Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George H W Bush admits that he invaded Iraq for oil

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:45 AM
Original message
George H W Bush admits that he invaded Iraq for oil
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 04:48 AM by malaise
but that it was also about the immorality of a big country taking over a member state of the United Nations...country that was part of the United Nations.
Seriously he said that. Baker said they were doing the right thing. Powell added a little revisionist history pushing the lies about Iraq and 9/11
Of course 'the whores of invading Babylon' missed the irony of their morality comments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#41182130

add
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Revolting crew they are.
:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Add this fugging liar of a war criminal to the posse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12246410
<snip>
Tony Blair has said he disregarded Lord Goldsmith's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further UN backing because it was "provisional".

The ex-PM said he believed his top legal officer would change his position on whether a second UN resolution was needed when he knew the full details.

The former prime minister said he was aware of Lord Goldsmith's concerns about the legality of attacking Iraq.
--------------
Blair is a LIAR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Huh, George HW Bush didn't really invade Iraq
He kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, encouraged a shiite rebellion, then changed his mind, and things went back to normal. In this interview he stated oil was one reason why he felt the Iraqis had to be forced out of Kuwait, he also stated he felt it was plain wrong for one country to invade another country and get away with it.

10 years later, his son George W Bush, convinced the US people and the US Congress the US should invade Iraq. At first the lie was about WMD, then it was changed to "liberating the Iraqis and turning Iraq into a democracy". This of course was a lie, and oil was only a subsidiary issue. If you are REALLY curious regarding the Iraq invasion in 2003, read the media, check which countries backed it the most, and you'll see a lot of it had to do with plain imperialism - Bush's handlers wanted the US to control Iraq, and not necessarily for its oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It was about stealing oil by any means necessary n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You are right
by any means necessary all the rest was the tools he used to that end. No telling the number of innocent lives lost the turmoil in the country of Iraq, the infrastructure destroyed, all that doesn't matter to some. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Good morning
I've bookmarked that video clip. They make the Romans look like saints with those confessions :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Did you read about Rome destroying Carthage?
"150101 B.C.
Third Punic War (149146 B.C.): Rome destroys Carthage, killing 450,000 and enslaving the remaining 50,000 inhabitants"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001198.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Did you read about Rome destroying the Temple in Jerusalem?
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

"The Temple Mount, everywhere enveloped in flames, seemed to be boiling over from its base; yet the blood seemed more abundant than the flames and the numbers of the slain greater than those of the slayers. The soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. Another dude gets the wrong war
Come on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
35. None of any of those matters a whit to anyone who supported junior's Iraqi adventure
for they could care less about any of the collateral damage, the inhumanity, the human suffering, the carnage, the destroyed infrastructure, the torture, et al, not a whit. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Thats the way I see it too
By paying attention to the words people us in explaining/arguing their beliefs its easy to figure out their agenda :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Not really - US forces didn't take over Iraq, and Kuwait kept its oil
It wasn't about stealing oil at all. The US government's main interest seems to have been to keep Saddam bottled up - but they didn't even bother to have him replaced, which they could have done easily.

Let me propose something for you guys - some of you confuse Desert Storm, the First Gulf War, carried out when George HW Bush (Bush Daddy) was president, and the Iraq War in 2003, when George W Bush (Bush the Idiot Son) was president. Furthermore, you seem to have a fairly naive and knee jerk reaction, "it was for oil, it was for oil", when the truth is a heck of a lot more complex.

Let me give you a hint: When the US goes to war, it takes agreement from powerful elites, and this means the US goes to war for at least two main reasons - and neither is what the people usually hear. Sometimes it's for three-four reasons, because the war has to have the critical mass behind it so the government and media can lie as one to the people, and soldiers can be sold the idea that they have to go and "die for freedom" or some such garbage.

The truth is the US never goes to war for democracy or for freedom, stealing oil is never the primary reason (why would the US government want to steal oil when the idea is for the oil to be produced and SOLD to the US?, a US government trying to steal oil would find itself opposed by the oil lobby, they prefer to produce it and sell it, and they don't mind high oil prices).

If you want to we can have an intelligent debate about these wars, but let's keep it clean and let's make sure we research what we say rather than just repeating the "common wisdom".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. And Iraq's oil? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. American corporations have now obtained contracts to drill Iraq's oil.
Under Saddam, this was nothing but the realm of the state-owned Oil Company of Iraq. Profits that were realized went automatically to the state. Saddam, if he were a wise leader, would've spent it building up Iraq's infrastructure a la Hugo Chavez. Paul Bremer tinkered with the idea of dismantling the state-owned oil company by selling off the pieces to private entities, usually American oil corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. You are confusing the two Iraq Wars
Paul Bremer wasn't in the First Iraq war, my friend. This post was about President George H W Bush, and the FIRST war in the 1990's. The Bremer satrapy or vice-royalty was a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when George W Bush (the idiot son) was president.

Come on guys, let's read a bit about history before we debate.

This isn't about Venezuela, but whatever gave you the idea that Chavez invested in Venezuela's infrastructure? He hasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Actually, it WAS about oil - it was about provoking Saddam to do
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 06:33 AM by BlueMTexpat
something "outrageous" (invading Kuwait which was siphoning off Iraqi oil) so that we would have an excuse to go into Iraq - which we did. Bush I just didn't continue the push to Baghdad at the time, being marginally more intelligent than his spawn and less susceptible to the importunities of Cheney, and believing - wrongly as it turned out - that Saddam had realized who really had the upper hand and would eventually knuckle under if enough economic sanctions were applied.
Then things became a pissing contest between the Bush Dynasty (and later the Clinton Administration) and Saddam. When the Spawn of Bush became President with the Prick as his mentor, it was just a question of time.

I'm not repeating the "common wisdom" - all one has to do is connect the dots and have been paying attention at the time. Which I was - up close and personal. If the US had been interested simply in getting Iraq out of Kuwait, that could have been done without a war. It would have meant ensuring that Kuwait would NOT siphon off Iraqi oil but terms could have been worked out. But in Bush I's mind, he had to "teach Saddam a lesson" because Saddam had not been behaving like the lackey they wanted him to be. Bush I also thought that a "nice little war" like that one would ensure his chances of being re-elected in 1992. He is - and has always been - the consummate cynic - from his choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate to his nomination of Clarence Thomas, the most unqualified Justice ever, to the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. Cool, then why don't you go research April Gillespie,
Also, you should do some research on the terms of the Iraqi surrender, among other things.

For you to claim that the first Iraq war wasn't about oil is simply naive, and wrong. You obviously need to educate yourself on the entire sweep of Iraq/Iran history since WWII.

Oil is the central reason for our involvement in the area, including going to war in Iraq, not once, but twice. Your claim that the war wasn't about oil belies the reality of what has gone on in the region, and contradicts the much more researched and academically sound findings of both politicians and historians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. April Gillespie at the beginning, but let's not forget the denouement
And apologies up front for using a French word. But as the hostilities with Iraq were concluding, the brave U.S. forces strafed the retreating army repeatedly, killing thousands. Rather than take the time to capture surrendering troops, we bravely buried them alive with bulldozers. And then, when segments of the Iraqi population began thinking it was a good time to overthrow Saddam, Bush withdrew all forces, and bravely abandoned the popular uprising, allowing Saddam to brutally repress it. A lot of the survivors haven't forgotten how Bush the Elder double-crossed them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I heard about April's comments two days after she said them
You should go research me. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. It's more than that. The leadership needs Iraq as a military platform to exert influence.
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 06:10 AM by Selatius
Iraq is located in the heart of the Middle East. With Iraq under occupation, the country essentially becomes a gigantic aircraft carrier or military base from which we can project military power into the surrounding region at will at any time the leadership wishes. We no longer must solely rely on Israel to keep the Arabs distracted. With Iraq as a platform, the leadership can further entrench American corporate influence in the region and have a stronger hand in blocking out Chinese, Indian, European, and Russian aspirations in this corner of the world. As it stands, China and Russia have been cutting oil and natural gas deals with Iran, and as it currently stands, we now have troops to the east and to the west of that country.

If stupidity has any say in the matter, someone someday will miscalculate the situation with Iran and attempt to once again interfere in the internal workings of Iran, which could backfire catastrophically in the form of a region-wide war between Arab states under American influence and the government and people of Iran. This is something that should be avoided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Good point
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
think4yourself Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. Spot On.
It's just a matter of time until we are in Iran. Sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. George HW Bush didn't keep Iraq under occupation
What you wrote is pretty good. I could debate some of the fine points, but you are referring to George W Bush, not George H W Bush. I think we could start a thread to discuss W's war, but this wasn't the original idea when this thread started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. Three generations of Bush men have eyed Iraq's oil...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Oil is a cover - it's a little bit more complex than that
There have been millions of pages written about the "reasons" for the 2003 Iraq invasion. I could probably write a book about it, but it won't get published in the US. Try reading a bit, and use a wide range of sources. I recommend Commondreams, Haaretz, Counterpunch, Antiwar, and of course articles/blogs by Seymour Hersh and Karen Kwiatowski.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. that "roundtable" booked for its own circle of Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. What a bunch
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. They weren't really such bad guys
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 06:03 AM by social_critic
That roundtable was pretty good as US leaders go. They went, they saw, they conquered, AND THEY LEFT. The war didn't cost us so many lives, and it was popular with the plebe.

Their mistake was to allow Saddam to stay in place. Schwarzkopf blew it, he should have kept the troops in Iraq until he got a deal for the Iraqi Sunni generals running the Republican Guard to make the following deal:

1. Replace Saddam.
2. Return all the stuff they stole from Kuwait.
3. Don't attack, pay for attacks, or even bitch at other countries, including Israel.

and

4. Deposit in a Swedish Bank $20 billion US to be used to pay for claims against the Iraqi government for its violations of human rights subsequent to the signature of the agreement, agreeing that such lawsuits can be carried out in a Swedish arbitration hearing (Sweden is recognized as a pretty decent place to hold arbitrations).

If Bush daddy had done this, we would probably have avoided a lot of hassles, saved a lot of money, and Iraq would have had a much nicer dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
megax5000 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
18. hmm
Huh, seems pretty weird. Though Bush the elder wasn't so bad. At least compared to his idiot son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. You seem well informed
Most of the individuals posting on this thread are confusing the father with the idiot son. For a Republican, the father wasn't so bad, this is the reason why his own party dumped on him and he lost the election to Clinton. If he had been a real jerk and a bit dumber, they would have made sure he won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
25. "Clear my conscience" deathbed confession?
nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Naw, they're just afraid of Wikileaks.
All of them memos where they described which Swiss banks to hide the money they stole from Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Exactly what I was thinking ... all of a sudden they are all talking. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Kuwait's gold was stolen by Saddam Hussein
I don't know if Bush Jr (also known as W or Dubbya), or one of his buddies stole from Iraq. I don't know if we'll ever know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. That was my first thought
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
28. Let me put it this way, if Cheney is Darth Vader, then George H W Bush is the Emperor.
The mentor of the Madmen.
End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. If GHW is the Emperor
then Prescott was the holy trinity :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. True dat!
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 07:20 AM by Major Hogwash
Prescott was the one that hid money in them thar Swiss banks clear back in the late 30s and early 40s.
Taught his kid how to do it, too.
Then George passed that "trick" down to his own son, Lumpy.

However, the laws concerning secret Swiss bank accounts has changed since Lumpy left office.

Oooh, shit, they NEVER contemplated that happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
32. That was admitted at the time
Countless people said we can't let a nut like Saddam control huge fields of oil. Pretty much 80% of the US population of the time knew that up front and was all for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCheese Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
41. The first Iraq War had a much stronger case in favor of it...
If the United Nations is to mean anything, it cannot simply sit by while a member nation is taken over and destroyed. Does that mean oil had nothing to do with it? Of course not. But there was moral justification for liberating Kuwait apart from the oil.

Further, if the United States is to go to war, I'd like to see it done in much the way that George HW Bush did it. There were a series of UN resolutions condemning the Iraqi invasion, culminating in UN resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means" to enforce Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The coalition involved 34 nations--a real coalition, not the empty one assembled by Junior, including a fair number of Arab countries. The international reaction to the first war was much different than the second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC