We are in Iraq because of oil !!Follow

The oil excuse is so 2002. Didn't you hear, this year "Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror. "

It doesn't roll off off the tongues quite like WMDs, but it's less shameful than "oil".

Oil!

FFS. That sure turns my world upside down.

Just for a bit there I was starting to be convinced by some of the very sensible and knowledgable posters around here that the whole **** thing was for the good of mankind as a whole and the people of the Middle East in particicular.

Good. I can get back to my original 'its all about greed and power and some seriously fuct up religeous attitudes' then.

what?

we butcherd over 100,000 human beings to keep the energy and american auto industry in the green on the ballance sheet?

how much money is a human life worth? ask bush, he has he answer........

the moral majority working hard for you......

one year, 5 months and counting. thats all the time this addministraition has left to finnish butchering everything this country used to stand for.

I think the illegal drug trade had a lot to do with it as well. If our military wasn't actively engaged then there may have been a lot more political pressure to do something about border security and stability in Colombia. Don't underestimate the criminal undergrounds influence on politics. You can't drive down I-45 in Houston Texas without seeing a "modeling studio" even.

All I'm saying is, don't be cycloptic. There are many reasons why we went to Iraq and none of them had to do with WMD proliferation (obviously, just look at how North Korea was handled).

"We are in Iraq because of oil !!"

Well, yeah. How else did you expect us to get there? Solar power and wishful thinking? Ya gotta burn some dinosaurs to get your troops to where they can ice some Muzzies. That's just common sense!

Totem

There's something frightening about a color-confused air traffic controller.

Red. This really depends on what you mean by "we're in Iraq because of Oil!!".


All that "admission" said was that the oil generated by Iraq should be a factor when deciding what to do in terms of withdrawal. Not sure how you leap to whatever conclusion you think you're leaping to (which you haven't actually stated either). His statement says nothing about why we invaded Iraq. It only talks about one aspect (oil) that should be a consideration today with regards to Iraq.


Um. And not to be obvious but... Iraq has oil. Yes. Maybe you didn't know this. That means, somewhat by definition, that *any* decision involving Iraq will have something to do with oil. If we decide to invade Iraq, at least part of the consideration will have to do with its oil. If we decide *not* to invade Iraq, it will *also* have something to do with its oil.

I'm not sure what you think that statement means, or why you think it's important. Does Iraq have a more important geo-political impact then say Bulgaria because it has large amounts of oil? Yes. Of course it does. But it's somewhat silly to condemn any particular course of action "because it's all about oil!!!!". Um. Any decision regarding Iraq will have something to do with oil. It's redundant and irrelevant to simply point it out as though it has meaning all by itself.


How about maybe you start by saying why Iraq possessing oil should make it immune to invasion "because it's all about oil"? Or perhaps justify the positions of those countries who made profits off Iraq's oil when Saddam was running the country and therefore opposede the invasion "becuase it's all about oil"? Contrast the various positions one could take and explain how one has any greater moral ground then the other.

You can't. But I suppose it makes for a great soundbite to those who don't actually use their brains for anything...

All countries that are NOT threatening the US (or anyone else) should be 'immune' to invasion by the US, for the simple reason that an invasion by the US of any sovereign nation is an illegal act, as defined by the Geneva convention, wether they have oil or not. D'uh.

And I dont think the the countries that opposed the invasion, opposed it because Iraq had oil. Most I would hope opposed it because they saw it as an aggressive and illegal invasion that would lead to pretty much everything it has led to ie, death and destruction on a horrendous scale, further destabilization of the ME and the increase in terror related incidents around the world.

Most people in the world who were interested in Iraqs oil would probably have preffered to be able to 'buy' it from the owners of it, rather than watch the said oil become more and more inaccessible as time goes by.

I'd say the difference between Gbaji and most of the rest of the world, is that most of the rest of the world think there are better, more civilised ways of dealing with their problems than bombing their enemies into the stone-age. But I guess that at the root of that is that most of the rest of us see the Iraqis as 'people' who happened to have a tyrant as a leader, rather than as a country that was full of terrorists and oil that needed to be 'assimilated into western style democracy for their own (and our) good.

Its that innaate 'we're doing it for your own good, because we know sumtin youdon't' attitude that I really hate about the 'Right'.

You say that you hope countries who were against the war did so out of their prudence. These countries were namely France and Russia. Then you say that "Most people in the world who were interested in Iraqs oil would probably have preffered to be able to 'buy' it from the owners of it, rather than watch the said oil become more and more inaccessible as time goes by."

Well, sorry to strip away your hope but, both Russia and France were buying oil from Saddam. So they acted to protect their interest. Namely, their relationship with the Hussein family and their oil connection. This was needed to bolster their economies. (For sources Search Saddam, France, and oil on new site) Their opposition of this war was at least partially based on this connection.

Why would you waste your time responding with that post? You sit their and ignore my points and say for me to research the history of the Middle East for no good reason other then to somehow discredit my point via insinuation of ignorance. Stick to the task at hand.

I articulated the point that both France and Russia were both connected to Saddam via oil interests. I sourced this. I did this to show you that their are other countries besides America that are looking out for their interests and to illustrate to you the fact that you hope that countries who were against the war didn't have oil interests was in vain.

And, yes there are a lot of countries on the planet. Most of them supported the invasion. The opposition was spearheaded by France and Russia. That is why I focus on them. But, even if I don't focus on Russia and France, this still doesn't change the fact that oil interests were involved both with the invasion and the opposition of invasion. That conclusion is inescapable. Economics are the driving force behind lots of actions and interests.

Edited, Jul 6th 2007 9:46pm by LurkinAround

But they didnt illegally invade another country.



No they didn't.



So, illegally invading a country for ones own economic interests is ok by you, is it??

Nice to know where you stand on that issue.

Poor Spain. 1300 coalition troops and eleven soldiers dead wasn't enough to rank them above the nations who stayed out of the coalition

Edited, Jul 6th 2007 9:19pm by Jophiel

Lol! Yeah. No one expects the Spanish coalition!!!

Hah. Good catch. Dunno why I put them in the list...