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

by dolphman 20 Replies latest social current

  • stillajwexelder

    Yes why did we go to war in Kosovo (without U N approval I might add) - was not for oil or WMD mmmmmmmmmmm was not that done under ademocrat Bill Clinton-- arrrr it must be OK then -- when a war is started by a democrat that makes it OK

  • SanFranciscoJim
    Yes why did we go to war in Kosovo (without U N approval I might add) - was not for oil or WMD mmmmmmmmmmm was not that done under ademocrat Bill Clinton-- arrrr it must be OK then -- when a war is started by a democrat that makes it OK

    If the purpose of war is to save the lives of countless innocents from persecution and torture by an evil dictator, as a world superpower, it gives us more than a right to start a war there -- it creates for us a responsibility to do so, as long as our intentions are to save innocent lives.

    If the purpose of war is to divert our attention from other unresolved issues and to line the pockets of those closely associated with the administration, even though the after-effect might be the removal of a dictatorship, our motives are wrong.

    Had this country gone to war in Iraq with the sole agenda to liberate the Iraqis from an evil regime, there would have been no need to create the fantasy of WMDs. The administration, realizing they had missed their chance because we had turned our backs a golden opportunity to oust Saddam after the first Gulf War, chose to manufacture a "Wag the Dog" scenario instead. It was a horrible public relations blunder, and will likely cost the current administration their chances of reelection. Considering how much money the current administration will make from this operation, it may not have been such a blunder after all.

    Any administration, Republican or Democrat, who decides to step in for the betterment of the world's innocents is doing the world a favor by exterminating evil. On the other hand, if our motivations are greed, with the betterment of another nation being only a hopeful byproduct, we need to reexamine our motives and take a good hard look at how the rest of the world will percieve us, as a superpower savior, or as a bully.

  • heathen

    I still think this a war about control and nothing to do about freedom . I don't think the Iraqui people will be any better off than they were when Saddaam was in control . I was all for eliminating Saddaam during the Gulf war and so was schwartzkoff I think the main reason the US didn't go further was because Saddaam was attacking the environment by blowing up oil wells and there was way too many civilian casualties . I would like to see full disclosure of these corporarations that are contracted for oil and reconstruction to see just how much greed is involved .

  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    You don't think the following international banking cartel have anything to do world affairs?

    1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin

    2. Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris

    3. Israel Moses Sieff Bank of Italy

    4. Warburg Banks of Hamburg and Amsterdam

    5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York

    6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York

    7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (controlled by the Rockefellers)

    8. Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.

    Guest 77

  • stillajwexelder

    Since Money makes the world go round (Liza Minelli in Cabaret) yes of course they do

  • Satanus

    Why guest, are they not the owners of the us federal reserve?


  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    You hit the jack-pot SS! Extra drinks for you when you come to the house in January of 2004!!!!

    Guest 77

  • Zep


    I'll bring up ww2 if you want. Everyone knows it was a good against evil thing. The nazi guys were evil. And the allies lead by the U.S of A(who saved our ass) were the good guys fighting for FREEDOM. If youse don't believe me that hitler was an evil guy, just look at what hitler did to all those Jews. Of course, everyone back in the USA was FREE, such things could never happen to a minority group. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be black for quids back in the 40's, and I certainly wouldn't want to be those 1000's of black people who in the 30's were injected with deadly diseases in the name of science by official, though very hush hush, government programs. But on the whole the U.S. was fighting for FREEDOM, not a hint of economic self interest involved, no sir.

    >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.

    If you ask our former prime minister at the time (I'm from Australia) he'll say it was because of the UN mandate.

    I think the main reason they didn't go in was the fear of what would rise up after Saddam. 60% of the population in Iraq is shite, which is the dominant Islamic sect in Iran. The U.S. was fearful of a post Saddam Iraq siding with Iran afterwards. Saddam, however bad he was, provided a check for this. The neo-conseravtives have recently reversed this thinking.

    > But ridding the world of Saddam is a positive no matter how you slice it.

    It depends what replaces Saddam doesn't 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.

    This is like the neo-conservative thinking. They think that by getting rid of Saddam the iraqis will unite under a glorious democracy, and that a democratized Iraq will spead democracy throughout the Arab world like a disease. I think it's a utopian fantasy myself. I think People like Pearl, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are full of themselves. They have bought their own utopian fantasy bullshit. Iraq may end up being a little better than under Saddam, or maybe civil war will break out after the US leaves and things will get worse, who knows, I certainly don't. But, I think on the whole, as far as relations with the Arab world is concerned, it's going to be the same old same old.

  • heathen

    Zep--- You made a good point that the US thinks it can just march into baghdad and hoist an american flag while tearing down a statue of Saddaam to change the way the Iraqi people think. As a nation they are stil in the dark ages and don't have the mentality to accept the changes that the US is imposing on them . Speaking of the nazis this whole thing wreaks of facist intent . Much like hitler the US government is trying to convince the people that the world will end if they don't destroy their enemies and in the process take the moral high road as if they are the only ones who are empowered by God to invade and occupy other countries for the sake of peace and security . What a crock of sh** .We have so many problems within our own borders . There are people in this country trying to bring down the government there is poverty there are states like california with an 8 billion dollar debt that now the whole country has to bail them out with federal monies . The list goes on .

  • PopeOfEruke

    The thing I don't understand is why the other Arab countries don't help Iraq out....where's the Islamic brotherly love??

    Why aren't the Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Syrians, Yemeni's, Emiraties etc etc all pitching in to help Iraq out of the mess now? They've all got money and troops, why don't they help??

    Its a mad mad mad mad mad mad world.....

    Hopefully Brooklyn is busily training a new batch of Missionaries to go to Iraq and help the UN do a survey or whatever, same as they did in East Timor......


Share this