Jacey

We (the US) invaded, we deposed the regime and brought chaos, we are the occupying force, we are responsible for supplying food, water, medicine, etc. Why should they have to pay for it with oil?

Cap'n Jack

Can't see what the problem is with the oil for food contract. It was working up until the start of the war, stopped for the duration of the war and is now back up and running.

It would appear that this was part of the plan, to supply food etc, to sell oil instead of making the American public foot the bill with tax increases.

fatherphil

so how long do we have to foot the bill?

James Still

When did we bring our troops home from Germany or Japan? When did we leave Korea? Bosnia? Afghanistan? It's a shame this question is just now being asked. I wish it (and many others) were taken into consideration well before the war. Instead many Americans went along with the Administration's propaganda and didn't think about the long-term ramifications of empire-building and the radical policy shift toward unprovoked preventative war.

As the Nazi propaganda leader Hermann Goering said in his cell shortly before he committed suicide in 1946:

"...it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," [prison psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert] pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The only difference between then and now is that Congress no longer declares war; but rather cedes its authority willingly to a single man.

fatherphil

would it not have been cheaper to apologize to japan and lift the embargo after pearl harbor than to go to war?

Godless Dave

Possibly. But maybe not, because we would not have access to the natural resources and markets in the Pacific that Japan had either already taken or coveted. Plus if they attacked us once they were likely to do it again; going to war with them eliminated them as a military threat. And that brings up the faultiness of your analogy: Japan attacked United States territory in 1941, while Iraq has never attacked the United States or even had the capability to do so.

Pomp

Cap'n Jack,

Can't see what the problem is with the oil for food contract.

One problem is that, based on my understanding, it violates international law. An occupying power is obligated to provide necessities for the occupied...extorting their natural resources to pay for what we are required to provide anyway flirts with violating this provision.

Another is that it certainly doesn't help to disprove the common perception that the United States is only interested in the ME for its oil when we require those we've "liberated" to give us oil in exchange for their "liberation."

Finally, I personally have serious ethical qualms about participating actively in the destruction of a country, both through the sanctions regime and then the war, and requiring the citizens of that country to pay to repair the damage we helped inflict.

It would appear that this was part of the plan, to supply food etc, to sell oil instead of making the American public foot the bill with tax increases.

If the American public didn't want to foot the bill for wars, then the American public shouldn't have knowingly voted for an extremely hawkish government.

Pomp

Given that the embargo was, in part, designed to force the Japanese hand and goad them into attacking, I don't see that as a realistic outcome.

Further, your analogy breaks down in that Japan was a military threat...they'd attacked us once and we had good reason to believe they'd do it again. Iraq was not a military threat.

fatherphil

funny cause the peace loving country of iraq had in fact launched 2 attacks against sovereign under saddam's leadership. the fear of saddam financing a 9/11 type of attack with added punch from his weapons arsenal (conventional or unconventional) seemed real enough to some. thanks for fleshing out my anology.

Blixy Sticks

Father, you of all people should know better.

Man Cannot Live On Bread Alone!!

Shame on you. I expect more from a man of the cloth.