1
   

Why Are We In Iraq? For the Oil, of Course!

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 06:48 pm
So, Old Europe wanted to keep the status quo with Saddam for oil.

The US shattered the status quo with our invasion for oil.

What do both have in common?

The oil.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 06:51 pm
Yep.
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 08:17 pm
The world is in a fight for oil, only we would rather see a free democratic society selling it to us. The other would have rather kept the "status quo" and let Saddam stay in power. There is no question which is better for the region or the world.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 08:27 pm
We'd rather see a stooge state, a "democracy" in which a select oligarchy prostrates itself for our and their own self interests.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 09:23 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
We'd rather see a stooge state, a "democracy" in which a select oligarchy prostrates itself for our and their own self interests.


Yep and the monetary exchange switched back from euros to dollars... That's the reason, the real reason, not the one presented as palatable to the public... Sad Mad Crying or Very sad It's all about power and control. Sad Mad Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 09:33 pm
Certainly it's not about democracy and freeing Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 10:12 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I would say it's impossible to say Oil wasn't involved, but it was hardly the only reason.


Absolute.

Economic interests will always intrude upon interests of any other sort.

It is naive to the extreme, to think otherwise.

This, of course, doesn't mean that economic interests always prevail.

However, what is absurd about the allegation that Bush invaded Iraq due to Oil interests is that serving such interests could so much more readily have been met by any number of options...other than war.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 07:46 am
InfraBlue wrote:
So, Old Europe wanted to keep the status quo with Saddam for oil.

The US shattered the status quo with our invasion for oil.

What do both have in common?

The oil.


That's it in a nutshell.

It simply is not right to invade a country to get their oil. So it seems to me that if both the anti-war countries and the US and Britian are in it for the oil interest at least the anti-war crowd didn't kill people to do it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 10:35 am
Xena Wrote:
Quote:
The world is in a fight for oil, only we would rather see a free democratic society selling it to us. The other would have rather kept the "status quo" and let Saddam stay in power. There is no question which is better for the region or the world.


Really?

We bought plenty of oil from Iraq before they switched their oil standard to the Euro.

We buy oil from SA and other ME countries who are caliphates and monarchies, not democracies. I don't see us invading them anytime soon in order to bring 'liberty' to their people.

It doesn't matter if we would 'rather' see a democracy selling us the oil, that does NOT give us the right to invade and set one up!!!!!

The switch to the euro standard by Iraq was the deciding factor leading to war. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were seriously considering the same thing back in 2001, and why not? If they did, it would have meant about 20% more money in their pockets immediately. That's hard to turn down.

But, that switch would have cost us here in the US BILLIONS of dollars, because we would have to actually start paying our bills instead of printing more money. Can't have that, can we? So, it's off to war! Innocent Iraqi lives? What? Pfff! We'll use 'surgical' and 'smart' attacks.

Yeah f*cking right. Boy, I'm pissed off today. Greed really makes me mad, what is it with people and their insane lust for money?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 10:38 am
Quote:
Yeah f*cking right. Boy, I'm pissed off today. Greed really makes me mad, what is it with people and their insane lust for money?


That's a damned good question, as the next generation of Americans born today may automatically be stuck with the enormous burden of debt by these greedy bastards, especially when the baby boomers enter retirement.
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 11:06 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Xena Wrote:
Quote:
The world is in a fight for oil, only we would rather see a free democratic society selling it to us. The other would have rather kept the "status quo" and let Saddam stay in power. There is no question which is better for the region or the world.


Really?

We bought plenty of oil from Iraq before they switched their oil standard to the Euro.

We buy oil from SA and other ME countries who are caliphates and monarchies, not democracies. I don't see us invading them anytime soon in order to bring 'liberty' to their people.

It doesn't matter if we would 'rather' see a democracy selling us the oil, that does NOT give us the right to invade and set one up!!!!!

The switch to the euro standard by Iraq was the deciding factor leading to war. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were seriously considering the same thing back in 2001, and why not? If they did, it would have meant about 20% more money in their pockets immediately. That's hard to turn down.

But, that switch would have cost us here in the US BILLIONS of dollars, because we would have to actually start paying our bills instead of printing more money. Can't have that, can we? So, it's off to war! Innocent Iraqi lives? What? Pfff! We'll use 'surgical' and 'smart' attacks.

Yeah f*cking right. Boy, I'm pissed off today. Greed really makes me mad, what is it with people and their insane lust for money?

Cycloptichorn


Your just plain insane, I'm mad that people like you can not see the wisdom in liberating Iraq.

Other countries didn't have 12 years of resolutions and a no-fly zone which was being shot at continuously.. It is stupid to think we could "invade" every other country.. You are more of a hawk than any republican if you feel that's what we should do.

12 years of resolutions, Zarqawi a chemicals expert with Al-Queda a training camp to the north and which borders Iran. A very good more!


The sanctions were not working and you can read the UN report about it at their website,
http://www.un.org/english/
DO A SEARCH



Saddam Hussein is in violation of the following United Nations Security Council Resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.
Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.
Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.
Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.
Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997 "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997 "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 11:09 am
What the hell was that you just listed?

A listing of the sanctions means nothing. The US is in violation of about 25 UN regulations, and Israel something like 50. It's no reason to invade a country and stir up a hornet's nest.

You missed the point of what I wrote completely. Not that I'm surprised. Please try re-reading it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 11:14 am
I've never seen such a disconnect between a posted quote and a heated copy-and-paste response.

I could list the many U.N. violations BOTH the U.S. and Israel have committed, but that wouldn't be germaine to the topic in question.

The fact that Xena cannot refute Cycloptichorn's compelling argument speaks volumes.

Well, I guess she did, in a way...

I guess you're just plain insane, then, Cycloptichorn.

Oh, and didn't somebody call you a baby hater on another thread (i.e., McGentrix)?

The neocons on Able2know are getting more vitriolic in their responses. Must be the effect from the oil.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 11:17 am
Spending billions of dollars on invading Iraq to try and keep oil prices under $3.00 a gallon seems like false economy to me
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:52 am
Xena wrote:
We're in Iraq alright, but not for the Oil.. Hasn't anyone wondered the real reason France, Germany and Russia weren't in favor of taking out Saddam? It was the Oil, stupid... Yeah, there was an ant-war, oil for food fraud that needed to be protected..


The US was in on the oil for food fraud as well. According to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it.

United States sanctions on Iraq had prohibited American companies and individuals from interacting directly with Iraqi officials. But the oil dealers were permitted to get special authorization from the federal government to bid on United Nations contracts under the oil-for-food program. Tony Fratto, a Treasury Department spokesman, said the agency was "actively investigating" whether the American entities and people circumvented that requirement.

Among American companies and citizens, Mr. Wyatt was by far the largest recipient of oil allocations, as recorded on the secret list maintained by the Iraqi government, the report says.

from:
The New York Times October 9, 2004 Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein By JUDITH MILLER and ERIC LIPTON
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 08:22:13