Civil War In Iraq Options

[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.