Truth Rising 9/11 terrorist US launches retaliatory strikes in the Middle East.

I never said it wasn't about oil. I think the decision to go to Iraq wasn't about one thing, a multitude of things had to be considered. Oil was definitely a significant part of the equation. My point was that we didn't go to Iraq to rob them of their oil. And if we did we seriously got screwed because we spent all the money, resources and lives and yet we alone are not the major beneficiary.
And if we hadn't gone there, Iran may have very well eventually stole Iraq's oil. It wouldn't be the first time Iran has stole oil. When they decided to nationalize their oil in the 50's, they went back on a deal with Britain, and the result was basically theft by Iran.

 

Ahh I love this logic, yet Saddam invaded a certain country, partly the reason being slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields.

One would think if you feel this is justification for war, that Saddam in himself was able to invade with proper justification

 

Jesus. I said there were a multitude of reasons, one of the main reasons being Saddam's history of being a threat to the region. And you accused me of twisting your words? You need to suspend your passion and emotion for a small while and try to learn to think in nuanced terms, because the real world, especially on the scale we're talking about, demands it.

 

I didn't twist anything, you said it, one would think if it's a justification for one side, it would be for the other as well

Can't have something 'both ways'

 

Your argument strategy reminds me of someone using a sledgehammer to nail in a thumbtack -- a lot of blunt force with one driving goal and not a lot of forethought.
I said there were a multitude of reasons to go into Iraq. There were good arguments to go in, there were good arguments to not go in. It was a complicated decision and I don't think one peice of the equation towered over any other. Saddam was an asshole who killed his own people, invaded his neighbors and held great influence over the world's energy supply. I think taking him out was probably the right decision and we were given justification for doing so by him plunging the world into war against him and then failing to try comply with terms of surrender afterwards.

 

If Saddam hadn't been a major player in the financing, planning, supplying and training of Taliban and al Qaeda terrorist, Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power. The Taliban and al Qaeda leaders never thought the retaliatory wrath of the US would be a so great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorist never though the United States would send in ground troops to seek revenge for 9/11 terrorist attack. Iraq will be under the full control of the Iraqi government and the US will focus all of its attention on freeing the Hindu Kush of terrorist.

Not dumb or brainwashed and not twisting the truth. Not intertwined? Take off the blinders and learn. Try to keep up with the facts and not half truths.

The terrorist uplifters and cowards would not last a day in the warzone.

 

Are you really that dumb that you continue to conflate the Iraq and Al Queada issues? It sure looks that way they way you keep intertwining them in a way that has been discredited everywhere including the Whitehouse. Why anyone would persist on pushing a knowing lie is beyond me, but then I don't understand a lot of things people do that make no sense.

Please tell us all the sources for your claim that Saddam aided the Taliban and Al Queada with (1) financing (2) planning (3) supplying, or (4) training. It is simply unbelievable that people like you continue to foist lies after they have been totally discredited. It does put many of your posts in perspective.

 

Here's your sign, guys. Don't get it wet; the paint might run. Quit twisting the truth.

 

My argument strategy is simple..

If you state one reason for justification was X for one country than if the same situation happens for another country, X must also be a justification even if there are more than one reason.

He invaded his 'neighbors' for a justification you are using for going after him, you sir have no argument strategy that holds any form of logic or thought process.

Your ending statement yet again 'taking him out was probably the right decision and we were given justification for doing so by him plunging the world into war against him and then failing to try comply with terms of surrender afterwards.'

He WAS doing as he was supposed to, the inspectors were able to go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. You appear to try to make a reason to go after him that simply does not exist.

On one hand you have a reason for justification for us to go after him, that he used as well. 'invading another for stolen oil'

You then have him not complying, yet he was taking it up the ass, being forced into a corner with our army massing on his border.

About the only thing you state that holds any truthfulness or logical argument is that he was a bad man. This I can agree with, he was a bad man. Was he such a bad man that we should wreck our country, forcing ourselves into massive debt, taking our eye off our true enemies and wrecking our standing with the world? HELL NO

Bump to that.

 

I believe there is never some neat model that you can apply to several complicated situations of international politics. A model can perhaps be derived or inherited, but must be at least partially tailored to each problem.
To think otherwise -- I reiterate -- is a lack of ability to see things in nuanced terms, which could very likely be a fatal flaw in the world of international policy.

I'm also not completely sure what the hell you are talking about. Are you defending Saddam again? We've already had this discussion. The majority of the world disagreed with you and other Saddam apologists. Their agreement is a matter of record, by the fact that they threw their support behind the war against him, both financially and militarily.

 

I think not. We are not the only ones dealing with their oil industry over there. And we would not even have to be doing much work at all if the oil fieldds were not all screwed up before and during the war. So one cannot come to the conclusion that we went in just to award those big oil deals.

 

One does not have to support Saddam to debate incorrect and biased statements made such as you are making.

Hell if someone puts out lies that are against Hitler I will call them on it. Sorry I like facts not fiction.

So you simply can not admit that if a justification is for country X, it should also be for country Z?

Interesting, it shows you have no respect for what actually happens, rule of law, or anything other than being Ra, Ra, we are right and the other side sucks.

Uh huh, yet our own government is worried that people will get that impression. Not to forget the 'oil deals' are only temporary ATM and many of the oil deals given to other countries are small from what I read.

Work to the fields makes no difference in our companies getting deals for OIL after the war, something they could not get before the war.

I feel like I'm debating with kindergartners here.

I guess a bank robber who robs a bank, gets some other 'robbers' in on their side and then spreads the wealth around to those who helped and a few others is not a robber as he did not get all the loot. That's as flimsy are your argument is, pretty much identical.

 

Well then do us all a favor and prove this slant drilling accusation. I've searched the web high and low and have only seen claims that Iraq accused Kuwait of slant drilling. But I haven't seen any proof. If you and guerilla are going to keep using the slant drilling argument as proof that Iraq was justified to invade its neighbor, thereby furthering your argument that the US is evil and had no legitimate business going to war along with the world against Iraq in the first Gulf War, then please provide some definitive proof by a news agency that has proven credibility. Anyone can claim anything to justify war. For some reason you seem ready and willing to completely buy any accusation made by any brutal dictator but you refuse to accept any justification given by the US government. Did you hate your country before coming here or did guerilla convince you that we were evil?

 

is this truthfully the best you have got?

I am NOT justifying anything for Saddam, can you not answer a simple question?

If country X is justified for invasion because of oil theft, would country Z not be as well?

I also do not 'hate my country' one bit, do you get off on fabricating stories?
You appear to fabricate information not only about what people stated, what they think, but also history in itself.

You talk about proof now, yet your entire point of justification is on the 'possibility' of some foreign nation stealing Iraq's oil. Seriously is that the best you've got?

 

Our government is worried about things like that because the majority of our nation and the majority of the world are have stupid. They will believe anything every conspiracy theorist throws out there.

Our companies get the work but so what? We get deals but Iraq is still the country that is prospering. They are sitting on a surplus of wealth and we are pushing them to make legislative to share the wealth around the country. They are the ones making the real money. If this was a war for oil then we would be demanding a lot more and we would be getting a lot more.

And your comparison is nothing close to what I said so you need to make proper comparisons.

I said that the oil wells and all was fine until Saddam started destroying them. There was not a whole lot of real work that needed done. We did not go in and steal any oil. We did not go in for contracts. Other contractors would be able to go in but there are security issues. We have also been pushing for gains in this to allow other contractors. For a country that is after oil we sure are doing a lot to help others get the oil.

I feel like I am debating with kindergartners.

 

Saddam was destroying his own oil wells? Really now....



Do you have any clue of what you speak of? Even a shred?

Glad to know that you are in the small minority who knows more than most of the US or the world, including that Saddam destroyed his own oil wells.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.oil.wells/index.html

He and his troops caught fire to several wells and had plans to do so to a lot more just as he had done so in the first gulf war.

yea i know what im talking about.

 

LOL reread what you posted above.

Your article does not support what you stated, not even close. A few wells is but a small portion of the whole of Iraq's oil wells. It does not make them 'just fine' before Saddam destroyed them..

 

Read what you are saying. I never said a few was all. I said he did it to some which you tried to deny. And I said he had plans to do it more.

 

Reread what you stated and the article you posted. Your article states like 7 oil wells were started on fire, which is a far cry from 'Saddam starting to DESTROY his own oil wells, and everything being fine until he did' with not much work needing to be done until he did this.

I am paraphrasing of course, it however is what you said.

Nice try though.