People who hate America are claiming the war to liberate Iraq was really about oil

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Saddam not being Islamic is not "a lefty talking point," it's the truth.

Saddam was never an observant Muslim, appealing to jihadi and other Islamic groups for help only when his back was pressed to the wall, similar to how Stalin all of a sudden allowed the Orthodox clergy to give the gulags and firing squads a pass when Russia almost succumbed to Hitler's advances.

If Saddam was really devoted to Islam in anyway, would he have commissioned a copy of the Koran written in his own blood? That was an act that shocked Muslims everywhere. For those of you not familiar with Islam, blood is considered unclean and quite taboo irt anything holy. It's like seeing some guy hold the KJV bible up and proclaim it's unfailing holy wisdom... then proceed to tear out a page and wipe his ass with it.

Baathist /= Islamist
Saddam implemented his "Faith Campaign" in 1993. Whether or not he himself was a "true Muslim" is a point of contention. imo, he was as much Islamic as he was "secular." iow, he was truly neither and he employed whatever tools and tactics he felt were necessary at any given time to maintain his megalomaniacal grip on power.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Actually I responded with the following:

"It's a talking point the lefties have desperately tried to discredit but continue to fail at. We went into Iraq because it was the only choice. Like clockwork, the fundies streamed in from other countries, promptly got their ass waxed, and were shown to be nothing more than power hungry SOBs who held no real Islamic ideals. They were out for themselves and whatever they thought they could take. They have been exposed. The whole world saw it and the Arabs in the ME saw it too. They've been so thoroughly discredited even loonies like Gadaffi now use al Qaeda as a boogyman. AQ has been marginalized. It was F-in genius how well it worked."

Yeah, lots of handwaving and insults there.

:rolleyes:

If you want insults...your dishonest attempt to distort what I actually was saying in that thread - and your resorting to the standard old lefty talking point about "Saddam was neither Islamic (which is BS) or fundamentalist (no, he was a fucking tyrant instead) - is typical of your posting style in here. There. Happy now?

Gee, still trying to defend your crazy statement huh?

It's right there in black and white....here is exactly what you said, I even provided the link for proof that you wrote it:

Regarding Iraq, we didn't invade it because there was potential of harm from them. The Iraq invasion, at its core, was an attempt to strike back at militant Islamic fundamentalism.

Unless you want to either admit your were 100% wrong, or that someone hijacked your account, the statement stands for itself. That it is easily proven wrong isn't my fault, the facts stand for themselves. Sorry that you don't like the truth, but hey, it's a free country, so you are free to be wrong. But post BS like that, and don't be surprised when you get called on it. Next time, try researching the facts before posts. It helps greatly, maybe you should try it sometime, instead of posting random thoughts instead?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,680
40,030
136
Saddam implemented his "Faith Campaign" in 1993. Whether or not he himself was a "true Muslim" is a point of contention. imo, he was as much Islamic as he was "secular." iow, he was truly neither and he employed whatever tools and tactics he felt were necessary at any given time to maintain his megalomaniacal grip on power.

It was '94, but I don't feel that paying for a few mosques and putting Korans in school rooms somehow invalidates his stated secular views, especially irt to politics, or his clear disdain for radicals or radical portions of Koran. Baathism is a secular movement afterall.
He was a ruthless opportunist, we can agree on that, but that doesn't confirm him being an Islamist at all. Not once in speaking with Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or Qataris have I ever had anyone refer to Saddam as muslim, and offense was taken if the notion was suggested. It sounds like the only people who believe the issue is in contention are those who see Islamic fundamentalism as a prerequisite for Middle Eastern tyranny.

To put it in another way, I don't think it's correct to refer to a mafia boss as The Spanish Inquisition 2.0 because he is proud of his Italian heritage and revels in the attention he gets from donating turkeys to his local church on Thanksgiving. In reality, he's a thug, using his culture and religion for his own gain. How is that basic description just a talking point?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Except US companies haven't been awarded the actual oil production contracts.

Of course many US businesses will win drilling contracts. We are number 1 in the world in that particular expertise so it is no surprise we will win some of those. Development contracts != production contracts though and the US still has to buy oil on the world market just like everybody else.

iow, we receive no special treatment or price advantage by invading Iraq. So stuff those bullshit claims where your idiotic ideologies reside.

Yeah, the last i read we were shut out entirely from the drilling contacts. Something like 0 of ~180 contracts went to US companies.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,145
26
91
I sure didn't buy the reasoning of nation building, or spreading democracy in the ME. The pentagon spends billions on psy ops and modeling with their Cray super computers.
IMO, they know full well that Islam and democracy are not compatible. Look at the Islamic protests in the UK and France right now calling for sharia law.
I like the old saying that if you want to know what's really happening, follow the money.
I'm a conservative who dislikes Bush as much as I dislike Obama. Hitler would have loved the Patriotic Act. Neocons have as much in common with tradational conservative values as the banksters have in common with a fairly regulated capitalist economy.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Gee, still trying to defend your crazy statement huh?

It's right there in black and white....here is exactly what you said, I even provided the link for proof that you wrote it:



Unless you want to either admit your were 100% wrong, or that someone hijacked your account, the statement stands for itself. That it is easily proven wrong isn't my fault, the facts stand for themselves. Sorry that you don't like the truth, but hey, it's a free country, so you are free to be wrong. But post BS like that, and don't be surprised when you get called on it. Next time, try researching the facts before posts. It helps greatly, maybe you should try it sometime, instead of posting random thoughts instead?
/yawn

Are you still trying to defend your distortion of my statement? Wow! You're not only stupid, you're pigheadedly stupid.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
It was '94, but I don't feel that paying for a few mosques and putting Korans in school rooms somehow invalidates his stated secular views, especially irt to politics, or his clear disdain for radicals or radical portions of Koran. Baathism is a secular movement afterall.
He was a ruthless opportunist, we can agree on that, but that doesn't confirm him being an Islamist at all. Not once in speaking with Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or Qataris have I ever had anyone refer to Saddam as muslim, and offense was taken if the notion was suggested. It sounds like the only people who believe the issue is in contention are those who see Islamic fundamentalism as a prerequisite for Middle Eastern tyranny.

To put it in another way, I don't think it's correct to refer to a mafia boss as The Spanish Inquisition 2.0 because he is proud of his Italian heritage and revels in the attention he gets from donating turkeys to his local church on Thanksgiving. In reality, he's a thug, using his culture and religion for his own gain. How is that basic description just a talking point?
It's a talking point because Saddam was secular in the same way he was Islamic. It was all superficial; partially meant for show, partially meant as a form of control, and partially to prevent Islam from gaining any power under his reign. He was secular to those who agreed with him and behaved how he dictated they should behave. Those that showed any disagreement or dissent, like many Shia found out, had their Mosques torn up and their people brutalized or disappeared.

The talking point is that "secular" is bandied about with regard to Saddam like the US ruined a good thing. "But Saddam was secular." A secular schmuck is still a schmuck. Putting lipstick on that pig doesn't change a thing.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
/yawn

Are you still trying to defend your distortion of my statement? Wow! You're not only stupid, you're pigheadedly stupid.

No, just posting your statement. It's cluelessness stands on its own, no help from me is necessary. BTW, plenty of other people have corrected you as well. So sorry you can't admit you are wrong, but everyone else knows you are.

You wrote it, you own it.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
No, just posting your statement. It's cluelessness stands on its own, no help from me is necessary. BTW, plenty of other people have corrected you as well. So sorry you can't admit you are wrong, but everyone else knows you are.

You wrote it, you own it.
Actually, you took it upon yourself to define what I wrote when you don't appear to possess the mental faculties to comprehend it. If I ever need you to define the content and meaning of my statements I'll PM you first and ask. Don't ever expect that to fucking happen though. Got it, douchebag?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Jhhnn...don't bother with TLC, he is delusional when it comes to Iraq. This is the person that thinks we invaded Iraq to strike at fundamentalism



TLC Link

When it was pointed out that Iraq under Saddam was neither Islamic nor fundamentalist, and that invading Iraq actually strengthened Iran, who WAS an Islamic fundamentalist country, he resorted to the usually hand waving and insults that are typical to try and avoid showing just how wrong his idea is.

No point arguing with someone that doesn't use facts and evidence, but only their own "faith" based beliefs.

I don't see TLC as delusional, but rather as a propagandist. He knows the truth all too well and seeks to obfuscate it. I sometimes wonder why, even speculate that he may be a professional operative, but the notion that he actually believes any of it is mistaken, imho.

His intellect is entirely too strong for him to not realize when he's been owned six ways from sunday, even by himself, but he carries on just the same. He never deviates from the assigned talking points, but rather sticks with them through thick and thin. If he were expressing honest opinion, there would be some deviation from the party line, but there isn't. He operates at a deeper level of dishonesty than self delusion.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Actually, you took it upon yourself to define what I wrote when you don't appear to possess the mental faculties to comprehend it. If I ever need you to define the content and meaning of my statements I'll PM you first and ask. Don't ever expect that to fucking happen though. Got it, douchebag?

LOL, you accuse others of insults and you say that to me...LOL.

You must really be embarressed that eveyone can see how clueless you are.

Again, you wrote it, I didn't put the words in your mouth nor interpret them.

*You* said it , not me. You claimed attacking Iraq:

was an attempt to strike back at militant Islamic fundamentalism.

You are 100% wrong. I didn't define jack squat. I just posted a obviously 100% inaccurate statement so everyone can see how clueless you are. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but maybe it will teach you not to make such stupid statements in the future. Or maybe not. But the blame lies on you for posting non-factual statements like you do.

And now all you do is cry and whine about it. Too bad. You could pull a Jon Kyle and try to delete it, or claim it "wasn't intended to be a factual statement", LOL, otherwise man up and admit it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I don't see TLC as delusional, but rather as a propagandist. He knows the truth all too well and seeks to obfuscate it. I sometimes wonder why, even speculate that he may be a professional operative, but the notion that he actually believes any of it is mistaken, imho.

His intellect is entirely too strong for him to not realize when he's been owned six ways from sunday, even by himself, but he carries on just the same. He never deviates from the assigned talking points, but rather sticks with them through thick and thin. If he were expressing honest opinion, there would be some deviation from the party line, but there isn't. He operates at a deeper level of dishonesty than self delusion.
Oh oh. Jhhnn has uncovered our secret organization of professional operatives who exist solely to follow his every move and discredit his exposure of the Bush admin malfeasance on an obscure political forum on the Internet. Guess we'll have to close up shop now.

btw, we've noticed the tinfoil covering your windows has become loose in places.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
LOL, you accuse others of insults and you say that to me...LOL.

You must really be embarressed that eveyone can see how clueless you are.

Again, you wrote it, I didn't put the words in your mouth nor interpret them.

*You* said it , not me. You claimed attacking Iraq:



You are 100% wrong. I didn't define jack squat. I just posted a obviously 100% inaccurate statement so everyone can see how clueless you are. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but maybe it will teach you not to make such stupid statements in the future. Or maybe not. But the blame lies on you for posting non-factual statements like you do.

And now all you do is cry and whine about it. Too bad. You could pull a Jon Kyle and try to delete it, or claim it "wasn't intended to be a factual statement", LOL, otherwise man up and admit it is wrong.
You didn't define anything? Really? So then you haven't implied a damn thing about my statement other than posting it and claiming it's wrong without even bothering to even explain why it is wrong?

Do tell? So then what's your point? Are you trying to imply that you have this godly power to exclaim a statement is wrong without even having to explain why, but purely because you said so?

If that's the case methinks you're every bit as deluded as Jhhnn.
 

al981

Golden Member
May 28, 2009
1,036
0
0
funny thread. the usual mental midgets, xjohnx and dodgelikeachicken, right on schedule to continue supporting america's lies. what else do you expect from geniuses who, like cogman in my sig, believe in magical bullets. :D:D
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
funny thread. the usual mental midgets, xjohnx and dodgelikeachicken, right on schedule to continue supporting america's lies. what else do you expect from geniuses who, like cogman in my sig, believe in magical bullets. :D:D

What are you babbling about now idiot? Do you run a script or something that scans the forum for "9/11" and pop in to pule up some stupidity whether it has anything to do with the discussion or not when it gets a hit? Next time try reading the thread before posting, you wouldn't look so dumb ...ah never mind, nothing on Earth can make you not look like a complete and utter fool.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You didn't define anything? Really? So then you haven't implied a damn thing about my statement other than posting it and claiming it's wrong without even bothering to even explain why it is wrong?

Do tell? So then what's your point? Are you trying to imply that you have this godly power to exclaim a statement is wrong without even having to explain why, but purely because you said so?

If that's the case methinks you're every bit as deluded as Jhhnn.

First off, you claim I defined something when I didn't. I posted your BS statement in whole, not taken out of context, and not clipped out of something larger. So right off the bat, you are wrong.(Gee, why am I not shocked that you are wrong again?) And now you claim I can magically declare something wrong. LOL, you really are desperate to not have to admit your cluelessness. No wonder you keep changing your insults....first it's redefining, then it's claiming you are wrong, etc, etc.

Second, I and several others pointed out all the things wrong with your comment in the previous thread (in which you acted the same way, sticking your head in the sand and claiming we are all wrong).

Idiot TLC quote:
Regarding Iraq, we didn't invade it because there was potential of harm from them. The Iraq invasion, at its core, was an attempt to strike back at militant Islamic fundamentalism.

1. Iraq wasn't Islamic
2. Iraq wasn't fundamentalist
3. Invading Iraq didn't hurt Islamic fundamentalism, but it did weaken Iraq, which lead to strengthening of Iran, which is a Islamic fundamentalist country.

So somehow you claim by invading a non-Islamic non-fundamentalist country, and as a result of this invasion, a real Islamic fundamentalist country is *strengthened*, not weakened, is striking back at Islamic fundamentalism.

So again, three strikes and you are out. Wrong on all accounts in your quote. Others have pointed this out as well, and you continue to ignore us. Trivial google searching will show this, and multiple sources were quoted in the other thread, which of course, you ignored and acted like they weren't posted.

Internet sucks huh? Post something dumb, and the whole world can see your idiotic statement. Not my fault, since again, you wrote it, and then you defended it. No one made you do it.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
Bush lied to me, they all lied to me: "We gotta go to Iraq because they're the most dangerous country on Earth. They're the most dangerous regime in the world." If they're so dangerous, how come it only took two weeks to take over the whole fucking country? Shit. Man, you couldn't take over Baltimore in two weeks. - Chris Rock
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
If only it were for oil. We should have invaded Iraq, shipped its residents to Iran or Saudi Arabia, then quarentiened the area while pumping the gas.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
First off, you claim I defined something when I didn't. I posted your BS statement in whole, not taken out of context, and not clipped out of something larger. So right off the bat, you are wrong.(Gee, why am I not shocked that you are wrong again?) And now you claim I can magically declare something wrong. LOL, you really are desperate to not have to admit your cluelessness. No wonder you keep changing your insults....first it's redefining, then it's claiming you are wrong, etc, etc.

Second, I and several others pointed out all the things wrong with your comment in the previous thread (in which you acted the same way, sticking your head in the sand and claiming we are all wrong).

Idiot TLC quote:


1. Iraq wasn't Islamic
2. Iraq wasn't fundamentalist
3. Invading Iraq didn't hurt Islamic fundamentalism, but it did weaken Iraq, which lead to strengthening of Iran, which is a Islamic fundamentalist country.

So somehow you claim by invading a non-Islamic non-fundamentalist country, and as a result of this invasion, a real Islamic fundamentalist country is *strengthened*, not weakened, is striking back at Islamic fundamentalism.

So again, three strikes and you are out. Wrong on all accounts in your quote. Others have pointed this out as well, and you continue to ignore us. Trivial google searching will show this, and multiple sources were quoted in the other thread, which of course, you ignored and acted like they weren't posted.

Internet sucks huh? Post something dumb, and the whole world can see your idiotic statement. Not my fault, since again, you wrote it, and then you defended it. No one made you do it.
It's not the internet that sucks, it's certain people who infest the internet and make STUPID assumptions. You read my statement, you instantly determine what you believed it stated, ad then bulled on ahead with those moronic assumptions. Let me straighten you out.

1. Iraq wasn't Islamic

Say what? Iraq is predominantly Islamic and has been for centuries. Did you mean to say Saddam wasn't Islamic?

2. Iraq wasn't fundamentalist

Nothing in my statement claimed that Iraq was a fundamentalist country. You make the mistake of assuming that the only way to fight fundamentalism is to invade the country of those who attacked us on 9/11, i.e. - direct cause and effect. Well it wasn't quite that simple. OBL was no longer in Saudi Arabia. He was hiding in Afghanistan. Not all were Saudi either. A couple of the 9/11 attackers were from the UAE. One was Lebanese and another Eqyptian. There was no single place to invade to take care of the problem. Nor was there any proof that the governments of those countries were directly behind the hijackers either. So why invade countries simply because some of their citizens happened to be involved in 9/11? There's no justification for that, far less even than what could be ginned up for invading Iraq. iow, it's a blatantly ignorant assumption on the face of it.

3. Invading Iraq didn't hurt Islamic fundamentalism, but it did weaken Iraq, which lead to strengthening of Iran, which is a Islamic fundamentalist country.

First of all, you are confusing Islamic fundamentalism and militant Islamic fundamentalism. I don't give two squats about fundies that aren't militant in their cause. They can be dealt with on a diplomatic level. Militant fundamentalists, however, must be confronted directly because there simply is no bargaining with them.

Second, Iran is no more or less stronger than they were before. If anything, they are weaker. A now democratic Iraq that isn't ruled by an iron fist parked right next door is bound to have an effect and arguably already has. Iran had to brutally put down some protests not too long ago. Revolution is stirring in the Republic whilst their whackjob president prays for the 13th imam.

We went into Iraq to fight militant Islamic fundamentalism because Iraq was the only country we could feasibly go into with a figleaf of an excuse for invading in the first place. And understand this. "Fighting" has a number of meanings, both direct and indirect, military and non-military.

Once we invaded Iraq we didn't have to go into a bunch of other ME countries to hunt down the militants. They came to us in Iraq. We could directly confront them. We could fight them directly with military force.

Another reason to invade Iraq was to install a Democratic government and free an oppressed people from tyranny; probably the best tool in the ME to "fight" Islamic fundamentalism. This is the indirect, non-military portion of the equation. Will it work. Time will tell. At least it hasn't failed immediately so there is yet hope.

Now, do you comprehend my statement and do you also comprehend that you are the idiot jumping to conclusions and making incorrect ASSumptions? My statement doesn't and never did go by the assinine conclusion that there must be a direct relationship between the 9/11 attackers and the invasion, which was fucking impossible anyway so it really nothing more than a poorly thought out talking point made by knee-jerking idiots.

Go it?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Yup, we all got it. Your statement is 100% false. Sorry that you feel so hurt that your are wrong.

Good luck getting a job as a Middle Eastern expert with statements like that, LOL.
Another moronic decree from you and nothing of any content whatsoever to substantiate it. Par for the course for you. Then you polish it off with a red herring that's meaningless as well.

/golf clap

Now get back to class before the hall monitor notices you.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Another moronic decree from you and nothing of any content whatsoever to substantiate it. Par for the course for you. Then you polish it off with a red herring that's meaningless as well.

/golf clap

Now get back to class before the hall monitor notices you.

They're never going to get it, you're wasting your time. For them to get it would mean they'd come to the self-startingly conclusion that the immense 'pile on ebil Bush&Co' hatefest because he talked with a southern accent and didn't have World Class BS skillz like Clinton and O'Bummer they've - and tens of Millions like them - been on for the past 10 years was a complete and total circle jerk.

And coming to that conclusion just isn't tennable for them, which means, you're just wasting your time. I do commend you on your efforts though.

Chuck