Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Innocent Casualties Of War
OK, try to shoot this down: I'm trying to spin Junior into a non-sociopath status.

OIL. If you remember the situation circa 2000-2003, there was a genuine fear of running out of oil in the very new future; there were also no new deposits to develop -- most exporters were at near capacity. Iraq was the only country in the world that was underperforming in a major way. Thus, getting Iraq to full production actually made economic sense; and if the development was controlled by US companies, so much the better.

The situations began to change soon afterwards with fracking and shale oil developments. By perhaps 2006 it would have been clear that Iraq is no longer needed. Today it is projected that by 2020 the US will be energy self-sufficient --- and this is despite Obama doing everything possible to sabotage the development.. but people connected to oil industry probably new this answer already in the second Bush' term. Thus, Iraq quite logically got de-prioritized. And yes, the resistance of the Iraqis was a big factor, but it the fact that the rationale was gone that led to the Iraqi operation first linger on inertia and then dropped altogether by Obama. (And notice that Iraqi oil development might have been in the US interests in 2003 but not at all few years later).

Now, let's see if we can get a confirmation elsewhere. Fracking is not a solution for the Europeans --- not great on availability plus Europeans are even more environment-obsessed than the US. They need new nearby reliable sources. And thus we see a European-driven takeover of Libya with minimal US participation...does the level of involvement shows who is to benefit? Syria is irrelevant to energy situation... but Mali is not (directly threatens stability of Algerian energy exports which is essential for particularly France). Central African Republic (they just had another revolution) is of course totally irrelevant.

If the above is more or less accurate, Bush was actually trying to do the right thing, and can only be accused of the lack of foresight: not knowing how the energy situation will change. And even if the above is totally inaccurate, Bush actually might have done something good: fracking development was simulated by the jump in oil prices due to the Iraq war. Is it possible that this price jump was intended?---probably not, but I'd not dismiss even this possibility out of hand like I do lambertine WMD posting.
Sanders 2020

Besides innocent collateral damage, could this also be a reason not to go to war unless absolutely necessary?
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Huh? Good story, but is this what you meant to link?
Sanders 2020

No, this one here. I also changed the link above as well.
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”

I congratulate you.

I say this because this theory "fits". Sort of like on a theological question, you get X amount of interpretations of various obscure/controversial bible passages. Most just don't fit, so you never develop confidence in them . Suddenly, you read an interpretation and voila, it just fits into the puzzle of the broad narrative.

This does make some logic. We couldn't up and "forgive/ignore Saddam" and leave him alone sanction wise, politically unacceptable after we'd used ancient "evil invaders soldiers bayoneted innocent babies" pr.

We probably did assume oil supplies may be drying up back then. Over throw Saddam, bring an "enlightened governance" to Iraq(good pr there,too) and exploit Iraq's resources onto the market big time.

I like this. Now, what about Serbia?

I read once where a guy made a statement about it was as simple as forcing Serbia "into the system". Makes as much logic as anything I've read yet.

Concerning John's link, my guess there is Bush and company simply believed their bs and assumed we'd get in and out rapidly. They didn't get that Iraq isn't a little programmable disc.


Notice that under the "finite oil" theory US should have aimed at maximum possible control of the exporters, so independent Saddam was not acceptable even if the sanctions were lifted. And if the "finite oil" model was still believed in by 2006-2008, I think an invasion of Venezuela might have been the next step. Bush' instigation of Georgian war in 2008 might be linked here too (the operation was planned for a long time and was connected to securing access to Azeri and Trans-Caspian oil.)

As for Serbia:
Quote:forcing Serbia "into the system"

is IMO most of it. Barnett's book outlines it quite well. Senior Bush, as perhaps the most prominent NWO operative among all US presidents, undoubtedly subscribed to Barnett's POV; Clinton continued the policies already prepared by the Senior.

Aggression against Serbia made perfect sense from the point of cleansing the Gap extension into Europe *entirely*.

No oil/energy connection I see here. Organized crime connection, however, is present.

Quote:Concerning John's link, my guess there is Bush and company simply believed their bs and assumed we'd get in and out rapidly.

Perhaps, but there is another answer within my model: they assumed that once oil shortages become obvious they will get all the popular support for throwing much larger forces into Iraq...and I think they would have. S6
Sanders 2020

They would have gotten all the support they needed if the public felt we needed gas prices lowered. Or if we had long lines. "Kill them all and let God sort them out"!

BTW, old Thomas PM Barnett has a UT connection, he's some sort of distinguished fellow here at the university.
(03-25-2013, 09:15 PM)Palladin Wrote: They would have gotten all the support they needed if the public felt we needed gas prices lowered. Or if we had long lines. "Kill them all and let God sort them out"!
Absolutely. And this might have been the plan too: I think Bush' administration was not entirely incompetent and they likely knew back in 2003 that the forces were insufficient. Thus some planning might have been made for increasing them when needed.
Sanders 2020

Here's the very thing that makes this entire venture worth while. S5
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Dammit, for a moment I was hoping Kerry got greased as well.
(03-26-2013, 11:49 AM)Gunnen4u Wrote: Dammit, for a moment I was hoping Kerry got greased as well.

Forget it. John Kerry, who actually served in VietNam, would never go anywhere without his gun toting bodyguards, who are there to keep the unwashed at a distance. S5
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Even if this was the deal, I don't think long term we could "beat" the culture into a form that would have been amenable to us. We don't have that much patience and time to do that( I don't think anyone else does either).

I do think Iraq is actively exploiting their resources though. They just haven't allowed US corps to do it, but, if this scenario is accurate, that's not the big deal. Just gettiung it out of the ground is if I'm seeing this accurately.
Beat the culture: sure, can. Shoot and jail about a third of the population, the rest will behave nicely. You only need the will to do what is needed... S6

Iraqi resources: ===>
(Production still below 1989's level but getting there....)
Sanders 2020

As always hind sight is better than foresight, and in this case it's no different. If any of you really knew me you would understand that I am not an advocate of war, but to play devils advocate here, especially since I don't have any information to back my question. If we are to look in our own back yards, and by back yards I mean our own countries, in this case the US and potentially Canada. Where would we see similar stories of our own being causalities of war? Probably not as evident, due to everyones fear of the US and the massiveness of this country, but this happened after 9/11 (I am in NO way saying it's okay to take an innocent life, in no way trying to justify it, but just trying to add perspective) fear was heightened, thousands of lives had been lost, and ignorance was at an all time high. Bush at the time was hell bent on his shock and awe campaign take no prisoners attitude and it wasn't until a change of government brought in new eyes that thoughts, ideas and perspectives were some what altered.

As I read through, I realized that some of you had a change of 'heart' when it came to your initial thoughts...... very interesting.
Some of us, myself included, can only tolerate so much willful myopia before finally deciding to pick up ones glasses and see with more clarity. Self-defense is one thing, but trying to impose one's sense of morality onto others is not part and parcel of the same thing.
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Indeed it is not.
I am more and more aware of how in time things change, knowledge and understanding grow (well hopefully they do) and we as human beings realize the impact of past decisions and hopefully with this new perspective we change the course of the future.
I am however reminded of an article I read somewhere on this forum about education and how it's lacking in some cultures, and that with out education our ability to actually mature dies, and brings forth more ignorance. Yes I am paraphrasing, but I think this thread is a prime example of how we as a society have been educated, how we have gotten more information and understanding and how we can grow and change and hopefully make tomorrow better than today.

W/O getting into details, those here who are lamenting Iraq never supported invading Iraq, we did support preventing the Zarqawi types ruling the place. As much as I've changed relative to the use of violence to effect a national goal, I still think it was the higher moral decision to support the use of force to prevent a Zarqawi type victory in Iraq.

We destroyed their state and brought chaos and destruction, it would have been adding evil to evil to leave them with monsters like that ruling them, IMO. I supported that. Not that this was the reason the government did the surge, I doubt it cared for more than having our way.

Where I've had a change of heart is the desire to use violence to effect a national goal that is below reasonable moral standards and I no longer take pleasure in the death of my enemy, I regret it has to be . That's a 180 for me morally. It's because I stopped worshipping the state and began doing it with Christ moreso.


Maybe, but, I am pleased to say I don't think we have enough boys and girls evil enough to go that route yet. I tend to think a whole lot of our suicide problem is guilt, not just PTSD.

As apostate as the US church is, almost every last 1 of us knows killing folks except in self defense is in opposition to God and that's a bad place to be for us. Killing folks harms us all, I think even when it is justified, really when we know it wasn't based on a really high moral cause.

I knew an old soldier that shot 1 German soldier in WWII inside a city, I worked for the guy and it bothered him 50 years later and he didn't question the cause.

He said he made the mistake of walking over, pulling out the guy's wallet and seeing his family photo and he realized, "gosh, he's a guy just like me".

As late as 1995 it bothered him and he was eliciting from me moral support for the action. He was a fine Christian gentleman and it still bothered him half a century later and the soldier he killed was armed and running between buildings.
I am all for taking convicted murderers and shoving them into a cryogenic tank instead of executing them. Even if we can't successfully revive them in a hundred or so years when we have discovered how to reverse their sociopathic impulses, it is no worse than gas, a noose, an electric chair, or a needle.

We aren't mature enough as a society to render that solution everywhere it needs to be - and we will continue to do what is thought to be the best action at the time. No one wants to do evil, but doing what is best is not always easy to figure out at the moment. 20/20 hindsight is always easy.
The problem is that there actually are people who want to do evil. They do not care about others. Everything is subordinate to their own selfish interests, and they actually relish the idea of getting ahead at the expense of others. These are the uncivilized barbarians among us.

I agree as a general statement, but, for a Christian, it is always wrong to kill someone for a cause other than self defense. That's never going to change.

I grasp Ron's dialectic point with sympathy honestly, "we are self defending say the Iraqis and all", but, that doesn't work when you rely on both Caesar to inform you and your aspirations minus harsh reality logic. Right now, it should not be difficult to re-adjust such thinking based on this, it doesn't often help.

Plus, there are Christian theological reasons never to try and change a government by force I won't go into.

Relating this to the secular/national responsibility life even Christians have, I could say today that "morally"(not necessarily wisdom wise) I could support the following war efforts as a believer:

1) The Naval war between France/Britain and the US immediately after the revolution

2) 1812

3) Any defensive war with any Indian tribe after nationhood, I don't know if European immigration here is appropriate or not, it's hard to fit into a Christian view cause we did displace the Indian tribes from selected areas.

4) WWII with Japan only with this caveat, we had NO business trying to manage Asian affairs and become Japan's competitor in the first place. I'd have been conflicted there due to that. Remember, as relates to the holocaust, we couldn't know that from personal information and I don't trust the state as a spokesman anymore. Naturally to help stop that level of evil would be good.

5) I'm ambivalent about the cold war era right now. Being realistic, I still think it valid to try and stop with the threat of prevailing counter force what was an atheist driven secular messianic political movement that did threaten the freedom of humanity at least in theory.

Each case I'd have to take individually. Oddly enough, I continue to believe Vietnam was the most logical moral war choice of the era, the evidence speaks for itself when we lost. Wasn't wise,but, neither is Afghanistan.

Incidentally, we had tons of personal evidence about how communists treated humans, I didn't need Reagan or Nixon's advice, I read books as a young man by Russki dissidents like "I speak for the silent", Solzhenitsyn's books or stuff like Pastor Richard Wurmbrandt wrote from Romania, I didn't need this dishonest state to advise me about life in Stalin's prison camp.

6) Since 1990, I could support invading Afghanistan only. Every other enterprise has been evil in my judgement right now, including what we're doing in Libya and Syria as we speak.

BTW, let me make this clear to your personally. I have supported more war than you have in my days. I do not mean to imply any judgmental finger pointing on past thinking of anyone beyond myself. I'm more guilty than 10 of us combined.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)