Iraq War: "A legitimate preventive blow."

The German Die Welt.de newspaper ran an article by Roger Koepel that was an interesting read, especially when taking onto account the overwhelming negative German attitudes and opinions concerning the Iraq War.

Mr. Koepel mentions:

Do Not Judge Iraq War Too Harshly

After Sept. 11, America did what it had to do to prove to its adversaries that it was not 'part of a weak-willed, decayed civilization that tends to yield when threatened.' Counseling patience, this op-ed piece from German newspaper Die Welt suggests that creating a democratic edifice ruled by law in Iraq will not happen 'in the blink of an eye.'

We should not subject ourselves to any illusions. Wars are not won in the blink of an eye. Relationships cannot be stabilized overnight. The artificial country of Iraq, ethnically heterogeneous but split along sectarian lines, was held together for decades by terror and thoroughly Machiavellian clan politics. Now foreign terrorists and agitators are flooding into the country to wear down both the occupation troops and the Iraqi people. The situation is reminiscent of the conclusion about liberated Germany that the editor-in-chief of the respected weekly newspaper “Die Weltwoche” drew about a year after the end of World War II: “One asks oneself, amidst the chaos and destruction, if the medicine isn’t worse than the disease that it cured.” This faulty diagnosis, made in the midst of the passions of the time, shows how prematurely the use of force and its consequences can be judged.

Nevertheless, the Iraq intervention is, when seen as a whole, a success story. The hope that the use of force could make this desert country a happy one has proven itself, to date, to be a utopian chimera. The basic argument developed by the neo-conservatives, that fundamental values formed along Western lines could be exported and made permanent by the use of force is threatening to shatter against the realities of a country that was influenced by neither a tradition of nor a mentality influenced by the rule of law. In addition, it is obvious that we are not dealing with a people who, like the Japanese after the total destruction of 1945, accomplished an almost spooky transformation of their identity.

It goes on to further mention:

What was the Iraq War? Basically it was a legitimate preventive blow by a world power made massively insecure after 9/11 against a terror-regime that misinterpreted the signs of the times. After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, no American president could have accepted the security risk of a notoriously unpredictable Iraq that was ruled by Saddam Hussein and that sympathized with the USA’s enemies. The U.N.’s sanctions regime was already falling apart. The tyrant was receiving ever more money from the sale of oil. It was clearly in the regime’s interest to invest these monies not in hospitals and kindergartens, but in weapons of mass destruction.

In accordance with all that was known about the Saddam clan, Iraq would have been, sooner or later, in a position to again attack its neighbors. It is only in view of this background that wise men such as former Clinton advisor and Middle East specialist Kenneth Pollack concluded that an invasion of Iraq was above all necessary, because waiting would only increase Saddam’s probability of successfully rearming. The Iraqi strong man made a tragic error when he bet on disagreements amongst the Western powers - and his hallucination of U.S. weakness and decadence. After the world had seen such a dramatic demonstration of America’s vulnerability, Bush could no longer yield. He had to show strength and determination in order to reestablish the superpower’s authority. The risks he faced were considerable. He had to bring the undertaking, the origins of which were completely misunderstood above all by the Europeans, to a successful conclusion.

Do Not Judge Iraq War Too Harshly

Ok, so basically this article indicates a number of things:
1--the current Iraqi situation should not be viewed or categorized as a failure.
2--that Iraq, when taken as a whole, is a success story.
3--that the Iraq War was a "legitimate preventive blow" to a meanace seen and interpreted as threatening.
4--virtually all pre-war Iraq policy had become null-in-void.
5--it was deemed that sooner of later, Saddam would have threatened his neighbors again with aggressive acts.
6--that playing the waiting game would have more than likely increased the likelyhood that Saddam's regime would have acquired numbers of weapons of mass destruction.
7--In the post-9/11 environment, Bush and America had to act to perserve, re-establish, and show strength and determination.
8-- that though Mr. Koepel believes real democracy being established in the Middle East is still an illusion, that the Iraq war was an inevitably justified.

Anyone from Germany know the political leanings of Mr. Koepel and how he viewed the Iraq war up to this article he has wrotten?
Any thoughts or comments?






seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

SEEKEROF:

Can anyone truly know what the end result of an action is? The end result of an anction not taken then is also impossible is it not?

In the end, the reasons for war were false. There is considerable evidense that they knew the evidense for war was false and the powers that be lied to the American people - knowingly. Whatever benefits there may be out of removing Saddam, doesn't change the simple fact that Americans were used and tricked for an alternate reason.

If the American people were told it was for Oil - would they have agreed to do it? Doubtfull, I think most would have rathered a continued effort finding Bin Laidin and those that actually attacked you, but that wouldn't have helped Haliburton and such, so they lied to you and that is the problem.

Whatever side benefits come from the initial lie, are irrelevent as justification for the war, the same way that lying to your boss is still going to get you fired despite whatever side benefit may occur because of the lie.

Nice article,

It seems to me that there are really two camps of thought on this.

One camp finds and sees the reasons for the use of force that is sometimes necessary. We do not live in a world without danger, where we can blindly put faith in the actions of other nations, hoping for the best. I put myself in this camp, just for the record.

The other camp seems to find no reason or rationale for the use of force or military action. I use the amount of people that have posted as being against the war in Iraq have also commented that they were against the 1st Gulf War.

My question to those in the Anti-war camp is this:

When is a military action or response justified or necessary in your opinion?

I am very eager to hear your responses.
My question

Originally posted by Seekerof
The German Die Welt.de newspaper ran an article by Roger Koepel that was an interesting read, especially when taking onto account the overwhelming negative German attitudes and opinions concerning the Iraq War.

Mr. Koepel mentions:
Do Not Judge Iraq War Too Harshly

this op-ed piece from German newspaper Die Welt suggests that creating a democratic edifice ruled by law in Iraq will not happen 'in the blink of an eye.'

We should not subject ourselves to any illusions. Wars are not won in the blink of an eye.

Do Not Judge Iraq War Too Harshly

Ok, so basically this article indicates a number of things:
1--the current Iraqi situation should not be viewed or categorized as a failure.

For morale, no. Are a ,lot of current policies failing there? Yes. Are thingschanging to correct those failures? No.

No one ever said wars are pretty or run according to plan, but strategy and doctrine must accomodate the circumstance.

2--that Iraq, when taken as a whole, is a success story.

That is a strong assumption.

If creating a more unstable environment than there was before, fixing elections and providing a breeding ground for enemy combatants; then yes...this story, as a whole is a success.

3--that the Iraq War was a "legitimate preventive blow" to a meanace seen and interpreted as threatening.

Seen as threatning our dollar in relation to the price of oil maybe. The intelligence was made up to go to war. Sadam was a threat to his people, but not half as threatning as other leaders in countries who are allowing genocide and mass starvation. Why aren't we going into Darfur with guns blaring?

4--virtually all pre-war Iraq policy had become null-in-void.

I don't understand what this means...

5--it was deemed that sooner of later, Saddam would have threatened his neighbors again with aggressive acts.

With what? His machete?

6--that playing the waiting game would have more than likely increased the likelyhood that Saddam's regime would have acquired numbers of weapons of mass destruction.

MAYBE in 20 years, providing there was a hault of diplomacy and sanctions that allowed that kind of development.

7--In the post-9/11 environment, Bush and America had to act to perserve, re-establish, and show strength and determination.

IF 911 had anything to do with Iraq. Which it did not. And AS IF the US has problem's with it's image as a hardlining, war driven country.

8-- that though Mr. Koepel believes real democracy being established in the Middle East is still an illusion, that the Iraq war was an inevitably justified.

I have troubles buying that. Puppet govenments generally serve the people who put them there, not the country they are there to represent.

This admin. needs to start leveling with the American people as to what is going on over there, what the plan is and what some realistic goals are.

Rumsfeld needs to get a streamlined message about our our intent and projected path of what we can define as success.

To the 135,000 men and women serving , this war is not a failure. They WILL NOT fight for nothing.

In all other respects, this war has failed.

I think it is time people stopped debating the invasion of Iraq and turned there focus to the present situation.
Defeating a thrid rate military that is run by a corrupt regime is nothing special.

Now nation building is a differnt story it requires carefull planning and at least one person who understands the politics and the culture of the local people.
Any new leaders need to come from inside the occupied country the local population wont respect a bunch of ex pats who waltz in and take over.

The rebuilding of Iraq needed to go beyond political pettyness with contracts awarded on the basis of cost and the job done.

Bush and his cronies failed on all accounts we can only hope that Iraq can recover from the bungled occupation.

Well, I'm glad to see that this German paper
got it right. Also I would like to point out
the error of those who keep insisting that
our government lied about the reasons for
going into Iraq. It was well documented in
front of millions how that story played out.
I have posted this before, but people seem
to want to keep perpetuating the lie that
our government lied about WMD to go into
Iraq. Well as long as they want to keep trying
to sell the lie, I can keep retelling the
story as it actually happened and so here goes
again. For you that remember this message
from similar posts you can just skip the
following. For you who believe or want to keep
promoting the falsehood that the US lied
about WMD, go ahead and read how it actually
happened.


At the very core of the problem with Iraq was nuclear
weapons and this was covered with much publicity before
the public and witnessed by millions. Yet at no time
did the media choose to point this out as proper justification
for going into Iraq. Think back to when things were
deteriorating with Iraq, the situation was this:
UN inspectors had gone back into Iraq and were apparently
making progress until one issue came up that Saddam
stonewalled on. That issue was the interview of his
nuclear scientists. Saddam refused Hans Blix the interview
of his nuclear scientist. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
weapons inspections. The UN inspections did not fail
because Saddam was uncooperative concerning gas and
chemical weapons. Inspections failed precisely because
Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists by
the UN inspectors. Several trips were made by Colin Powell
and Dick Cheney to get neighbors to convince Saddam that
he had to comply with the interview of his nuclear
scientists and yet Saddam stonewalled. This was all done
while military forces were daily landing in Kuwait, in
order to show the resolve of the US to get this complied
with. Yet Saddam stonewalled. Most of the neighbors
relayed the message to Saddam that he had better comply,
even Mummar Qadafi urged him to comply.

Now any reasonable person could blame Saddam for this
breakdown of UN inspections and the resulting invasion
of Iraq. This point could have noted many times, when
Howard Dean was insisting that Bush was a liar and that
there was no reason to invade Iraq, that it was all Bush
incompetence and lies behind the whole affair.
Nobody however did counter with these facts as
charges day after day and week after week were made by
Dean during his presidential run. In absence of Bush
or anyone else defending the invasion, on the nuclear
grounds, Dean just kept hammering that there were no
weapons of mass destruction, Bush was a liar. Bush should
have reminded everyone of the scenario of how it had
played out, after all it was still pretty fresh in every
one's minds about breakdown of UN inspections over the
nuclear issue. Bush could have pointed out that if
nuclear weapons were not weapons of mass destruction
then what would you call them? But for whatever reason
Bush never countered the lie that Dean was successfully
selling to a good portion of the population along with
the media helping to get that story out. Dean
was making such headway with this ploy, that John Kerry
stole it from him and made it a center piece of his
campaign that Bush lied, there were no weapons of
mass destruction. Bush still did not pull out the
tapes of the news broadcasts showing Saddam stonewalling
on the interview of his nuclear weapons scientists and
still did not remind everyone that this was the exact
point where inspections failed. He never made the point,
that if Saddam truly had no weapons programs in the works,
then why was he stonewalling the inspectors interview
of the nuclear scientists. Nobody tried to make the point
that Saddam was the villain here, not Bush.

As it turned out, Saddam's nuclear program proved to be
real, not a lie of George Bush. Along about October of
2004 I watched an interview on TV of Saddam's top nuclear
scientist. I believe it was on CNN. This scientist estimated
that Iraq would have got to build a bomb within 3 years if
they had not been stopped. He now lives in the US and his
book "The bomb in My Garden" came out about that time and
is available from Amazon.com. This was one of the scientists
that Saddam had refused to be interviewed by the UN inspectors.
So Saddam knew exactly what he was doing when he stonewalled
the inspectors. This scientist also gave some details of
what all was buried in his yard awaiting the UN sanctions
to be lifted and inspectors leaving so that they could
get back to work on it. The book detailed Saddams program
that Kerry and Dean were insisting did not exist, and
that Bush was a liar. Now this was in October of 2004
that the interview was on CNN and the book available,
written by Saddam's own nuclear scientist. The election
was still a month off and John Kerry was still running
around telling how Bush lied that their was no threat
from Iraq. You would think Bush at that time might have
at least mentioned the facts concerning the invasion
of Iraq happened because Saddam would not let UN inspectors
interview Saddam's nuclear scientist and he could have
held up the book and said, "This book details Saddam's
nuclear program in the words of his own scientist. It
tells how the program was hidden waiting for UN inspectors
to leave" He could have made reference to the uranium
that had been confiscated there and brought back to
the US. He could have asked, "How come John Kerry thinks
he knows more about Saddam's nuclear program than
Saddam's own nuclear scientist?" Yet Bush did none of
this while letting Kerry continue to call him liar about
WMD.

As I said in this above text, any reasonable person would
conclude that Saddam was the culprit for refusing access
to his inspectors. Any reasonable person would conclude
that he should not have been hiding this program to take
up again as soon the UN tired of inspecting.

It takes an unreasonable person to insist we went to war
because the US lied about WMD. Especially it takes an
unreasonable person after the chief scientist on Iraq's
program confirmed that they were working on the bomb.

.
If you wait long enough a million monkeys may type hamlet.

In a few billion years organic chemistry in the right conditions may produce an intelligent species. [We are still waiting to see if this one happens]

Was Iraq cost effective?
Iraq was stable.
Iraq is now not stable.
Will Iraq become stable?
. . . with or without the US in continuous occupation?
. . . Just how long and how many lives and how much money will this take?
. . . If the same people who have not really made much progress at all in two years stay in charge will it ever happen?

Personally I only see actual negative results from invading Iraq.
Much as i detest our former ally, Saddam, he did keep the nation under some kind of order. Better to have a single Mafia don in control than a bunch of them battling it out.

Negatives:

1. Iraq is unstable and the current adminstrators have been unable to rectify this in over two years using US troops.
2. Iraq doesn't have the troops or police to enforce anything at this point so the democracy stuff sounds nice but has about zero meaning without this funcional pre-cursor. Again after two years there has been little improvement on this front.
3. Now due to the ethnic divisions that intelligent people could see before the war threaten to degenerate into all out civil war.
4. currently the territory is a harbor, training ground and destination for terrorists of every stripe as well as just plain old criminals.
5. Instead of building bridges of communication, understanding and cooperation with Iraqis we have treated the Iraqi people as irrelevant to what is happening in their own nation. Further after the revelations at Abu Graib we have verified without any doubt our contempt and utter disrespect for Iraqis.
6. We have burned bridges with many of our former strong allies which serves to embolden Iran and North Korea, because we are less united.
7. We have shown the world we act rashly on outdated and lying intelligence as a basis for unilateral action.
We have been shown to be both operatively as well as ethically undependable, and incompetent.
We may have the mightiest military for now, but seem incapable of knowing when and where and how best to deploy or not deploy it.
8. 40,000 to 100,000 people are dead not counting many times that amount being maimed and wounded. This is staggering.

Postitives?
Thus far all positives are just propositions by war proponents that have yet to materialize.

In light of the 9 billion dollars that was embezzled by unknown Iraqi elements and the Billions the US has been overcharged and gouged by Haliburton and its many subsidiaries,

I am not sure we have the money, time or troops to help make anything constructive happen in Iraq, especially with the same incompetent leadership we have had for over 2 years.

If you have infinte patience, lives and resources anything may happen.
I am not that patient.
I am fed up.

I am tired of waiting for the Whitehouse monkeys to type hamlet
I am angry that 40,000 to 100,000 unnecessary human deaths are blood on America's hands.

Someday we may need to fight a war for very real and substantive reasons, and no one, including the American people will be willing after this mass murdering fiasco in Iraq.

This may be Bushes true legacy.
A nation that has been so burnt by the lies and wrong decisions that they will not stand up even when a genuine imminent threat arises.

Bush may have robbed this nation of the will and strength and belief in the deep ethical values of this nation.
.

This is a no brainer.

Pre-emptive strikes should be considered for someone of the UPMOST Threat to the livelyhood of a countries citizens.

Saddam and Iraq was clearly NOT a threat, and hadnt BEEN a threat for some time.

He's to this date NEVER attacked the USA.
And for all you who scream 'wrong wrong he shot at planes patrolling'
That was NEVER a UN Sanctioned patrol. The USA and britan in all there mighty brains decided to keep flying planes over Iraq.

PRE Emptive would of been resonable for Nkorea, and even maybe IRAN.

But Iraq was a FOOLS war.
Run by a Fool, and to this day FOLLOWED by fools.

Of course USA Governmetn lied.
Before they went in, they were CERTAIN they wmd's were in this place, that place and all around the other place.
jee's, turns out they DIDNT even have the equipment to MAKE these weapons.

The USA was CERTAIN saddam gave orders to USE these weapons shall the USA get within so many Km's...
WHAT FRIGGEN WEAPONS?

I dont understand how BLANTANTLY obvious it is that your government tricked the world...
this was never a preemtpive strike, this was never a justified invasion.

simply a fools war.
and anyone who believes in this war, is to this day and forever in history going to be remmeberd as a fool.
Because its this war that is the begining of the end.


P.S any reasonable person should conclude that when Saddam ALLOWED inspectors in, and asked for DIRECT DIALOUGE with Bush that he was allowing the world too see he was disarmed.

But when bush DENIED him the right to DIRECTLY talk about these accustaions that was your president covering his ass and pushing more lies.
And when your president accused the UN inspectors of CURROPTION because they said he DIDNT have weapons, thats your president using his power for this war.

From day 1 this war was never truthful. From day 1 your president destroyed many standards and pillars that America was CREATED on just for this bloody war.

and in no way is this a success.
innocent women, men, childern DYING is never a success.
Innocent AMERICANS dying is NEVER a success.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by Agit8dChop]

It takes a fool to look at all the evidence concerning
how Iraq violated UN inspections and deny that it exists.
The evidence that Saddam stonewalled the UN inspectors
is available in Newsweek, Time Archives, and the UN archives.
TV News broadcasts of this as it happened are still
available. This is documented fact, not the ramblings of
an insane America hating fool. The tons of uranium
confiscated in Iraq was fact.

Saddam's top nuclear scientist admitting and writing
a book on how Saddam was conducting and hiding the
bomb are available. Anyone wanting to deny that should
take a look at Amazon.com and buy a copy of the book.

Here is a link to Amazon to get your copy.

www.amazon.com...=1124454365/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0603

I agree 100% Seeker, and I didn’t always feel this way.

I was NOT for war with Iraq this time around. But I have changed my tune for a few of reasons:

#1 You cant wait for terror to come to you anymore; you need to go to it. And one way or another, Saddam would have participated eventually if not already.

#2 The people of Iraq were devastated that the USA didn’t get Saddam in 91, and I think they wanted it now.

#3 Iraq right now is a terrorist magnet for the entire region. They are flocking to Iraq. Let them come to us so we can deal with them "appropriately". If they want to die for their cause, lets give them a hand...

#4 I think eventually the Iraqi's, and the world, will see that the mess in Iraq is the fault of foreign Jihadists with agendas that have nothing to do with Iraq. It’s already coming about, just slowly.

Great post Seek!





[edit on 19-8-2005 by skippytjc]

This seems to be one of the more recent 'perspectives' on the War in Iraq. An attempt to legitimize and justify it by people who are in no way involved. An explanation by amateurs after the fact. Arm-chair quarterbacking.

It would be one thing if the administration would bring up these points OR HAD, in the beginning, made some attempt to explain to the people of this country what their ultimate plan was. But all they did was tell us to be afraid, be very afraid. And it worked! Now, people are trying to 'get the administration's back' and explain away all the mistakes and lies.

A few things aoccur to me here:

*If I cannot term it as a 'failure' how can one term it as a 'success'?

*Saddam may have eventually threatened his neighbors, but he was no threat to us and we were in a very vulnerable position and needed to protect ourselves and that was, and continues to be, all but ignored.

*In the post-9/11 environment, Bush and America had to act to perserve, re-establish, and show strength and determination.

I agree with this. Would that we had! We made a fool of ourselves and have made more enemies than we've ever had! If we had shored up our borders and captured the people who toppled the buildings, that would have shown strength and determination and unified the people of this country. But as it is, we've never been more divided.

This article is nothing more than an attempt to explain and legitimize the story after it's already been written. In other words, to re-write history. Because we all know what really happened.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

.
At the time of the Iraq invasion,

No WMDs

Post-Saddam Iraq?

Chem weapons are now being produced by insurgents.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The entire Iraq war effort has been COUNTER PRODUCTIVE

In the extreme.

[snip]
*Pointless political banter removed*

[edit on 19-8-2005 by dbates]

Really, how is it that they now are able and capable to do this and they were clean before?

It looks real bad for us to have this come out now. *shakes head*

Man, I wonder at what time does the average, "pro-war American", start to see that what has happened is a travesty to everything that America was supposed to stand for. It is a real shame that for all of the technological leaps we as a species have made that simple fear mongering can cause so many to turn off their comman sense.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article is nothing more than an attempt to explain and legitimize the story after it's already been written. In other words, to re-write history. Because we all know what really happened.

I see. So, using your logic and reasoning, we knew everything there is to know about WWII circa late 1948 or so, right? Nothing about that conflict was hidden or obscured from the general world public, and the political historians of the day knew all the significant facts that they needed, right?

History is never a closed book, and neither should a mind be as well.

Since the "Iraqi invasion" it's been a wide array of topics to justify it, but as usual when a conflict initiated by one nation has to justify its actions two years after the "conflict" was waged, it just brings more controversy to the reason why.

Attacking Afghanistan right after 9/11 was actually something expected and wanted and until this day has not been made into an issue.

Until this day is and still will remind as "The right think to do"

Alas!!!!!!we are still debating and justifying Iraq, what a contrast to what is considered "The right think to do" and a plain mistake of greed.

Just like the Vietnam conflict became a discussion topic until this day, the Iraqi conflict will forever be the legacy of the present administration to our country for classrooms and cafés to discuss, analyzed and debate for years to come.

It will not be 9/11.

very sad indeed.

I would like to know what exactly it means when people say this war was for oil. Please explain that to me, does it mean Bush has barrels being stored from Iraq brought into his ranch in Crawford? Does it mean the US is getting free oil? Please tell me. Because I wish this oil would make it's way to the gas stations around my house cause it's breaking my ass. Someone give me an intelligent answer to this question instead of the normal neocon blah blah blah crap.

Also explain how this administration lied? Are you telling me that the entire Congress is so dumb they will believe any lies that are told to them without any evidence and just vote yes? It's always the same song and dance Bush lied this administration and Haliburton is Satan!!! If you claim to be so smart you would understand the process that took place to start this war and I can tell you now it wasn't Bush pushing a button and sitting back laughing at all his free spoils coming in on trucks. There was intelliegence from many agencies about Saddam and apparently they were all wrong or Saddam was smart enough to destroy the evidence with the 6 months he had to prepare for our invasion. Also Haliburton is just one of 100's of contractors in Iraq right now.

It's going to be so funny when this country finally does struggle to freedom and has a working government. Because the entire world is going to look really stupid not lending a helping hand to the Iraqis. I just don't understand it seems people would rather let this country suffer than help them out just so they can point the finger at the big bad satanic USA. Where is the UN? Isn't the UN suppose to help democracies and citizens being terrorized? After all they are the international law correct? What international law abiding organization lets what is happening in Iraq go on without assisting? I'll tell you why...because it's corrupt.

And if you will notice I am stating my opinions not calling people names and trying to force it on anybody. So save the neocon name calling for someone who will take offense to it.

Originally posted by Pyros
I see. So, using your logic and reasoning, we knew everything there is to know about WWII circa late 1948 or so, right? Nothing about that conflict was hidden or obscured from the general world public, and the political historians of the day knew all the significant facts that they needed, right?

Uh... no. I haven't made any assertions about WWII or when we knew what we knew. I also haven't said that any 'logic' can be applied to any other circumstance. You did that. I didn't even say it would be wrong for the government to withhold some information.

What I did assert is that, in my opinion, this story is an attempt to justify a war that the administration has had every opportunity to do, and hasn't. If I want to apply my opinion to any other situation, I'll be sure to do that so you won't have to extrapolate.

History is never a closed book, and neither should a mind be as well.

I assure you, my mind is quite open. I'm not however, gullible or naive. The truth is the truth.


[edit on 19-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by rstrik
I would like to know what exactly it means when people say this war was for oil. Please explain that to me, does it mean Bush has barrels being stored from Iraq brought into his ranch in Crawford? Does it mean the US is getting free oil? Please tell me.

No, Mr. Bush is not taking barrels of "Iraqi oil" to his ranch in Texas and No, we are no getting free oil.

Actually is an ongoing struggle between the Iraqi interest groups, insurgents and US oil base companies to dictate the fate of the Iraqi oil.

This year alone Iraq has some workers strike because Haliburton business dealing.

It seems that the goal of Mr. Bush and the oil barons are to privatized the oil, that doesn't mean that you or I are going to get free oil, but not only Iraqi will lose the hold of their natural and only mean of wealth but we are still going to be stuck with the prices at the pump the way their are anyway.

But oil companies will be the ones controlling the Iraqi wealth,

It seems that the Cookie jar is harder to reach that previously thought, see, Iraqis want their oil to stay national so they don't want the US offer of privatization.

The Insurgents are making sure that Nobody is getting very far when it comes to getting oil out of the wells, they are bombing constantly.

Just because we don't hear about the struggle it dosen't mean is not happening.

This link is the latest news on the oil problems in Iraq if somebody find another one please post it.

www.basraoilunion.org...

Originally posted by Pyros

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article is nothing more than an attempt to explain and legitimize the story after it's already been written. In other words, to re-write history. Because we all know what really happened.

I see. So, using your logic and reasoning, we knew everything there is to know about WWII circa late 1948 or so, right? Nothing about that conflict was hidden or obscured from the general world public, and the political historians of the day knew all the significant facts that they needed, right?

History is never a closed book, and neither should a mind be as well.

Hehe, If you have come to this conclusion ur knowledge is really shallow, and thus is your perception of reality.