It makes you wonder doesn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/w...ssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/w...ssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Was it oil all along?
senojekips
Active member
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was all over oil, but I would say that if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't have invaded.
senojekips
Active member
To be honest, "Because we fooked up" pure and simple, now it's all blown up in our face.
It's not nice, but it's a lot closer to the truth than we'll ever hear from those who pushed this war. Wars always push up the price of oil, even more so when they are disrupting the flow from the country where the war is being fought.
As much as the Saudi's are supposed to be our friends, they along with the other OPEC countries ar not going to miss a marketing opportunity like this.
There are far worse atrocities going on in the world than Saddam and his little games, but have we invaded them??
It's not nice, but it's a lot closer to the truth than we'll ever hear from those who pushed this war. Wars always push up the price of oil, even more so when they are disrupting the flow from the country where the war is being fought.
As much as the Saudi's are supposed to be our friends, they along with the other OPEC countries ar not going to miss a marketing opportunity like this.
There are far worse atrocities going on in the world than Saddam and his little games, but have we invaded them??
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The country's a mess, it's hard to get oil out of there and oil demand is sky high plus OPEC and the lot are cashing in while they still can.
That's why.
And plus, the Saudis were never really our friends. We are just a customer they like to keep reasonably happy. Also without America's support, Al Qaeda and the like will have them hanging from meat hooks before they can say "turban."
Or if they catch the last flights out, basking in their wealth in London while the rest of their population is in poverty
That's why.
And plus, the Saudis were never really our friends. We are just a customer they like to keep reasonably happy. Also without America's support, Al Qaeda and the like will have them hanging from meat hooks before they can say "turban."
Or if they catch the last flights out, basking in their wealth in London while the rest of their population is in poverty
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Was it ALL about oil. No way. There was pride involved too.
Marinerhodes
Active member
*sigh*. Go back..go back..go back. I am sure it was televised alot, hell there was even a huge countdown to the second. The main focus before the start of the war with Iraq was that Saddam would not let the UN Inspectors have unlimted access like they should have had. Kept kicking them out, kept limiting their movement. kept restricting visit times to certain places etc etc. The POTUS got tired of it and issued an ultimatum: Let them in or the US let's them in. In my humble opinion the rest is history.
I don't care what the newsmongers and naysayers and poo flingers say. This war was started on pride and principle, a willingness to stick to your guns so to speak. Iraq walked all over the UN (and by proxy the US)for 10 years or so (since the Gulf War) where weapons inspections are concerned. Look at all the embargoes and sanctions and BS that had no effect on the Iraqi government.
I am sick and tired of hearing people focus on the "War for Oil" and "It was all a sham we were lied to" bullcrap. Get real and look back at your history and the basic primal origins of this war at least a 6 months to a year BEFORE all the headlines came out.
Flame on. My mind is firmly set in this belief and will not be changed.
I don't care what the newsmongers and naysayers and poo flingers say. This war was started on pride and principle, a willingness to stick to your guns so to speak. Iraq walked all over the UN (and by proxy the US)for 10 years or so (since the Gulf War) where weapons inspections are concerned. Look at all the embargoes and sanctions and BS that had no effect on the Iraqi government.
I am sick and tired of hearing people focus on the "War for Oil" and "It was all a sham we were lied to" bullcrap. Get real and look back at your history and the basic primal origins of this war at least a 6 months to a year BEFORE all the headlines came out.
Flame on. My mind is firmly set in this belief and will not be changed.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Actually this is very true.
It was about WMDs, UN inspectors etc. There were apparently no WMDs but the fact is that the UN was denied inspection which made most people at the time believe there were in fact WMDs. Also, the fact that the UN didn't care about its own resolutions...
It's almost like the whole oil thing was one of those lies if repeated often enough becomes a truth.
Like I said, the war started after a lot of parties on all sides messed up pretty badly.
Was oil part of it? No doubt. Large oil businesses would have been stupid not to have tried to get a piece of the oil when the country was stabilized but that it was the main motivation is primarily a conspiracy theory for now.
It was about WMDs, UN inspectors etc. There were apparently no WMDs but the fact is that the UN was denied inspection which made most people at the time believe there were in fact WMDs. Also, the fact that the UN didn't care about its own resolutions...
It's almost like the whole oil thing was one of those lies if repeated often enough becomes a truth.
Like I said, the war started after a lot of parties on all sides messed up pretty badly.
Was oil part of it? No doubt. Large oil businesses would have been stupid not to have tried to get a piece of the oil when the country was stabilized but that it was the main motivation is primarily a conspiracy theory for now.
senojekips
Active member
If you are right, then why didn't we invade North Korea?? They've had ten times the chances, and spat in our face every time, and they actually HAVE developed a Nuke and demonstrated the fact to the world (p!ss poor though it may be)
They are playing ball at the moment because without the US investment the country was about to implode. Give them some time,... and when it suits them, they'll do it again.
Yes, Iraq was an embarrassment,.. but little else, you don't invade a sovereign nation just because they embarrass you. There was no danger and our governments knew it.
David Kelly exposed that fact years ago, and ended up committing suicide because of it. Not to mention the fact that despite five years of the most vigorous searches of all known sites and documents, nothing has ever been found that even smells of WMD, well, not since Chemical Ali's attack on the Kurds in the 1980s
Last edited:
Marinerhodes
Active member
Maybe that is what it was. How long ago was all this happening tho? I am sorry I don't keep up with Korea much. Read the arguments above as well. If someone you know to be hostile towards you says "I have a gun and I Will shoot you" are you going to argue with them or take appropriate measures to ensure your defense? A bit of a stretch in the analogy there but I think it applies in some part.
Same case here. We got out noses tweaked, the UN wasn't taking action to ensure the purpose of the weapons inspectors. In short the UN failed at it's job.
mmarsh
Active member
The Neocons had been wanting to remove Saddam since 1991. In 1998 they wrote Bill Clinton and urged him to attack Iraq, this letter was signed by Rumsfeld, Armitage, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other infamous neocons.
You'll see exerpts here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030316/ai_n12580901
In the letter, it specifically mentions the Fictitious Iraqi threat to World Oil Supply. So Oil was most defiantly a reason.
Secondly Iraq has the 2nd largest oil supply in the world. You cannot tell me that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ALL of which were oil industry execs didnt have deals going on with Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton, Conaco, BP and others for tapping Iraqis resources.
You cannot tell me in all sincerity that this was all coincidential. Why was the oil industry the first thing US forces protected when the invasion began whilist ignoring government buildings, cultural assets, and even ammo dumps. Why again was Halliburton already on the ground even BEFORE the fighting had actually stopped in 2003.
Now I grant you oil wasnt the ONLY reason, but it was definatly on the agenda.
Marinerhodes
Active member
I won't say that oil was not on the agenda. I am just saying that in my opinion it wasn't the MAIN reason.
Considering what happened in the Gulf War where they set fire to the oil wells I can see them securing them as one of the top priorities. Ignoring ammo dumps and other targets that can be strategically bombed or taken at a later date? Who knows. I was not the commander on the ground nor were you nor were the 5 billion other human beings on this rock we call home. I am sure they had specific objectives in mind and having secured thos objectives went to work on the secondary and tertiary objectives.
If I recall correctly Haliburton is a huge contractor involved with the US government. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why they had feet on the ground as well? Troops need places to stay and facilities to support them. Unless you are telling me Haliburton only has the capability to deal with oil and nothing else. Halliburton was originally (from what I read) brought in to contain any fires that may have been started. From there they were awarded a contract for other things to include facilities maintenance of the oil fields/refineries. Their KBR division was awarded some food service contracts as well. Granted there is a huge aura of scandal around halliburton regarding some of their billing practices. But that is a whole different topic.
As I have said before in several other threads in various ways: Don't presume you know the mind of another man when you haven't been the fly on the wall of his brain. Much of the "fact" and "observation" and research can be spun to go either way. There is another word for much of it: Supposition
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Hang on a sec:
1) Hussein said he didn't have WMD's ie had complied with UN resolutions.
2) The UN did not find WMD's.
3) The US/UK said he did have them, invaded and found out otherwise.
So exactly how did the UN fail at its job?
Seems to me that the only two parties that didn't lie to us were Hussein and the UN.
I am prepared to accept all sorts of "after the fact excuses and reasons" but please stop trying to pin this on the UN, they did the job but their answer didn't suit the US/UK (You may want to read Hans Blix book he has much more to say on the matter).
Last edited:
He may well have much more to say in a money-making book written from retrospect. But he had very little to say at the important moment when he was asked the question and given more and more time to come up with a conclusion. The UN waited - he sat on the fence.
If Hans Blix and the UN had done their job and punched their weight, the USA may not have felt obliged to intervene.
Hussein did not comply with UN resolutions, and the UN was not prepared to enforce them
senojekips
Active member
Tweaked??? It's cost the lives of over 4000 good men, needlessly wasted, not to mention 3 trillion dollars that could have been better spent on things like the clean up from Katrina, and the health care system.
Just compare this with the grief that was wrought by the loss of the 2948 persons who were killed on 9/11. Yes, those soldiers died over a period of 5 years, but that does not make it any easier for their loved ones. To think that they have died fighting for the political security of just a few politicians.
In years to come, our foolish pride will prevent many of us from admitting that those who orchestrated this are little better than those petty dictators in third world countries like Mugabe, Kim Jong Il et al.
We all see, but some of us never learn.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So let me see... The fact that UN weapons inspectors found no WMD's and said they had found no WMD's and it has since been accepted even by US weapons inspection teams that there were no WMD's means they failed?
He most certainly complied with the resolutions regarding WMD's though which if you remember was the first "excuse of choice" for invasion.
Funny thing is that about 3 weeks before the 2nd gulf war broke out I met a Kiwi who had been part of the UN inspection process and I asked him what his views were on this and his response was pretty clear... There is nothing there, there has been nothing there since GW1 but it doesn't matter because no matter what we report the US is going to invade anyway.
In fact the points you make are precisely those I am pushing .
Hans Blix and co were those responsible for the conclusions on Iraq's position and they would not come down off the fence and confirm that Hussein was fully complying and that they were satisfied that there was no WMD. We hung on their word and it was not forthcoming. If it had - then game over, Hussein in the clear.
If Hans Blix had said what your friend said, then game over. That message was never given.
Hans Blix and co were those responsible for the conclusions on Iraq's position and they would not come down off the fence and confirm that Hussein was fully complying and that they were satisfied that there was no WMD. We hung on their word and it was not forthcoming. If it had - then game over, Hussein in the clear.
If Hans Blix had said what your friend said, then game over. That message was never given.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
A note on why North Korea is immune to a strike: Seoul which has about 24 million people living in its metropolitan area is in range of North Korean artillery strikes. If you ever visit this place you will realize that it isn't rocket science to figure out that even hours of conventional strikes will kill people in the high hundreds of thousands. If you throw in chemical weapons (North Korea has these 100%) we're talking about casualties in the millions on the opening week. Any first strike is out of the question.
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.
A note on why North Korea is immune to a strike: Seoul which has about 24 million people living in its metropolitan area is in range of North Korean artillery strikes. If you ever visit this place you will realize that it isn't rocket science to figure out that even hours of conventional strikes will kill people in the high hundreds of thousands. If you throw in chemical weapons (North Korea has these 100%) we're talking about casualties in the millions on the opening week. Any first strike is out of the question.