[KuRoregioNka]

For starters, the Team Bush, blatanly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq so why then would we invade that country?

Some idiot said, "If you tell a lie often enough eventually people will believe it." You'll need to tell this lie several thousand (billions) of more times, because so far you are only getting me to think you are a radical idiot and a liar.

There was never any link between Bin Laden/Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration never claimed that there was a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. There was a link between terrorists and Saddam, which has been confirmed. Saddam use to brag that he gave $24,000 to the families of suicide bomber in Israel (which he did do).

Yes the man was a tyrant, but in HIS country. He was never a threat to us. Saddam was a threat to the region and given that the region is in many ways the source of the economic life of the planet, that threaten America and the rest of the world. He also, along with Iran, the prime supporter of terrorist activity in the region.

You do not understand the Jihadi threat to the West and the moderate Muslims of the world.

What else would war do for the business elite? We went to war and the price of oil went up to $100 a barrel. Yea, that was help.

Seeing as how, Exxon-Mobil didn't like the original deal, it would seem to me that the war helped them get an agreement. They already made their short term money with the spiking price of oil due directly to the war (Bush is an oil man is he not?) Showing your economic ignorance.

Now it's time to lay the foundation for the long-term. This war benefited them and had zero benefit for the American people and really no benefit for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people free of a tyrant, yea thats no real benefit. The American people now only have to worry about Iran, rather than Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, with Obama in office may be the American people will need to worry.

That much is clear and now with the country in shambles, it will not be hard to get slave labor to work the oil fields. Ah ... the guys who work for those evil oil companies like Exxon-Mobil do not work for "slave" wages.

That whole region in the Middle east is going to be the stage for the next world war. That may be true, but that would be because of the Jihadists and have little to do with our recent actions.

[Jxlacvio]

My dad is an engineer who is heavily invested in oil. He understands this stuff far better than I do. He explains to me that we do not use oil from the middle east, because of the distances involved. He also explains to me that even if the middle east was 100 miles from NYC, we still could not use middle eastern oil, because he says it's not "light sweet" oil, which is the only oil, he tells me, that our refineries can handle, and that our refineries are incapable of processing the "heavy sour" crude which comes from the middle east (It has something to do with sulfur impurities and viscosity... don't ask me, I'm an econ major and I never took chem.). Essentially, even if we had the Iraqi oil, we could not economically use it to make gasoline, only diesel.

We don't use nearly as much diesel as gasoline. If we wanted to invade somewhere for oil, it would be Lybia or some other north african country where sweet crude is more common, I would think. Congo would do it to, apparently, as I'm now pulling info from wikipedia. Anyway... my two cents.

[globjgtyf]

Saddam Hussein started the war for oil, Islam, and Arab socialism (Baathism)

[cokLoolioli]

How about this: If Americans hadn't knocked out Saddam, then Iranians would. Saddam`s regime was weak and getting weaker day by day.

[Kokomoxcv]

I must have missed the part of the NYT article that proves the war was about oil. I didn't miss the part that the new contracts are very advantageous for Iraq and less so for the oil companies.

The Iraq war wasn't about oil, it was about regime change. Does that fact make it a good idea? No. It was a very bad idea to invade Iraq and one of the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president. Even if it turns out well we should not have done it.

Good luck to Iraq.

[Soulofpostar]

I think it was a two birds with one stone deal. Oil and energy companies contributed a lot to the Bush-Cheney campaign, Halliburton got no-bid contracts and Saddam was the guy that got away from Bush Sr.

Even NPR says the no-bid contract to Halliburton was blow way out of proportion.

[Precturge]

So, your bet is, that regime change was the real reason?

Ah, so you prefer to keep a destabilizing regime in place. This regime caused us to have to put in sanctions on the entire country. Those sanctions lead to the suffering of all Iraqis, while still being under the thumb of Saddam.

I didn't know you had such a kind heart.

It´s actually completely illegal to start a war for that reason, you know.


Jen We had the right to go in there for 12 years. All those 12 years where Saddam ignored the stipulations of the treaty he signed from the first gulf war. That is all he legal reasoning we needed. Of course, we had other reasons.

[Cgnebksb]

For starters, the Team Bush, blatanly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq so why then would we invade that country? There was never any link between Bin Laden/Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. Yes the man was a tyrant, but in HIS country. He was never a threat to us. What else would war do for the business elite?

Seeing as how, Exxon-Mobil didn't like the original deal, it would seem to me that the war helped them get an agreement. They already made their short term money with the spiking price of oil due directly to the war (Bush is an oil man is he not?) Now it's time to lay the foundation for the long-term. This war benefited them and had zero benefit for the American people and really no benefit for the Iraqi people. That much is clear and now with the country in shambles, it will not be hard to get slave labor to work the oil fields.

That whole region in the Middle east is going to be the stage for the next world war.

This is baseless conjecture. Are you privy to secret information? Do you know all the facts? Carry on, though, the cliff where the other lemmings ran off is just up ahead.

[homerdienru]

Even NPR says the no-bid contract to Halliburton was blow way out of proportion.

Either blown out of proportion because it's nothing new..... or because they are not blatantly overcharging for every little thing (which from what I hear, they are). Halliburton prewar was nowhere near what it is today.

[TheLucyLee]

Ah, so you prefer to keep a destabilizing regime in place. This regime caused us to have to put in sanctions on the entire country. Those sanctions lead to the suffering of all Iraqis, while still being under the thumb of Saddam.

I didn't know you had such a kind heart.



We had the right to go in there for 12 years. All those 12 years where Saddam ignored the stipulations of the treaty he signed from the first gulf war. That is all he legal reasoning we needed. Of course, we had other reasons.

We also have a justified right to attack North Korea and Iran.

[moredasers]

We also have a justified right to attack North Korea and Iran.

cool, you want to start more wars then? Gotcha.

[mygalinasoo]

Either blown out of proportion because it's nothing new..... or because they are not blatantly overcharging for every little thing (which from what I hear, they are). Halliburton prewar was nowhere near what it is today.

No, blow out of proportion as in...they were given a very small no-bid contract. As the needs in Iraq grew we tried using other companies but many companies simply could not deliver. We needed the services and someone had to fill it. Halliburton's roll slowly grew out of the incompetence of other companies.

[Tumarimmicdak]

Halliburton prewar was nowhere near what it is today.

this is true.

[SusanSazzios]

We also have a justified right to attack North Korea and Iran.

The existance of a right to do one thing does not invalidate the legitimacy of a right to do another. Example: I have a right to drive my car, I have a right to speak as I wish. The two have nothing to do with each other; I can do both, one, the other, or neither, and each choice is as legitimate as any other.

[aideriimibion]

The existance of a right to do one thing does not invalidate the legitimacy of a right to do another. Example: I have a right to drive my car, I have a right to speak as I wish. The two have nothing to do with each other; I can do both, one, the other, or neither, and each choice is as legitimate as any other.

exactly

[hitaEtela]

Yeah we fight wars to steal oil when we have plenty of our own.....lol.

That only makes fucking sense in "liberal land" where everything is ass backwards.

Heres my state of Illinois, I bet none of yall knew we had this much oil in Illinois alone.

ISGS Geobit 9: Oil Fields in Illinois

They been pumping that shit since the 30's out of illinois.