cedk Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 You dont think it had anything to do with oil? lol......not about oil It was about changing the mindset of the region...establihing freedom.....thats why it was named Operation Iraqi Freedom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 lol......not about oilIt was about changing the mindset of the region...establihing freedom.....thats why it was named Operation Iraqi Freedom! You're views here really are naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 says the man putting forth carpet bombing :nana: as the saying goes 'it's complicated' eh? ...way to much so to reduce to single causes or remedies/responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I'd say the strategic importance of oil absolutely had something to do with Iraq. Just like it has something to do with our "no fly zone" in Libya(that no fly zone bit is a good one...excellent marketing job) To answer the original question...no, we should not have just carpet bombed Afghanistan. At least not if the goal was to get Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, or any of Al Qaida for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedk Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 You're views here really are naive. What is naive is people thinking after 911 a whole bunch of nations got together and said its time to get some oil..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 You dont think it had anything to do with oil? Do YOU hear YOURSELF talk? This is the most ridiculous, idiotic, moronic argument possible. Even the idiots who started this theory have given up on it. Which doesn't say much for you. But lets review shall we? Do we own or control any of those oil fields? - NO Who does? - IRAQ Who do they sell their oil to? - Everyone Do we have any special deals or prices? NO Did we ask for any special deals or prices? NO So who is purchasing Iraqi Oil? http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IZ Iraq exported 1.8 million bbl/d of crude oil in 2009. About 1.5 million bbl/d of this came from Iraq’s Persian Gulf ports, with the rest exported via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline in the north. The majority of Iraqi oil exports go to refineries in Asia, especially China, India, and South Korea. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/20/us-iraq-oil-idUSTRE61J1I420100220 Iraq has no further plans to use foreign firms to develop its oilfields beyond ones auctioned off last year, the country's prime minister said on Saturday, ahead of a national election next month.Analysts say that foreign companies may have accepted the tough terms in oilfield development contracts awarded in two rounds last year partly to secure an initial foothold in Iraq, with a view to possible access to other untapped reserves later. Iraq has the world's third-largest crude reserves and is the world's 11th-biggest oil producer. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Iraq should start thinking about developing its national oil firms and warned of "staying captive in the hands of foreign oil firms." "I told the oil minister during a cabinet meeting that we will never sign any more contracts with foreign oil companies," Maliki told supporters at a rally in the southern oil hub of Basra, weeks before a parliamentary election on March 7. "We will depend on our national companies in developing our oilfields," Maliki said. There isn't a single shred of evidence to support the war for oil theory. Not one. Seriously dude. You have yet to get a single fact correct in this debate. Your arguments are nothing more than the regurgitated idiocy first spewed by Michael Moore. He's a moron. Guess what that makes you sound like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 The Bush admin did not really express regime change as an end of the means of invading Iraq... it was kind of taken for granted that if we invade Iraq we would change the regime. The ends expressed to us were stopping WMD's and Terrorism. Regime change was merely something that was supposed to facilitate the goal of eradicating WMDs and preventing support for terrorism. Remember all the BS about Iraqis opening up their cities to us as liberators as if we we're the second embodiment God Emperor. Democracy in Iraq was more of tactical goal than a strategic goal... Basically, it is the argument they used as to why the whole thing would be a piece of cake... The ****ing idiots... Well, that's if you want to believe the Bush Admni anyway, there are strong argument for thinking they gave us a line a **** when they talked about WMD's and terrorism, when what they really wanted was a democratic ME block, or at least a stable source of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Do you hear yourself talk?your telling me saint bush went to war in iraq to help the poor people get their rights and help them get freedom? You dont think it had anything to do with oil? lol......not about oilIt was about changing the mindset of the region...establihing freedom.....thats why it was named Operation Iraqi Freedom! Jesus Christ, where to begin with you two.... 21, I've never been a fan of the Iraq War, but it wasn't about oil. You're not helping your own cause in this thread. cedk, you have this obsession with the name of the operation that's utterly baffling. I've literally never heard anyone try to argue that we should judge a war by the name of its biggest military operation. What exactly is your evaluation of Operation Odyssey Dawn? Are we waiting for a Greek hero to wake up some morning and note that the sun has risen? What about other government actions? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? You're not critical of that because of its name, right? Who could criticize such a plan? I mean, come on, it's the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Therefore, it must be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Edit: see my next post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 so we went in for the oil , yet oil prices and gas prices are at 5.00? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 So let's go invade Syria. And Iran. And Cuba. And North Korea. And China. And Sudan. And Myanmar. And Chad. And keep right on going.... This is a terrible argument. Do you have to fix everything on your car to justify fixing the worst problem? Iraq was not only one of the worst human rights violators on the planet, they supported dozens of international terrorist organizations, started several wars, forced us to go to war to protect it's neighbors, forced us to impose sanctions which if not for the war we would be forced to continue at great expense and to the detriment of the Iraqi people. In the end, all Iraq had to do to avoid sanctions is to let inspectors do their job. SADDAM chose war. No. We cannot and should not try to fix all of the worlds problems. But there are times when issues must be addressed and changes must be made even if those changes are difficult and painful. Above I posted Bush's outline for a his goals in Iraq. The ONLY thing in his list of reasons he got wrong was the immediate threat of WMD. They WERE supporting dozens of international terrorist groups including groups associated with AQ. Saddam was a plague on his people who now have a much brighter future than any they would have had under Saddam and his evil sons. The Iraqi people have embraced democracy and low and behold Bush's words "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. " are now starting to sound almost prophetic. And those WMD? while Saddam may not have had the stockpiles many thought he had, It has been clearly shown through documents and evidence that he had every intention of starting his programs again as soon as sanctions could be lifted. Is it naive to think the war was was only about Iraqi freadom? About as naive as it is to think the war was not about addressing a multitude of issues with one decisive action. And BTW. Ed is dead on when he says that the only reason people cannot accept these facts is that it is not popular. It is political suicide in the current climate to suggest Bush may have been right about anything because we are currently dominated by a mob mentality. The mere mention of Bush is enough to make people reach for their pitchforks and torches. There is no reasoned debate on the subject and people like 21cents continue to make such a debate nearly impossible with their complete dissociation from any and all facts. ---------- Post added April-24th-2011 at 05:31 PM ---------- The Bush admin did not really express regime change as an end of the means of invading Iraq... it was kind of taken for granted that if we invade Iraq we would change the regime. The ends expressed to us were stopping WMD's and Terrorism. Regime change was merely something that was supposed to facilitate the goal of eradicating WMDs and preventing support for terrorism. Remember all the BS about Iraqis opening up their cities to us as liberators as if we we're the second embodiment God Emperor. Democracy in Iraq was more of tactical goal than a strategic goal... Basically, it is the argument they used as to why the whole thing would be a piece of cake... The ****ing idiots... Well, that's if you want to believe the Bush Admni anyway, there are strong argument for thinking they gave us a line a **** when they talked about WMD's and terrorism, when what they really wanted was a democratic ME block, or at least a stable source of oil. Dear lord. I just posted Bushed pre-war speech. Try reading. George Bush - The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. He said it would be "piece of cake" huh? George Bush - Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time. We go forward with confidence, because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history, and free people will keep the peace of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedk Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Do YOU hear YOURSELF talk?This is the most ridiculous, idiotic, moronic argument possible. Even the idiots who started this theory have given up on it. Which doesn't say much for you. But lets review shall we? Do we own or control any of those oil fields? - NO Who does? - IRAQ Who do they sell their oil to? - Everyone Do we have any special deals or prices? NO Did we ask for any special deals or prices? NO . Now that's a post...... but will they continue to think it's about oil........ of course!The Bush admin did not really express regime change as an end of the means of invading Iraq... it was kind of taken for granted that if we invade Iraq we would change the regime. The ends expressed to us were stopping WMD's and Terrorism. Regime change was merely something that was supposed to facilitate the goal of eradicating WMDs and preventing support for terrorism. . . Of course just invading Iraq should not have been taken for granted that we will establish freedom.....In the first Iraqi war we did not..... the peace lovers and the world was quite content as we left them to rot.... Jesus Christ, where to begin with you two..... cedk, you have this obsession with the name of the operation that's utterly baffling. I've literally never heard anyone try to argue that we should judge a war by the name of its biggest military operation. What exactly is your evaluation of Operation Odyssey Dawn? Are we waiting for a Greek hero to wake up some morning and note that the sun has risen? What about other government actions? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? You're not critical of that because of its name, right? Who could criticize such a plan? I mean, come on, it's the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Therefore, it must be great. What baffles me in your two posts we've branched out to five wars and now has 6 more questions for me none of which is on the subject.... should we have just carpet bombed Iraq..... it's basically what we did the first time..... I emphasize operation Iraqi freedom because that is evidence of its goal from the start...... changing the region and its mindset by establishing greater freedom would eventually eliminate conditions suitable for breeding terrorist organizations Let's not be silly and think I judge the whole war by its name.... .... I thought I left the door wide open for you to bash my sly comments we're too busy and broke to bring freedom to some other countries....but instead get upset about me emphasizing the name Operation Iraqi Freedom which stats the wars biggest purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 So what you meant to say: Lets carpet bomb Afghanistan for the oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 war is an ugly thing. Some times the "right" thing isn't so morally easy. I really don't know what the best course of action would be (which is why I'm not a military tactician). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Of course just invading Iraq should not have been taken for granted that we will establish freedom.....In the first Iraqi war we did not..... the peace lovers and the world was quite content as we left them to rot.... I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but I don't think it is responsive to my post in the run up to the War, Bush Co. blamed Saddam for supporting terrorism, and developing WMDs. Keyword: Saddam. An invasion of Iraq entailed overthrowing Saddam aka "Regime change" "freedom" or whatever is a different issue. Bush I invaded Iraq (though not fully) to protect Kuwait (now THAT was an oil war)... not because Saddam directly threatened America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Any truth to the reports that memos released from BP stating that publicly they were saying they didn't care about Iraq's oil but privately they were saying it was their number one priority to get into the game? Only seems to be on the alternative media sites but I've heard it mentioned on the radio and a few cables shows this weekend. Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 As to the original topic I know my opinion might not be popular but we could have saved the lives of a lot of great Americans by turning the whole area (including Pakistan) into a glass parking lot. My 2 cents. My 2 cents. You are a scary and sick person. 90 percent of your posts are about your guns, and the other 10 percent are about murder, in this case mass murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 My 2 cents. You are a scary and sick person. 90 percent of your posts are about your guns, and the other 10 percent are about murder, in this case mass murder. :ols: Perhaps just a wee bit harsh. :ols: Although I will say I've noticed those themes also. :yikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21cents Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 this pretty much summarizes everything about us. KdxFn8FfauU ---------- Post added April-25th-2011 at 01:09 AM ---------- WqA2Hs5dTFM ---------- Post added April-25th-2011 at 01:13 AM ---------- My 2 cents. You are a scary and sick person. 90 percent of your posts are about your guns, and the other 10 percent are about murder, in this case mass murder. omg thank you. I thought i was the only one that noticed this. It really makes me scratch my head to think guys like him served our county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Donald Trump thinks Saddam "killed terrorists" ? What a ******* MORON. And you believe this ****? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I have a dream, that one day our Oil Czar will say the same thing: Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Iraq should start thinking about developing its national oil firms and warned of "staying captive in the hands of foreign oil firms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I have a dream, that one day our Oil Czar will say the same thing: won't do much good w/o opening up drilling,and even then it is not simple...ask Mexico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's pretty sad that this thread is still going. Carpet bomb an entire country because a small percentage of them are terrorists? Some people are really ****ed in the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 MM, I'm not going to reduce all of the pre-war posturing by Bush II, his administration, the GOP goons to one speech, regardless, nothing in your quote contradicted any of my claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's pretty sad that this thread is still going. Carpet bomb an entire country because a small percentage of them are terrorists? Some people are really ****ed in the head. Did you even read my OP, or the rest of thread? Hell, it's been Iraq for 3 pages anyway and further, the politics of it not the execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.