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

[DanaC]

I think the situation over the last few years has changed somewhat. Not least with regards the involvement of Halliburton.

'Controlling stake' does not mean overall control. It is also the ability to strongly influence in a way that is beneficial to 'our' needs.

Nations are not altruistic, any mopre than humans are. Even our altruism is essentially selfish and that is what i was getting at. One of the reasons 'we' went to war was in order to influence that region in ways that would benefit us. If what benefits us is a peaceful democracy over there then so be it. But it was for our benefit, not theirs.

What we are doing now, is not necessarily why we went in. I do believe that the initial invasion was done partly with a view to western companies contending for those oil contracts. More importantly, though, it was done with a view to 'friendly' companies/countries having control over those resources, rather than 'unfriendly'or unreliable countries having that control.

America is leading the reorganisation. It may not be taking a direct stake; biut it is instrumental in shaping the stakes in such a way that makes access to those resources more secure.

[DanaC]

Just a quick point btw: I don't actually think that going to war in order to gain control or inbfluence over access to essential resources makes America an evil nation. It is just what nations do. And it doesn't break down simply into old style invasion and enslavement; new style invasion and democratising. Both have been present in history. (at some point when I find the time, I'll dig out some stuff to support that ;P)

This isn't an acccusation of America as a big bad giant, invading Iraq to steal their oil: it is however one of the reasons that control (however it is achieved) of that region was important, in a way that control of certain other regions wasn't. 'Control' and influence come in many forms: gratitude and cultural debt included.

What was important was securing the region, and that includes securing its resources.

This is no different to what any nation does if it has the capability. I'm not attacking America by saying it.

I do believe the war was wrong. But not for these reasons.

[Undertoad]

I believe that French and Russian companies got the bulk of the oil contracts when Saddam was in power, and I believe that French and Russian companies have largely bid on and won the bulk of the new contracts.

[DanaC]

Thereby putting the oil into the hands of people America can safely do business with. Rather in the hands of unreliable despots and enemies.

[Undertoad]

I know. Fucking frogs, you just can't work with them.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But it was for our benefit, not theirs.

Those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by DanaC

America is leading the reorganization. It may not be taking a direct stake; but it is instrumental in shaping the stakes in such a way that makes access to those resources more secure.

Thats a good thing.

[DanaC]

No, you are right: they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I just think the rationale for invasion had more to do with what benefit it would bring 'us' than what good it might do them.

And nor did I say it was a'bad' thing that America was leading that reorganisation. I disagreed with the war. I still disagree with it. I do not believe the ends justified the means. But having done the deed, it is the responsibility of the invading force/nation to restructure the country and leave it in a stronger position.

Whether it is a good thing that control of those resources is in 'friendly' hands is a different argument entirely. Self-interest and morality aren't necessarily comfortable bed fellows. We had no 'moral right' in my opinion to reshape the world according to our needs. But then 'moral right' is a luxury when it comes to foreign policy. And I know of no nation who has ever put it entirely at the head of its actions.

I know. Fucking frogs, you just can't work with them.

lol.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You are being too black and white.

As a retired Military Officer who lost friends there maybe I am just to sensitive about the issue.

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.

Great. Prove it. The notion is simplistic and fraught with overtones that feed conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to suppor that this was an objective. If it were true we could just go ahead and nuke Iran now and be done with it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great. Prove it. The notion is simplistic and fraught with overtones that feed conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to suppor that this was an objective. If it were true we could just go ahead and nuke Iran now and be done with it.

You can't prove that besides saying that anti-American countries with natural resources are criticized a lot more than anti-American countries without natural resources.

And what I said wasn't conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory would be saying that the government tried to justify the Iraqi invasion with terrorists reason while actually attacking because of natural resources. I am saying that because Iraq is a major oil supplier, they will naturally be watched than someone who isn't a major oil supplier.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You can't prove that besides saying that anti-American countries with natural resources are criticized a lot more than anti-American countries without natural resources.

And what I said wasn't conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory would be saying that the government tried to justify the Iraqi invasion with terrorists reason while actually attacking because of natural resources. I am saying that because Iraq is a major oil supplier, they will naturally be watched than someone who isn't a major oil supplier.

Fair enough. But it still in no way provides weight to any argument that the natural resources of Iraq had anything to do with the decision to go to war, which was my point of the discussion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then why the fuck did we? You keep saying it wasn't about strategic position and it wasn't about resources, as a matter of fact all you ever say is everybody else is wrong.

[DanaC]

Apparently for none of the reasons nations usually go to war.

[Griff]

Must have been boredom.

[DanaC]

Or maybe America really is the good guy of Gotham City and wanted to free the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator.

Believing everything an administration/government says to its people and believing nothing an administration/government says to its people are two extremes along the same continuum.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then why the fuck did we? You keep saying it wasn't about strategic position and it wasn't about resources, as a matter of fact all you ever say is everybody else is wrong.

I base it more on an administration whipped into a frenzy over 9/11 and a series of intell failures. If you read Woodward's books on the issue there was a combination of serious intell slip ups, an over zelous CIA director, who to this day still has failed to accept responsibility for his part in pulling the trigger, and and a president who was a puppet of his staff. Many of us doubted his decision to go to war in Iraq and the majority of the people around me at the time knew we were taking our eye off the ball in diverting the attention away from the Afgan Theater.