3 ms·
"in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest" I'm 37, so I was young at the time of Afghanistan/Iraq, about 14. I recall thinking the adults who sa
by refulgentis 10mo ago
"in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest"
I'm 37, so I was young at the time of Afghanistan/Iraq, about 14. I recall thinking the adults who said it was "for the oil" were dangerously naive: neither had significant oil resources that would alter supply dramatically, gas prices weren't high, the administration had 0 to say on that front, and it wasn't even close to a focus once fighting settled.
This leaves me curious about conclusions drawn from that.
- tdeck 10mo agoIt was about giving US companies control over the profits from the oil industry and crushing an unaligned country in the region to turn it into a US puppet state, not just to carry barrels of crude oil home.
- mlinhares 10mo agoAlso line up the pockets of the military contractors that got paid to "rebuild" Iraq.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- convolvatron 10mo agodont forget that Iraq _was_ a US puppet state for the bulk of the Iran-Iraq war. It's entirely plausible that Hussein just got too uppity, and needed to be taken out.
- BurningFrog 10mo agoThose who think the US is evil were not affected by these predictions not coming true. It's typically not an empirically based conviction.
- XorNot 10mo agoI find a lot of that type of thinking is born of conspiracy theory motivations: they want the world to make sense so there has to be "a plan". It leads to people chronically overvaluing money and chronically underestimating ideology.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo agoTrouble is that Trump's ideology is all but explicitly rapacious and amoral. I think you are correct that Bush had a very different ideology. I view him as more of a buffoon than a robber baron. (We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective.) I doubt it makes much difference to people whose lives were ruined. But it could be important in the broader context of predicting US behavior: Bush started the PEPFAR program which saved millions from AIDS in Africa; Trump wrecked it. One very sad possibility is that Bush discredited the ideology of "compassionate conservatism" in the US through his bumbling, and that contributed to the relative popularity of Trump's "amoral conservatism".
- rand846633 10mo ago> We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective. The robbery was done against the American people. They are the ones who were robbed! Imagine in what shape the country would be if you would have gotten free higher education and free healthcare instead? The other and with that the biggest victim were the causalities from the invasion, but they were not robbed but rather assaulted…
- text0404 10mo agoThe taxpayers paid $2-3T in Iraq. The military-industrial complex made a killing.
- hn_acc1 10mo agoYes - it was a direct transfer of $$ from taxpayers to Haliburton (Dick Cheney, IIRC) et al.
- 20after4 10mo agoControl of the poppy trade (opium/heroin) and suppression of some of Israel's neighborhood enemies. And a lot of profits for military contractors. Remember Dick Chaney had huge conflicts of interest. It was also about oil but not only oil.
- refulgentis 10mo agoI find it mildly amusing I'm at -1 for an obviously-correct observation re: oil not being a clear motivation & the top reply is "we wanted control of heroin trade, to help Israel defeat their principal regional rival Afghanistan, and pay off military contractors." In reality, an administration with an ideological bent towards using military force reacted, with universal acclaim, to 9/11. Future historians, it didn't used to be like this. Started getting really weird around 2018.
- zoklet-enjoyer 10mo agoHe said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews and you know it
- refulgentis 10mo agoHe said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews, I know it.
- SunlightEdge 10mo agoIraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was a dictator that kept the various religious factions in line. America was just looking for an excuse to go in again. Everyone knew there were no weapons of mass distraction too. The reasons for America going in are complex, but relate to control of the middle east, keeping USA currency top, resources, and money for various groups that benefitted.
- refulgentis 10mo agoI agree wholeheartedly: I don't think it was smart or right. Simply, an administration without an ideological taboo against war reacted to 9/11.
- qcnguy 10mo agoIraq has huge oil reserves. Afghanistan, not, but Iraq yes.
- refulgentis 10mo agoThis is simultaneously A) true B) not particularly huge IMHO (~5% of global oil production, 8% of reserves) C) unrelated as to whether the US "got their oil"
- qcnguy 10mo agoIraq has historically had a lot of undiscovered reserves.
- stodor89 10mo ago8% of the entire world's proven oil reserves is not particularly huge?!
- refulgentis 10mo agoCorrect
- stodor89 10mo agoCompared to what? Cause by any reasonable measure I can come up with, that's an absolutely bonkers amount of oil.
- refulgentis 10mo agoI'm a bit confused. If I'm understanding correctly, I'm reminded of an old saw I think I made up: You can lie (shade people's interpretations) by either using percentages, or gross amounts. I'm sure that's a TON of oil, gross amount. I'm also sure 8% is "not particularly huge". For instance, if I could get you without this frame, and told you that you got a 92% on a test, you got an "absolutely bonkers amount" of questions wrong...you'd argue with me. If you started crying when I told you that you got a 92% on the test, then told you that's a "not particularly huge" amount to get wrong, I think you'd agree, if not be consoled.
- indubioprorubik 10mo agoAnd the us became a oil net exporter, which makes you more interested in a constricted supply. The whole story just never checked out, if you move it around just a little bit.