How valid is the "War for Oil" Argument?

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: MachFive

So you are saying that inspections take time? Even when you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers all over the country?

And would it take more or less time than a couple of hundreds of inspectors? How much time do they need?

Yes, inspections take time. Even with 50 to 75,000 soldiers (not quite 100,000). It would certainly take less time than several hundreds inspectors who were denied access and given the run around through approximately 7 years of actual inspections.

Keep in mind not all of those soldiers will be inspecting. A large portion of that will be needed to prevent civil unrest in the highly populated areas and sniff out the remaining Saddam loyalists.

I would guess 3 months is all the time we'll need to turn up irrefutable evidence. Would you be willing to give them 3 months before complaining that we haven't found anything yet?

Ehhh... but i thought that the US knew where they were and that Bush already had "irrefutable evidence"?

At least that was what he said...

The reason for this war was the massive arsenal of WMD's that the Irakis were threatening US with, right? I would just like to see some "working inspections" taking place to find the "irrefutable evidence" that was the reason for this war...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Less than a week. We finished up the major ground campaign less than a week ago.

According to your statements (not specifically your statements, but those made by the same people saying what you're saying now) a week and a half ago, we were entering a "quagmire" (good word, btw) which would make us long for the easy days of Vietnam.

1. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
2. I didn't make that kind of claims. I have said that this war will be more difficult that Gulf War (true) and that "sh!t will hit the fan" when coalition enters Baghdad (which did happen, although on a small scale)

Give the US 3 months. 1/4 of a year. 1/72nd the time given to the UN Inspectors. And we'll find PLENTY.

If thousands of troops with cooperating local administration, informants, spy-network, satellites, aerial observation etc. etc. need that long, why did US insist quick results from the inspectors who were far fewer in numbers, they faced uncooperating local administration, terrifed populace (no informants) and limited intelligence resources?

And I'll bet dinere to donuts lots of it says "Made in France."

Somehow you remind me of those guys who started flaming France because coalition forces found car batteries in Iraq that were "made in France".

Yes, they will find WMD's. And I bet that those WMD's will be planted by the US government.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Its funny that people suggest that we send inspectors back in to find the WMD's. Ironically there is nothing for the inspectors to do there until they are found. Some people still think that it is their job to hunt these things down, it's not. Their job is to oversee the destruction of the WMD's. They inspect things, they don't run around searching for things. The weapon inspector's don't have any place there yet. Sadly, no matter what we find most of those who opposed the war, aren't going to trust our military to actually have found something. Any third party that verifies it will most likely be accused of taking hush money to keep it quiet. I've got to admit it isn't easy to trust any administration, but I do.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: MachFive

Less than a week. We finished up the major ground campaign less than a week ago.

According to your statements (not specifically your statements, but those made by the same people saying what you're saying now) a week and a half ago, we were entering a "quagmire" (good word, btw) which would make us long for the easy days of Vietnam.

1. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
2. I didn't make that kind of claims. I have said that this war will be more difficult that Gulf War (true) and that "sh!t will hit the fan" when coalition enters Baghdad (which did happen, although on a small scale)

Give the US 3 months. 1/4 of a year. 1/72nd the time given to the UN Inspectors. And we'll find PLENTY.

If thousands of troops with cooperating local administration, informants, spy-network, satellites, aerial observation etc. etc. need that long, why did US insist quick results from the inspectors who were far fewer in numbers, they faced uncooperating local administration, terrifed populace (no informants) and limited intelligence resources?

And I'll bet dinere to donuts lots of it says "Made in France."

Somehow you remind me of those guys who started flaming France because coalition forces found car batteries in Iraq that were "made in France".

Yes, they will find WMD's. And I bet that those WMD's will be planted by the US government.

Did the US PLANT the charred remains of MODERN French missile launchers?

We don't have to plant anything, all we have to do is what the UN could not in 12 years, find the WMD Saddam ADMITTED having, even if we can't, their existence is not in doubt by his admissions, all that is left is speculation over their location. To find NONE of them would suggest we were right, he was hiding them or selling/giving them away.

If they are not found Nemesis, what happened to them?

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: oscoyle
When Fidel Castro wanted to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba the United States was well on its' way to war with them until the weapons were
withdrawn. I don't think they had oil then. The United States can buy all the oil they need from other countries or if worse comes to worse tap
into our own reserves and drill in Alaska. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. This administration is determined to convince other countries
that terrorism will not be an option unless you don't mind having a target on your back.

As a side benefit of this, the people of Iraq are rid of Saddam. Hopefully they can install a more stable and peaceful government. I think if an Arab country
can prosper under a stable democratic government some of the other governments in the middle east will be in serious trouble ten years from now. Rest assured
they do not want a new form of government "for the people" in that area.

sorry but bith your arguments do not hold. A) the war was already planned way before 9/11, So either 9/11 was planned too or 9/11 had nothing to do with the reason to go to war with Iraq. The only thing 9/11 did is to provide the a suitable incident to justify(get the public in line) a war with Iraq
B) the turks have had a kinda democracy for quite some time now and they right in the same place - I wonder how Iraq is going to work this domino effect they are betting on while turkey did not have an domino effect? Well, ok turks are not Arabs - so u mean the theory only works when Arabs do it? Sounds like a load of crap


This war may not be for oil (only) but the reasons for this war off course are of economic nature.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: oscoyle
When Fidel Castro wanted to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba the United States was well on its' way to war with them until the weapons were
withdrawn. I don't think they had oil then. The United States can buy all the oil they need from other countries or if worse comes to worse tap
into our own reserves and drill in Alaska. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. This administration is determined to convince other countries
that terrorism will not be an option unless you don't mind having a target on your back.

As a side benefit of this, the people of Iraq are rid of Saddam. Hopefully they can install a more stable and peaceful government. I think if an Arab country
can prosper under a stable democratic government some of the other governments in the middle east will be in serious trouble ten years from now. Rest assured
they do not want a new form of government "for the people" in that area.

sorry but bith your arguments do not hold. A) the war was already planned way before 9/11, So either 9/11 was planned too or 9/11 had nothing to do with the reason to go to war with Iraq. The only thing 9/11 did is to provide the a suitable incident to justify(get the public in line) a war with Iraq
B) the turks have had a kinda democracy for quite some time now and they right in the same place - I wonder how Iraq is going to work this domino effect they are betting on while turkey did not have an domino effect? Well, ok turks are not Arabs - so u mean the theory only works when Arabs do it? Sounds like a load of crap


This war may not be for oil (only) but the reasons for this war off course are of economic nature.

The reasons behind the opposition is economic and well publicized. The fact that the SAME countries ALSO sold weapons THEY banned by SIGNING UN resolutions was also a factor I'm sure.
Go start another world war already....

German and French sales of illegal weapons to Iraq

LT. GREG HOLMES, a tactical intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division, told NEWSWEEK that U.S. forces discovered 51 Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms manufacturers, in two military compounds at Baghdad International Airport. One of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND 2002, which he took to mean that the missile was manufactured last year. The charred remains of a more modern Roland-3 launcher was found just down the road from the arms cache. According to a mortar specialist with the same unit, radios used by many Iraqi military trucks brandished MADE IN FRANCE labels and looked brand new. RPG night sights stamped with the number 2002 and French labels also turned up. And a new Nissan pickup truck driven by a surrendering Iraqi officer was manufactured in France as well.

Can't wait to hear what Boone has to say about his country now.

 

[B00ne]

A) I dont live in France.
B) I am not selling weapons
C) Unlike many here I know that we are not holy and that companies especially in the MIC are far from morals
And finally - I cant wait for u to explain to me what tf all this had to do with my reply about oscoyls theories on the war.

 

[Alistar7]

Those are French and GERMAN weaopons, brand spanking new. Maybe you should stop bashing the US and ask you own government how they let this happen while claiming to be about following UN resolutions...

 

[Tiger]

A) the war was already planned way before 9/11,

Prove it or STFU.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Tiger

A) the war was already planned way before 9/11,

Prove it or STFU.

Don't blame him, he lives in Germany, look at what his government has portrayed as truth to cover up their criminal and morally repugnant behavior, all the while crying about the US's actions...

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Tiger

A) the war was already planned way before 9/11,

Prove it or STFU.

It can't be proven that we were definitely going to attack Iraq before 9/11. The reason why is that Bush never made that statement on record, and he was ultimately responsible for the decision to attack Iraq. It can be proven that all the important people advising Bush to attack Iraq wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11.

Link

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, yowolabi, the problem you address here is central. Is it just chance that we have all these people from the New American Century in the admin and we just happened to go to war and for a constantly evolving series of pretexts, or is our war their war. Intelligent minds doubtless can differ, but unbiased ones, I'm not so sure. Occams razer surely tells us that if it walks like the New American Century, it's the New American Century. The real question, as I see it, is, do you have a mind that can go where the data suggests, or do you have an emotional attachment, a patriotic or political attachment to a country or party that affects our judgment. It seems rather fishy to me that a certain set of people are always on the Bush side of the issue. One keeps looking for that quality of mind, self reflection and self analysis, that indicates an awareness of the power of raw bias to slant ones view, and to compensate and distance oneself from it by rejecting attachment. The unexamined life is...

 

[Tiger]

It can't be proven that we were definitely going to attack Iraq before 9/11. The reason why is that Bush never made that statement on record, and he was ultimately responsible for the decision to attack Iraq. It can be proven that all the important people advising Bush to attack Iraq wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11.

If the war was pre-ordained as you say and the hawks running rampant in the White House, why did we waste 3 months dicking around in the UN? Why would Colin Powell risk all of the political capital he's got in both deptartments of state and defense recommending the UN route when he knew the war was going to happen anyway?

The whole idea is just more Eurotrash hyperbolie hoping no one notices their complicity in proping up Saddam for the last 12 years.
Nothing distracts attention from the truth like a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Moonbeam]

Tiger, the answer to your question is that the answer is obvious when the bias isn't there. Imagine if Bush had said. I read the Doctrine of a New American Century and we are going to take over Iraq. The invasion starts tomorrow. The voters go along? The world goes along? You and a few tens of millions more might have gone along, but the sh!t would have hit the fan pronto under such a scenario. Even Powell, I think, would have buckled under that load. No the popluation, and the world needed to be brought along for common sense reasons of getting reelected, legitimacy, etc. He got the population but failed with the world. The world, of course, isn't quite so easily brainwashed as us locals, and don't have all the right buttons in the right order ingrained from birth to push. They have been horribly brainwashed in other ways.

Nothing distracts attention like the notion that reality is a conspiracy theory.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Tiger

It can't be proven that we were definitely going to attack Iraq before 9/11. The reason why is that Bush never made that statement on record, and he was ultimately responsible for the decision to attack Iraq. It can be proven that all the important people advising Bush to attack Iraq wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11.

If the war was pre-ordained as you say and the hawks running rampant in the White House, why did we waste 3 months dicking around in the UN? Why would Colin Powell risk all of the political capital he's got in both deptartments of state and defense recommending the UN route when he knew the war was going to happen anyway?

The whole idea is just more Eurotrash hyperbolie hoping no one notices their complicity in proping up Saddam for the last 12 years.
Nothing distracts attention from the truth like a good conspiracy theory.

If you read the link that I posted, you'll see it's not as I say, but as Bush's advisers themselves said. They put it down on paper. Thankfully they said so in their own words to make it easier to prove. Was it pre-ordained? The answer is no. It wasn't definitely going to happen, because it would have been hard to justify such a war to America and to the world. This was the main obstacle.

That's where Colin Powell and the U.N. came in. How do you justify an attack? Even though we had 9/11, there wasn't wide support for attacking Iraq. The UN would have been the best way. If the UN would have agreed to attack, then that would have been perfect. The U.S. didn't decide to ditch the UN because it was illegitimate. The U.S. ditched the UN because it wasn't going to bring about the desired results. We didn't go to them to see if Iraq needed to be attacked, we went to them to try to convince them of that necessity.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, yowolabi, the problem you address here is central. Is it just chance that we have all these people from the New American Century in the admin and we just happened to go to war and for a constantly evolving series of pretexts, or is our war their war. Intelligent minds doubtless can differ, but unbiased ones, I'm not so sure. Occams razer surely tells us that if it walks like the New American Century, it's the New American Century. The real question, as I see it, is, do you have a mind that can go where the data suggests, or do you have an emotional attachment, a patriotic or political attachment to a country or party that affects our judgment. It seems rather fishy to me that a certain set of people are always on the Bush side of the issue. One keeps looking for that quality of mind, self reflection and self analysis, that indicates an awareness of the power of raw bias to slant ones view, and to compensate and distance oneself from it by rejecting attachment. The unexamined life is...

Thanks for your post. Besides the addition of Occam's razor to my vocabulary, I have a new understanding of what you've been talking about for so long with the "New American Century". I won't comment on it yet, as I have to do more research on Bush's advisors and things they have said and written in the past. The fact that our leaders don't share with us the agenda behind this war has been my main reason for objecting to it. I haven't done enough research to discover what the real agenda is however. If you have any links, please share.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Did the US PLANT the charred remains of MODERN French missile launchers?

What are you talking about? links? And in case you dont know: missile launcher is not a weapon of mass destruction

We don't have to plant anything, all we have to do is what the UN could not in 12 years, find the WMD Saddam ADMITTED having, even if we can't, their existence is not in doubt by his admissions, all that is left is speculation over their location. To find NONE of them would suggest we were right, he was hiding them or selling/giving them away.

Did Saddam admit of having WMD's? To my knowledge it was suggested that some of the WMD-material is missing. But that does not mean that it was hidden, it might as well mean that it was destroyed but not catalogued properly.

you will have to plant them if you can't find them. Like I have said, USA will not admit that their act of aggression was based on facts that were simply not true

If they are not found Nemesis, what happened to them?

Maybe they are not there?

 

[Alistar7]

Could the push to remove Saddam before 9/11 have anything to d owith increased intelligence reports of possible terrorist attacks? Maybe our govt internally breathed a sigh of RELIEF when the towers was not a chem/bio attack, or worse yet, an Iraqi drum of uranium blasted in the atmosphere of NYC.

 

[etech]

yowolabi

While you are researching the New American Century, please research just how Blair is a part of that.

Please tell me how Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Jose Maria Aznar is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Georgi Purvanov is a part of that New American Century.

What was that about Occam's Razor again?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: etech
yowolabi

While you are researching the New American Century, please research just how Blair is a part of that.

Please tell me how Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Jose Maria Aznar is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Georgi Purvanov is a part of that New American Century.

What was that about Occam's Razor again?

I'll defend any point I have made. I won't defend other people's points. Post a rebuttal to any post I've made and i'll answer you. Debate with moonbeam about the New American Century, that's his point.

 

[CaptnKirk]

This is an interesting article, 16 months of planning the War that puts input date back to November 2001, only 2 months after 9/11.

There was an analytic article about a meeting between Bush and Blair on the 12 of September, 2001 in which Bush waanted to immediatly launch
an offensive on Iraq, but Blair told him to wait until after Afganistan was settled, as there was no link and Al-Queda was the correct target.
There would be plenty of time for Iraq after the Taliban was taken down.

Now this doesn't get the Iraq decision back to BEFORE 9/11, but it does close the gap to within 24 hours after.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
yowolabi

While you are researching the New American Century, please research just how Blair is a part of that.

Please tell me how Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Jose Maria Aznar is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Georgi Purvanov is a part of that New American Century.

What was that about Occam's Razor again?

I'll defend any point I have made. I won't defend other people's points. Post a rebuttal to any post I've made and i'll answer you. Debate with moonbeam about the New American Century, that's his point.

Smart move on your part. I wouldn't want to try to defend one of moonies conspriacy theories either.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
yowolabi

While you are researching the New American Century, please research just how Blair is a part of that.

Please tell me how Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Jose Maria Aznar is a part of that New American Century.

Please tell me how Georgi Purvanov is a part of that New American Century.

What was that about Occam's Razor again?

I'll defend any point I have made. I won't defend other people's points. Post a rebuttal to any post I've made and i'll answer you. Debate with moonbeam about the New American Century, that's his point.

Smart move on your part. I wouldn't want to try to defend one of moonies conspriacy theories either.

That I'm not arguing his position for him doesn't make it untrue or even mean that I don't believe it is true. I just don't see why you'd come to me to debate this when the source is also right here. He's obviously thought about it and developed it a lot longer than I have. Why not redirect your questions in his direction?

 

[Moonbeam]

Link 1

Pravda? Oh no!

Link 3

etech answer

The first four links to a Google Search News hit on the Project for a New American Century. There seem to be many hundreds more.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Glugglug mentioned DOLLARS - Maybe there's Something to that