Posted: 11/15/2006 9:53:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them.
I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Posted: 11/15/2006 9:53:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them.
I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil. [/QUOTE]
Seconded.
Also, I might like to note, that we need more Bill Clintons in this country. Minus the sexual indiscretions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them.
I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil. [/QUOTE]
Seconded.
Also, I might like to note, that we need more Bill Clintons in this country. Minus the sexual indiscretions.
Thank You, MusicMan.
More Bill Clintons would be...interesting. It would be funny to get more in Washington though...then they'd just do the sexual things they do on their own anyway in public.
I still can't beleive we spent several million dollars to find out if he got blown. Yes, before I get crucified for this, I realize the big deal was that he lied, not that he got blown. But at least his lie didn't kill anyone or physically harm them. And be honest! If you were a married man who got blown by another woman, wouldn't you lie about it too? What do you expect?
More Bill Clintons would be...interesting. It would be funny to get more in Washington though...then they'd just do the sexual things they do on their own anyway in public.
I still can't beleive we spent several million dollars to find out if he got blown. Yes, before I get crucified for this, I realize the big deal was that he lied, not that he got blown. But at least his lie didn't kill anyone or physically harm them. And be honest! If you were a married man who got blown by another woman, wouldn't you lie about it too? What do you expect?
Let's just say that Clinton's actions resulted in no one getting shot.
Well, except for Monica.
...and she seemed to like it.
Well, except for Monica.
...and she seemed to like it.
and it's not like Hillary didn't get something out of it, too.
It launched her career.
It launched her career.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Posted: 11/15/2006 9:53:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them.
I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil. [/QUOTE]
rolling oil? Like I said, there aren't alot of oil reservers anymore. Daddy dear helped Saddam Houssein to the highest spot in the first place and Clinton helped him build a nice group of soldiers. Come on, on of the excuses they used to attack Iraq was the Houssein would have developed nuclear bombs,right? Bullshit...this WAS about oil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them.
I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil. [/QUOTE]
rolling oil? Like I said, there aren't alot of oil reservers anymore. Daddy dear helped Saddam Houssein to the highest spot in the first place and Clinton helped him build a nice group of soldiers. Come on, on of the excuses they used to attack Iraq was the Houssein would have developed nuclear bombs,right? Bullshit...this WAS about oil
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]val<font color=violet>lie wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Bullshit...this WAS about oil [/QUOTE]
Then where is the benefit/reward to us? Or is THAT the reason our soldiers are still dying over there... because we haven't secured our share of their oil?
And here I thought the reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs... no... it was humanitarian reasons... no... it was to spread democracy... no... it was due to a connection with 9/11... no!! It was, as Dubya said, because "he's the man who tried to kill my daddy".
It was a vendetta, it was flexing muscle and playing the bully. It was enforcing scare tactics. It was all a lie. It had nothing to do with reality, with oil or with common sense. And half this country bought into it.
Then where is the benefit/reward to us? Or is THAT the reason our soldiers are still dying over there... because we haven't secured our share of their oil?
And here I thought the reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs... no... it was humanitarian reasons... no... it was to spread democracy... no... it was due to a connection with 9/11... no!! It was, as Dubya said, because "he's the man who tried to kill my daddy".
It was a vendetta, it was flexing muscle and playing the bully. It was enforcing scare tactics. It was all a lie. It had nothing to do with reality, with oil or with common sense. And half this country bought into it.
Thank you, Magical.
@Valli,
your points have merit, but you are failing to make the key connection here. Like I said before...if this is about oil, then why in the world are we paying 2.35 per gallon? If we invaded Iraq to get oil (which doesn't make sense anyway since we get our oil mostly from Canada, but also from Saudi Arabia) then we'd have gallons and gallons of it coming in...and we don't. We can't even keep the damn pipelines secure, they keep getting blown up. If we invaded to get the oil, and for no other reason, then we'd have so many troops at the pipelines that no one would be able to get close enough to them to blow them up. And guess what? They are blowing up every day by terrorist actions. That in itself proves we didn't go in for oil.
But I'm not done yet. Like I stated before, we get our oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada, two countries that we royally pissed off when we invaded Iraq. So, if we were thinking with the "we need oil" mindset, why in the world would we not take into account that "Maybe if we piss the Saudi's off, they'll cut off their supplies to us, and that would be bad." Yes you could argue that we were banking on Iraq's oil, but that argument is negated by the fact that we can't keep the pipelines secure, and you know damn well we'd be doing that if oil was our only goal. And Canada could do the same thing...cut off the oil they give us, and yet this government doesn't seem to give a damn about what the Canadians think about us...if they were worried about oil from Canada being cut off they'd be doing an awful lot of butt kissing right now, which they aren't doing.
If you want to have a debate about this, fine. But at least respond to the points in a clear, concise and educated manner. "Wake up, this was about oil" is an opinion statement, and therefore has no influence on the debate at all. When you are ready to respond to my points with points of your own, and have evidence to back them up, I'll be here.
@Valli,
your points have merit, but you are failing to make the key connection here. Like I said before...if this is about oil, then why in the world are we paying 2.35 per gallon? If we invaded Iraq to get oil (which doesn't make sense anyway since we get our oil mostly from Canada, but also from Saudi Arabia) then we'd have gallons and gallons of it coming in...and we don't. We can't even keep the damn pipelines secure, they keep getting blown up. If we invaded to get the oil, and for no other reason, then we'd have so many troops at the pipelines that no one would be able to get close enough to them to blow them up. And guess what? They are blowing up every day by terrorist actions. That in itself proves we didn't go in for oil.
But I'm not done yet. Like I stated before, we get our oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada, two countries that we royally pissed off when we invaded Iraq. So, if we were thinking with the "we need oil" mindset, why in the world would we not take into account that "Maybe if we piss the Saudi's off, they'll cut off their supplies to us, and that would be bad." Yes you could argue that we were banking on Iraq's oil, but that argument is negated by the fact that we can't keep the pipelines secure, and you know damn well we'd be doing that if oil was our only goal. And Canada could do the same thing...cut off the oil they give us, and yet this government doesn't seem to give a damn about what the Canadians think about us...if they were worried about oil from Canada being cut off they'd be doing an awful lot of butt kissing right now, which they aren't doing.
If you want to have a debate about this, fine. But at least respond to the points in a clear, concise and educated manner. "Wake up, this was about oil" is an opinion statement, and therefore has no influence on the debate at all. When you are ready to respond to my points with points of your own, and have evidence to back them up, I'll be here.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]val<font color=violet>lie wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Bullshit...this WAS about oil [/QUOTE]
Then where is the benefit/reward to us? Or is THAT the reason our soldiers are still dying over there... because we haven't secured our share of their oil?
And here I thought the reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs... no... it was humanitarian reasons... no... it was to spread democracy... no... it was due to a connection with 9/11... no!! It was, as Dubya said, because "he's the man who tried to kill my daddy".
It was a vendetta, it was flexing muscle and playing the bully. It was enforcing scare tactics. It was all a lie. It had nothing to do with reality, with oil or with common sense. And half this country bought into it.
[/QUOTE]
I don't really think it was a vendetta. It was merely someone who thought he had a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, being proved wrong, and then desperately trying to validate himself.
Then where is the benefit/reward to us? Or is THAT the reason our soldiers are still dying over there... because we haven't secured our share of their oil?
And here I thought the reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs... no... it was humanitarian reasons... no... it was to spread democracy... no... it was due to a connection with 9/11... no!! It was, as Dubya said, because "he's the man who tried to kill my daddy".
It was a vendetta, it was flexing muscle and playing the bully. It was enforcing scare tactics. It was all a lie. It had nothing to do with reality, with oil or with common sense. And half this country bought into it.
[/QUOTE]
I don't really think it was a vendetta. It was merely someone who thought he had a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, being proved wrong, and then desperately trying to validate himself.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thank you, Magical.
@Valli,
your points have merit, but you are failing to make the key connection here. Like I said before...if this is about oil, then why in the world are we paying 2.35 per gallon? [/QUOTE]
That, I CAN explain. Iraq wasn't invaded to 'get' oil, it was invaded to pressure part of the oil producing nations, and to block a major supplier of oil. The US has plenty of oil itself to last a decade or two, I'd say. "But why on earth would anyone do that?" you would ask. Quite simple: the Bush family still posesses enormous amounts of stocks in oil companies. In other words: every cent the oil price rises, means money in the pockets of Big Bush and Little Bush.
@Valli,
your points have merit, but you are failing to make the key connection here. Like I said before...if this is about oil, then why in the world are we paying 2.35 per gallon? [/QUOTE]
That, I CAN explain. Iraq wasn't invaded to 'get' oil, it was invaded to pressure part of the oil producing nations, and to block a major supplier of oil. The US has plenty of oil itself to last a decade or two, I'd say. "But why on earth would anyone do that?" you would ask. Quite simple: the Bush family still posesses enormous amounts of stocks in oil companies. In other words: every cent the oil price rises, means money in the pockets of Big Bush and Little Bush.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I don't really think it was a vendetta. [/QUOTE]
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Was it for oil? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. The point is, I doubt anyone can definitively answer the question of why the US went to war with Iraq.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It was merely someone who thought he had a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, being proved wrong, and then desperately trying to validate himself.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, though I truly believe his personal reason for going in the first place was a reason few Americans would have supported. I guess you could say I have a few trust issues with the guy.
I don't really think it was a vendetta. [/QUOTE]
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Was it for oil? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. The point is, I doubt anyone can definitively answer the question of why the US went to war with Iraq.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It was merely someone who thought he had a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, being proved wrong, and then desperately trying to validate himself.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, though I truly believe his personal reason for going in the first place was a reason few Americans would have supported. I guess you could say I have a few trust issues with the guy.
Only one thing proves this war was about oil: Halliburton.
Why else would a company be willing to serve as a contractor in a war zone? There must be very rea$ons.
Why else would a company be willing to serve as a contractor in a war zone? There must be very rea$ons.