Do you support Aus bombing/'PBOTG' in Iraq and/or Syria?

[Long Live HFC]

Rumsfeld, and Cheney managed to turn the invasion of Iraq into a nice little earner.

sure, but I bet you don't believe that's why the US invaded

 

[Maggie5]

sure, but I bet you don't believe that's why the US invaded

Sometime ago I found a really interesting article on this but can't find it on Google. Google seems to omit quite a bit nowadays, the link I provided in a previous post I found using Duckduckgo where there were lots more links than using Google on arms manufacturers.

But it implied that these arms manufacturers certainly more than influenced some of the decisions where America has gone to war and of course Australia just follows suit. Will keep searching.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Sometime ago I found a really interesting article on this but can't find it on Google. Google seems to omit quite a bit nowadays, the link I provided in a previous post I found using Duckduckgo where there were lots more links than using Google on arms manufacturers.

But it implied that these arms manufacturers certainly more than influenced some of the decisions where America has gone to war and of course Australia just follows suit. Will keep searching.

well i'd love to read it because any of the conflicts during my lifetime have had a fairly obvious cause and effect.

 

[Maggie5]

well i'd love to read it because any of the conflicts during my lifetime have had a fairly obvious cause and effect.

Will do although not sure about the second part of your statement. But that is another story.

 

[Long Live HFC]

arms manufacturers are enablers. they allow politicians to engage in politics via other means. they have also shaped the nature of war (warfare as entertainment in '91 and drone warfare more recently being 2 obvious examples) due to their technological might. but they didn't make saddam invade Kuwait nor AQ hijack planes. they have increased the capacity for warmongering and it could be argued said capacity increases the likelihood of conflict (it's easy to wage war without domestic casualties etc) but i'd be interested to hear which conflicts were supposedly caused by "MIC" donations.

 

[Lebbo73]

it's not my fault if you're stupid and simple ideas appeal to you.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. People kill over 1000's of dollars. Don't shill here and try and claim that the arms manufacturers wouldn't do the same over trillions!

 

[Long Live HFC]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

that's the kind of infantile reasoning i would expect from both of you.

People kill over 1000's of dollars. Don't shill here and try and claim that the arms manufacturers wouldn't do the same over trillions!

i'm sure they would. but the point is that they don't get to set the foreign affairs agenda. but feel free to prove me wrong. should be quite simple enough to pick a war and detail how it was caused by the MIC.

but you won't. you never do.

 

[AM]

Yes to Bombing in Iraq (help fix the problem we helped create), and also staging areas in other countries (Syria, but also other countries if applicable).

The problem is fixed in Iraq? Suppose you'd say the same about Afghanistan. Vietnam went well too.

 

[JoondalupJ]

it's not my fault if you're stupid and simple ideas appeal to you.

Well nothing is simple is it, but fighting thousands of miles from home in someone else's war, and having the Australian defence forces having a military training exercise in the North West of Australia , with the idea behind it being , " could we be defending our shores literally in the near future ?'

So maybe I'm stupid , but I do barrack for the Hawks , and I 'd like our soldiers right here.

But yes it is simplistic , we have obligations to those who may protect us, I hope they will.

But I see nothing really happening, but the M/E turning into another quagmire of misery and more misery.

And on it goes. How many Australain military will die or be injured over there?

 

[Maggie5]

Long Live HFC, can't find it. Should have bookmarked it.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Long Live HFC, can't find it. Should have bookmarked it.

that's cool, thanks for trying.

 

[Windhover]

the idea that arms lobby groups drive foreign policy decisions is fanciful.

Dick Cheney says hi.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Dick Cheney says hi.

yeah, good one

 

[Windhover]

yeah, good one

Maybe you will like this one as well: http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

I do realise that Dick Cheney was only Vice-President at the time of the Iraq War 2, but he had been CEO of Haliburton for some years prior. If he wasn't a paid shill for Arms Manufacturers at that particular time, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

And as for fantasy, how about this effort in 2002:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

Clearly Cheney did NOT have "no doubt", whatever mistaken opinion he might have had. And funny that the decision to go to war should be in the direct interests of his supposedly former employer.

Oh yes, you are right, there is no evidence. It is all just fanciful. Just like those WMD of Saddams.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Maybe you will like this one as well: http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

I do realise that Dick Cheney was only Vice-President at the time of the Iraq War 2, but he had been CEO of Haliburton for some years prior. If he wasn't a paid shill for Arms Manufacturers at that particular time, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

And as for fantasy, how about this effort in 2002:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

Clearly Cheney did NOT have "no doubt", whatever mistaken opinion he might have had. And funny that the decision to go to war should be in the direct interests of his supposedly former employer.

Oh yes, you are right, there is no evidence. It is all just fanciful. Just like those WMD of Saddams.

hey, you won't find any disagreement from me that dick and friends were a cluster* of epic proportions, some of whom made out like bandits. but the iraq invasion had much deeper roots than that and had been on some people's agenda for more than a decade beforehand. the neocons had had a bee in their bonnet re iraq since at least kuwait, and you can see examples of this in things like wolfowitz et al's open letter to clinton (1996 IIRC) or the PNAC rubbish. it's why after 911, the first impulse by the administration was to try and pin the attacks on saddam. they didn't give two shits about afghanistan or AQ, attacking iraq was a cornerstone of their stupid ideology.

and you're right, the neocons pulled out every trick in the book in order to get the war that they really wanted. but it wasn't because they wanted to buy arms from dick's buddies, but because it was an opportunity to put their ideology into practice.

 

[Windhover]

hey, you won't find any disagreement from me that dick and friends were a cluster**** of epic proportions, some of whom made out like bandits. but the iraq invasion had much deeper roots than that and had been on some people's agenda for more than a decade beforehand. the neocons had had a bee in their bonnet re iraq since at least kuwait, and you can see examples of this in things like wolfowitz et al's open letter to clinton (1996 IIRC) or the PNAC rubbish. it's why after 911, the first impulse by the administration was to try and pin the attacks on saddam. they didn't give two shits about afghanistan or AQ, attacking iraq was a cornerstone of their stupid ideology.

and you're right, the neocons pulled out every trick in the book in order to get the war that they really wanted. but it wasn't because they wanted to buy arms from dick's buddies, but because it was an opportunity to put their ideology into practice.

Oh, I see. Fair enough then. And here I was thinking that the" ideology" they wanted to put "into practice" was making themselves filthy rich. Silly me for not realising that outcome was just a completely irrelevant and unexpected benefit of the pure ideology of the neo-con. Lucky them. I bet Jesus wished he'd thought of a better ideology before being nailed to the cross.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Oh, I see. Fair enough then. And here I was thinking that the" ideology" they wanted to put "into practice" was making themselves filthy rich. Silly me for not realising that outcome was just a completely irrelevant and unexpected benefit of the pure ideology of the neo-con. Lucky them. I bet Jesus wished he'd thought of a better ideology before being nailed to the cross.

it's not my fault you weren't paying enough attention to what/how/why things were happening at the time they were happening. i mean do you even realise dick was involved in bush I's iraq campaign? you know, a whole bunch of years before he was ever employed at halliburton? that he actually made far more money before the invasion of iraq (divesting most of his stock when becoming VP) than after (when he donated his stock options to charity)?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Oh, I see. Fair enough then. And here I was thinking that the" ideology" they wanted to put "into practice" was making themselves filthy rich. Silly me for not realising that outcome was just a completely irrelevant and unexpected benefit of the pure ideology of the neo-con. Lucky them. I bet Jesus wished he'd thought of a better ideology before being nailed to the cross.

Funny you should mention Jesus because the modern neo-con ideology is fair from just uber capitalism at all costs. Just listen the the rhetoric they use all the ******* the time, its soaked in dogma of evangelical Christianity. Hell Bush tried to sell the French president on the Iraq war using bible references.

I find it amusing that people create all of these theories about secret cabals when you need look no further then a political debate from the candidates, its all war and faith talked about again and again and again. but people don't want to see because they fall under the umbrella of Christianity and that can never been questioned, this is about more then arm manufactures. It is about ideology the evangelicals in america are out of their ******* minds and they have taken over the republican party.

all ready the next lot of war mongers are begging for votes based on 3 pillars. 1 personal wealth 2 religion 3 war. turn on any evangelical preacher from the US and you will see the same rhetoric freely expunged everyday.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

it's not my fault you weren't paying enough attention to what/how/why things were happening at the time they were happening. i mean do you even realise dick was involved in bush I's iraq campaign? you know, a whole bunch of years before he was ever employed at halliburton? that he actually made far more money before the invasion of iraq (divesting most of his stock when becoming VP) than after (when he donated his stock options to charity)?

I think rather than trying to criticise everyone's statements you should make your hypothesis on the reasons for invading Iraq clearer. There's no reason not to think the campaigning prior to 9/11 is just as related to the MIC than the lobbying afterwards. Is your suggestion on ideology that Hawks wanted to implement 'democracy' or do you mean something else?

 

[Long Live HFC]

I think rather than trying to criticise everyone's statements you should make your hypothesis on the reasons for invading Iraq clearer. There's no reason not to think the campaigning prior to 9/11 is just as related to the MIC than the lobbying afterwards. Is your suggestion on ideology that Hawks wanted to implement 'democracy' or do you mean something else?

Fair enough, I will be clearer. but I will note that I was responding to comments about cheney’s specific role with respect to halliburton.
the goals of the neocons were:

-to remove a perceived enemy of the US who uses oil as a weapon
-to open up the Iraq energy sector for business (business that would not associated with that perceived enemy)
-maintain US/allied influence/control in the oil-rich region to ensure a reliable source of energy into the future
-disarmament, especially dismantling of alleged nuclear program

These goals fit within the broader position(s) they took, which were basically concerned with ensuring the US remained the dominant military/economic/ideological force in the world, through military action if necessary (arguably this was even desirable).

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Fair enough, I will be clearer. but I will note that I was responding to comments about cheney’s specific role with respect to halliburton.
the goals of the neocons were:

-to remove a perceived enemy of the US who uses oil as a weapon
-to open up the Iraq energy sector for business (business that would not associated with that perceived enemy)
-maintain US/allied influence/control in the oil-rich region to ensure a reliable source of energy into the future
-disarmament, especially dismantling of alleged nuclear program

These goals fit within the broader position(s) they took, which were basically concerned with ensuring the US remained the dominant military/economic/ideological force in the world, through military action if necessary (arguably this was even desirable).

I find it hard to believe that anyone genuinely thought US dominance in military/economic/ideological realms was threatened by Iraq. The evidence of WMDs was "sexed up" and that has been proven. How could they truly believe Saddam was a massive imminent danger while also knowing they didn't have the evidence to back up those claims? After the Gulf War and the supplying of weapons, funds and intelligence to him in the 80s, he can't suddenly have become such a 'known unknown' within a decade?

But I'm glad you made your point clear, as I think you're essentially agreeing that the cynical perspective on the war is the most believable perspective. To suggest the neocons wanted to get their business interests in there is not a far jump from suggesting the MIC's business interests were also being served.

The only other possible argument seems to be that they were happy to exaggerate because they thought democracy would defeat the inevitable resistance occupation would bring about and Democracy was there end goal. i.e. The best interpretation was that they were horrendously naive. Hard to believe.

Disarmament as an argument only really works if Iraq was to be used as an 'example' to other states who similarly 'threaten' the geopolitical balance. Again, you wouldn't use it as an example when you have had to work damn hard to make your lack of evidence of WMD seem more substantial.

I've heard people claim the argument that the war was about oil was facile. They said it with the same confidence you had when suggesting arguments that it was all about the MIC were naive. Energy independence may have been a legit reason given the huge work done on fracking/shale/tar sands/etc sources in Nth America since, but didn't a lot of the oil stay in Iraqi hands? Of course the US had control of it even if that was allowed to happen.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I find it hard to believe that anyone genuinely thought US dominance in military/economic/ideological realms was threatened by Iraq.

you might find it hard to believe but that has no bearing on what they believed. you should read rebuilding America's defences if you care a lot about it. it was practically a blueprint of the neocon agenda. here's their letter to Clinton which is obviously much more easily digested:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf

makes it pretty obvious where they were coming from.

The evidence of WMDs was "sexed up" and that has been proven. How could they truly believe Saddam was a massive imminent danger while also knowing they didn't have the evidence to back up those claims? After the Gulf War and the supplying of weapons, funds and intelligence to him in the 80s, he can't suddenly have become such a 'known unknown' within a decade?

for the same reason average people continue to experience confirmation bias about any topic you care to name. they ignored everything that didn't fit their agenda and promoted everything that did- they relied FAR too much on Curveball, because he was telling them everything they wanted to hear.

But I'm glad you made your point clear, as I think you're essentially agreeing that the cynical perspective on the war is the most believable perspective. To suggest the neocons wanted to get their business interests in there is not a far jump from suggesting the MIC's business interests were also being served.

sorry if I was ambiguous, but I didn't mean to imply I thought the neocons wanted to get their own personal business interests into Iraq- it was about US hegemony and ensuring US energy interests, NOT personal-private profit ones. honestly, it's boring as * and will make you roll your eyes out of your head, but PNAC's rebuilding America's defences spells their stupid ideological bullshit out in fairly decent detail.

I've heard people claim the argument that the war was about oil was facile. They said it with the same confidence you had when suggesting arguments that it was all about the MIC were naive. Energy independence may have been a legit reason given the huge work done on fracking/shale/tar sands/etc sources in Nth America since, but didn't a lot of the oil stay in Iraqi hands? Of course the US had control of it even if that was allowed to happen.

as far as I am aware ALL of the oil stayed in Iraqi hands (as above I wasn't intending to imply US interests would steal/own those resources) and was merely leased, primarily to chinese and Russian companies initially. the neocon's didn't care about owning it, just ensuring it was freely available and out of the hands of a perceived threat.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

you might find it hard to believe but that has no bearing on what they believed. you should read rebuilding America's defences if you care a lot about it....

Thanks for taking the time. That book doesn't sound a great read (and I have a significant backlog of books already!) but I will try and make the time for it. Reading the letter it all sounds like lobbying for the MIC and Israel. And in a post-9/11 world you can add the anti-Islam sentiments of Christianity, but I need to read up on that too in case it was also highly influential in the 20th C.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Thanks for taking the time. That book doesn't sound a great read (and I have a significant backlog of books already!) but I will try and make the time for it.

it's only 100 pages or so, but as I said it's not a great read! I only read the damned thing to deal with 911 conspiracy theorists

Reading the letter it all sounds like lobbying for the MIC and Israel.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there (though agree re israel). to me, they were a bunch of ideologues who felt the US had a great destiny to remain superpower for all time, and war was a desirable practice to ensure this.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there (though agree re israel). to me, they were a bunch of ideologues who felt the US had a great destiny to remain superpower for all time, and war was a desirable practice to ensure this.

Yep, I don't see the link with the superpower side of things. Saddam's continued presence might've been seen as provocative to Bush Snr staff, but otherwise he was relative small-fry and their intelligence should've known it and probably did know it.

Keeping their trillions and not repeating the errors of Vietnam would've placed them better as a Superpower for this century. They already had Afghanistan to prove their ability to impose democracy if that was what they wanted to illustrate using their 'superpower'.

From my relatively uninformed perspective Iraq just looked like the easiest sell since it was the last person the US had fought. But as I said, they could've just been horrendously naive in terms of the behaviour of both dictatorships and occupied territories. An unacceptable excuse.