Iraq Secure Enough for U.S. Investment 9 replies

Please wait...

Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Obama Adviser Jones Says Iraq Secure Enough for U.S. Investment - Bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama’s national security adviser said today enough progress has been achieved on the security front in Iraq to enable American businesses to invest there.

There you have it, folks. Aural proof, straight from the president's security adviser, that the War in Iraq is merely a business venture. Another cash cow teat for national and international conglomerates to suck on. Forget terrorism, yellow cake, WMDs or Saddam. This is why the United States occupied Iraq.

And you know what? Only the top five (or so) percent of wealthy individuals will see any benefit from usurping the Iraqi land. Oy, it is all too fucking real, isn't it?




IcePure

Pimp of FileFront.

50 XP

30th January 2008

0 Uploads

2,066 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Just because there's enough security for there to be American business investments, doesn't mean there will be any. I think the Iraq war wasn't for just terrorism, but I don't think it was for securing business opportunities either...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#3 9 years ago

Iraq is hardly the best place for business investments. Within 50 years most of the Middle-East is going to revert to the worthless desert it once was, as oil dries up. The government may be corrupt, but I've never pegged most of our leaders as being outright stupid, and the businesses they are under the thumb of are more intelligent still. Even oil companies are starting to branch out a bit in some ways (they recognize the fact they too will collapse in 50 years if they don't diversify).

I'd be more inclined to believe other reasons for the Iraq war. One major reason was might have been to gain another nation in the Middle-East that we can operate our military out of. Also, and it may seems stupid in hindsight, but I think we might have been trying to impress the Middle-East and try to gain allies. Say what you will, but no one in the Mid-East liked Saddam. If we had taken him out, created a stable government in Iraq, and been on our way in less than year we might have gained some allies out of it. Of course, everyone thought it would be a cakewalk, like the first Gulf War. Apparently no one thought about the power vacuum removing Saddam would create, and the civil war that would result from it.




TodtheWraith

the exception

50 XP

3rd March 2008

0 Uploads

263 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Afterburner;4957181Iraq is hardly the best place for business investments. Within 50 years most of the Middle-East is going to revert to the worthless desert it once was, as oil dries up.[/QUOTE] 50 years isn't soon enough.

Afterburner;4957181The government may be corrupt, but I've never pegged most of our leaders as being outright stupid, [/QUOTE] I have.

Afterburner;4957181I'd be more inclined to believe other reasons for the Iraq war. One major reason was might have been to gain another nation in the Middle-East that we can operate our military out of. Also, and it may seems stupid in hindsight, but I think we might have been trying to impress the Middle-East and try to gain allies. [/QUOTE] Yes, doing things to impress others often works out stupidly. Don't give into peer pressure kids.

[QUOTE=Afterburner;4957181]Say what you will, but no one in the Mid-East liked Saddam.

I disagree. I know a guy that lives in the mid-east & supported Saddam.

[QUOTE=Afterburner;4957181]If we had taken him out, created a stable government in Iraq, and been on our way in less than year we might have gained some allies out of it.

Considering how primitive & religious (I include both because they aren't synonyms in everyones' book) people are in the mid-east, I doubt anything that we would consider a stable government could be established.

I think the best thing that can be done to eliminate government corruption in any democracy is to have no campaigns. Just a simple list of promises that will be fulfilled by the end of the candidates term. If they fail to fulfill the promises they will be executed.

[QUOTE=Afterburner;4957181]Of course, everyone thought it would be a cakewalk, like the first Gulf War. Apparently no one thought about the power vacuum removing Saddam would create, and the civil war that would result from it.

Yes, people really should consider all consequences that include the words "power" or "war".




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Afterburner;4957181Iraq is hardly the best place for business investments.

Oil is quite a worthy asset (they produce 2,420,000 barrels a day which is the 13th largest in the world). So is the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure (roads, buildings, water, electricity, etc..). Plenty of private companies will make big bucks from this occupation.

Within 50 years most of the Middle-East is going to revert to the worthless desert it once was, as oil dries up.

Our car-centric society is damned if oil is damned. It isn't just the Middle East who is in deep shit. Think about how much we rely on oil for our infrastructure and how much we rely on trucks for our food transportation. Scary, eh?

The government may be corrupt, but I've never pegged most of our leaders as being outright stupid

Our leaders don't even lead. They rely on their advisers, lobbyists and maybe even swarthy men hiding in the shadows; puffing on a cigar.

I'd be more inclined to believe other reasons for the Iraq war. One major reason was might have been to gain another nation in the Middle-East that we can operate our military out of. Also, and it may seems stupid in hindsight, but I think we might have been trying to impress the Middle-East and try to gain allies.

Perhaps, however we didn't go in for Iraqi sovereignty or to protect America like monkeyboy Dubya and his cronies would have you believe. At least Obomba is telling it like it is, right? No lobbyists, special interests or swarthy shadow men behind him at all, right? RIGHT!? =p

Attempting to impress the middle east is futile. We are only buds with Saudi Arabia because we are a frequent customer of their Texas tea.




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
Afterburner;4957181Iraq is hardly the best place for business investments.

They don't need to make any long standing corporations. Since Saddam nationalised the Iraq oil industry, they now turned it into capitalist benefit again (of course turning the stable country into a terrorist playground as we all know it).

USA gets money from manufacturing arms and bombs. It is therefore benificial for capitalists to bomb Iraq, kill civilians and destroy buildings. Then come these investments. US corporations rebuild Iraq and get big contracts, which is very beneficial to them. That's enough for them, they don't need to have investments for 50 years.

It's a win-win situation for US corporations, destroy and rebuild. Profit at the cost of innocent civilians.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 9 years ago
Rikupsoni;4957226Profit at the cost of innocent civilians.

On the grand scale is there any other way?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 9 years ago

i think iraq is fine now




Ryuukotseiz_SITHLORD

Darth Never

50 XP

9th February 2008

0 Uploads

129 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

Reminds me of the Crusades, all about the money. Nothing justified that other than the *holy* land. I bet those *religious* people wanted that land to build/rebuild businesses, guilds, or w/e you want to call them.

Edit: And Iraq has been secure for years.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

Such is the history and future of expansionist capitalism.

That one of the primary objectives of the invasion of Iraq was to allow American investment was never really a mystery. The US has been following a similar blueprint for decades, but the government merely fumbled the invasion and occupation a little more than usual this time, so it took them longer to secure an environment conducive to US interests. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the economic model for US investment in poor countries is not typically advantageous for the majority of the population. Can't say it's worse than what they've been through already, sadly. :(