Collateral Murder in Iraq

[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 ....

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.