Bad business...?

[NewMuscle83]

"An occupying power (the US) sets up a 100,000-strong militia composed of former resistance fighters and even some members of al-Qaeda, pays them each $300 per month to not attack occupation forces, and attacks decrease dramatically. Then, stop paying most of them and tell them they will be incorporated into Iraqi government security forces. Proceed to leave them high and dry as the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki begins targeting them - assassinating leaders, detaining fighters and threatening their families. Allow this plan to continue for over six months, unabated."

What do you think is going to happen now?

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21234

[Kratos]

Do you have any other sources? I'm really not sure about that one.

But even if it is true, and it might be...It doesn't say much about the cause they would give their life for....but for $300 would give up the fight...kinda strange value system.

[NewMuscle83]

no, but it is interesting, and I don't doubt it. I think what had happened is that american forces may have promised to stop attacks on them, as long as they do the same, and offered them $300. Also, co-promised by the government that they will take positions once the occupation is over. Overall, it sounds good, if they actually stuck to their word.

The Iraq situation is one of the complex conflicts in human history. There's aren't two sides fighting, there are many many more, and the agenda is quite intricate for each party.

[Kratos]

Iraq confuses everyone I think.
I hope Iraq ends up better off in the end, but with so many dead (at least a million probably more) I'm not sure we did them a favor.
Saddam was opressive, but he ran a tight ship and kept fundamentalist terrorist groups from gaining traction. I don't know how he became viewed as such a grave threat to America. Not a nice guy, yeah, but threat to America???
I think the war was sold to the American people at a time of weakness. From the CIA interviews, I understand Saddam said they were trying to create the illusion of having WMD, because they couldn't appear weak to Iran. They did plan to rebuild all programs in the future but at the time they didn't have a whole lot going on. Any time Iraq tries to build anything nulcear, the jews come in and bomb it anyway.
I'm not sure oil was the reason, but the powers that be wanted to remove Saddam, and the reasons are probably numerous and beyond the understanding of most Americans. It can't be oil, we've spent beyond what's in the ground on this war.
It couldn't be because they thought Iraq was funding terrorists...proof has never surfaced and c'mon we know Iran does and we don't do anything about it.

I know how the war was sold, but I wish I knew what it was really about. I understand Afghanistan but not so much Iraq. So my gut feeling is maybe we should have never been there.

The problem is if America just packs up and leaves now with these militant groups hanging around, it's only a matter of time before they control the country. You know as well as anyone 48 what kind of gvmts emerge from militants, so I can understand why it's tough to leave.

Anyway, I can't say I do or don't support the Iraq invasion 100%, but based on what I know, it probably should have never happend. Then they just tie the whole thing around Colin Powell's neck and life goes on as usual.

[Kratos]

Iraq had 112 billion barrels of known oil reserves at the time of the war
with the price being set by OPEC around 30-40 dollars per barrel.

112bil x $35 = 3.9 trillion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030702846.html

and then we still gotta buy the oil on the open market, we don't get to take it home. Must be something more at work than oil.

[NewMuscle83]

Yeah, i know what you're saying. What probably happened was that we had an overzealous cowboy bent on avenging his dad's honour, coupled with unprecedented attacks on the US (9/11), add some real strong Israeli lobbying to influence the US to take care of the threat to their state by saddam, and sprinkle some money-hungry politicians who think it's gonna make a lot of cash and will be as easy as taking candy from a baby.

Fast forward 6 years, and the situation appears a lot more difficult than they thought, the money made is not enough in comparison to the cost, and no exit strategy what so ever, since no one expected the resistance to be on all types of fronts.

Bush administration took off and cleared the room like a fart. My bad, we'll let the next administration figure it out.

[Kratos]

I guess what I'm saying is I'm hopeful there are classified reasons as to why military action was needed. One quick counterpoint, you had the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which said the US policy is regime change, the Senate passed that law unanimously, and President Clinton signed it. Also, president Clinton cited 7 large political groups within Iraq asking for US assistance for a regime change under the act. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1)committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2)had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3)further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

When it comes to the weapons of mass destruction, I think there should have been efforts through diplomacy to find out why they weren't letting inspectors in. I'm sure we didn't even need to ask why to know the reason. We could have sent undercover inspectors in on the down low so Iraq could keep up the image of defensability.

It is my opinion Iraq wasn't a clear and present military danger to the US or even Israel at that time based on information at my disposal. Saddam was anti Israel, and had a history of supporting several Palestinian guerrilla and militant organisations. But, with their proximity and conflict with Iran, and with it being widely popular in the region, it could have been largely political.

I'm not sure Israel even wanted us to go in.

Quotes from Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith:
"What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq," Feith said. "They were much more focused on Iran."

"The relationship between Bush and Israel was so strong and so friendly that the Israeli government was not going to join Germany and French in opposing the US," Feith said, and added that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq."

Feith said that he heard "constant (Israeli) emphasis on the importance of the Iran danger" and added that Israel was worried about a scenario that ended up materializing, namely that "if the US got into a military conflict in Iraq and it didn’t go well, it could make our diplomacy with Iran less credible."

On the surface it does look like some cowboy justice going on. If there was no good reason for the initial invasion, I'm hopeful but doubtful we leave Iraq a better place for the people.