Iraq, think about it.

Rebeller

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah, see and thats all well and good but you've claimed that your theory, is supported by Fisk, some book you cannot remember the title of, and a document that in no way supports your claim. And then muttered something about not being able to explain it. So that's not a proposed explaination, whose status is still conjectural, because you haven't given the facts that support your conjectures.

So you've got a theory based on ideal speculation which you yourself admit you cannot coherantly explain. So thats a guess.

Here's what I actually said:

myself in post 37 wrote:

If you're interested in gaining a better understanding of Iraq and what's really happening and likely to happen there you should have a look at the following books.

Turn off the computer games and pay better attention:D

Reading an expert (or even non-expert) opinion on a subject and then regurgitating it is not exactly what I would consider active thinking. My point was that my theory, views, opinions etc (whatever you want to call it) is based on a broad range of materials. Sometimes it is by reading the info that contradicts with your own view that you gain a greater understanding of an issue, particularly where consideration is given to the author of any such material.

Knowledge and understanding is advanced through educated conjecture, experimentation and experience. There is very little to be gained by tiredly repeating the views and opinions of others withiout applying any form of interrogation. Independece of thought is not an easy task for those of us who are products of the western indoctrinating establishment educational system.

Diogenes wrote:

No I'm sorry a degree of a functioning civil society must exist. Should we examine the death toils in East Timor, Haiti, and Colombia? Are you really suggesting that they are in the calibre scale or scope of the Iraq conflict?

What degree of "functioning" is enough for you? Free movement on all major highways during daylight hours with all oil industry workers having to be escorted under armed guard and forced to live in US protected compounds as the very fact of working for the occupying force singles you out as a legitimate target?

US operated and controlled dormitory compounds for essential workers and their families where a semblance of "normaility" exists, while the remainder of the country exists in a state of fearful anarchy (in the common sense of the word) as is the case in that other US invasion success story Afghanistan?

The above is enough to secure what the US came to secure (the oil). Education, health and general welfare for the "non-functioning" parts of the populace are not required. The profits from oil are sufficient to justiy spending billions on extravagant security measures/

Diogenes wrote:

are you really suggesting that they are in the calibre scale or scope of the Iraq conflict?

Is something less tragic and inhumane just because the numbers involved are less than a preconceived idea of what consitututes a crime against humanity? Are the deaths of 200,000 less worthy of our attention because the figures involved are less than the current conflict?

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

Akrasia wrote:

about 200,000 according to amnesty international (or 1/5 of the current population) during the Indonesian occupation (with considerable support from america) and hundreds of thousands interned in prison camps http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/oct1999albertqa.htm

How many US factories are based in Eat Timor. I think you'll find that the majority of US industry in the region is in mainland Indonesia.

The reason The Indonesians even bothered with East Timor was because they have substantial Oil, Gas and Gold reserves. The U.S. supported Indonesia because Suharto promised he would liberalise the markets and allow Oil Comanies in, which he did.
The Oil managed to flow in East timor with ease without any need for a stable civil society like you insist is a requirement in Iraq.

Economies of Scale don't really equate in this sort of situation. Even if it did, the Iraq death toil is nearly four times as much, and would increase greatily if the Iraqi army didn't have the support of the US againist insurgents.

Economies of scale? that's a pretty horrible thing to say when you're talking about murder and rape. I was talking about the proportionate impact on the population of 8,000 murders in a population of 8 million, compared with Iraq's population of about 26 million. And the numbers are comparable, because in the first year in Iraq, there were about 33,000 deaths as a direct result of military activity. (according to the lancet if you extrapolate the figures properly)

How many US multinationals have factories in Colombia?

I don't know, loads. CocaCola for one, DynCorp, Monsanto, United Technologies, Loads of mining and logging companies, loads of agribusinesses and weapons manufacturers...

Again and I'm sorry for stating the bleeding obvious you are completely underestimating the scale of the insurgency if you feel that US oil companies could operate in the middle of a full scale civil war

I never said america wanted there to be a full scale civil war, they would have been much happier with a low level insurgency with just enough political strife to keep the Iraqi people divided. things are out of control. You said that America needed to build a stable state so their could extract their natural resources. I believe I have proven that a stable state is by no means a prerequisite for the exploitation of another countries natural resources.

Diogenes

Rebeller wrote:

Here's what I actually said:



Turn off the computer games and pay better attention:D

Reading an expert (or even non-expert) opinion on a subject and then regurgitating it is not exactly what I would consider active thinking. My point was that my theory, views, opinions etc (whatever you want to call it) is based on a broad range of materials. Sometimes it is by reading the info that contradicts with your own view that you gain a greater understanding of an issue, particularly where consideration is given to the author of any such material.

Knowledge and understanding is advanced through educated conjecture, experimentation and experience. There is very little to be gained by tiredly repeating the views and opinions of others withiout applying any form of interrogation. Independece of thought is not an easy task for those of us who are products of the western indoctrinating establishment educational system.

You claim it is the US's plan to have

Read my post again. The US does not want a functioning state. The US wants to control the oilfields and maintain and establish permanent bases in the region now that that oh so heavenly democracy of Saudi Arabia is no longer such a sure bet.

When asked to back it up we get

I've developed my "theories" based on my own experiences and years of observation of Us and western actions throughout the world. If I could transpose my thoughts and experiences into a post I would.

My theory is that the US want to turn Iraq into a giant theme part and install the easter bunny as a puppy leader. If I could transpose my thoughts and experiences into this matter I would just until then I'll expose any half baked theory and run away when asked to proof this.

As to your jibes about computer games you finally reach the thrust of my point, RE infrastructure.

What degree of "functioning" is enough for you? Free movement on all major highways during daylight hours with all oil industry workers having to be escorted under armed guard and forced to live in US protected compounds as the very fact of working for the occupying force singles you out as a legitimate target?

For starts they haven't got that now so I cannot see how allowing the state to slip into further chaos is going to give you that. What about power? Sewage? Food? Transporting the oil to refineries? What about these workers families?

See your theory maybe a theory but when you approach it with a degree of logic and rationality it falls apart.

US operated and controlled dormitory compounds for essential workers and their families where a semblance of "normaility" exists, while the remainder of the country exists in a state of fearful anarchy (in the common sense of the word) as is the case in that other US invasion success story Afghanistan?

Yeah the compounds in Afghanistan. For US troops and the support staff. Their intereprateurs dont even live there. Theres a good model. Compare that to the size of the compounds you're suggesting, tens of thousands of workers? Their families? Their support staff? Repair teams You can see how absurd this suggestion is.

The above is enough to secure what the US came to secure (the oil). Education, health and general welfare for the "non-functioning" parts of the populace are not required. The profits from oil are sufficient to justiy spending billions on extravagant security measures/

You cannot guard every mile of road, every kilometer of pipeline. The damage that insurgents have caused while there is a semblance of order is extensive, could you offer any evidence that the US could secure this Iraq without massive loss of life. The Iraq war has already cost trillions, and the cost for building these compounds, and maintaining security will not be tenable.

Is something less tragic and inhumane just because the numbers involved are less than a preconceived idea of what consitututes a crime against humanity? Are the deaths of 200,000 less worthy of our attention because the figures involved are less than the current conflict?

:rolleyes:

Seriously I'm not suggesting that it is any less significant in a Joe Stalin esque manner, however to suggest that what is pratical in a state with minor insurgency is pratical in a state of civil war.

Diogenes

Akrasia wrote:

The reason The Indonesians even bothered with East Timor was because they have substantial Oil, Gas and Gold reserves. The U.S. supported Indonesia because Suharto promised he would liberalise the markets and allow Oil Comanies in, which he did.
The Oil managed to flow in East timor with ease without any need for a stable civil society like you insist is a requirement in Iraq.

This is however a world of difference between the insurgency in East Timor and in Iraq. The East Timor rebells were poorly armed, underfunded and did not engage in tactics like sucide bombings. The massive casualties endured by the East Timor people was dished out by heavily armed militia of Indonesia.

How is this situation comparable to Iraq? In Iraq you've got well funded brutal insurgents who will kill anyone.

Economies of scale? that's a pretty horrible thing to say when you're talking about murder and rape.

Do we want to go back to your omlette and eggs, and yolks attitude from earlier?

I was talking about the proportionate impact on the population of 8,000 murders in a population of 8 million, compared with Iraq's population of about 26 million. And the numbers are comparable, because in the first year in Iraq, there were about 33,000 deaths as a direct result of military activity. (according to the lancet if you extrapolate the figures properly)

The numbers maybe be comparable, but you cannot use economies of scale. Ten thousand people dying in Badghad is not the same as a thousand dying in East Timor. The scale and scope of insurgency makes it impossible to function in that society.

I never said america wanted there to be a full scale civil war, they would have been much happier with a low level insurgency with just enough political strife to keep the Iraqi people divided. things are out of control. You said that America needed to build a stable state so their could extract their natural resources. I believe I have proven that a stable state is by no means a prerequisite for the exploitation of another countries natural resources.

No Roadkiller said that. A company can operate where there is a low level of insurgency, they cannot operate in the situation of complete chaos and anarchy.

It's not like theres been a flood of business heading into Afganistan now is there?

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

This is however a world of difference between the insurgency in East Timor and in Iraq. The East Timor rebells were poorly armed, underfunded and did not engage in tactics like sucide bombings. The massive casualties endured by the East Timor people was dished out by heavily armed militia of Indonesia.

look, of course the situations are different, every situation is different to every other situation. There are suicide bombings in Iraq, but they are mostly concentrated in the towns and cities (with most of the rest of the violence), where as the oil fields are mainly on the Borders near Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

But anyway, my personal belief is that the Bush government took control of the oil fields so they could control them, not just to pump oil. (I have explained why in many other threads, it's mainly based on the investigative reporting by Greg Palast in his new book, 'Armed Madhouse'

Do we want to go back to your omlette and eggs, and yolks attitude from earlier?

you mean where you deliberately misinterpreted what i said?

The numbers maybe be comparable, but you cannot use economies of scale. Ten thousand people dying in Badghad is not the same as a thousand dying in East Timor. The scale and scope of insurgency makes it impossible to function in that society.

do you not understand the concept of scale? If 2% of the population is being murdered in both countries, then the scale of violence is the same. I have talked to people from East Timor, they would be extremely insulted by your uninformed attitude. A massacre is a massacre, whether it's carried out in Iraq or East Timor, and there were plenty of awful massacres in East Timor.

No Roadkiller said that. A company can operate where there is a low level of insurgency, they cannot operate in the situation of complete chaos and anarchy.

An Oil company will operate wherever there is Oil.

It's not like theres been a flood of business heading into Afganistan now is there?

and neither are there regular attacks on the new oil pipeline (that was the real reason America went in there in the first place)

AbusesToilets

I like how you keep saying that you have "your" theories.Have you gone out and independantly researched them,requesting information form governments,interviewing people involved directly with the situation etc?Or have you just read books where people talk about their theories that they have researched and put forth with their own biases?
I'm not trying to denigrate the quest for knowledge and the goal of being better informed,that's all well and good.But i get a little tired when people talk about their "theories",which are no more than regurgitating someone elses arguements.I have my opinion,no theories though

Diogenes

Akrasia wrote:

look, of course the situations are different, every situation is different to every other situation. There are suicide bombings in Iraq, but they are mostly concentrated in the towns and cities (with most of the rest of the violence), where as the oil fields are mainly on the Borders near Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

But the refineries aren't, the workers aren't.

But anyway, my personal belief is that the Bush government took control of the oil fields so they could control them, not just to pump oil. (I have explained why in many other threads, it's mainly based on the investigative reporting by Greg Palast in his new book, 'Armed Madhouse'

you mean where you deliberately misinterpreted what i said?

No you said that there was going to be a civil war so just leggit, which essentially means abandoning tens of thousands of people to be killed. It's a pretty callous attitude, and pretty hyprocritical of you to call me callous later.

do you not understand the concept of scale? If 2% of the population is being murdered in both countries, then the scale of violence is the same. I have talked to people from East Timor, they would be extremely insulted by your uninformed attitude. A massacre is a massacre, whether it's carried out in Iraq or East Timor, and there were plenty of awful massacres in East Timor.

Oh for ****s sake now who's misinterpretating who? For starts the situation in Iraqi is for more drastic that east timor, even if you apply economies of scale.

Secondly I was heavily involved in the Irish East Timor solidarity campaign, two friends of mine were in East Timor after the results in the referendum, and had to be evac'd before the Indonesian Militia moved in.

So spare me your faux outrage that I don't care. I am saying you cannot equate the appalling violence in East Timor that occured, and the continuing violence in Iraq that has been carried out on a much more vaste scale.

An Oil company will operate wherever there is Oil.
and neither are there regular attacks on the new oil pipeline (that was the real reason America went in there in the first place)

1. It's not an Oil pipeline, its a gas pipeline.

2. Its not been built yet. They'd have to be bloody clever insurgents to be able to attack a pipeline that hasn't been built yet. Oh and why hasn't it been built? They cannot get passed Turkmenistan because they fear Taliban attacks...

:rolleyes:

Rebeller

Diogenes wrote:

You claim it is the US's plan to [not] have...

ME wrote:

...a functioning state. The US wants to control the oilfields and maintain and establish permanent bases in the region

Exactly a non functioning state. This (they thought) could be assured through the fomenting of chaos and pseudo civil war. However, like anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would know you cannot control chaos. Once it is unleashed it has a nasty habit of getting away from you.

However, the US is not concerned with the massive loss of life. That is simply "collateral damage".

Nowhere have I stated that the US ever wished or planned for a totally anarchaic colony where even they would have no control. My point is that triggering chaos and promoting sectarian feuding has been a tactic of all imperial powers. A society does not need to function for its resources to be plundered.

In Iraq the invasion was not necessarily about exploiting the oil. Controlling it would be enough. It is estimated that Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world (US Dept of Energy estimate) At a time when many are talking about "peak oil", securing what's left will ensure US dominance over the international economic system and all countries which participate in that system.

Sitting on one of the largest reserves of a commodity on which your entire economic model and economic hegemony is based is the "grand prize" that the US is after.

My theory is that the US want to turn Iraq into a giant theme part and install the easter bunny as a puppy leader. If I could transpose my thoughts and experiences into this matter I would just until then I'll expose any half baked theory and run away when asked to proof this.

Let's look at Angola as a perfect example, a country of which I have direct personal, first-hand experience.

Angola during its 27 year civil war existed in a state of absolute anarchy while ChevronTexaco, Shell continued to produce oil at the rate of around 500,000 plus barrels a day.

Most workers were (and still are) sourced from Europe and the US and all live in heavily fortified compounds being transported to and from work by armed escorts.

Government control did not extend beyond the capital Luanda and a limited number of other urban centres. Yes, Angola had a seat at the UN (like the Khmer Rouge) but it did not exist as a functioning state.

No, there were no suicide bombings but over the 27 years of the conflict (fomented and funded by US taxpayers money as well as USSR backing) it is estimated that over one million people were killed, and a further 4 million were displaced. (Medicins Sans Frontieres estimate). The true numbers will never be known as neither state nor civilised society realy functioned during the period.

And still the oil flowed.

For starts they haven't got that now so I cannot see how allowing the state to slip into further chaos is going to give you that.

Playing with fire analogy comes into play here again. US unleashed something it cannot now control as I've stated above.

Anarchy was the intention and anarchy is the result but not quite at the level it exists today. Stir up old hatreds and get the populace to fight amongst themselves while you step in and secure the oil. If a population is too busy with wondering where the next meal will come from or which family member will be killed by a suicide bomber or doped up marine, it certainly on't concern itself with what to do with its oil riches.

Yeah the compounds in Afghanistan. For US troops and the support staff. Their intereprateurs dont even live there. Theres a good model. Compare that to the size of the compounds you're suggesting, tens of thousands of workers? Their families? Their support staff? Repair teams You can see how absurd this suggestion is.

Really, The Big Four (US Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell) would seem to disagree. If the situation is so inimical to oil production and exploitation how come the above companies are practically foaming at the mouth in their desparation to get into Iraq.

Now it would seem highly unlikely that these companies would be willing to invest millions in a region from which they did not expect to be able to reap enormous profits within a relatively short period.

Just before the war the Global Policy Forum (UN consultative think-tank) stated the below:

"Oil analysts believe that a US-controlled Iraqi government would quickly make deals with the [oil] companies for privatized production. Such deals, though possibly agreed-to in advance of the war, would be justified by the new government on the basis that only the companies would be able to quickly resume post-war production, in order to resume exports and buy critical food, medicines, and other humanitarian goods. Further, Iraq’s huge needs to rebuild its post-war infrastructure would lead towards high production.

Even before Iraq had reached its full production potential of 8 million barrels or more per day, the companies would gain huge leverage over the international oil system. OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system. Indeed, OPEC might face the paradox that a US military government of occupation in Iraq would be an OPEC member! Alternatively, such a government might pull out of the producers’ cartel. ."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm

While the above was simply educated conjecture it can now in hindsight be seen as almost prophetic.

So, you see, this goes far beyond simply "using" the oil. This is about standard garden variety imperialism.

I think all of us here will agree that the situation in Iraq is now out of control. However, the continuing presence of the US will only fuel the conflct and not calm it.

could you offer any evidence that the US could secure this Iraq without massive loss of life.

650,000+ not enough for you?

:rolleyes:

Seriously I'm not suggesting that it is any less significant in a Joe Stalin esque manner, however to suggest that what is pratical in a state with minor insurgency is pratical in a state of civil war.

See Angolan example above

Victor

Akrasia wrote:

look, of course the situations are different, every situation is different to every other situation. There are suicide bombings in Iraq, but they are mostly concentrated in the towns and cities (with most of the rest of the violence), where as the oil fields are mainly on the Borders near Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Eh, not really. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/security/esar/esar_bigpic.htm

Sgt. Sensible

Rebeller wrote:

Nowhere have I stated that the US ever wished or planned for a totally anarchaic colony where even they would have no control. My point is that triggering chaos and promoting sectarian feuding has been a tactic of all imperial powers. A society does not need to function for its resources to be plundered.

Naw they believed that Iraq was just like 1940's Germany, that Saddam was Hitler and that the population would be as cooperative with the occupation forces as Germans were after WW2. Pure fantasy. Ironically, while denazification was nowhere near as widespread as it should have been, the policy of banning ba'ath party members from government, schools and universities has been disastrous.

nacho libre

"In Iraq the invasion was not necessarily about exploiting the oil. Controlling it would be enough. It is estimated that Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world (US Dept of Energy estimate) At a time when many are talking about "peak oil", securing what's left will ensure US dominance over the international economic system and all countries which participate in that system."

exactly he who controls the supply at peak oil smiles the widest



http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Victor

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Naw they believed that Iraq was just like 1940's Germany, that Saddam was Hitler and that the population would be as cooperative with the occupation forces as Germans were after WW2.

I suspect what made the Germans cooperative in 1945 was primarily the Soviets were the alternative to the western allies. There were lesser factors like relative deprivation, war fatigue, acceptance of defeat and a strong solid order. Iraq works very differently to this.

Sgt. Sensible

Victor wrote:

I suspect what made the Germans cooperative in 1945 was primarily the Soviets were the alternative to the western allies. There were lesser factors like relative deprivation, war fatigue, acceptance of defeat and a strong solid order. Iraq works very differently to this.

Yes spot on, entirely different scenarios in every respect (except for moustaches) but anyone pointing that out 4 years ago got shouted down as a chamberlainesque appeaser of the new nazis.