Oil a Motive for Aussies in Iraq

[Undertoad]

(I apologized more in a PM to Ali. That's the risk when going for the most inflammatory metaphor possible...)

[Aliantha]

Yes he did, and it was very kindly written. Thankyou.

Oil is the ONLY reason anyone, other than Iraqis, are in Iraq.
No amount of oil is worth one soldier's life.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Oil is the ONLY reason anyone, other than Iraqis, are in Iraq.
No amount of oil is worth one soldier's life.

My immediate reaction would be to agree.... but, reflecting on it.... is the continued prosperity of 300,000,000 people worth one life? Two lives? Three? Tough question considering the lives spent on much, much less.... and celebrated in song and story, too.

Quoting Michael Yon... again.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

[Griff]

Is Yon including the permanent bases when he talks about withdrawl? We keep getting assurances from the administration that we are not there permanently, but they're making huge investments that other administrations will be loathe to abandon. I'd say we're there for keeps.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

Is Yon including the permanent bases when he talks about withdrawl? We keep getting assurances from the administration that we are not there permanently, but they're making huge investments that other administrations will be loathe to abandon. I'd say we're there for keeps.

I would say we are there for keeps if we were not about to elect Hitlery Clinton to office. When she or the next president pulls our troops out it will be a genocide that will become the legacy of the person who pulled the plug.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree with Griff.

Stating that Bush wants Iraq to be a prosperous democratic country as quickly as possible just doesn't make sense. As much as people want to say they are, Bush and Cheney (more Cheney) are not dumb guys. No idiot off the street can get to the position of (Vice) President and do what those two have done.

I can't see a possible way of how they could honestly think the army commanders were wrong when they asked for more troops and still want the best for Iraqis, there had to be a separate agenda in there. It just doesn't add up.

A Paul D. Eaton letter to Bush.

The do the Iraqis want us out or not debate is tough and almost stupid to discuss. I try to not be definite on what the Iraqis think or believe anything that I am told about what the Iraqis think because there is no clear way of knowing. Honestly, I think a lot of them are pissed off at us but there is now ay to back that up. I have no connections to Iraq or Iraqis (if I did it would still be bias) and you can find reliable sources saying both things which is obviously a clear contradiction. It probably depends on who you ask, when, where, etc on the answer you will or want to hear.

Originally Posted by xoxoxobruce

is the continued prosperity of 300,000,000 people worth one life? Two lives? Three? Tough question considering the lives spent on much, much less.

That is a very interesting philosophical question. Where is line drawn between the lives of few versus the comfort and happiness of many?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would say we are there for keeps if we were not about to elect Hilary Clinton to office. When she or the next president pulls our troops out it will be a genocide that will become the legacy of the person who pulled the plug.

Ha, Hilary will not pull out of Iraq.

The only electable person I can see doing it is Obama but that is still not convincing. Edwards maybe but I'm not counting on it.

I don't find the genocide argument very convincing. Right now the violence in Iraq is getting worse and basically it is a long deadly civil war that may turn into genocide anyways versus a short deadly genocide (assuming the Shiites take over the Sunnis). I don't think the final outcome will be much different either. Neither side sounds real inviting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

When she or the next president pulls our troops out it will be a genocide that will become the legacy of the person who pulled the plug.

So we stay there another "nine or ten years" (a quote from Gen Petreaus). We drive how many more million Iraqis into pauper refugees throughout the world. We cause how many more thousands of dead Iraqis – and TheMercenary says this is good.

TheMercenary spins a half truth while forgeting realities. He forgets that American presence only makes Iraq less safe and more violent. It creates a greater distrust among the various ethnic factions. When was the last time an American could sit in a sidewalk cafe in Fallujah. Yes, that was once standard before American occupation make Iraq “so much safer". But according to TheMercenary, "There is light in the end of the tunnel".

TheMercenary - your rhetoric are same lies from Nam. They do not work on those without a 'brown shirt' mentality.

Saddam killed maybe 200,000 of his own people in ten years. Americans created 100,000 dead Iraqis in less than two years. But Saddam is evil and an American presence does not create genocide. TheMercenary says it is so. Funny how those facts change when TheMercenary posts a political myth.

The longer Americans are 'saving them', then the more likely this civil war will kill even more Iraqis. Diyalah province once had no violence. Then American made is safer.

Iraq Study Group clearly offered a solution where few options were viable. Instead, TheMercenary's post even says the ISG is wrong. TheMercenary posts a political agenda rather than reality.

Iraq will not be a democracy. That option is gone as made so obvious by Iraq’s current government. Americans, doing as TheMercenary recommended, have seen to it that democracy - civil government representing all Iraqis - is not possible. Best we can now hope for is a theocracy dominated by the Shia with an autonomous province of Kurds.

But the longer we stay, the less likely even that becomes possible. Iraq Study Group defined an American withdrawal as the only solution. But somehow TheMercenary knows more – and cannot even say why.

We had a solution. What remains possible still reside in the Iraq Study Group; not in any political rhetoric that justify wacko extremist agendas.

tw offers solutions from the ISG. TheMercenary repeats political rhetoric from liars in the George Jr administration. One solution based in intelligent thought. Another only based in his political agenda.

Griff's post is accurate. Even Gen Petraeus said we will probably be in Iraq for another nine or ten years. Notice that Griff's post is confirmed with facts - not political rhetoric. Somehow TheMercenary calls 'nine more years' a victory - just like in Nam.

But then nine more years in Iraq means George Jr's legacy is safe. That is more important to whom?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Isn't it General Petraeus?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Bla, bla, bla......TheMercenary......TheMercenary........TheMercenary......TheMercenary..........TheMercenary......TheMercenary......TheMercenary ......TheMercenary.......TheMercenary.......TheMercenary... (insert "bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla" at will)

Pssst.... tw, it ain't about me, this one is about Oil....Please get back to us when you have something of importance to contribute.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

My immediate reaction would be to agree.... but, reflecting on it.... is the continued prosperity of 300,000,000 people worth one life? Two lives? Three? Tough question considering the lives spent on much, much less.... and celebrated in song and story, too.

Quoting Michael Yon... again.

That is why we went there to begin with? Why we stay?
We are leaving without stealing their oil and natural gas?
I think not.
The DAY we have it secured, we are OUT of there & you know it.
Any good we do is incidental & PR.
Most Americans don't know about the untapped reserves of oil on the Iraq Kuwait border, it is HUGE.
It is the third largest land field ever discovered, the largest currently existing. (Part of the reason for the Kuait war, other than his need for more money, was over reveng for Kuait's possible side-drilling/or attempt to into it over the Iraq border)
All of this crap started when it was discovered.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, accepting that is all true, how many lives is it worth trading to guarantee the future prosperity of the US and it allies for the next 20, 30, 40 years?

Again, no amount of oil is worth one soldiers life.
ESPECIALLY if it was done while the nation was lied to as to the reason.
America is not a nation of thieves, at least not intentionally... once it has been shown that this administration has made us so they need to be prosecuted.