PROOF POSITIVE The Iraq War Was For The Oil!

[Redneck]

Haven't you heard? Bush is Diablo-Incarnate. Everything he does, at any given time, is evil, at that same instant of time.

No! It's all Cheney. Bush is just a figurehead for the Dick Cheney regime that wants to steal the oil and terrorize the hapless Iraqis and do unspeakable horrors by not bowing to the will of the United Nations.

 

[JPPT1974]

No! It's all Cheney. Bush is just a figurehead for the Dick Cheney regime that wants to steal the oil and terrorize the hapless Iraqis and do unspeakable horrors by not bowing to the will of the United Nations.

Are you trying to say that Cheney made Bush his "straight man" or "foil?"

 

[msufan]

OK, folks, oil was probably the reason we got into Iraq, and it is certainly the reason we won't be leaving anytime soon. Many wars may be fought over oil as the world's production continues to decline.

Oil hit $64 a barrel today and may well be headed for $100 soon and $200 in the not-too-distant future.

Have any of you read about peak oil and the coming oil crisis? If not, you really should.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

 

[Moros]

I have a hard time believing that "the war" (if you can call it that) was staged solely for oil. It's a bit too far fetched.

 

[Redneck]

Are you trying to say that Cheney made Bush his "straight man" or "foil?"

I'm trying to make a joke.

 

[reverend B]

the reason the administration seems to "be in bed" with the saudis and yet may be trying to get another huge source of oil is, they aren't. the saudis are in bed and the u.s. sleeps on the floor. we are at their mercy regarding the energy resource we run on. we would love to get out from under them.
unfortunately, we haven't been able to get a drop, as the pipelines and refineries in iraq are repeatedly blown up. we have made almost no progress in the ability of the oil fields to provide a drop since the war began. curses, foiled again.

 

[Grizzly]

I have a hard time believing that "the war" (if you can call it that) was staged solely for oil. It's a bit too far fetched.

Well, at first it was sold as a part of the war on terror. But, oddly, no links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq were found. There were certainly stronger ties in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and, of course, Afghanistan. Then we were told that Saddam had the dreaded WMD's. Of course, even if he had them, he had no way to get them to the US. But as we know, that was also false. No WMD's. No ties to Al Qaeda.

Additionally, we have strong evidence that the Bush administration was planning this war well before 9/11. Now, planning for a war that might happen is not necessarily a bad thing. It's good to be prepared for any possible contingency. But why were we planning this? Why did we even care? Sure, Saddam was a dictator who committed atrocities on some of his people. But those dictators are a dime a dozen. Why Iraq?

I think its a viable question.

 

[TheReasoner]

I have a hard time believing that "the war" (if you can call it that) was staged solely for oil. It's a bit too far fetched.

Why?
Since when was money unimportant to a country in economic rough times?
It won't save your nation though... 'He who lives by the sword will die by the sword' probably applies to guns as well...
Though I wish it didn't USA falling will be .... Disastrous.


And if it is not a war, then what is it? A war on terror? On an evil dictatorship?
If so, why did you send them weapons earlier? And why did you give money to the Iranians the Iraqui fought? Why did you fund and practically run the Nicaraguan Civil War for fifty years?
Did none of this happen?
The USA is great. Yes, a lot of good has come from it.
But the USA is neither innocent nor an avatar for good.
The USA is also undemocratic, and judging by the past - it is not only possible, but likely that this war was not about anything but furthering US economic interests.

 

[Rik]

Well, at first it was sold as a part of the war on terror. But, oddly, no links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq were found. No ties to Al Qaeda.

Actually, the 9-11 commission reported that while there was evidence of ties between Iraq and AQ, they found no direct link between Iraq and 9-11. Big difference that has been twisted and ignored by the left and anti-war people.


R

 

[bigat]

That doesn't make any sense though. It's just another diversion from the fact that we have a criminal running the country. And some people would rather make jokes than to face that fact.

Just A criminal? How about several - there isn't one politician that isn't dirty. There isn't one person that isn't dirty. No matter who you put in office - they will be dirty. Our politics are corrupt and need to change.

 

[Buckeye]

IF it was about oil, just what exactly is wrong with that?


Oil/petroleum is the lifeblood of our economy and lifestyles. Just what would be wrong with trying to obtain access to a veritable unlimited supply?

 

[Grizzly]

Actually, the 9-11 commission reported that while there was evidence of ties between Iraq and AQ, they found no direct link between Iraq and 9-11. Big difference that has been twisted and ignored by the left and anti-war people.


R

Actually, no. There has been no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There were some low-level talks, but nothing came of it. No training camps, no terrorists cells. Nada. This point is often missed by the right and pro-war people.

Remember, Iraq was a secular nation, and Saddam a secular leader. Al-Qaeda believed in Islamic Rule. There was no love lost between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

 

[Grizzly]

IF it was about oil, just what exactly is wrong with that?


Oil/petroleum is the lifeblood of our economy and lifestyles. Just what would be wrong with trying to obtain access to a veritable unlimited supply?

Well, for one thing, it would go against the Christian principles of a "just war". Jesus might not be too happy that we would be willing to kill people just because we wanted to steal their stuff.

Secondly, if it was all about oil, it would mean that we were lied to by our leadership into the reasons for war. That is, we are putting our soldiers lives at risk for what would be a lie. Surely you could see a problem with that?

 

[Rik]

Actually, no. There has been no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There were some low-level talks, but nothing came of it. No training camps, no terrorists cells. Nada. This point is often missed by the right and pro-war people.

Remember, Iraq was a secular nation, and Saddam a secular leader. Al-Qaeda believed in Islamic Rule. There was no love lost between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

OK, so they talked about some things...but there were no links. That makes sense. There's plenty of evidence linking them but people on the left and anti-war people choose to either ignore or dismiss it out of hand. Apparently the only time people on the left will lend credence to "evidence" is when it makes GWB look bad.

R

 

[Rik]

Remember, Iraq was a secular nation, and Saddam a secular leader. Al-Qaeda believed in Islamic Rule. There was no love lost between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Yes, and supposedly there is no love lost between Iraq and Iran either. Especially after being at war with each other for 8 years. Not to mention that Iran also believes in Islamic rule. Meanwhile a huge shipment of weapons, bombs (including IEDs that have been killing US troops), bomb making material, and other munitions was intercepted on it's way from Iran into Iraq last week.

Ever hear of the term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Is it really so hard to believe that Saddam would have helped AQ in their quest to destroy America?

 

[Grizzly]

OK, so they talked about some things...but there were no links. That makes sense. There's plenty of evidence linking them but people on the left and anti-war people choose to either ignore or dismiss it out of hand. Apparently the only time people on the left will lend credence to "evidence" is when it makes GWB look bad.

R

Hmm. I'm talking to you right now. Does that "link" us together?

Let's say that I contacted you and wanted to set up a camp for terrorists in your backyard. Later on, you tell me no, that is not acceptable. Would the mere fact that we had this conversation "link" us together and justify an invasion of your backyard?

 

[Grizzly]

Ever hear of the term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Is it really so hard to believe that Saddam would have helped AQ in their quest to destroy America?

But the fact is, he didn't, did he?

but to put us back on track, there were plenty of other countries with much stronger "links" to Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia for one. Syria for another. Both have had actual know Al-Qaeda terrorists working/living/training in their countries. Why not invade them?

How many Iraqi's were on the planes that flew into our buildings? I can count that number on no hands....

 

[Rik]

Hmm. I'm talking to you right now. Does that "link" us together?

Let's say that I contacted you and wanted to set up a camp for terrorists in your backyard. Later on, you tell me no, that is not acceptable. Would the mere fact that we had this conversation "link" us together and justify an invasion of your backyard?

(See my post, above)

 

[Rik]

But the fact is, he didn't, did he?

OK, since you assert that it is a fact that there were no ties between Iraq and AQ, I challenge you to prove it. In the meantime, here's some interesting reading for you. Scroll down to the part where it talks about about Saddam giving aid and medical treatment to Al-Zawahari in Baghdad. Sure sounds like some cooperation to me. And don't forget that the only one of the three original WTC bombers in 93 was taken and and supported by none other than Saddam himself:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

But hey, until Saddam himself comes out and admits that he had ties to AQ some people will never believe it, no matter how much evidence...

R

 

[Loukuss]

OK, so they talked about some things...but there were no links. That makes sense. There's plenty of evidence linking them but people on the left and anti-war people choose to either ignore or dismiss it out of hand. Apparently the only time people on the left will lend credence to "evidence" is when it makes GWB look bad.

R

Can you please show me the "plenty of evidence"?