[First you said the removal of Saddam resulting in deaths and empoverishment of millions of people is justified because his control of a couple more out of hundred oil producers would ‘ruin American industry’. ]
Millions of people have not been killed in Iraq. The total body count there is less than 300K. That’s less than 1%
of Iraq’s population of 38m.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Ultimately the low body count is the real problem. The German and Japanese occupations were fairly peaceful because these nations were all fought-out. 10% and 5% of the German and Japanese populations lay dead at the end of the war. Whereas probably less than 2% of Iraq’s Sunni Arab population has been killed in 16 years of sporadic war. Until enough of them are killed, war weariness won’t set in. While the country’s non-Sunni Arab population is working on this, they really need to carry out Saddam-style proscriptions in order to bring the Sunni Arabs to heel.
But it makes a difference if the number of independent producers goes down, especially when 5% (Saddam’s Iraq) of the market becomes 33% (Iraq with all of the Arabian peninsula under Saddam) of the market. It won’t destroy the US economy, but it will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars per year, dwarfing the cost of removing and killing him.
With oil priced at $60, the cost of oil to the American economy, is about $450b a year. Take prices to $180, ball-parked in 2008, and the cost goes to $1.35T. That took the world economy into recession, with the US economy recording a 3% drop and the major European economies (France, Germany, UK) reporting a high single digit drop.
It’s the same reason we got involved in Europe during WWII. It was against the American interest for either Germany or Russia to conquer Western Europe, one of the most productive regions on the planet. It’s the reason we’re remain in NATO today - to ward off either the Russians or Germans getting too big for their britches. Bottom line, the construction of empires by foreign countries, whether oil or land, is detrimental to US interests.
Trump could order US troops out of Syria tomorrow. But he won’t, for the same reason he approved the destruction of the company-sized Russian mercenary unit in Syria. His approach is to smile at America’s adversaries, while inserting a stiletto between their ribs. That’s why Putin is a great guy, but we’re supplying Ukraine with anti-tank weapons and sniper rifles, and we’re pulling out of the nuclear arms treaty.
“” “” It’s not clear how Iraq is impoverished. When the US invaded in 2003, Iraq’s GDP per capita was $609. It’s now around $5000. Besides, it’s not as if Russia took a look at the effects on Ukraine’s economy before it decided to invade Ukraine and annex the Crimea.
Besides, it’s not as if Russia took a look at the effects on Ukraine’s economy before it decided to invade Ukraine and annex the Crimea.”” “”
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. Iraq’s GDP per capita was about half of that of US in 1990. That’s about $10k in 1990 dollars. In 2003 it was a Third World country and still is today.
I have no idea how Ukraine is connected to it. The ‘war’ which is mostly a fiction of the Ukrainian government propaganda didn’t have as much an effect on their economy as uncontrolled theft of public funds by the very same government. Self-imposed embargoes against the country which was their most important market didn’t help either. Crimea voted to get out of this mess. It would vote again if needed.
“” “” Millions of people have not been killed in Iraq. The total body count there is less than 300K. That’s less than 1%
of Iraq’s population of 38m.”” “”
That’s direct casualties. Many more died or had their lives shortened due to a collapse of basic public services related to the shrinking economy.
Once again you are still ignoring the surge of Islamic terrorism as a result. It killed many more people including Americans.
“” “” You’re confusing two different things. The use of a given currency by producers for cost reasons worldwide has nothing to do with the control of resources by a single entity. “” “”
Has anyone disputed it here?
“” “” But it makes a difference if the number of independent producers goes down, especially when 5% (Saddam’s Iraq) of the market becomes 33% (Iraq with all of the Arabian peninsula under Saddam) of the market. It won’t destroy the US economy, but it will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars per year, dwarfing the cost of removing and killing him.”” “”
That’s clearly hypothetical and doesn’t worth killing for. In previous posts you wrote about Microsoft holding more than 33% of operating system market. Does it mean Bill Gates deserve getting killed for it? I don’t think so.
The easier explanation here is the corruption of Bush family and their ties to Saudi royals. It is that simple. The oil price issues and the rest are hypothetical or speaking clearly an intellectual pornography.