Tell Me Something I Dont Know..........................
Wow..another impeachable offense..by commission! lol
It had to do with money, not oil. Sheesh...
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
here we go again.....
Iraq was about Saddam and his ignoring the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire.
It has, since Saddam has been removed, turned into a terrorism issue since, terrorists are moving into the void left by the removal of Saddam and his angel sons.
Now, since the mission in Iraq has shifted, from Saddam, to terror, protecting Iraq's natural resources seems logical. After all, it was Saddam that left all the oil fields burning in his wake in 91.
Iraq was about Saddam and his ignoring the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire.
It has, since Saddam has been removed, turned into a terrorism issue since, terrorists are moving into the void left by the removal of Saddam and his angel sons.
Now, since the mission in Iraq has shifted, from Saddam, to terror, protecting Iraq's natural resources seems logical. After all, it was Saddam that left all the oil fields burning in his wake in 91.
Well its bout time to see the Dems take the helm and see how they do. I say we review our economy and foreign policy one year from today. We will look at the price of gas compared to today and the war in Iraq. We will also review the indices and the jobless rate. So see yall in one year regarding this..... (thats not to say I wont post for a whole year )
Last edited by ncc6206 (2006-11-08 17:31:18)
They should nationalize the oil industry there...
Wow becasue Cafferty said it I believe it... wake up idiots. Think about what he said... "if we leave we are turning over the oil to terrorists." Sure Iraq's oil production is only a small fraction of the total produced per day, but I'm glad the price of oil is finally back down to under $2.00. I don't want it to go back up again!
Now let's set that aside and look at this... if we leave these oilfields in terrorist hands, they will sell the oil. Selling the oil = profits. Profits means the terrorists have more money to spend. More money means these organizations could acquire better weapons to combat "hostile troops" worldwide. What if instead of an IED in a parking garage this time it's a nuclear weapon? What if they pool their resources with Iran's nuclear program and purchase an ICBM to carry the warhead they are potentially making?
I know these are sort of "worst case scenarios". But I don't think the world can afford to let terrorist organizations become well funded.
Now let's set that aside and look at this... if we leave these oilfields in terrorist hands, they will sell the oil. Selling the oil = profits. Profits means the terrorists have more money to spend. More money means these organizations could acquire better weapons to combat "hostile troops" worldwide. What if instead of an IED in a parking garage this time it's a nuclear weapon? What if they pool their resources with Iran's nuclear program and purchase an ICBM to carry the warhead they are potentially making?
I know these are sort of "worst case scenarios". But I don't think the world can afford to let terrorist organizations become well funded.
Give me convenience or give me death.
he said he wanted to keep the T's from getting their fingers in it, not that he wanted to take it for himself, it's been a few years, perhaps one of you can show me the sale of a few million bbl's of iraqui oil in the name of the USA.
Sigh...SO many wars have been fought in the Middle East over oil. It is a strong economic, strategic resource. It is vital to US interests. The whole damn reason the US overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and institued the Shah is so he'd sell us oil. But its not just us thats doing it. When Iran invaded Kuwait, they originally said that it was because Kuwait was taking more than it's fair share of oil from a shared Iraqi/Kuwait oilfield, then when that didn't work, they made the statement that Kuwait was once a part of greater Iraq and they were just going to restore it. When no-one bought that, they just said to hell with it, we're just gonna annex the damn country.
No, we put the Shah of Iran in power so we could control them in the Cold War. Most of our foreign policy and regime meddling was fueled by the Cold War and our "If you're not with us, you're against us" policy.Elamdri wrote:
Sigh...SO many wars have been fought in the Middle East over oil. It is a strong economic, strategic resource. It is vital to US interests. The whole damn reason the US overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and institued the Shah is so he'd sell us oil. But its not just us thats doing it. When Iran invaded Kuwait, they originally said that it was because Kuwait was taking more than it's fair share of oil from a shared Iraqi/Kuwait oilfield, then when that didn't work, they made the statement that Kuwait was once a part of greater Iraq and they were just going to restore it. When no-one bought that, they just said to hell with it, we're just gonna annex the damn country.
Around 20 seconds in the clip Bush says: "uhhh..the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had WMD...he didn't but he had the capacity to make WMD's..."
Not ONCE do I hear him talk about Iraq refusing UN resolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Not ONCE do I hear him talk about Iraq refusing UN resolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Yes, thats correct, but the REASON we outted Mossadegh was because he nationalized British oil assets in Iran. Yes, we saw that as a communist move and our Cold War IR policy kicked in, but don't be so naive as to suggest that oil wasn't the reason we did it. The loss of the AIOC was a huge hit to Britain.jonsimon wrote:
No, we put the Shah of Iran in power so we could control them in the Cold War. Most of our foreign policy and regime meddling was fueled by the Cold War and our "If you're not with us, you're against us" policy.Elamdri wrote:
Sigh...SO many wars have been fought in the Middle East over oil. It is a strong economic, strategic resource. It is vital to US interests. The whole damn reason the US overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and institued the Shah is so he'd sell us oil. But its not just us thats doing it. When Iran invaded Kuwait, they originally said that it was because Kuwait was taking more than it's fair share of oil from a shared Iraqi/Kuwait oilfield, then when that didn't work, they made the statement that Kuwait was once a part of greater Iraq and they were just going to restore it. When no-one bought that, they just said to hell with it, we're just gonna annex the damn country.
Last edited by Elamdri (2006-11-08 18:48:00)
Close.... but more specifically, it had to do with the military industrial complex. Money is a good cover-all answer though.King_County_Downy wrote:
It had to do with money, not oil. Sheesh...
Looks like more people need to learn how the oil market works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec.
If the president said that, he is just as uneducated as the rest of everyone who thinks the anyone other than OPEC can control the cost of oil per barrel. I would like to hear or see that statement from the President though.
If oil were the case we would have found a reason to invade Saudi Arabia (Take a look at their oil production). Most of the 9/11 terrorist were from there anyways. And if we were only interested in oil in the first place why did we leave after the first Gulf War?
If the president said that, he is just as uneducated as the rest of everyone who thinks the anyone other than OPEC can control the cost of oil per barrel. I would like to hear or see that statement from the President though.
If oil were the case we would have found a reason to invade Saudi Arabia (Take a look at their oil production). Most of the 9/11 terrorist were from there anyways. And if we were only interested in oil in the first place why did we leave after the first Gulf War?
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-08 22:05:58)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We left after the first Gulf War because Bush Sr. knew it would be a huge policy error to invade Iraq. Basically, he knew that to take Baghdad would cost the lives of many US troops, where as the Desert Storm was for the most part, low on US casualties, leading up to the turkey shoot that was the Hammarabi Division. Seriously, you gain public support by seeing Iraq brigades being pounded by gunships and tanks and TOW missiles. You loose public support when you see US troops get blown up by suicide bombers and IEDs.Kmarion wrote:
Looks like more people need to learn how the oil market works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec.
If the president said that, he is just as uneducated as the rest of everyone who thinks the anyone other than OPEC can control the cost of oil per barrel. I would like to hear or see that statement from the President though.
If oil were the case we would have found a reason to invade Saudi Arabia (Take a look at their oil production). Most of the 9/11 terrorist were from there anyways. And if we were only interested in oil in the first place why did we leave after the first Gulf War?
Also, Bush Sr. knew that by removing Saddam from power, he would seriously compromise the region and Iraq would no longer serve to buffer us from the greater threat, Iran.
Then why did you wait so long? What precipitated the sudden interest in Iraq?lowing wrote:
Iraq was about Saddam and his ignoring the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire.
It's almost as if something major happened in between the two wars on US soil that maybe changed our policy... Anyways I suggest for anyone who thinks Iraq was all about oil to make an effort and truly try to understand how the cost of oil is really dictated.Elamdri wrote:
We left after the first Gulf War because Bush Sr. knew it would be a huge policy error to invade Iraq. Basically, he knew that to take Baghdad would cost the lives of many US troops, where as the Desert Storm was for the most part, low on US casualties, leading up to the turkey shoot that was the Hammarabi Division. Seriously, you gain public support by seeing Iraq brigades being pounded by gunships and tanks and TOW missiles. You loose public support when you see US troops get blown up by suicide bombers and IEDs.Kmarion wrote:
Looks like more people need to learn how the oil market works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec.
If the president said that, he is just as uneducated as the rest of everyone who thinks the anyone other than OPEC can control the cost of oil per barrel. I would like to hear or see that statement from the President though.
If oil were the case we would have found a reason to invade Saudi Arabia (Take a look at their oil production). Most of the 9/11 terrorist were from there anyways. And if we were only interested in oil in the first place why did we leave after the first Gulf War?
Also, Bush Sr. knew that by removing Saddam from power, he would seriously compromise the region and Iraq would no longer serve to buffer us from the greater threat, Iran.
On a side note you said that Sr knew the region would be "compromised". Has there ever been stability in the Mid-East? (Serious question)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dont tell me that the people in the USA are now just catching on..!!! OMG the rest of the world saw this happening years ago.
Looks like someone need to learn how hyperlinking worksKmarion wrote:
Looks like more people need to learn how the oil market works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec.
Other people can. Oil works on supply and demand. If Russia's oilfields were opened up, the price would likely fall. If one or two of those countries were to stop exporting, it might change slightly. If a group of them were to do so together, it would probably rise. If there were instability in one or more of them the buyers might be willing to pay more or less. Other nations could blockade them. Any number of things could effect the price. But yes, one country on it's own may well have little effect.Kmarion wrote:
If the president said that, he is just as uneducated as the rest of everyone who thinks the anyone other than OPEC can control the cost of oil per barrel.
And for the record, I don't believe the war was about oil.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-11-08 23:48:53)
/owned
Anyone with any real sense realizes that wars cause the price of crude oil to rise. Surely within the landscape of your intellectual superiority you can correct my misunderstanding that invading a country causes instability, a loss of production, and limited supply raising the cost of oil. But let's not have historical facts get in the way of what your imagination has to teach us. Google OPEC, you might learn something. THe US does not have a problem with supply, it's with refining it.DRKillusion wrote:
Dont tell me that the people in the USA are now just catching on..!!! OMG the rest of the world saw this happening years ago.
Yikes - the .Bubbalo wrote:
Looks like someone need to learn how hyperlinking worksKmarion wrote:
Looks like more people need to learn how the oil market works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec
If you guys gave me a reasonable reason that the US invaded Iraq (Other than the truth of acting on horrible intelligence) I would be more than happy to go along for the ride. Tell me something like Bush would like total world domination or something more likely.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-09 00:08:51)
Xbone Stormsurgezz