Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[healthmyths]

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Too bad you can't READ!
These comments made by Democrats BEFORE GWB presidency!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

GWB got his information from Clinton's CIA Director George John Tenet (born January 5, 1953) was the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) for the United States Central Intelligence Agency,

Sum up the point THEN post the reference if I want/need to read more. Pretty simple really.

That is exactly the problem with FOO4Obamas! You want 30 second sound bites ....headlines... no intellectual scholarship or thinking.
You spout off with NO points of reference. Opinions are formed by facts. Opinions influence politicians. Politicians pass laws based on polls of ignorant people
that read/listen 30 second sound bites/headlines WRITTEN by BIASED MSM. Hence you need to be a little more intelligent ... if possible!

I never voted for Obama and don't even think that he's particularly bright. Does that help?

I appreciate your sharing re Obama. The reason we have Obama is because the biased MSM as proven by studies at these sites:
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
not only wrote more favorable stories/headlines,etc. but 85% of the network news services donated in 2008 to Obama.

For that reason I have a lot of suspicion of comments made without sourcing. As I pointed out people form opinions based on these biased sources,
politicians pass laws based on polls of less informed voters.

 

[Correll]

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

His own troops were shocked because they were under the impression that he did have WMD's. Just like everyone else.

So the Iraqi ground troops have the intelligence gathering power of the CIA? Ummm... no.

Way to be a dishonest prick.

Your concession is duly noted. Or do you actually have a real comeback to my point?

I responded to the entirety of your point.

You did nothing but

a. Dishonestly misrepresent his point.

and

b. be a prick about it.

Anytime you want to stop being a dishonest prick and respond meaningfully to our posts, is fine with me.

 

[Correll]

He was a threat to Israel.
He was a threat to other countries around him.
He didn't have to be a direct threat to the US.

Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. Saddam wasn't a threat to countries around him, he couldn't beat Iran after 10 years and AMERICAN HELP. Kuwait he couldn't keel either, his army was way too weak. And he threatened no other country. Not even the US.

So you don't believe in keeping agreements i.e. NATO?
Should we discuss the agreements you personally have that you don't keep?

Israel is not part of NATO. Now you know.

Not what he said, you dishonest prick.

So Israel has a pact with the US to come and defend us if we ever get attacked?

PS Please stop thinking about my cock.

Not what he said either, you dishonest prick.

 

[Correll]

So Israel has a pact with the US to come and defend us if we ever get attacked?

PS Please stop thinking about my cock.

If you think the US and Israel have never worked together you're an idiot. .... and word on the board is that you have no penis.... Personally, TMI...

Not what I said, so who's the idiot now, idiot boy?

So, you can see when someone else misrepresents what you say, and don't seem to like it...

So, why are you doing it so much to others?

Oh, and he was a lot less of a dishonest prick about it than you.

 

[Correll]

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

 

[Mudda]

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

His own troops were shocked because they were under the impression that he did have WMD's. Just like everyone else.

So the Iraqi ground troops have the intelligence gathering power of the CIA? Ummm... no.

Way to be a dishonest prick.

Your concession is duly noted. Or do you actually have a real comeback to my point?

I responded to the entirety of your point.

You did nothing but

a. Dishonestly misrepresent his point.

and

b. be a prick about it.

Anytime you want to stop being a dishonest prick and respond meaningfully to our posts, is fine with me.

You didn't have a real comeback. Just like everyone here thought.

 

[Mudda]

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

 

[easyt65]

Chemical weapons being found doesn't fit the Liberal storyline and never will.

Mortar-heads found containing WMD, weapons already on a list as having been destroyed, are found in Iraq.
- Liberals change their cry of 'NO WMD found in Iraq' to 'NOT ENOUGH WMD found in Iraq'
- Liberals say JUST BECAUSE SOME WMD was fund does not mean there could possibly be anymore

Members of several demolition teams charged with destroying vast un-examined weapons bunkers in Iraq reported symptoms of interaction with WMD after destroying the bunkers.
- Liberals claim nothing to it.

The Brits report that in days prior to the war beginning they stop several trucks leaving Iraq and heading into Syria. since the war had not officially started they could not legally hold the vehicles...they report that some of the trucks contained WMD
- Liberals brush it off as nothing to it.

I'm not saying there were or weren't any WMD, beside the few weapons found, but I have learned in my life that only an IDIOT says 'never' / 'no way'. In the end, in the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, 'What difference does it make?"

 

[Slyhunter]

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

Are you for real?

 

[Campbell]

"Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?"

Obviously not as much as Obama wanted to go to war in Libya to help Al Qaeida take over.

Bush actually went before Congress and was given authorization to go to war. Obama by-passed Congress and took the nation to war on his own. He couldn't be bothered with having to make a case before Congress on how we should use our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds??

Let's just get back to 2001when George W. Bush was working feverishly on his first tax cuts for his wealthy oil buds and nearly 3000 were killed in the WTC buildings. Oh Yeah!!! Foul...that was Bill Clinton's fault. You people make my arse crave lime juice!

 

[healthmyths]

"Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?"

Obviously not as much as Obama wanted to go to war in Libya to help Al Qaeida take over.

Bush actually went before Congress and was given authorization to go to war. Obama by-passed Congress and took the nation to war on his own. He couldn't be bothered with having to make a case before Congress on how we should use our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds??

Let's just get back to 2001when George W. Bush was working feverishly on his first tax cuts for his wealthy oil buds and nearly 3000 were killed in the WTC buildings. Oh Yeah!!! Foul...that was Bill Clinton's fault. You people make my arse crave lime juice!

Obviously you never heard about the Gorelick Memo...

Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
The 1995 memo she wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK WALL!
Here read what NOT my words but other sources:
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.

So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold. Why?
Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’ that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

There that ea

 

[Correll]

His own troops were shocked because they were under the impression that he did have WMD's. Just like everyone else.

So the Iraqi ground troops have the intelligence gathering power of the CIA? Ummm... no.

Way to be a dishonest prick.

Your concession is duly noted. Or do you actually have a real comeback to my point?

I responded to the entirety of your point.

You did nothing but

a. Dishonestly misrepresent his point.

and

b. be a prick about it.

Anytime you want to stop being a dishonest prick and respond meaningfully to our posts, is fine with me.

You didn't have a real comeback. Just like everyone here thought.

COmeback? YOu aren't posting anything to come back to. It's like debating static.

Here, for you .

 

[Correll]

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

 

[Mudda]

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

So you think that the CIA has the intelligence gathering capability of a pea. I deservingly give them way more credit.

 

[TooTall]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I would say it was Saddam who made the colossal fuckup. He is dead and Rumsfeld is very much alive.

 

[TooTall]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

May I assume that it was OK with the Democrats? After all, Bush 41 was a Republican.

 

[healthmyths]

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[TooTall]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They even voted for it.

 

[TooTall]

Just how bad did Obama want to BOMB seven different countries in the Middle East?

so gawddam bad he did it all withOUT our Representation of Congress

Nobody is worrying over IRAQ. So your all's attempts at Distractions from what this thug Obama has done, that is now coming back to HURT US and the rest of countries around the world. is all for nothing.

tools need to be tools

Well...let's see how the draft dodger Bush did.

Invaded Iraq which had done no harm to the U S, got 4500 young Americans killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded and spent a trillion borrowed dollars. SCREW that Texas oil man and all his buddies.

You are confused. Bill Clinton dodged the draft. George W Bush served in the Texas ANG and was honorably discharged

 

[TooTall]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

The threat to control the world's oil supply from the middle east was considerable power.