post-invasion Iraq! IOW, your claim is not that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam, but better off now than under Rumsfeld.

2002, not 2003, is the date you want for Saddam's Iraq (and even then, economic problems were caused by sanctions, not Saddam.)
According to FRED, youth unemployment was lower in 2002 than in 2016. (I didn't pick "youth" to cherry-pick — it's just what Google turned up.)

(Of course, employment rate may not be a good proxy for well-being in an economy where production depends on oil wealth, not human labor.)
  #18  
Old 11-13-2017, 04:53 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If your point is to show that the invasion was a success, comparing stats now to stats that were caused by the war is extremely disingenuous.
No kidding. It's using the fact that the country has started to recover from the US's attempt to commandeer it's resources to justify the US's attempt to commandeer its resources.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #19  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:51 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,123
The US didn't attempt to commandeer any of Iraq's resources.

Regards,
Shodan
  #20  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:37 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Oh? Which lie do you believe? The one about the weapons, the one about freeing the Iraqi people, or the one about fighting them over there so you didn't have to do so over here, a.k.a. "Operation Human Shield"?
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #21  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:57 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
No, those figures were intended to show the general rise of the economy since the chaos of the war. Actually under Saddam unemployment was generally low as dictators always find uses for idle hands, just as the Nazis put Germany to work again.
The thing is that your title says "Iraq before and after the invasion" when you meant "Iraq now and right after the invasion"

It might be decades before we see the positive effects of democracy in Iraq, if ever.
  #22  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:57 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The US didn't attempt to commandeer any of Iraq's resources.
Hardly in a position to, was it.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #23  
Old 11-13-2017, 09:05 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The US didn't attempt to commandeer any of Iraq's resources.
Despite the rhetoric that that was what was going to pay for the war.

The US didn't even attempt to capture the alleged WMD sites that were the primary pretext for the whole thing, but went right for the Oil Ministry. You 'member that, right?
  #24  
Old 11-13-2017, 09:48 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,942
So if the US were intent on seizing Iraq's oil, why didn't it happen? One of the reasons why the Kurdish referendum is such a serious matter is that oil from the North are a major part of the Iraqi government's revenues. One would suspect that if the US wanted Iraq's oil, the Iraqi government would not be funded by oil sales. Because the US government would be drinking Iraq's milkshake.
  #25  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:01 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,887
Their milkshake brings Exxon to the yard...
  #26  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:24 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
Hardly in a position to, was it.
Um...huh? We were totally in a position too. We could have easily looted the entire country, especially the oil, had that been the goal. Why do you think we weren't in the position to do so, and what position do you suppose a conquering nation would need to be in to do so?

As to the OP:

Quote:
In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them. Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
It's seen as a failure because it's seen as unnecessary. Most think (rightfully) that Saddam was contained, that there were no WMD and due to the sanctions no real way for Saddam et al the ramp that backs up to make new ones. My own guess is that when Arab Spring kicked off that would have been the end for Saddam and his merry men. Basically, Iraq would be Syria and Syria would probably be more stable today as it was the invasion that partially destabilized Syria and weakened it to the point where rebellion happened. Mostly it's seen as a failure because despite the military success it was very much a political failure of epic proportions. Today, Iraq is increasingly moving into Iran's sphere of influence, despite massive spending on the US's part to try and stabilize the country after we tore it apart. To summarize, the US really didn't have a plan for what to do after Saddam was deposed, didn't use enough forces to both do the job of defeating the Iraqi military AND holding the country long enough for stability to be asserted and then compounded the problems by not having enough experts on Iraq to even wing it effectively. The focus was on the military and almost nothing on the political, but the actual military aspects of the campaign were only a few weeks, which ignored the years of bloodshed to come.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #27  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:50 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,782
All that oil was already under contract to, "owned" by, Big Western Petro. Major campaign contributors. Not really good business to seize it, yanno.

There was a historically incredible amount of self-delusion required to rationalize this debacle, especially to be confident that all that was needed for Libertarianopia to flower and triumph, was the removal of the one stabilizing force the country had, dreadful though it was. The US had traditionally worked with, and even propped up, those guys, at least when they could say "I'm a bastion against Communism, now give me money and weapons." But the end of the Cold War left its warriors unable to adjust to any other mode of thinking except to go to the opposite extreme.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 11-13-2017 at 10:51 AM.
  #28  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:04 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,325
Plus any revenues, inc taxation, could be generated went to trying to keep the state functioning, teachers, bureaucrats, hospitals, etc. Plus there was the small issue of a destroyed infrastructure.

Fwiw, I believe it was closer to £2 trillion rather than the $1 trillion as stated above. And half a million shredded civilians.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe

Last edited by up_the_junction; 11-13-2017 at 11:07 AM.
  #29  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:05 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
In short Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator and the majority of its people now have a government which represents them. Tell me, and it's an honest question, why is US intervention in Iraq considered such a failure?
Who said it was a failure? We went in to find and destroy Saddam's WMDs, and now there are no WMDs in Iraq. A complete success!

Also, nobody in Iraq has been eaten by a tiger this year so we were also successful in preventing tiger-related deaths.
  #30  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:27 PM
Inbred Mm domesticus Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The US invasion of Iraq was like curing a cancer through massive doses of chemotherapy. Sure, it killed the cancer - and 14 years later, the patient is now in better condition than before - but the intermediate cost was horrific, with the chemotherapy destroying all kinds of good cells and hair and whatnot.

The cancer could have been cured through other, easier and perhaps much less damaging ways.
What a stupid, arrogant thing to say. Your prognosis is like telling a person whose cancer has recurred they're healed.

Last edited by Inbred Mm domesticus; 11-13-2017 at 12:29 PM. Reason: My mistake I thought I was in the pit
  #31  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:33 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Despite the rhetoric that that was what was going to pay for the war.

The US didn't even attempt to capture the alleged WMD sites that were the primary pretext for the whole thing, but went right for the Oil Ministry. You 'member that, right?
I do. Read it in the L.A. Times.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #32  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:36 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So if the US were intent on seizing Iraq's oil, why didn't it happen? One of the reasons why the Kurdish referendum is such a serious matter is that oil from the North are a major part of the Iraqi government's revenues. One would suspect that if the US wanted Iraq's oil, the Iraqi government would not be funded by oil sales. Because the US government would be drinking Iraq's milkshake.
You don't think the US wanted to set up a government that would do its bidding?
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #33  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:40 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Oh? Which lie do you believe? The one about the weapons, the one about freeing the Iraqi people, or the one about fighting them over there so you didn't have to do so over here, a.k.a. "Operation Human Shield"?
The one I didn't believe is the one where the US commandeered their resources.

Regards,
Shodan
  #34  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:42 PM
Bruce Wayne Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 730
When citing casualties it might be important to consider how many people would have died under Saddam’s regime under sanctions or during the civil war that may have take place had he continued to remain in power.
  #35  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:45 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Um...huh? We were totally in a position too. We could have easily looted the entire country, especially the oil, had that been the goal. Why do you think we weren't in the position to do so, and what position do you suppose a conquering nation would need to be in to do so?
You might recall that the expectation was that the Iraqis, overjoyed at Saddam being deposed would flow flowers at the troops. Instead they threw IEDs. A massive insurgency was not all that conducive to taking the oil. By the time things settled down, it was too late. Plus, IIRC, it took a while for oil production to come back on line.
That the Cheney administration was too incompetent to steal the oil doesn't mean they didn't intend to.
  #36  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:47 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The one I didn't believe is the one where the US commandeered their resources.

Regards,
Shodan
No one said they did, just that this was the plan. They commandeered ours. Remember those missing truckloads of money?

Last edited by Voyager; 11-13-2017 at 12:47 PM.
  #37  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:47 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
You don't think the US wanted to set up a government that would do its bidding?
There were certainly some American policymakers who were convinced that Iraq would be bestowed with an enlightened self interest to do everything that the US wanted them to do after Saddam was deposed; but in the main, I'd have to say that the Bush Administration's Iraq policy was aimed primarily at making Iraq somewhat more friendly to the US.

The way you phrase it, as thought Iraq would become in effect a colony of the US, I believe is inaccurate. And I'm saying this as someone who has always opposed the invasion, and not in a Donald Trump "I was for it before I was always against it" sort of way.
  #38  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:48 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
No one said they did, just that this was the plan. They commandeered ours.
So why didn't this sinister plan work? Doesn't even seem like anyone actually attempted any drinking of Iraq's milkshake, as far as I can tell.
  #39  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:51 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You might recall that the expectation was that the Iraqis, overjoyed at Saddam being deposed would flow flowers at the troops. Instead they threw IEDs. A massive insurgency was not all that conducive to taking the oil. By the time things settled down, it was too late. Plus, IIRC, it took a while for oil production to come back on line.
I assume you have a cite where Cheney says "we are going to steal their oil" (or whatever).

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:52 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
I believe it is accurate.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #41  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:53 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,782
Here's a bunch from other Dubya officials, oddly not including Cheney though.
  #42  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:55 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You might recall that the expectation was that the Iraqis, overjoyed at Saddam being deposed would flow flowers at the troops. Instead they threw IEDs. A massive insurgency was not all that conducive to taking the oil. By the time things settled down, it was too late. Plus, IIRC, it took a while for oil production to come back on line.
That the Cheney administration was too incompetent to steal the oil doesn't mean they didn't intend to.
I do recall that. However, if they really intended to steal the oil they went about it in a pretty stupid way. If you really had that as a goal, then we would have seized the oil fields and sent in the logistics to start getting it out, basically putting all our forces on area security and letting the rest of the country hang, not attempting to put in a new government or rebuild, just looting. None of the moves really seem to indicate an intent to seize the oil, but instead seems to be what you are saying...that the Iraqi's would fall over themselves in their happiness, that we'd rebuild them a la Germany and Japan after the second world war, and that it would install a new, strong ally for the US in the region sort of like Israel, just closer to the oil. And that by doing so it would stabilize the region and give the US more bases to oversee the rest of the region and ensure that the oil kept flowing (mainly for Europe, since the US doesn't actually get that much oil from the ME), making the world safe for the US and the American way! Gods bless America!
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #43  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:56 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The one I didn't believe is the one where the US commandeered their resources.

Regards,
Shodan
I didn't ask what you didn't believe, I asked what you did. I suspect you believed what you were told to believe, in the order in which you told to believe it. You could have corrected me on this matter by answering my question. Ah well, no matter; it's all Iraqi corpses floating under the bridge at this point anyway.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #44  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:12 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Here's a bunch from other Dubya officials, oddly not including Cheney though.
Let's just review this debate, because once again it is getting silly. TheTooth said that the US attempted to "commandeer" Iraq's resources. Shodan and I, in a rare meeting of the minds, argued back that there was no such plan. Then you contribute quotes from Bush Administration officials that generally state that Iraq should be able to pay for its own reconstruction.

As vulgar as those quotes are ("Sure, I'm going to come to your house and smash things up; you're rich and can afford to fix it all without me having to pay anything for my misdeeds!"), there's a substantial difference between "US attempted to steal Iraq's oil" and "Iraq is wealthy because of all its oil so American taxpayers won't be left on the hook for nationbuilding."

The latter assertion, as I said before, is vulgar and also severely delusional. The former assertion about "commandeering" just isn't accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
I didn't ask what you didn't believe, I asked what you did. I suspect you believed what you were told to believe, in the order in which you told to believe it. You could have corrected me on this matter by answering my question. Ah well, no matter; it's all Iraqi corpses floating under the bridge at this point anyway.
This is where we come to the point in the debate where I have to ask, "Just what the fuck is the point you're trying to make?"
  #45  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:49 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
Simple: Shodan's dodging the question, but since the war has come and gone it's not all that important. No one is going to change their mind at this point anyway.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #46  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:49 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
I didn't ask what you didn't believe, I asked what you did. I suspect you believed what you were told to believe, in the order in which you told to believe it. You could have corrected me on this matter by answering my question. Ah well, no matter; it's all Iraqi corpses floating under the bridge at this point anyway.
Not sure if you are moving the goalposts or just forgotten which sport you are playing.
  #47  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:01 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,654
What's the problem? I asked why he thought the US invaded Iraq if not for the oil, he didn't answer. No goalpost moving here. Since no minds have really changed about this in the past 15 years, I'm happy to say "oh well" and leave it at that.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #48  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:03 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
What's the problem? I asked why he thought the US invaded Iraq if not for the oil, he didn't answer. No goalpost moving here. Since no minds have really changed about this in the past 15 years, I'm happy to say "oh well" and leave it at that.
But 'for the oil' is pretty ambiguous. What do you mean by that, exactly? For the US to get the oil? Then you are simply wrong. We didn't and don't get much oil from Iraq. To secure the region 'for the oil', installing a presumably friendly regime to ensure that the global supply of oil wouldn't be disrupted or that the US could influence the region? Then you are correct...that's exactly why we did what we did. Part of the US overarching strategy to have bases and friendly regimes in all the hotspot regions, and the ME is definitely one of them.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 11-13-2017 at 02:04 PM.
  #49  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:07 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Shodan and I, in a rare meeting of the minds, argued back that there was no such plan.
Probably not in reality, no. But there was certainly rhetoric to that effect, most probably IMHO lies told to help sell the invasion to the US public.
  #50  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:11 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Probably not in reality, no. But there was certainly rhetoric to that effect, most probably IMHO lies told to help sell the invasion to the US public.
Wait...are you saying...*gasp*...that Bush LIED?!?! Whoa, that's a pretty bold position to take...

__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017