Collateral Murder in Iraq

[Loki]

This video was released by Wikileaks. Warning: not for sensitive viewers, it is upsetting.

5rXPrfnU3G0

[The Journeyman]

Look carefully at the guy behind the wall leaning out starting at 4:09. Very easy to mistake him for an enemy combatant.

[skyhawk]

Look carefully at the guy behind the wall leaning out starting at 4:09. Very easy to mistake him for an enemy combatant.

I think you have to ask yourself how much time they had and how much danger the people in the helicopter which carried out the attack were in , how much of a threat did the people on the ground pose ? , did they have enough time to make a different/better decision ? etc etc

I think the key part is not the man at the beginning who appears to be carrying something and looking around corners etc but the part with the fatally wounded man dragging himself along the floor. We can clearly hear the pilot of the helicopter imploring the man to touch what the pilot considers to be a gun so he can finish him off. It's sickening and shows an awareness of the rules of engagement being stretched to the limit so as to attempt to justify his killing of the man. :(

[The Journeyman]

The reality is, soldiers usually do have a brutal streak. Many soldiers misfire because they feel apprehensive etc. so they are not trained to empathize in a battle situation, that can put a wrench in the gears, so to speak. So what a civilian at home may view as mindless killings, is actually part of a life or death situation for the soldiers.

I do acknowledge the tragedy of it all, though.

[skyhawk]

The reality is, soldiers usually do have a brutal streak. Many soldiers misfire because they feel apprehensive etc. so they are not trained to empathize in a battle situation, that can put a wrench in the gears, so to speak. So what a civilian at home may view as mindless killings, is actually part of a life or death situation for the soldiers.

I do acknowledge the tragedy of it all, though.

Would you feel the same if the same footage was shown but we swapped the pilot of the helicopter from an American to an Iraqi serving in Saddams army ?

Apologies if it sounds like a confrontary question , it's not meant that way.

How we view the combat actions of our own or our allies is usually very different to how we view the combat actions of official state enemies and their agents

[The Journeyman]

Not a good comparison. For one, US soldiers wouldn't be dressing in civilian clothing and coordinating attacks among the local population. Using civilian casualties as a means to gain the hearts and minds of Iraqis and the Muslim world isn't noble at all, and it inevitably leads to situations like this. Can't blame the American soldiers for playing the hand they were dealt.

[Magister Eckhart]

Charging people with murder in warfare is like handing out speeding tickets at a race track. This is absurd, and completely representative of the lack of stomach contemporary Westerners have for the realities of warfare and fighting. We have become a cowardly race of beings.

[Loki]

You probably mean we have become more civilized. In my books, gunning down unarmed and helpless civilians from the comfort of your military chopper qualifies as cowardice.
Charging people with murder in warfare is like handing out speeding tickets at a race track. This is absurd, and completely representative of the lack of stomach contemporary Westerners have for the realities of warfare and fighting. We have become a cowardly race of beings.

[Magister Eckhart]

You probably mean we have become more civilized. In my books, gunning down unarmed and helpless civilians from the comfort of your military chopper qualifies as cowardice.


"Civilized" is the most convoluted and conflated word in our contemporary lexicon. It is also one of the most singularly subjective term ever brought into widespread usage by Westerners, and is probably the only concept to which the word "bigot" can properly be applied - most of all because it fundamentally denies its own bigotry.

What is truly civilization? Civilization is a term we use to describe an organism that has exhausted its creative capability and becomes slothful and senile, but is convinced of its own superiority that blinds it to its sloth and senility. It is a reality incapable of self-reflection.

[Megrez]

The issue is not US soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians, but what the US military is doing in Iraq in first place. There's a great deal before US soldiers end in Iraq. I can't blame the US soldiers gunning Iraqi civilians in warfare, but I can blame the US deploying them there.

[Loki]

What is truly civilization? Civilization is a term we use to describe an organism that has exhausted its creative capability and becomes slothful and senile, but is convinced of its own superiority that blinds it to its sloth and senility. It is a reality incapable of self-reflection.

That is your definition, I do not agree with this interpretation. Civilization, to me, means a higher level of conscience and awareness of the consequences of one's actions. Measured responses. Basically, the opposite of natural brutality.

[skyhawk]

Not a good comparison. For one, US soldiers wouldn't be dressing in civilian clothing and coordinating attacks among the local population.

I think you read my comparison wrong or maybe it was just my poor phrasing of it.

What I mean is if the pilot of the attacking helicopter was an Iraqi soldier in Saddams army and the footage was of his repression of the Shias would you have a different view of the actions carried out by the pilot ?




Using civilian casualties as a means to gain the hearts and minds of Iraqis and the Muslim world isn't noble at all, and it inevitably leads to situations like this.

How many hearts and minds ( I hate the propagandist term myself ) do you think you will win by slaughtering/maiming/orphaning/widowing the people whos trust you allegedly seek to gain ? It's a no brainer, imho.

To be honest I don't think Western elites who prosecuted the war/s have absolutely any concerns for ordinary Iraqis and only prize what is underneath the sand there

[Vasconcelos]

Oh dead Lord, that's not how you fight a war in my book.

[skyhawk]

The issue is not US soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians, but what the US military is doing in Iraq in first place. There's a great deal before US soldiers end in Iraq. I can't blame the US soldiers gunning Iraqi civilians in warfare, but I can blame the US deploying them there.

Although I disagree with your view on the actions of the US pilot in this instance , I wholeheartedly agree with your point about whether the US had a right to even be there.
To me it was and will remain another aggressive war ( a war crime ) fought by the US for control/profiteering over a massively important strategic global asset , namely Iraqi oil. I don't think it was solely about oil but predominantly about oil

[Joe McCarthy]

To me it was and will remain another aggressive war ( a war crime ) fought by the US for control/profiteering over a massively important strategic global asset , namely Iraqi oil. I don't think it was solely about oil but predominantly about oil

Funny how after we fought this war for oil gas prices skyrocketed to four dollars a gallon and Bush went begging to Saudi Arabia to increase production only to be told where to go. Moreover, even the violently anti-war Justin Raimondo long ago refuted the war for oil conspiracy theory: noting the simple economic fact that bringing Iraqi oil to market would drive prices down, thus inhibiting Big Oil's profits. After all, there is a reason why the OPEC cartel restrains production in the first place: bringing too much to market restrains their profits.

Anyway, this 'Collateral Murder' video is addressed adequately here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything



Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.

There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:



Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement.

There is nothing in that video that is inconsistent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.

Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.

Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?

Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.

Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.

Sixth, Wikileaks' claim that the U.S. military's decision to pass the two children inside the van to the Iraqi police for treatment at an Iraqi hospital threatened their lives is unsubstantiated. We do not know the medical assessment of the two Iraqi children wounded in the airstrike. We don't even know if the children were killed in the attack, although you can be sure that if they were Wikileaks would have touted this. (And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?) Having been at attacks where Iraqis have been killed and wounded, I can say I understand a little about the process that is used to determine if wounded Iraqis are transported to a U.S. hospital. The person has to be considered to have a life-threatening situation or in danger of losing a vital function (eyesight, etc.). Yet, even though the threshold to transfer Iraqis to U.S. military hospitals is high, I have repeatedly seen U.S. personnel err on the side of caution and transport wounded who probably should not have been sent to a U.S. hospital.

Baghdad in July 2007 was a very violent place, and the neighborhoods of Sadr City and New Baghdad were breeding grounds for the Mahdi Army and associated Iranian-backed Shia terror groups. The city was a war zone. To describe the attack you see in the video as "murder" is a sensationalist gimmick that succeeded in driving tons of media attention and traffic to Wikileaks' website.

[Joe McCarthy]

The issue is not US soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians, but what the US military is doing in Iraq in first place. There's a great deal before US soldiers end in Iraq. I can't blame the US soldiers gunning Iraqi civilians in warfare, but I can blame the US deploying them there.

I opposed going into Iraq, and actually still think it's a bad idea. But a bad war, once engaged, should still be won. People who obsess over Iraq tend to be left-wing antifas, Muslims, and liberal arts majors who in their offtime from studying queer theory march against 'American genocide'.

[Osweo]

It's all very ambiguous to me. What we should be talking about is the standard procedures for military personnel (who aren't responsible for their politicians' decisions to deploy them wherever). It seems they squint down telescopes, trying to guess if a man's carrying a gun or some innocent object. They have to make decisions, and they get it wrong now and then. It seems cameras look too much like guns. :(

- This is a potentially self-defeating way of fighting a war.

Then again, when there ARE men with guns running about, it's probably not too good an idea to go running around yourself with something on your shoulder. :ohwell: If the soldiers seem 'trigger-happy', they probably have some reasons for it, having seen comrades blown to bits by roadside bombs. They were unable to hit back then, and want to hit back now, while they have the chance. The only way to hit an insurgent who plants bombs at night is to try and catch him when he's doing other stuff, like wandering about when there are gun fights going on.

Ultimate conclusion obviously has to remain this; don't get involved in pointless foreign wars where you haven't got a clue what the fuck is going on. :(

[Joe McCarthy]

I think the moral of the story is don't go on a cruise with the kids into a combat zone, and don't point objects that look like RPG launchers at attack helicopters. I think most people know not to do these things anyway.

[Loki]

Funny how after we fought this war for oil gas prices skyrocketed to four dollars a gallon and Bush went begging to Saudi Arabia to increase production only to be told where to go. Moreover, even the violently anti-war Justin Raimondo long ago refuted the war for oil conspiracy theory: noting the simple economic fact that bringing Iraqi oil to market would drive prices down, thus inhibiting Big Oil's profits. After all, there is a reason why the OPEC cartel restrains production in the first place: bringing too much to market restrains their profits.


I think it's more about controlling the oil-producing regions than influencing short-term price fluctuations. The latter is less important. America now has a strong foothold in the Middle East.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think it's more about controlling the oil-producing regions than influencing short-term price fluctuations. The latter is less important. America now has a strong foothold in the Middle East.

I personally think our handling of Saddam was botched even in the first Gulf War. That being said, neo-conservatives genuinely believe in democratic peace theory, and think they can bring democracy to pacify rabid Muslims. I'm very skeptical of that view.

Still, I don't doubt there is a geopolitical component. One thing Iraq has done is theoretically put pressure on other Mid-East states to democratize. Though that idea is pretty crazy too (except in Iran), as it'll bring Islamists to power, such as happened in Palestine.

[Megrez]

I opposed going into Iraq, and actually still think it's a bad idea. But a bad war, once engaged, should still be won. People who obsess over Iraq tend to be left-wing antifas, Muslims, and liberal arts majors who in their offtime from studying queer theory march against 'American genocide'.
But, how exactly will the war in Iraq be won? One must know the purpose of a war to actually win it. If the purpose was to appease the military industrial complex lobby, then the war is won the way it is. If the purpose was to prevent Iraq from becoming an actual rogue state, then I think Iraq is more prone to become a rogue state under whatever government USA installs there after effectively leaving. If winning a war is intertwined with ceasing the warfare, then I doubt that war can be won, seriously.

[Joe McCarthy]

But, how exactly will the war in Iraq be won? One must know the purpose of a war to actually win it. If the purpose was to appease the military industrial complex lobby, then the war is won the way it is. If the purpose was to prevent Iraq from becoming an actual rogue state, then I think Iraq is more prone to become a rogue state under whatever government USA installs there after effectively leaving. If winning a war is intertwined with ceasing the warfare, then I doubt that war can be won seriously.

We're going to have to hope the neo-cons are right and Iraq can be democratized. Barring that, a pro-US strongman might can be maintained. I can't imagine that we'll leave Iraq completely. It'd certainly be idiotic to do so. I can say that much.

We also need to bear in mind that Iraq is not Afghanistan. The insurgency is effectively beaten. Indeed, the same naysayers who now say we can't win in Afghanistan were saying the same thing around the time this 'murder' video was made.

[Loki]

That being said, neo-conservatives genuinely believe in democratic peace theory, and think they can bring democracy to pacify rabid Muslims. I'm very skeptical of that view.


They must be deluded. I don't think there is any workable definition of "democracy", other than pro-American (in this context).

[skyhawk]

Funny how after we fought this war for oil gas prices skyrocketed to four dollars a gallon and Bush went begging to Saudi Arabia to increase production only to be told where to go.

It would be interesting to know what reasons/considerations you believe were behind the US attack and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Was oil even a consideration?

The US invasion of Iraq had with it the ultimatum of the Iraqi Oil Law and the brave and bitter resistance to that by ordinary Iraqis ( who definately believe it was about oil ) highlights the subject.

Prior to the war western oil companies were making nothing from Iraqi oil reserves , as had been the case since the Iraqis nationalized it decades earlier.
The US government had lost control over/influence in Iraq since 1991.

After the attack things have changed.

The US supports a the " Iraqi government " , a future client state regime ( as you suggest ) and is pushing intensely the same people to ratify the conditions of the Oil Laws against widespread national rejectionism.
It has built numerous military bases there and will retain a formidable military presence there for the longterm.
That's a well better situation for US global hegemon designs don't you think ?
Securing such a valuable strategic asset




Moreover, even the violently anti-war Justin Raimondo long ago refuted the war for oil conspiracy theory: noting the simple economic fact that bringing Iraqi oil to market would drive prices down, thus inhibiting Big Oil's profits. After all, there is a reason why the OPEC cartel restrains production in the first place: bringing too much to market restrains their profits.

They have made an absolute killing themselves by Iraqi underproduction and will gain/profit , through the Oil Laws , immensely from their new partnership with their Iraqi stooges ( government) in the future.


Anyway, this 'Collateral Murder' video is addressed adequately here:


There is an obvious question to be asked here though , if the US military has the full footage why haven't they just shown it as a response/refutation of the Wikileaks footage ?
Don't forget they at first denied any killing of Rueters reporters by US forces despite obviously having the footage of it themselves!

[Vasconcelos]

Remember that there are cases and cases.

Cameras, as sniper rifles, use lenses, when you're in a combat situation and you see far away a lens being pointed at you, you'll shoot back or ask for backup, you're not taking any chances when your life is on the line. Innocent victims of such accidents are collateral damage, but what was done on this movie clip is completelly different.

[skyhawk]

I opposed going into Iraq, and actually still think it's a bad idea. But a bad war, once engaged, should still be won. People who obsess over Iraq tend to be left-wing antifas, Muslims, and liberal arts majors who in their offtime from studying queer theory march against 'American genocide'.

I respect the fact that you were opposed to the attack on Iraq but think your remarks about "winning" could indicate a obsession to win that is no different than the obsession you claim others have about Iraq.

If my opinions put me in the same bracket as those you paint in such glorious colours above then so be it , but rather them than war criminals and mass murderers.

[Eldritch]

They must be deluded. I don't think there is any workable definition of "democracy", other than pro-American (in this context).

I don't think there's any point in trying to "democratize" a people who don't value or want democracy in the first place, or aren't capable of producing it for themselves.

Of course, you can make an Arab say "yes, yes my friend, democracy, very good" for the cameras at gunpoint, but, well .... :shrug:

Iraq was a snakepit before Saddam and later America came along, and it will still be one once the Americans have left.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think it's more about controlling the oil-producing regions than influencing short-term price fluctuations. The latter is less important. America now has a strong foothold in the Middle East.

Doubtful. If they had any true influence on the region, either Bush and/or Obama would have used it to lower oil prices, in order to reduce the cost of gasoline and boost the US economy, in order to avert electoral disaster for their parties in the past 3 elections.


Prior to the war western oil companies were making nothing from Iraqi oil reserves , as had been the case since the Iraqis nationalized it decades earlier.

None of the post-war contracts went to US companies.


They have made an absolute killing themselves by Iraqi underproduction and will gain/profit

'American oil companies' are actually mostly refiners/distributors, they import crude oil from overseas and then refine it into gasoline (petrol), diesel/fuel oil, and aviation fuel, and sell this. Lower worldwide oil prices/high Iraqi production keep their costs of buying oil from overseas down and their profits up, higher worldwide oil prices/low Iraqi production keep their costs of buying oil from overseas up and their profits down. The other oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela would have the most to gain from lower Iraqi oil production.



There is an obvious question to be asked here though , if the US military has the full footage why haven't they just shown it as a response/refutation of the Wikileaks footage ?!

For the reasons Wagnerian mentions.


Cameras, as sniper rifles, use lenses, when you're in a combat situation and you see far away a lens being pointed at you, you'll shoot back or ask for backup, you're not taking any chances when your life is on the line. Innocent victims of such accidents are collateral damage, but what was done on this movie clip is completelly different.

Generally these helicopters are not flying around at random high overhead, they are flying close ground support for troops on the ground. So, if they failed to take out any actual enemy combatants, these combatants could then potentially attack US troops on the ground.

All this could have been avoided of course if actual enemy combatants wore uniforms in order to differentiate themselves from civilians, thus preventing future confusion of civilians and combatants.

[Magister Eckhart]

That is your definition, I do not agree with this interpretation. Civilization, to me, means a higher level of conscience and awareness of the consequences of one's actions. Measured responses. Basically, the opposite of natural brutality.

Thus you prove my point: there is no set definition of civilization, meaning that your objective use of the term to describe a pacifistic society is completely inappropriate and reveals the self-satisfied bigotry of liberal thought.

[Loki]

I could throw a dictionary at you if you insist.
Thus you prove my point: there is no set definition of civilization, meaning that your objective use of the term to describe a pacifistic society is completely inappropriate and reveals the self-satisfied bigotry of liberal thought.

[Loddfafner]

Years ago I examined the IMF's Direction of Trade statistics and was surprised to find that very little of the oil imported by the US actually came from the Middle East. American oil supplies came largely from Venezuela and Nigeria. Mideast oil went to Japan, and to a lesser extent, Europe. So involvement in that area might really about controlling the resources of America's allies, and increasingly, China.

As for the current wars, I suspect that India, Pakistan, Iran, and maybe Russia and China are using them to keep America, as the hegemonic military power, bogged down for as long as possible. A combination of fear of appearing to lose, bureaucratic inertia, influence by military contractors, evangelical fantasies about Babylon, and the continuing will of American individuals to use the war to test their manhood all contribute to the persistence of America's gullibility in spending such colossal amounts of resources against its own interests.

[skyhawk]

Doubtful. If they had any true influence on the region, either Bush and/or Obama would have used it to lower oil prices, in order to reduce the cost of gasoline and boost the US economy, in order to avert electoral disaster for their parties in the past 3 elections.

So you doubt US/Western influence in the region even though they have client state managers in Egypt , all the gulf sheikdoms including Saudi ( the house of Saud owes its very place/existance to western support hence the US military presence there today.)
And they always have the Israeli cosh close by to take down recaltrant Arabs in the region. Iran and Lebanon are looking down a US/Israeli barrel as I type.





None of the post-war contracts went to US companies.

You know why ?

Because the US oil companies who bid on the contracts wanted $4 a barrel when the others settled on $2 a barrel.




'American oil companies' are actually mostly refiners/distributors, they import crude oil from overseas and then refine it into gasoline (petrol), diesel/fuel oil, and aviation fuel, and sell this.

Yep , and now they have the opportunity to profit from the crude as well as from the refined products from a country they had previously been cut out of.




For the reasons Wagnerian mentions.

Sorry SOV , looked back through the thread and can't find Wagnerian mentioning anything about it.
So why do you think the US army , who have the complete recordings , have refused to release the footage themselves ?

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by skyhawk
It would be interesting to know what reasons/considerations you believe were behind the US attack and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Was oil even a consideration?


I won't venture to speculate beyond what we know to be the case. If oil was a reason, presumably we'd have a whistleblower. Zelikow did admit that Israel was a concern, and even Bush acknowledged it later, but that's not even really nefarious as the US always seeks to protect its allies. We almost used nuclear weapons to defend France in Vietnam, after all. In general, it was a bad move, but there were reasons used even beyond Israel, and one doesn't need a conspiracy theory to account for bad policy-making.


If my opinions put me in the same bracket as those you paint in such glorious colours above then so be it , but rather them than war criminals and mass murderers.

Maybe you can start a fund to build a Holocaust museum for slain Iraqis, complete with the Wikileaks video to serve in the stead of Auschwitz crematoria.

[skyhawk]

I won't venture to speculate beyond what we know to be the case.

What do we " know to be the case "..?



If oil was a reason, presumably we'd have a whistleblower.

Alan Greenspan admitted it was about oil , does he qualify as a whistleblower ?
To be honest Joe , if you think Iraqi oil had nothing to do with the US decision to illegally invade Iraq I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land



We almost used nuclear weapons to defend France in Vietnam, after all.

France isn't in Vietnam that was a colonial struggle and there is nothing to be proud of/boastful about in using nuclear weapons on people IMHO :eek:




In general, it was a bad move, but there were reasons used even beyond Israel, and one doesn't need a conspiracy theory to account for bad policy-making.

It wasn't bad move for the people who were designing those policies. I'm sure Rumsfeld and others are much richer now than they were prior to the war.
You are convinced that the war had nothing to do with Iraqi oil and dismiss it as concpiracy theory and yet appear quite happy to buy into the conspiracy theories of your own ruling elites IE " we care about the ordinary Iraqis " , how does that stand up to scrutiny ? Not very well at all IMHO.



Maybe you can start a fund to build a Holocaust museum for slain Iraqis, complete with the Wikileaks video to serve in the stead of Auschwitz crematoria.

Maybe you can one day swap that swinging brick for a heart. Edward Bernays would be driven to orgasm reading your posts about US global benevolence

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by skyhawk
Alan Greenspan admitted it was about oil , does he qualify as a whistleblower ?


I'm unsure what the context of Greenspan's comment was, as I haven't seen it, but the answer is no, he doesn't. I'm speaking of an administration insider, such as Zelikow.


You are convinced that the war had nothing to do with Iraqi oil and dismiss it as concpiracy theory and yet appear quite happy to buy into the conspiracy theories of your own ruling elites IE " we care about the ordinary Iraqis " , how does that stand up to scrutiny ?

Simply reciting stated goals and aims is not indulging in conspiracism. I'm certainly aware that the US often engages in shady behavior, but the record shows that even the bad behavior is ultimately intended for good reasons. You seem to assume that we're Genghis Khan or Ottomans and invade countries simply to steal resources. If we were really that interested in oil, we'd be attacking Hugo Chavez or Qadhafi - both of whom nationalized US oil holdings.


France isn't in Vietnam that was a colonial struggle and there is nothing to be proud of/boastful about in using nuclear weapons on people IMHO


Had it saved the French position it would have saved us the trouble of going in, and would have stopped Vietnam from falling to Communism.

I think the fundamental problem in a lot of these discussions about foreign policy is that some prefer isolationism to the hard choices of realist policy, or think the relations between states can realistically be conducted in some Amnesty International dream world. It's a big bad world out there, and sometimes less than ideal choices have to be made to prevent something worse.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
Years ago I examined the IMF's Direction of Trade statistics and was surprised to find that very little of the oil imported by the US actually came from the Middle East. American oil supplies came largely from Venezuela and Nigeria. Mideast oil went to Japan, and to a lesser extent, Europe.

Yes, during the first Gulf War one of the complaints was that we were essentially warring for oil - Japan's oil. The one genuine concern was that Saddam might use his massive army to invade and consolidate the Arab world behind him, and that a united Arab world would not be in our interests. It certainly wouldn't, but there was no real evidence Saddam intended to attack the KSA.

Ironically, according to Pentagon experts, had Saddam simply rolled over all of the Arab states initially, it would have been extremely difficult to dislodge him. Ultimately his failing was due to his own strategic incompetence.

[skyhawk]

I'm unsure what the context of Greenspan's comment was, as I haven't seen it, but the answer is no, he doesn't.



AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

As head of the Federal Reserve I would think his opinion ( based on his rubbing shoulders with the architects of the Iraq invasion ) carries some weight




Simply reciting stated goals and aims is not indulging in conspiracism. I'm certainly aware that the US often engages in shady behavior, but the record shows that even the bad behavior is ultimately intended for good reasons.

The record shows nothing of the sort . :eek: It would take a very disciplined(conditioned?) person to ignore the massive amount of information available that contradicts your claim.
Staying on topic , the US claim that they invaded because they care so much about ordinary Iraqis that they are prepared to invade to topple their dictator tormentor Saddam , as the often stated text states , is a conspiracy theory in itself.
Even a brief familiarity with the events between 1991 to the present would leave any open minded person to seriously question that assumption




You seem to assume that we're Genghis Khan or Ottomans and invade countries simply to steal resources. If we were really that interested in oil, we'd be attacking Hugo Chavez or Qadhafi - both of whom nationalized US oil holdings.

Imperialists are imperialists be they Mongol , Turks ,Spaniards and yes , shock horror , Americans.

The US has just taken out of mothballs a whole fleet that is being readied for service in and around Latin America and the Caribbean. I know it's hard but sometimes you can't kill everyone everywhere at the same time :rolleyes:




Had it saved the French position it would have saved us the trouble of going in, and would have stopped Vietnam from falling to Communism.

Don't you think the Vietamese people should decide what happens in Vietnam , not the French or the Americans ? In fact Vietnam is one of the cases that totally undermines the myth of US global support for democracy promotion

[Loddfafner]

The one genuine concern was that Saddam might use his massive army to invade and consolidate the Arab world behind him, and that a united Arab world would not be in our interests.

My analysis of the time, after having written a term paper on the history of the Ba'ath party, was exactly that, the prevention of an Arab Bismarck was a rational objective for the US.

[Osweo]

My analysis of the time, after having written a term paper on the history of the Ba'ath party, was exactly that, the prevention of an Arab Bismarck was a rational objective for the US.

A unifier of Arabs? Bismarck was content with a Kleindeutschland, though. He rejected claiming any Habsburg territory even after having defeated Austria in a war. And he was a stickler for international security, intent on maintaining good relations with Russia, and not antagonising Britain.

Or Bismarck as a builder of a strong powerful state? :confused:

[Loddfafner]

A unifier of Arabs? ...

Or Bismarck as a builder of a strong powerful state? :confused:

He saw himself, and hoped others would see him, as a new Bismarck who would gobble up a bunch of little city states and build a world-class power out of them. The French saw him as an Arab Robespierre, chopping off heads for the glory of the Republic, which is why they gave him so much benefit of a doubt.

[Osweo]

He saw himself, and hoped others would see him, as a new Bismarck who would gobble up a bunch of little city states and build a world-class power out of them.
How far do you think he would have gone? I'm surprised that he entertained ideas of going any further than Kuwait. Are you implying Bahrain and Qatar and the intervening Saudi coast? With Khuzistan? Even the UAE?!

I always thought him more of a realist, and not too intent on getting even MORE Shiites under his rule. As a Sunni Arab, Syria would make more sense for annexation, and Jordan, but we know how the Ba'athists fell out in the former, and Jordan involves far too much Israel-related bother.

What would you say were his 'wildest dreams', and what his 'most realistic' ambition?

[Loddfafner]

I assumed he would try to get at least as far as the UAE but I don't recall if I had any specific evidence for that assumption. A theme of secular Arab nationalist writings was about how that whole part of the world got so backward to the point that Israel could just barge in and set up camp. One of the hypotheses was that Western powers had succeeded in dividing them up into numerous small states pitted against each other, and if only they could unite, they could at least join forces. There were calls for an Arab Bismarck.

There were a few odd, shortlived combinations such as Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. The Ba'ath strove for Arab unity, expecting to lead the movement. Saddaam Hussein built up a disproportionately large military. On paper, they were the 4th most powerful in the world.

[SwordoftheVistula]

So you doubt US/Western influence in the region

No, certainly not in the way the claimants of 'colonialism' describe. Look at the facts: they can't force oil prices down in order to boost the economy and win elections. They can't even prevent American contractors from being underbid by cheap foreign labor.



client state managers in Egypt , all the gulf sheikdoms including Saudi ( the house of Saud owes its very place/existance to western support hence the US military presence there today.)

Mainly because they are the only alternative to extremist governments.






Because the US oil companies who bid on the contracts wanted $4 a barrel when the others settled on $2 a barrel.

If this was a 'war for oil and influence' as you describe, this would not matter. The contracts would go to American companies no matter what, maybe at $40/barrel.







Yep , and now they have the opportunity to profit from the crude as well as from the refined products from a country they had previously been cut out of.

Before, you were claiming that denial of this oil to the market was benefiting them, now you are claiming that access of this oil to the market is benefiting them :confused:

Fact: crudeoil prices have gone up since the Iraq War

Fact: US refiners import oil, thusly their profit margins are hurt by rising costs when crude oil prices rise





So why do you think the US army , who have the complete recordings , have refused to release the footage themselves ?

See the reactions to the release of the video: it provides propaganda material to the enemy, and potentially loses political support at home to the 'casual news' viewers who form knee-jerk opinions based on brief video clips.


As head of the Federal Reserve I would think his opinion ( based on his rubbing shoulders with the architects of the Iraq invasion ) carries some weight

Not really. The 'Federal Reserve' is a private banking institution, and not a part of the executive branch (ie, 'Bush administration').




The US has just taken out of mothballs a whole fleet that is being readied for service in and around Latin America and the Caribbean.

Link?

It appears the opposite is true, the US navy is cutting back on shipbuilding, and planning to decommission ships ahead of schedule:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNMlnU1TAETo

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/15/the-obama-administrations-cuts-to-the-u-s-navy-imperil-critical-missions

[Joe McCarthy]

How far do you think he would have gone? I'm surprised that he entertained ideas of going any further than Kuwait. Are you implying Bahrain and Qatar and the intervening Saudi coast? With Khuzistan? Even the UAE?!

I always thought him more of a realist, and not too intent on getting even MORE Shiites under his rule. As a Sunni Arab, Syria would make more sense for annexation, and Jordan, but we know how the Ba'athists fell out in the former, and Jordan involves far too much Israel-related bother.

What would you say were his 'wildest dreams', and what his 'most realistic' ambition?

The realist position would have been to roll over all of the Gulf Arab states. He had the capacity. Recall that Bismarck himself was the ultimate realist. As it happened he only took Kuwait, which allowed the US and its allies to build up forces in the KSA and smash him. Had he done what the Pentagon suggested we would have been stuck trying to dislodge him from Egypt, Iran, or Israel - extremely iffy propositions.

[skyhawk]

No, certainly not in the way the claimants of 'colonialism' describe. Look at the facts: they can't force oil prices down in order to boost the economy and win elections. They can't even prevent American contractors from being underbid by cheap foreign labor.

I think we are at cross purposes here SOV about who we think runs the US.

I believe that the US , like the vast majority of countries , is run by and for the rich of the nation. Because people have been conned into thinking they live in a " democracy " ( a meaningful one ) here in the West it's probably hard for them to get their head around the fact that the same group of people ALWAYS win the elections.
And corporate America has done very well out of the attacking of Iraq. Lockheed Martin shareholders got rich when the place was being knocked down with their weaponry and Halliburton got rich building some of it back up again. Eric Prince and Blackwater got rich being mercenaries etc etc

Getting back to the oil situation here is an article that considers the expected " bonanza " for foreign ( to Iraqis ) companies to profit from contracts gained by invasion and occupation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/middleeast/14rebuild.html




Mainly because they are the only alternative to extremist governments.

There are many around the world who would have much justification for classing US governments past and present as " extremist ". In my view the US classes any who wish to tread and independent path as " extremist ". Radical Islam owes its existence in no small part down to Saudi financial support



If this was a 'war for oil and influence' as you describe, this would not matter. The contracts would go to American companies no matter what, maybe at $40/barrel.

You are basing your whole argument against this on the price of oil IE if " they can't control the price of oil " then obviously the war had nothing to do with oil , and I think that's too simplistic a way to look at things.

For one , if crude goes up that cost is then passed on to the consumers of the refiners products etc. So higher crude prices doesn't necessarily equate to lower oil refiners profits , that cost is just socialized at the petrol pump.

Two , the Iraqis controlled their own national oil industry for years and Western oil companies were out of the profit loop being made from Iraqi crude exports . Obviously the Iraqi Oil Law ( written in the US ) is now allowing outside companies to profit from Iraqi oil exportation , a previously closed market to them.

So how is any of this bad for foreign multinational oil companies ?




Before, you were claiming that denial of this oil to the market was benefiting them, now you are claiming that access of this oil to the market is benefiting them :confused:

Fact: crudeoil prices have gone up since the Iraq War

Fact: US refiners import oil, thusly their profit margins are hurt by rising costs when crude oil prices rise

See above , the higher cost of crude doesn't eat into refiners profits , the cost is passed on.







See the reactions to the release of the video: it provides propaganda material to the enemy, and potentially loses political support at home to the 'casual news' viewers who form knee-jerk opinions based on brief video clips.


Everyone has already seen this footage , so what have the US military got to lose by showing extended footage that would back up what they claim ?



Not really. The 'Federal Reserve' is a private banking institution, and not a part of the executive branch (ie, 'Bush administration').

We are back to who we think run America and shape government policy.






Link?

It appears the opposite is true, the US navy is cutting back on shipbuilding, and planning to decommission ships ahead of schedule:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNMlnU1TAETo

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/15/the-obama-administrations-cuts-to-the-u-s-navy-imperil-critical-missions

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross07292008.html

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/3427

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/navy-m07.shtml

[SwordoftheVistula]

Getting back to the oil situation here is an article that considers the expected " bonanza " for foreign ( to Iraqis ) companies to profit from contracts gained by invasion and occupation...Western oil companies were out of the profit loop being made from Iraqi crude exports . Obviously the Iraqi Oil Law ( written in the US ) is now allowing outside companies to profit from Iraqi oil exportation , a previously closed market to them.

That's 'western' as in 'western European', most of which opposed the Iraq War.



You are basing your whole argument against this on the price of oil IE if " they can't control the price of oil " then obviously the war had nothing to do with oil , and I think that's too simplistic a way to look at things.

For one , if crude goes up that cost is then passed on to the consumers of the refiners products etc. So higher crude prices doesn't necessarily equate to lower oil refiners profits , that cost is just socialized at the petrol pump.

Not entirely, because they sell less gasoline when the price goes up. If all cost increases could be passed on to consumers, companies wouldn't bother to fight fraud and theft against themselves.

Also, from the political perspective, huge electoral losses could have been avoided by the parties in power in the last 3 elections by lowering gasoline prices, so why didn't they, if for no other reason than to stay in power?


As regards the '4th Fleet being resurrected', that is an administrative name change for ships already in the region, mostly involved in drug interdiction and humanitarian missions.