It's Iraq not the allies that make the vast vast bulk of oil profit....That was always the case.....Well, before the west and the weak Iraqi military allowed IS to take some of the oil refineries....The comment over oil is typical of the misinformation that continually gets spread without anyone rebutting it because they never look into it.....I have.

Personally I don't have an issue with the west removing the Hussain regime. Indeed it means that less death, not more is visited upon the population..less child birth deaths..more girls are educated and the economy continues to improve.

Also it's simplistic to attribute IS to the west's invasion. Just how long after we left did we wait until IS? It's just the usual finger pointing without analysis.

The Arab spring and the lack of western intervention and support for the moderates during the Syrian uprising have far far effect that these old tired out cliches.

Only now are nations seriously arming the anti IS/anti Assad forces.....Mostly in the south now.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

If all else fails, blame it on the bankers.

I refuse to believe there are that many people out there that can't spell. Too f**king lazy, that's what I think.

Private owners.

The Iraq war happened for the following reasons (in my opinion).

Thw twin towers came down.......This changed the mindset of the Bush presidency.

Beforehand Bush wasn't interested in foreign wars or conflicts.....This is well known to anyone who remembers his time before election and his early presidency.

This wasn't unknown in the Republican party (the party of isolationists) but given that neo cons headed a lot of the top positions in the party it wasn't the usual republican position either.

After the twin towers came down the neo cons around Bush gained huge traction....People forget with the passage of time the amount of rage and resolve for action once the shock had flatted out.

Once those towers came down Bush's previous views on foreign policy completely changed and he in affect became a neo con and listened and adopted the philosophy.

Now this isn't the place for discussing the motivations and beliefs of neo conservatism....but in short that philosophy pushes for active involvement in the middle east to change the power dynamics to better suit the west and lessen the ultimate chance of WW3.

Hence Bush came to believe that weak regimes that still stood against the west and were up for grabs militarily were there for the taking. Iraq was a thorn in the side and he took the opportunity for what he thought was an easy win.

What actually happened was a war....initially a very successful one militarily speaking.....But with a disastrous and incompetent aftermath.

Anyway that's the real series of events and motivations....while money and attributing out contracts was a sideline it wasn't in any way an motivation for war.......war costs big bucks.....No nation takes it on lightly.......And Bush miscalculated how long Iraq would last.

Anyway the neo con detractors say that's all hog wash and that it was purely an exercise in money making that cared not a jot for human misery.....I recognise that intervention does create that but I dismiss their caricatures.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2014 10.09pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are not owned by the people of the countries they represent. They are both owned by a group of extremely wealthy private investors and THEY are the ones who always 'call the tune' regarding world affairs despite what may you think and who you bloody vote for! War makes them richer due to lending to finance a Govts actions.
I've done your digging for you.

You call me paranoid, I call you desperately blinkered bud.

One of us is right but which one?

Yes,but thats in America, Jimenez, where Fox news is regarded by many as a legitimate news outlet. Taken globally, CNN is very much not an anti-American outlet.

9/11 made it politically sellable to the US electorate and allies to go into Iraq. Any overt military intervention in a latin American country couldn't foreseeably happen now, though it used to happen enough times in the 20th century (to protect fruit rather than oil interests)because of the increasing numbers of US voters of central and latin American origin, and diplomatic sensibilities in latin America generally.

Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 10.37pm)