1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[Psychoblues]

Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.

Give it an honest thought, OK?

 

[Gunny]

Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.

Give it an honest thought, OK?

The military operation to oust Saddam Hussein and his government was over then and the mission was accomplished.

 

[jillian]

The military operation to oust Saddam Hussein and his government was over then and the mission was accomplished.

so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.

 

[Diuretic]

so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.

Oil.

The mission was to secure it. Done.

Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.

 

[jillian]

Oil.

The mission was to secure it. Done.

Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.

Then there needs to be a solution from inside Iraq. Time to divide the country into three, allocate the oil between them, make our deals and get out.

 

[Gunny]

so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.

Two different missions. The first was to boot Saddam. Was as as picture perfect as one could ask.

The second is a still ongoing effort to try and keep a finger in the dyke.

 

[Gunny]

Oil.

The mission was to secure it. Done.

Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.

Supposition on your part.

 

[jillian]

Two different missions. The first was to boot Saddam. Was as as picture perfect as one could ask.

The second is a still ongoing effort to try and keep a finger in the dyke.

For how long? And for how much money? And for how many lost lives?

 

[Diuretic]

Supposition on your part.

In my jurisdiction there's a pretty sophisticated legal doctrine concerning the interpretation of attempted crime. Attempts are damn difficult to prove, it's easier to prove a completed offence than an inchoate one, the evidence required for the the latter is very difficult to get, but that seeming paradox is actually a damn good idea when you think about it.

If I indulge in a set of actions which result in a crime (say, murder, we'll keep it simple) then I deserve to be sanctioned. And they're usually quite straightforward in terms of proof (murder - here I go, big generalisation - is best defended on the question of intent unless it's obvious that a more effective defence lies elsewhere). But my actions (getting back on track) are obvious. They're unambiguous. And that brings me to my point (eventually).

In the law of attempts here (we borrowed from English law) there are two tests a court applies. The first is the one I just referred to, the ambiguity test. A jury is given the evidence and it's asked (and directed by the judge) to interpret the actions of the defendant. "Is there any other possible reason that the defendant did "nominate actions"? If you believe there is then you are duty-bound to acquit. If you believe there is no other reason then it is within your discretion to convict the defendant". Or words to that effect. I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but that's usually how it goes.

The second test is the so-called "proximity test" and it's used in conjunction with the ambiguity test. This one goes along the lines of, did the defendant get so far along the way to the crime that if the defendant wasn't interrupted they would have gone on to commit the crime? If you link that one with the ambiguity test and all the cards come up then you can be sure you've got a solid attempt case.

As I said, it's easier to prove the completed offence, but no matter, that's not what I'm on about.

Any objective reading of the actions of the US military in the invasion and immediate occupation following the successful invasion would show that oil was the objective. The actions of US forces were clear. Invade, overthrow Saddam and the Baathists and control the oil. There was no ambiguity about action, only in the words of the Bush Administration which even today can't sustain it's weak alibis. It was about oil. It's still about oil.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.

Its been 1649 days since 5-1-03

March 19 2003 - November 5 2007: 1692 days
March 19 2003 - November 5 2007: 3160 KIA
Dialy KIA rate: 1.86 KIA/day

This is lowert KIA/day rate of any extended, large scale military operation in the history of the world.

Give it an honest thought.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Any objective reading of the actions of the US military in the invasion and immediate occupation following the successful invasion would show that oil was the objective.

Show this to be true.
I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.

 

[jillian]

Show this to be true.
I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.

So you don't trust Alan Greenspan either, huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you don't trust Alan Greenspan either, huh?

You mean "The fiscal guru [that] backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml

That was sad. Really.

 

[maineman]

Show this to be true.
I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.

I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.

This qualifies as "proof" to you?

 

[jillian]

You mean "The fiscal guru [that] backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml

That was sad. Really.

Now trying reading the exact quote that's relied upon in *your* link:

"I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying, it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1728306920070917?pageNumber=2

It is kind of amusing seeing you use cbs as your source.

Honestly, though, do you think if Iraq was some subsaharan country which had no impact on our oil interests that we'd still be there or would ever have gone in?

 

[jillian]

This qualifies as "proof" to you?

What do you think it indicates other than where the priorities were?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now trying reading the exact quote that's relied upon in *your* link:

Hmm.

The memoir has already drawn attention for the comment the Iraq war is "largely about oil." He said on Monday his comments should not be seen as questioning President George W. Bush's emphasis on Saddam Hussein's arsenal as the justification for invading.

"I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying, it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out," he said

Not sure how this supports the assertion that the Bush administration went to war over oil. but, since you believe exactly what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence against you or lack of evidence to support your belief, please contine to believe that Greenspan's comments support the idea that the administration went to war over oil.

 

[jillian]

since you believe exactly what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence against you or lack of evidence to support your belief.

As opposed to you?

Did you hear Greenspan interviewed on the subject? I did. And he said what he said. You can spin it any way you want.

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Now...if they had only competently followed up after the initial attacks....

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you think it indicates other than where the priorities were?

You didn't answer the question.