I knew it! Invading Iraq was all about the oil

oil platforms can actually be good...they provide a great place for coral to settle, which then in turns brings in more aquatic life...it has much the same effect as sinking old ships to form coral reefs...

 

It was presented to the whole world that war in Iraq is going to happen because of Iraq developing WMD. There was no talk about terrorist connection. We all saw Bush talking about WMD and he did not mention terrorist connection one single time until later when war was going on.
Of course it had something to do with Saddam switching from $ to euros, but let's not go there since there is no proof yes ?

I wonder who has contracts for 2M barrels a day now in Iraq ?

And for future contracts let's just wait for third quarter of 2007 like they say huh ?

 

The main problem that I see with the coastal drilling in ANWR is that the oil is spread out over the entire coast. We need roads, and pipelines to connect the drills, and then a way to get the oil out of the area, meaning either connecting with the existing Alaskan pipeline, or using oil tankers.

We also need places for workers to rest, and eat, and likely some entertainment locations. I don't see how that can be done without taking the entire area out of the refuge, and the refuge is designed to preserve as many different kinds of terrain and habitat as possible. If we eliminate the coast from the refuge, we're eliminating one type of habitat/terrain.

 

true, but that area that is set aside was done so for a reason...and it won't eliminate all of the coastline....there is a great map on the ANWR site:http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

if you would like more info, check out the site.

 

I will indeed have to check more out on that site, and on sites opposing the drilling.

 

yeah, they are all good reads...it really is interesting to hear both sides of the argument for ANWR...

 

They just like to use WMD when that there Fox News gets old....

 

Did I say WMD was not in Iraq ?

you again go around and don't even read what people write but you just play on the same note over and over ....

 

This is the point where I ask you, for the second time, to read the Iraq war resolution. It has something like 23 whereas clauses to justify the war. I think 2 or 3 of them deal with WMD. The rest deal with everything else. -You- may have concentrated on WMD as the cause, but it was one of many reasons. Reread the iraq war resolution and confirm this. Thanks.

 

Please refer me to some source where I can find Saddam's connection to terrorists...war resolution is not good as a FACT in discovering the truth. It is one of many sources in exploration of recent history.

You know for getting degree in history exploring years from 1880-1890 of some part of the world you have to read at least 40 books in at least 4 languages to get the feeling what was really going on.

Guess for forum it is enough to present war resolution and you know what is going on ... give me a break please .... I am out of this useles debate...

We agree that we don't agree....

 

America want OIL and they will fight for it, its not about only oil its about resources and power. if Muslim or Hindus got power they too will invade other country.

 

Of course ... every one will do whatever it takes...history speaks for itself....

 

I don't remember anything in the resolution that said Saddam was connected to Terrorists.. Of course we all know he harbored many. He put an equal number to death as well, to his credit.

 

yes, you did...now be a good boy and admit your mistake...look at this post you made:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=2743229&postcount=46

you said:

that is also a contradiction of your own statement. when you say that it was a lie about WMDs, but then state "of course that does not mean Iraqis didn't have WMD", you contradict your statement.

If this is your way of trying to win the argument, no matter what other people post, then you need some help. you can't have your cake and eat it to...make up your mind.

 

Eh it is useles with you ...

British government lied to their people that they had proof of Iraqi developing WMD. That does not mean Iraqis didn't do it ! You see the difference ?

There is no contradiction there...

I like it when you quote me where I say Iraq had WMD

d16man : I cannot help you if you don't know what I am talking about because it is obvious you are not informed about that british government thing about WDM Hell you are not informed at all when it is world politics in question hehe

 

Now I'm confused

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

"...we thought he had weapons of mass destruction; it turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." --GB

 

So Americanism is now a religion to compare with muslim or hindu? Tell me, how does one become an american in the religious form? Is the constitution the holy book? Is the president a shiek? I have lived here all my life and didn't know about this religion. Do we get to do cool things as "believers" like cut off heads of the infidel? who is the prophet - JFK and Bill Clinton?

 

like most people in this world, you probably think WMD means "Nuclear Weapon", however, there are more wmd's than nukes...go read GTech's post...

 

You dont want to watch George Bush tell you they didn't find any WMD's in Iraq

 

Who cares.. GWB will be gone soon enough, and the world will have someone else to bitch about. Attacking America is and always has been popular. GWB is just one of many that happened to be in charge at the time.

At least in America our leaders do not go on leading forever, like they do just about everywhere else.