McCain Implies Iraq War is for Oil

[Dinner]

[Krill]

Originally posted by Darius871


Ouch, is that even medically possible?

What, unanalizing means removing the tongue form the arse, so that people stoptalking ****. Didn't you know this?

[Berzerker]

Zevico

Two problems:
1. You'd be crossing a publicly proclaimed US ally. Not good for your credibility.

Kuwait was not our ally, our ambassador even told Saddam we had no treaty to help if they were attacked....right before he invaded. Bush's initial reaction was subdued. If anything, Saddam was our ally since the west didn't want to see the Iranian Revolution spread (Domino Theory again).

2. Saddam suddenly has a large proportion of the world's oil resources in his possession and nukes to threaten Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

Israel blew up Saddam's attempt at building a nuke. But Saddam was not going to invade Saudi Arabia, that was a scam we pulled to convince the Saudis to let us in. The problem - and the only problem - was that we didn't make it clear to Saddam how we'd react if he invaded. No one told him "NO", so he thought Kuwait would be a nice prize for fighting the Iranians all those years. Actually, Saddam told us why he invaded Kuwait - the Emir insulted his negotiator or something stupid. I'm not sure if these negotiations were over alleged side drilling into Iraqi oil fields or OPEC pricing. Whatever the case, Saddam would have eventually left because of other Arab nations pissed at him and UN sanctions etc. He had friends before the invasion and didn't think they'd get that mad at him.

What's Saudi Arabia going to do? Answer: Everything Saddam wants it to.

Umm... we do have a treaty with Saudi Arabia. And they did ask us in.

What Saddam wanted was to be the leader of the Arab world. He wanted to Iraq to be a super power to rival the United States, just as the Soviet Union once did. Friendship doesn't come into it.

He wasn't that delusional

[Zevico]

He wasn't that delusional

The man was a paranoid megalomaniac. It was his goal from day one to make Iraq into the world's next superpower, with him as the leader at its helm. Moreover he was a pan-Arabist paranoid megalomaniac.

Israel blew up Saddam's attempt at building a nuke. But Saddam was not going to invade Saudi Arabia, that was a scam we pulled to convince the Saudis to let us in. The problem - and the only problem - was that we didn't make it clear to Saddam how we'd react if he invaded. No one told him "NO", so he thought Kuwait would be a nice prize for fighting the Iranians all those years. Actually, Saddam told us why he invaded Kuwait - the Emir insulted his negotiator or something stupid. I'm not sure if these negotiations were over alleged side drilling into Iraqi oil fields or OPEC pricing. Whatever the case, Saddam would have eventually left because of other Arab nations pissed at him and UN sanctions etc. He had friends before the invasion and didn't think they'd get that mad at him.

Israel blew up Iraq's first attempt at getting a nuke. It still had a nuclear weapons program, though at the time of the Gulf War no one was sure how far away it was from acquiring a bomb. It was thought that Iraq was about 5-10 years away from that.
I don't understand what scam you're referring to. Saddam was as willing to attack Saudi Arabia as he was Kuwait. In fact he started making threats against Saudi Arabia once his invasion of Kuwait had been done. His pretexts for war had nothing to do with his reasons for going to war. His negotiator, for that matter, was Chemical Ali. By that point Saddam was long past the decision to go to war. Otherwise he'd have sent someone to actually negotiate.
As for UN sanctions, they did nothing. As for other Arab nations throwing hissy fits--that covers the entire Arab Israeli conflict and you don't see the Jews picking up their packs and heading home after Sheikh Kareem Abdul Jamar decided to throw them into the sea (for the fifty millionth time).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
It doesn't seem to be working out that way.

I do think that many in the government hoped for good oil deals from a friendly Iraqi quasi-democracy. Like everything else, this seems to have been a miscalculation.

So are you changing your mind now? You now believe the war was for oil?

Those things are usually pretty far down our foreign policy checklist.

You can't believe in those things and not apply them across the board. Either you believe in them, or you don't. You can't be a democracy and an empire.

There is a group of people who argued that spreading freedom and democracy (not equality) by the sword would, in fact, benifit us. Those people are neocons. You would have us ignore their role in this. I see them as relevant to the discussion.

What people argue and what they believe are two very different things in a country like the USA.

There have been moments. I'd like to see more. The trouble is that international relations tends to make a mess of principles. If you're too principled, you get nothing done and piss everyone else off. If just go along to get along, well, you're not very principled are you? Further, your principles don't match very well with even the "pretend" principles of the US, so even if our foreign policy were principled you'd probably be pissed off.

Huh? How can you say that? I don't believe in fighting wars for oil at all.

Pick any nation on the planet that has ever been vaguely powerful. Examine their principles. Examine their actions. It's a depressing exercise. Those who match up well are guys like the Mongols, for whatever that's worth.

-Arrian

Well, that's the difference, because I don't believe the US should be more powerfull than other nations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But we don't. Now, perhaps if we had our oil companies take over we would. But we didn't.

That's one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said. WTF do you think we spend so much money on military for. We don't have to take over the world to exert control over it. Christ, are you sure you went to college?

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: McCain Implies Iraq War is for Oil

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I thought you trusted the government with your health???

After thinking about this for awhile I think I have an answer that will get you stop asking me this.

Black children and white children are raised different. Both of them are under assault, but black children are more often given a chance, because they are taught that their authority is not trust worthy, and whites are taught to trust authority.

I send my son to school everyday where he is forced to memorize the pledge of allegience, " one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now I was reading this yesterday in a book, and thinking about it for some time. You know this is the biggest line of bull**** ever. It's insane. A lot more insane than anything Reverend Wright has said. I started thinking about the effect that making kids memorize this has on our society.

Now as you might know, I have a 9 year old. I started talking with him about this, and I started to realise that he's not even able to understand the meaning of this, and certainly not the measure of truth of it. I mean he's just learning what division is, yet he has memorized the pledge of allegience with the word "indivisable."

So as a father what can I do to protect my son. I can only talk to him on a level that he is able to understand, which amounts basically to just telling him that he can't trust his government, his teachers, his television etc.... Well I don't tell him that he can't trust his doctor, but you should get the idea now. I'm not black, but I can understand why they believe some of the things they do.

[Zevico]

Huh? How can you say that? I don't believe in fighting wars for oil at all.

The United States--the entire world--couldn't function without oil. If Saddam Hussein had access to a good 10-20% of the world global oil production he could cause a global depression if he wanted and he wouldn't care less about all the money he lost so long as Iraq was a 'great power' and everyone else was crippled. We know that in the moral sense, Saddam couldn't have cared less if the entire world went to hell so long as it had his footprint on it for some ETs to discover millions of years later. If we assume that Saddam Hussein wasn't deterrable there are excellent reasons to go to war 'just' for oil--the loss of countless human lives worldwide over a long period years that makes Iraq look like a playground being the main one.

[Berzerker]

Gee, how did we function before oil. As for Saddam wanting a global depression Sorry, but he'd get invaded.

I don't understand what scam you're referring to.

We BS'ed the Saudis with phony "intel" - doctored sat photos of Saddam's tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia.

Saddam was as willing to attack Saudi Arabia as he was Kuwait. In fact he started making threats against Saudi Arabia once his invasion of Kuwait had been done.

Nonsense, he knew the Saudis had protection.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zevico

The United States--the entire world--couldn't function without oil.

You mean it wouldn't function the way you want it to function. The nation most responsible for the world the way it is is the USA.

"The American way of life is non-negotiable."

-Dick Cheney

If Saddam Hussein had access to a good 10-20% of the world global oil production he could cause a global depression if he wanted and he wouldn't care less about all the money he lost so long as Iraq was a 'great power' and everyone else was crippled.

I doubt it, if we didn't drive SUVs and live in the suburbs. Anyway, so you approve of the lie?

We know that in the moral sense, Saddam couldn't have cared less if the entire world went to hell so long as it had his footprint on it for some ETs to discover millions of years later. If we assume that Saddam Hussein wasn't deterrable there are excellent reasons to go to war 'just' for oil--the loss of countless human lives worldwide over a long period years that makes Iraq look like a playground being the main one.

That's the same kind of BS that is used to justify the us of the bomb on Japan. Look, they are all lying to us. We can't believe a word they say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said. WTF do you think we spend so much money on military for. We don't have to take over the world to exert control over it. Christ, are you sure you went to college?

So how are we exerting control over the oil? By driving up the price so high that its harming our economy? Wow, that really shows our control over it.

I'd think a college degree would inform someone that when an action harms the US, the US probably doesn't have control over it, unless you think the US is trying to hurt itself. So where is this exertion of control over the oil? Come on, Mr. I am going to show you my college degree education boy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So how are we exerting control over the oil? By driving up the price so high that its harming our economy? Wow, that really shows our control over it.

We didn't drive up the price of oil. No one did. The price of oil is what it is because there isn't enough of it anymore. We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible. We do that with our military and with diplomacy.

Really Imran. I won't continue with this little discussion. You've got to accept reality here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The price of oil is what it is because there isn't enough of it anymore. We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible. We do that with our military and with diplomacy.

You are insane. Oil is not flowing in the largest supply possible... that's part of the reason the price of oil has increased so much (along with increased demand in China and India).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The price of oil is what it is because there isn't enough of it anymore. We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible. We do that with our military and with diplomacy.

You are insane. Oil is not flowing in the largest supply possible... that's part of the reason the price of oil has increased so much (along with increased demand in China and India).

Oil is $122 a barrel. Who the hell is stupid enough not to pump as much of it as they can out of the ****ing ground?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Oil is $122 a barrel. Who the hell is stupid enough not to pump as much of it as they can out of the ****ing ground?

How do you suppose it got to $122 in the first place?