Was it oil all along?

the_13th_redneck said:
So the question is, was it oil after all?
I do not believe that it was the primary reason unless oil companies managed to deceive the parties involved into launching an invasion. But that of course, is another conspiracy theory. It's not uncommon to get intel through companies posted abroad and because of the political lenses intel goes through it could have painted a very different picture at the White House at the time. Or they bought a few people out which is ALWAYS a possibility. But again, all conspiracy theories for now.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it was entirely about oil either I am guessing there were many reasons for the invasion and only about 50% were about doing the right thing I think the other 50% were purely political and personal.

As far as intelligence goes I my personal belief is that agencies were under increasing pressure to find and allow reasons for misinterpretation such as dual use items being reported as being for military use only ie Chemical A is used to manufacture pesticides and can be used in weapons gets reported as a weapons grade chemical.
 
As I said before, a LOT of parties messed up that led to the invasion and now the way things have fallen into place, a rapid withdrawal will only make things worse both in the short run but especially in the long run. They have to drop the talk about pulling out altogether.
 
MontyB said:
Have you read his book at all?
Because he gives his reasons in it and I think that most people outside the US/UK had accepted the UN's "we have found no evidence of WMD's" statement for what it was and thats why they rejected US calls for an attack.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't read the book, because at the time I found his performance so frustrating and the UN so weak-kneed .

So, having not read it I cannot challenge your informed version.

I can only re-iterate my own opinion, repeated so many times on the forum, that I still am not comfortable with the current acceptance of the Iraq and Sadaam question, and still await the clarification of history; it just don't make sense to me; a tyrant as clever as this guy sticking his neck straight into the noose?

I have the greatest respect for the manipulative and artful politics of these Islamic figureheads and their tremendous long game. It took them 200 years to rid themselves of the Crusaders, and I am sure that the Taliban, for example, and Al Qaeda, have similar aspirations if necessary. They respect power and need to be convinced of a preferable alternative of peace.

You can't do that by continually blinking first.

Just my opinion as a long term watcher.
 
I think you are looking for excuses myself.

I like it or not Blix was there he knew what the situation really was and reported it as such, the report was "We have found no evidence of WMD's" now I will concede that it is an open statement simply by the use of the words "evidence" but then the entire justice system is founded on the same system and we understand that fully people are not found "innocent" they are found "not guilty".

In terms of Husseins ability to hide thousands of tons of chemicals and biological components I think even you have to admit that it is extremely unlikely given the amount of surveillance and searching that has been done since 1991 and if you are going to use this argument then why "If" he had them didn't he use them during the invasion?
 
In simple terms I do not need excuses - excuses for what?

In simple terms, I do not trust Hans Blix any more than I trust the UN. No-one can deny that Sadaam was a loose cannon and that the UN did nothing to contain him.

In simple terms, you have your opinion and I have mine. That is fair enough, is it not.

Just like Hans Blix, I do not know what went on in Iraq, but there again, of course, I was not paid to know and I didn't produce a money-making book with all the answers.

Let me put it this way - if WMD were in Iraq, only the USA was prepared to do anything about it. The UN was unavailable - they were busy washing their hair at the time.
 
I think it's worth reading about the other side of the coin as well as your own side. In fact, I think it's more worth the time to see what it is the opposing side thinks since I don't need a book to tell me something I already know. When I dish out money for a book, I want to be educated, not have my nuts tickled.
 
Del Boy said:
Let me put it this way - if WMD were in Iraq, only the USA was prepared to do anything about it. The UN was unavailable - they were busy washing their hair at the time.
Click to expand...

This is without a doubt one of the most mind boggling insights into a persons thought processes I have seen yet.

So you think ignoring information, making up intelligence and starting a war thats killed tens of thousands of people is just something the world should brush off as being one of those pesky little mistakes people make from time to time?
 
Last edited:
Boy!! am I glad I've steered clear of this shitefite.

Standing on the outside just looking in I can see how certain persons turn what could be a logical debate into rubbish.
 
It wouldn't have mattered what Hans Blix had said, the US didn't want to hear. They would have invaded anyway.

Seno, MontyB, etc are correct, the US neocons were very keen to get into Iraq back in the 90's to create a democracy smack bang in the centre of the Middle East. It was hoped, and still is, that this will spread to Iraq's neighbours. Stability within the nations supplying the US with most of its oil was irresistable. 9/11 was the catalyst.

The "WMD" spin is one of the gratest cons perpetrated on the US public since the Vietnam war. Colin Powell must wish he never got involved.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
This is without a doubt one of the most mind boggling insights into a persons thought processes I have seen yet.

So you think ignoring information, making up intelligence and starting a war thats killed tens of thousands of people is just something the world should brush off as being one of those pesky little mistakes people make from time to time?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Don't attribute your words to me.

Let me make this even simpler for you - No it was not oil all along, as this thread has established.
 
Last edited:
Surely it wasn't just oil, but in my opinion oil made up a major part of the sum that lead to the invation of Iraq.

And no matter what UN or Hans Blix would say, trainloads of armoured vehicles was rolling accross the US continent headed for the East-Coast even a year before the show started...

So when Hans Blix presented no evidence of WMD in Iraq, the "someones" who saw a need to shut down Saddam's reign heard what they wanted to hear.
They concluded that Blix had failed to produce the "smoking gun" and came up with their own theories, wich of course had to make Blix look reluctant (in the best case) or even incompetent in the eyes of the public opinion.

The war was unevitable, but it would have been a lot easier to swallow if Blix had given them a match to lit the fuse..

My guess is that the followers of Morgan Swangerai in Zimbabwe is crying their eyes out in bitter tears that there are no oil resources present in their country..
 
To simplify matters, let's just say that the evidence pointing towards oil being the major reason for the invasion, is far more voluminous and a lot more credible than the evidence that the Iraqi's had WMD.
 
senojekips said:
To simplify matters, let's just say that the evidence pointing towards oil being the major reason for the invasion, is far more voluminous and a lot more credible than the evidence that the Iraqi's had WMD.
Click to expand...


And, as someone said back then (before the invation) regarding Saddam and the possible existence of WMD's.
"Even if they have any, their only way of delivering it would be by camel!"

Ah, I suddenly came to remember a shipload of upgraded Scud-type missiles being intecepted somwhere in the gulf back in the days, nobody knew exactly where they were going, but they sure came from the afore mentioned "socialist labour and peasant paradise" in North Korea...

And now they worry about Iran??? :bang:
 
Can't strike North Korea because you'll have over a million civilian dead in the first week of the war and the destruction of one of the major economies. Those two in itself will do more damage than any damned North Korean grade WMD.
Over 23 million people live in Seoul packed in dense apartments and it is within North Korean artillery range.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Can't strike North Korea because you'll have over a million civilian dead in the first week of the war and the destruction of one of the major economies. Those two in itself will do more damage than any damned North Korean grade WMD.
Over 23 million people live in Seoul packed in dense apartments and it is within North Korean artillery range.
Click to expand...

And those facts doesn't make North-Korea less anoying and potentially dangerous, and I suppose the leaders in Pyong Yang is fully aware of that..
 
Potentially dangerous as in being able to smuggle out a very basic nuclear bomb compared to having over a million civilians dead in South Korea in the first week of fighting alone? I'd say the math isn't very good.
The body count would be higher if they used chemical weapons on the South.
As a result of action like this, Korea can go over to the Chinese side entirely which would put Japan in a shaky position, wondering if it's doing the right thing by siding with the Americans.
It's a problem that just seems to have no answer. The North Koreans just have themselves an unbeatable insurance policy. Imagine Saddam Hussein had the ability to launch a REAL firestorm against Israel. That would have been his insurance policy. He didn't have one, so off he went.
 
84RFK said:
Surely it wasn't just oil, but in my opinion oil made up a major part of the sum that lead to the invation of Iraq.

And no matter what UN or Hans Blix would say, trainloads of armoured vehicles was rolling accross the US continent headed for the East-Coast even a year before the show started...

So when Hans Blix presented no evidence of WMD in Iraq, the "someones" who saw a need to shut down Saddam's reign heard what they wanted to hear.
They concluded that Blix had failed to produce the "smoking gun" and came up with their own theories, wich of course had to make Blix look reluctant (in the best case) or even incompetent in the eyes of the public opinion.

The war was unevitable, but it would have been a lot easier to swallow if Blix had given them a match to lit the fuse..

My guess is that the followers of Morgan Swangerai in Zimbabwe is crying their eyes out in bitter tears that there are no oil resources present in their country..
Click to expand...

Nicely put, I think it covers the UN side of this argument very well. While I am still not convinced that oil was a driving force for the invasion I do believe it was probably seen as the bonus prize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top