| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2003 05:59:40 PM · #1 |
The first thing the americans did when they invaded Iraq was to protect those oil fields.
Iraq at its current status has 3 times more oil than the USA.
After america has conquered Iraq thier is potential to increase oil production in Iraq ten fold.
Usa have said they intend to invest in Iraq and produce more oil fields as iraq has not used his country to its full potential.
In return (usa said) it will reduce the price of oil and make a huge difference to the USA's economy.
So once USA have taken Iraq they will induce an iraqi puppet into government and help with the production of oil, and hopefully fool the iraqi people into believing that thier country is really being run by "IRAQI's"
Mass murder for oil ,how christian of bush is that? |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:09:56 PM · #2 |
This topic has been discussed in some depth before, but what the hey! I love a good debate!
I'm not sure if oil is the big key here, as Hoogie suggests. However, I don't think that Iraqis, if given a vote, would have 'said,:'
"Yes, let's sacrifice perhaps thousands of random innocent civilians (and of course many soldiers), destroy a goodly portion of our country--including many sites that have great historical and cultural value, to get rid of Saddam Hussein rather than keep trying diplomatic solutions for a while longer."
I think that's where antiwar folks are generally coming from (including me). Most of the world thought that diplomacy still had a chance. War may have been necessary in the future, but not now: Bush jumped the gun.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:15:17 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
This topic has been discussed in some depth before, but what the hey! I love a good debate!
I'm not sure if oil is the big key here, as Hoogie suggests. However, I don't think that Iraqis, if given a vote, would have 'said,:'
"Yes, let's sacrifice perhaps thousands of random innocent civilians (and of course many soldiers), destroy a goodly portion of our country--including many sites that have great historical and cultural value, to get rid of Saddam Hussein rather than keep trying diplomatic solutions for a while longer."
I think that's where antiwar folks are generally coming from (including me). Most of the world thought that diplomacy still had a chance. War may have been necessary in the future, but not now: Bush jumped the gun. |
Fair enough dsidwell, but you answer this question .
Would usa invade Iraq if they had no oil.?
no one could honestly answer that question with a "yes" |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:26:28 PM · #4 |
| I think "we" have already awarded the contact to an American firm to build up the oil fields "afterwards" And I think "we" (Rumsfeld) said yesterday that it is not "our" responsibility to repair damage to the cities, Iraq should do that. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:44:02 PM · #5 |
Good points. It was actually Halliburton that got many of the contracts for rebuilding the oil fields. As we all know Vice President Cheney is STILL being paid by Halliburton for being its past CEO. Yay! Time for a conspiracy theory!
Oil may be a big factor in going to war, for sure. But whatever the reasons, were any of these reasons important enough to kill innocent people when diplomacy or other means could have solve these problems? Only if more people would have been killed by Saddam Hussein, and I still don't think the Iraqis would have opted for war if given the chance or the choice.
It is interesting to note that before the war, Bush was touting U.S. and world safety as the key reason for war. Now he's touting liberation for the Iraqis as his most important reason. And I've read enough articles to believe that the Iraqis are just hoping the bombing will stop soon.
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 18:47:54. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:52:04 PM · #6 |
I have asked in the other forum.
Give me the pros and cons.
Like...
Positive: Negative:
1.To save the people 1.It will kill many
over there from a bad
leader.
2. To protect our country and
others from his evil acts.
3. Terrorism
4. Protect the women from
pedifiles.
I had my kids do this and they came up with some good ones. These are some of their answers. Lets see it. Please don't think I am putting you down. I just want to know where you stand with the issue.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:56:12 PM · #7 |
Is this referring to a report on CNN recently? I recognize the numbers. The conlclusion of that reporter was pretty sick;
It was something like:
"In the end the whole world might be able to fill their tank for less money than they do now."
That's like throwing gasoline on the fire........
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 07:19:16 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Is this referring to a report on CNN recently? I recognize the numbers. The conlclusion of that reporter was pretty sick;
It was something like:
"In the end the whole world might be able to fill their tank for less money than they do now."
That's like throwing gasoline on the fire........ |
No azrifel i didnt hear that on cnn...i heard from our reporters in Kuwait |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 08:14:11 PM · #9 |
<<4. Protect the women from pedifiles.
???? children? |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:07:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I have asked in the other forum.
Give me the pros and cons.
Like...
Positive: Negative:
1.To save the people 1.It will kill many
over there from a bad
leader.
2. To protect our country and
others from his evil acts.
3. Terrorism
4. Protect the women from
pedifiles.
I had my kids do this and they came up with some good ones. These are some of their answers. Lets see it. Please don't think I am putting you down. I just want to know where you stand with the issue. |
Sigh... im afraid sonifo that your views may be a tad obscured! |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:20:35 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I have asked in the other forum.
Give me the pros and cons.
Like...
Positive: Negative:
1.To save the people 1.It will kill many
over there from a bad
leader.
2. To protect our country and
others from his evil acts.
3. Terrorism
4. Protect the women from
pedifiles.
I had my kids do this and they came up with some good ones. These are some of their answers. Lets see it. Please don't think I am putting you down. I just want to know where you stand with the issue. |
Sigh... im afraid sonifo that your views may be a tad obscured! |
Read it slower. I said this is what my kids wrote
I really didn't think any one could answer it because you are afraid it might say something you don't care to see.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:27:50 PM · #12 |
Thats fine sonifo ,all those points are non-descript...Period!!
1. when was the last time saddam killed people and when was the last time bush killed people.
2.this war has NOTHING to do with protecting your country.
3.terrorism....iraq hasnt committed any terrorism against USA...only usa speculation
4.LOL that one is beyond comprehension.
you just keep living in your world of make believe, and fantasy you have that right ok!
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 21:33:30. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:28:44 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
The first thing the americans did when they invaded Iraq was to protect those oil fields.
Iraq at its current status has 3 times more oil than the USA.
After america has conquered Iraq thier is potential to increase oil production in Iraq ten fold.
Usa have said they intend to invest in Iraq and produce more oil fields as iraq has not used his country to its full potential.
In return (usa said) it will reduce the price of oil and make a huge difference to the USA's economy.
So once USA have taken Iraq they will induce an iraqi puppet into government and help with the production of oil, and hopefully fool the iraqi people into believing that thier country is really being run by "IRAQI's"
Mass murder for oil ,how christian of bush is that? |
you anti war folks are so cynical, i don't think you could be PAID to see the possible positive outcomes from the war. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:34:22 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by achiral:
you anti war folks are so cynical, i don't think you could be PAID to see the possible positive outcomes from the war. |
true indeed.
(you paying?)
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 21:35:21. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 09:46:32 PM · #15 |
I still don't see your answers.Hoogie and the rest of you. I just want to know where you stand. I am not being rude or want to fight. I am just curious and want to hear your side.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 10:16:23 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I still don't see your answers.Hoogie and the rest of you. I just want to know where you stand. I am not being rude or want to fight. I am just curious and want to hear your side. |
For me personally, I just don't like seeing innocent people die when there could be solutions that avoid such death and destruction. To me, war is an easy answer. Most of the rest of the world (except Brittain--well Tony Blair anyway, Spain and only a few others) was hoping that Pres. Bush would search for answers that didn't bring death. He didn't. I don't think he tried hard enough. I don't believe Bush when he says, "There was no other way; we had to go to war." I just don't believe him. I believe there were still solutions to be found, and I have a hard time understanding his impatience and even eagerness to go to war.
I can certainly understand people's fear of terrorism and the fear that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. I just think that the evidence was not compelling enough (yet) to knowingly put to death many innocent people under the guise of "collateral damage." The end result of this war will certainly NOT end terrorism; it will probably increase the threat. If Saddam has WMD that we find, then at least that's something, but it's a solution that will have come with too high a price. I still think that solutions other than war could have brought them to light and to their destruction.
And Sonja, you don't come across as being rude. I appreciate your friendly manner in discussing these obviously sensitive things.
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 22:18:11.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 10:40:41 PM · #17 |
dsidwell,What do you think Bush could have done? I know he could have been more patient, but then what?
I do see your point.
I am trying to get this information so I can tell my kids what others are feeling and why.
I don't like the argueing. Argueing doesn't help any one solve or understand other points of view. It just makes them more defensive. And I have done my fair share. Ask Welcher. He is my good friend. lol
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 10:53:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by JasonPR:
Originally posted by achiral:
you anti war folks are so cynical, i don't think you could be PAID to see the possible positive outcomes from the war. |
true indeed.
(you paying?) |
Jason the outcome of the war will be, Cheaper petrol and a thriving USA economy at the cost of thosands of lives ...i thought that was blantantly obvious.
Sonifo all my posts couldnt be more clearer on where i stand so im unsure what you actually mean?
but to clarify i strongly oppose the war due to the fact that its only objective is monetary gain and what is more ridiculous is bush and your government are calling it "liberating Iraq" and it couldnt be more obvious now what the purpose really is?
USA are even organising building of oil fields and have no intention of re-building iraq .
I for the life of me cant understand why some americans actually believe this war is for liberating iraq and i can only assume that perhaps if my government were committing similar atrocities i probably would try to find some justification.
I think sonifo if you lived in a different country you would see the real picture but as you dont patriotism for the USA is obviously to strong for you to accept whats really happening and who knows if my country was invading a country i too would defend it as you do.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 11:20:26 PM · #19 |
Hoogie, I am not really for the war. I am confused because I read a lot things that have no proof. And that is on both sides. What is it really? I am a christain and believe that God will only help those that do the right thing and if Bush is doing this for his own greedy selfish ways then I believe he will fail and if he doesn't fail then a lot of innocent folks will die. It is very sad to think about. That is why I want to know. I don't have a lot of time to read the other forums. I homeschool my boys and they are curious. I do appreciate your imput. I have copied it and consider yourself lucky to be part of their school and history lesson. ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 11:57:14 PM · #20 |
It's not about the OIL, actually.
Why? If US wants oil from Saddam, all we had to do is to lift the sanctions. Saddam would've loved to trade with us in the 90s, seriously. We wouldn't have to had the no-fly zone.
In fact, if it was about oil, we wouldn't have CARED for Kuwait. Why? Because US relations with Saddam was VERY WARM in the late 1980's. Seriously, we were "friends" and we didn't care for them to use chemical weapons against their own people or against Iranians, who were viewed as the bad guys by the Reagan administration.
After 1991, all that has changed, but we still could've lifted the sanctions and trade with them.
Besides, if this war is about OIL companies making profits, we would have just not fight it and keep the sanctions on them. Remember: once the Iraqi oil goes to the market after the war, the oil WILL BE CHEAPER.
We DO, however, have a strategic interest in the middlest BECAUSE of oil, but we alraedy have Kuwait + Saudi Arabia, much more than we need Iraq for. We went to war against Iraq because of the threat to Saudi Arabia and because we never "approve" their invasion (Saddam thought that we did, actually. He asked one of the ambassadors to Iraq from US if the boundaries in the middle east was "permanent", and we replied "No it's not" and he took it as "permission" to invade Kuwait which was not what the US said).
I think if you want to argue about how Bush may have done this war for political gains ,there might be something to be said about it. I think much of the post-9/11 security thing is way overrated. The serious problem is that we traded a lot of freedom for literally no safety guarantee -- Under the USA Patriot Act, the government can search your home, listen to your phone calls, seize your assets, ALL without warrants, if it's deemed that you're a "threat". that's what people should spend their energy on, not these stupid debates about whether the war is justified or not.
Frankly we went to war with Iraq because it's an easier target. We didn'tw ant to go after N. Korea because it would cause a ton of American lives and possibly start WW III. :) That's why. N Korea has missles that can hit Japan and the US possibly with nuclear warheads, Saddam doesn't and we want to take him out before he does obtain them. Chemical weapons, believe it or not, is small potatoes compared to nukes.
I do believe that the SECOND thing hte Bush will do is to settle the Palestinian/Israel dispute after the IRaq war. We almost have to to reduce the resentment in the Arab world towards us. That will get settled because Bush will put pressure on the Israelis to compromise.
Originally posted by Hoogie:
The first thing the americans did when they invaded Iraq was to protect those oil fields.
Iraq at its current status has 3 times more oil than the USA.
After america has conquered Iraq thier is potential to increase oil production in Iraq ten fold.
Usa have said they intend to invest in Iraq and produce more oil fields as iraq has not used his country to its full potential.
In return (usa said) it will reduce the price of oil and make a huge difference to the USA's economy.
So once USA have taken Iraq they will induce an iraqi puppet into government and help with the production of oil, and hopefully fool the iraqi people into believing that thier country is really being run by "IRAQI's"
Mass murder for oil ,how christian of bush is that? |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:17:42 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
The first thing the americans did when they invaded Iraq was to protect those oil fields. |
Yeah, Hoogie, because Saddam has a history of setting them on fire because he's a mentally derranged person (remember Kuwait?)
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Iraq at its current status has 3 times more oil than the USA. |
Not for long. :)
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Usa have said they intend to invest in Iraq and produce more oil fields as iraq has not used his country to its full potential. In return (usa said) it will reduce the price of oil and make a huge difference to the USA's economy. |
Yeah looks like Saddam isn't going to be buying anymore palaces with that oil money, huh? Boo whoo, cry your eyes out.
Originally posted by Hoogie:
So once USA have taken Iraq they will induce an iraqi puppet into government and help with the production of oil, and hopefully fool the iraqi people into believing that thier country is really being run by "IRAQI's" |
No that money is going to be used to help feed the Iraqi people, and improve the country, unlike Saddam was doing with the money. I'd think that coming from a semi-communist country like New Zeland, you would appreciate that. :)
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Mass murder for oil ,how christian of bush is that? |
Mass murder... mass murder of terrorist supporting, cilivian murdering and torturing garbage, YES. Mass murder of civilians NO. Who is being mass murdered you LIAR? Oh I guess you just hate Christains huh, your probably a self indulgent atheist. I think the US should stop allowing your New Zeland butter into the country. That would shut your communist country up pretty fast. For all that don't know, do some research on New Zeland they are one step below in China and Russia in their communistic views.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:30:35 AM · #22 |
lol chris you carry on believing that and good on ya for supporting the war....you dont know any better
I come from a democratic country that is "TRULEY" free and enjoys "REAL" freedom ...you wouldnt know about that chris ;-)
Um gee chris we export more than butter...lol wouldnt make much difference if usa stoped all our exports to you anyway...LOL
this is how we work.
//www.decisionmaker.co.nz/Guide/BigPicture/BigPicture.asp?Int_PageID=25
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 00:54:17. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:34:07 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by paganini:
It's not about the OIL, actually.
Why? If US wants oil from Saddam, all we had to do is to lift the sanctions. Saddam would've loved to trade with us in the 90s, seriously. We wouldn't have to had the no-fly zone.
In fact, if it was about oil, we wouldn't have CARED for Kuwait. Why? Because US relations with Saddam was VERY WARM in the late 1980's. Seriously, we were "friends" and we didn't care for them to use chemical weapons against their own people or against Iranians, who were viewed as the bad guys by the Reagan administration.
After 1991, all that has changed, but we still could've lifted the sanctions and trade with them.
Besides, if this war is about OIL companies making profits, we would have just not fight it and keep the sanctions on them. Remember: once the Iraqi oil goes to the market after the war, the oil WILL BE CHEAPER.
We DO, however, have a strategic interest in the middlest BECAUSE of oil, but we alraedy have Kuwait + Saudi Arabia, much more than we need Iraq for. We went to war against Iraq because of the threat to Saudi Arabia and because we never "approve" their invasion (Saddam thought that we did, actually. He asked one of the ambassadors to Iraq from US if the boundaries in the middle east was "permanent", and we replied "No it's not" and he took it as "permission" to invade Kuwait which was not what the US said).
I think if you want to argue about how Bush may have done this war for political gains ,there might be something to be said about it. I think much of the post-9/11 security thing is way overrated. The serious problem is that we traded a lot of freedom for literally no safety guarantee -- Under the USA Patriot Act, the government can search your home, listen to your phone calls, seize your assets, ALL without warrants, if it's deemed that you're a "threat". that's what people should spend their energy on, not these stupid debates about whether the war is justified or not.
Frankly we went to war with Iraq because it's an easier target. We didn'tw ant to go after N. Korea because it would cause a ton of American lives and possibly start WW III. :) That's why. N Korea has missles that can hit Japan and the US possibly with nuclear warheads, Saddam doesn't and we want to take him out before he does obtain them. Chemical weapons, believe it or not, is small potatoes compared to nukes.
I do believe that the SECOND thing hte Bush will do is to settle the Palestinian/Israel dispute after the IRaq war. We almost have to to reduce the resentment in the Arab world towards us. That will get settled because Bush will put pressure on the Israelis to compromise.
|
exactly |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:42:43 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Um gee chris we export more than butter... |
LOL, oh yeah I forgot about the Lamb you guys export. :p |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 01:12:50 AM · #25 |
Consider that war represents the ultimate failure of civilization, where we return to the law of the jungle, and abandon and the principle of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the less fortunate, and for the ultimate benefit of the species as a whole.
It is the point where we reject our reason and ability to foresee consequences of our actions which, more than the mere use of tools, separates us from the other animals. It is the point where we we lash out in frustration at our inability to solve a problem, and betray the godliness with which we are supposedly imbued.
War is a temper tantrum with rockets. |
|
