Iraq War

Just did a quick little dive through the web and stumbled onto this link.
Look, if you have a weak stomach, maybe skip it, but honestly, it’s worth a look because you sure as hell aren't going to see this stuff being reported in any mainstream news outlet.

So, here's the real question: is there some kind of economic angle—or just any other excuse, really—that explains why people are letting things like this slide???

I bet the strongest argument they'll throw at you is that "it was the same thing back in Vietnam" and then everyone just moves on, but seriously, is that actually a good enough explanation for this??

There's definitely an economic angle here—basically, American oil companies already have deals lined up with the new Iraqi "government" regarding those new drilling sites.

Plus, you’ve got millions of American soldiers who need jobs and paychecks—if they're just sitting around idle at bases across the US, you're looking at potential unrest, mutinies, or just total lack of discipline. Instead, they get shipped out all over the world, often with their families, risking everything in foreign lands for some seriously fat paychecks.
It’s also a way for them to field-test all kinds of new weaponry.

Then there's the third point: a massive amount of corporations are making a killing on contracts for building and maintaining military gear, planes, weapons, helicopters, and even just servicing the AC
units or providing food for the troops and their families.

It’s a massive business, honestly. International law? Doesn't really exist anymore. Human lives seem to matter less than ever when money and private interests are calling all the shots.

The images are absolutely devastating, and what we are witnessing is truly harrowing... However, at least we can rest easy knowing that Iraq doesn't possess any nuclear weaponry, wouldn't you agree? Ultimately, no price for our national security is ever too high, provided we maintain the utmost respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice....

John Howard8 said:The images are absolutely devastating, and what we are witnessing is truly harrowing... However, at least we can rest easy knowing that Iraq doesn't possess any nuclear weaponry, wouldn't you agree? Ultimately, no price for our national security is ever too high, provided we maintain the utmost respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice....

He never had them, and he certainly never planned to.

Melissa Hughes63 said:He never had them, and he certainly never planned to.

Oh, I am well aware of that.

John Howard8 said:Oh, I am well aware of that.

Dammit, sarcasm isn't always easy to spot.

If it weren't for Iran constantly pouring money into terrorist groups and sending their proxy forces to stir up trouble and arm militants, Iraq would have been peaceful a long time ago. But honestly, things in Iraq are actually looking up more and more every single day.

Melissa Hughes63 said:He never had them, and he certainly never planned to.

Honestly, those nukes were more for show. You know how it is—they just wanted to look safe enough so that even the most militaristic nations could play around with them.

These images are horrific, but they aren't anything new from some war zone where the US claims to be defending 😉the global order, democracy, or whatever else.
Yesterday I watched the movie "Valley of the Lost" and it got me wondering: why on earth has the US been fighting in godforsaken places for decades, constantly churning out generations of psychopaths, addicts, and PTSD sufferers? How is it that the American people continue to swallow the same old lines—that it’s their divine mission to spread democracy across the globe?🙄 Meanwhile, young men march off proudly only to come home in coffins, or if they're lucky, alive but mentally broken.

For anyone who insists that the US is the sole, untouchable champion of democracy, tasked with saving various nations from tyrants and such, here is my advice: go watch "Hotel Rwanda." And let me ask you this: how did Americans, those self-proclaimed world police and humanitarian cleaners, manage to stay completely uninvolved in that nightmare?

The answer is simple: they had no interest. Because the US is always driven by political interest alone; everything else is just a fairy tale for the naive.

Robin Hernandez4 said:If it weren't for Iran constantly pouring money into terrorist groups and sending their proxy forces to stir up trouble and arm militants, Iraq would have been peaceful a long time ago. But honestly, things in Iraq are actually looking up more and more every single day.

"Repeat the same lie a hundred times, and it becomes the truth."

Dr. Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945)

Charles Davis7 said:There's definitely an economic angle here—basically, American oil companies already have deals lined up with the new Iraqi "government" regarding those new drilling sites.

Plus, you’ve got millions of American soldiers who need jobs and paychecks—if they're just sitting around idle at bases across the US, you're looking at potential unrest, mutinies, or just total lack of discipline. Instead, they get shipped out all over the world, often with their families, risking everything in foreign lands for some seriously fat paychecks.
It’s also a way for them to field-test all kinds of new weaponry.

Then there's the third point: a massive amount of corporations are making a killing on contracts for building and maintaining military gear, planes, weapons, helicopters, and even just servicing the AC
units or providing food for the troops and their families.

It’s a massive business, honestly. International law? Doesn't really exist anymore. Human lives seem to matter less than ever when money and private interests are calling all the shots.

🤣 Honestly, that second point is my favorite part... I can't believe some of the nonsense people post here.
Regarding that first point, the oil companies haven't signed anything yet. That isn't expected until June 30th... but there's a major flaw in your logic. It won't just be American oil companies signing those deals. There are 41 different companies that have already stepped up, including firms from France, Turkey, Vietnam, and more...

rapidranger79 said:These images are horrific, but they aren't anything new from some war zone where the US claims to be defending 😉the global order, democracy, or whatever else.
Yesterday I watched the movie "Valley of the Lost" and it got me wondering: why on earth has the US been fighting in godforsaken places for decades, constantly churning out generations of psychopaths, addicts, and PTSD sufferers? How is it that the American people continue to swallow the same old lines—that it’s their divine mission to spread democracy across the globe?🙄 Meanwhile, young men march off proudly only to come home in coffins, or if they're lucky, alive but mentally broken.

For anyone who insists that the US is the sole, untouchable champion of democracy, tasked with saving various nations from tyrants and such, here is my advice: go watch "Hotel Rwanda." And let me ask you this: how did Americans, those self-proclaimed world police and humanitarian cleaners, manage to stay completely uninvolved in that nightmare?

The answer is simple: they had no interest. Because the US is always driven by political interest alone; everything else is just a fairy tale for the naive.

Containment, the Cold War? Ring any bells?

Regarding Rwanda, Clinton admitted it was his biggest mistake. If you want to know why they didn't swoop in, just watch "Black Hawk Down" since you seem to be into movies...

And saying the USA is always and exclusively driven by political interest is just plain stupid. Out of all the major powers, the USA is the last one you could ever pin that on. You only have to look at what Wilson was doing or what the American stance on colonialism used to be to see the truth... if there's even a shred of idealism left in any foreign policy strategy, it’s definitely an American one...

Linda Hughes88 said:Containment, the Cold War? Ring any bells?

Regarding Rwanda, Clinton admitted it was his biggest mistake. If you want to know why they didn't swoop in, just watch "Black Hawk Down" since you seem to be into movies...

And saying the USA is always and exclusively driven by political interest is just plain stupid. Out of all the major powers, the USA is the last one you could ever pin that on. You only have to look at what Wilson was doing or what the American stance on colonialism used to be to see the truth... if there's even a shred of idealism left in any foreign policy strategy, it’s definitely an American one...

I belong to that generation that looked at everything following the fall of the USSR and saw nothing but bright spots in America.
But then the years rolled on—Korea, then Vietnam, and so on. It took years after those conflicts for the truth to come out and for people to finally sober up. Think about it: if there had been oil in Rwanda or here, do you really think Americans wouldn't have jumped in immediately?
They are driven by one thing: oil and strategic positioning against the USSR, China, the Arabs, and Russia.

rapidranger79 said:I belong to that generation that looked at everything following the fall of the USSR and saw nothing but bright spots in America.
But then the years rolled on—Korea, then Vietnam, and so on. It took years after those conflicts for the truth to come out and for people to finally sober up. Think about it: if there had been oil in Rwanda or here, do you really think Americans wouldn't have jumped in immediately?
They are driven by one thing: oil and strategic positioning against the USSR, China, the Arabs, and Russia.

Every single foreign policy is driven by interests, period: from the US foreign policy down to the policy of Luxembourg. So why is it that only Americans get singled out for this? Is it just because you idealized them? Honestly, there’s a certain dose of idealism in US policy that you just don't see in other places. If you dig even a little bit into American history, I already touched on some of those chapters above. Just look at the bombing of Mexico to stop a humanitarian catastrophe...
If Americans had stepped into Rwanda, they probably would've been blamed for that too, with everyone hunting for some hidden agenda. They didn't go in, even though they should have, mostly because they were still feeling the sting of that intervention in Somalia where they lost 18 soldiers. See, that's how it works—people blame them for Korea too. I'm pretty sure South Koreans see things differently, except for the ones who'd rather live in paradise under Kim Il Sung and his descendants...

Linda Hughes88 said:Every single foreign policy is driven by interests, period: from the US foreign policy down to the policy of Luxembourg. So why is it that only Americans get singled out for this? Is it just because you idealized them? Honestly, there’s a certain dose of idealism in US policy that you just don't see in other places. If you dig even a little bit into American history, I already touched on some of those chapters above. Just look at the bombing of Mexico to stop a humanitarian catastrophe...
If Americans had stepped into Rwanda, they probably would've been blamed for that too, with everyone hunting for some hidden agenda. They didn't go in, even though they should have, mostly because they were still feeling the sting of that intervention in Somalia where they lost 18 soldiers. See, that's how it works—people blame them for Korea too. I'm pretty sure South Koreans see things differently, except for the ones who'd rather live in paradise under Kim Il Sung and his descendants...

They bombed Mexico to speed up the fall of Maddox and grab more influence in the region; they went into Korea to hold onto at least a slice of Southeast Asia. Obviously, the Russians act purely out of their own interests, too. For both the Americans and the Russians, nobody else matters. There aren't any ideals involved here.

Melissa Hughes63 said:They bombed Mexico to speed up the fall of Maddox and grab more influence in the region; they went into Korea to hold onto at least a slice of Southeast Asia. Obviously, the Russians act purely out of their own interests, too. For both the Americans and the Russians, nobody else matters. There aren't any ideals involved here.

That's total nonsense!

When it comes to Korea, that was all part of the old-school doctrine for containing global communism. I wasn't bringing up Korea in relation to the bombing of Mexico, I only mentioned it because rapidranger79 wrote that the American (well, actually the UN) intervention in Korea was a bad thing. People living in South Korea would definitely disagree with that. In that case, American interests and their own goals just happened to line up perfectly...

Melissa Hughes63 said:They bombed Mexico to speed up the fall of Maddox and grab more influence in the region; they went into Korea to hold onto at least a slice of Southeast Asia. Obviously, the Russians act purely out of their own interests, too. For both the Americans and the Russians, nobody else matters. There aren't any ideals involved here.

So where was the "interest" in sending Marines to Somalia back in 1992 and 1993? Was it for sunbathing on beautiful beaches or actually helping the people?
There are a lot of gray areas between black and white.

Maintaining American control over Middle Eastern oil is, by definition, a way to weaken American hegemony against increasingly competitive nations.

Robin Hernandez4 said:If it weren't for Iran constantly pouring money into terrorist groups and sending their proxy forces to stir up trouble and arm militants, Iraq would have been peaceful a long time ago. But honestly, things in Iraq are actually looking up more and more every single day.

The bigger headache is all those different Sunni movements getting most of their cash from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.

For anyone claiming the USA is this untouchable champion of democracy, swooping in to save nations from their tyrants and whatnot, here’s a suggestion: go watch "Hotel Rwanda." And a quick question: How on earth did the Americans—those self-appointed world police and humanitarian cleaners—manage to stay out of that nightmare?

They "got involved" by retroactively accusing Saddam of genocide against the Kurds, essentially acting like they cared 16 or 17 years too late. When Saddam was actually committing those atrocities, they were basically patting him on the back because his war against Iran served their interests at the time.

In Saudi Arabia, they behead drug dealers, yet they seem to have nothing to say about Iran, which manages to take down traffickers despite devastating wars and sanctions—just without being quite so barbaric about it.