Originally posted by: jeremy806
The costs of the war and occupation are grossly underestimated, and all of us here in the US are footing the bill.
We could be buying oil for a long time instead.
On a separate note, Saddam appears to have no value for human life. A person like that has to go and that is that.
All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.
Jeremy806
All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Its not just the oil, its who controls the oil.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.
Dude, I don't remember Bush ever saying that at the UN or on the stump in late 2002 to early 2003. Weapons of mass destruction . . . Bush to be explicit . . . "this is not about inspections this is about disarmament". I guess it was another malapropism. Bush meant to say "dismemberment".
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Given that oil is lifeblood for our economy, our government was more keenly aware of potentially disruptive forces in the middle east as compared to say, Africa. Although many parts of Africa are far more hellish than anything the Iraqis went through (which was a lot), we choose to act against Saddam instead. Why? As someone said, It is about the control of oil. If not for oil, Americans in general would not have cared about Iraq any more than Indonesia.
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Given that oil is lifeblood for our economy, our government was more keenly aware of potentially disruptive forces in the middle east as compared to say, Africa. Although many parts of Africa are far more hellish than anything the Iraqis went through (which was a lot), we choose to act against Saddam instead. Why? As someone said, It is about the control of oil. If not for oil, Americans in general would not have cared about Iraq any more than Indonesia.
What the f*ck ever.
Do any of those countries have any sort of global influence? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, they dont have oil
Have we ever been involved with any of those countries? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not really, they dont have oil
Do any of them have any sort of possibility of killing half a million people with a flip of a switch? --------------------------------------No and neither did Iraq
I mean geezus, the next person that thinks Saddam is in any way comparable to any African dictator needs to get a clue.. --- No, the African situation is much worse
And plus, it's impossible to say whether or not we'd be at war with Iraq if they didn't have oil, because the country would be completely different than it is now if it didn't. --- That's special
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There's actually a lot of oil in Africa but extraction costs aren't nearly as favorable as the Gulf. Not to mention the fact that a lot of Africans live in Africa and the last time US troops tried to run that show we got run out of town.
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
Cheney's compensation is arguably below the mean for corporate greed in America so there's no explicit evidence of quid pro quo. Yet even the most dense member of the GOP fan club must admit that Halliburton expected to have an empathic ear when it comes to the Bush administration. Do you think Halliburton was NOT a part of Cheney's energy task force?Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
oh sure,
the first contract in iraq goes to the vice presidents former emplyer.... coincedences happen like that every day
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Cheney's compensation is arguably below the mean for corporate greed in America so there's no explicit evidence of quid pro quo. Yet even the most dense member of the GOP fan club must admit that Halliburton expected to have an empathic ear when it comes to the Bush administration. Do you think Halliburton was NOT a part of Cheney's energy task force?Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
I know I've never said it was all about the oil. But if there's no oil there . . . do you think we would be there? At this point in time it certainly looks like this war was more about controling the oil (UN resolution) than relieving Iraqi suffering (can you say Occupation sux) or WMD (which way did it go)?I am still failing to see how a single oil contract that means very little, overall, for Haliburton and amounts to little to no personal gain for either Bush or Cheney qualifies as being "all about the oil."