Was it oil all along? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
June 23rd, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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?
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.
June 24th, 2008  
84RFK
 
 
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..
June 24th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
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.
--
Boots
June 25th, 2008  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.

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???
June 25th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
June 25th, 2008  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
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.
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..
June 25th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
June 26th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84RFK
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..
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.
June 27th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.

I agree 100%.
June 27th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
It would be hard to argue with that.
 


Similar Topics
Deals With Iraq Are Set To Bring Oil Giants Back
A Crude Case For War?
Chavez orders troops to Colombian border
Iraq's Oil Production Falls Short Of Goals
Iraqis Reach An Accord On Oil Revenues