After we leave Iraq?

[WarEagle73]

From the looks of what I've seen thus far this election cycle, it seems there is a very good chance that Barak Obama will be our next president. He has stated his intention of withdrawing all American forces from Iraq post haste. There has been much talk of "getting out" for quite some time but before doing so, I think we should ask the important questions of what will result from such a move. I am interested in the thoughts of those that support the position of getting out now. What do you think will happen there, here and around the world if we leave?

[nellanaesp]

I've heard some of his debate arguments, and he doesn't want so simply take the troops out of Iraq. He said that he wanted to make sure the Iraq government can be self-sufficient and take care of itself. How we will make sure of that is beyond me, but if it can be accomplished it'd be the best way.

[Cianne]

We invade Canada.

[azamugg]

We invade Canada.


before we invade canada bush will have to orchestrate the total destruction of the Smithsonian institute via a "terrorist attack" to justify invading Iraq even though we'll go anyway with no ones support in the world

[geechee]

Its easy for someone who is running for President to say he/she is going to pull out the troops. It will be extremely hard, if not impossible, for the person who becomes the President of the United States to actually pull our troops out. This was the biggest mistake in US history and it is not going to just end with a snap of the fingers. The DoD has stated that US troops will be needed there for at least the next ten years.

[scfan5338]

Honestly, it will be impossible to pull out the troops. I think Sean laid out Obama's plan pretty clearly. I think it is important that we show the Iraqi government that we will not be there for a 100 years like McCain wants us to, atleast not there with 130k of our men and women. They have to show they can survive on their own with obviously a little bit of their support. If the dem's pull out completely ( which I don't think will happen and is probably impossible) it will be a bad move. But if we go McCain's way and stay there forever, it will be just as bad as well. We need to reduce the number to show Iraqi gov't they have to take over for their country and they need to create their plans about oil sharing revenues among other things.

[D^3]

What do you think will happen there, here and around the world if we leave?

From a guy who studies middle eastern conflict (thats me), here is a list of possible scenarios:


1. Iraq's fledgling government is not strong enough to stand on its own. It will not take long for revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists to rise up against it and there will be civil war in Iraq.

2. The de-stabilization of Iraq will leave it up for grabs. Syria or Iran, now realizing that the United States will not commit its troops again to the Middle East will move in and take Iraq for themselves. If BOTH Syria and Iran converge, there could be a huge war in the middle east.

3. Kurds will be slaughtered.

4. Terrorists will find a new haven for arms and drug deals in Iraq. Palestinian terrorist groups will get a huge added increase to their arsenal, increasing attacks on Israel.

5. Syria mobilizes its army to move into Iraq. Israel gets nervous and thinks they are going to move on them; and preemptively strikes at Iran, starting a war. The US, obligated by its alliance, moves in to assist, putting US troops at risk.

6. Terrorists operating in Afghanistan are emboldened by the US pulling out of Iran and step up their attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.



There are many possible scenarios.... none of them are good. Pulling out too soon would be a worse decision than going there in the first place.

[GetEmGamecocks]

After we leave Iraq? We go back to normality for another 30 years. Wait for something really sh*tty to happen (91,100). Then, we go for the big dawgs: Iran, baby.

On to
Iran
Let's Go!

[the Paradox]

We invade Canada.

Those bastards deserve it.


RTR

[D^3]

After we leave Iraq? We go back to normality for another 30 years. Wait for something really sh*tty to happen (91,100). Then, we go for the big dawgs: Iran, baby.

On to
Iran
Let's Go!


Wow, that makes so much sense... we go to war for oil. I have yet to have even a single person explain how going to war can possibly attributed to gaining oil. We don't GET any oil by going to war. We pay MORE for it. If you can give me ANY instance where we benefited financially on oil by going to war in the Middle East, I'm all ears. But guess what, there aren't any.

People that say we went to war for oil are about on the same level with those that say 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy. Neither argument makes any logical sense to anybody with half a working brain.

[GetEmGamecocks]

It's not oil for the common people, it's oil money for the gubment. Do you know how much money has been made off the Iraq War? I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScEZbywBtg8

Oh yea, if we pay more for it, then they make more from it! Now if that's not common sense I'm a monkey's uncle.

[D^3]

It's not oil for the common people, it's oil money for the gubment. Do you know how much money has been made off the Iraq War? I don't.
.

Exactly, you don't know. You're just spouting off stupid BS that other mindless people like Michael Moore say. You're right, the government makes money... just not OUR government. It's the OPEC countries benefiting. We make war in the region, they jack up the price of oil per barrel. That does not benefit us, no matter any way you want to try and spin it. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.

[azamugg]

After we leave Iraq? We go back to normality for another 30 years. Wait for something really sh*tty to happen (91,100). Then, we go for the big dawgs: Iran, baby.

On to
Iran
Let's Go!

please dont be sheep

[nellanaesp]

After we leave Iraq? We go back to normality for another 30 years. Wait for something really sh*tty to happen (91,100). Then, we go for the big dawgs: Iran, baby.

On to
Iran
Let's Go!

From what I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.N.C.E has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100.
9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's...
Basically, all the worst parts of the bible.
---
It will be 911 times 2356.
My God, that's... I don't even know what that is!
Nobody does!


:laugh::laugh::laugh: One of the best movies of all time!!!

[SeanVol]

From a guy who studies middle eastern conflict (thats me), here is a list of possible scenarios:


1. Iraq's fledgling government is not strong enough to stand on its own. It will not take long for revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists to rise up against it and there will be civil war in Iraq.

2. The de-stabilization of Iraq will leave it up for grabs. Syria or Iran, now realizing that the United States will not commit its troops again to the Middle East will move in and take Iraq for themselves. If BOTH Syria and Iran converge, there could be a huge war in the middle east.

3. Kurds will be slaughtered.

4. Terrorists will find a new haven for arms and drug deals in Iraq. Palestinian terrorist groups will get a huge added increase to their arsenal, increasing attacks on Israel.

5. Syria mobilizes its army to move into Iraq. Israel gets nervous and thinks they are going to move on them; and preemptively strikes at Iran, starting a war. The US, obligated by its alliance, moves in to assist, putting US troops at risk.

6. Terrorists operating in Afghanistan are emboldened by the US pulling out of Iran and step up their attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.



There are many possible scenarios.... none of them are good. Pulling out too soon would be a worse decision than going there in the first place.



If Bush didn't go to war with Iraq, Al-Qaeda wouldn't be in Iraq! Bush is the reason that Al-Qaeda has a good image in the Middle East.

[GetEmGamecocks]

Exactly, you don't know. You're just spouting off stupid BS that other mindless people like Michael Moore say. You're right, the government makes money... just not OUR government. It's the OPEC countries benefiting. We make war in the region, they jack up the price of oil per barrel. That does not benefit us, no matter any way you want to try and spin it. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.

Ok, so the bankers make the money. But who funds the politicians? Who gives them money to put them in office?

[GetEmGamecocks]

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.


And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary... It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.

Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.

"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.

[GetEmGamecocks]

(continued)
It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.

Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves - the third largest in the world - only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms - widely feared by international non government organisations and Iraqis alike - have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos.

At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr Muttitt disagreed. "The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so," he said. "Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $1bn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved.

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage... Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."

Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. "Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up," said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. "The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate."

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: "All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for US and allied companies because of the disastrous war."

Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.

Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.

America protects its fuel supplies - and contracts

Despite US and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry - alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital - was under American guard.

Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among US-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals - one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another US giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq.

In just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years

A 40-page document leaked to the 'IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production- sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the "quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects".

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of "great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector" and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

The role of oil in Iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves - 10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for US companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to US companies.

As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the US Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction.

[GetEmGamecocks]

(continued) The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of US giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (£7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant US conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus US companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn.

30,000 Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq.

36 The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a US company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003.

$12.1bn UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network.

$2 trillion Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the US, according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

WHAT THEY SAID

"Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people"

Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

"Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has... to be good stewards of that valuable asset "

George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

"The oil of the Iraqi people... is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil "

Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

"Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years... [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction"

Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity - Middle East, World - Independent.co.uk (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html)

[WayzUp]

I just hope the value of the US dollar doesn't get so low that it can't recover. When I was growing up, the Canadian dollar was worth about half a US dollar & it's surreal to me to see it worth more than ours today.

But hey, that's what happens when you create money out of thin air to wage wars based on false premises with no quantifiable goals & no easy way out. May our children forgive us for literally mortgaging their futures for.....what is we're there for again? You'd think for $275 MILLION A DAY we would know why....

[D^3]

....and GetEmGamecocks proves that he can't make a point for himself and instead resorts to quoting long-ass articles that I don't care to read.

[D^3]

Ok, so the bankers make the money. But who funds the politicians? Who gives them money to put them in office?


my god.... you have no reading comprehension skills. Who are the bankers? Who are you referring to? What do you NOT understand about this???

OPEC countries (those are countries in the middle east that produce oil, since you obviously don't have a clue) make money when they RAISE the price of oil because of war in the region. THEY make more money. NOT the US government. Where the hell are you making this connection? And by the way, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia... none of them are campaign contributers, in case you are wondering.

You should just shut it and back out of this argument, you're making yourself look like a retard. I'm getting really tired of trying to explain this to someone without a clue of the subject matter, acting like you're enlightened.

Think about how stupid your argument is.... 491 BILLION DOLLARS has been spent on the war. FOUR HUNDRED NINETY ONE BILLION. The war is a giant cause of the current deficit we have. Do you honestly think anybody is MAKING money off of this war??? Seriously, how stupid are you?

You must be like 14 years old...

[D^3]

But hey, that's what happens when you create money out of thin air to wage wars based on false premises with no quantifiable goals & no easy way out. May our children forgive us for literally mortgaging their futures for.....what is we're there for again? You'd think for $275 MILLION A DAY we would know why....


The war wasn't created out of thin air... is your memory that short-spanned that you forgot what it was about, or do you just get caught up in the sensationalist masses?
The war started based on intelligence that said Saddam had nuclear weapons and the intent to use them. Say what you want, but nearly ever politician in Washington believed this to be the case, and they all acted on the SAME intelligence reports.

Well guess what? The intelligence was wrong. We found out the hard way that Bill Clinton's mass reductions of our Intelligence service's resources really hurt our info gathering.

Saying the war was created out of "thin air" is a childish simplification.

[nellanaesp]

The war wasn't created out of thin air... is your memory that short-spanned that you forgot what it was about, or do you just get caught up in the sensationalist masses?
The war started based on intelligence that said Saddam had nuclear weapons and the intent to use them. Say what you want, but nearly ever politician in Washington believed this to be the case, and they all acted on the SAME intelligence reports.

Well guess what? The intelligence was wrong. We found out the hard way that Bill Clinton's mass reductions of our Intelligence service's resources really hurt our info gathering.

Saying the war was created out of "thin air" is a childish simplification.
I agree with you to a point.

That was the case, but what's the war about now? Saddam is dead, there were no weapons. What is bush trying to accomplish besides setting up their government?

IMO, a country won't start a new government because another country tells them to. It's the duty of that country's powers to impliment a government themselves. Take it from the USA, who started their own country and fought britain. Yeah, the circumstances are vastly different, but you get the point. I don't think the middle east will ever adapt to our government, they need to adopt a government that can adapt to them.

[azamugg]

everyone is right.............we don't need to be in Iraq, the middle east and its politics is of no consequence to us or the world, a democracy will never come in handy and frankly those people deserve the b.s w/no human rights and women considered chattel

when there are terrorist attacks on this country the rest of the world will come to our rescue, help fund the rebuilding, then go after the terrorists

its all senseless our presence over there because I really don't see the future affected by the middle east at all

[D^3]

I agree with you to a point.

That was the case, but what's the war about now? Saddam is dead, there were no weapons. What is bush trying to accomplish besides setting up their government?

IMO, a country won't start a new government because another country tells them to. It's the duty of that country's powers to impliment a government themselves. Take it from the USA, who started their own country and fought britain. Yeah, the circumstances are vastly different, but you get the point. I don't think the middle east will ever adapt to our government, they need to adopt a government that can adapt to them.

Well Sean, you can't just march into a country these days, topple their government and then roll out and say "good luck to you guys." Modern day world affairs being what they are, if you break it, you fix it. Leaving Iraq before they have established a stable government would be grossly irresponsible.

By the way, we aren't telling them what to do. We are there to provide security and training while they are building. Remember they didn't have an army or a police force, and it takes quite some time to build those up.

[nellanaesp]

Well Sean, you can't just march into a country these days, topple their government and then roll out and say "good luck to you guys." Modern day world affairs being what they are, if you break it, you fix it. Leaving Iraq before they have established a stable government would be grossly irresponsible.

By the way, we aren't telling them what to do. We are there to provide security and training while they are building. Remember they didn't have an army or a police force, and it takes quite some time to build those up.
Yea, I agree. I mean that if the Iraq people don't want this government we're trying to give them, it won't work. I said before that simply pulling out of the war won't work. They need time to at least attempt to stabilize the government.

I am no expert in this category. I didn't exactly get all A's in my history and economics classes :whistle:

[WarEagle73]

I see the thread I've started as veered way off course. Our friends on the left have gone back to arguing the past mistakes. Well, that will get us nowhere. The premise behind this thread is that I want those who support leaving Iraq immediately to spell out in as intelligent manner possible what will be the consequences and/or benefits of leaving Iraq? How will our few allies in the region look on us? What will be the reaction of our enemies? In short, this is not a goctha thread or bash Bush thread. We must understand that every action causes a reaction. What will the reaction to our leaving Iraq be?

[nellanaesp]

I see the thread I've started as veered way off course. Our friends on the left have gone back to arguing the past mistakes. Well, that will get us nowhere. The premise behind this thread is that I want those who support leaving Iraq immediately to spell out in as intelligent manner possible what will be the consequences and/or benefits of leaving Iraq? How will our few allies in the region look on us? What will be the reaction of our enemies? In short, this is not a goctha thread or bash Bush thread. We must understand that every action causes a reaction. What will the reaction to our leaving Iraq be?

D made a damn good post of possible outcomes of pulling out (i dunno if it's for early or late pull out).

From a guy who studies middle eastern conflict (thats me), here is a list of possible scenarios:


1. Iraq's fledgling government is not strong enough to stand on its own. It will not take long for revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists to rise up against it and there will be civil war in Iraq.

2. The de-stabilization of Iraq will leave it up for grabs. Syria or Iran, now realizing that the United States will not commit its troops again to the Middle East will move in and take Iraq for themselves. If BOTH Syria and Iran converge, there could be a huge war in the middle east.

3. Kurds will be slaughtered.

4. Terrorists will find a new haven for arms and drug deals in Iraq. Palestinian terrorist groups will get a huge added increase to their arsenal, increasing attacks on Israel.

5. Syria mobilizes its army to move into Iraq. Israel gets nervous and thinks they are going to move on them; and preemptively strikes at Iran, starting a war. The US, obligated by its alliance, moves in to assist, putting US troops at risk.

6. Terrorists operating in Afghanistan are emboldened by the US pulling out of Iran and step up their attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.



There are many possible scenarios.... none of them are good. Pulling out too soon would be a worse decision than going there in the first place.

[GetEmGamecocks]

D^3, you need a few of these...
http://realonomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chill-pill.jpg

Oh yea, and stop beleiving everything they tell ya :whistle:

I mean Sh*t do you really beleive we went there because we thought Iraq would start bombing us? Bull freaking sh*t. Why do you think the Iraqis started burning oil fields when we started kicking ass? They knew the deal.

[Sabanocchio]

Pulling out early has always been my philosophy.

[D^3]

Oh yea, and stop beleiving everything they tell ya :whistle:



Are you serious? Listen numbskull, I happen to study international conflict and middle eastern conflict specifically... I've spent many, many hours reading about how that part of the world functions, how the people think, their economies, and about the wars that have taken place there.

You are repeating something you heard in a Michael Moore movie. So tell me, who's believing everything they tell him? :whistle:

[Sabanocchio]

Are you serious? Listen numbskull, I happen to study international conflict and middle eastern conflict specifically... I've spent many, many hours reading about how that part of the world functions, how the people think, their economies, and about the wars that have taken place there.

You are repeating something you heard in a Michael Moore movie. So tell me, who's believing everything they tell him? :whistle:

We have our Michael Moore's to make us look dumb - you have your George W. Bush's.

Which one is supposed to be acting like a leader?

[GetEmGamecocks]

I don't watch Michael Moore movies, NUMBSKULL. You should've taken a few more classes 'cause you do not know how to argue a point and sway someone's opinion, guess you're not really trying to though.

[D^3]

I don't watch Michael Moore movies, NUMBSKULL. You should've taken a few more classes 'cause you do not know how to argue a point and sway someone's opinion, guess you're not really trying to though.

No, I'm trying to expose you as a mindless tool, and in that I've succeeded.

[D^3]

We have our Michael Moore's to make us look dumb - you have your George W. Bush's.

Which one is supposed to be acting like a leader?


I'm not defending Bush... he's made a mess of things. But the idea that the war was for oil is a absolutely stupid.

[Sabanocchio]

No, I'm trying to expose you as a mindless tool, and in that I've succeeded.

Get em is just another poster on this board that happens to have an opposing view of certain things than you do, D. That hardly makes him a tool.

[GetEmGamecocks]

No, I'm trying to expose you as a mindless tool, and in that I've succeeded.

Yea because you're so cool everyone worships the toilet you take a crap on...get over yourself. I'm done with this.

D^3 will get the last word in 5.....4.....3....2...

[Sabanocchio]

I'm not defending Bush... he's made a mess of things. But the idea that the war was for oil is a absolutely stupid.

No, it isn't. The idea that the war was for homeland security is even more far-fetched. Bush's actions and changing motives early on clearly show some sort of an agenda. Now he and his VP have personally profited from the whole affair and you blind people still think it was about peace? Gimme a break.

And I didn't see anyone in this thread defending Michael Moore either.

[D^3]

Get em is just another poster on this board that happens to have an opposing view of certain things than you do, D. That hardly makes him a tool.


No, but spouting off mindless garbage with no factual basis DOES make him a tool. There is NO basis for saying the war was created for oil, that is a stupid claim, and one which he has not been able to defend.

You don't like the war? Fine, I'm not happy with it either. I wish we'd never gone there, I wish we weren't there now. But I'm not going to be a stupid sheep and buy into people like Michael Moore's garbage that is meant to capitalize off of peoples emotions by creating ridiculous conspiracy theories.

[D^3]

Yea because you're so cool everyone worships the toilet you take a crap on...get over yourself. I'm done with this.

D^3 will get the last word in 5.....4.....3....2...



Come back when you actually have a leg to stand on.

[D^3]

No, it isn't. The idea that the war was for homeland security is even more far-fetched. Bush's actions and changing motives early on clearly show some sort of an agenda. Now he and his VP have personally profited from the whole affair and you blind people still think it was about peace? Gimme a break.


Really? Bush personally profited from the war? How so? Show me.

[Sabanocchio]

No, but spouting off mindless garbage with no factual basis DOES make him a tool. There is NO basis for saying the war was created for oil, that is a stupid claim, and one which he has not been able to defend.

You don't like the war? Fine, I'm not happy with it either. I wish we'd never gone there, I wish we weren't there now. But I'm not going to be a stupid sheep and buy into people like Michael Moore's garbage that is meant to capitalize off of peoples emotions by creating ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The thought of the war being about oil far predates Michael Moore's ridiculous movie. He just capitalized on the concept. Smart people don't need movies to make their minds up. Facts and observations suffice.

I was totally with Bush on the Afghanistani bombings and was proud of the way he reacted to the 911 situation. But the way he capitalized on it and the american people's feelings at a difficult juncture to lead an agenda-ridden war against a country that was not a threat to us or stability in the middle-east is absolutely disgusting.

[Sabanocchio]

Prescott convinced his partners at the banking house of Brown Brothers Harriman among them Averell Harriman, a fellow Skull and Bones member-- to waive the firm's nepotism rule so George could work there. Uncle George Herbert Walker, Jr. offered him a job at G.H. Walker and Co., the private Wall Street banking firm founded by his father, Bush's maternal grandfather.

Instead of taking those two prospects, George opted for a third family tie. He met with Henry Neil Mallon, the president of Dresser Industries. Mallon offered George his first job at Dresser subsidiary International Derrick and Equipment Company (Ideco), in Odessa, Texas. Brown Brothers Harriman had underwritten Dresserís transition from a private company to a publicly traded one. Years later, George named a son after Mallon.

In 1953, Bush got money from Brown Brothers Harriman and, with partners Hugh and Bill Liedtke, formed Zapata Petroleum. By the late 1950s they were millionaires. Bush bought subsidiary Zapata Off-Shore from his partners and went into business on his own in 1954. By 1958, the new company was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The islands (of the Cay Sal) had been leased to Nixon supporter and CIA contractor Howard Hughes the previous year and were later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro's Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA's codename for that invasion was Operation Zapata In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared. In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections.

I find it surprising that the media has ignored Bush's connections to Halliburton which seem to run deeper and broader than those of the well paid former employee Dick Cheney.

[D^3]

The thought of the war being about oil far predates Michael Moore's ridiculous movie. He just capitalized on the concept. Smart people don't need movies to make their minds up. Facts and observations suffice.

I was totally with Bush on the Afghanistani bombings and was proud of the way he reacted to the 911 situation. But the way he capitalized on it and the american people's feelings at a difficult juncture to lead an agenda-ridden war against a country that was not a threat to us or stability in the middle-east is absolutely disgusting.

Do you not understand that EVERYONE thought he was a threat at the time? The British did, their intelligence and our own intelligence all said so. Iraq wouldn't allow UN inspectors in. All signs pointed to Saddam having WMD's and having the intent to use them. It was only AFTER we found out that they weren't there, that all the politicians that WERE on the bandwagon jumped OFF the bandwagon and started saying "LOOK! Bush lied! We didn't have anything to do with it!" They ALL acted on the SAME reports.

Why do you all want to believe that it was some plot to mislead everybody? The truth is simple: Our intelligence sucked. Is Bush beyond criticism? Hell no, there were people telling him not to pull the trigger... but him and the vast majority of Congress wanted to go in.

It was a mistake. It wasn't an evil plan to make GW money. That's absurd.

[D^3]

Prescott convinced his partners at the banking house of Brown Brothers Harriman among them Averell Harriman, a fellow Skull and Bones member-- to waive the firm's nepotism rule so George could work there. Uncle George Herbert Walker, Jr. offered him a job at G.H. Walker and Co., the private Wall Street banking firm founded by his father, Bush's maternal grandfather.

Instead of taking those two prospects, George opted for a third family tie. He met with Henry Neil Mallon, the president of Dresser Industries. Mallon offered George his first job at Dresser subsidiary International Derrick and Equipment Company (Ideco), in Odessa, Texas. Brown Brothers Harriman had underwritten Dresserís transition from a private company to a publicly traded one. Years later, George named a son after Mallon.

In 1953, Bush got money from Brown Brothers Harriman and, with partners Hugh and Bill Liedtke, formed Zapata Petroleum. By the late 1950s they were millionaires. Bush bought subsidiary Zapata Off-Shore from his partners and went into business on his own in 1954. By 1958, the new company was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The islands (of the Cay Sal) had been leased to Nixon supporter and CIA contractor Howard Hughes the previous year and were later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro's Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA's codename for that invasion was Operation Zapata In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared. In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections.

I find it surprising that the media has ignored Bush's connections to Halliburton which seem to run deeper and broader than those of the well paid former employee Dick Cheney.



This doesn't sound like the mindless garble of a nut-job to you? :wacko: I read all that and I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to prove.

[D^3]

I'm out for awhile now.... so if you come up with anything substantive, I'll be back later to debunk. :D

[Cianne]

I just hope the value of the US dollar doesn't get so low that it can't recover. When I was growing up, the Canadian dollar was worth about half a US dollar & it's surreal to me to see it worth more than ours today.

This just supports my call to invade Canada. How dare they have stronger currency.

[WarEagle73]

This is not about skull and cross bones or Haliburton, Mickey Mouse, Shug Jordan or Bear Bryant. I don't care to go over why or how we got to where were at. That gets us nowhere. For the third time I'm going to ask those who think we need to get out of Iraq now, what do you think will be the outcome of leaving now??? Please tell me someone has thought about this past the blind "I hate Bush & Cheney is the Devel" bull $hit. Please tell me there is someone with some simblance of thought as to what may or may not happen once were gone. If you want to rehash the arguments on the origins of the war then start it in another thread.

[SeattleGamecocks]

We can all speculate but nobody can really know. My thoughts are that if we don't maintain a presence for about a generation, then it doesn't matter whether we leave tomorrow or in 5-10 years. The difference in their government's stability in that time will be negligible and will remain vulnerable against all sorts of threats, whether those are from foreign governments or radical coups (sp?) and terrorists.

[crimsonnation713]

If we pull out tomorrow or wait until a generation goes by the same thing will happen. The tribes in the Middle East have fought for thousands of years and when we do pull out they will continue to fight each other.

I'm with Sabo on the fact of Jr going into Afghanistan after the Taliban and also getting Saddam out of power. He did it. As far as making the tribes of the Middle East behave and get along...aint happenin'.

If you believe everything George W or Mike Moore say, I have some swamp land I need to get rid of.

[WarEagle73]

If we pull out tomorrow or wait until a generation goes by the same thing will happen. The tribes in the Middle East have fought for thousands of years and when we do pull out they will continue to fight each other.

I'm with Sabo on the fact of Jr going into Afghanistan after the Taliban and also getting Saddam out of power. He did it. As far as making the tribes of the Middle East behave and get along...aint happenin'.

If you believe everything George W or Mike Moore say, I have some swamp land I need to get rid of.


I think your right. History shows that democracy simply does not work in the middle east. I'm not saying they are somehow inferior or anything. I think it's the way their culture has evolved that it simply does not lend itself to a democratic way of life. Thus we are going to get nowhere by trying to stay long enough for there to be a stable and democratic government in place in Iraq. I think what we need to focus our attention on is crushing AL qaeda in Iraq and get the best stability we can in the government and then leave. We do need Iraq to become a strong and stable country that will remain allied to us.

On the other hand if we precipitously withdraw, I think we'll see a disaster of untold magnitude. Not only will Iraq slip into civil war, but you will see AL qaeda once again gain "safe haven" in a middle eastern county much as they enjoyed in Afghanistan before we ousted the Taliban. The Kurds in the north will face the specter of genocide on a scale as bad or worse as they suffered from the Turks during WWI. Also, our few allies in the region will look on our withdrawal as a sign of weakness on our part and and unwillingness to help defend or allies. In short, I feel that were we to leave before crushing AL qaeda and stabilizing the government, we will face nothing short of a disaster.