The "War" in Iraq

[reddogwwa]

I'm against the war for the one fact that we are unnecessarily killing US lives. I don't know what to believe about this war I have seen so many head titles of the reasons we are there. I mean our "posted" reasons change more frequently then the weather.

I don't like go to by what these rouge theorists like to say because I feel they are bias in some way. I wish I could just get some straight legit facts for once
=\.

Although now I believe we're too deep into war to stop now, we've lost way too many lives and too much money just to come out empty handed.
We need to go balls out or this was just in vain

 

[BIH]

The war in Iraq is bad. The reason I think that is why would the United States spend billions of dollars on weapons just to go and invade Iraq to take their weapons and oil.

 

[Square]

Then Mr.ShredderBeam, where would we be fighting if we weren't over there?

We WOULDN'T be fighting, get that through your head.

 

[Chosen God]

We shouldn't have invaded. They didn't find any mass destructive weapons there. The war will not solve anything over in Iraq. If they wanted to check for weapons they should of only sent some people from the army not all of them at once invading for oil now.

 

[The Rune Pur3]

We are still there protecting the peace, There is ists still in there, we will be out soon though, when Bush is replaced.

 

[Gnomey]

We shouldn't have invaded. They didn't find any mass destructive weapons there. The war will not solve anything over in Iraq. If they wanted to check for weapons they should of only sent some people from the army not all of them at once invading for oil now.

The US is NOT IN IRAQ FOR THE OIL.

Obviously if you think its all about oil you're either so gullible that you'll suck up all the BS the media feeds you or you're just ignorant. According to the official OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) site, Iraq is the **8TH** largest oil producing country, and it makes up LESS THAN **6%** of the worlds overall production. In terms of North America, Iraq makes up LESS THAN 7% of the oil imported into the continent.

(SOURCE: http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%2...eZ/Flowbot.htm and http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%2.../worldmapz.htm)

If the US wanted to lower oil prices, wouldn't we attack someone like Saudi Arabia who has almost 30% of the worlds oil leaving their country?
Why would I be paying MORE for a gallon of gas at the pump if we're doing this all for oil?
Why would we even PAY them for it?
Why would we be spend TRILLIONS of dollars on the war for a country to lock in rising oil prices?

There's no WAY we'll save trillions of dollars from oil imports when all is said and done. WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR THE OIL.

You're WRONG.

We are still there protecting the peace, There is ists still in there, we will be out soon though, when Bush is replaced.

Read 5 posts earlier - nice red letters - on the same page.

 

[TheOnlyJason]

The US needs to pull out now, they are facing a war with Iran in the coming months/years over Nuclear proliferation.

The USA's weapons and equipment, soldiers and aircraft are getting worn down in Iraq, they need to pull out and begin restoring their military to pre-war standards.

Anyone who claims that the US is in Iraq for oil is an idiot and needs to be shot.

 

[Krypton6]

Pull out of the war and leave the people behind ? Its people like you who needs to be shot.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The US is NOT IN IRAQ FOR THE OIL.

Obviously if you think its all about oil you're either so gullible that you'll suck up all the BS the media feeds you or you're just ignorant. According to the official OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) site, Iraq is the **8TH** largest oil producing country, and it makes up LESS THAN **6%** of the worlds overall production. In terms of North America, Iraq makes up LESS THAN 7% of the oil imported into the continent.

(SOURCE: http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%2...eZ/Flowbot.htm and http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%2.../worldmapz.htm)

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

If the US wanted to lower oil prices, wouldn't we attack someone like Saudi Arabia who has almost 30% of the worlds oil leaving their country?
Why would I be paying MORE for a gallon of gas at the pump if we're doing this all for oil?
Why would we even PAY them for it?
Why would we be spend TRILLIONS of dollars on the war for a country to lock in rising oil prices?

Attack an insignificant, small Middle-eastern country such as Iraq, with an unstable dictator, alleged WMD, etc., or an ally of the U.S., a key player in the Middle East, etc.? Hmm. The choice seems obvious to me.

Also, you don't seem to understand economics. Control the supply, control the prices. Control the prices, control the profit.

And, while Congress CAN declare war without the President's consent, they didn't. The President effectively invaded Iraq without Congressional approval in gross violation of international and domestic law.

 

[Gnomey]

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

There's a difference between having something and actually producing it. They never have, they aren't now. If there was a big jump, than maybe your point would have a bit more ground to stand on. Having the oil and not sending it out isn't saving people $$ at the pump, so saying we're there to save money on oil is a misstatement.

Attack an insignificant, small Middle-eastern country such as Iraq, with an unstable dictator, alleged WMD, etc., or an ally of the U.S., a key player in the Middle East, etc.? Hmm. The choice seems obvious to me.

Also, you don't seem to understand economics. Control the supply, control the prices. Control the prices, control the profit.

And, while Congress CAN declare war without the President's consent, they didn't. The President effectively invaded Iraq without Congressional approval in gross violation of international and domestic law.

Either way we were going to be in deep, yes Saudi Arabia would have been a bad choice too (even worse as if it was possible), but in terms of us being desperate enough for oil that we're invading a country (according to the theory that we did it for the oil), then shouldn't we have just gone all out? It would have had a bit better chance of even paying off what we've spent, let alone saving people money, and while we're in such a desperate state it would have probably been easy enough to increase tensions with Saudi Arabia so we could make up some reason to go in.

I do understand economics, and what you said is exactly right. If we were in it for the oil we would be pulling more out, the government wouldn't be losing trillions on the war, we wouldn't even be trying to set up a government there, and I'd be saving at the pump. So, we must not be controlling the supply, or the prices, or the profits. My point exactly.

Yes, Bush did play a big role. So did Blair, Barzani, Kwaśniewski, and all those in Australia who led them in as well. But no, it's Bush. Congress could have had us out in 30 days. Congress could have had us out now. They haven't. It's not all him. As I said in the post where I first made the claim, and earlier, a big part was Bush, but it wasn't ALL him so blaming it all on him is wrong. I was personally against going in. What I am against is the blind "I hate Bush", "We're in it for the oil", "I hate Republicans", and especially "We should leave right now" talk that's everywhere.

 

[ryder721]

I have one thing to say, get Australia's troops out and George Bush can fight his own war.

Ah I hear a famous quote made by the Wise Eminem.

 

[guku116]

there's a war?? taught its a game of tag between bush and irak.....

 

[Shredderbeam]

There's a difference between having something and actually producing it. They never have, they aren't now. If there was a big jump, than maybe your point would have a bit more ground to stand on. Having the oil and not sending it out isn't saving people $$ at the pump, so saying we're there to save money on oil is a misstatement.

They're not exporting it now, but they will be in the future.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

We're not there to save money on oil, we're there for profits.

Either way we were going to be in deep, yes Saudi Arabia would have been a bad choice too (even worse as if it was possible), but in terms of us being desperate enough for oil that we're invading a country (according to the theory that we did it for the oil), then shouldn't we have just gone all out? It would have had a bit better chance of even paying off what we've spent, let alone saving people money, and while we're in such a desperate state it would have probably been easy enough to increase tensions with Saudi Arabia so we could make up some reason to go in.

We could have, but it would have most likely turned most of the world against us economically and militarily.

I do understand economics, and what you said is exactly right. If we were in it for the oil we would be pulling more out, the government wouldn't be losing trillions on the war, we wouldn't even be trying to set up a government there, and I'd be saving at the pump. So, we must not be controlling the supply, or the prices, or the profits. My point exactly.

Higher prices = higher profits, which is what we are there for.

Yes, Bush did play a big role. So did Blair, Barzani, Kwaśniewski, and all those in Australia who led them in as well. But no, it's Bush. Congress could have had us out in 30 days. Congress could have had us out now. They haven't. It's not all him. As I said in the post where I first made the claim, and earlier, a big part was Bush, but it wasn't ALL him so blaming it all on him is wrong. I was personally against going in. What I am against is the blind "I hate Bush", "We're in it for the oil", "I hate Republicans", and especially "We should leave right now" talk that's everywhere.

They didn't have us leave at the start because Congress was primarily Republican. We're not leaving now because, while Democrats have the majority vote, they don't have the 2/3 necessary to overturn a Presidential veto. Also, they don't wish to cut funds to the troops, which would force them to withdraw.

 

[Krypton6]

They might not be there directly for the oil, but at the end they are.
Saddam looked at the world differently than how america did, he was also against Israel. And as all other countries having slightly different opinions than americas, Saddam had to go down. The oil was just a big bonus, if they managed to secure the government, and insure that they would not turn against Israel and suport the so called "terrorists".

 

[Gnomey]

They're not exporting it now, but they will be in the future.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

We're not there to save money on oil, we're there for profits.



We could have, but it would have most likely turned most of the world against us economically and militarily.



Higher prices = higher profits, which is what we are there for.



They didn't have us leave at the start because Congress was primarily Republican. We're not leaving now because, while Democrats have the majority vote, they don't have the 2/3 necessary to overturn a Presidential veto. Also, they don't wish to cut funds to the troops, which would force them to withdraw.

When we make enough from the "profits" to actually pay off the trillions we've spent on the war, then I'll reconsider my stance. Until then, I'm still paying more at the pump, we've lost trillions, and OPEC hasn't reported a drastic increase in oil drilling since the start of our occupation.

Isn't most of the world against us militarily and economically anyways? We made up things about Iraq to go in there, increasing tension with Saudi Arabia to the point where the alliance breaks and then making things about them wouldn't be much harder. Not many more people can hate us.

Again, once we get the money we've spent paid off, let me know. Until then, its a loss, and we wouldn't try to save by spending more.

They don't wish to cut funds because they don't want to leave. It's not a matter of Democrats not having the 2/3 majority they need. There are plenty of Republicans (McCain, Paul) who are opposed to the war in Iraq, the latter is for removing now and the prior for doing it as fast as we can. If they cut the funding, we'd have to leave. As much as people say "There would just be troops there with no bullets", thats not true, they'd be pulled first. Nobody is war hungry enough to keep them in there without funding.

 

[Shredderbeam]

When we make enough from the "profits" to actually pay off the trillions we've spent on the war, then I'll reconsider my stance. Until then, I'm still paying more at the pump, we've lost trillions, and OPEC hasn't reported a drastic increase in oil drilling since the start of our occupation.

The profits aren't going towards the U.S. government, they're going towards the oil executives.

Isn't most of the world against us militarily and economically anyways? We made up things about Iraq to go in there, increasing tension with Saudi Arabia to the point where the alliance breaks and then making things about them wouldn't be much harder. Not many more people can hate us.

Not really. Our economic status with the world is such that we could not withdraw from the world economy without major economic difficulties for everybody else.

They're not against us militarily. There are no nations that would seriously consider a war with the U.S. that could win one.

Given our history with Saudi Arabia, a war with them would be difficult. Given our history with Iraq, the war would not be difficult to initiate at all.

They don't wish to cut funds because they don't want to leave. It's not a matter of Democrats not having the 2/3 majority they need. There are plenty of Republicans (McCain, Paul) who are opposed to the war in Iraq, the latter is for removing now and the prior for doing it as fast as we can. If they cut the funding, we'd have to leave. As much as people say "There would just be troops there with no bullets", thats not true, they'd be pulled first. Nobody is war hungry enough to keep them in there without funding.

Well, a cut in war funding would force a withdrawal, at the cost of the Army being under equipped. Everybody "supports our troops", but nobody wants to give them a disadvantage that could end in more casualties.

 

[flipflop09999]

This wouldn't be the firs time we got ourselves into war...
"Remember the Maine!"
^^Yeah, we blew up our own ship to get into the spanish american war.


Well, I'm only 13, so maybe I have bias views, based on what those around me think....

 

[Gnomey]

The profits aren't going towards the U.S. government, they're going towards the oil executives.



Not really. Our economic status with the world is such that we could not withdraw from the world economy without major economic difficulties for everybody else.

They're not against us militarily. There are no nations that would seriously consider a war with the U.S. that could win one.

Given our history with Saudi Arabia, a war with them would be difficult. Given our history with Iraq, the war would not be difficult to initiate at all.



Well, a cut in war funding would force a withdrawal, at the cost of the Army being under equipped. Everybody "supports our troops", but nobody wants to give them a disadvantage that could end in more casualties.

So why would the US Government lose a ton of money to make oil execs happy? They pay a lot in taxes, but even that won't help the Government, and they wouldn't be rich oil tycoons if they withdrew from the market...

I thought when you said against the US militarily you meant what we're doing. I apologize for misreading. Again, we could be slimy and find some way to increase tensions enough, maybe it would be a drawn out thing. Who knows. All I'm saying is if its all about pissing the world off for oil they'd probably make it worth their while. But I do understand what you're saying and withdraw my comment of "it would be just as easy to invade Saudi Arabia" that I said earlier.

They wouldn't let them stay there with that disadvantage. Yes, everyone would be pissed for not Congress not continuing funding for them to get them out, but they would be furious (if they could be any more-so than they are now) with Bush if he didn't pull them out right away once funding was cut, because he'd be leaving them in there to die. Congress could very easily approve a 15 day funding budget and say after that, no more - use it to pull them out, and Bush's hand would be forced.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So why would the US Government lose a ton of money to make oil execs happy? They pay a lot in taxes, but even that won't help the Government, and they wouldn't be rich oil tycoons if they withdrew from the market...

Bush and Cheney are intrinsically involved with those big oil companies, and, during Bush's 2000 campaign, he received a lot of money from the oil lobbyists.

I thought when you said against the US militarily you meant what we're doing. I apologize for misreading. Again, we could be slimy and find some way to increase tensions enough, maybe it would be a drawn out thing. Who knows. All I'm saying is if its all about pissing the world off for oil they'd probably make it worth their while. But I do understand what you're saying and withdraw my comment of "it would be just as easy to invade Saudi Arabia" that I said earlier.

Well, I'm assuming they weighed the pros and cons. The advantage in invading Saudi Arabia would be that much more oil, but there would be a massive amount of extra cons. Then, I'm sure they considered Iraq, some little country that apparently, nobody cares about.

They wouldn't let them stay there with that disadvantage. Yes, everyone would be pissed for not Congress not continuing funding for them to get them out, but they would be furious (if they could be any more-so than they are now) with Bush if he didn't pull them out right away once funding was cut, because he'd be leaving them in there to die. Congress could very easily approve a 15 day funding budget and say after that, no more - use it to pull them out, and Bush's hand would be forced.

They could, but that would make them look bad politically, apparently, for if Bush refused to withdraw, then Congress would be seen as the one who was to blame.

 

[flipflop09999]

This conversation is very interesting, just like your views. Shredder, it seems that you've been able to counter everyone's views, impressive.