Saddams genocidal acts towards Marsh Arabs and Kurds called for intervention by others under moral and UN auspices. Many Shia in Iraq "lived on their knees".

Reading this thread reminds me of something I read a few years ago. A US general asked Iraqi tribal leaders what they required. "water and power back on, and as many statues of George Bush as you can spare". I can't vouch for the authenticity of this exchange, but the invaders have failed on the first two, and the third was never going to happen.

Religious, cultural and historical reasons have left many Iraqis with an Absolutist vision of society, apparently, where they are happy to vote in free elections, but only on partisan (religious/tribal/familial) lines.

In 1879 the French Rev. saw the end of Absolute rule. And again after Napoleon, and again in 1830, and again in 1848. (hope I've got my dates right). Their current Republic is only some 50 years old. There are only a few lucky countries that have not had to fight for their freedoms and their democracy.

Maybe, in 50 years time, we will look back at this horror and see it as the birth of democracy in the Arab world after all.

Biggav, are you suggesting that US pulled troops out of Saudi because Bin Laden demanded it? The Saudis asked them to do it. American presence in the so called Holy Land offends Saudi citizens. The Saudi leadership needed to do this in order to maintain control of their country. Do you really think that the US was doing Bin Laden’s bidding?

So tell me do you think that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Do you think he had given up all thought of acquiring more of them in the future? How do you suggest we deal with dictators who massacre/starve/terrorize their people? The armchair critics never put up reasonable alternatives. They’d be happy to just do nothing and ignore the problem.

So why are they staying in Iraq? Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune, since in the real world security costs can’t be ignored. How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?

Do you not think that perhaps the US stays in Iraq because it is THE front in the war against Al Qaeda and global Islamo Fasciscm. ( It always makes me laugh when I think of the anti-capitalists apologizing for/aligning with Islamo Fascists) Or that to leave Iraq to become a failed state would give a safe haven to terrorists

Paul L.

You asked "So why are they staying in Iraq? Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune, since in the real world security costs can’t be ignored. How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?"

The US/UK occupation of Iraq has effectively and literally kept the price of oil up. This has made the extraction of US oil (largely in Gulf of Mexico) and UK oil (North Sea) more economical and profitable. The higher world oil price also means that US and UK oil companies rake off higher profits for refining, distributing and rretailing Middle Eastern oil (particularly from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait).

The personal stakes of Bush, Cheney and Rice in the oil industry should not be underestimated. They will likely return to their oil based careers after 2008. Being on good terms with the largest producers (the Saudis) continues to be personally essential for these American political leaders - hence the Saudis were not hammered after 9/11.

I'm not writing this from a leftwing perspective. I'm a frankly cynical capitalist with (inter alia) shares and contacts in oil and shipping corporations.

However the occupation of Iraq has turned into a tragic super power bloodfest. Bush's Vietnam. No way out for him. Around 100 Muslims die for every US soldier killed. Surely the US/UK (and lackeys) can either cause less damage than Saddam or use their brains - leave - and rely on the marketplace rather than military might.

Pete

Good on the Senator for calling a spade a spade, but theres no hope of reform in Howards neoliberals. The very credible count estimating 650,000+ Iraqis killed since invasion makes the Father Knows Best optimism of Bush, Howard, Punter57 & Anti-green frankly revolting.

Why invade when purchase is cheaper? Who says cheaper is good, and cheaper for who? If you’re CEO of a corp makes megabucks providing arms & privatised services to government (Halliburton, Carlyle Group, BAE, Raytheon, Boeing, Bechtel, Halliburton, KBR..), war is a bonanza, no matter where.
Also, talking up a war premium in the market is a very easy way for a host of middlemen to milk consumers.
Also, Saddams oil was different to Saudi oil because you couldn’t pay for the former in $US, not after 2000 anyway http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
If all the US has going for it is a printing press and a military to enforce ‘free trade’ in exchange for ever more funny money, then Saddams Iraq exiting the $US oil market was a very bad example and a threat to energy security. And he used to be such a pal!

Howards “the market will supply” dogma avoids talking about how the market gets its supply, much like he avoids talking about the gutting of veterans healthcare entitlements. No wonder nobody wants to join the army, killing to keep ourselves auto-erotically obese seems flawed somehow.

@PauL said - "are you suggesting that US pulled troops out of Saudi because Bin Laden demanded it? The Saudis asked them to do it. American presence in the so called Holy Land offends Saudi citizens. The Saudi leadership needed to do this in order to maintain control of their country. Do you really think that the US was doing Bin Laden’s bidding?"

I think if you read that paragraph again you'll answer your own question. Bin Laden demanded the removal of American troops and Bush complied. By the standards used to accuse most people of "appeasement" whenever the Iraq war is mentioned, this seems as good an example as you will ever find.

Appeasement is different to "doing bin Laden's bidding" of course. I don't think any ever accused Chamberlain of doing Hitler's bidding when they discuss his appeasement - he made what he thought was an intelligent decision given the circumstances.

On the positive side, Bush's capitulation seems to have worked - no more Al Qaeda attacks on the US even though the Americans have failed to catch bin Laden, which they might have been successful at if they'd concentrated their efforts on Afghanistan instead of making a grab for Iraq's oil.

@pauLL said - "So tell me do you think that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Do you think he had given up all thought of acquiring more of them in the future? How do you suggest we deal with dictators who massacre/starve/terrorize their people? The armchair critics never put up reasonable alternatives. They’d be happy to just do nothing and ignore the problem."

The only WMD Saddam ever had were the ones the Americans and the French sold him to use on the Iranians (and the Kurds at Hallabja). These were destroyed after the first gulf war - something the UN weapons inspectors said repeatedly (study the reports of Butler, Ritter and Blix if you don't believe me).

If Saddam had allowed US companies to develop Iraqi oil fields in the 1980's he would still be in power today with the full approval of the US government. His mistake was not doing that and then being doubly foolish by thinking he could also get away with invading Kuwait.

I advocate (1) converting our transport systems away from oil and thus having no geopolitical or economic interest in the middle east and (2) supporting democracy movements in all countries rules by dictatorships.

Don't try and box me in with some bogus strawman neoconservative argument that panders to your prejudices about the left - I'm not a left winger - I just don't believe in following courses of action that are immoral, doomed to fail and violate the principles of the free market.

I think Paul Wolfowitz said it best when asked why the US invaded Iraq and not North Korea - "Iraq floats on a sea of oil and North Korea doesn't".