NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite my complete opposition to the Iraq war, I always thought this particular line of argument was just plain stupid. There is no point in devaluing a perfectly good point of view by yelling "no blood for oil" a hundred times.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm?postversion=2007040513
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

The Asian firms are at an advantage for several reasons.

First, less constrained by Western sanctions during the Hussein regime, they've been operating in Iraq and know the country's oilfields, said Falah Aljibury, an energy analyst who has advised several Iraqi oil ministers as well as other OPEC nations.

Aljibury said the first contracts likely awarded will be to the Chinese in the south central part of Iraq, the Vietnamese in the south, the Indians along the Kuwaiti border, and the Indonesians in the western desert.

[...]

But the Asian firms are also well positioned to grab further contracts.

Having avoided military entanglements in the region, they may curry more favor with the Iraqi people.

"They have no involvement with the secular or ethnic people," said Aljibury. "The conditions favor them."

Given its rapidly growing thirst for oil, combined with its feeling of isolation from world oil markets, China is sometimes viewed as more cavalier than Western oil firms when it comes to putting capital and people at risk. That could lead them to sign contracts in violent Iraq sooner than Western firms.

"The Chinese seem to be willing to go places where other companies can't find workers to go," said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank.

But none of this suggests Western firms like ExxonMobil (Charts), Chevron (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts) will be completely cut out of the action.

Looks to me like the oil contracts will be awarded by the Iraqi government much like they would anywhere else. At least this first round doesn't look like the Americans made the decision.

Don't get me started on the "reconstruction" crap though...

The answer is - as ever - in between "yes" and "no".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

everything we do in the middle east has something to do with oil.

iraq was under severe oil sanctions before the war. getting those sanctions lifted so that the oil could be produced and sold freely is a good thing for the US even if the contracts go elsewhere. if china and india get iraqi oil, they wont be competing as hard with us over saudi oil eh? increased supply means lower price. (or same price, or not as high a price depending on how demand is going)

how big a role did oil play in bush's thinking? i dont know, but it was part of the calculation.

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-02-18%20--%20what%20would%20george%20w%20bush%20do.png

Despite my complete opposition to the Iraq war, I always thought this particular line of argument was just plain stupid.

Agreed. If only for the fact that "going in for the finite resource that is needed to survive and currently under the control of a criminal" is not such a bad reason.

everything we do in the middle east has something to do with oil.

iraq was under severe oil sanctions before the war. getting those sanctions lifted so that the oil could be produced and sold freely is a good thing for the US even if the contracts go elsewhere. if china and india get iraqi oil, they wont be competing as hard with us over saudi oil eh? increased supply means lower price. (or same price, or not as high a price depending on how demand is going)

how big a role did oil play in bush's thinking? i dont know, but it was part of the calculation.

I generally agree. A more open oil market is good for the US regardless of whether US firms get the contracts or not.

I doubt that oil was the primary reason for the war. It was more likely to be a bonus that helped add to the incentive to go to war.

As far as Bush is concerned, I am of the opinion that he is a genuine ideologue for the most part, and he's not really competent enough to be a very good corporate whore for the oil companies. Maybe a low-class corporate whore, at best.

I generally agree. A more open oil market is good for the US regardless of whether US firms get the contracts or not.

I doubt that oil was the primary reason for the war. It was more likely to be a bonus that helped add to the incentive to go to war.

Agree



As far as Bush is concerned, I am of the opinion that he is a genuine ideologue for the most part, and he's not really competent enough to be a very good corporate whore for the oil companies. Maybe a low-class corporate whore, at best.


Your most likely right and I share this same opinion. This part many people don't understand and where they get it wrong.

I doubt it was the only reason, but Iraq was, I think, preparing to trade Euros for oil instead of Dollars, which may have influenced Bush's decision, without actually being a 'war for oil'. Nevertheless, I think pinning the decision to go to war on one factor is going to be pretty hard.

I generally agree. A more open oil market is good for the US regardless of whether US firms get the contracts or not.

I doubt that oil was the primary reason for the war. It was more likely to be a bonus that helped add to the incentive to go to war.

As far as Bush is concerned, I am of the opinion that he is a genuine ideologue for the most part, and he's not really competent enough to be a very good corporate whore for the oil companies. Maybe a low-class corporate whore, at best.

bush is an oil man, thats enough reason for him to lean toward opening the flow of oil from iraq. he didnt need to think it up himself. it would have seemed like an obvious good idea to a man in the oil biz. he doesnt need to be anyone's whore for it to be true.

bush is an oil man, thats enough reason for him to lean toward opening the flow of oil from iraq. he didnt need to think it up himself. it would have seemed like an obvious good idea to a man in the oil biz. he doesnt need to be anyone's whore for it to be true.
Bush doesn't need to be soneone's oil whore, he's got his vice-president for that.

Bush doesn't need to be soneone's oil whore, he's got his vice-president for that.

isnt that the truth!

*yawns*

The war was not about oil.

*yawns*

The war was not about oil.

Well, you action tagged a yawn, so this must be true.

Now, wait, the other thing...empty and obnoxious...that one.

While I'd definitely prefer to have a liberal democracy instead of Saddam, as with any other dictatorship on earth, the war in Iraq was by all measures a colossal error. The extent of it's terrible consequences are still uncertain and currently in the balance.

Oil might not have been a direct factor, but if you'd place Iraq somewhere between Congo and Sudan, none of this would have ever happened. The War was simply the result of a criminal Neoconservative fantasy-based foreign policy.

There is really no point in impeaching Bush. The damage is done and the chips are all in. All we can do now is hope he doesn't start WW3.

While I'd definitely prefer to have a liberal democracy instead of Saddam, as with any other dictatorship on earth, the war in Iraq was by all measures a colossal error. The extent of it's terrible consequences are still uncertain and currently in the balance.

Oil might not have been a direct factor, but if you'd place Iraq somewhere between Congo and Sudan, none of this would have ever happened. The War was simply the result of a criminal Neoconservative fantasy-based foreign policy.


Thats a QFT moment.

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Well aren't you a clever one.

Also, noticed that I'm quoted in Accelerus's sig. WOOT!

-snip n00bish post-

Hi, welcome to NS. Now please leave.
:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :headbang: :mad:

There is really no point in impeaching Bush. The damage is done and the chips are all in. All we can do now is hope he doesn't start WW3.
We would have to impeach his entire administration for it to do any good. Believe it or not, a lot of people and reputation can be saved if we impeach the entire Bush administration

I like the mention of Vietnam. :)

We would have to impeach his entire administration for it to do any good. Believe it or not, a lot of people and reputation can be saved if we impeach the entire Bush administrationAnd who will replace them?

Bush went to Iraq for the oil!

No! Really!? :eek:













:rolleyes:

And who will replace them?
Pelosi would become president I suppose and she would pick the members (if thats how it works).

That's because they messed up. Badly.

It wasn't a quick, short, overthrow Saddam Hussein, set up a puppet government with democratic forms affair.

No. Bush went to Iraq for the photo-op with a rubber turkey.

He sent the soldiers to Iraq for the oil.

We would have to impeach his entire administration for it to do any good. Believe it or not, a lot of people and reputation can be saved if we impeach the entire Bush administration

No, we'd just need to impeach Cheney and Bush. Then Pelosi becomes president and can fire the rest.

No, we'd just need to impeach Cheney and Bush. Then Pelosi becomes president and can fire the rest.
She is allowed to do that, no questions asked?

I wasn't against invading Iraq. On paper it was a great idea. However, I discounted several things in my initial enthusiasm. Mostly how incompetent most Americans are.

It was never about oil though. If that had been the case, it would have been much easier just to fake some BS about Venezuela and beat the shit out of them.

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Take a chill pill, Agressionism. Or something. Please.

I wasn't against invading Iraq. On paper it was a great idea. However, I discounted several things in my initial enthusiasm. Mostly how incompetent most Americans are.
Thats the biggest thing? What about the complete lack of understanding of Islam? The fact that people don't look favourably on bombing of their cities? The fact that people don't like occupation and arrests of innocent people?

It was never about oil though. If that had been the case, it would have been much easier just to fake some BS about Venezuela and beat the shit out of them.
Iraq played on the middle east phobia most Americans had around that time.

Thats the biggest thing? What about the complete lack of understanding of Islam? The fact that people don't look favourably on bombing of their cities? The fact that people don't like occupation and arrests of innocent people?

Yah, like I said: incompetence.

On paper it's a smashing idea: a functioning multi-cultural 'liberal' democracy in that region would do wonders for the world. All those things you point to speak of poor intelligence services, bad military planning and command and control, not a problem with the concept itself. (With the caveat had those things been in place and functioning, this plan would never have got off the ground in the first place).

And not being the government, I wasn't really in the hot seat to judge them at that point, so I figured what with the trillions of dollars the various US governments spend every year, they couldn't possibly fuck things up so badly. (I realize now I was wrong about that. And it was remiss of me. I've learned my lesson though).

Also, given that the vast majority of people in Washington - who have far better access to the pertinent information than I ever will - voted for it, I couldn't honestly say from the outset that it was obviously a disastrous idea, especially not with the potential benefits it offered.

Hey, people fell for the dot.com bubble too. It doesn't make me a bad person because I got so caught up with a good idea that I lost sight of reality for a bit. Just makes me a bit of an idiot about it is all.

Iraq played on the middle east phobia most Americans had around that time.

Meh, it all plays into what I was saying above.

Yah, like I said: incompetence.

On paper it's a smashing idea: a functioning multi-cultural 'liberal' democracy in that region would do wonders for the world. All those things you point to speak of poor intelligence services, bad military planning and command and control, not a problem with the concept itself. (With the caveat had those things been in place and functioning, this plan would never have got off the ground in the first place).

And not being the government, I wasn't really in the hot seat to judge them at that point, so I figured what with the trillions of dollars the various US governments spend every year, they couldn't possibly fuck things up so badly. (I realize now I was wrong about that. And it was remiss of me. I've learned my lesson though).

Also, given that the vast majority of people in Washington - who have far better access to the pertinent information than I ever will - voted for it, I couldn't honestly say from the outset that it was obviously a disastrous idea, especially not with the potential benefits it offered.

Hey, people fell for the dot.com bubble too. It doesn't make me a bad person because I got so caught up with a good idea that I lost sight of reality for a bit. Just makes me a bit of an idiot about it is all.
I suppose that was my thinking at the start...I am in no position to judge you though, for some reason I was gung ho about the war in 6th grade.

I generally agree. A more open oil market is good for the US regardless of whether US firms get the contracts or not.

I doubt that oil was the primary reason for the war. It was more likely to be a bonus that helped add to the incentive to go to war.

As far as Bush is concerned, I am of the opinion that he is a genuine ideologue for the most part, and he's not really competent enough to be a very good corporate whore for the oil companies. Maybe a low-class corporate whore, at best.

I rather agree.

I suppose that was my thinking at the start...I am in no position to judge you though, for some reason I was gung ho about the war in 6th grade.

It's not an age thing. People sometimes just lose sight of reality, or get caught up with an idea. As I said, I probably should have known better.

I still stand by the principle that it was a good idea if it could have been done as described, and you can't blame the vast majority of people who thought so at the time.

Unfortunately it couldn't be done as described. Mostly because of systemic incompetence at all levels.

I still stand by the principle that it was a good idea if it could have been done as described, and you can't blame the vast majority of people who thought so at the time.
Well it is a great idea, if you ignore the means to obtain such a thing, and want to ignore the will of the people who have to endure what you want for them.

Unfortunately it couldn't be done as described. Mostly because of systemic incompetence at all levels.
What we want conflicts with what the Iraqis want, we could not force our "ideals" on them, no matter how many tens of thousands of soldiers we cram in their streets.

What we want conflicts with what the Iraqis want, we could not force our "ideals" on them, no matter how many tens of thousands of soldiers we cram in their streets.

That's the point. We were told that we weren't forcing our ideals on them. We were told that they hated saddam and would rejoice if they were liberated.

It sounded plausible, especially when you consider the way saddam treated them and the way that the UN sanctions were starving the ordinary iraqi in the street.

And don't forget it wasn't - at least as I understood it at the time - a long term stable arrangement. The UN trade sanctions were causing massive misery. By some reports almost half a million children died because of Iraq's pariah status. All the while the baathist was become more draconian - apparently.

That said, in retrospect, there were some parts of the regime that were clearly overly demonized in retrospect. Which goes back to the incompetence thing.

There are just no easy answers for this thing.

Well it is a great idea, if you ignore the means to obtain such a thing, and want to ignore the will of the people who have to endure what you want for them.

I don't think we were ignoring them, but if you're so much more intelligent than the top minds in Washington, please, enlighten us, what is the will of the Iraqi people?


What we want conflicts with what the Iraqis want, we could not force our "ideals" on them, no matter how many tens of thousands of soldiers we cram in their streets.

Again, enlighten us uninformed heathens what the will of the Iraqi people is! Evidently, they want some sort of Sharia society, or that's what I'm gathering from your post.

I don't think we were ignoring them,
Not ignoring the means? The white house has no problem with eliminating habeas corpus to hold potentially innocent people for an undetermined amount of time. They had no problem with bombing civilian targets, they had no problem with torturing people to get confessions. The list goes on.

but if you're so much more intelligent than the top minds in Washington, please, enlighten us, what is the will of the Iraqi people?
To not get killed and not have America basically in control of their country?


Evidently, they want some sort of Sharia society, or that's what I'm gathering from your post.
Most do not want what we are forcing on them.

You seem to think I have some sort of superiority complex because I think the government is wrong. You don't need to think you are better than someone to think they are wrong.

We would have to impeach his entire administration for it to do any good. Believe it or not, a lot of people and reputation can be saved if we impeach the entire Bush administration

In the best case scenario both the POTUS and VPOTUS would have to be impeached simultaneously, granting the presidency to the speaker of the house. The rest of the administration would undergo a spring housecleaning of sorts and replaced at the new President's (Pelosi) pleasure.

But that's when the alarm clock goes off and I wake up. It would make a great movie though.

It's not an age thing. People sometimes just lose sight of reality, or get caught up with an idea. As I said, I probably should have known better.

I still stand by the principle that it was a good idea if it could have been done as described, and you can't blame the vast majority of people who thought so at the time.

Unfortunately it couldn't be done as described. Mostly because of systemic incompetence at all levels.

I most certainly can blame the majority of the people who briefly thought that it was a good idea. You would have to be a complete moron to buy the bullshit that the Bush administration was selling. Such as the idea that Saddam Hussein was a leader in Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11. Even when George Bush himself was forced to admit that Hussein wasn't behind 9/11, many Americans continued to believe that he was.

You can not argue that it is reasonable to believe that Hussein was behind 9/11 just because 70% of Americans believed it. That just proves that 70% of Americans are morons. Approximatly 30% are imbeciles (approve of Bush), and 15% are inanimate objects (approve of Cheney).

Everyone who said or says (either before the war or afterwards) that it was all about the oil is both right and wrong at the same time.

First, why were they wrong?
Well, the simplistic argument is: energy crisis, blah blah blah, running out of oil, blah blah blah, need to secure more oil supplies. Iraq has loads of oil, and it should be (and indeed was) quite easy to overthrow Saddam, go in and take all the oil. Makes sense, right?

Well, no, not quite. If all we wanted to do was get more oil from Iraq, going to war with them was a very bad way of going about it. We could have doubled the oil output from Iraq just by lifting sanctions. We could probably have increased output by an order of magnitude just by repairing the oil wells and pipelines that we bombed the shit out of back in 1991. Bombing them even more is completely counterproductive.

But more importantly, why were they right?
Well, because the War in Iraq WAS about oil, but it WASN'T about getting more of it - it was about CONTROLLING THE SUPPLY.
Why is this important? Well, bear with me while I explain a bit about how OPEC works. This won't hurt (much).

On paper, OPEC is a legitimate alliance of sovereign states - it is made of governments, not companies / corporations. In reality, it is the oil companies (some of which are state-owned, like Norway's Statoil) that run the show, making OPEC no different in real terms to any other illegal price-fixing cartel.

Cartels of this sort are set up for one main reason - to create the illusion of scarcity for the product they sell. They do this by restricting supply, which drives up the price. This is why the oil price spiked so high in the 1970's - it wasn't because the world was actually running out of oil, it was because middle-eastern nations (especially Saudi-Arabia) shut down their pipelines and sat on their spigots. Saudi Arabia can get away with doing this for quite a while because they have vast cash reserves to draw on while they aren't selling any oil. But they can't do it forever, and so the "crisis" eventually abated.

Each member of OPEC is given a strict quota of how much oil they can produce each year - a bit like how we give farmers milk quotas. The purpose of quotas is to keep close control over exactly how much oil can be produced - this therefore allows accurate control of the price.

If every country sticks to it's quota, but there is one rogue state which refuses to comply, then that one rogue state can effectively dictate the changes in the world oil price. This is exactly what Saddam was doing - he kept jerking his oil production levels up and down at random, often exceeding his quota. This was therefore affecting the prices (and hence profit margins) of every oil company in the world, which of course includes the big ones, such as BP, Shell and ExxonMobil. It also includes the smaller ones (that nevertheless have a great deal of political clout within the Bush Administration) like Chevron and Halliburton.

This is why Saddam had to be removed - because he was a destabilizing influence on the world oil market. Now that we are "in control" of Iraq's oil, we can prevent them producing any oil for the world market. This drives prices up a bit (nobody in an oil company would complain there) but more importantly keeps the price stable.

Yes, yes, I know the insurgents are busily destroying the oil infrastructure in Iraq to try and stop us taking control of it - but as far as OPEC is concerned, the insurgents are doing them a favour - if the oil infrastructure is destroyed, then it's impossible to produce any oil from Iraq, whether we are in control of it or not. We (and by "we", I mean OPEC) therefore win either way.

I most certainly can blame the majority of the people who briefly thought that it was a good idea. You would have to be a complete moron to buy the bullshit that the Bush administration was selling. Such as the idea that Saddam Hussein was a leader in Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11. Even when George Bush himself was forced to admit that Hussein wasn't behind 9/11, many Americans continued to believe that he was.

You can not argue that it is reasonable to believe that Hussein was behind 9/11 just because 70% of Americans believed it. That just proves that 70% of Americans are morons. Approximatly 30% are imbeciles (approve of Bush), and 15% are inanimate objects (approve of Cheney).

First, I never said that saddam was behind 9/11. I only said that if it was possible it would be a good idea to put a liberal democracy in place in Iraq.

Second, I am glad that you thoroughly reject the idea that people should not be held responsible for bad decisions. I applaud that. And as such I expect that in the future you will vehemently oppose the candidacy of Obama, Clinton and Dodd.

First, I never said that saddam was behind 9/11. I only said that if it was possible it would be a good idea to put a liberal democracy in place in Iraq.

Second, I am glad that you thoroughly reject the idea that people should not be held responsible for bad decisions. I applaud that. And as such I expect that in the future you will vehemently oppose the candidacy of Obama, Clinton and Dodd.

Out of the hats in the ring at the moment, I want Edwards to win. Both Obama and Clinton have shown too much of an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude. But either of them would still be a better choice than John McCain, who has done the same thing, but joined worse people, and Guliani whom I found even less likable after 9/11 than I did from the first moment he was mayor of my hometown.

And I know that you did not say that Saddam was behind 9/11, but when 70% of the people agreed with the Iraq war on the basis that they believed that he did, then public support for the war is not a factor in its favor. The Bush administration deliberately lied to create that support, and the media assisted by only interviewing generals, politicians, and intellectuals on the pro-war side, but only interviewing actors and singers on the anti-war side.

In the words of Janeanne Garofalo, "how much support do you think there would have been behind the war if the media interviewed anti-war generals, intellectuals, and politicians, but on the pro-war side they only spoke to Chuck Norris, Billy Baldwin, Toby Keith, and Ted Nuget."

Would be a great headline in the newspapers:


OBAMA meets OSAMA

Just kidding...

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Welcome to NSG.

Welcome to NSG.

Why is that the first thing newblets find is the gun smilies? Could never figure that out. Nor why it is necessary to use them in such high concentrations.

Why is that the first thing newblets find is the gun smilies? Could never figure that out. Nor why it is necessary to use them in such high concentrations.

I wonder that, myself. :p

George Bush invaded Iraq because Cheney sent him an Email with gun smilies.

Looks to me like the oil contracts will be awarded by the Iraqi government much like they would anywhere else. At least this first round doesn't look like the Americans made the decision.

Don't get me started on the "reconstruction" crap though...

The money from the oil contracts will go to the Iraqi government... and then straight on to the US to pay for the reconstruction...

Great deal is it not :rolleyes:

I thought Iraq was all about finishing up some family business. You see, a long, long time ago called 1991, this magical war called the Gulf War was being waged. Bush Sr. wanted to take Sadaam "nutjob" Hussein out of power because he was crazy and clearly dangerous (he went all Kuwait-invading and Kurd-gassing before the Gulf War), but our allies didn't want us to. So, rather than risk a potential war with such allies as France, Great Brittian, and Saudi Arabia by saving the Iraqi people from such deadly threats as hateable nutjob dictator, said dictator's possibly crazier and more homocidal sons, and mass starvation caused by UN sanctions, we left the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

Fast forward to today and Bush Sr.'s dream of a Sadaam-free Iraq are fulfilled. The Iraqis are free to change their country, usually with guns and lots of bombs. It's hard to tell if a politician's war stance is because they truly believe the war is good or bad or if it's purely political and idealogical (they support it, so stopping it would help us gain more power and support). I still say we should carpetbomb the insurgents into submission. They're already used to being killed by eachother. This would just speed up the process. We could probably disguise the planes as insurgent planes. They have heavy bombers, right?

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Waits for the usual uproar about trolling...

Wow, we have a lot of smart individuals on this forum and a lot of slow individuals in this forum. First let's start out. None of you truely know what is happening in Iraq, until you have been there and seen first hand you know nothing! The media aside from wall street journal and msnbc are highly left wing and tend to spin negative stories about what is going on in Iraq. Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are Right Wing and spin the opposite direction. Let me give you a little hindsight into the Iraq war. Iran is the biggest problem in the middle east. They are attempting to exert non-existent power throughout the middle east and the world. Our military needed a larger stepping stone to Iran other than Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. This is NOT a war for oil, we get only 15% of our oil from the middle east the rest is drilled from the united states ie: Alaska, Texas and the rest south america. People who are butt hurt about Bush being elected only because it was the cool thing to be against bush, and hippies who no longer have anything real to complain about and will take anything to protest something, and when they have no real evidence they use oil. Go live a day in Iraq, go be an american soldier for a day in Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, go join an Iraqi Police Officer on a patrol for thirty minutes. These people are in an ethnic battle that has been going on silently for over two thousand years. The last thing we need is Polosi, Clinton or one of these other neo-hippy, appeasment minded short bus liberals to take over and think we can pay off Osama and other terrorists not to attack us. Get out, shut up and let the military handle its business without dictating how WE are doing it....yes i know this because I am serving a one year tour in Baghdad Iraq driving outside the base training Iraqi Police..any other dipshit comments??

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Hmm... threatening language!

You can not argue that it is reasonable to believe that Hussein was behind 9/11 just because 70% of Americans believed it. That just proves that 70% of Americans are morons. Approximatly 30% are imbeciles (approve of Bush), and 15% are inanimate objects (approve of Cheney).

You really should have a statistic of some sort to represent the truly evil populace, at least the ones who intend harm and ill will for the most diabolical and selfish of motives. At least, the ones who give in to that particular nature most passionately and without a lot of other judgments that might ordinarily interfere.

Wow, we have a lot of smart individuals on this forum and a lot of slow individuals in this forum. First let's start out. None of you truely know what is happening in Iraq, until you have been there and seen first hand you know nothing! The media aside from wall street journal and msnbc are highly left wing and tend to spin negative stories about what is going on in Iraq. Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are Right Wing and spin the opposite direction. Let me give you a little hindsight into the Iraq war. Iran is the biggest problem in the middle east. They are attempting to exert non-existent power throughout the middle east and the world. Our military needed a larger stepping stone to Iran other than Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. This is NOT a war for oil, we get only 15% of our oil from the middle east the rest is drilled from the united states ie: Alaska, Texas and the rest south america. People who are butt hurt about Bush being elected only because it was the cool thing to be against bush, and hippies who no longer have anything real to complain about and will take anything to protest something, and when they have no real evidence they use oil. Go live a day in Iraq, go be an american soldier for a day in Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, go join an Iraqi Police Officer on a patrol for thirty minutes. These people are in an ethnic battle that has been going on silently for over two thousand years. The last thing we need is Polosi, Clinton or one of these other neo-hippy, appeasment minded short bus liberals to take over and think we can pay off Osama and other terrorists not to attack us. Get out, shut up and let the military handle its business without dictating how WE are doing it....yes i know this because I am serving a one year tour in Baghdad Iraq driving outside the base training Iraqi Police..any other dipshit comments??

*sniff*
USMC Leathernecks?

So how much percentage do you get for the lecture circuit?
As far as the "military handling its business" ... who sent you there? Who gives the orders? Who's the commander in chief? A military expert? :rolleyes:
Tone it down, tough guy. Don't do exactly what you're bitching about and assume to represent people you don't understand, or at least bother to try to understand.

Wow, we have a lot of smart individuals on this forum and a lot of slow individuals in this forum. First let's start out. None of you truely know what is happening in Iraq, until you have been there and seen first hand you know nothing! The media aside from wall street journal and msnbc are highly left wing and tend to spin negative stories about what is going on in Iraq. Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are Right Wing and spin the opposite direction. Let me give you a little hindsight into the Iraq war. Iran is the biggest problem in the middle east. They are attempting to exert non-existent power throughout the middle east and the world. Our military needed a larger stepping stone to Iran other than Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. This is NOT a war for oil, we get only 15% of our oil from the middle east the rest is drilled from the united states ie: Alaska, Texas and the rest south america. People who are butt hurt about Bush being elected only because it was the cool thing to be against bush, and hippies who no longer have anything real to complain about and will take anything to protest something, and when they have no real evidence they use oil. Go live a day in Iraq, go be an american soldier for a day in Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, go join an Iraqi Police Officer on a patrol for thirty minutes. These people are in an ethnic battle that has been going on silently for over two thousand years. The last thing we need is Polosi, Clinton or one of these other neo-hippy, appeasment minded short bus liberals to take over and think we can pay off Osama and other terrorists not to attack us. Get out, shut up and let the military handle its business without dictating how WE are doing it....yes i know this because I am serving a one year tour in Baghdad Iraq driving outside the base training Iraqi Police..any other dipshit comments??

We do need paragraphs now and again though, and thats a bipartisan opinion.

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:



O
M
G

L
E
A
R
N

T
O

N
O
T

B
E

A

D
U
M
B
A
S
S

*sniff*
USMC Leathernecks?

So how much percentage do you get for the lecture circuit?
As far as the "military handling its business" ... who sent you there? Who gives the orders? Who's the commander in chief? A military expert? :rolleyes:
Tone it down, tough guy. Don't do exactly what you're bitching about and assume to represent people you don't understand, or at least bother to try to understand.

Marine Corps? naw they're having fun in anbar. I am MP training Iraqi Police. The Commander in Chief gives order with the consent of congress to complete a certain mission, this however, should be the end of it. Lawmakers should not be deciding high value targets, no go zones, and rules of engagements that should be left to the brass to handle. I dont assume to represent no one but my own beliefs, however I think i have debated more and talked more with local national interpreters, iraqi police, and civilians to understand their chief complaints. thats just me though.

Wow, we have a lot of smart individuals on this forum and a lot of slow individuals in this forum. First let's start out. None of you truely know what is happening in Iraq, until you have been there and seen first hand you know nothing! The media aside from wall street journal and msnbc are highly left wing and tend to spin negative stories about what is going on in Iraq. Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are Right Wing and spin the opposite direction. Let me give you a little hindsight into the Iraq war. Iran is the biggest problem in the middle east. They are attempting to exert non-existent power throughout the middle east and the world. Our military needed a larger stepping stone to Iran other than Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. This is NOT a war for oil, we get only 15% of our oil from the middle east the rest is drilled from the united states ie: Alaska, Texas and the rest south america. People who are butt hurt about Bush being elected only because it was the cool thing to be against bush, and hippies who no longer have anything real to complain about and will take anything to protest something, and when they have no real evidence they use oil. Go live a day in Iraq, go be an american soldier for a day in Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, go join an Iraqi Police Officer on a patrol for thirty minutes. These people are in an ethnic battle that has been going on silently for over two thousand years. The last thing we need is Polosi, Clinton or one of these other neo-hippy, appeasment minded short bus liberals to take over and think we can pay off Osama and other terrorists not to attack us. Get out, shut up and let the military handle its business without dictating how WE are doing it....yes i know this because I am serving a one year tour in Baghdad Iraq driving outside the base training Iraqi Police..any other dipshit comments??

The weird thing is, I kind of agree with you. At least the first half about the reasons we went to war. I just don't think that it was a good idea and has done more harm than good when it comes to terrorism. And terrorism had nothing to do with us being in Iraq but it was a great excuse.

George Bush invaded Iraq because Cheney sent him an Email with gun smilies.

You win. http://www.necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Wow, we have a lot of smart individuals on this forum and a lot of slow individuals in this forum.

First let's start out. None of you truely know what is happening in Iraq, until you have been there and seen first hand you know nothing! The media aside from wall street journal and msnbc are highly left wing and tend to spin negative stories about what is going on in Iraq. Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are Right Wing and spin the opposite direction.

Let me give you a little hindsight into the Iraq war. Iran is the biggest problem in the middle east. They are attempting to exert non-existent power throughout the middle east and the world. Our military needed a larger stepping stone to Iran other than Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.

This is NOT a war for oil, we get only 15% of our oil from the middle east the rest is drilled from the united states ie: Alaska, Texas and the rest south america.

People who are butt hurt about Bush being elected only because it was the cool thing to be against bush, and hippies who no longer have anything real to complain about and will take anything to protest something, and when they have no real evidence they use oil.

Go live a day in Iraq, go be an american soldier for a day in Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, go join an Iraqi Police Officer on a patrol for thirty minutes. These people are in an ethnic battle that has been going on silently for over two thousand years.

The last thing we need is Polosi, Clinton or one of these other neo-hippy, appeasment minded short bus liberals to take over and think we can pay off Osama and other terrorists not to attack us.

Get out, shut up and let the military handle its business without dictating how WE are doing it....yes i know this because I am serving a one year tour in Baghdad Iraq driving outside the base training Iraqi Police..any other dipshit comments??

well now lets see what we have thats worth commenting on...

you think we went into iraq so we would have an easier time going after the real target of iran? is that what that says? if thats true, it sure didnt work out well.

you think that there is no REAL reason to hate george bush and his ruinous foreign policy so "hippies" make up the oil thing? EVERYTHING in the middle east is about oil to some extent. if it werent for oil, we would care no more about the countries of the middle east than we do about those of subsaharan africa. the oil thing might not be the major reason but it is A reason. the rest of the reasons suck just as much.

so we are in the middle of a civil war in iraq? isnt that the reason we need to get out? is it any of our business to decide the outcome of ethnic fighting that is thousands (at least hundreds) of years old? we have accomplished our mission, iraq is no threat to us or our allies. you cant shoot people into cooperating with each other.

yes it would be a bad thing to try to appease terrorists, what does that have to do with iraq?

no, the congress shouldnt try to decide policy on the ground but someone has to take control of the situation and force bush to start making plans to get our military OUT of there. we have lost enough good men and women to this stupid war already.

is that dipshit enough for you?

you think we went into iraq so we would have an easier time going after the real target of iran? is that what that says? if thats true, it sure didnt work out well.


Is that what he said? I must have misunderstood him. I thought that he was referring to that Project for a New American Century thing where the real target was basically to bring democracy to the middle east down the barrel of a gun. Stupid, to be sure, in either case.

Marine Corps? naw they're having fun in anbar. I am MP training Iraqi Police. The Commander in Chief gives order with the consent of congress to complete a certain mission, this however, should be the end of it. Lawmakers should not be deciding high value targets, no go zones, and rules of engagements that should be left to the brass to handle. I dont assume to represent no one but my own beliefs, however I think i have debated more and talked more with local national interpreters, iraqi police, and civilians to understand their chief complaints. thats just me though.Wow, that's actually a pretty cool answer.
*bows*

well now lets see what we have thats worth commenting on...

you think we went into iraq so we would have an easier time going after the real target of iran? is that what that says? if thats true, it sure didnt work out well.

you think that there is no REAL reason to hate george bush and his ruinous foreign policy so "hippies" make up the oil thing? EVERYTHING in the middle east is about oil to some extent. if it werent for oil, we would care no more about the countries of the middle east than we do about those of subsaharan africa. the oil thing might not be the major reason but it is A reason. the rest of the reasons suck just as much.

so we are in the middle of a civil war in iraq? isnt that the reason we need to get out? is it any of our business to decide the outcome of ethnic fighting that is thousands (at least hundreds) of years old? we have accomplished our mission, iraq is no threat to us or our allies. you cant shoot people into cooperating with each other.

yes it would be a bad thing to try to appease terrorists, what does that have to do with iraq?

no, the congress shouldnt try to decide policy on the ground but someone has to take control of the situation and force bush to start making plans to get our military OUT of there. we have lost enough good men and women to this stupid war already.

is that dipshit enough for you?

Hmm seems like I had plenty that was deemed worthy enough for your lower than average intelligence to comprehend...let's rebuttle:

Yes, Iraq sits next to Iran and Iran is the big target in the Middle East. That is why we have a large contingent of troops in Kuwait and Iraq. At any point deemed neccessary, we can push troops through Kuwait straight to Iran and take some from Iraq and divert them. Iraq is a strategic stronghold of the Middle East do to it's location. That is why the Romans, and Greeks, and Persians, and British to name a few tried to conquer it.

Iraq was never a threat, however, Iran openly admits they have revolutionary guards in western countries ready to perform acts of terror if iran is engaged. Oil like I said isnt important for the united states, we have south american oil companies that supply us with a vast majority of our oil.

When was the last time a group of africans hijacked a plane? or openly condemned the united states? What african countries supplied money to terrorist organizations?

The insurgents in Iraq have everything to do with the global war on terror. This is a Jihad. Half the attacks on the us in iraq are carried out by saudi, egyptian, yemeni, omani, kuwaiti nationals who wish to damage the US. The outsiders left afghanistan to come to Iraq to fight us here. This is the battlefront.

We took out all of the institutions Iraq had to safegaurd against a civil wart, it is out job to train the ISF to prevent further bloodshed..that is what we call: responsiblity.

Do you know how many troops we lost in the civil war? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? 3000+ is a horrible number and it is sad when one of my brother or sisters die, however, we all signed up to join the military. there is no such thing as a draft. we all agreed to put our lives on the line. Iraq has been going on for over four years now...that is a typical enlistment, if soldiers didnt want to be here, if they were scared of dying no one would be in the military anymore.

Yes, it was quite dipshit enough...next taker.

Hmm seems like I had plenty that was deemed worthy enough for your lower than average intelligence to comprehend...let's rebuttle:

Yes, Iraq sits next to Iran and Iran is the big target in the Middle East. That is why we have a large contingent of troops in Kuwait and Iraq. At any point deemed neccessary, we can push troops through Kuwait straight to Iran and take some from Iraq and divert them. Iraq is a strategic stronghold of the Middle East do to it's location. That is why the Romans, and Greeks, and Persians, and British to name a few tried to conquer it.

Iraq was never a threat, however, Iran openly admits they have revolutionary guards in western countries ready to perform acts of terror if iran is engaged. Oil like I said isnt important for the united states, we have south american oil companies that supply us with a vast majority of our oil.

When was the last time a group of africans hijacked a plane? or openly condemned the united states? What african countries supplied money to terrorist organizations?

The insurgents in Iraq have everything to do with the global war on terror. This is a Jihad. Half the attacks on the us in iraq are carried out by saudi, egyptian, yemeni, omani, kuwaiti nationals who wish to damage the US. The outsiders left afghanistan to come to Iraq to fight us here. This is the battlefront.

We took out all of the institutions Iraq had to safegaurd against a civil wart, it is out job to train the ISF to prevent further bloodshed..that is what we call: responsiblity.

Do you know how many troops we lost in the civil war? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? 3000+ is a horrible number and it is sad when one of my brother or sisters die, however, we all signed up to join the military. there is no such thing as a draft. we all agreed to put our lives on the line. Iraq has been going on for over four years now...that is a typical enlistment, if soldiers didnt want to be here, if they were scared of dying no one would be in the military anymore.

Yes, it was quite dipshit enough...next taker.

wow you actually think that bush is more stupid than i do!

so he went into IRAQ not for oil, not for WMD, not for payback, not to take out a perceived threat but to position us to be able to attack iran?

our military is stretched so thin NOW that soldiers are having to be sent back to iraq with less than one year at home; our equipment is wearing out; our reputation is the world is so bad that its hard to find anyone outside the US who doesnt hate us; our citizenry is sick of paying for a war that has no benefit to us. NOW we are ready to invade another country?

you cant possibly believe that.

Hmm seems like I had plenty that was deemed worthy enough for your lower than average intelligence to comprehend...let's rebuttle:

Yes, Iraq sits next to Iran and Iran is the big target in the Middle East. That is why we have a large contingent of troops in Kuwait and Iraq. At any point deemed neccessary, we can push troops through Kuwait straight to Iran and take some from Iraq and divert them. Iraq is a strategic stronghold of the Middle East do to it's location. That is why the Romans, and Greeks, and Persians, and British to name a few tried to conquer it.

Iraq was never a threat, however, Iran openly admits they have revolutionary guards in western countries ready to perform acts of terror if iran is engaged. Oil like I said isnt important for the united states, we have south american oil companies that supply us with a vast majority of our oil.

When was the last time a group of africans hijacked a plane? or openly condemned the united states? What african countries supplied money to terrorist organizations?

The insurgents in Iraq have everything to do with the global war on terror. This is a Jihad. Half the attacks on the us in iraq are carried out by saudi, egyptian, yemeni, omani, kuwaiti nationals who wish to damage the US. The outsiders left afghanistan to come to Iraq to fight us here. This is the battlefront.

We took out all of the institutions Iraq had to safegaurd against a civil wart, it is out job to train the ISF to prevent further bloodshed..that is what we call: responsiblity.

Do you know how many troops we lost in the civil war? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? 3000+ is a horrible number and it is sad when one of my brother or sisters die, however, we all signed up to join the military. there is no such thing as a draft. we all agreed to put our lives on the line. Iraq has been going on for over four years now...that is a typical enlistment, if soldiers didnt want to be here, if they were scared of dying no one would be in the military anymore.

Yes, it was quite dipshit enough...next taker.
You basically said that we created a battlefront in which to fight the terrorists, right? We're there, terrorists know we are there and so they go there. What would constitute a victory? When the world runs out of people who don't like Americans?

I doubt it was the only reason, but Iraq was, I think, preparing to trade Euros for oil instead of Dollars, which may have influenced Bush's decision, without actually being a 'war for oil'. Nevertheless, I think pinning the decision to go to war on one factor is going to be pretty hard.

Didn't that also put a stop to some other oil countries planning to switch to euro (I think it was Iran)?

He had to stop the slide of the USD somehow I guess...

Bush doesn't need to be soneone's oil whore, he's got his vice-president for that.

Hahahahaha. Cheney is no ones whore. He and his stooge dubya leave that to the peons.

Hmm seems like I had plenty that was deemed worthy enough for your lower than average intelligence to comprehend...let's rebuttle:

if soldiers didnt want to be here, if they were scared of dying no one would be in the military anymore.

Yes, it was quite dipshit enough...next taker.

I don't care what your opinions are but don't attack someone who has done nothing to you. You are claiming to be in the U.S. military. That is a big thing. If you really are then you need to calm down and stop acting like an ass. If you aren't then ass away but don't claim something that isn't true. There is no honor in it. PM in bound.

You basically said that we created a battlefront in which to fight the terrorists, right? We're there, terrorists know we are there and so they go there. What would constitute a victory? When the world runs out of people who don't like Americans?

ut o i hope thats not the case.

we make new terrorists every day. we'll never run out.

my opuion on bush is short and sweet

HES A FUCKING DUMBASS
WHO NEEDS TO GET
IMPEACHED
:sniper:
(OR SHOT)
I mean hes wrecked world opion on this country hes put a deifcte of about 3 trillion and growing and Americans are still sitting around beliving were winng a war on terror? even though are presidnt is a terror to the TO THE SCHOOLS?
THIS KINDA LAWMAKING MAN IS DUMB AS A HEGDE. ALL THIS WAR IS IS A MONEY TRAIL FOR HIM AND HIS OIL COMPANYS. IF YOU LIKE BUSH HERES A GIFT :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Not very sweet...and I assure you that he is smarter than you...he's Ivy educated and you dont get into the White House if you are a dumbass...even if its mostly off of your father, Bush is no dummy.