DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Chooriwrocaey** · 02-09-2010, 03:17 AM

Exactly. There are plenty of other countries in the world that have much closer links to terrorism than Iraq did, and plenty of those are run be dictators who do far worse to their people than Saddam did. I wonder if Rawanda and Somalia had oil would the West have been content to let millions of people be slaughtered? I highly doubt it. This invasion has only ever been about money - controlling oil supplies and the revenues that flow from it, and the massive revenues generated from supplying the war and the reconstruction following the blitz. All the rest was a smokescreen to convince a population in awe of their govt to blindly go along with the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, and rape it for everything it has. I predict that history will only regard this period and those involved, even more shamefully.

Actually, it is not about money. We can print all of the paper "money" that we want. It is about oil, and the national security interest that it represents.

The idealist in you is correct to rail about the U.S. securing Iraqi oil based upon a dubious link to 9/11, and possible WMDs. The realist in you should be damned glad that we did secure Iraqi oil, however. After all, you Aussies are long standing allies, and it will certainly play out better for you if we control Iraqi oil rather than the Chinese or Russians.

02-09-2010, 03:17 AM	#12
Chooriwrocaey Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	Exactly. There are plenty of other countries in the world that have much closer links to terrorism than Iraq did, and plenty of those are run be dictators who do far worse to their people than Saddam did. I wonder if Rawanda and Somalia had oil would the West have been content to let millions of people be slaughtered? I highly doubt it. This invasion has only ever been about money - controlling oil supplies and the revenues that flow from it, and the massive revenues generated from supplying the war and the reconstruction following the blitz. All the rest was a smokescreen to convince a population in awe of their govt to blindly go along with the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, and rape it for everything it has. I predict that history will only regard this period and those involved, even more shamefully. Actually, it is not about money. We can print all of the paper "money" that we want. It is about oil, and the national security interest that it represents. The idealist in you is correct to rail about the U.S. securing Iraqi oil based upon a dubious link to 9/11, and possible WMDs. The realist in you should be damned glad that we did secure Iraqi oil, however. After all, you Aussies are long standing allies, and it will certainly play out better for you if we control Iraqi oil rather than the Chinese or Russians.
	Quote