George H W Bush admits that he invaded Iraq for oil

[malaise]

but that it was also about the immorality of a big country taking over a member state of the United Nations...country that was part of the United Nations.
Seriously he said that. Baker said they were doing the right thing. Powell added a little revisionist history pushing the lies about Iraq and 9/11
Of course 'the whores of invading Babylon' missed the irony of their morality comments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#41182130

add

[Swamp Rat]

1. Revolting crew they are.

:puke:

[malaise]

3. Add this fugging liar of a war criminal to the posse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12246410
<snip>
Tony Blair has said he disregarded Lord Goldsmith's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further UN backing because it was "provisional".

The ex-PM said he believed his top legal officer would change his position on whether a second UN resolution was needed when he knew the full details.

The former prime minister said he was aware of Lord Goldsmith's concerns about the legality of attacking Iraq.
--------------
Blair is a LIAR

[social_critic]

2. Huh, George HW Bush didn't really invade Iraq

He kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, encouraged a shiite rebellion, then changed his mind, and things went back to normal. In this interview he stated oil was one reason why he felt the Iraqis had to be forced out of Kuwait, he also stated he felt it was plain wrong for one country to invade another country and get away with it.

10 years later, his son George W Bush, convinced the US people and the US Congress the US should invade Iraq. At first the lie was about WMD, then it was changed to "liberating the Iraqis and turning Iraq into a democracy". This of course was a lie, and oil was only a subsidiary issue. If you are REALLY curious regarding the Iraq invasion in 2003, read the media, check which countries backed it the most, and you'll see a lot of it had to do with plain imperialism - Bush's handlers wanted the US to control Iraq, and not necessarily for its oil.

[malaise]

4. It was about stealing oil by any means necessary n/t

[madokie]

5. You are right

by any means necessary all the rest was the tools he used to that end. No telling the number of innocent lives lost the turmoil in the country of Iraq, the infrastructure destroyed, all that doesn't matter to some. :hi:

[malaise]

6. Good morning

I've bookmarked that video clip. They make the Romans look like saints with those confessions :hi:

[social_critic]

13. Did you read about Rome destroying Carthage?

"150–101 B.C.
Third Punic War (149–146 B.C.): Rome destroys Carthage, killing 450,000 and enslaving the remaining 50,000 inhabitants"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001198.html

[social_critic]

16. Did you read about Rome destroying the Temple in Jerusalem?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

"The Temple Mount, everywhere enveloped in flames, seemed to be boiling over from its base; yet the blood seemed more abundant than the flames and the numbers of the slain greater than those of the slayers. The soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives."

[Swamp Rat]

7. yep

[social_critic]

22. Another dude gets the wrong war

Come on.

[Swamp Rat]

24. Welcome to DU, dude!

[malaise]

26. LOL

:popcorn:

[social_critic]

30. Are you still confused?

It isn't proper to market your products here.

[Swamp Rat]

52. This little piggie went to market

This little piggie went 'wee wee wee' all the way home.

[indepat]

50. None of any of those matters a whit to anyone who supported junior's Iraqi adventure

for they could care less about any of the collateral damage, the inhumanity, the human suffering, the carnage, the destroyed infrastructure, the torture, et al, not a whit. ;)

[madokie]

51. Thats the way I see it too

By paying attention to the words people us in explaining/arguing their beliefs its easy to figure out their agenda :hi:

[social_critic]

10. Not really - US forces didn't take over Iraq, and Kuwait kept its oil

It wasn't about stealing oil at all. The US government's main interest seems to have been to keep Saddam bottled up - but they didn't even bother to have him replaced, which they could have done easily.

Let me propose something for you guys - some of you confuse Desert Storm, the First Gulf War, carried out when George HW Bush (Bush Daddy) was president, and the Iraq War in 2003, when George W Bush (Bush the Idiot Son) was president. Furthermore, you seem to have a fairly naive and knee jerk reaction, "it was for oil, it was for oil", when the truth is a heck of a lot more complex.

Let me give you a hint: When the US goes to war, it takes agreement from powerful elites, and this means the US goes to war for at least two main reasons - and neither is what the people usually hear. Sometimes it's for three-four reasons, because the war has to have the critical mass behind it so the government and media can lie as one to the people, and soldiers can be sold the idea that they have to go and "die for freedom" or some such garbage.

The truth is the US never goes to war for democracy or for freedom, stealing oil is never the primary reason (why would the US government want to steal oil when the idea is for the oil to be produced and SOLD to the US?, a US government trying to steal oil would find itself opposed by the oil lobby, they prefer to produce it and sell it, and they don't mind high oil prices).

If you want to we can have an intelligent debate about these wars, but let's keep it clean and let's make sure we research what we say rather than just repeating the "common wisdom".

[malaise]

11. And Iraq's oil? n/t

[Selatius]

17. American corporations have now obtained contracts to drill Iraq's oil.

Under Saddam, this was nothing but the realm of the state-owned Oil Company of Iraq. Profits that were realized went automatically to the state. Saddam, if he were a wise leader, would've spent it building up Iraq's infrastructure a la Hugo Chavez. Paul Bremer tinkered with the idea of dismantling the state-owned oil company by selling off the pieces to private entities, usually American oil corporations.

[social_critic]

19. You are confusing the two Iraq Wars

Paul Bremer wasn't in the First Iraq war, my friend. This post was about President George H W Bush, and the FIRST war in the 1990's. The Bremer satrapy or vice-royalty was a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when George W Bush (the idiot son) was president.

Come on guys, let's read a bit about history before we debate.

This isn't about Venezuela, but whatever gave you the idea that Chavez invested in Venezuela's infrastructure? He hasn't.

[Obamanaut]

31. You are beating your head against a tree. 'Pet hates' exist, and the

ones who hold them will not be distracted by any contradictory or modifying info. Recall the phrase from the 2008 campaign, "...cling to guns or religion...."

Good luck.

[social_critic]

40. It's more like a brick wall - but it does come down brick by brick

I think it's more like a brick wall - there's no way to get around it. But I use a helmet and I do knock down a brick once in a while. At this rate, I think I'll have the majority rooting for me in 239,444 years.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. Actually, it WAS about oil - it was about provoking Saddam to do

something "outrageous" (invading Kuwait which was siphoning off Iraqi oil) so that we would have an excuse to go into Iraq - which we did. Bush I just didn't continue the push to Baghdad at the time, being marginally more intelligent than his spawn and less susceptible to the importunities of Cheney, and believing - wrongly as it turned out - that Saddam had realized who really had the upper hand and would eventually knuckle under if enough economic sanctions were applied.
Then things became a pissing contest between the Bush Dynasty (and later the Clinton Administration) and Saddam. When the Spawn of Bush became President with the Prick as his mentor, it was just a question of time.

I'm not repeating the "common wisdom" - all one has to do is connect the dots and have been paying attention at the time. Which I was - up close and personal. If the US had been interested simply in getting Iraq out of Kuwait, that could have been done without a war. It would have meant ensuring that Kuwait would NOT siphon off Iraqi oil but terms could have been worked out. But in Bush I's mind, he had to "teach Saddam a lesson" because Saddam had not been behaving like the lackey they wanted him to be. Bush I also thought that a "nice little war" like that one would ensure his chances of being re-elected in 1992. He is - and has always been - the consummate cynic - from his choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate to his nomination of Clarence Thomas, the most unqualified Justice ever, to the Supreme Court.

[social_critic]

29. OK, so we goaded Saddam to invade Kuwait, then left him weaker

I'll buy that. But it wasn't to steal the oil. I do buy the idea that April did goad Saddam and the guy went for it, we pounced on Saddam, kicked his behind, and left him in such a weakened state he had no strength to make a lot of trouble. But later it was sort of a mess the way Clinton was bombing Iraq all the time, wasn't it?

[BlueMTexpat]

58. Did you ever read the text of Ms Glaspie's cable?

Most likely not. She did not "goad" him. That has always been the story to make her the scapegoat. I actually know her, by the way, and others who do as well have had to gnash their teeth for years at the callous - and sexist - way she was treated. Did you never wonder why one of the political appointees (April was a career FSO, after all) wasn't sent to Iraq? There's no way any political appointee - or even a male FSO - would have been let to take that particular fall. In the case of the political appointee, it would have meant no more political contributions and bad press generally. They would not have dared to treat any career male FSO like that because the male-dominated would have reacted strongly. She had no support group to protect her.
The Iran-Iraq War - where we had supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons, etc., etc., which had racked up huge amounts of debt for Iraq and all with the imprimatur of Rumsfeld & Cheney in their 1st go-round - together with the lowering of oil prices that was going to make Iraq'd debt situation, together with the illegal slant-drilling by Kuwait - with the tacit approval of Bush-Baker - THAT was what goaded Saddam. It was not what she had to say - or not say.
And yes, the ultimate goal was always the OIL.

By the way, you tipped your hand with your last comment about Clinton. So, I'm done with you.

[MadHound]

46. Cool, then why don't you go research April Gillespie,

Also, you should do some research on the terms of the Iraqi surrender, among other things.

For you to claim that the first Iraq war wasn't about oil is simply naive, and wrong. You obviously need to educate yourself on the entire sweep of Iraq/Iran history since WWII.

Oil is the central reason for our involvement in the area, including going to war in Iraq, not once, but twice. Your claim that the war wasn't about oil belies the reality of what has gone on in the region, and contradicts the much more researched and academically sound findings of both politicians and historians.

[gratuitous]

53. April Gillespie at the beginning, but let's not forget the denouement

And apologies up front for using a French word. But as the hostilities with Iraq were concluding, the brave U.S. forces strafed the retreating army repeatedly, killing thousands. Rather than take the time to capture surrendering troops, we bravely buried them alive with bulldozers. And then, when segments of the Iraqi population began thinking it was a good time to overthrow Saddam, Bush withdrew all forces, and bravely abandoned the popular uprising, allowing Saddam to brutally repress it. A lot of the survivors haven't forgotten how Bush the Elder double-crossed them.

[social_critic]

55. I heard about April's comments two days after she said them

You should go research me. :-)

[Selatius]

14. It's more than that. The leadership needs Iraq as a military platform to exert influence.

Iraq is located in the heart of the Middle East. With Iraq under occupation, the country essentially becomes a gigantic aircraft carrier or military base from which we can project military power into the surrounding region at will at any time the leadership wishes. We no longer must solely rely on Israel to keep the Arabs distracted. With Iraq as a platform, the leadership can further entrench American corporate influence in the region and have a stronger hand in blocking out Chinese, Indian, European, and Russian aspirations in this corner of the world. As it stands, China and Russia have been cutting oil and natural gas deals with Iran, and as it currently stands, we now have troops to the east and to the west of that country.

If stupidity has any say in the matter, someone someday will miscalculate the situation with Iran and attempt to once again interfere in the internal workings of Iran, which could backfire catastrophically in the form of a region-wide war between Arab states under American influence and the government and people of Iran. This is something that should be avoided.

[malaise]

15. Good point

:hi:

[think4yourself]

23. Spot On.

It's just a matter of time until we are in Iran. Sickening.

[social_critic]

32. George HW Bush didn't keep Iraq under occupation

What you wrote is pretty good. I could debate some of the fine points, but you are referring to George W Bush, not George H W Bush. I think we could start a thread to discuss W's war, but this wasn't the original idea when this thread started.

[Octafish]

47. Three generations of Bush men have eyed Iraq's oil...

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

[social_critic]

56. Oil is a cover - it's a little bit more complex than that

There have been millions of pages written about the "reasons" for the 2003 Iraq invasion. I could probably write a book about it, but it won't get published in the US. Try reading a bit, and use a wide range of sources. I recommend Commondreams, Haaretz, Counterpunch, Antiwar, and of course articles/blogs by Seymour Hersh and Karen Kwiatowski.

[peekaloo]

8. that "roundtable" booked for its own circle of Hell.

[malaise]

9. What a bunch

:puke:

[social_critic]

12. They weren't really such bad guys

That roundtable was pretty good as US leaders go. They went, they saw, they conquered, AND THEY LEFT. The war didn't cost us so many lives, and it was popular with the plebe.

Their mistake was to allow Saddam to stay in place. Schwarzkopf blew it, he should have kept the troops in Iraq until he got a deal for the Iraqi Sunni generals running the Republican Guard to make the following deal:

1. Replace Saddam.
2. Return all the stuff they stole from Kuwait.
3. Don't attack, pay for attacks, or even bitch at other countries, including Israel.

and

4. Deposit in a Swedish Bank $20 billion US to be used to pay for claims against the Iraqi government for its violations of human rights subsequent to the signature of the agreement, agreeing that such lawsuits can be carried out in a Swedish arbitration hearing (Sweden is recognized as a pretty decent place to hold arbitrations).

If Bush daddy had done this, we would probably have avoided a lot of hassles, saved a lot of money, and Iraq would have had a much nicer dictatorship.

[megax5000]

18. hmm

Huh, seems pretty weird. Though Bush the elder wasn't so bad. At least compared to his idiot son.

[social_critic]

21. You seem well informed

Most of the individuals posting on this thread are confusing the father with the idiot son. For a Republican, the father wasn't so bad, this is the reason why his own party dumped on him and he lost the election to Clinton. If he had been a real jerk and a bit dumber, they would have made sure he won.

[think4yourself]

25. Never thought I'd say this

But looking back, compared to Dim Son, GHWB was fairly moderate.

[madokie]

27. If you call his version of what and where he was when kennedy was killed

or the attempt on rayguns life where he had dinner with the shooters parents the night before. No bush1 was a lot worse than idiot son as he was smart enough to stay above the fray.

[malaise]

28. Don't you love how some people

attempt to hijack threads?

[social_critic]

36. It's not hijacking on purpose, it's just confusion

I can see why people get the two Iraq wars and the two Bushes confused. I still get all the Scipius Africanus and the Drusus Germanicus confused, and I love to study Roman history.

[madokie]

48. I don't think any of us are confused about the two bushes, except for you

it the mem that you're pushing I have a problem with and see all kinds of holes in. actually. both wars we're talking about was because of our love of and dependence on oil. History has shown that we have been much worse for the Iraqi people than saddam ever was. during the raygun/bush years the most visited head of a foreign state was none other than their beloved saddam. Don't believe me do a little research and find out for yourself. I'm a 62 year old Vietnam vet who has been paying attention very closely ever since I was lied into that war.
Have a good day, I plan too knowing full well what I'm trying to get across to you is factual. believe it or not thats for you to decide

[madokie]

45. Generally it winds up sending me off to projects I need to do around the place

Tools and fools are synonymous in this context in my book. :-) :hi:

[social_critic]

34. OK. So HW had dinner with the shooter's parents the night before

Are you saying HW and the parents were engaged in a conspiracy to have the parent's son go off President Reagan? Sure sounds like one heck of a neat conspiracy theory.

[madokie]

49. Many share the same thoughts too

I can see you're more interested in scoring points so to that I say have fun. You are either very young or not very well read up on our recent history. :hi: In either case I'm not here to argue with or try to convince you otherwise. In the meantime pay attention to what has been recorded in history concerning these statements I'm made to you. It wold help in your understanding of current events immensely.
again, have a good day.

[social_critic]

33. No kidding

I still think GHWB was a war criminal (for Panama), but I don't think what he did in Iraq was nearly as stupid as what his son, W, did in Iraq.

[marmar]

35. "Clear my conscience" deathbed confession?

nt

[Major Hogwash]

37. Naw, they're just afraid of Wikileaks.

All of them memos where they described which Swiss banks to hide the money they stole from Iraq.

[TBF]

41. Exactly what I was thinking ... all of a sudden they are all talking. nt

[social_critic]

54. Kuwait's gold was stolen by Saddam Hussein

I don't know if Bush Jr (also known as W or Dubbya), or one of his buddies stole from Iraq. I don't know if we'll ever know.

[malaise]

38. That was my first thought

:hi:

[Major Hogwash]

39. Let me put it this way, if Cheney is Darth Vader, then George H W Bush is the Emperor.

The mentor of the Madmen.
End of story.

[malaise]

42. If GHW is the Emperor

then Prescott was the holy trinity :evilgrin:

[Major Hogwash]

43. True dat!

Prescott was the one that hid money in them thar Swiss banks clear back in the late 30s and early 40s.
Taught his kid how to do it, too.
Then George passed that "trick" down to his own son, Lumpy.

However, the laws concerning secret Swiss bank accounts has changed since Lumpy left office.

Oooh, shit, they NEVER contemplated that happening.

[treestar]

44. That was admitted at the time

Countless people said we can't let a nut like Saddam control huge fields of oil. Pretty much 80% of the US population of the time knew that up front and was all for it.

[BlueCheese]

57. The first Iraq War had a much stronger case in favor of it...

If the United Nations is to mean anything, it cannot simply sit by while a member nation is taken over and destroyed. Does that mean oil had nothing to do with it? Of course not. But there was moral justification for liberating Kuwait apart from the oil.

Further, if the United States is to go to war, I'd like to see it done in much the way that George HW Bush did it. There were a series of UN resolutions condemning the Iraqi invasion, culminating in UN resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means" to enforce Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The coalition involved 34 nations--a real coalition, not the empty one assembled by Junior, including a fair number of Arab countries. The international reaction to the first war was much different than the second.