Iraq - a bigger veiw ??

[SimonD]

So I have just spent the last few weeks travelling up and down the east coast of Australia - had to go to Melbourne for a wedding. I did some site seeing as well and travelled a distance of 4240 kilometres - phew !!

Anyway, on my trip I meet a high ranking public servant who works for the ministry of foreign affairs. He was walking in the U.S on September 11 so I asked him a few questions about that day. Yes the towers where hit by planes along with the Pentagon - no laser beams, etc. The most astonishing (for me anyway) answer he gave about the whole thing was that he believed that the flight 93 was shot down by a missile - his words "I believe, like most americans do, that the plane was shot down"

I am only talking about a conversation with a guy over a couple of glasses of wine, so before anyone gets to excited and wants proof - I am only offering this as indication of what someone with access to a whole gamete of information at his command, thought.

Topic of this thread

After a couple more glasses of wine we got onto the topic of Iraq. I have always believed that the "people in power" whether that be the captains of industry and\or the government saw an opportunity to invade Iraq to get to its oil.

Steven asked me to consider another view of the situation

All through history we have seen how empires "play" one civilization against another. The masters at this was the British, with their "divide and conquer" strategy. So many places in the world are still feeling the effects of this in the Rep. of Ireland\Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

The idea is that you get the natives to fight each other and then while they are fighting each other they don't have time or the resources to fight the occupying powers.

He believed that the broad plan for USA (I am using USA and "powers that be" as the same thing - sorry if I have offended anyone) was divide the two different groups of Muslim in an effort to undermine the whole lot of them. If we can get the terriorsts to fight lots of little wars they will be less able to attack the USA, Britain, etc. As a student of History I can see the sense in what he is saying. Maybe in a hundred years we will be saying what a good idea it was to go into Iraq

Does anyone else think this could be a valid statement or did we just have to much to drink?

This is my first thread so any constructive criticism is welcome

 

[Architect]

At the risk of appearing pernickety, your historical examples of divide and conquer are innacurate assessments of the histories of at least two of the examples. Sorry!


Moving on to a specific point, there is no physical evidence I know of that indicates a missle took out flight 93, so how would we go about testing your acquaintance's theory?

 

[gumboot]

Does anyone else think this could be a valid statement or did we just have to much to drink?

If your OP is "Are the Americans intentionally creating civil strife in Iraq for nefarious gains" I can understand this being in this particular sub-forum. Otherwise this belongs in Politics/History.

I also don't agree with a number of your assertions (such as your summary of British colonial policy).

In response to the "conspiracy theory" OP... creating strife in Iraq is a frikken stupid idea. It is the violence in Iraq that has made it so unpopular. Any administration that had the opportunity to quickly establish peace, and instead chose to rouse up some civil war, is beyond any level of stupid that I think this reality is capable of containing.

-Gumboot

 

[28th Kingdom]

Synchronicity...

All through history we have seen how empires "play" one civilization against another. The masters at this was the British, with their "divide and conquer" strategy. So many places in the world are still feeling the effects of this in the Rep. of Ireland\Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

The idea is that you get the natives to fight each other and then while they are fighting each other they don't have time or the resources to fight the occupying powers.

He believed that the broad plan for USA (I am using USA and "powers that be" as the same thing - sorry if I have offended anyone) was divide the two different groups of Muslim in an effort to undermine the whole lot of them. If we can get the terriorsts to fight lots of little wars they will be less able to attack the USA, Britain, etc. As a student of History I can see the sense in what he is saying. Maybe in a hundred years we will be saying what a good idea it was to go into Iraq

Hello Simon... and welcome - check out what I posted at the exact same time as your post 1:21AM PST.

"The Iraq invasion is a perfect success. The USG has seized control over that land... and left it's people in a never-ending cycle of war amongst themselves."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2258500#post2258500

 

[Gravy]

I think the U.S. political leaders believed that once Hussein was overthrown, Iraqis would welcome their new freedom and would, despite their factional differences, eventually work out a power-sharing arrangement that included democratic institutions.

I do not think that the U.S. deliberately fomented civil war in Iraq. I think U.S. leaders (perhaps not military leaders) were genuinely surprised at the severity of the reaction to occupation and the extent of the intra-Muslim violence.

It's not "the terrorists" who are fighting the "little wars," it's the angry citizens. Civil war in Iraq in no way makes the U.S. less vulnerable to terrorism. On the other hand, a whole generation of U.S.-hating Iraqis may be forming now.

 

[SezMe]

The idea is that you get the natives to fight each other and then while they are fighting each other they don't have time or the resources to fight the occupying powers.

In addition to the concerns cited by gumboot and Architect, I would note that the Sunni and Shia sects have been fighting each other for over a 1,000 years. Nobody with half a brain would think that we (the USA) would have to invade them to get them to be at each other's throats.

You want constructive comments only! Simon, you've not be around here long, eh? This forum has a rule against constructive comments.










.... 'Jes kidding.

 

[SimonD]

At the risk of appearing pernickety, your historical examples of divide and conquer are innacurate assessments of the histories of at least two of the examples. Sorry!

No problem - aways happen to know if I have made a mistake (if I have made one ) - which two are you talking about and why?

Moving on to a specific point, there is no physical evidence I know of that indicates a missle took out flight 93, so how would we go about testing your acquaintance's theory?

As I said it was just a converstion I had - we can't test it at all. This is why I found his statement strange. As has been stated before just 'cos you are smart doesn't make you wise. I just thought it was intersting how a person who is privy to government documents should hold such a view - maybe he is on it

 

[SimonD]

If your OP is "Are the Americans intentionally creating civil strife in Iraq for nefarious gains" I can understand this being in this particular sub-forum. Otherwise this belongs in Politics/History.

sorry first timer

I also don't agree with a number of your assertions (such as your summary of British colonial policy).

Which parts and why [/quote]

In response to the "conspiracy theory" OP... creating strife in Iraq is a frikken stupid idea. It is the violence in Iraq that has made it so unpopular. Any administration that had the opportunity to quickly establish peace, and instead chose to rouse up some civil war, is beyond any level of stupid that I think this reality is capable of containing.

Thats a good point. But what sort of peace are we talking about? What's right for Iraq and what is right for the USA are two different things. We should remember Neville Chamberlain policy of "peace in our time" meant for the Cechs

 

[Pardalis]

Does this have anything to do with conspiracy theories?

 

[SimonD]

In addition to the concerns cited by gumboot and Architect, I would note that the Sunni and Shia sects have been fighting each other for over a 1,000 years. Nobody with half a brain would think that we (the USA) would have to invade them to get them to be at each other's throats.

You want constructive comments only! Simon, you've not be around here long, eh? This forum has a rule against constructive comments.
.... 'Jes kidding.

This is the point I was trying to make. Steven talked about how before going into countries, civil servents sit around a table and discuss the events and what will be the results. Is it not possible that a war in Iraq would benefit the USA to create strife with these two groups? Saddim had a things pretty tight on his watch, however now that he is gone things are failing down around the place with these two groups

 

[SimonD]

Does this have anything to do with conspiracy theories?

Not really - I am trying to see the conflict in a historical context

 

[SimonD]

I think the U.S. political leaders believed that once Hussein was overthrown, Iraqis would welcome their new freedom and would, despite their factional differences, eventually work out a power-sharing arrangement that included democratic institutions.

I do not think that the U.S. deliberately fomented civil war in Iraq. I think U.S. leaders (perhaps not military leaders) were genuinely surprised at the severity of the reaction to occupation and the extent of the intra-Muslim violence.

It's not "the terrorists" who are fighting the "little wars," it's the angry citizens. Civil war in Iraq in no way makes the U.S. less vulnerable to terrorism. On the other hand, a whole generation of U.S.-hating Iraqis may be forming now.

Thanks Gravy - this is the type of "information" I am looking for

 

[gumboot]

Not really - I am trying to see the conflict in a historical context

This subforum is specifically for conspiracy theories. There are other subforums for discussing other topics, and you will attract regular posters to those particular subforums who might be more interested in the particular topic.

You might want to ask a moderator to move it.

-Gumboot

 

[SimonD]

This subforum is specifically for conspiracy theories. There are other subforums for discussing other topics, and you will attract regular posters to those particular subforums who might be more interested in the particular topic.

You might want to ask a moderator to move it.

-Gumboot

Point taken - will do - now just got to work out how (I'll FAQ it)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Topic of this thread

After a couple more glasses of wine we got onto the topic of Iraq. I have always believed that the "people in power" whether that be the captains of industry and\or the government saw an opportunity to invade Iraq to get to its oil.

Steven asked me to consider another view of the situation

All through history we have seen how empires "play" one civilization against another. The masters at this was the British, with their "divide and conquer" strategy. So many places in the world are still feeling the effects of this in the Rep. of Ireland\Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

The idea is that you get the natives to fight each other and then while they are fighting each other they don't have time or the resources to fight the occupying powers.

He believed that the broad plan for USA (I am using USA and "powers that be" as the same thing - sorry if I have offended anyone) was divide the two different groups of Muslim in an effort to undermine the whole lot of them. If we can get the terriorsts to fight lots of little wars they will be less able to attack the USA, Britain, etc. As a student of History I can see the sense in what he is saying. Maybe in a hundred years we will be saying what a good idea it was to go into Iraq

Does anyone else think this could be a valid statement or did we just have to much to drink?

This is my first thread so any constructive criticism is welcome

Cheers Simon, and welcome.

Flight 93 FDR reconstruction details are findable in a number of threads on the Conspiracy Forum, with contributions by a number of people who understand flying, airframe limitations, g loading, and using negative G to frustrate the efforts of persons trying to retake the cockpit. The missile shoot down scenario, which has been making the rounds since about 9-13 2001 has little to no evidence to support it, particularly regarding the movements of (F-15 and F-16) interceptors on alert.

As to the political angle, the core US interest in the middle east is stability, and a sub goal (geostrategic) was to reintroduce Iraqi oil onto the market under a different "qui bono" relationship than Saddam and his partners of the time. As the Iran Iraq war of the 1980's showed, the greater the instability in the Persian Gulf, the greater the risk and thus the higher the cost of oil on the global market. This has been dampened somewhat by the increased exploration, and exploitation of reserves, in the Stans, and other oil producing regions. Russia is still getting at, and producing, a small portion of its energy reserves. The increased demand over the past 20 years, as emerging economies up their appetite for carbon based energy, of course exacerbates the influence Persian Gulf oil has on market fluctuation.

But why a war to achieve this end? Part of that, I think, (opinion here) is the short time horizons US administrations have to get anything done, part was lack of confidence in winning the 2004 election, part was lack of confidence in the multilateral/UN process, and part a desire to look at the expensive armed tool the US has and think "We have this great tool, we must use it, or we are wasting our resources on it." That last mode of thought is slightly Wilsonian in character, and was the driving meme behing the US military's doctrinal transition to OOTW missions (things other than a bloody big war) as prime missions . . . one of these OOTW missins is a thing called "nation building." Any turn of the century American Progressive (19th to 20th) would recognize modern "nation building" immediately.

The neo-Wilsonian/Progressive initiative to "import democracy at the point of a bayonet" is an old American policy model, which you can observe in the "Banana Wars," roughly 1900 to 1933, which also includes the US operations in Philippines. This policy model is at odds with the Weinberger Doctrine -- less activist, fight only when you have to, go big or don't go at all -- but is related to (somewhat) the UN world model of more representative democracies being an improvement on global relations, on the macro scale. Using a different style, the more purely UN model tries to inflict/insert democracy on any place it can, though more with the rifle butt stroke than the bayonet, and on a much longer time horizon.

That the BushCo team chose the neo-Wilsonian model as a pre emptive strategy fits into a foreshortened time horizon. "If we don't change something, the same old thing will keep on happening" highlights their disbelief, or lack of confidence, in any means other than the bayonet to achieve meaningful or lasting change. Agree with that position or not, that seems to be the thought process.

As we can see, change has indeed come about, but not in a style or flavor that promotes confidence in the outcome . . . if the desired outcome is as I pointed to initially, stability in the Middle East region.

I do not blame anyonoe for looking aghast at the policy to date: it is counterintuitive, to say the least, that one foments strife among various political constituencies in order to achieve stability.

What is disconcerting is what Ed Luttwak recently wrote in Opinion Journal (got the link from hammegk in another thread) and that is the idea that fits well with your friend Steven's view: the commencement of a many vs many rugby match was part of the initial intent, intended to get certain parties at each others' throats in order to reduce focus on the US, and Israel. You can't ignore that last piece, since they are in the M.E. security equation.

At face value, that's a bizarre approach.

To presume that one's enemy can only focus on one matter at a time is to severely underestimate one's opponent.

Sun Tzu wept.

DR

 

[davefoc]

It seems to me that DR was essentially correct above.

Although the various Bushco lies and misrepresentations have served to obscure them there were, in fact, numerous difficult problems that were associated with Iraq and it was likely that they would continue to be problems if something wasn't done to fix them.

So Bushco decided to fix them with a war, rather than let them continue on to be dealt with as well as possible with UN sanctions, no fly zones, diplomatic maneuvering, etc.

The best case for the idea that Bushco wanted instability in the Iraq as part of some grand plan to get the Arabs fighting with each other and thereby reduce the threat of Arabs against the West is just that Bushco appeared to be so incredibly inept with its handling of the occupation that it might seem there must have been a plan in place to do so badly. My view, though, is that Bushco was that incredibly inept, although some of their ineptitude got a boost from their penchant for corruption.

So yeah, it's possible to look at this huge human disaster and see how Bushco might have intentionally manipulated the situation to produce it, but I doubt it greatly. The simple and most likely by far explanation here is just plain incompetence coupled with a fair dose of corruption.

 

[fuelair]

So I have just spent the last few weeks travelling up and down the east coast of Australia - had to go to Melbourne for a wedding. I did some site seeing as well and travelled a distance of 4240 kilometres - phew !!

Anyway, on my trip I meet a high ranking public servant who works for the ministry of foreign affairs. He was walking in the U.S on September 11 so I asked him a few questions about that day. Yes the towers where hit by planes along with the Pentagon - no laser beams, etc. The most astonishing (for me anyway) answer he gave about the whole thing was that he believed that the flight 93 was shot down by a missile - his words "I believe, like most americans do, that the plane was shot down"

I am only talking about a conversation with a guy over a couple of glasses of wine, so before anyone gets to excited and wants proof - I am only offering this as indication of what someone with access to a whole gamete of information at his command, thought.

Topic of this thread

After a couple more glasses of wine we got onto the topic of Iraq. I have always believed that the "people in power" whether that be the captains of industry and\or the government saw an opportunity to invade Iraq to get to its oil.

Steven asked me to consider another view of the situation

All through history we have seen how empires "play" one civilization against another. The masters at this was the British, with their "divide and conquer" strategy. So many places in the world are still feeling the effects of this in the Rep. of Ireland\Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

The idea is that you get the natives to fight each other and then while they are fighting each other they don't have time or the resources to fight the occupying powers.

He believed that the broad plan for USA (I am using USA and "powers that be" as the same thing - sorry if I have offended anyone) was divide the two different groups of Muslim in an effort to undermine the whole lot of them. If we can get the terriorsts to fight lots of little wars they will be less able to attack the USA, Britain, etc. As a student of History I can see the sense in what he is saying. Maybe in a hundred years we will be saying what a good idea it was to go into Iraq

Does anyone else think this could be a valid statement or did we just have to much to drink?

This is my first thread so any constructive criticism is welcome

Way to tell quickly that there is a problem with something you post: 28thKingdumb agrees with you on all or part of it.

 

[delphi_ote]

I do not think that the U.S. deliberately fomented civil war in Iraq. I think U.S. leaders (perhaps not military leaders) were genuinely surprised at the severity of the reaction to occupation and the extent of the intra-Muslim violence.

Which makes me wonder why the hell they're our leaders. How can you put someone in charge of occupying a country when they don't understand the culture enough to know who hates who and how much?

It's not "the terrorists" who are fighting the "little wars," it's the angry citizens. Civil war in Iraq in no way makes the U.S. less vulnerable to terrorism. On the other hand, a whole generation of U.S.-hating Iraqis may be forming now.

Well said. This is a very difficult situation the U.S. is in, and I can't see any path toward resolution. What will future generations write in history books about this war and our generation?

 

[SimonD]

Way to tell quickly that there is a problem with something you post: 28thKingdumb agrees with you on all or part of it.

Yes, that was a bit of a worry. I'll talk to anyone about anything. But when someone can prove something you say is incorrrect you should, at some stage, be able to say "Hhhmmm...what you are saying seems to be valid, I will now have to reaccess what my current thinking is"

It is a total waste of time and effort if all they are intrested in is promoting an idea without considering everything

I am currently reading "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel and found this quote from Galileo's father (Vincenzio) "It appears to me that they who in proof of any assertion rely simply on the weght of authority, without adducing any argument in support of it, act very absurdly. I, on the contrary, wish to be allowed freely to question and freely to answer you without any sort of adulation, as well becomes those who are in search of truth"

 

[SimonD]

Which makes me wonder why the hell they're our leaders. How can you put someone in charge of occupying a country when they don't understand the culture enough to know who hates who and how much?

Well said. This is a very difficult situation the U.S. is in, and I can't see any path toward resolution. What will future generations write in history books about this war and our generation?

I guess this is the biggest problem I have with the whole affair. How can a group of well educated people, who have entire 5000 years or so of history to look back on, get it so wrong. I think that this is what leads to so many CT ideas.