Why war with Iraq is happening

Nobody has said oil is not part of the equation. Of course it is. It's not the deciding factor & it's not some Bush/Cheney cover up. We're not going to Iraq to get their oil. Hell, we already have it. He's not fulfilling his end of the bargain & buying food & medicine with the proceeds. He's stalled for 12+ years. He's a threat to the free world and to the not-so-free world. He's a theat to stability in the middle east (yea yea, so is war with the US) & he's a threat to use/lend/give bio/chem/nuclear weapons to our enemy, the terrorists.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.
 
On the contrary, Gonz. I have continuously asked you (collective) to admit that its about oil and I keep getting told its about terrorism. I will stand behind this country because I believe in democracy and majoity rule. I do not tolerate hypocricy. If we are going to war for oil, then say so. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining....If the American people were asked if we should go to war in Iraq for their oil, I'm certain they would say NO. If we're duped into letting our sons die under some false pretext, then we are no better than those parents of martyrs who think their sons died for allah.
 
We are not having this war to aquire oil. We already trade with Iraq for oil.

We are going to war to put an end to the charade of sanctions & inspections after 12 years of getting pissed on. He's dangerous to those around him & those around the globe. He's tied to terrorism. Terrorists are our enemy. He's a terrorist. He also happens to have a country that is rich with oil fields. That oil will pay to rebuild his country. That oil will enter the market economy. We will not control the oil (after they have fair & open elections). We will buy the oil. Fair price. Same with Russia & Venezuela & OPEC & Mexico & whoever else throws thier oil into the big pipeline to the world.

It is not about oil.
 
Then we're back to square one and in need of an explaination for not attacking SA, which is the biggest terrrorist threat....
 
I think SA should be on our "Axis of Evil" list. No question. They aren't because that would cause terrorism to skyrocket & there are safer ways to deal with the Saudis. In time, they will regret being backers of terrorism.

If you're ready for all out WW3, we attack now.
 
SA is no more a threat than Iraq. We could destroy them overnight. But the cost of the damage to American oil company assets would be large.
 
You're right, SA is no more a threat. However, after further consideration ( I was in the same place a year ago) I realized, you attack SA & in the eyes of muslims, you start the crusades all over again. At which time, it does become WW3, only this time, there are fewer countries & more insanity. I'd prefer not reliving the crusades.
 
You're absolutely right. Why attack anyone? Let saddam keeps his WMDs & do as he pleases. We'll take our disorganized gang of UN thugs & just go home. Forget it ever happened.

The next time there are 3000 or 5000 or 10000 civilians killed, I'll send the reporters & victims families to YOUR door to explain the rationale.
 
And after we attack, and more SAUDI terrorists take out US citizens, we'll send them to YOUR door...:D
 
So are you saying if we do it, we should just make a clean sweep of the entire ME? I wouldn't be wholly against that.
 
Squiggy said:
And after we attack, and more SAUDI terrorists take out US citizens, we'll send them to YOUR door...
Click to expand...

It's a risk I'm willing to take.:headbang:
 
PT, Ive been suggesting for a couple of years to have 500,000 GIS & 500,000 allied troops start in Tel Aviv & march towards China. Clean the entire region up. Set up capitalistic democratic constitutional republics. Get them to their first free elections & let 'em have at it.

FREE IRAQ!!!
 
I think if we're going to declare war on terrorism, there should be no exemptions for being "oil friendly". Its the only way to maintain our dignity. If it means taking on the entire ME then so be it. At least there will be no hypocrisy clouding the history....
 
I've already explained why we don't directly attack SA now. It's not because they are oil friendly, it's because they are the center of the Muslim world... the holy land. I gave a clear analogy of the situation already. Part of fighting any war, including a war on terrorism, is doing everything possible to prevent the loss of lives of your own civilians in the process. You want to fight on their territory, not yours. Attacking SA would bring the war here in a very prominent way. Yet you're still harping on oil, even after the explanation of the Venezuelan and Mexican situations that illustrate that it isn't just about "getting their oil."

Look. It's a complex situation. Oil plays a role, just as half a dozen other things do. For you to shout "it's all about the oil" is about as short sighted as those who you are claiming are shouting "it's only about terrorism." It's about both, and much more. Why be so simplistic?
 
Professur said:
Um, Squiggy. You did see the results of last year's election in Iraq? 100% victory. Despite people saying that they'd deliberately spoiled their votes. Not to mention that there was only one name on the ballots to start with.
Click to expand...



so they were forced to vote?? are they forced to vote anyway or did they vote by choice?
Squiggy said:
So it IS oil....
Click to expand...


i think so personally but as prof said before too power is an issue here too.


Gonz said:
Oh, but I do, in theory. The idea fascinates me that someday we, as a planet, can overcome our petty differences & end war by playing by the same rules. Alls it takes is one pent up, egomaniacal idiot to ruin the whole plan. When one does, we need to stick together & take the SOB out. IF that means war, then so be it.
Click to expand...


so basically your for world peace by any means?? doesnt that contradict itself i mean violence begets violence doesnt it?
 
freako104 said:
so they were forced to vote?? are they forced to vote anyway or did they vote by choice?
Click to expand...

The choice was, vote for saddam or be shot. That is not a joke.

freako104 said:
doesnt that contradict itself i mean violence begets violence doesnt it?
Click to expand...

Find me one example, just one, where a dictator put down his gun & became a great leader because he signed a piece of paper. I'll save you the trouble. It doesn't exist. This is a world run by the agressive use of force. Stop them before they continue & eventually, peace exists. Violence does not beget violence...that's PC rhetoric.
 
outside looking in said:
I've already explained why we don't directly attack SA now. It's not because they are oil friendly, it's because they are the center of the Muslim world... the holy land. I gave a clear analogy of the situation already. Part of fighting any war, including a war on terrorism, is doing everything possible to prevent the loss of lives of your own civilians in the process. You want to fight on their territory, not yours. Attacking SA would bring the war here in a very prominent way. Yet you're still harping on oil, even after the explanation of the Venezuelan and Mexican situations that illustrate that it isn't just about "getting their oil."

Look. It's a complex situation. Oil plays a role, just as half a dozen other things do. For you to shout "it's all about the oil" is about as short sighted as those who you are claiming are shouting "it's only about terrorism." It's about both, and much more. Why be so simplistic?
Click to expand...

oli, I have realized the complexity of the situation since 9/11. Unfortunately, the emotions that were stirred by dubya with his "with us or against us" rhetoric, made it unamerican to attempt to speak of them. I seem to have developed a method of 'looking in all the windows ' instead of barging through the front door and saying what I think. Your input isn't falling on deaf or defiant ears. At times I try to get you to expound on points because I know that you "get it". If I can get you to say things, I stand a much better chance that some of the others will accept it than if I said it. Ultimately, I do believe that our collective emotions are being played for less than honorable goals. And it does anger me that SA gets a free ride through this when their fingerprints are all over the crime scene. SA is a way for me to make my points stick with most in these debates and discussions. Its a point they have to concede and that opens the door for discussion. :D
 
I guess our difference of opinions really just boils down to a matter of degree. We both agree on the ingredients of the cake, but we disagree on what the relative portions are in the final mix. Oil, human rights, greed, economics, political selfishness, political stability, terrorism... they all play a part, we just have different opinions on which are dominating the decisions of Bush and Blair.
 
Gonz said:
The choice was, vote for saddam or be shot. That is not a joke.
Click to expand...


so they were forced to vote in other words they prolly didnt want him in office i wasnt sure if he got there by legit means or any measures
Gonz said:
Find me one example, just one, where a dictator put down his gun & became a great leader because he signed a piece of paper. I'll save you the trouble. It doesn't exist. This is a world run by the agressive use of force. Stop them before they continue & eventually, peace exists. Violence does not beget violence...that's PC rhetoric.
Click to expand...


what i meant was that if we keep using violence its all well do. i do agree with stop them before they continue but can we do that without violence?? can we do that by negotiations and putting restrictions on said dicktator(i put the K there for a reason its not a typo its cause i want to imply they are assholes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top