NationStates Jolt Archive

The war in iraq... he's killing innocent people for oil.

Sigh, yet again we find a case of extreme ignorance about the subject widely spread, so why not make this topic, yet again!? Maybe this time people will actually learn that Iraq is more than oil or freedom.

Black Gold: Oil. The battle cry of the liberal masses. Most of the people who are against Iraq say it's the only reason why we went in. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that Iraq holds so much of it, and that's it... They say "Where are the WMDs?!" Well, "Where's the oil!?" We haven't been exporting oil back to America, and while we are using some for our vehicles in Iraq that's simply using natural resources in order to aid the military which is setting the Iraqis up for their future, and not a big enough amount to destroy their economy.

Freedom: The Battle Cry of the conservative masses now. Before it was a subtle whisper (and yes it was there as a mentioned objective if you look at Bush's past speeches in full contexts, not a paraphrasing which the liberal media biased gives you, look at the full speech text). Freedom was our secondary objective, why secondary? Because the people of America are too selfish to actually support a war which only exists to free people. Why sacrifice American troops to help some third world country?

WMDs: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is said that we always knew that they didn't have them, are we so ignorant? Can we not accept that our intelligence failed? We didn't before, and now that the intelligence that we had failed when we all believed it we can't accept that it failed. We say "oh he just lied". Funny, because every... EVERY intelligence agency in the world said he had them (even the UNs). We should know above the others though, we gave them to him...

Iraq/Iranian war: The Iranian government was new, had just overthrown previous monarchy which pushed down on Muslims. The newly overthrown government had been a friend to the United States and President Reagan wanted to get back. He sent people to Iraq to show them how to make certain chemical warfare weapons which were then used on the Iranians, and later on the Kurds. The UN fails to punish him for using them.

9/11: It must be recognized that some people think that Saddam helped in 9/11 in some way. This is in no way true. 9/11 was an attack made by religious zealots lead by Osama Bin Laden who was hiding in Afghanistan at the time. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. Saddam was never a big Muslim, he was a direct military dictator and never turned to Islam as an excuse until the end when he was getting desperate.

My Conclusion: Which one of these was the main reason we are in Iraq? Perhaps all of them had something to do with it (in fact probably all of them had something to do with it) but I think Bush made the call to go into Iraq for one main reason.

The Attempt: During the Clinton Administration Saddam sent two assasins to kill Bush senior while he was visiting Kuwait, the attempt was foiled (look it up at the New Yorker website... it's buried in there). Bush himself admits to being very defensive when it comes to his Father, even more defensive then to himself.

So, the question you're probably asking me is, Why do you support the war in Iraq if this is why we went in? It's because I don't think this is a small matter. This isn't something to be petty about. We're giving the Iraqis freedom, they're receiving their own democracy. We may not have found WMDs in the holes we dug but we found mass burial sites from those who suffered under Saddam's rule... and now the Iraqis don't have to worry about that anymore.

Mission Accomplished? Yes, we won the initial fight, we had succeeded in taking down Saddam when that speech was made. The insurgents which are fighting now are mostly comprised of non-Iraqis who want to put their own leader in place of Saddam or religious fanatics who just want to killed American troops. We are fighting a different war then the Iraqi war, we're not fighting Iraq anymore, we're fighting for them. For every American killed in Iraq 25 Iraqis who are fighting on our side die. We have trained Iraqis to fight for themselves and they have been/are. However their military can't take this fight on by their own because they are fresh troops in a new nation which has only begun its history, so that's why we are still in there guiding them.

(Off the top of my head...your thoughts, NO GODDAM LEMMINGS!

So you admit your a Lemming, the Freedom ones?

Originally we were promised that POil would ghelp pay for the war. But nope we aren't using Iraq's oil. Maybe Conservatives are afraid of the war to be called "War for oil" looking valid but still it was a broken promise.

Saddam destroyed the WMD's we gave him. Saddam never gassed the Kurds. That was Iran. Proven a few times on the forums.
One of the few times people proved something here.

Conclusion: We should leave Iraq. If the Insurgents take over it will be easier taking it back. Plus we won't have terrorist from other countries coming to Iraq to kill us.

One you remove the beam in your own eye, it becomes much easier to remove Iraq's.

Me, I think he went in for ideological reasons. He thought that democracy could be established quickly and easily in Iraq and that establishing such a democracy would cause a "domino effect" in the region with other nations seeing the successfull Iraqi example and following it.

I used to like to point out that Iraq had little actual oil in the ground (it doesnt), it had large reserves, but these were used or 'dissapeared'.
Meh.

So you admit your a Lemming, the Freedom ones?

Originally we were promised that POil would ghelp pay for the war. But nope we aren't using Iraq's oil. Maybe Conservatives are afraid of the war to be called "War for oil" looking valid but still it was a broken promise.

Saddam destroyed the WMD's we gave him. Saddam never gassed the Kurds. That was Iran. Proven a few times on the forums.
One of the few times people proved something here.

Conclusion: We should leave Iraq. If the Insurgents take over it will be easier taking it back. Plus we won't have terrorist from other countries coming to Iraq to kill us.

One you remove the beam in your own eye, it becomes much easier to remove Iraq's.
I've never seen proof that Iran, not Saddam, gassed the Kurds. Got a link?

Conclusion: We should leave Iraq. If the Insurgents take over it will be easier taking it back. Plus we won't have terrorist from other countries coming to Iraq to kill us.

One you remove the beam in your own eye, it becomes much easier to remove Iraq's.

That might be the most retarded qoute I have ever heard.

Conclusion: We should leave Iraq. If the Insurgents take over it will be easier taking it back. Plus we won't have terrorist from other countries coming to Iraq to kill us.

Ok, so let me get this straight.

We leave Iraq and go to say, Bahrain (whatever). Then we wait a year for the non-Iraqi insurgents take over (assuming they don't follow the Army) and then march back in, guns blazing, killing MORE innocents with misplaced bombs?

Makes sense... :headbang:

well i heard from people that they think that we are storing the oil what we are getting out of irag. maybe. and oil and that 36 years oil will be gone. what shell gas say. dont belive go to shell.com or there web site. is.

That might be the most retarded qoute I have ever heard.
Why? It means once you remove the thing obstructing your view it is easier to remove your freinds.

It makes perfect sense.


I've never seen proof that Iran, not Saddam, gassed the Kurds. Got a link?


It was in a couple of those threads that discussed Samm and stuff. It is probably on some far away page...5 maybe? It has been around 2 months or more I think. It may be deleted if they delete stuff. I never made it a favorite because I didn't think it was important. I'll check if google helps.

Google says:
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

http://100777.com/node/648

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq2.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24960

I think these are enogh google entries. Can't find the Nation state forums one though.

Parthini']Ok, so let me get this straight.

We leave Iraq and go to say, Bahrain (whatever). Then we wait a year for the non-Iraqi insurgents take over (assuming they don't follow the Army) and then march back in, guns blazing, killing MORE innocents with misplaced bombs?

Makes sense... :headbang:

Is Bahrain in the Middke East?
If so that isn't far enough.

Leave Iraq and go back home.

We don't march in anymore than we did in beggining when we attacked Saddam or the Taliban in Afganistan. We didn't go guns blazing that much.

How come we did'nt hear so much about innocents dying in the war in Afganistan is that is why you think would occur?

Why? It means once you remove the thing obstructing your view it is easier to remove your freinds.

It makes perfect sense.



It was in a couple of those threads that discussed Samm and stuff. It is probably on some far away page...5 maybe? It has been around 2 months or more I think. It may be deleted if they delete stuff. I never made it a favorite because I didn't think it was important. I'll check if google helps.

Google says:
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

Sorry, if it's a choice between beleiving Human Rights Watch or some random websites with an obvious political agenda, I trust HRW.

http://100777.com/node/648

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq2.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24960

I think these are enogh google entries. Can't find the Nation state forums one though.
Those (partisan) sites contradict what the UN, human rights watch, and journalists who worked in the middle east have said. It's not just the US that says Saddam used nerve gas on his own people.
Here's a link to Iraqi documents that Human Rights Watch, hardly a conservative front group, managed to get it's hands on. Search for the words "chemical" or "special". Iraqi government often refered to chemical weapons as "special" weapons.
www.hrw.org/reports/1994/iraq/APPENDIX.htm#TopOfPage

Conclusion: We should leave Iraq. If the Insurgents take over it will be easier taking it back. Plus we won't have terrorist from other countries coming to Iraq to kill us.

Leave Iraq and go back home.

In the first quote you implied that we should leave and then come back when the insurgents retook over (which they wouldn't. Iraq would just be in Anarchy).

Either way, that would be a bad plan because then we would have more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. Personally, I'd rather have suicide bombers attacking trained soldiers with guns than innocent Americans and Europeans.

How come we did'nt hear so much about innocents dying in the war in Afganistan is that is why you think would occur?

Well, I was just referring to all sorts of bumper stickers that talk about killing "thousands of Iraqis, etc." Saddam would put military stuff near hospitals so obviously we would kill some civilians.

You know there are alot of arguments and alot of hate on both sides due to this war. The simple truth is both sides will argue till the end of time that their side is right and the other side is playing partisan games. You show a Republican evidence that we lied to go into iraq and he swears its a democrat ploy. You show a democrat evidence that Oil isnt being shipped to america and he cries its a republican ploy.

Simply put we will never know what Saddam had or used on people because opnions there are slanted to people who hated him and people who idolized him. Just like the true reasons for Iraq 2 will never be known because Bush and his planners are the only ones who know and each of them will have their own opnion on why it was important we go. I do how ever think we can agree on the following reasons war was NOT the answer.

1. Saddam had NO proven links to 9/11
2. Innocent people on both sides are dying

You know there are alot of arguments and alot of hate on both sides due to this war. The simple truth is both sides will argue till the end of time that their side is right and the other side is playing partisan games. You show a Republican evidence that we lied to go into iraq and he swears its a democrat ploy. You show a democrat evidence that Oil isnt being shipped to america and he cries its a republican ploy.

Simply put we will never know what Saddam had or used on people because opnions there are slanted to people who hated him and people who idolized him. Just like the true reasons for Iraq 2 will never be known because Bush and his planners are the only ones who know and each of them will have their own opnion on why it was important we go. I do how ever think we can agree on the following reasons war was NOT the answer.

1. Saddam had NO proven links to 9/11
2. Innocent people on both sides are dying

true we will never know teh full truth but we can discern what our purpose in Iraq was simply by looking closely at Bremers orders.

also, you are not allowed to disagree with the infallibility of the original poster or you are lemming it up big time because no one knows more about the facts concernign this war than Terronian

However their military can't take this fight on by their own because they are fresh troops in a new nation which has only begun its history, so that's why we are still in there guiding them.

No, we're still in there guiding them because we want to make sure our puppet government succeeds in replacing Saddam, instead of someone else's puppet government.

America didn't exactly need French troops to help win the war of independence, even though it was a new nation that had only begun it's history. Sure France helped, but then again France wasn't the one responsible for the new government or the one who most recently begun an armed invasion of the nation.

And what's this about a new nation that's only begun it's history, anyway? Iraq isn't a new nation. It's history is very very old. It's pure conceit to think that because we've got our puppet government there, it's a new nation. Ugh.

Lastly, about your title: are you saying people had better agree with you, or "leave?" God that's original, I haven't heard a bunch of lemmings say shit like that all the time. Love it or leave it. Agree with me or leave the nation. Ugh.

WMDs: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is said that we always knew that they didn't have them, are we so ignorant? Can we not accept that our intelligence failed? We didn't before, and now that the intelligence that we had failed when we all believed it we can't accept that it failed. We say "oh he just lied". Funny, because every... EVERY intelligence agency in the world said he had them (even the UNs). We should know above the others though, we gave them to him...

It's funny how that happens, isn't it? I mean, loads of people remember knowing that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction... but then, I've seen an experiment in which a person is led to misremember a series of pinpricks on their arm about ten seconds after the fact. We create a lot of our memories. 'The war was unpopular' plus 'Everyone now knows that the WMDs didn't exist' equals, somehow, 'The war was unpopular because everyone knew that the WMDs didn't exist'.

That said, I think the real reason for the Iraq war was that the Afghanistan one finished too quickly. War is good for the country, and especially for the politicians. In the US, the war has seen the rise of extreme patriotism - or possibly just the exporting of it, I don't know what it was like over there beforehand. Anywhich, this means that, in a war when the death tolls on 'our' side are relatively low - I mean, come on, the UK death toll included more incidences of friendly fire from the US than it did actual attacks from the Iraqis for /months/ at the beginning - the government can pass an awful lot of laws beneficial to them that they couldn't normally. Declaring it to be a war on 'Terror' was a brilliant step - it can go on forever, and you can increase internal security all you like, because 'They could be anyone!'. Plus, being in the middle of a war helps stop you getting voted out, if it's going well.

So why Iraq? Not a clue. Maybe it really was 'freedom', or maybe they just threw a dart at the map.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

true we will never know teh full truth but we can discern what our purpose in Iraq was simply by looking closely at Bremers orders.

also, you are not allowed to disagree with the infallibility of the original poster or you are lemming it up big time because no one knows more about the facts concernign this war than Terronian

I was using the term lemming becuase Disney, all though not true, patrayed that they would kill themseleves by jumping off cliffs without learning. The statement "war for oil" is being a lemming as your stating a reason that does not exist even against all the facts, just like a lemming.

No, we're still in there guiding them because we want to make sure our puppet government succeeds in replacing Saddam, instead of someone else's puppet government.

America didn't exactly need French troops to help win the war of independence, even though it was a new nation that had only begun it's history. Sure France helped, but then again France wasn't the one responsible for the new government or the one who most recently begun an armed invasion of the nation.

And what's this about a new nation that's only begun it's history, anyway? Iraq isn't a new nation. It's history is very very old. It's pure conceit to think that because we've got our puppet government there, it's a new nation. Ugh.

Lastly, about your title: are you saying people had better agree with you, or "leave?" God that's original, I haven't heard a bunch of lemmings say shit like that all the time. Love it or leave it. Agree with me or leave the nation. Ugh.

In a way of speaking, yes Iraq is a puppet goverment, so is Germany if you wanna get techical, or Japan, all of the,m have restricitions and guidelines placed upon them, if your speaking of a nation in which there goverment has no say and does what we tell them, you are half right, the elections were not in any way manipulated, alot of people crunced the numbers on this one, currently, we have elcted all there leaders and are looking at us mostly for guidance.

However, a constitution will be written up hopefully soon by the National Elected Assembly, setting up there goverment.

Okay France helping the US win the WOI and Iraq are differant, we didnt have terrorist performing wagon bombings in the streets, we had no reason for an occupation force to keep us stable. The French were actually a huge asset, please read about Yorktown a little bit, Cornwallis would have escaped had not been for the French and the war could have lasted longer.

Iraq has been around a long time yes, however dum dum, common sense should tell you I meant a "new nation" by the fact of its goverment and convential name change.

And for your lasts statement, read my first response.

I was using the term lemming becuase Disney, all though not true, patrayed that they would kill themseleves by jumping off cliffs without learning. The statement "war for oil" is being a lemming as your stating a reason that does not exist even against all the facts, just like a lemming.

So let me get this straight, you are supposedly extreemely knowledgable about this whole Iraq thing yet you never heard of Bremers orders?

Every topic, website, or report in which I have seen the 'orders" were extrememly biased, if you cant give me an unbiased report, then you can kiss my ass, I am niether Conservative nor Liberal and it makes it hard to believe what I hear becuase there all biased, I only believe what is given to me a nuetral way, other then that, your force feeding your believes down my thraot, plus, werent those also the orders that wanted to sell Iraq for our economy *laughs*

Iraq was a way to feed out more money to the Bush Administration's corporate subsidizers. Bush's entire presidency has been about that. He gets elected on "moral" grounds but never moves to implement any of these "moral" policies using anything but attempts at hand waving.

Seriously, think about it: corporate subsidies have shot up since Bush got elected. He has never, EVER vetoed a spending bill. He started two wars in ways that is blantantly economic imperialism if you look at it.

The man is just another Harding who's better at hiding what he's doing with rhetoric.

Iraq was a way to feed out more money to the Bush Administration's corporate subsidizers. Bush's entire presidency has been about that. He gets elected on "moral" grounds but never moves to implement any of these "moral" policies using anything but attempts at hand waving.

Seriously, think about it: corporate subsidies have shot up since Bush got elected. He has never, EVER vetoed a spending bill. He started two wars in ways that is blantantly economic imperialism if you look at it.

The man is just another Harding who's better at hiding what he's doing with rhetoric.

Well, there is truth in there and lies, but I really dont care, bash Bush all you want, hell, bash America, I dont care, im nuetral, so I really dont see the Bush bashing relevance to the topic but whatevr.

I was using the term lemming becuase Disney, all though not true, patrayed that they would kill themseleves by jumping off cliffs without learning.

And here I thought I already knew everything there was to know. You have ruined the magic of lemmings for me, sir, I hope you are happy.

You call others lemmings, but you reply with the same baseless replies of conservatives: Our oil prices arent lowering/we arent getting signifigant amounts of oil, so the war isnt about oil.

Short-sighted, as most conservatives are. Its not about having more oil. Its about having sustainable oil, under a government we know won't block us from it when we need it most.

Oil is declining, while demand is increasing. Therefore, oil will be getting much more expensive, and hard to obtain, soon. If you look at modern wars, oil places a huge role. Quite simply, for the US to retain its power for as long as possible, it needs oil. It also prolonges our dependancy, which is the negative side. It all runs out eventually.

So for those who say its not about oil, fine. Thats your belief. But dont act like its a fact, nor that its completely illogical. Its actually one of the smartest things our government is doing, on a global scale, for us.

I can agree with that Chellis, chances are, yes, iraq will let us buy there oil, myabe a little cheaper to, but the point I want across is, complete control "We went to Iraq to Take there oil, I fully understand buying the oil from them and having it there, yet, Saddam Hussien would have loved to deal with the US, if the war was to have some nice oil reserves to buy off, Saddam would have loved to deal with the US and even give us cheaper oil under the table, granted we could get rid of those pesky UN sactions.

I can agree with that Chellis, chances are, yes, iraq will let us buy there oil, myabe a little cheaper to, but the point I want across is, complete control "We went to Iraq to Take there oil, I fully understand buying the oil from them and having it there, yet, Saddam Hussien would have loved to deal with the US, if the war was to have some nice oil reserves to buy off, Saddam would have loved to deal with the US and even give us cheaper oil under the table, granted we could get rid of those pesky UN sactions.

Either that, or force us to do unthinkable things to our alliance with israel...

Either way, the US could have been expected to be blackmailed at the minimum, by middle-eastern oilers. Having large, friendly reserves in Iraq is our fallback.

Well, there is truth in there and lies, but I really dont care, bash Bush all you want, hell, bash America, I dont care, im nuetral, so I really dont see the Bush bashing relevance to the topic but whatevr.

There are no lies there. There's some truth and then there's a logical conclusion based on that truth. I'm not bashing Bush so much as just kind of...saying how things are.

Make no mistake, politicians serve those with the green backs these days, not those with the votes. They've fine-tuned the art of manipulating those witht he votes so those with the green backs can get more of the same.

The topic, however, just begs for this kind of talk. The fool who made it thinks he knows everything but he's basically just laying down party-line.

There are no lies there. There's some truth and then there's a logical conclusion based on that truth. I'm not bashing Bush so much as just kind of...saying how things are.

Make no mistake, politicians serve those with the green backs these days, not those with the votes. They've fine-tuned the art of manipulating those witht he votes so those with the green backs can get more of the same.

The topic, however, just begs for this kind of talk. The fool who made it thinks he knows everything but he's basically just laying down party-line.
Isnt that every modern day politician, Kerry would have done the same thing.