[refulgentis]

"in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest"

I'm 37, so I was young at the time of Afghanistan/Iraq, about 14. I recall thinking the adults who said it was "for the oil" were dangerously naive: neither had significant oil resources that would alter supply dramatically, gas prices weren't high, the administration had 0 to say on that front, and it wasn't even close to a focus once fighting settled.

This leaves me curious about conclusions drawn from that.

[20after4]

Control of the poppy trade (opium/heroin) and suppression of some of Israel's neighborhood enemies. And a lot of profits for military contractors.

Remember Dick Chaney had huge conflicts of interest. It was also about oil but not only oil.

[refulgentis]

I find it mildly amusing I'm at -1 for an obviously-correct observation re: oil not being a clear motivation & the top reply is "we wanted control of heroin trade, to help Israel defeat their principal regional rival Afghanistan, and pay off military contractors."

In reality, an administration with an ideological bent towards using military force reacted, with universal acclaim, to 9/11.

Future historians, it didn't used to be like this. Started getting really weird around 2018.

[SunlightEdge]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was a dictator that kept the various religious factions in line. America was just looking for an excuse to go in again. Everyone knew there were no weapons of mass distraction too. The reasons for America going in are complex, but relate to control of the middle east, keeping USA currency top, resources, and money for various groups that benefitted.

[refulgentis]

I agree wholeheartedly: I don't think it was smart or right. Simply, an administration without an ideological taboo against war reacted to 9/11.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

He said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews and you know it

[refulgentis]

He said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews, I know it.

[indubioprorubik]

And the us became a oil net exporter, which makes you more interested in a constricted supply. The whole story just never checked out, if you move it around just a little bit.

[tdeck]

It was about giving US companies control over the profits from the oil industry and crushing an unaligned country in the region to turn it into a US puppet state, not just to carry barrels of crude oil home.

[mlinhares]

Also line up the pockets of the military contractors that got paid to "rebuild" Iraq.

[convolvatron]

dont forget that Iraq _was_ a US puppet state for the bulk of the Iran-Iraq war. It's entirely plausible that Hussein just got too uppity, and needed to be taken out.

[BurningFrog]

Those who think the US is evil were not affected by these predictions not coming true.

It's typically not an empirically based conviction.

[qcnguy]

Iraq has huge oil reserves. Afghanistan, not, but Iraq yes.

[refulgentis]

This is simultaneously A) true B) not particularly huge IMHO (~5% of global oil production, 8% of reserves) C) unrelated as to whether the US "got their oil"

[qcnguy]

Iraq has historically had a lot of undiscovered reserves.

[stodor89]

8% of the entire world's proven oil reserves is not particularly huge?!

[refulgentis]

Correct

[stodor89]

Compared to what? Cause by any reasonable measure I can come up with, that's an absolutely bonkers amount of oil.

[refulgentis]

I'm a bit confused.

If I'm understanding correctly, I'm reminded of an old saw I think I made up:

You can lie (shade people's interpretations) by either using percentages, or gross amounts.

I'm sure that's a TON of oil, gross amount.

I'm also sure 8% is "not particularly huge".

For instance, if I could get you without this frame, and told you that you got a 92% on a test, you got an "absolutely bonkers amount" of questions wrong...you'd argue with me.

If you started crying when I told you that you got a 92% on the test, then told you that's a "not particularly huge" amount to get wrong, I think you'd agree, if not be consoled.

[stodor89]

Afghanistan produced like 90% of the world's opium.

[XorNot]

I find a lot of that type of thinking is born of conspiracy theory motivations: they want the world to make sense so there has to be "a plan". It leads to people chronically overvaluing money and chronically underestimating ideology.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Trouble is that Trump's ideology is all but explicitly rapacious and amoral.

I think you are correct that Bush had a very different ideology. I view him as more of a buffoon than a robber baron. (We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective.) I doubt it makes much difference to people whose lives were ruined. But it could be important in the broader context of predicting US behavior: Bush started the PEPFAR program which saved millions from AIDS in Africa; Trump wrecked it.

One very sad possibility is that Bush discredited the ideology of "compassionate conservatism" in the US through his bumbling, and that contributed to the relative popularity of Trump's "amoral conservatism".

[rand846633]

> We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective.

The robbery was done against the American people. They are the ones who were robbed! Imagine in what shape the country would be if you would have gotten free higher education and free healthcare instead?

The other and with that the biggest victim were the causalities from the invasion, but they were not robbed but rather assaulted…

[text0404]

The taxpayers paid $2-3T in Iraq. The military-industrial complex made a killing.

[hn_acc1]

Yes - it was a direct transfer of $$ from taxpayers to Haliburton (Dick Cheney, IIRC) et al.