Americans who fought in Fallujah watch Al Qaeda make Comeback

[Indofred]

The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!

That's odd, the same ideas were cited when the US put Saddam into power.

 

[Indofred]

Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).

The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
Egypt when America installed it's personal dictator.
Israel when America supported the almost defeated Israel as part of its cold war messing about, and so on.

America complains about terrorism but is a far worse offender than anyone that has attacked it.

 

[Mojo2]

Here's what you should focus on.
Saddam intentionally led the world to believe he still had WMD's even though he didn't.

Does not say much about our intelligence agencies if Saddam could carry out a bluff like that.
Was anyone in those agencies fired for that major failure?

Don't be so quick to condemn the intelligence agencies. NO ONE in any of the world's top intel agencies, the Israelis, the Germans, the Brits...no one knew for sure.

Face it, some things just can't be easily surveilled.

 

[U2Edge]

If "The original hope of the Bush Administration was to establish and showcase TRUE democracy, a TRUE Representative Republic, in Iraq" was to turn it into East Arkansas (which I don't believe for a second), that hope was doomed to failure when Rumsfeld fired Shenseki for telling the neo-cons how much it was going to cost and how many hundreds of thosuands of boots on the ground were require to turn victory into a stable peace.

The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!

No, it did not. We are worried about Iraq growing closer to Iran, Iran's involvement in Syria and Lebanon, Iran's nuclear program, and the rest of the apple cart the neo-cons' overturned without a strategy to make the ME a stable place.

We are in more danger today than we were almost eleven years ago this coming March.

How is Kuwait more in danger today of being overrun and annexed that it was 12 or 20 years ago?

The United States was concerned about Iran before Saddam was removed, so the fact that it is still concerned about Iran today is not a surprise. Iran has not used WMD, invaded or attacked any countries, and they did not annex another country wiping it from the map. SADDAM did all those things which is why it was a necessity to remove him.

Has Maliki the current leader of Iraq invaded or attacked any other countries? Has he developed WMD to use against his neighbors?

The United States currently logistically supports the Iraqi military, NOT Iran. Iraq will certainly have friendlier relations with Iran than it did under Saddam and that is NOT a bad thing. Every country in the region is experiencing friendlier relations with Iraq now that SADDAM is removed, not just Iran.

Again, the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has never been this safe. The world, the Persian Gulf are safer places now that Saddam is gone. Iran has never engaged in the same destructive behavior that Saddam did. That's why the region is better off and safer today. Iran is a problem, but that does not change the fact that things have improved dramatically for Persian Gulf security since SADDAM was removed.

Also, Syria is weaker today than it was 3 years ago and its military is now focused on its internal problems which makes the region safer from any sort of Syrian adventurism, especially Israel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

U2Edge has imbibed the kool aide of neo-conservatism.

Iraq will turn on us in a heart beat and support the Islamic ME.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's not called the Iraq Fiasco for nothing.

 

[U2Edge]

Horse crap to "This makes the need to defend the Persian Gulf to protect the supplies even more important than it ever has been in history." We have been ramping up production here since 2008, investing in other alternative energy sources, and working more closely with Mexico and Canada's energy programs.

We do not to be a "hot" interest in the PG.

Again, you have to understand how the global economy works, how energy works, to understand how vital the Persian Gulf is. Global consumption is 50% higher today for oil than it was in 1990. Its great that America has ramped up its production, and invested in other energy resources, but those are just a drop in the bucket. Again, its not the little things that the United States does that matter, its what the entire planet does that matters. When planet as a whole is demanding more energy, oil etc, and the supply barely meets demand or fails to sometimes, price will increase which will have a negative ripple effect all across the global economy.

Brazil which does not import any oil at all is still impacted by Persian Gulf oil! Why? Because Brazil imports billions of other products who's prices are impacted by the price of oil and there for conditions in the Persian Gulf.

Oil impacts the price of other energy resources, and impacts the price of food you put in your mouth and other products you buy or consume.

Again, the world is not using less oil, its using more, and as long as that's the case, as long as the the WORLD is using oil at the rate it did 60 years ago, the Persian Gulf will continue to be vital to the global economy and there for vital to the interest of the United States.

Here is that website again showing the growing daily consumption of oil over the past 30 years.

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

 

[JakeStarkey]

U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.

Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism. Only deprogramming will help.

 

[U2Edge]

U2Edge has imbibed the kool aide of neo-conservatism.

Iraq will turn on us in a heart beat and support the Islamic ME.

Sorry, but Franklin Roosevelt was not a neo-conservative. He was a realist. We live in an industrial world that depends on energy. Everything you do, including using your computer requires energy which is not free and is impacted by the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. That is not a theory, its a fact. It does not matter whether your liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, red, pink, blue or purple. Nearly everything you do during the day, including the price of the food you put in your mouth is impacted by ENERGY prices. The Persian Gulf continues to impact energy prices everywhere across the global economy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are living in 2014, not 1933.

Your analysis does not require invading nations.

The last decade has shown the disaster for Americans in doing so.

 

[U2Edge]

U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.

Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism. Only deprogramming will help.

Were apart of the global economy and global environment whether we like it or not. Our security is impacted by what we do or do not do to protect our access to energy, water, air, and other necessities of life. That is why it has been US national security policy to PROTECT Saudi Arabia since the 1940s. Our way of life is directly impacted by the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf. When ever our way of life is impacted or threatened America acts to protect it, just as it did in World War I and World War II and since then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.

Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism. Only deprogramming will help.

Were apart of the global economy and global environment whether we like it or not. Our security is impacted by what we do or do not do to protect our access to energy, water, air, and other necessities of life. That is why it has been US national security policy to PROTECT Saudi Arabia since the 1940s. Our way of life is directly impacted by the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf. When ever our way of life is impacted or threatened America acts to protect it, just as it did in World War I and World War II and since then.

You have give no necessary or required reasoning to invade ME countries: none.

You can believe it, you can philosophize about it, you can sacrifice Islamic kitties to your neo-con altar: none of that changes the fact that all of your belief is false.

 

[U2Edge]

So how does the cost of oil today compare with December of 1990?
Crude Oil (petroleum); Dated Brent - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi
BTW, the US hasn't been protecting the energy supply for the last 70 years.
It has been manipulating the energy supply to reward puppets and punish trolls.
FDR spelled it all out in 1944 when the US was the world's leading oil exporter.
The oil reserves of the Middle East were described shortly thereafter as the greatest material prize in history, and millions of Muslims have paid with their lives, homes, and futures in order for a few corrupt, western oligarcs and their political handmaidens and psychopathic generals to pillage the oil wealth of Muslims and funnel it to parasites in the US and Europe.

That chart only shows just how much more vital it is to protect the oil and natural gas of the middle east. There was risk before in 1950, 1970, and 1990, but today the risk is even greater because SUPPLY is struggling to keep up with demand. So the impact of military action to sieze or sabotage Persian Gulf oil TODAY would be far worse than it was in 1990.


The world today is more dependent on petroleum than It was in 1990:

Daily world crude oil consumption in 1990 was 63,875,130 barrels a day.

Daily world crude oil consumption in 2011 was 87,356,290 barrels a day.

That's an increase of consumption in 21 years of nearly 50%! At that rate, by 2030, global consumption of crude oil will have doubled from 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

As the world consumes more oil, and supplies struggles to keep up with this extra demand, price naturally increases. This makes the need to defend the Persian Gulf to protect the supplies even more important than it ever has been in history.

As demand increases, and what supplies is available struggles to keep up, a sudden shock to the system such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia being overrun would prove even more disasterous than it would have been in the past! Imagine paying 50 dollars for a gallon of gas!

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Since the US has the only military that has sought to seize or sabotage Persian gulf oil in the last quarter century, maybe that explains why the cost of Persian gulf oil has increased from $35 a barrel in December of 1990 to over $100 a barrel in December of 2012.

By what stretch of the imagination is that a defense of Persian gulf oil for anyone except Wall Street speculators and their corporate politicians in DC.

Because it could be over a thousand dollars a barrel or even higher. How ever high you think the prices our today, it is a result of normal economic activity unhindered by oil or natural gas being cut off from the world market. The reason that price has risen so much is that the global economy has expanded so much, population has expanded, and with DEMAND for oil has expanded. Supply and production our struggling to keep up with a rapidly developing world. But if Persian Gulf Oil were suddenly taken off the market because it was seized by SADDAM or destroyed by SADDAM, the price of oil would be 10, 20 times worse than it is now, and we would be experiencing the worst economic depression in the history of the planet.

The oil continues to flow freely and increases and decreases in price our currently based on NORMAL market conditions. But if the oil wells in Kuwait are burned or the oil in Saudi Arabia seized, you would see a sudden explosion in prices. That would essentially destroy the global economy. That can't be allowed to happen!

 

[U2Edge]

U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.

Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism. Only deprogramming will help.

Were apart of the global economy and global environment whether we like it or not. Our security is impacted by what we do or do not do to protect our access to energy, water, air, and other necessities of life. That is why it has been US national security policy to PROTECT Saudi Arabia since the 1940s. Our way of life is directly impacted by the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf. When ever our way of life is impacted or threatened America acts to protect it, just as it did in World War I and World War II and since then.

You have give no necessary or required reasoning to invade ME countries: none.

You can believe it, you can philosophize about it, you can sacrifice Islamic kitties to your neo-con altar: none of that changes the fact that all of your belief is false.

What I stated about global energy consumption and supply is NOT a belief, its a FACT! If Saddam were able to take Persian Gulf Oil off the global market, the food you currently buy and the gas you put in your car would become too expensive, and if you work for a business they would likely have to close their doors. Global wide economic depression. That's not a belief, its a fact. That's how global economics work. You have to have energy at reasonable prices in order to sustain the current way of life you live. When the Supply of energy is cut, the demand for whats left increases, which increases price dramatically. Things that are relatively cheap or affordable become too expensive. Its economics 101!

 

[U2Edge]

Here's what you should focus on.
Saddam intentionally led the world to believe he still had WMD's even though he didn't.

Does not say much about our intelligence agencies if Saddam could carry out a bluff like that.
Was anyone in those agencies fired for that major failure?

Intelligence is never perfect, but that's besides the point. What Saddam did or did not have in terms of WMD on the day of the invasion is also irrelevant. What is relevant and what made the invasion a necessity is that the sanctions and embargo's put in place to try and contain Saddam had crumbled and for economic reasons other countries were no longer willing to enforce them. Without the key parts of containment in place, it was only a matter of time before Saddam rebuilt both his conventional military and WMD unconventional weapons programs. Under those conditions, every year the international community WAITED to remove SADDAM the more costly any invasion and regime removal would prove to be. That's why it was a necessity to invade and remove Saddam in 2003.

The fact that Saddam appeared to not have any usable WMD in March 2003 is a good thing, not a bad thing. The invasion and removal would have been far more costly had Saddam already developed a new stock pile of WMD to use on the coalition, countries in the region and his own people. The United States and coaltions goals after the first Gulf War were to PREVENT Saddam from every developing or using WMD on the battlefield and from invading and attacking his neighbors. It finally became obvious that the only way to accomplish that was to remove him from power.

 

[U2Edge]

Since the US has the only military that has sought to seize or sabotage Persian gulf oil in the last quarter century, maybe that explains why the cost of Persian gulf oil has increased from $35 a barrel in December of 1990 to over $100 a barrel in December of 2012.

By what stretch of the imagination is that a defense of Persian gulf oil for anyone except Wall Street speculators and their corporate politicians in DC.

Both Gulf wars were coalitions of US and other nations, and they were not fought to sieze or sabotage Persian Gulf oil. They were waged, in part, to ensure the availability of oil to the World oil market. Supply and demand determine the price of oil which is dictated by OPEC.

Both Gulf wars and those to come were set in motion during WWII, and it had absolutely nothing to do with making oil available to the world market; it had everything to do with controlling the flow of oil into the world market:

"The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

"Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours."

American intervention in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but If I start my own oil company today, I can buy Iraqi, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabian oil on the world market and sell it to who ever I feel like. That's good for the global economy and the US economy. Energy availability keeps the price of energy low which benefits the United States and the rest of the global economy. The United States economy is deeply intertwined with the global economy. So anything that benefits one benefits the other.

 

[TooTall]

The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!

That's odd, the same ideas were cited when the US put Saddam into power.

Carter was President in 1979 when Saddam came into power although he had been the titular head of Iraq for several years before that. As much as I would like to blame Carter, I don't believe he has anything to do with Saddam taking over the country.

 

[U2Edge]

The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!

That's odd, the same ideas were cited when the US put Saddam into power.

LOL, the United States did not put Saddam into power. SADDAM's Iraq was client state of the Soviet Union prior to the 1991 Gulf War.

 

[U2Edge]

Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).

The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
Egypt when America installed it's personal dictator.
Israel when America supported the almost defeated Israel as part of its cold war messing about, and so on.

America complains about terrorism but is a far worse offender than anyone that has attacked it.

Wrong on all counts except Iran. The Shah was put into power because the opposition was tied to the Soviets.

 

[TooTall]

Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).

The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
Egypt when America installed it's personal dictator.
Israel when America supported the almost defeated Israel as part of its cold war messing about, and so on.

America complains about terrorism but is a far worse offender than anyone that has attacked it.

The Carter administration was partially responsible for the downfall of the Shah and the takeover of the Ayatollah.

Not so with Saddam Hussein. He did that on his own.

Egypt was stable and an ally until Obama started his apology tour and incited the Muslim Brotherhood to take over.

I can think of no reason the US should NOT support the only democracy in the middle east (Israel). Can you?