Collateral Murder in Iraq

[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

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?p...d=aNMlnU1TAETo

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/15/th...tical-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/wo...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

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?p...d=aNMlnU1TAETo

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/15/th...tical-missions

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

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/3427

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ma...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.