To all the people who think the US only goes to war for OIL ...

by dolphman 20 Replies latest social current

  • dolphman
    dolphman

    I won't bring up WW2 or anything like that but---

    Why did we go to Somalia and get shot at for distributing rice to hungy people?

    Why did we go to Haiti?

    Panama?

    I'm not saying OIL didn't play an important role in why we went to Iraq. But honestly, if that's what we were after, why didn't we just get it while we there in 1991. We had ALL the excuses in the world.

    I'm guessing OIL was a big part of it. But ridding the world of Saddam is a positive no matter how you slice it. It paves the way for what was once the Arab worlds most prosperous/secratist state to be great again, and stable. If we can defeat the insurgents, the region will be much better off.

  • Phil
    Phil

    If the USA went to war with Iraq solely for the oil, wouldn't it have been a lot easier the have the UN lift the sanctions? If there were no sanctions Saddam would have opened the spigots full bore until there was no more left and pocketed the money.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    Regarding helping anyone outside of our country, I'm coming to the point of saying to h*ll with the rest of the world... let them swim or sink. Save our money and blood and just watch out after ourselves here in this country. In the eyes of the world, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't .... so let's just DON'T.

  • dolphman
    dolphman

    I was hoping the anti-war crowd would respond in some way. Doesn't look like they have an answer for me...

  • AlanB
    AlanB

    Ok here is a response from a liberal free thinking 'anti war crowd'. I posted this on a pervious thread.

    OK, here are some facts to make the Americans amongst us think, as we live in free countries in Europe we have access to information Americans do not.

    The weapons of mass destruction were sold to Iraq by America during the Iran - Iraq war.

    Osama Bin Laden was funded and trained by America during the Russian - Afghan war.

    The Bin Laden family are connected with the Bush oil cartell.

    America has been bombing Iraq for 11 years since the Kuwait gulf war, to the point where they ran out of legitimate miltary targets and ended up bombing sheep stations and villages.

    France was not being disloyal in voting against the war, they used their democratic vote in the UN which is their right. They should not have been berated for that.

    The Bush election was rigged to the extent that had it happenned in a 3rd world country the UN would have sent in peacekeepers.

    Several British military officers refused to fight in the latest war because they disagreed with the weapons the Americans were using that are banned under international treaties of which the US has not signed up to.

    Several RAF (Royal Air Force) officers resigned because they discovered that they were told to stand down during their patrols of the no fly zones due to 'ITM's' which they later found were incoming Turkish missions to bomb Kurds, the people they were supposed to protect.

    All the key members of Bush's government have connections in the oil industry.

    The poorest member of the government has an oil tanker named after her.

    Iraq has one of the largest reserves of oil remaining in the world.

    Afghanistan forms a natural link with the trans-caucasus oil reserves in the former USSR with the gulf ports.

    American oil companies have deals in place to run a pipeline from Trans-Caucasus to the gulf via Afghanistan. The Bin Laden family are involved in this deal.

    Weapons inspectors have gone on record as saying there are no WMD in Iraq.

    There is no link with Iraq and Al Quada other than they have both been armed and funded by the USA in recent history.

    Al Quada attempted to assasinate Saddam twice over the last 10 years.

    There are reports amongst the anti war movement in the UK of significant squadrons of US bombers flying into bases in Scotland and parking up.

    There is more to this that we shall ever know, what we read in the news is often what the people with the power want us to read. There is an agenda that if we knew the full story would outline a level of corruption never seen since the fall of the Roman empire.

    It is all about oil, which is running out. There will be a final scramble to secure the remaining stocks.

    Not wishing to get apocolyptic about this especially on this board, as I firmly believe that one of the freedoms we have in not believing religious dogma of any brand is that we finally realise that we, mankind have to sort this out for ourselves.

    A

  • AlanB
    AlanB
    But ridding the world of Saddam is a positive no matter how you slice it. It paves the way for what was once the Arab worlds most prosperous/secratist state to be great again, and stable. If we can defeat the insurgents, the region will be much better off.

    Then why is America funding a dictator in the transcaucaus region that disposes of his oponents by boiling them alive.

    As for somalia, check out your altlas and see where it actually is in relation to the Gulf.

  • AlanB
    AlanB
    Regarding helping anyone outside of our country, I'm coming to the point of saying to h*ll with the rest of the world... let them swim or sink. Save our money and blood and just watch out after ourselves here in this country. In the eyes of the world, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't .... so let's just DON'T.

    Are you suggesting that America stops interfering in world affairs, stops funding Israel, stops imposing illegal trade sanctions on countries and stops imposing IMF and World Bank conditions that effectively destroy a countries economy in order to secure exports for themselves.

    Hmmmm I'm with you on this one.

  • SanFranciscoJim
    SanFranciscoJim

    I was hoping the anti-war crowd would respond in some way. Doesn't look like they have an answer for me...

    When the U.S. went to war in the past, our primary reason was because we are a world superpower and looked upon as a protector of the masses from tyranny. We would still be looked upon this way had we gone to war in Iraq for solely legitimate reasons, such as the Hussein regime annihilating thousands of innocent Iraqis. Unfortunately, in this case, our administration chose to go to war to try and divert attention from the fact that we have been unable to catch Osama Bin Laden and subdue his Al Qaeda minions. While the Iraqis will (hopefully) ultimately benefit from the removal of Saddam, our resources at home have been tapped out, and our own problems at home have been shelved. Where is the $87 billion coming from to aid Iraq? Will we have enough left over to improve our own public school systems, Social Security and Medicare programs, or homeland security? It seems the primary benefactors of our actions in Iraq will be those associated with corporations like Halliburton and oil executives.

    Why are we not taking action against other equally cruel nations like North Korea? Perhaps, because there is no profit in it for anyone associated with the current administration.

  • foreword
    foreword
    I was hoping the anti-war crowd would respond in some way. Doesn't look like they have an answer for me...

    You got to give us time you know.....1/2 hour?....

    Of course it wasn't for Oil, solely. It was for humanitarian purposes, sort of. I mean, Saddam did have a bunch of mass graves of his own people, and only normal that we had to stop him, someone had to anyway.....I can't argue that point. But not only was Saddam killing his people, he was also controlling Iraq's oil, and keeping the cash for himself, just like all the leaders of those nations surrounding Iraq. And since we are in an energy crisis, we can't totally put aside the argument that maybe our leaders, who so happen to be in the energy business, were motivated by gain....and not just the humanitarian side of the issue.

    But ask yourself this, when will you realize...as a pro war advocate....that you are generating as many deaths as Saddam has. For humanitarian purposes, shouldn't you side step to save a few lives, sort of like back off, to see what would happen if you did?

    It is becoming evermore obvious that trying to fight terrorism with violence doesn't work and doesn't stop violence. So what's the plan now?

    As I look at all of this as an "arm chair general", like most of us internet junkies are, regardless of our position, I'm trying to figure out why those people are fighting, and fighting back even more feverishly. Do they know something that I don't? Maybe the donkeys will be able to provide some intelligence on the matter.

    This is taking on a dangerous religious twist. Maybe that's what it was all along.

    Personally I think it's all about money, and who will control it, and be able to pocket it. And you don't have to be a dictator for that to happen. I don't see any leader on the front lines of this war. They surround themselves with so much security it's almost ridiculous, you have to wonder if they truly believe in their ideologies. Why is it so important to protect the life of any leader, Bush or Blair included? What does it mean for them to give your life for what you believe, isn't it what they ask of their own young men: To show up at the enemies' door unprotected. Why should it be any different for them? Are they so egomaniatistic as to believe that life can't go on without them? And if they really believe that what they are doing is "the right thing to do", well then they should've been the first ones to knock on the next tyrants door to reason with them. And if that didn't work and got killed in the process, well then they would be hailed as a true supporter of freedom, and well just move on to elect another president or prime minister to keep the fight for freedom going.

    Because they ask other men to do their bidding, and over protect themselves with your tax dollars, is the reason why I believe their motives are not what they tell us to be. So I have to conclude that they are in it for the money, just like any man who over protects himself is in it for the money, otherwise they'd be on the front lines fighting for freedom themselves, willing to put their lives on the line for what they believe. I'm sure they had a cute little party there in Buckingham, the Queen even cracked open a vintage bottle of wine. They are as guilty as Saddam (having a party in their castles while others get killed). What a bunch of hypocrites.

  • foreword
    foreword

    BTW, Iraqi reconstruction....I'm sure Saddam's palaces are looking pretty squeaky clean by now and a great place to do business in. I'm sure that much of the furniture there has been replaced after major looting. Can't have those important people working off make shift furniture do you?....

    Or even sleep on the floor.....

    God no!.....only the best hotels in town will do it.....

    And some wonder why some of them are pissed?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit