Re: WTHOT: Left, Right, Whatever

Just a short note -

Simply put, thanks in large measure to Rumsfeld's optimistic views on the
reaction to the Iraqi invasion, fewer troops were sent than were needed.
With fewer troops there were not enough - *ever* to secure either the
museums or the oil. A lack of planning and planning based on the best, not
the worst case scenario.

After all the posturing before the way, and during the invasion, sending
more troops to protect would have been an admission that this initial plans
were wrong, and Rumsfeld would certainly not do anything that might suggest
that.

Actually, your Sec of Def. was a bumbling arrogant man and from many
accounts, Cheney was just the same. The whole Neocon bunch have been
discredited now - and Bush is the lamest duck to serve out the last two
years.

Willow




"Jane" <JaneHadd@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182965905.993249.36350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 27, 9:07?am, "Willow Arune" <panga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul Wolfowitz (remember him??) stated oft times that Iraq would finance
the
cost of its reconstruction by oil sales:

"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

While Jane will not like the source, try:


http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Oil.htmhttp://skeptically.org/parwho/id9.htmlhttp://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2132500.ece

As to "no oil" see (amongst others):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3814009.stm

Willow

"Jane" <JaneH...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1182942230.158217.199070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jun 26, 6:36?pm, Pogonip <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
elf wrote:
"Willow Arune" <panga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QCcgi.11356$tB5.3693@xxxxxxxxxxx

Yes - too tied up in the all mightly dollar and more. Iraq was
invaded

for

oil, and the Neocon plan may well have been present, but the
motive
was

the

crude, dude.

Really.

Where's the oil then?

Where's any evidence that oil had *anything* to do with it.

I think Iraq is the wrong war with the wrong country at the wrong
time, but
oil didn't have a damned thing to do with it.

elf

When we started, didn't the administration say that the oil would
pay
for the war effort? Or is my memory playing tricks?

--
Joanne

I never heard the administration say it. I did hear it from
various talking heads on the news analysis portion of the coverage of
the invasion.

But again, if that's what they wanted to do, it wouldn't have been
too hard to do it--in the three weeks or so after the invasion, we had
everything our own way.

It's not just that we didn't do it. It's that we didn't TRY to
do it.

The "it's the crude, dude" nonsense falls apart on that one fact
alone, and the rest or the argument is hardly solid.

Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The things you posted support MY position, NOT yours, and go even
further to show that whatever the reason the US went to wwar in Iraq,
it WASN'T for the oil.

First, the Wolfowitz comment does not say that the US would
reap income to defray our expenses in the war. It says the IRAQIS
could use the income from oil exports to reconstruct after the
invastion.

Second, the BBC story clearly shows that the oil fields have
not been militarily secured by US forces--at most, we have a token
crew there to fend off direct attacks, but not now, nor ever, did the
US do what it would have done if oil had been the point--install an
overwhelming large force and commandeer operations.

In the first days after the invasion, we had the country to
ourselves. There was no build up of terrorist or insurgent forces.
There was no opposition, period. We could have put a battalion or
more onto the fields and made the impregnable.

If we had tried to do that and failed, you might have a point.
But we didn't even try to do that. We did nothing of what we would
have been expected to do IF the war had been about oil

Instead, we behaved like people whose objective was something
else--which it was.

Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com




.

Relevant Pages
Loading