Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost

[Osborn F Enready]

You want fact Nunez, check out the latest thread titled "Buying the war, how did the media get it so wrong?"

Links, access and facts at your disposal, but don't burn up your paper shredder because the copies have been made.

[Yarn]

Its fairly obvious Bush fabricated his case for going to war with Iraq, and that the let him do it because of fear. Its capitalist, and therefore is worried generally less about ideals then it is about profits.

Now, did Bush want to go to war with Iraq in order to get Halliburton contracts?

I need to research just how properly reconstruction contracts are being made and given in Iraq, but I doubt the sole reason Bush wanted the invasion, was to give them out.

Economically, Iraq was the only country in the world to be selling oil for euros only in years between 1998 (I think) and 2003, and after we took the country, and switched it back to selling oil for dollars only, the value of the Euro took a noticable hit. That we invaded Iraq partially or primarily in order to change the currency it accepted for its oil purchases is plausible.

Speaking more on oil, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and perhaps Bush wanted us to exploit those reserves, though the violence thus far has prevented us from increasing Iraqi oil production past its pre-war levels.

There is no particular reason to believe, that Bush could not have suspected that Saddam had WMDs, and given his stupidity, have also harboured a suspicion Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda.

Perhaps Bush wanted to get revenge for Saddam's attempt to kill his father, perhaps he wanted to get the job finished which father neglected to get done in first gulf war.

I don't think we can really know why Bush wanted us to go war with Iraq, we might never if there aren't good records of private conversations in the white house from those years.

Off to school...I do some to be posting in this thread a lot with limited time on my hands...

[Osborn F Enready]

Yarn said: Its capitalist, and therefore is worried generally less about ideals then it is about profits.

Elaborate?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Yarn Its fairly obvious Bush fabricated his case for going to war with Iraq, and that the let him do it because of fear. Its capitalist, and therefore is worried generally less about ideals then it is about profits.

Bush is a mercantilist not a capitalist. Capitalism is more interested in creating customers than in killing them.

[RickSp]

An aside for those reading the reports about how the "surge" has reduced sectarian violence in Iraq. The "surge" is succeeding because the Bushies have redefined "success". Car bombings are not considered sectarian violence anymore and they are not being counted.

Death toll excludes bombs
Study: U.S. officials don't count some civilian casualties

U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians. Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Perhaps we should redefine "occupation" and leave.

[Apeman81]

Perhaps we should simply leave and let the insurgents kill at their leisure anyone they wish as the power vacuum ensues.
After all, Harry Reid the Majority leader of the U.S. Senate, speaking publicly with the power and authority of that position, having given aid and solace to the enemy by declaring the war lost as the soldiers in the field fight on, emboldening the enemy to press home their news story generating attacks, which they can clearly see by way of the comments of Reid and other politically motivated officials, as securing their victory, has placed our soldiers at greater risk as the enemy strives for the victory Reid is willing and working to give them.
Maybe it is time to leave.

[RickSp]

Or perhaps once the foreign occupier leaves, the Iraqis might have a chance at sorting out their own affairs. If nothing else, the already squabbling insurgents will lose their common enemy.

The only one giving aid and solace to the enemy is George Bush who have done everything possible to support AlQaeda, from allowing Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora to invading and occupying the heart of Islam, to stretching our military to the breaking point.

Those who speak the obvious and necessary truth do indeed support our troops, unlike those who would see them die needless in this illegal war.

[xyzer]

I thought the war was already won. Aren't we involved in reconstruction efforts? How can this still be considered a war? Do we even have military goals in Iraq any more?

Great point! This is an occupation and has gone on too long.Big brother should let the Iraqis solve their own crime problem.
Hey Rick from the casualty statistics I've seen our losses have been minimal compared to those of the local citizens?

Or perhaps once the foreign occupier leaves, the Iraqis might have a chance at sorting out their own affairs. If nothing else, the already squabbling insurgents will lose their common enemy.

Obviously the common enemy is them not us? Since 'them' is the prime target, not us?

You don't need soldiers to take care of criminals you need cops..and the Iraqis have had over three years to recruit, train and equip a police force.

[jose]

rmnunez;372757. Show me Cheney sat down with his Halliburton partners and crafted a plan to intervene so they could get those huge contracts. Show me Exxon or Chevron had meetings to discuss with Bush strategists how to apportion oil wealth and allocate refineries.

well you can start here hermano

Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended his refusal to hand over information to Congress about his closed-door energy task force meetings.

CNN.com - Cheney defends refusal to hand over energy task force notes - January 27, 2002

La tercera guerra del Golfo o la Invasión de Irak por EE.UU. en el año 2.003, desde lo estratégico tuvo un solo objetivo, el manejo de las segundas reservas petroleras del mundo. Ya han pasado casi dos años y nos podemos hacer esta pregunta ¿quién se queda con las ganancias de las ventas del petróleo iraqui?, para muchos la respuesta es muy simple y fácil, los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica

.
El Petróleo de Irak ¿Quién lo Vende?, de Juan González

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Show me Exxon or Chevron had meetings to discuss with Bush strategists how to apportion oil wealth and allocate refineries.

Here's another :

"Cheney, energy and Iraq invasion
Supreme Court to rule on secrecy"
Cheney, energy and Iraq invasion / Supreme Court to rule on secrecy

"These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century."

U.N. sanctions against Iraq, maintained at the insistence of the United States and Britain, prevented these deals from being consummated.

Saddam Hussein's removal in 2003 has left the deals in a state of limbo, but the Bush administration's insistence that only countries supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom are eligible for postwar reconstruction does not bode well for French and Russian concerns.

An April 2001 report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute for Public Policy -- commissioned by Cheney to help shape the new energy policy -- also devoted serious attention to Iraq.

The report, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," complained about Hussein's oil leverage:

"Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government. ... Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.

"Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets."

Significantly, the report concluded that the United States should immediately review its Iraq policy, including its military options.

There are many other indications that, despite the Bush administration's repeated and insistent denials, petroleum politics may have played a crucial role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

For instance, both the State Department and the Pentagon had pre-war planning groups that included a focus on Iraq's oil industry; protecting the industry was an early U.S. objective in the war.

In October 2002, Oil and Gas International reported that U.S. planning was already under way to reorganize Iraq's oil and business relationships.

In January 2003, the Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post- war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

Cheney is said to have once remarked that the country that controls Middle East oil can exercise a "stranglehold" over the global economy.

One-time Bush speech writer David Frum wrote in "The Right Man," his 2003 biography of his boss, that the United States' "war on terror" was designed to "bring new freedom and new stability to the most vicious and violent quadrant of the Earth -- and new prosperity to us all, by securing the world's largest pool of oil."

Further records from Cheney's Energy Task Force could shed more light on the inner workings of the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. The first question, though, is whether the Supreme Court will lift the Bush-Cheney veil of secrecy. "

[xyzer]

Jose, if you believe this crap you got problems?

Show me Cheney sat down with his Halliburton partners and crafted a plan to intervene so they could get those huge contracts. Show me Exxon or Chevron had meetings to discuss with Bush strategists how to apportion oil wealth and allocate refineries.

Government contracts are by law let to the lowst bidder who can do the job! There has never been any evidence that the VP influenced any of them. If there had been the ?Democrats would have jumped on it like a tic on a hound dog! Haliburton is one of the only companies in the worlld that can do the job they do. They are not in the oil business. Cheney is not a partner in Haliburton.
Neither Bush no Cheney are in cahoots with the oil industry that you can prove. By the way there haven't been any oil refineries built since years before Bush got elected president? Blame that on the environmentalists!

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Or perhaps once the foreign occupier leaves, the Iraqis might have a chance at sorting out their own affairs. If nothing else, the already squabbling insurgents will lose their common enemy. The only one giving aid and solace to the enemy is George Bush who have done everything possible to support AlQaeda, from allowing Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora to invading and occupying the heart of Islam, to stretching our military to the breaking point. Those who speak the obvious and necessary truth do indeed support our troops, unlike those who would see them die needless in this illegal war.

SURE!

Saying the war is illegal only serves to help our troops who are fighting the war.

Saying they are serving a war criminal only helps the troops in the field.

Saying they are employing illegal weaponry only makes thing better for the soldier in harms way.

Saying the battle they are engaged in is lost only make our soldiers more secure.

A very cogent argument indeed!

[xyzer]

zee, I don't know what your driving at? If you are suggesting that we invaded Iraq because of the disruptive influence of the Hussein regime on the middle east? You are probably right! Middle east oil is the worlds largest known depost and our domesitc sources are shrinking. China and India are demanding more of this cheapest energy source...so a stable middle east was to me an obvious goal of the Iraq invasion. If we could democratize these savages the worlds oil supply would be somewhat stabalized!
Sure if you are going to topple the irritant in Iraq you have to have some plans for post Saddam Iraq and obviouly that would include making sure it's oil fields stayed operating. There is no evidence in any of the articles you quote that the US somehow hogged or wanted to control the sale and dissemination of that Iraq oil? Sure it wants to buy it. Why not? Oil is our cheapest energy source and we should exploit it.

All this points out is that in addition to developing alternative energy sources we have to lift restriction on exploring north and central americas oil potential. I understand the oceans off Mexico have potential and does the north slope/

[jose]

Quote by: xyzer Jose, if you believe this crap you got problems? Cheney is not a partner in Haliburton. Neither Bush no Cheney are in cahoots with the oil industry that you can prove. They are not in the oil business. Cheney is not a partner in Haliburton.

Yet one chapter of Cheney’s life is missing. The record notes that he has been a “businessman” but fails to mention the five extraordinarily lucrative years that he spent, immediately before becoming Vice-President, as chief executive of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil-and-gas-services company. The conglomerate, which is based in Houston, is now the biggest private contractor for American forces in Iraq; it has received contracts worth some eleven billion dollars for its work there. Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he “severed all my ties with the company,” he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars.

Letter from Washington: Contract Sport: The New Yorker
Quote by: xyzer
Jose, if you believe this crap you got problems?

your right xyzer i dont believe your crap so i have no problems

[RickSp]

Cogent argument? Like yours perhaps?

Getting fine Americans killed invading and occupying a country that never attacked us is "supporting the troops".

Sending too few troops into an occupation, with inadequate training and equipment is "supporting the troops".

Rehashing tired variations of "stay the course" as the insurgency just grows stronger is "supporting the troops."

Sure. And wet streets cause rain.

You war mongers obviously do not give a good goddamn about the troops if you are so happy to see them die for nothing with no end in sight.

[Yarn]

Osborn F Enready:
Elaborate?

The US press is profit driven, so its going to try to report in such a way as to make it as well read/viewed/listened to, as possible.

After 9/11 it took advantage of the fear of America to make money. In the run up to the war in Iraq, it was afraid to attack Bushes case for invading Iraq, in fear that it would face public reprisals of reduced viewership if it did so-which would havel lost it money. It frequently makes mountains out of mole hills (or even out of thin air) for the sake of sensationalism, which for it equals money.

Consumer demand does not allow the press go completely nuts, but it does not push the press towards doing its job as well as it can. What people are most inclined to read is not always what they should read.

I am not advocating state press or anything, but I am just under the belief that capitalist press, while better, is far from perfect.

RickSp:
Bush is a mercantilist not a capitalist. Capitalism is more interested in creating customers than in killing them

I have no contention with that.

I didn't have time to proof read that post.

Its fairly obvious Bush fabricated his case for going to war with Iraq, and that the [press] let him do it because of fear. Its capitalist, and therefore is worried generally less about ideals then it is about profits.

[Yarn]

Rmnunez:
It seems rather bizzare at this date to actually propose to argue that it was not a mistake to go into Iraq, though that conotation is by no means good proof we shouldn't have.

I think the wisdom of intervention hinges on more than just the comparison of forecasted casualties averted with those estimated from intervention. Please consider the lives lost to Saddamite repression on which you base those calculations too. Saddam contributed to stability and security in Iraq, but he also projected fear and threat to neighbors, contributed instability to the region through his belligerance and terrorist ties, plus there was that suspicion of WMDs. No doubt oil also was a consideration and more broadly relations with other oil producers.

To qoute myself:
Via violence, the general consensus is that he [Saddam] murdered around 300,000 of his own people during his term of office, which lasted 21 years.

I don't see how that can be construed as not fully counting those killed by his repression.

Now Iraq's neighboors deal with millions refugees and the plausible possibility that Iraq could become more volatile to the region when the US leaves. Saddam only scared his neighboors for the last decade of his reign, now Iraq is hurting them in a tangible concrete fashion.

Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda, though it is certain he had ties to Palestinian terrorists. The war in Iraq has certainly created more terrorists then it has prevented from being created or maintained.

Bush, with the help of the media, greatly exaggerated the possibility of WMDs. That does not of course mean there could have been no justification for suspicion of them. The nuclear suspicions were I think completely unfounded however. There was never any credible proof for them, and I don't think you can get enirched plutonioum under the radar.

[rmnunez]

I'm unpersuaded by the argentine professor's views, and I'm not certain the undisclosed notes Cheney or someone else refuses to turn over would reveal deals to aportion Iraqi oil or enhance Halliburton's profits. Unless the substance of the notes is known we can only speculate on their contents.

Iraq is a major oil source, but it never was a big producer. War planning would have to take into account these facts, just as they'd need to consider the impact of removing or disrupting the oil flows from the region which all pass through strategic locations very close to Iraq.

As soon as Bush mentioned Iraq on that Axis of Evil, critical lefties announced the secret plans for global domination based on oil. They disregarded cogent arguments highlighting the low production records and decrepit installations to latch on to the fact Iraq had great potential for oil production and hence whoever controlled the country would have access to about a third of the world's proven reserves.

The Argentine professor says oil from Iraq delivered to the US armed forces is not tallied in global markets, do you know this is true? I can't verify it (nor does the professor). If it were true, given that Iraqi oil production was low before intervention and since has been disrupted by attacks from insurgents on the infrastructure, I'd guess the amount of oil US armed forces could be getting would be relatively low.

I´ve looked for information on this and have come across essays like the Argentine's, which tend to highlight the vast potential in Iraq's reserves, but completely disregard the impact of Saddam's negligence, disinvestment and failure to upgrade installations. The billionaric secret contracts with French and Russian multinational oil companies do suggest there was a need for major capital investment in Iraqi oil production before intervention.

Military occupation of Iraq, Gen. Garner's exclusive authority over oil production, constitutional amendments to allow foreign investment and participation in oil projects, suggest Exxon and Chevron could have secured some great deals, but I'd like to see something more tangible like a contract that specifically left them in a better position with rights to oil fields and refineries. I can't find anything like this and neither does the Argentine.

The best we can surmise is that possibly the US armed forces deployed in Iraq are getting an unknown volume of oil which is not recorded in international markets. I do remember a Halliburton subsidiary getting censured for charging too much for oil they trucked to the military in Iraq, so I reach the conclusion this oil was paid for.

[Yarn]

I'm unpersuaded by the argentine professor's views, and I'm not certain the undisclosed notes Cheney or someone else refuses to turn over would reveal deals to aportion Iraqi oil or enhance Halliburton's profits. Unless the substance of the notes is known we can only speculate on their contents.

Pertinent article, sort of:
FactCheck.org: Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

Proof that Halliburton is corrupt, that the contracting system is screwed up, and circumstantial evidence of the administration being involved in the corruption:
Halliburton Watch
Halliburton Watch
Halliburton Watch

To school again, i'll do a full refutation of your post later.

Iraq is a major oil source, but it never was a big producer. War planning would have to take into account these facts, just as they'd need to consider the impact of removing or disrupting the oil flows from the region which all pass through strategic locations very close to Iraq.

Perhaps. Though after the thrashing he took for invading Kuwait, I don't think Saddam was about to invade one of his neighbors again.

As soon as Bush mentioned Iraq on that Axis of Evil, critical lefties announced the secret plans for global domination based on oil. They disregarded cogent arguments highlighting the low production records and decrepit installations to latch on to the fact Iraq had great potential for oil production and hence whoever controlled the country would have access to about a third of the world's proven reserves.

Read my second post on this thread:
The case against the Federal Reserve

I'll post the portion of the bibliography which I finished for that paper, when I get home.

Essentially an arguement that the US invaded Iraq for oil reasons can have two components, the first of which would point out that before we invaded it, Iraq was the only country in the world selling oil for euros, and the second of which, would point out that Iraq holds the worlds second largest oil reserves, and that if they were developed, even by non-US companies, that would reduce oil prices for the US and everyone else.

The chart section on this article, trys to show that events related to oil denomination have direct impact on the value of the dollar versues the euro:
Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict, by Cóilín Nunan

The Argentine professor says oil from Iraq delivered to the US armed forces is not tallied in global markets, do you know this is true?

Its not true. I have heard that from more then one source.

The billionaric secret contracts with French and Russian multinational oil companies do suggest there was a need for major capital investment in Iraqi oil production before intervention.

I don't know much about the oil for food scandal. Its used to rack up the case for the invasion.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman Perhaps we should simply leave and let the insurgents kill at their leisure anyone they wish as the power vacuum ensues.

And this would be different from the reality we have today in exactly what way?

Quote by: Yarn Now, did Bush want to go to war with Iraq in order to get Halliburton contracts?

Nah... Bush went to war because the Neo-Cons thought it would be a clever way to solve all our mideast problems -- Israel and the stable production of mideast oil -- in one dramatic demonstration of power. After all, the U.S., having defeated the Soviet Union, was the world's sole remaining superpower, right? We'd go in, kick the snot out of the mideast's biggest (and weakest) bully, who happened to be hated as much by most of his muslim neighbors as by the west.

With Saddam's head visibly posted on a pike and happy Iraqis cheerfully performing domestic chores for the permanent U.S. military presence athwart the Persian Gulf oil region, we'd turn to Iran and Syriavwith our best Clint Eastwood glare, ask them if they felt lucky, punk, whereupon they would promptly cower and shuffle... "No suh, boss, no problems heah!", the Palestinians would give in to Israeli demands, support for folks like al-Qaeda would wither in the white hot glare of American super power, and all would be right with the world.

All they needed was a pretext to go ahead and do it. Voila!!! 9/11.

Alas, daydreaming that something will happen doesn't make it so, especially if the daydream is not supported by the facts or history, and, on top of that, is pursued by a gang of blithering incompetents.

Quote by: xyzer Government contracts are by law let to the lowst bidder who can do the job!

You really don't read newspapers, do you. Halliburton's original contract in Iraq was a NO-BID contract. There was no lowest bidder... there were no bidders period.

Quote by: Apeman Saying the war is illegal only serves to help our troops who are fighting the war. Saying they are serving a war criminal only helps the troops in the field. Saying they are employing illegal weaponry only makes thing better for the soldier in harms way. Saying the battle they are engaged in is lost only make our soldiers more secure. A very cogent argument indeed!

So what you're saying is, we should not worry ourselves about being in an illegal war, started for reasons that did not exist, was negligently and incompetently planned and executed, has created a quagmire we can't win and can't get out of, that's alienated us from our former allies, drained our resources, is slowly destroying our military and has done massive harm to our national interests... because whatever we do, we don't want any of our poor troops thinking there's something wrong with they're being there!!

I daresay we're showing more support for our troops by trying to get them out of that black hole than the President... or you... is by continuing to get them killed in a hopeless, unwinnable quagmire.

.