Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by dotslashfuture, Apr 3, 2003.
check the news.
let's all stand up and cheer that people are going to die for oil!
Yep ain't America moral... oh I forgot.. this is totally for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Sure!
Let's all watch closely to see how many nukes and WMD they find since that was the reason given for invading another sovereign country.
According to CandleTrader they are liberating Baghdad not invading.....please rename the title of the thread....
thank you for the heads up...i dont watch fox news, cnbc, or check many news sources on the web throughout the day...
Elite Trader is my sole source for any and all news.
There's a war going on ?
I was wondering about that as well. Also, what/where the hell is Baghdad?
In 1991 during the Gulf War there were uprisings against Saddam in Iraq, one in the North and another one in the South. That was the best time to help Iraqis to liberate themselves from Saddam. But at that time Saddam was not considered such a danger to American interests and so the former US administration did not think it was a good idea to help Iraqis even though Saddam was as much of a ruthless scummy dictator then as he is now.
Looks like America can liberate anyone as long it is good for her interests, which is fine with me as long as those who started this war tell us the truth which is that they really give no damn about Iraqis in this war... But I guess those responsible for it do not have guts to admit that. Plus, does it not sound better to be a liberator? And it only takes the rest of the world to convince that you are one.
We may be invading for a number of reasons, but oil isn't one of them. This will not increase the amount of oil on the market for years, if at all. Unless the new Iraqi government leaves OPEC, which is highly unlikely, the price of oil will not significantly change. OPEC will continue to TRY to keep oil in the 25 to 30 buck range by controlling output. This war will not change that. The only way we will get oil directly is if we make Iraq a colony and take it! Yeah right.
Also, based on how much this war costs (including the cost of reconstruction, and the indirect cost of what the war has and will do to our economy), it would take DECADES for the oil to cover our expenses even if we took every single drop. People carrying the signs "no blood for oil" have no clue how the oil markets function.
There are much more plausible arguments if you wish to use negative reasons for invading, such as projecting US power abroad, or even finishing George Senior's job. Remember, we went into Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan also. No oil there. Just because Iraq has oil, people assume this is the reason for invading, without really thinking it through.
I also think the liberation argument is a little far fetched. We need more than that to go to war. However, the reason why we stopped when we did in 1991 was because that was a UN backed action, and the only goal at the time was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. George senior has stated many times that he wished to get Saddam, but that wasn't the goal of the coalition.
Separate names with a comma.