Will the U.S. Profit from the Iraq War ?

We’ve gotten ourselves into this pointless war. The whole thing was, from my perspective, nonsensical. I think my problem is the fact that I am considering it from an ethical standpoint. Why would the President bother lying about his motives if his intent was to “liberate” the Iraqi people? The WMD facade wasn’t necessary. Isn’t ridding the world of a person like Saddam morally justifiable? He could have easily convinced the public to support the war based on that alone. So…

My Fellow Americans… how will we benefit? I think that’s what it comes down to…

Isn’t ridding the world of a person like Saddam morally justifiable? He could have easily convinced the public to support
the war based on that alone.

chokes on drink as it comes out her nose

Suuuuuure he coulda.

I think he’s pretty much universally recognized as a Bad Guy in this country. The public impression of Saddam Hussein would have done his work for him.

No. He had to pretend that we were in imminent danger of attack because that was the only excuse that he could use (even under the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” defense) that could excuse an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

If it was legitimate to invade nations simply to remove oppressive dictators, we should have been invading Guatemala, Indonesia, the Philipines, El Salvador, and a host of other countries to remove their American-imposed or -supported oppressive regimes, years ago.

(And we are not going to benefit from the war. The existing Iraqi debt is so huge that it will be a decade or much more before they could hope to create a positive exchange of money with this country. A couple of U.S. firms might make out OK (at U.S. taxpayer expense), but there will be no general wealth brought into the U.S. because of this war.

Well the point was not for the US to profit from it… but Cheney, Halliburton and some oil guys. When did you get the impression it was about helping the country itself ? If your not donating to or supporting Bush your out of the game.

I doubt even simpleton americans would support a war on Sadam just because he is a "bad guy".... jeez... there is no lack of bad guys... many of which are considered US friendly.

Actually, I doubt that Bush and company went into this war for profit (not that they’ll turn down any that happens to come their way). I suspect that they truly belived the nonsense that Wolfowitz wrote up in his term paper, years ago, that we could change the world for the better by lumbering into the Middle East without a clue what we were doing and showing all those poor misguided people how wonderful life would be like following the “American Way.”

Who invades other countries because you think the leader is a nasty piece of work ? The US supports as many dictators and oppressors as it opposes, hell it puts ‘em in place. Ethics doesn’t play too big a role in foreign policy. And it also has to diversify away from Saudi, at least according to the Cheney Report.

Actually, I don’t think it’s that difficult to grasp the basics. Just digest the outline of the Cheney Report – that, in conjunction with the post-9/11 reality, pretty well provides the framework for all this ‘regional re-alignment’ that Bush has been undertaking.
Short answer is, of course, the need to protect the supply of oil, that way you maintain the capitalist economies and a consistent price for the oil. You also have on going access to the life blood of this empire – without sufficient oil the US is as helpless as the next country, with oil, it’s the most powerful country in the world.

It’s also important to protect the stability of oil supplies across the world because capitalism truly is worldwide and it is a global economy – in other words, the US, despite its isolationist policies, can’t be isolationist when it comes to economics.

The contribution of 9/11 to all this was the jolt of realisation that the US could not rely on Saudi Arabia (because of growing fundamentalist Islamism) to provide the necessary oil and to do so was taking too great a risk (in combination with the knowledge that the US presence in Saudi was the most significant fact or – amongst several – for the 9/11 attack). The US had to swap horses in mid stream and quickly.

Conclusion: There is no US empire/domination without oil, oil is what makes this first empire of the capitalist era an economic success (and able to pay its burgeoning $300 bilion a year debt). It’s either control the Middle East oil or the empire declines very quickly. And Cheney (and Co) aren’t going to let that happen at any price.

Last sentence, first para is way out of place. Should be around the last sentence of the fifth para. Sorry!

Well, that’s the point exactly. I assume the justifications for this war were meaningless from the get go. If the war is illegal then, obviously, one would assume that there’s no reason to play by the rules. The fact that he could have employed some tact in the run up to the war is beside the point. It doesn’t really matter as far as the question of how the U.S. will benefit from the war is concerned.

yeah, that pretty much what I was wondering, London_Calling

If that is the case, it seems Bush and company deserve some credit for our continued national success. Boycott at the pumps anyone? hahaha…

Yeah…oil is important. Maybe someday the world will run on hemp and hippie-juice but not yet.
The benefit will come when the Iraqi people, free from the shackles of tyrany and religeous fanatacism embrace democracy and capitalism and become a role model to all the other backward countries in the region. Who knows? Maybe in a few years they’ll be ready to join us here in the 21st century?

"I suspect that they truly believe … that we could change the world for the better … without a clue what we were doing and showing all those poor misguided people how wonderful life would be like following the ‘American Way.’ "

With a few editorial snips from tomndebb’s post, which other presidents went down this path in our history?

That is a hypothetical that Wolfowitz predicted would occur simply because we wandered into the neighborhood. Instead, a serious lack of planning (and zero foresight) has put us in the position of increasing the amount of terrorism in the region (much of it directed against the U.S.). Under Hussein, only Ba’ath supported terrorists were allowed to operate (aside from the Kurdish North where U.S. interference allowed some al Qaida operatives to have a base). With the post-war open borders that now exist, Iraq is a magnet for every anti-American and anti-Western hothead in the Middle East to come try out their combat tactics.

The U.S. has committed too few troops to successfully keep the country safe until a new government could be established (and provided the troops with too little training in peacekeeping, since “of course” the Iraqis were going to be delighted to see us) so the troops that are there continue to make mistakes that alienate the Iraqis. Simultaneously, the U.S. has insisted that we want help from the U.N. (after claiming we could go it alone) while insisting that only the U.S. will have any say in how the power is organized or administered. (Why should other nations put their men in harm’s way or their money into the Iraq cesspool if they are simply going to be donating resources to the same people who made the first mistake?) The result is that Iraq, like Afghanistan before it, is more likely to degenerate into a lawless land of rival warlords or cells of rebellion which the U.S. will be compelled to occupy (all the while procliming that there is no occupation) for many years to come.

A bit of patience and a genuine effort to seek a multinational approach through the U.N. might have reduced every one of those problems. I supported that invasion of Afghanistan, but warned that we needed to actually help rebuild that country. Instead, we appear to be recreating the exact chaotic situation that helped the Taliban come to power in the early 1990s. Now, with the same lack of attention to detail, we have broadened the chaos to include Iraq–and Bush is already eyeing the destruction of Iran, which is dominated by theocratic thugs, but which has been making steady, if slow, progress toward a democratic nation without our interference for over 15 years.

I hope that we do pull this off, but I am not reassured by the administration’s insistence that they will set all the rules while insisting that other people simply hand over their money and troops to be squandered by the U.S. (And the continued lies about WMD do not make me feel any better. I was listening to Kay’s remarks before Congress the other day and was horrified to see him repeating the same false linkage of Iraq to the WTC/Pentagon attacks over which the administration has been repeatedly forced to backpedal. If we sent one more fool ideologue in to supervise the search for WMD, we probably will never find out what really happened and no one outside the Republican National Committee will ever believe any evidence we turn up.)

What kind of bullshit is this? There wasn’t excactly a lot of religous fanatism going on there under Husseins rule. And just to refresh your memory. Irak was sailing smoothly into the 21st century before the 1991 war. Perhaps the most modern muslim country in the world.

This invasion is illegal, evil, disgusting. American soldiers have an obligation to revolt against this invasion.

I urge all US soldiers to leave Irak and retake Washington from the evil men who stole the government.

Was that before or after they sailed smoothly into Kuwait?

:rolleyes:

Iraq was doing well compared to other Arab countries prior to Saddam’s rise. By 1991 they were already in serious trouble, which is what prompted the invasion of Kuwait in the first place.

Iraq’s decline can be directly attributed to their expulsion of the Jews. They aren’t the first country to shoot themselves in the foot by expelling their most skilled citizens.

When did this occur and how many people were affected? (And do you have a citation for this event? I find it interesting that this site makes no mention of any such expulsion in the time period to which you have alluded.)

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iraqijews.html

150,000 Jews in Iraq in 1948. 100 today.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/ezra.html

I guess that you can call this an expulsion if you like. It sounds more like mere permission.