WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

[Elspode]

I say we just go with Manifest Destiny because God clearly has given the United States the prerogative to kill who we want, take what we want when we want it, and fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

After all, why re-invent the wheel when that attitude was used so successfully to colonize the planet over the past 600 years or so?

[Pico and ME]

Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq just to kick terrorist butt is deluded.

[DanaC]

Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.

Agreed, Essential resources are a primary factor in any conflict. Bush didn't want the burning fields in the press again either. Who did?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.

I agree with Dana. If the Middle East were not a significant oil producing region, we would have relegated it's importance to the same level as Africa. Corporations would still have fought over resources, but the CIA would have not felt it necessary to overthrow a government in Iran, and noone would have felt the need to invade.

Do the anti-conspiracy theorists wish to attempt to deny Operation Ajax?

BTW Dana, I've been listening to BBC America chronicling Tony Blair's attempts to rewrite his own history, a la Cheney. He's been downplaying the same "Iraq had WMD's" argument he made and trying to make the same "We should/would have invaded them anyway" argument. The two of them should take their show on the road together, like Hope and Crosby.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.

Same fucking thing. They don't have much more than sand and we have plenty of that. Don't blow smoke up our skirts.

[DanaC]

No, it isn't the same thing. But I am way too tired to sit here and formulate an explanation as to why it isn't the same thing.

[TheMercenary]

Your statements stand as they are. We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason. If you have some primary source evidence to prove other wise, I mean other than anti-Bush conspiracy theory web sources, I would be glad to read them. Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Your statements stand as they are. We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason. If you have some primary source evidence to prove other wise, I mean other than anti-Bush conspiracy theory web sources, I would be glad to read them. Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.

You are being too black and white. While I agree with you that our sole or primary reason for going into Iraq was not about securing oil, to say that its position and natural resources did have a direct or indirect factor is ridiculous as well.

Iraq, like Iran and Venezuela, are countries that sit on top of vast natural resources and because of this, these countries are more likely to be watched and gain attention because we are "dependent" on them. Because of this increased amount of attention, the probability of action taken against these countries increases.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason.

Well why did we?

[Undertoad]

http://www.denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

[Griff]

Synopsis - Failed culture sitting on top of oil to be magically made over by breaking stuff.

[DanaC]

Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.

Of course it's one persons opinion. You asked, in my opinion, what i thought those reasons were and I told you.

The region is important. A controlling stake in that region would be beneficial in terms of natural resources. I did not suggest that we went into Iraq to steal their oil. But that the ability to exert control over important natural resources will have, in my opinion, played a part in the decision to invade. If it diodn't, then great. Well done. Your nation has broken a millenia long pattern.

It is also an important location in geopolitical terms. There is nothing bullshit about such importance, it has informed conflicts for generations, yea even onto the middle ages.

[DanaC]

From the link UT posted:

Strategic suitability


Iraq is centrally located with borders on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It has major ports through which supplies and troops can move. Thus if we occupied Iraq, it would be ideal as a potential base of military operations against any of those other nations later, should that become necessary.
The governments in the region know it. Having American troops on their borders, or even the threat to move troops there, was guaranteed to get their attention.


If the military victory over Iraqi forces was overwhelming, that would make the threat even more impressive. The military forces of the other nations in the region were even less formidable than that of Saddam's Iraq.


This would make diplomatic threats against them far more effective and inspire much more cooperation from them than had been forthcoming to that point.

Geopolitical importance.

[Undertoad]

There's no question the area is important, but gaining a "controlling stake"? If that was the point, it's in the new way that one gains that, not the old way.

Old way: invade, conquer, take the nation's wealth and make the population slaves -- so they will obey you

New way: invade, take out the abusive regime, give the people back their wealth and their voice -- so they will like you

Last month they held the auctions for the development of Iraqi oil. International oil companies bid and won those contracts. There was almost no American oil company involvement. And the Iraqi government's position is that American troops will be gone next year.

So much for the old notion of "controlling stake"; it would appear the USA controls next to nothing in Iraq. But will we continue to have influence? Iraqi blogger Iraqi blogger The Mesopotamian (paragraph breaks and bold, mine):

A recent encounter left a strong impression on me. It was an acquaintance of mine, a structural engineer like me. We met occasionally for some professional business in one of the Gulf Countries. One day I noticed that he was rather depressed and seemed quite angry. I asked him what the matter was.

He told me that he had an argument with some non-Iraqi Arabs about the Iraqi situation and they all set on him like a pack of dogs chiding him that Iraq was an occupied country and all that kind of spiteful talk about the Iraqis that we have become accustomed to from our Arab “brothers”. Well, this guy was not the type who can take things coolly, and he gave them back what they deserve. We have all been in this situation and had to suffer the stupidity and prejudice of outsiders.

One sentence that he uttered struck me though.

First of all he said that they all had parts of their lands occupied, like the Golan in Syria, and then he said something in Iraqi slang that is difficult to translate. Roughly it may be translated like this: “how happy would they be, had their occupation been like the American occupation”. And then with emotion, he uttered a kind of bitter remark that remains reverberating in my mind – “if the Iraqi people have any friends it’s only America and nobody else”.

For anyone outside Iraq, getting his information from the media, this may sound an incredible sentiment, but for many Iraqis it is perfectly understandable. Well, the Americans are not perfect, and they have committed tons of mistakes in Iraq. Some of the soldiers misbehaved and even committed crimes; there was Abu Graib and all that. Yet, yet, let’s face it, what’s a friend? It is someone who is pleased to hear you are doing well, and doesn’t like bad news about you; in short someone who cares about you. And let me ask just this one question – which people in this whole wide world likes to hear good news about Iraq and is dismayed when things go wrong? Need I answer this question?

Do we forget that America has rid us of one the most brutal regimes in history? And in spite of all our detractors and envious hypocritical critics, a genuine democracy is coming into being, corruption or no corruption, squabbling between various factions, explosions and political assassinations etc. notwithstanding. At least the parliament is not the sham rubberstamp institution appointed by ruling dictatorships that abound all around us. The intensity and bitterness of the frequent political crises and disputes attest to the genuine nature of the pluralism that has come to characterise the political scene. This is something that is a complete novelty in this region of absolute dictatorships, medieval monarchies and sheikdoms.