Yup... we fought Iraq for oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt

There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.
 
you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt
Yes,...that is why the US is invading North Korea, Zimbabwe, and a dozen other places ruled by similar persons next week.

It was merely "a convenience" that Saddam was the leader in Iraq and that he happened to be a tyrant. There were multiple reasons, however I don't believe any or all of them, would have caused the country to have been invaded if it were not for the fact that Iran had a truly world class oil supply.
 
consider the Oil as a Bonus alright?
abouth the N.Korea and all the other places,with a president like the US has got now,i will no be suprised if he would house these guys in his house

oh and saddam,he killed ALOT of his own men and women and even curds i think ,i would consider him a big threat,not to the world,but to the Iraqi ppl
 
Last edited:
consider the Oil as a Bonus alright?
abouth the N.Korea and all the other places,with a president like the US has got now,i will no be suprised if he would house these guys in his house

oh and saddam,he killed ALOT of his own men and women and even curds i think ,i would consider him a big threat,not to the world,but to the Iraqi ppl
You are quite correct, he was definitely not a nice person,... but neither is Mugabe and Kim Jong Il, but they live in peace because they do not threaten our oil supplies.
 
well the world is all about Money,but im not sure that was the ONLY motive,im not a Naiv person,ofcourse this was one of the motives,but im not sure it was the main
 
But did he ever say it?

I don't know what he has said because I have never spoken to him personally. I only read what he posted. If it was not what mmarsh posted, he should complain to the moderators and find out who is posting in his name.

Chukpike, you've really got to start reading more critically... Ever heard of the term "rhetorical question"?
[sarcasm]
I do not have your psychic abilities to read what someone else states and determine that is not what they meant. [sarcasm]

Obviously there are circumstances in which the invasion of Iraq would be justified... Like, Bush senior not finishing the job... [/sarcasm]

So apparently invading Iraq was justified after all, with nothing to do with oil. Just go back and finish the job. Thanks for the clarification[sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.

So you prefer Saddam Hussein over the Mullahs in Iran.
So you do not believe what you previously posted in the topic:

Topic: Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

"5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet."

and you would prefer Saddam Hussein,
The same Saddam Hussein who orchestrated the genocide of the Kurds in North Iraq.

The same Saddam Hussein who slaughtered Shiites in the south, after they rose up against him after Desert Storm.

Certainly clarifies your views as to why invading Iraq was such a bad decision.
 
So apparently invading Iraq was justified after all, with nothing to do with oil. Just go back and finish the job. Thanks for the clarification[sarcasm]
And obviously you can't read what people post even when they spell it out for you... When someone wraps "sarcasm tags" around something ( [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] ) it means that person is being sarcastic inside those tags. That would be the purpose for using the sarcasm tags. Is this making sense, or should I get Mr. Rogers in her to explain it using song? When I said "Obviously there are circumstances..." I was being sarcastic. Hence the sarcasm tags. Understand?


As 13th said, oil DID play a part in Iraq. A HUGE part. It may not have been the only motivation, I certainly don't believe it was, but it was still in the top 5 or top 3.
 
The Afghanistan Invasion was our good deed.

Sure it wasn't to kick some ass after 9/11 for political reasons? If so why refuse to have anything to do with the country, then go in straight after this happened?
 
It was to show the American people that we were "doing something" about the attacks. That's what I meant by good deed... It was the excuse to get us into a Middle Eastern Theater.
 
Read up on Mugabe... You know about Jong-Il... There are plenty of terrible people in the world... Why start in Iraq? (side note, we originally invaded Afghanistan... Where the terrorists were)...
 
I know about Kim Jong-il. Taliban makes the stuff he did look like a slow walk through a park during day time. That book I have up for suggestion is a real eye opener. Also, not written by a Wetern journalist, but a Pakistani. Published back in 2001 before relations between the US and Pakistan really went south.
Read my sentence, says nothing about Iraq.
 
It just seems awful convenient that we started in the country next door to the second biggest oil field in the world, AND the country that GWB's father fought against in the 90s....
 
Why Iraq first? Your justification is that the Taliban shouldn't be allowed to exist... I agree, but there are other places in the world that are just as bad if not worse...
 
I don't think it gets any worse than the Taliban at this point.
I've read about a lot of bad people but they really get the number 1 position for the most evil dudes in the modern world.

As for Iraq, it was a mistake to go in but once you mess it up, you have an obligation to fix it. Whether or not it was worth it, or right for that matter, will depend on whether or not the Iraqis can make their country into a respectable one. Twenty years from now, if Iraq turns out alright it'll be another country that the US brought freedom to. If not... well I'm sure you have the answers to that one.
 
Why Iraq first? Your justification is that the Taliban shouldn't be allowed to exist... I agree, but there are other places in the world that are just as bad if not worse...

If you believe US foreign policy began after 9/11 then it is understandable why you would want to know why we started with Afghanistan and Iraq. If you look further back in history you might realize that Iraq was not first.

You could say we kicked the British out for messing with our tea supply.:)

Happy Fourth of July.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it gets any worse than the Taliban at this point.
I've read about a lot of bad people but they really get the number 1 position for the most evil dudes in the modern world.

As for Iraq, it was a mistake to go in but once you mess it up, you have an obligation to fix it. Whether or not it was worth it, or right for that matter, will depend on whether or not the Iraqis can make their country into a respectable one. Twenty years from now, if Iraq turns out alright it'll be another country that the US brought freedom to. If not... well I'm sure you have the answers to that one.
There's just so much bad in the world... I don't even know if you could give it to just one group of people...

As to Iraq, you're right. I agree completely... We should never have gone in, but we owe it to those innocents to stay and fix what we screwed up. My only qualm about the whole thing is that there seems to be a number of Iraqis who DON'T want democracy... Those who don't want to be like the West, just because they've been programmed to hate it. I know a fair amount of the reason for that appearance is the news, but the fact that they can get that kind of story out there doesn't bode well... As long as there is one person who DOESN't want democracy and freedom over there, the Taliban and Al Queda will have a recruiting base.....


If you believe US foreign policy began after 9/11 then it is understandable why you would want to know why we started with Afganistan and Iraq. If you look further back in history you might realize that Iraq was not first.

You could say we kicked the Brittish out for messing with our tea supply.:)

Happy Fouth of July.
So you're comparing colonial Great Britain with the atrocities the Taliban has committed? Not by a LONG shot friend. You're completely off the grid with that one.


British has one 't', and fourth has a 't' in it as well... Must be the keyboard.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top