Civil War In Iraq Options

[Hartmann]

Personally, I am all for this. Let's let the sectarian violence escalate, pull our boys out, let the Iraqis duke it out, and whoever comes out on top, they proved themselves and we just leave it alone.

A civil war does not directly affect this country. It effects the countries in the Middle East and should give them a swift kick in the rear to take part in their surroundings and help.

[pebkac]

Personally, I am all for this. Let's let the sectarian violence escalate, pull our boys out, let the Iraqis duke it out, and whoever comes out on top, they proved themselves and we just leave it alone.

A civil war does not directly affect this country. It effects the countries in the Middle East and should give them a swift kick in the rear to take part in their surroundings and help.

Riiiiiiiiiiggghhhht.

We invade a country and don't stay behind to help clean up the mess. Besides that, a civil war could hurt us, especially if fundamentalist Muslims take over.

[Psykopath]

Personally, I am all for this. Let's let the sectarian violence escalate, pull our boys out, let the Iraqis duke it out, and whoever comes out on top, they proved themselves and we just leave it alone.

A civil war does not directly affect this country. It effects the countries in the Middle East and should give them a swift kick in the rear to take part in their surroundings and help.

So.....

We just pull out of the country without fufilling our objectives/promises, eh?

So why the fuck did we invade them again? What purpose would our invasion had served if we went this route?

[Hartmann]

I don't remember ever telling the Iraqi's "We are going to end violence in your country".

I think our number one objective was (no matter how clouded by WMD) to get Saddam out of power. The guy was a time bomb.

I guess my reasoning for posting this was that I am tired of hearing "the country is teetering on the brink of civil war". Well, then it's been teetering pretty well for a couple of years now.

[Psykopath]

Isn't that a bit fucked up to let such a country in such a volitale region just fall into a civil war?
I mean, wouldn't that make it even more of a haven for terrorists than it is now?

Kind of defeats the purpose/defies any and all logical reasoning...but then again, the right wing does that quite often.

[Hartmann]

Isn't that a bit fucked up to let such a country in such a volitale region just fall into a civil war?
I mean, wouldn't that make it even more of a haven for terrorists than it is now?

Kind of defeats the purpose/defies any and all logical reasoning...but then again, the right wing does that quite often.

See you assume I am right wing, when in fact I lean to the left on a lot of issues. But assumptions are fairly normal on this board.

I stand behind the war in Iraq mostly because my friends are there.

I think that the problem is that people keep saying it is going to fall into civil war just to keep their ratings up when in fact there is no civil war anywhere on the horizon. To me, this war is slowly becoming forgotten, so slowly that no one even notices.

[Psykopath]

See you assume I am right wing, when in fact I lean to the left on a lot of issues. But assumptions are fairly normal on this board.

I stand behind the war in Iraq mostly because my friends are there.

I think that the problem is that people keep saying it is going to fall into civil war just to keep their ratings up when in fact there is no civil war anywhere on the horizon. To me, this war is slowly becoming forgotten, so slowly that no one even notices.

not necessarily calling you right wing. I actually hear the "let 'em have a civil war" arguement quite frequently on campus from obvious right-wingers, hence why I tagged that arguement to that side of the political spectrum.


I agree with you somewhat on that last point though. People are semi-forgetting/losing interest in this war.

[Hartmann]

It's what we get for living in the ADD nation.


Ultimately I would like to see a better Iraq, if not just for them, but for the entire region. I think that after all this over the American presence in the Middle East should be reduced to only necessary posts. Not too give the Muslim world the idea that we've been defeated, but instead to show that we are not trying to be in their land.

[The Fanatic]

I actually agree with you. The only way to achieve a legitimate regime is for the Iraqis to choose that regime through some sort of inner decision making process. Whether that be civil war or what have you, it should be up to the Iraqi people not the american imperial machine.

[Dogmeat]

Personally, I am all for this. Let's let the sectarian violence escalate, pull our boys out, let the Iraqis duke it out, and whoever comes out on top, they proved themselves and we just leave it alone.

A civil war does not directly affect this country. It effects the countries in the Middle East and should give them a swift kick in the rear to take part in their surroundings and help.

Yes, a civil war directly effects this country.

We're pumping millions of barrels of Iraqi crude out of the ground, and China wants oil.

Do you think the terrorists are above allowing China to capitalize on US withdrawl and they take over?

Fuck no.

Withdrawing from Iraq right now would fuck this country over so bad it's not even funny.

[Hartmann]

I don't think we have to look any further than this country to see what a civil war can do. Yes, people will die, people will be hurt, but the country came out stronger than what it was before the war.

I don't necessarily think a civil war in Iraq will allow the terrorism to increase. I think the Shiites will be happy just carrying out their coward acts.

[Hartmann]

Yes, a civil war directly effects this country.

We're pumping millions of barrels of Iraqi crude out of the ground, and China wants oil.

Do you think the terrorists are above allowing China to capitalize on US withdrawl and they take over?

Fuck no.

Withdrawing from Iraq right now would fuck this country over so bad it's not even funny.

Screw oil. At this exact moment in time, very little oil is being pumped out of Iraqi fields and going to U.S. consumers. The simple fact that Iraq isn't even pumping at 50% capacity on a day to day basis is enough proof that they are not playing a big part in our oil economy.

To care that much about oil in such a selfish a way is arrogant and does nothing to improve the situation.

[The Fanatic]

It's not like the Iraqis will not sell their oil after we leave. The Neo con's just want to control the supply of oil. It has nothing to do with lowering the price for US consumers, in fact it is quite contrary to that.

[Testm0nkey]

we are getting more of our oil from our hemisphere but even though thats true cutting off the middle eastern supply would still have a huge affects on america. simply because we use so damn much, more than any other country in the world, that a drop of 20-30% has a lot of repercussions

[Hartmann]

we are getting more of our oil from our hemisphere but even though thats true cutting off the middle eastern supply would still have a huge affects on america. simply because we use so damn much, more than any other country in the world, that a drop of 20-30% has a lot of repercussions

Key terms highlighted.

Cutting off all Middle East oil would have a huge impact but Iraq, come on. By cutting out Iraq's current production (of which very little actually comes to this country) we would probably cut 2-3%.

I think the latest report from Iraq stated that something like 400,000 b/d were being produced country wide.

Now, you get rid of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait and we have a problem on our hands. But honestly, what Americans need to do is stop buying stupid crap like XBox 360 games (one is a tank of gas) and start saving their money instead of living in debt.

[impala454]

So why the fuck did we invade them again?

because Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow UN weapons inspectors into his country as agreed upon when we kicked his ass the first time.

[GOB]

screw getting out of the country.

if we do that, cindy sheehan and her hatemonger rainbow people will win.

[Testm0nkey]

because Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow UN weapons inspectors into his country as agreed upon when we kicked his ass the first time.

so why didnt we invade him a super long time ago if that is the reason?
to establish and keep our sphere of influence in the middle east and to protect our economy - oil. disruptions in iraq/civil war will affect the whole middle east which is way too important to the US

people here just need to stop being stupid save their money and start using alternative sources of energy. its pretty damn ridiculous the amount of fossil fuel use in america compared to similar countries

[The Fanatic]

because Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow UN weapons inspectors into his country as agreed upon when we kicked his ass the first time.

We invaded Iraq as part of the Neo Conservative imperialist agenda. By controlling the flow of oil we not only control its price, but we also control who can buy that oil. As oil demands in china steadily increase, it is in the interest of the United States to keep that oil out of china in order to guarantee our spot as the only super power in the world.

[impala454]

We invaded Iraq as part of the Neo Conservative imperialist agenda. By controlling the flow of oil we not only control its price, but we also control who can buy that oil. As oil demands in china steadily increase, it is in the interest of the United States to keep that oil out of china in order to guarantee our spot as the only super power in the world.

nice buzz words

we went to iraq because saddam had banned the UN armed inspectors he was supposed to allow in. the UN kept taking it up the ass from saddam so we took action.

let me provide a little analogy that makes this more clear. when you get pulled over for suspected drunk driving and are asked to perform a breathalyzer test, you do not have to comply. but you do get a ride downtown.

you guys (along with the countless other conspiracy theorists) can come up with all the awesome conspiracy ideas you want... oil, money, bush's own agenda, but the only real facts are that the official reason we went to war was to go after WMD in Iraq. According to the intelligence in hand, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and had continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The motion to start war on iraq passed 296-133 in the house and 77-23 in the senate. A much higher margin than the previous gulf war.

As far as not finding weapons/supposed intelligence foul ups/etc, there's two possibilities:

a) a conspiracy occured involving 296 house reps, 77 senators, the president and his whole staff, and all major involved intelligence agencies, to pin saddam and give an excuse to go to war in iraq. the reason often gived for this is oil, we want oil so our gas is cheaper... hmm... well that doesn't seem to be the case considering we currently occupy their country and i've never seen higher gas prices.

B) saddam really did have the weapons, and like a high schooler dumping his dime bag when the cops catch him, stalled the UN long enough to get rid of them or hide them really well (hmm one giant desert the size of texas, i'm sure it'd be difficult to hide anything).

if anyone can give me some reason why A makes more sense than B, or what all the conspirators have now gotten out of the deal & what the great plot earned them, i'd be glad to hear it. you see, conspiracies usually involve someone gaining something out of the deal (i.e. Enron CEO scandal). so a quick list of what the involved parties gained would be great (remembering that we've spent $500+ billion already)

an explanation of why the world would be better off with saddam in power would be awesome too.

[Mommy]

We invaded Iraq as part of the Neo Conservative imperialist agenda. By controlling the flow of oil we not only control its price, but we also control who can buy that oil. As oil demands in china steadily increase, it is in the interest of the United States to keep that oil out of china in order to guarantee our spot as the only super power in the world.

weird

[Hartmann]

We invaded Iraq as part of the Neo Conservative imperialist agenda. By controlling the flow of oil we not only control its price, but we also control who can buy that oil. As oil demands in china steadily increase, it is in the interest of the United States to keep that oil out of china in order to guarantee our spot as the only super power in the world.

Please drop the oil argument. It's nice that your use of buzzwords actually coincided and made a coherent sentence (barely) but oil is not the issue.

First, we already aren't the only superpower in the world. Japan, the UK, Germany, and France all have tremendous pull in this world and as such they can be considered super powers.

Let's take the war for what it is, something that came out of false information and the passing of false information off on American citizens. Our boys are not fighting for a nickel on a gallon of gas.

[Billy]

Please drop the oil argument. It's nice that your use of buzzwords actually coincided and made a coherent sentence (barely) but oil is not the issue.

First, we already aren't the only superpower in the world. Japan, the UK, Germany, and France all have tremendous pull in this world and as such they can be considered super powers.

Let's take the war for what it is, something that came out of false information and the passing of false information off on American citizens. Our boys are not fighting for a nickel on a gallon of gas.

Kim of North Korea has done the exact same thing Saddam has done. He oppresses his people. He refuses weapons inspectors. Even claims to be building nuclear weapons. But what does North Korea not have that much of the middle east does have? Iraq just so happens to be in the center of the middle east. A nice tactical control point. To claim the invasion of Iraq was not motivated at all by oil is pure ignorance. However, do I disagree with the US on this? Not at all. Because I would rather be in the country that will be one of the very few that doesn't suffer from energy needs in the future than in india, china, or europe. Was this selfish policy? Unfortunately, in a world of limited resouces, selfish policy has to be made. And we don't elect people to look out for the world. We elect them to look out for this country.

[woody]

Let's take the war for what it is, something that came out of false information and the passing of false information off on American citizens. Our boys are not fighting for a nickel on a gallon of gas.

You can't say that til after the Nov election! Until the election has come and gone, we will refer to that as propoganda




</sarcasm>

[Hartmann]

Kim of North Korea has done the exact same thing Saddam has done. He oppresses his people. He refuses weapons inspectors. Even claims to be building nuclear weapons. But what does North Korea not have that much of the middle east does have? Iraq just so happens to be in the center of the middle east. A nice tactical control point. To claim the invasion of Iraq was not motivated at all by oil is pure ignorance. However, do I disagree with the US on this? Not at all. Because I would rather be in the country that will be one of the very few that doesn't suffer from energy needs in the future than in india, china, or europe. Was this selfish policy? Unfortunately, in a world of limited resouces, selfish policy has to be made. And we don't elect people to look out for the world. We elect them to look out for this country.

There is a difference between fighting Saddam and fighting Kim. Not understanding that is ignorance.

Kim will force his people to fight, whether they want to or not. His people have no idea about the outside world and believe that their country is blissful, kind of like the Japanese felt about their country during WWII when in fact it's oppression and brainwashing to the nth degree.

Are you trying to say that Iraq is a foothold in the Middle East? Because if you are, then you need to understand that we already have a couple of those and Iraq wasn't needed. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc. are all places that we have a very strong pull. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the main oil influence we have. Iraq is not an opportunity for us.

To look at the other oil opportunities in the world and say that Iraq is such a great catch is dumb. Do you think the Chinese would have invaded? Do you think that they would have bought from Saddam? They would have bought, but Saddam was only able to max out Iraqi production at 3.6 million b/d for a short while, even then, he wasn't able to refine it, and this was at the peak of the Saddam era.

As far as selfishness goes, China is at least making moves to get their population to use alternative fuel vehicles while we sit back think about it. Everyone thinks we've reached peak oil, they thought the same thing back in the 80's and look, oil is still being found and technology continues to increase for us to drill in places never thought possible before. Will we ever run out? Yes. Does this mean we invade Iraq because we believe their oil will help us? No.

Please, do some serious reading (credible) on the oil history in Iraq and Iran. Iran sits on an ocean of the stuff. By your logic we should have moved into Iran first and started pumping off of an already established network of wells.

[Mommy]

Kim of North Korea has done the exact same thing Saddam has done. He oppresses his people. He refuses weapons inspectors. Even claims to be building nuclear weapons. But what does North Korea not have that much of the middle east does have? Iraq just so happens to be in the center of the middle east. A nice tactical control point. To claim the invasion of Iraq was not motivated at all by oil is pure ignorance. However, do I disagree with the US on this? Not at all. Because I would rather be in the country that will be one of the very few that doesn't suffer from energy needs in the future than in india, china, or europe. Was this selfish policy? Unfortunately, in a world of limited resouces, selfish policy has to be made. And we don't elect people to look out for the world. We elect them to look out for this country.

we would not want to start a war with N. Korea at this point in time. That would be stupid on our part...VERY STUPID.
1) Remember the Korean war? What happened when we crossed the line into China.... million man army waiting for us. We do not want to piss off China and North Korea sits way to close to her.
2) We are already fighting one war that has cost us billions. Why would we want to be fighting two wars at one time? Thats absurd. I guarantee if we were to invade N. Korea right now....there would be your draft.
3) Iraq was said to have nuclear CAPABILITIES. N. Korea is a lot further along than Iraq supposedly was. They are already testing long range missiles. We would see attacks on US grounds. Our country does not want that.

[The Fanatic]

Please drop the oil argument. It's nice that your use of buzzwords actually coincided and made a coherent sentence (barely) but oil is not the issue.

First, we already aren't the only superpower in the world. Japan, the UK, Germany, and France all have tremendous pull in this world and as such they can be considered super powers.

Let's take the war for what it is, something that came out of false information and the passing of false information off on American citizens. Our boys are not fighting for a nickel on a gallon of gas.

Please drop the oil argument. It's nice that your use of buzzwords actually coincided and made a coherent sentence (barely) but oil is not the issue.

What was the issue? I am not saying it was ALL about oil. However, oil played a large roll in the invasion.

First, we already aren't the only superpower in the world. Japan, the UK, Germany, and France all have tremendous pull in this world and as such they can be considered super powers.

You are correct, this nations do have pull, but that is about all. I can not believe that you would even argue that the United States is not the hemogenic super power that it is. I will even go as far as to say that the United States may be losing its grip on power. But to say that the United States is not the sole super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union is crazy talk. (since when did japan have thousands of nuclear balisitc missiles or a military for that matter)

Let's take the war for what it is, something that came out of false information and the passing of false information off on American citizens. Our boys are not fighting for a nickel on a gallon of gas.

Of course not. Like I said, the war was not about lower the price of gas. Control of that supply of oil is the key. You may call this conspiracy theory. I will admit that some of it may be exagerated, but the facts do not add up.

In response to Impala,

Tell me then, where are the WMDS? Biological, chemical, nuclear weapons are not like a "dime bag", but i do appreciate the analogy. You can't just make those kind of things dissapear. Even if he did have these capabilities (which we know that he did not in 2003), it is clear that we enabled him to have these weapons during the Iraq Iran war in the 1980's. During this time, Saddam was our man in the middle east. A secular ruler who could oppose the fanatical islamic regime of Iran. THESE are the facts.

[The Fanatic]

There is a difference between fighting Saddam and fighting Kim. Not understanding that is ignorance.

Not to mention, North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world and united ethnic people. That would just be another vietnam. Also, there are no real benefits to conquering north korea. It is best left to the diplomatic table until things boil over, which they will.

[woody]

What was the issue? I am not saying it was ALL about oil. However, oil played a large roll in the invasion.




You are correct, this nations do have pull, but that is about all. I can not believe that you would even argue that the United States is not the hemogenic super power that it is. I will even go as far as to say that the United States may be losing its grip on power. But to say that the United States is not the sole super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union is crazy talk. (since when did japan have thousands of nuclear balisitc missiles or a military for that matter)



Of course not. Like I said, the war was not about lower the price of gas. Control of that supply of oil is the key. You may call this conspiracy theory. I will admit that some of it may be exagerated, but the facts do not add up.

In response to Impala,

Tell me then, where are the WMDS? Biological, chemical, nuclear weapons are not like a "dime bag", but i do appreciate the analogy. You can't just make those kind of things dissapear. Even if he did have these capabilities (which we know that he did not in 2003), it is clear that we enabled him to have these weapons during the Iraq Iran war in the 1980's. During this time, Saddam was our man in the middle east. A secular ruler who could oppose the fanatical islamic regime of Iran. THESE are the facts.

You say it's not ALL about the oil...but you don't talk of anything else...

[The Fanatic]

You say it's not ALL about the oil...but you don't talk of anything else...

I just think it is one of the bigger issues.

Sure there are plenty of other reasons...

Personal vendetta
An adventure out in the desert
What have you...


All I know is that it was def. not about terrorism or WMD. It is all rubbish.

[Hartmann]

I just think it is one of the bigger issues.

Sure there are plenty of other reasons...

Personal vendetta
An adventure out in the desert
What have you...


All I know is that it was def. not about terrorism or WMD. It is all rubbish.

Maybe Bush really thought there were weapons of mass destruction??



Oh no, that couldn't be it... It has to be about oil.

In other news, control of oil directly effects the price of oil, so essentially you are saying the troops are dying to save a nickel on a gallon.

[Mommy]

you know, i once felt that the war was about oil. i read a lot of articles and TRIED to educate myself (hard to do seeing as how no one on these boards and few in the media know the full picture). I talked with soldiers that fought over there too to hear their take on it. After reading what I did, I just dont find the conclusive evidence that some say there is to believe the war is about oil. Oil prices went UP after we invaded Iraq. The govt does not want high oil prices because that lessens consumer spending. When oil prices are high, our economy is weak. Yeah, oil prices are falling now, but what about a month ago when it was nearly 3.00 in TEXAS WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF THE CHEAPEST GAS PRICES. Oil is going to be an issue with any war fought in the middle east, but to say a big reason we invaded Iraq was to gain an oil foothold in the middle east is somewhat ignorant and hippie in my opinion.

SADAM NEEDED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF POWER.... END OF STORY


Clinton didnt do it, Bush Sr. didnt do it. Bush jr stepped up and did it.

Yes, Bush jr used the fear of the American people to invade Iraq but at the same time I think our world is a lot better off without that wacko in power. I do think we were tricked into going to war, but the underlying reason was legitimate. Iraq was a ticking timebomb. Same with North Korea and Iran, but those situations have to be handled a lot more carefully.

So keep babbling on and on about oil and the whole Bush agenda. Unless you (speaking generally) can come up with legitimate articles to back up your claim (in other words not a fat, white trash, pos with the initials M.M.) then you are making yourself out to be ignorant.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Sep 28 2006, 02:42 PM

[pebkac]

you know, i once felt that the war was about oil. i read a lot of articles and TRIED to educate myself (hard to do seeing as how no one on these boards and few in the media know the full picture). I talked with soldiers that fought over there too to hear their take on it. After reading what I did, I just dont find the conclusive evidence that some say there is to believe the war is about oil. Oil prices went UP after we invaded Iraq. The govt does not want high oil prices because that lessens consumer spending. When oil prices are high, our economy is weak. Yeah, oil prices are falling now, but what about a month ago when it was nearly 3.00 in TEXAS WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF THE CHEAPEST GAS PRICES. Oil is going to be an issue with any war fought in the middle east, but to say a big reason we invaded Iraq was to gain an oil foothold in the middle east is somewhat ignorant and hippie in my opinion.

Remember, the ends aren't the means. Bush might have still invaded the country for oil, but that doesn't mean things worked out as he planned. Irregardless, I don't think that the war was fought soley over oil, but I do believe that it was a contributing factor. I think the biggest factor was a bad case of confirmation bias. Bush wanted to believe that Saddam was a threat, thus he construed the evidence in such a way that it would confirm that belief.

SADAM NEEDED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF POWER.... END OF STORY


Clinton didnt do it, Bush Sr. didnt do it. Bush jr stepped up and did it.

Yes, Bush jr used the fear of the American people to invade Iraq but at the same time I think our world is a lot better off without that wacko in power. I do think we were tricked into going to war, but the underlying reason was legitimate. Iraq was a ticking timebomb. Same with North Korea and Iran, but those situations have to be handled a lot more carefully.

So keep babbling on and on about oil and the whole Bush agenda. Unless you (speaking generally) can come up with legitimate articles to back up your claim (in other words not a fat, white trash, pos with the initials M.M.) then you are making yourself out to be ignorant.

I don't think there's very many people out there in the American public who liked Saddam very much. It's not a matter of whether Saddam should have been taken out so much as it was an issue of when, how, and whether or not it was feasible to, which I don't believe it was.

Saddam needed to be taken out by the international community, not by the United States unilaterally.

[The Fanatic]

Maybe Bush really thought there were weapons of mass destruction??



Oh no, that couldn't be it... It has to be about oil.

In other news, control of oil directly effects the price of oil, so essentially you are saying the troops are dying to save a nickel on a gallon.

Not the case. You can control the supply of oil to the market.

[The Fanatic]

you know, i once felt that the war was about oil. i read a lot of articles and TRIED to educate myself (hard to do seeing as how no one on these boards and few in the media know the full picture). I talked with soldiers that fought over there too to hear their take on it. After reading what I did, I just dont find the conclusive evidence that some say there is to believe the war is about oil. Oil prices went UP after we invaded Iraq. The govt does not want high oil prices because that lessens consumer spending. When oil prices are high, our economy is weak. Yeah, oil prices are falling now, but what about a month ago when it was nearly 3.00 in TEXAS WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF THE CHEAPEST GAS PRICES. Oil is going to be an issue with any war fought in the middle east, but to say a big reason we invaded Iraq was to gain an oil foothold in the middle east is somewhat ignorant and hippie in my opinion.

SADAM NEEDED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF POWER.... END OF STORY


Clinton didnt do it, Bush Sr. didnt do it. Bush jr stepped up and did it.

Yes, Bush jr used the fear of the American people to invade Iraq but at the same time I think our world is a lot better off without that wacko in power. I do think we were tricked into going to war, but the underlying reason was legitimate. Iraq was a ticking timebomb. Same with North Korea and Iran, but those situations have to be handled a lot more carefully.

So keep babbling on and on about oil and the whole Bush agenda. Unless you (speaking generally) can come up with legitimate articles to back up your claim (in other words not a fat, white trash, pos with the initials M.M.) then you are making yourself out to be ignorant.

I have also done research and have educated myself. Thank you for saying that anyone that does not agree with you is uneducated.

[impala454]

on the NK issue, keep in mind people, it's not like weapons inspectors weren't allowed into Iraq then we immediately invaded. there was an almost five year period between when saddam kicked them out and when we invaded.

this NK stuff hasn't been going on for five years, and I have no doubt in my mind that if it continues, we'll be at war there soon too. in fact I wouldn't be surprised to see us pull out of Iraq soon (letting them have their civil war) in order to allocate troops for NK.

[The Fanatic]

Maybe Bush really thought there were weapons of mass destruction??



Oh no, that couldn't be it... It has to be about oil.

In other news, control of oil directly effects the price of oil, so essentially you are saying the troops are dying to save a nickel on a gallon.

Well I am sure he thought it was a possibility. After all, we gave them the WMDs... surely he had a few left over, what a perfect excuse for invasion...

[Mommy]

I have also done research and have educated myself. Thank you for saying that anyone that does not agree with you is uneducated.

back up what you are saying then. where is your evidence of such?

its theoretical. Unless you can get into the mind of Bush....

[impala454]

Well I am sure he thought it was a possibility. After all, we gave them the WMDs... surely he had a few left over, what a perfect excuse for invasion...

haha you're really grasping for conspiracy now

[The Fanatic]

back up what you are saying then. where is your evidence of such?

its theoretical. Unless you can get into the mind of Bush....

ditto

[The Fanatic]

If this war was about WMD, WHERE are they?

[impala454]

ditto

so.. are you saying that the hearing to go to war in which the motion to go to war with iraq over saddam's non-compliance of UN sanctions passed 296-133 in the house and 77-23 in the senate was theoretical?? didn't really happen?

[impala454]

If this war was about WMD, WHERE are they?

ask saddam

[The Fanatic]

They don't exist

[Mommy]

ditto

its only obvious the claims that i make.

Sadam was a threat to his own country and was a threat to other countries making it likely that he could possibly be a threat again.

Seriously with this "the main reason we went to Iraq was for oil" bullshit. I dont think this administration is that sneaky and sly like everyone makes them out to be. Iraq had fucking homemade bombs made for children to wear like backpacks. Sure, they didnt have weapons of MASS destruction but they did have weapons of destruction. At least the claims that I make are based on what the administration has said and what has held to be true. Some of you try to guess the reasoning. For all you know, maybe we went to Iraq as a means of fixing the male to female ratio in the united states. Bush doesnt want all those young studds hitting on his wife so he sent them off to war. oh yeah, thats it. Its it because it makes sense. Bush hates young men. Well, all you gay men are ok.

[impala454]

They don't exist

then why did saddam ban UN weapons inspectors from 1998-2003?

[The Fanatic]

When/if WMD are discovered then I will accept this war in so much as I can.

[Divergent Realit...]

Sure, they didnt have weapons of MASS destruction but they did have weapons of destruction.

what is is

[impala454]

When/if WMD are discovered then I will accept this war in so much as I  can.

you didn't answer my question.

why would saddam not allow weapons inspectors in if he had no weapons (or was in the process of building them)?

[The Fanatic]

then why did saddam ban UN weapons inspectors from 1998-2003?

Why not? I guess saddam liked Iraqi sovereignty. We don't let weapon inspectors into the United States and we have a huge stockpile of WMDs.

[pebkac]

you didn't answer my question.

why would saddam not allow weapons inspectors in if he had no weapons (or was in the process of building them)?

Um... he did. Right before the war began. Remember our good friend Hans Blix?

[The Fanatic]

Um... he did. Right before the war began. Remember our good friend Hans Blix?

oh SNAP

[Mommy]

Why not? I guess saddam liked Iraqi sovereignty. We don't let weapon inspectors into the United States and we have a huge stockpile of WMDs.

if i was being accused of such and nations were threatening war...i sure as hell would let weapons inspectors in

[impala454]

Why not? I guess saddam liked Iraqi sovereignty. We don't let weapon inspectors into the United States and we have a huge stockpile of WMDs.

maybe you don't realize it was part of the agreement at the end of the gulf war

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not sure what "liking Iraqi sovereignty" has to do with anything. Iraq signed this agreement and didn't abide by it. It's as simple as that.

[The Fanatic]

its only obvious the claims that i make.

Sadam was a threat to his own country and was a threat to other countries making it likely that he could possibly be a threat again.

Seriously with this "the main reason we went to Iraq was for oil" bullshit. I dont think this administration is that sneaky and sly like everyone makes them out to be. Iraq had fucking homemade bombs made for children to wear like backpacks. Sure, they didnt have weapons of MASS destruction but they did have weapons of destruction. At least the claims that I make are based on what the administration has said and what has held to be true. Some of you try to guess the reasoning. For all you know, maybe we went to Iraq as a means of fixing the male to female ratio in the united states. Bush doesnt want all those young studds hitting on his wife so he sent them off to war. oh yeah, thats it. Its it because it makes sense. Bush hates young men. Well, all you gay men are ok.

blah blah blah

Don't use that cop out

If what you said was so obvious then everyone would agree...

[impala454]

Um... he did.  Right before the war began.  Remember our good friend Hans Blix?

yeah... after we started the process of going to war, they offered to let them in. you think five years is enough to hide some weapons?

I will always maintain, anyone who believe Saddam Hussein had no WMD, or was working on building WMD, is the definition of naivety.

[The Fanatic]

maybe you don't realize it was part of the agreement at the end of the gulf war

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html



I'm not sure what "liking Iraqi sovereignty" has to do with anything. Iraq signed this agreement and didn't abide by it. It's as simple as that.

Fortunatly, the UN does not have over riding authority over the world. However, it seems like the United States does.

[Testm0nkey]

if anyone thinks oil had nothing to do with it thats just ignorant

[The Fanatic]

yeah... after we started the process of going to war, they offered to let them in. you think five years is enough to hide some weapons?

I will always maintain, anyone who believe Saddam Hussein had no WMD, or was working on building WMD, is the definition of naivety.

I would say the same about you. Conservatives are blind fools.

[impala454]

blah blah blah

Don't use that cop out

If what you said was so obvious then everyone would agree...

maybe you simply don't agree because you're a left-wing tree-hugger & hate George Bush?

[pebkac]

yeah... after we started the process of going to war, they offered to let them in. you think five years is enough to hide some weapons?

I will always maintain, anyone who believe Saddam Hussein had no WMD, or was working on building WMD, is the definition of naivety.

impala, you're wrong. Admit it and move on.

[The Fanatic]

maybe you simply don't agree because you're a left-wing tree-hugger & hate George Bush?

I resent being called "left-wing". I am neither right/left wing. And I hate trees.

[Testm0nkey]

yeah... after we started the process of going to war, they offered to let them in. you think five years is enough to hide some weapons?

I will always maintain, anyone who believe Saddam Hussein had no WMD, or was working on building WMD, is the definition of naivety.

my biology professor was one of the men who inspected iraq looking for WMD. when some kids asked some questions about iraq and his feelings and about the WMD's he laughed and simply said they dont have any. dr chesser. hes a cool guy

[impala454]

Fortunatly, the UN does not have over riding authority over the world. However, it seems like the United States does.

I think you still don't understand.

Iraq signs agreement

Iraq breaks agreement

Iraq recieves consequences

[The Fanatic]

maybe you simply don't agree because you're a left-wing tree-hugger & hate George Bush?

At least I don't suck Bush's cock

[Mommy]

impala, you're wrong. Admit it and move on.

rare that i stick up for him, but how is he wrong again?


because Sadam kept playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors. "oh you can come in" ..."oh on second thought nevermind"
so on and so on

[impala454]

my biology professor was one of the men who inspected iraq looking for WMD. when some kids asked some questions about iraq and his feelings and about the WMD's he laughed and simply said they dont have any. dr chesser. hes a cool guy

huh... so a desert the size of texas was searched by your biology professor... that's a neat trick.

[The Fanatic]

I think you still don't understand.

Iraq signs agreement

Iraq breaks agreement

Iraq recieves consequences

You don't seem to understand

THE UN HAS NO REAL AUTHORITY

THAT IS WHY THE US SIGNS TREATIES AND BREAKS THEM ALL THE TIME

The authority of the UN is dependent on the United States

[impala454]

You don't seem to understand

THE UN HAS NO REAL AUTHORITY

THAT IS WHY THE US SIGNS TREATIES AND BREAKS THEM ALL THE TIME

Really, which treaties with the UN have we broken? Must be a lot of them if it's all the time.

And I agree, the UN has no real authority, which is why we got tired of watching them stand by and let Iraq break it's own sanctions.

[Testm0nkey]

huh... so a desert the size of texas was searched by your biology professor... that's a neat trick.

what does that even mean
to make an argument over WMD's you should know what happened. He wasnt the only one

[Mommy]

to say that he didnt have WMD's is as ignorant as saying he did


NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS
because if he did
he had ample time in which to move them/sell them

[impala454]

what does that even mean
to make an argument over WMD's you should know what happened. He wasnt the only one

it means you have an enormous desert to hide weapons in, or means to destroy them once you get invaded.

[The Fanatic]

I don't care if you believe the war was not about oil. But if you think it was about WMDs, you are a complete and utter idiot.

[Testm0nkey]

to say that he didnt have WMD's is as ignorant as saying he did


NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS
because if he did
he had ample time in which to move them/sell them

so say he had them in the 80s and got rid of them after the gulf war. that still makes the invasion reasonable?
the idea of he had them at some point so go to war about it is completely ridiculous

[pebkac]

rare that i stick up for him, but how is he wrong again?


because Sadam kept playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors. "oh you can come in" ..."oh on second thought nevermind"
so on and so on

I don't think it's wrong of him to dislike Saddam's not allowing weapons inspectors to enter.

But I think impala's an idiot for continuing to believe there are WMDs in Iraq.

[Mommy]

I don't care if you believe the war was not about oil. But if you think it was about WMDs, you are a complete and utter idiot.

just as ignorant as saying it was about oil

[Mommy]

so say he had them in the 80s and got rid of them after the gulf war. that still makes the invasion reasonable?
the idea of he had them at some point so go to war about it is completely ridiculous

im not talking about before the gulf war, obviously

im talking about after

[pebkac]

to say that he didnt have WMD's is as ignorant as saying he did


NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS
because if he did
he had ample time in which to move them/sell them

"We don't know if he had WMDs" isn't a very good reason to go to war.

[Testm0nkey]

oil runs the whole world. we are totally tied and dependent on it as is every other country except maybe sweden and france. america would be stupid to not care about what happens in the middle east and the oil fields being a main concern. they should have just right out admitted they were looking out for the american economy

so we can invade a country on the idea that they may have had weapsons 15 yrs ago? what

[Mommy]

"We don't know if he had WMDs" isn't a very good reason to go to war.

but im not arguing thats why we went to war

im saying that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE

so the arguing back and forth on that topic is stupid

[Testm0nkey]

this is a discussion, posting back and forth makes a discussion. if the idea of no one knows for sure so nothing matters this place would be totally boring

[impala454]

"We don't know if he had WMDs" isn't a very good reason to go to war. 

that wasn't the reason. intelligence at the time said he had them. you can't go back in hindsight and call the reasoning flawed.

[pebkac]

but im not arguing thats why we went to war

im saying that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE

so the arguing back and forth on that topic is stupid

Heh... well it is all academic to begin with anyway. It's not like postings on an online messageboard are going to have an effect on US Foreign policy.

[Testm0nkey]

the intelligence was faulty. they already admitted that. they should have done a better job before starting war. but they did a pretty good job cleaning house

[impala454]

the intelligence was faulty. they already admitted that

so what are we supposed to do? get out a time machine and undo it? let saddam out of prison and give his power back?

[Mommy]

oil runs the whole world. we are totally tied and dependent on it as is every other country except maybe sweden and france. america would be stupid to not care about what happens in the middle east and the oil fields being a main concern. they should have just right out admitted they were looking out for the american economy

so we can invade a country on the idea that they may have had weapsons 15 yrs ago? what

how is going to iraq helping the american economy again? especially since the world is moving towards alternative fuels. why invest 100 billion (guestimate) dollars into protecting the future supply of oil when 1) there are other areas of good crude oil supply and 2) that money could have been invested in utilizing alternative fuels.

[impala454]

they should have done a better job before starting war.

what would you advise they should have done better?

[Testm0nkey]

it was a pretty huge and deadly mistake dont you think?

[impala454]

how is going to iraq helping the american economy again? especially since the world is moving towards alternative fuels. why invest 100 billion (guestimate) dollars into protecting the future supply of oil when 1) there are other areas of good crude oil supply and 2) that money could have been invested in utilizing alternative fuels.

actually it's been over $500 billion so far

[pebkac]

that wasn't the reason.  intelligence at the time said he had them.  you can't go back in hindsight and call the reasoning flawed.

1) That's debatable, and it's looking more and more like the intelligence didn't say that to begin with.
2) If we'd let the weapons inspectors do their jobs, we'd have learned that there WEREN'T any weapons in Iraq to begin with (other than the ones we bought them of course).

[Mommy]

this is a discussion, posting back and forth makes a discussion. if the idea of no one knows for sure so nothing matters this place would be totally boring

so then how is it ignorant of him to say that he did have WMD's?

you all are being just as ignorant by saying that he didnt

[Testm0nkey]

how is going to iraq helping the american economy again? especially since the world is moving towards alternative fuels. why invest 100 billion (guestimate) dollars into protecting the future supply of oil when 1) there are other areas of good crude oil supply and 2) that money could have been invested in utilizing alternative fuels.

america is way behind in switching over to alternative fuels. we are more reliant on crude oil than any other country. the US is pretty much just now starting to invest and set up an alternatives
iraq has hugely helped the economy

[Mommy]

actually it's been over $500 billion so far

i figured, but i didnt want to be pounced on if i was wrong so i gave a very conservative estimate

[impala454]

1) That's debatable, and it's looking more and more like the intelligence didn't say that to begin with.

awesome, where is this new evidence? (and please no prisonplanet.com or ihatebush.com)

2) If we'd let the weapons inspectors do their jobs, we'd have learned that there WEREN'T any weapons in Iraq to begin with (other than the ones we bought them of course).

ooh... so that little five year period where no inspectors were allowed in... what in the world do you think Iraq was doing?

[Mommy]

america is way behind in switching over to alternative fuels. we are more reliant on crude oil than any other country. the US is pretty much just now starting to invest and set up an alternatives
iraq has hugely helped the economy

ok, you can say that iraq has helped the economy but i still dont see it


and you further my point: america is behind on alternative fuels; therefore, 500 billion dollars would have been a very nice contribution to get things rolling. i dont see how you are helping the "we went to war for oil" cause.

yes, it was most likely an underlying reault, but i will maintain that it was not a main reason for going there.

[Seeker]

but im not arguing thats why we went to war 

im saying that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE

so the arguing back and forth on that topic is stupid

Only I know the real reason we went to war.

The Annunaki Reptilian sect called the "Vulturites" which rule America are battling with the other Reptilian sect that controls Iran, Iraq, and Russia in an attempt to find the hidden atu-waa. The atu-waa was hidden in the deserts of Iraq so thats why we invaded.

The atu-waa is a device that the Reptilians use to re-start time. If its not restarted by 2012 the whole Universe will collapse. The illusion of motion will cease.

Once time is retarted the whole Universe will begin anew and only the Reptilians will have memory of the previous Universe. The atu-waa is broken though so they will not be able to restart time and keep us in the prison of illusion.

Its all true, I wrote it all down on my website:

http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/atu-waa.html
http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/atu-waa_moved.html
http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/soaking_the_atu-waa.html

[Testm0nkey]

it takes more than just now "getting things rolling" to switch from over 70* fossil fuel use to alternatives. especially when in 20yrs or so the economy will hit a screetching hault unless that 70% drops to 30 or less

[pebkac]

awesome, where is this new evidence? (and please no prisonplanet.com or ihatebush.com)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/w...5344306427.html

The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS.

ooh... so that little five year period where no inspectors were allowed in... what in the world do you think Iraq was doing?

I dunno... probably destroying the weapons they DID have.

[Mommy]

it takes more than just now "getting things rolling" to switch from over 70* fossil fuel use to alternatives. especially when in 20yrs or so the economy will hit a screetching hault unless that 70% drops to 30 or less

EXACTLY!!!!!! SO SPEND THAT 500 BILLION DOLLARS ON GETTING THAT PERCENTAGE DOWN


you keep helping my point.



i want you to tell me how iraq has helped our economy. tell me that. thats what i want to know.

[GOB]

it's not like our economy is doing poorly right now.

or even within the past 3 years. at all.