"US will liberate Iraq", says Bush

[Ted Striker]

Hence having client regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan would be geostrategically useful.

I would agree that they would be useful. Though, I don't see the intent to proactively go after those places for the specific purpose of oil. I can see though those locations being useful as a side effect.

Afghanistan Intention -- Topple Taliban and find Bin Laden

Iraq 2 Intention -- to be honest I have no damn idea what the hell is going on.

[Ted Striker]

They'll simply allow US corporations to "buy" it from the Iraqi people and then make insane profits from it.

Well, remember that the Russians, French, and British are all in this game also.

It's not like the US Army is going to arrive on the scene and then start handing out plots to Texaco.

[Sava]

Afghan intention -- Topple Taliban, find bin Laden, and get rid of evidence that we supplied arms to what is now Al Qaida...

I know exactly how Bush knows the inventory of Saddams chemical and biological arsenals... they all say "made in the USA" on the back

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Well, remember that the Russians, French, and British are all in this game also.

It's not like the US Army is going to arrive on the scene and then start handing out plots to Texaco.

nah... Iraq will be liberated, the US will allow the corporations to go in and negotiate with whoever is determined to be the land owner. Trust me, the Army and the US government won't be directly involved in the oil buying business. I'm sure Europe and Russia will get a certain portion (much like occupied Germany). A few Iraqi businessmen will get rich just like the Saudi's and then funnel tons of money to terrorism just like the Saudi's...

[Agathon]

I'm familiar with the water issue, though it doesn't come up in The Grand Chessboard.

The basic point of the book is to formulate a strategy for keeping the US as the world hegemon (he's not a complete lunatic - he thinks that the only other alternative is anarchy - I disagree, but there you have it).

He thinks that the Middle East is basically a geostrategic "hole" left over from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "hole" happens to be smack between Russia and China who are potential rivals to the US, so the US ought to attempt to assert some kind of control over this area in order to mantain its dominance over the Eurasian continent (he thinks that only a country with influence in Eurasia can hope to be world dominant).

So it's not oil - it's control, but control requires control of oil.

It's worth a read - took me less than a day (although I read quickly). Something like this seems a better explanation of current policy than the feeble excuses of the administration.

[Ted Striker]

I know that there was talk that the Russians would have their contracts honored, but that the French, it was a different story.

[Sava]

Yeah, that's my point though... oil is just one of the motives...

it reminds me of the Borg Queen from Star Trek:First Contact... when she talks to Data and Data says, "I realize that you have no interest in me, that your goal is to obtain the encryption codes to the Enterprise computer.."

she smiled and replied, "That is one of our goals..."

Securing the oil rights for American companies is one of Bush's goals. His hatred for Saddam based on the whole "you tried to kill my daddy" thing is another. WMD's is probably another because his mentor Ronald Pagan brokered the sale of Iraq's chemical and biological stockpile. I'm sure there are other bits of info that the public isn't privy to as well.

[Ted Striker]

My thing is that I don't see it as a motive. I see it as a side-effect.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Perhaps you should also investigate the recent deals going on between the US, Russia, and all of the former Soviet Republics. The Administration is striking deals with the former Soviet Republics specifically to undermine any dependence on Middle Eastern oil that is left. Makes more sense to travel the path of least resistance right?

That ties in very well with the invasion of Afghanistan. Having a regime friendly to the US is pivotal to running a pipeline through the country to get to that oil. You don't want the Ruskies mandating prices for use of their pipeline now, do you?

[David Floyd]

Well, whatever happens, I can only hope that the US military will take a massive beating. Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen.

That way, perhaps we'll think twice before invading people or bombing them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
My thing is that I don't see it as a motive. I see it as a side-effect.

His daddy is a liason for an oil company to the Saudi government... Dubya himself is an oil man... Cheney is an oil man... Dubya is best buddies with Enron man, Ken Lay...

don't see a motive?

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, whatever happens, I can only hope that the US military will take a massive beating. Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen.

That way, perhaps we'll think twice before invading people or bombing them.

So you hope American soldiers will die? That's nice... very American and good-willed of you. Although I might disagree with Bush's foreign policy, I don't want to see the American military and its personel take a "massive beating"...

how Christian of you...

[David Floyd]

So you hope American soldiers will die? That's nice... very American and good-willed of you. Although I might disagree with Bush's foreign policy, I don't want to see the American military and its personel take a "massive beating"...

I'm sorry, how is it different when US soldiers die rather than Iraqi soldiers/civilians?

I fail to see the distinction, and since some people have to die in war, I'd just as soon it be the aggressors.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah but Urban with regards to Afghanistan, oil really has nothing to do with it, and the central asian pipeline theory is really stretching it.

The worst possible thing you can do to yourself is to launch an attack on American soil. I mean that is like the one thing that the American people will just go crazy over. I mean people here were STEAMED. I have never seen us that angry before.

I have always said long before Afghanistan that anyone stupid enough to launch an attack on American soil is pretty much asking for a rain of fire to come down on their heads and slitting their own throats. And that's exactly what happened.

If Bush didn't do what he did, people would have had his head on a platter. In the days following the attacks, Bush is quoted by Bob Bernstein as saying, "We're going to find out who did this, and we're going to kick their asses." That quote pretty much sums up what was on nearly every single American's mind after those attacks.

The invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by a couple of factors:

1) Self Defense
2) Revenge
3) Justice

Oil had nothing to do with it.

We don't care if it takes 50 years or if we have to dig under 800 tons or rubble, but Bin Laden is going to be found dead or alive for what he did.

[David Floyd]

In any case, wouldn't a big defeat now save lives in the long run, if it dissuaded the US from going around bombing people (at least for a while)?