Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chukpike My mistake I could have sworn the first quote above was yours. It seems to suggest the only reason to invade was oil. |
As Henderson said: It was a obvious rhethorical question, stop intrepreting everything quite so literally. I never actually said that it was the
only reason now did I? What I was suggesting was that it was the
PRINCIPAL reason, which I think most people but you seemed to understand.
As I said earlier there were worse hellholes than Iraq, if we really want to believe the Bush excuse for Invading Iraq of "Liberating the Iraqi People" than explain why we didnt start with Myanmar or the Sudan?
Another (not so) odd coincidence was that many of the decision makers of the Iraq War were oil men, and had deep relations with large oil companies.
13th Redneck
Ill agree part of what you said. It was about oil AND the government misunderestimated the cost of getting the oil out. Basically it was thought that Iraq would be a quick score. They thought that they could quickly get production back up the moment the country was stablized, resistence minimal and that losses would be negligable. Forgetting of course that the UN sanctions would have severely damaged the Iraqi oil industry or that the system would be damaged by both the invasion or internal sobotoge and of course resistence was worse then they ever thought possible having never read a history book about the dire fate of most western armies in muslim countries. Needless to say they were wrong on almost every count.