# What was the point of going to war with Iraq?



## rectifryer (Jun 13, 2014)

I mean, really, now that the cards have fallen and we can look back in hindsight, what did it solve? Why did our politicians refute our own nation's intelligence to lead us into war? (CIA director openly stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq previous to the invasion)
Source1
Source2
More so, if a nuclear rogue state is intolerable, why haven't we invaded NK by the same token? Why stop at Iraq? (stating because cannot afford to invade everyone is not an acceptable answer, we couldn't afford to invade Iraq, either).

What was the motive to war with Iraq? I think this needs serious review by our government. I know this is a very popular topic but people only seem to argue points among party lines. Statements such as "It was warranted because the dems voted for it too!" Regardless of party participation, the war still isn't justified. There is a lot to be said regarding the actual legality of the war in review of international law. Source3

So how the fu(k did this happen? How did we accidentally go to war for so little? We gained nothing in stability in the region and we gained nothing on the "war on terror". We KNEW it would fall back to shit as soon as we left. This is a historical fact that is taught in war college and really any history class. 

Our nation gained nothing for this and it was obvious we wouldn't from the start. We could have just went after terrorists individually and made an example out them.


----------



## bigswifty (Jun 13, 2014)

When nations go to war, banks let the money printers run night and day (though the fed can do this when not at war, as it pleases), in order to generate more jobs etc.

Great! 

War ends, more money in circulation (inflation), and the big boys scoop it up and stash it away. Rinse, repeat, let the sheeple vote for the big douche or turd sandwich it doesn't matter.

I want to address your point that the "government needs to seriously review these actions". True but a little off, it is the people that need to address these actions. Sitting back and letting the government do things for us got us into this mess, government needs an overhaul.


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

War hawk Dems get quite a bit of shit from non-Beltway Dems over it.

Why did we go to Iraq? Answers range from Dubya having daddy issues and wanting to finish Saddam off, to disrupting off Iraq produced oil that we weren't getting cuts of so we can raise prices on what we did, to chickenhawks needing to send other people to fight for patriotism so they can get their dicks hard, to give giant contracts to buddies in private military contractors and construction, etc.

There was no good reason.

It was not justified.


----------



## MstrH (Jun 13, 2014)

We went into Iraq strictly as an altruistic favor to them and the rest of the world. 

After an application of 'Merica's sure fire (pun intended) 100% guaranteed dose of nation building, Iraq is now the shining beacon of a utopia that is the envy of all humankind. 

In one fell swoop, we eliminated centuries of built up cultural, religious, tribal and racial schisms, disputes and all around badness. 

That's right folks! Uncle Sam's Miracle Joy Juice Snake Oil Extract is the cure to all that ails you!


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 13, 2014)

Altruistic War
hahahahaha oh man that shouldn't be funny


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

Freedom Bombs!


----------



## tedtan (Jun 13, 2014)

Ego.

This actually explains a lot of the stupid things we do.


----------



## MstrH (Jun 13, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Altruistic War
> hahahahaha oh man that shouldn't be funny




No it's real! Dubya said it hisself:

"See, we love - we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love." -George W. Bush, Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002

Kinda like saying "Look, we're killing you _for your own good_! Now just hold still....."


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Ego.
> 
> This actually explains a lot of the stupid things we do.



I actually think this is subservient to oligarchy, but a good way to hook others into it.


----------



## SpaceDock (Jun 13, 2014)

As someone who was in college during that time and lived through it:

It was sold to America as "they are developing weapons and will attack us if they are allowed to finish"

the real reason "we want their oil and feel we could run the region better than them"

the reality "they didn't have weapons, Saddam was like king of the baddies and was keeping them in check, we can't police the world, we have plenty of oil here, we are really dumb"


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Jun 13, 2014)

Oil


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 13, 2014)

Yet somehow we didn't even get the oil...


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 13, 2014)

Military-industrial complex?

When a nation is in a state of war, factories churn weapons, supplies, vehicles... Contracts are made. Financial laws and special interest laws are able to be slipped into votes as riders on main topics.

In a word, the war was supposed to be profitable. Of course, in hindsight, we know that expenditures, not just in Iraq, but chasing Al Qaeda, cost this country more than was expected.

On the surface, though wars are waged for ideological reasons, those differing ideologies usually have roots in demand for materials.


----------



## MstrH (Jun 13, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Military-industrial complex?
> 
> When a nation is in a state of war, factories churn weapons, supplies, vehicles... Contracts are made. Financial laws and special interest laws are able to be slipped into votes as riders on main topics.
> 
> ...



I LIKE IKE!!


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 13, 2014)

Another really shitty thing was that Tony Blair allowed the UK to be dragged into the whole sorry state of affairs, when if anything we had even less reason to be there than America did. But hey, it shouldn't be news to anyone that Blair's a massive f*cking twat.


----------



## MstrH (Jun 13, 2014)

BucketheadRules said:


> Another really shitty thing was that Tony Blair allowed the UK to be dragged into the whole sorry state of affairs, when if anything we had even less reason to be there than America did. But hey, it shouldn't be news to anyone that Blair's a massive f*cking twat.




Tony Blair was merely trying to fix Britain's massive eff-up's from the past!

(Or Dubya was blowin' him under the table..)


----------



## ferret (Jun 13, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> In a word, the war was supposed to be profitable.



Oh it was profitable, massively so. Just not for the common citizens of our nation or their children.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 13, 2014)

MstrH said:


> (Or Dubya was blowin' him under the table..)



I've always pictured it more the other way round... "Oh yes George, of course we'll invade Iraq too and help you out. No I won't question your motives, I agree totally with what you're doing. Please don't make me go back into the cellar George..."

Sorry, getting off topic. I really don't think we had any place being there. Far too many lives lost, and no good seemed to come from it at all.


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

ferret said:


> Oh it was profitable, massively so. Just not for the common citizens of our nation or their children.


 
This. A small circle of people made immense amounts of money, and they were the ones who instigated the war.



Demiurge said:


> Yet somehow we didn't even get the oil...


 
I don't think it was about getting theirs as much as denying it so the oil "we" do control becomes much more valuable.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Jun 13, 2014)

BucketheadRules said:


> Another really shitty thing was that Tony Blair allowed the UK to be dragged into the whole sorry state of affairs, when if anything we had even less reason to be there than America did. But hey, it shouldn't be news to anyone that Blair's a massive f*cking twat.



As a British leftist I hold a personal vendetta against Tony Blair for our involvement in that worthless fcking war and his betrayal of not only the voting public but most of all the core of his share of the electorate. There aren't many people I truly hate, but I do hate him. FVCK Tony Blair


/rant


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 13, 2014)

I really hate to say this, but if the Tony Blair didn't back Dubya then I feel republican constituents might have taken a more critical position on the matter. 

Politically, international support was a tipping point.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Jun 14, 2014)

A lot of policymakers and much of the U.S. public felt that 9/11 had demanded a sea change in the way the U.S. approached international relations and threats, and specifically terrorism. Bush's "if you're not with us, then you're against us" doctrine was cartoonish, but it had a point: we decided to get really, really serious about terrorism and make it out #1 foreign policy priority. 

Afghanistan, I think, had to be invaded and the Taliban kicked out for providing refuge to Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. But there were a number of directions we could have gone in afterward. I'm not sure Bush wanted another war, but the evidence actually looked extremely compelling _at the time_: Iraq did have a clandestine chemical/biological weapons program, and it absolutely tried to hide it from UN inspectors. It also had a clandestine nuclear weapons program that we completely missed, and, to our knowledge and the knowledge of everybody except Saddam and his cadre, they still had them.

Now, as far as misleading the U.S. public, I do agree there was a drumbeat toward war that overpowered any coherent rationale for not going in. But people often blame the CIA and suggest that the administration colluded with intelligence people to lie to the country. That's manifestly untrue. To the extent that drumbeat existed, it was mostly from policy people (intelligence analysis and policy are always supposed to be kept separate). Which of them genuinely believed the stuff they were saying, I'm not sure. But when Condi Rice said Iraq had aluminum tubes that could ONLY be used for uranium enrichment, of the 16 intelligence agencies, only the State Department and the Department of Energy (both have intel sub-sections) dissented. That proves two things: first, that intel analysts got it wrong, but weren't malicious. Second, that there was dissent. If you read the book Hide and Seek by Charles Duelfer, who was in charge of investigating Iraq's clandestine weapons programs after the invasion, you'll get a pretty good sense of some of this stuff. One of my favorite anecdotes relates to a giant steel trailer sitting in the desert the Iraqis claimed was for "weather balloon helium." Logically, intel analysts looked at the proportions and said it was for chemical weapons production. When we invaded, we found it...it was actually for weather balloon helium. Nobody expected that shit. 

If you really want to accuse someone of wholesale lying, look at Doug Feith, who was at that time the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Feith formed a parallel intelligence analysis group at the Department of Defense where he took legitimate foreign intelligence that had reservations and qualifications about Al Qaeda-Iraq connections (which were part of the pretext for the invasion) and got a bunch of people to sit down and do "alternative analysis." This is a technique that's supposed to be used to check your basic assumptions in order to avoid getting stuff wrong. Instead, Feith organized it in such a way that the reports the group released only ever criticized the reservations and qualifications, meaning that the group's job was to make the intel look more compelling than it actually was. A bunch of these documents are public, and you can see how and where his intel group changed stuff. 

In any case, that doesn't really justify an invasion. Lots and lots of countries, almost all of them "bad actors," have clandestine weapons programs or have had them in the past: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Egypt IIRC, Pakistan. I think the danger with Iraq that people were concerned about was proliferation to terrorist networks, which is silly for other reasons, but that's a different point entirely.

tl;dr don't blame intel and policy people. Most blame policy people, but understand that Iraq was a pretty bad actor.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 14, 2014)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> A lot of policymakers and much of the U.S. public felt that 9/11 had demanded a sea change in the way the U.S. approached international relations and threats, and specifically terrorism. Bush's "if you're not with us, then you're against us" doctrine was cartoonish, but it had a point: we decided to get really, really serious about terrorism and make it out #1 foreign policy priority.
> 
> Afghanistan, I think, had to be invaded and the Taliban kicked out for providing refuge to Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. But there were a number of directions we could have gone in afterward. I'm not sure Bush wanted another war, but the evidence actually looked extremely compelling _at the time_: Iraq did have a clandestine chemical/biological weapons program, and it absolutely tried to hide it from UN inspectors. It also had a clandestine nuclear weapons program that we completely missed, and, to our knowledge and the knowledge of everybody except Saddam and his cadre, they still had them.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this, I was not blaming the intel community. It is in fact the diligent work of our intel community that was disregarded that is troubling. It did seem like policy makers were doing intel.


----------



## tedtan (Jun 14, 2014)

asher said:


> I actually think this is subservient to oligarchy, but a good way to hook others into it.



I would say that the desire for power / to become an oligarch is preceded by ego. Without the ego, that desire never manifests.


----------



## Church2224 (Jun 14, 2014)

From what a retired Colonel told me it was simple. 

Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East. 

We Needed another nation to ally with in the Middle East, but there were no
good candidates on the offer. 

Since Saddam was still in power and no one really liked him, and Bush wanted to finish the job his father did not, Iraq was the best choice. 

Get rid of the government, get rid of a despot who we do know was killing his own people, put a new government in power and claim we did it in the name of stopping a tyrant, and you got yourself a new ally that the United States Populous loves.

Then we had to stay for almost another ten years and fight resistance and terrorist fighters and now we might have to head back there...

From what I was told the moment Bush got into office they were painting Tanks, Trucks, Humvees and APCs that were once painted green and woodland camouflage to tan and desert camo starting in 2001, as if they were planning on this. 9/11 just made it easier. 

Of course, this is what we were told in a college political science class, could be all B.S. for all I know.


----------



## groverj3 (Jun 15, 2014)

After 9/11 we got our asses into Afghanistan. Slightly understandable at the time. Tenuous, but understandable based on then-current intel. Then, Georgie Dubbs gets some info that Iraq is up to no good. At the time the majority wanted to see someone pay for 9/11, Dubya thought that destroying a nation that's been on our bad side for a while would be a good way to do this. Plus, he could one up his dad and have a longer, more destructive, Gulf War 2.0. Sure, there was some information about chemical weapons and whatnot but I doubt that was the real reason behind this.

I also have a hard time believing that oil played a significant role at all.

Waste of time, money, and lives.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 15, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> Get rid of the government, get rid of a despot who we do know was killing his own people, put a new government in power and *claim we did it in the name of stopping a tyrant*, and you got yourself a new ally that the United States Populous loves.



I realise that the line I've highlighted up there was hardly the main point behind your post, but it's a line that gets my goat when I see it in other contexts. Either my memory is severely failing me, or the 'we went in there to stop a tyrant' line only came after the 'we went in there to sieze weapons of mass destruction' line, which itself only came after the 'we're sure the Iraqi government has provided support to Al Qaeda' line. 

I have no doubt that from the perspective of a military officer, most of whom have to think strategically for a living, that controlling more space in the Middle East is priority #1, as you suggested. It's not only believable, it's sensible. But ideally, it is the role of politicians to take on the sensible strategic advice only after they have considered the ethical, financial, and human costs that are inevitably associated with war. It's fairly pathetic that getting rid of a despot was the backup excuse to the backup excuse, but it's worse still because if we can really justify invading a country on the basis of human rights violations and massive abuses of power within government, there are probably a dozen leaders who could have made the list alongside Saddam. 

Honestly, accepting the idea that Iraq was invaded last decade as a means of freeing the populous from a regime is not that far removed from accepting the idea that Russia annexed Crimea because 'most of the locals wanted them to'. If we think it's dodgy that the refrendum to split from Ukraine was so overwhelmingly positive while Crimea was full of Russian troops, we might want to look back on asking Iraqi civilians whether or not they approved of Western occupation of their country only after there were soldiers everywhere and wonder whether or not Iraqis just didn't like the idea of pissing off the guys with the guns by responding negatively. 

Then again, maybe I'm still bitter over the Australian government of the time committing our troops to those conflicts against the wishes of most of the Australian public. Do governments that act of the will of their citizens still exist somewhere?


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Jun 15, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> I agree with all of this, I was not blaming the intel community. It is in fact the diligent work of our intel community that was disregarded that is troubling. It did seem like policy makers were doing intel.



Didn't mean to imply anything about your original post; I was just pointing those things out in the context of how many people explain it.


----------



## Dog Boy (Jun 15, 2014)

Bush Family vendetta


----------



## Explorer (Jun 16, 2014)

There were many news stories contemporary to the push for the Iraq invasion covering the documented fact that the Bush administration was forcing intelligence agencies to either falsify intelligence reports, or face consequences. 

Captain Flightsuit (that's Dubya, you can look it up) pulled energy away from Afghanistan for an invasion which was drumped up. 

The military went from Clinton's, well maintained and ready for battle, to poorly maintained and less able, due to the lack of funding resulting from Bush cutting taxes for the rich. 

As the fossil fuel industry was allowed to consult with the Bush Administration regarding the Department of Energy, while sustainable groups were specifically excluded, I have no problem believing that Kenny Boy at Enron and other energy companies were also part of the decisions to falsify a reason for an Iraqi invasion. 

I have to mention that Bush was very much a personal friend of both the Saudis, who feared Hussein, and of Taliban leaders, who had been his houseguests. (Again, documented. Look it up.) 

I hold Bush personally responsible for the deaths of numerous friends. If I ever have a chance to speak to him in public, I'll be sure to tell him that he is, and why. Hopefully if it's public enough, it will make a news service story.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 19, 2014)

Brilliant points brought up by everyone. 

As a country, what keeps us from doing something about this?


----------



## wannabguitarist (Jun 19, 2014)

Why don't we invade North Korea? Maybe it's because any sort of military action against them would cost thousands of South Korean lives. Seoul is easily within the range of NK's conventional weapons and there's no way we can find, and take them all out before there is any sort of retaliation. 



Explorer said:


> The military went from Clinton's, well maintained and ready for battle, to poorly maintained and less able, due to the lack of funding resulting from Bush cutting taxes for the rich.



I'm having trouble pulling up the numbers now (blocked sites at work) but from what I recall the US actually reached an all time high for tax revenue in 2007, during the Bush Tax cuts. This was not because of the cuts, but because we were actually doing pretty well right before the recession (not related to the cuts at all). The cuts have nothing to do with the lack of funding for the military; the funding was there.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Jun 19, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> Why don't we invade North Korea? Maybe it's because any sort of military action against them would cost thousands of South Korean lives. Seoul is easily within the range of NK's conventional weapons and there's no way we can find, and take them all out before there any sort of retaliation.


And don't forget China and Russia.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Jun 19, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> As a country, what keeps us from doing something about this?



Apathy, imo. And people are all too busy looking at what Miley Cyrus is rubbing on to give a shit about what the government is doing. Plus, the system is stacked against regular folks doing much of anything through the proper channels. And, as conspiracy theorist as it sounds, I think people would be in serious danger with all of the gearing up the DHS has been doing for the past couple of years if anyone tried to do anything about it.


----------



## SpaceDock (Jun 19, 2014)

Ironically, I heard we are sending the USS Bush to Iraq. I wonder if they still have the "Mission Accomplished" banner laying around


----------



## twizza (Jun 19, 2014)

Corporate Military Industrial Complex. 

Gun makers, tank makers, whatever. 

THEIR SHIT MUST BE BOUGHT.

And then when retired, you'll get a highly paid consultant position with the very same company. Works pretty swell, aside from the graft, waste, and the deaths of a few kids/poor people/undesirables. 

And the dipshit populace finds their bloodlust goes well with their ignorance.


----------



## MstrH (Jun 19, 2014)

twizza said:


> Corporate Military Industrial Complex.
> 
> Gun makers, tank makers, whatever.
> 
> ...



You yung'uns should google "Dwight D Eisenhower/Military Industrial Complex" 

Keep in mind Ike was the Allied Supreme Commander of the European Theater of Operations in WWII. Then he became President. He coined the term "Military Industrial Complex" waaaaay back in the 50's. He was a very wise man in many ways. 

People utterly fail to learn the lessons of history.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 19, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> Why don't we invade North Korea? Maybe it's because any sort of military action against them would cost thousands of South Korean lives. Seoul is easily within the range of NK's conventional weapons and there's no way we can find, and take them all out before there is any sort of retaliation.


What about the 100k+ Iraqi citizens that have died?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq_Body_Count

There is no difference.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 19, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Apathy, imo. And people are all too busy looking at what Miley Cyrus is rubbing on to give a shit about what the government is doing. *Plus, the system is stacked against regular folks doing much of anything through the proper channels.* And, as conspiracy theorist as it sounds, I think people would be in serious danger with all of the gearing up the DHS has been doing for the past couple of years if anyone tried to do anything about it.


It's not a conspiracy theory. It's patently true. Our lobbying system is setup to support the wealthiest. That is an economic and political fact.


----------



## asher (Jun 19, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> What about the 100k+ Iraqi citizens that have died?
> 
> Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There is no difference.



Because NK could level Seoul even with conventional weaponry, or at least do significant damage, and that single metro area is 25 million people. Plus, who knows where the dominoes fall regarding Japan, China, and Russia?


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 20, 2014)

asher said:


> Because NK could level Seoul even with conventional weaponry, or at least do significant damage, and that single metro area is 25 million people. Plus, who knows where the dominoes fall regarding Japan, China, and Russia?


There was 7 million people in Baghdad alone as well and that didn't stop us from personally decimating it. Then we moved on to other cities in Iraq to stop the "Islamic Terrorists" which were really a mix of everything from pissed off Iraqis, militant Syrians, and trained Iranians. I don't think that NK can do more damage with terribly unreliable rockets than the USAF can do in collateral damage alone. 

As far as how Russia and China feel about it, that is exactly my point. The moves were less about the requirements stated about attacking a rogue state and more about politics. Even then, we still pissed off the Iraq region. We just don't care because it didn't negatively affect our economy outside paying for the war itself.


----------



## asher (Jun 20, 2014)

Yes, we killed a hundred thousand or two in collateral damage.

If NK attacks Seoul, they will be the TARGET. And yes, they definitely can do more damage than that.

Also, sorry, I'm not seeing where you said Russia and China is a good reason why we don't do anything to NK. We don't know how they'll react and they're both several orders of magnitude more powerful than the collection of countries that surround Iraq. They're at power levels that the US, at some level, has to respect. There's nobody in the Middle East that can counter-boss us around, unless Russia decides to actively get involved themselves, which I don't see happen. Cynics would say maybe Israel though


----------



## tedtan (Jun 20, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> Why don't we invade North Korea?



You guys are missing the obvious: Korea makes guitars, including seven strings and ERGs; Afghanistan and Iraq don't. So our invasion must have been an attempt to try to get more guitars built in the Middle East in order to satisfy our insatiable GAS. After all, that's the capitalist way, isn't it.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 20, 2014)

tedtan said:


> You guys are missing the obvious: Korea makes guitars, including seven strings and ERGs; Afghanistan and Iraq don't. So our invasion must have been an attempt to try to get more guitars built in the Middle East in order to satisfy our insatiable GAS. After all, that's the capitalist way, isn't it.



Should we invade Indonesia for their "natural GAS" resources? 

Also, just a side note, estimates for the death toll in the Syrian civil war range from 110k to 160k. I don't mean to downplay the damage that the western world has done in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it certainly highlights the fact that people in that part of the world are perfectly capable of killing each other en masse without our help.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Jun 20, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Should we invade Indonesia for their "natural GAS" resources?
> 
> Also, just a side note, estimates for the death toll in the Syrian civil war range from 110k to 160k. I don't mean to downplay the damage that the western world has done in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it certainly highlights the fact that people in that part of the world are perfectly capable of killing each other en masse without our help.



Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't we help out here quite a bit by selling the Syrian rebels weapons?


----------



## asher (Jun 20, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't we help out here quite a bit by selling the Syrian rebels weapons?



Though we're certainly not the only foreign group getting involved there, probably.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Jun 20, 2014)

Certainly not. France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, etc... All the usuals of course. 

Then there's the usuals on the other side of the coin (Russia, Iran, etc).

Civil wars don't seem to be just civil wars anymore


----------



## asher (Jun 20, 2014)

I was actually chiefly thinking of the very large amount of militant groups that have crossed the border into Syria to take shots one direction or the other.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 20, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Certainly not. France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, etc... All the usuals of course.
> 
> Then there's the usuals on the other side of the coin (Russia, Iran, etc).
> 
> Civil wars don't seem to be just civil wars anymore


They're "proxy wars".

MGS reference lol.


----------



## asher (Jun 20, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> They're "proxy wars".
> 
> MGS reference lol.



MGS is awesome and all but the "proxy wars" term has been around a lot longer than that


----------



## viesczy (Jun 20, 2014)

Easy answer, those who really make decisions were going to make money by the war starting, the war continuing and any outcome, so thusly at the behest of the few that run the world we went to war so that those few can make even more money.

There are no political parties, just mouth pieces to spin the plans of the few onto the many.

Derek


----------



## asher (Jun 20, 2014)

viesczy said:


> There are no political parties, just mouth pieces to spin the plans of the few onto the many.



Which is why there's a strict party-line difference on things like which states adopted the Medicare expansion, right?


----------



## flint757 (Jun 24, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Certainly not. France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, etc... All the usuals of course.
> 
> Then there's the usuals on the other side of the coin (Russia, Iran, etc).
> 
> Civil wars don't seem to be just civil wars anymore



They never were. Even the American Civil War had Britain and France taking sides as well.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 24, 2014)

asher said:


> Which is why there's a strict party-line difference on things like which states adopted the Medicare expansion, right?



I think he was more getting at the "leaders" of political camps not truly believing what they say but playing on the fact that "the people" do.


----------



## Randy (Jun 24, 2014)

Pro-corporate Democrats (who, not so coincidentally, run the party) are just as guilty of saber rattling and ignoring the interests of the middle class as their Republican counterparts; but that's a different discussion all together.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jun 29, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> I mean, really, now that the cards have fallen and we can look back in hindsight, what did it solve? Why did our politicians refute our own nation's intelligence to lead us into war? (CIA director openly stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq previous to the invasion)
> Source1
> Source2
> More so, if a nuclear rogue state is intolerable, why haven't we invaded NK by the same token? Why stop at Iraq? (stating because cannot afford to invade everyone is not an acceptable answer, we couldn't afford to invade Iraq, either).
> ...


 
To understand this whole situation fully you need to rewind back around 100 years and get a history lesson regarding the region and the promises that were made and broken plus the arbitrary borders that were drawn up.

"It did negate the promises made to Arabs through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire. Almost 100 years later (2014), the jihadist organization ISIS uses Sykes-Picot as their rallying cry and have conquered Mosul and parts of northern Syria to form an Arab Caliphate along sectarian lines rather than definitions of European diplomats."

Sykes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs'_Day_(Lebanon_and_Syria)

BBC NEWS | UK | Lawrence's Mid-East map on show

Greater Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 30, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Certainly not. France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, etc... All the usuals of course.
> 
> Then there's the usuals on the other side of the coin (Russia, Iran, etc).
> 
> Civil wars don't seem to be just civil wars anymore



I liken it being something along the lines of "Oh so you're beating yourself up? Here, use this bat to help cause more damage..." 

But yeah, many civil wars have some sort of outside influence and/or prompting involved.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jul 1, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Do governments that act of the will of their citizens still exist somewhere?



No man, I don't believe so. And I don't blame the governments for that. I blame the citizens.

Why? Not speaking for other countries. But here in the US more people are worried about the wastes of skin on their reality tv shows, hip hop culture, trendy fashion, their mobile devices, and whether or not some overpaid athlete is gonna catch a football on Sunday afternoon than what is being done to, and in the name of our country. 

People here are willing to let politicians and corporations run unchecked. Then when things have become cluster....ed (and it is here) these same lemmings that have no idea what's gotten us here, want to act indignant and point fingers even though they don't have a clue. And on top of that, they are then willing to believe whatever lies and bullshit they're fed as to how it all happened, from the people that caused the problems in the first place.

My country is astoundingly full of ignorance and arrogance. A lethal combo.

Rant off.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

Honestly, if someone sincerely believes that the government has become tyrannical, he/she can speak out against aspects of government. We do, fortunately, have the freedom to do that.

However, to act against the government would have one immediately branded as a terrorist and all rights would be ignored.

Citizens of many countries let the government have control in times of economic gain, then do not realize how much control the government has taken until tougher times.

Governments should exist to serve the population, not vice-versa. Our politicians are our (the taxpayers') employees. They are not our bosses; they are our representatives. At least ideally, they should be.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> However, to act against the government would have one immediately branded as a terrorist and all rights would be ignored.



Unless your name is Cliven Bundy.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 2, 2014)

^GrindSpine, I for one would love to hear how Clive Bundy fits with your assertion about being branded a terrorist and such.

It seems like you were overreaching for the sake of rhetoric, but if not, your reasoning as to why Bundy was spared will be enlightening.

No harm in admitting you overreached, of course, or in just agreeing by silence.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 2, 2014)

It could be due to the fact that it is a rural area.

If one were to approach a courthouse in an urban center while armed, the person would be touted as a terrorist rather than "armed protester".


----------



## DocBach (Jul 7, 2014)

asher said:


> Yes, we killed a hundred thousand or two in collateral damage.


 
this is inaccurate - civilian body counts include people killed by sectarian violence. I spent 763 days deployed to Iraq as a combat infantryman and we had to put ourselves in mortal danger more often than not to avoid civilian casualities. The majority of violence when I was there in 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 was not by Americans against Iraqis or Iraqis against Americans, it was Sunnis vs Shiites. Almost every day we went on patrol we'd find an executed body or five as a result of sectarian violence. 

My personal conspiracy theory of why we went to Iraq wasn't to get oil for us, but to get oil for China to help ease the trillions of dollars of debt we owe them. No basis other than the fact that the majority of Iraq oil gets sold to China and very, very little comes to the West.

As for the current situation, I have the same solution I had in 2005 -- Iraq is a country with boundaries based off of what Britain said it had to be after WWI and their colonial era maps.... let the different groups fracture and be their own countries to include recognizing an independent Kurdistan, which seems much more likely as Turkey seems to be warming up to the idea of a Kurdish buffer zone between them and the radical Sunni militias currently cutting the heads off of everyone deemed too moderate and not Sharia enough.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 10, 2014)

This topic doesn't have enough cartoons.



Fixed!


----------



## MAJ Meadows SF (Jul 15, 2014)

DocBach said:


> My personal conspiracy theory of why we went to Iraq wasn't to get oil for us, but to get oil for China to help ease the trillions of dollars of debt we owe them. No basis other than the fact that the majority of Iraq oil gets sold to China and very, very little comes to the West.



This is makes me worry about what is sitting under the Rockies and where it will go eventually. 



FILTHnFEAR said:


> No man, I don't believe so. And I don't blame the governments for that. I blame the citizens.
> 
> Why? Not speaking for other countries. But here in the US more people are worried about the wastes of skin on their reality tv shows, hip hop culture, trendy fashion, their mobile devices, and whether or not some overpaid athlete is gonna catch a football on Sunday afternoon than what is being done to, and in the name of our country.
> 
> ...



I always find this kind of rant refreshing, not just because of agreeing with it or not, but because after deploying and coming back that's all a lot of us end up seeing. It's so polarizing it amazes me, but it echos what I've always heard from Vietnam and Korea Vets especially JSOC folks.

This is a section of the forum I avoid like the plague. This topic, although well discussed across the board here, is so gut wrenchingly personal it can't be described. Well that and I could write a book about it, along with others who have deployed, plus have a worthless Poli-Sci degree (this guy). 

I'll say one thing that I've been thinking for the last 2 years, especially after following through discussions like this from all sides, experiences, and opinions: I miss Kunar Afghanistan so much. I wish I was back there all the time, for reasons beyond the obvious or assumed.


----------



## aaaaaaaa (Jul 15, 2014)

OIL


----------



## Explorer (Jul 17, 2014)

I'm pleased there are companies exploring untapped resources.


----------



## Forrest_H (Jul 22, 2014)

Unless I missed it, can we have someone who served post in here? I'm curious to see what they were told and what they believe.

In my opinion, the war in Iraq was oil. I think a lot of people enlisted because everyone was so upset and eager to get whoever was responsible for 9/11. There's a lot of controversy over if it was set up (people claim they saw a military plane and not a passenger plane), or not, and personally, I'm conflicted. On one hand, it makes a bit of sense (and makes me sick, I might add) that the war was purely for oil, and maybe the plane wasn't a passenger jet. On the other, a close friend of my father was on the flight. He's dead, not coming back (in fact, I remember my dad crying for days over it). It's really hard to say why the war was started, but it definitely seems like later on it was purely for oil.


----------



## AgileButt (Jul 22, 2014)

The war in Iraq was just one part of a much bigger scheme.. 9/11 was staged in order to bring in Homeland Security, the whole "PATRIOTISM" psy-op, and to put Rothschild central banks in the middle east. 

Iraq was just first on the list. Other countries included in this plan are Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, and Iran. 

It's all about control. "Let me control a nation's money, and I don't care who governs it." That's what people in my ignorant country don't realize.. Presidents are just puppets, the banksters are the puppet masters. 

Money isn't a symbol of wealth, it is part of a system of control. Slavery still exists today, it's just disguised as economic slavery.

Blows my mind how people believe everything they see on "the news" without even questioning where the information is coming from, or it's validity.. Most people aren't even aware that WTC 7 also collapsed on 9/11. The BBC actually reported it's collapse about 20 minutes before it even happened = false-flag alert

6 Corporations control close to 90% of all the mass media. Monopoly's are supposed to be "illegal," as is imperialism, but they are just as prominent today as they ever were. 

I could go on and on all day about this, but there's my input in a nutshell. 

boom.


----------



## asher (Jul 23, 2014)




----------



## Danukenator (Jul 23, 2014)

95% of what AgileButt said is total BS. 

Dude, these are just tired arguments. I won't even bother refuting them as it's been done a hundred times over. Google it. One side will point out papers and technical documents and the out has "proof" from "Jerry on a forum I visit".

This is also a classic case of throwing out random facts and phrases to make your point sound menacing. I fail to see the relevance of monopolies and "6 Corporations.." besides trying (and failing) to create the illusion there is some grand scheme behind this hodgepodge of hokum.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Jul 26, 2014)

Oil.


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 26, 2014)

If the US was going to war for oil, we'd have attacked Canada. We get slightly more from Canada than we ever did or do now from Iraq.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 26, 2014)

The Rev is correct. Roughly 75% of all oil used in the US comes from the Americas and less than 15% comes from the Middle East (and most of that 15% comes from Saudi Arabia).


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Jul 27, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> 95% of what AgileButt said is total BS.
> 
> Dude, these are just tired arguments. I won't even bother refuting them as it's been done a hundred times over. Google it. One side will point out papers and technical documents and the out has "proof" from "Jerry on a forum I visit".
> 
> This is also a classic case of throwing out random facts and phrases to make your point sound menacing. I fail to see the relevance of monopolies and "6 Corporations.." besides trying (and failing) to create the illusion there is some grand scheme behind this hodgepodge of hokum.



This is what I want to reply to 90% of what passes for international affairs discussions on the internet


----------



## groverj3 (Jul 28, 2014)

AgileButt said:


> The war in Iraq was just one part of a much bigger scheme.. 9/11 was staged in order to bring in Homeland Security, the whole "PATRIOTISM" psy-op, and to put Rothschild central banks in the middle east.
> 
> Iraq was just first on the list. Other countries included in this plan are Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, and Iran.
> 
> ...



Serious question.

Are you wearing a tinfoil hat?


----------

