Maybe we DID go to war in Iraq for the oil...

[dr. freeze]

OMG!!!

Did you really just say that?

If anyone can be bothered, feel free to dig back through the archives of this forum to 12-18 months ago, and you'll find that some of us here have been saying 'oil' all along, while quite a few others were screaming, "WMD", "Democracy", "Terrorists"...in fact, everything but oil.

What a very strange comment that was.

again, the thinkers of this board have it engrained in their mind that there must only be 1 reason and 1 reason alone to go to war

these folks are still debating as to why we entered WWII.

Some say it was because of the Japs while others say it was mostly because of the Germans. Can you believe there might be more than 1 reason? Apparantly some of the thinkers on this board are unable to comprehend such complexity.

 

[Chadman]

we should take as much oil as it takes to compensate for the money we have spent

sound fair?

In theory, this could make sense. That is, if the American government blatantly took over the oil business in Iraq, and took the proceeds of oil sales to put into our treasury or refund the American taxpayer for the money they've used for the war.

The problem with your point is that this administration is smarter and more underhanded than that, they are setting up the Iraqi oil situation so American and British energy interests are able to secure contracts and reap the profits. Much like they allowed major energy companies in the US to help mold our energy policies during Cheney's grab for profits (um, I mean, energy legislation planning).

The US government (we, the people) will evidently see none of that - the administrations promise of that is consistently being proven wrong (or a lie, if you will) - but the major energy players will benefit because of it.

The rich get richer, thanks to their donations, and influence in this administration. And we pay at the pump, and in every product we buy that has anything to do with oil in its creation or delivery.

Amazing comment, Freeze. "funny how the leftist geniuses are just now figuring out that oil was a big factor in this." I'm glad you were called on that one. Conservatives were falling all over themselves to deflect any attention from this idea. And still scream about it, and say anyone providing info about it is a lunatic-fringe lefty at the same time.

Which is it? Laughable.

 

[gardenweasel]

why did we remove saddam from kuwait?.....

why do you think the u.n. went along with that incursion?....hell,they aren`t willing to step in and stop genocide in africa...

anybody think it was a humanitarian effort?....

it was because a despot like saddam...a mass murderer...one who had a past reume of trying to build nuclear reactors....invasion...gassing of his own people...

because this clown was attempting to get a stranglehold on a large portion of middle eastern oil...and as a result,have larger influence over the world`s economy...

if,as the world suspected...and given his past record of trying to start a nuclear program,he were allowed to stay in kuwait...control their oil reserves....to possibly build his wealth and influence...and to "arm- up".....

what kind of leverage would he have had?...

think of saddam having sway over the world`s economy....

think about the ramifications...what if saddam had been allowed to build his reactor?...the one that the world was unwilling to do anything about(thankfully, the jews bombed it ouit of existence)....

if everyone had snoozed(and everyone except the jews did)...and the reactor had gone hot.... how do you remove saddam from kuwait?....

without the threat of a nuclear holocaust?

he did launch scuds into israel as he was pushed out of kuwait...trying to goad israel to respond...so the rest of the arab world would come to his aid....

imagine the possibilities...if they had been nukes...

yeah...i can think of many lesser reasons for going to war...

it`s just not a politically correct enough rationale to put forth as official policy...

 

[djv]

Those blacks in Africa are not the same as black oil.

 

[gardenweasel]

Those blacks in Africa are not the same as black oil.

:SIB :wtf:

djv....you are my favorite poster...

 

[djv]

Just going a long with your remarks about Africa above. No one willing to help there. The black there is not much to do with oil. Importants to many is zero. And it's a bigger genocide then Saddam ever did.

 

[hammer1]

Embarrassing?? Who is that guy??? Is the guy some lefty? Quoting some guy you've never heard of is embarrassing. Seriously. Why post a link that would take 2 hours to digest and expect people to debate you on a maybe?


I dont get into these discussions because Mr.Manson is truely clueless. But to help him out as to who said that Iraqi oil will pay for the war. Paul Wolfowitz testifying in front of congress.
Every oil executive testified that Iraqs capacity was unknown and that it was folly to assume that this would be the case. ..and that in all likelly hood it would be so degraded that it would take a minimum of ten years to even approach any serious income stream. And by the way Mr. Manson had u ever gotten past the 8th grade u would have known the meaning of the word "footnote" to document ur qoutes.
I have one for u.
I know i are challenged in my grammar. ..but i and Gov Arnold Schwartzenegger are studying English as a 2nd language.
George Bush
2004 Election campaign speech

I never would have known! the world shudders.
["

 

[gardenweasel]

anybody think that oil is an unworthy reason for going to war?.....or is it just not a politically correct enough reason?

is keeping our economy chugging(and the world`s economy by proxy) an unworthy reason for war?...

why else would the impotent u.n. basically sponsor the u.s.`effort to remove saddam from kuwait?...there were others involved.....but we were the big stick...

iraq and kuwait...roughly 24% of the world`s oil supply when combined.......

because,the u.n. knew that we weren`t going to let him stay in kuwait regardless....he was going to be removed from kuwait by the u.s....regardless of the u.n.....with saudi arabia,as miserable as they are....possibly being the next domino to fall...


and, if the incursion is under u.n. auspices,there`s little chance that the u.s. would follow saddam to iraq and take him out...


pretty smart on their part(the u.n.,that is)... the u.n.cockblockers(the french and germans et al)avoid having their cash cow gutted....while looking like they were actually liberating the kuwaiti`s....who i doubt they gave a shit about....

**interesting sidenote...quite a few more democrats voted to give the president authorization to use force before the iraqi invasion than voted to remove saddam from kuwait.....

the invasion?...sure,i understand these arguments...

but,i wonder why they were reluctant to liberate kuwait?....

i`ll try and pull up some quotes....

 

[djv]

Garden I hope we are not going to war yet for oil. Seems that way some days. If we get our chit togeather we never will have to. We will have developed tons of alternative energy sources. If were smart. This last energy bill passed by congress does little in that area. Just to dam bad we have no forward thinking folks just to many oil men.

 

[MrChristo]

anybody think that oil is an unworthy reason for going to war?.....or is it just not a politically correct enough reason?

Does that not put us squarely in the same catagory as Saddam invading Kuwait? :shrug:

 

[gardenweasel]

no

because saddam is a despot...and was intent on destabilizing the region...and compromising israel`s sovereignty...

he burned the oil fields on his way out..lobbed scuds into israel who did nothing......

remember...he`s a destabilizing influence...


he was trying to gain a stranglehold on the world`s economy..he wanted the oil to increase his influence and power....and he claimed property rights on kuwait...much like the palestinians claim israel...the only democracy at the time in the middle east...

we`re taking the oil?...you guy`s scream that it was a war for oil....then you scream that the administration claimed that the oil would pay for the war....it hasn`t...

we aren`t taking the oil...but,we are making sure that it isn`t used to accomplish some despots plan to dominate the region...

remember what saddam did with oil for food...the people didn`t get the food...but,saddam got the money...he and his morally bankrupt european shitheel cohorts...

you want it both ways....you can`t have it...the oil is the iraqi`s...and the kuwaiti`s...

not ours...and certainly not saddam`s... .

should we have let him have kuwait...a strategically important oil producing nation...and then possibly saudi arabia?...

pacifists may think so...thankfully,you guys aren`t making the decisions...

another attempt at moral equivalency that fails miserably...

 

[djv]

The only thing we did wrong with the 91 war was stop to soon and came home. But Bush 41 did not want to end up owning Iraq and do nation building as his Son is. To bad all this could have been over in 91. We also had about 25 other countries sharing the cost in 91, and man power. Not screw job like were getting this time.

 

[MrChristo]

we aren`t taking the oil

That remains to be seen.

Are we going to fix up their crappy old oil well, pump x-amount of barrels a day when they return to full scale opperation, and then take nothing from it?
Doesn't sound much like the capatalist wat to me.

Seriously, it's going to be interesting to see where the money flows in the next few years.

 

[SKEETER1]

I really wish you LIBERALS were right

I really wish you LIBERALS were right

and that this war was over oil.....then maybe we would see a drastic drop in our gas price......Oh did I fail to mention that the Iraqi's are in charge of their oil production and not us even with us in control of their country......It's a fight agaisnt terrorism you damn LIBERALS......and let me say to this part on terrorism.....I went to a soldiers house where his parents lived and informed them of their son who died valiently in combat....they asked....was their anything differently that could have been done? I looked at them and said.... In my opinion YES...I could have tortured the hell out of the son of a bitches I had captive and found out where they had staked out so when we came down that road we would have known more.....yes there is something else I could have done....but I did nothing because I am told to follow all the political correctiveness of the war and I am sorry. Tell this to a parent of a soldier KIA and ask them how they feel about torture

 

[spibble spab]

we send islamofascists to gitmo. give them a qu'uran and kosher food. we get abducted and get our heads chopped off in front of a camcorder. think terrorists give a sh1t about swiss conventions?

 

[Chadman]

we`re taking the oil?...you guy`s scream that it was a war for oil....then you scream that the administration claimed that the oil would pay for the war....it hasn`t...

Oh really? Funny you should say that. How about this:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: ?There?s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn?t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people?and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years?We?re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.? [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

 

[Chadman]

A couple more administration dudes:

State Department Official Alan Larson: ?On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq?and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.? [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: ?I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense?[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

 

[kosar]

A couple more administration dudes:

State Department Official Alan Larson: ?On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq?and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.?

Even if that money was actually taken and used (who knows as we get little or no info on this sort of thing- why should we, it's not like the taxpayers are footing the bill or anything), that 1.7 billion would cover a whopping 10 or 11 days of the war.

 

[spibble spab]

god, kosar, if you had your way, the government would take all the money spent on national defense and put it into the aclu

 

[spibble spab]

in saying that, im going to go take a plop