Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You never defined what neocon is

Post #207

That's only half the definition, and you didn't distinguish "neo" conservative from conservative. They are "new" conservatives, not conservatives.

The difference is they are tax and spend liberals who want to do that. Hence the "new" in new conservative.

That is why calling Laura Ingram a "neo" conservative was idiotic. She is a conservative, the traditional kind, there is nothing "new" in her conservatism.

Yeah you accuse me of making up definitions and here you are. It isnt even a definition. It's just an insult based on ignorance.
Move along, s0n. You're way out of your league here.

The contributor to who you are responding above, is entirely and irrefutably correct.

It is YOU that is making up definitions. Neo-Conservatives are socially liberal, with a nationalist bent and often fiscally conservative as well... . Therefore the Neo-conservative is merely, yet another reinvention of the leftist organ which have been previously known as Progressive and Fascist.

In the GOP we refer to them as RINOs... and we're presently in the process of culling them from our ranks.

You don't want them, we don't want them, so they're erroneously touted as 'Moderates or Centrists', the oh so reasonable, who feel so sure that 'the best form of governance manages a mixed economy...'. They're idiots, fools and halfwits and demonstrators of the principle that there are no Moderates, only Leftists, who lack courage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah you accuse me of making up definitions and here you are. It isnt even a definition. It's just an insult based on ignorance.
Move along, s0n. You're way out of your league here.

LOL, I usually only laugh at liberals like I am at you right now. I am moving on though, you're bush league. You should do reading about the history of neocons though, it's actually interesting. Using definitions you make up isn't.

Irony!
I always laugh at narco-libertarians, about the same way I laugh at you. I had thought you were one up on the usual dingbats calling themselves libertarians but I guess I'm wrong. It's true: Libertarian and liberal are pretty close to each other and not just in spelling.

Where you miss the boat here, 'Rabbi', is that "Liberals" are Leftists and as such stand at diametric opposition to liberty. Which is what Conservatives stand for, the conservation of respect for, recognition and defense of, and adhere to the natural principles that sustain freedom. Those principles were declared in the charter of American principles and are sustained in law, by the charter of America Law, OKA: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

It's a rare day that you'll find a "Liberal" who even recognizes the DOI as so much as relevant and, a Libertarian who understands how it is even possible for a person to be so foolish.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ansd you know what Bush was thinking how?

2/3 of Americans know what Bush has said and did and have arrived at the rational conclusion that what Bush did to Iraq actually did not involve 'thinking'.


I'll answer you four year old question:

Please post where someone besides Saddam said he didnt have a WMD program.

After three months of tough and unprecedented inspections both UN Chief inspectors said no evidence was found in Iraq of WMD and that within a few months that verdict could be confirmed.

Bush was ignorant to not listen to them.

 

[Penelope]

Iraq began selling its oil for euro in 2000 instead of dollars. As we know PNAC Neocons was about world power and using force if needed , and that is why Iran is next . We must maintain the world US dollar to be dominate.
This was only one of the main reasons. A lot of countries have oil, but who do they sell it to is also important. It was good for China to buy its oil from Iraq, so as not to buy from Russian , but now Russia and China just made a deal. China is also making a deal with Canada if it doesn't' fall through.

Onward to Iran

 

[dilloduck]

Ansd you know what Bush was thinking how?

2/3 of Americans know what Bush has said and did and have arrived at the rational conclusion that what Bush did to Iraq actually did not involve 'thinking'.


I'll answer you four year old question:

Please post where someone besides Saddam said he didnt have a WMD program.

After three months of tough and unprecedented inspections both UN Chief inspectors said no evidence was found in Iraq of WMD and that within a few months that verdict could be confirmed.

Bush was ignorant to not listen to them.

Of course he thought----he had his staff drum up a casus belli that was "legal" and that he could sell to congress and the people. Legit or not he pulled it off.

 

[indiajo]

Overall, yes. It was a combination of getting the oil flowing into the world market, and also Saddam threatening to sell oil in Euros.

Actually, also with one eye on the subsequently arranged chaos elswhere, I tend to think the US are in a middle term run to shorten the oil and gas supplies to the world market, except their own. Which could be increasingly self sustaining too, if fracking stays an option. I am not really sure about this point.
There is presently no more oil from Libya, Iran is blocked too, Irak is in the grip of the US solely, and the gas supply from Russia is threatened indirectly by forcing the Europeans into the US sanction policy. Which started wirh a staged government overthrow in the Ukraina.

I see no other sense behind pushing whole world regions from relative stability or even beginning prosperity into pure chaos.
We have additional trade threatenings ageinst for example Brazil, which is more or less self sustaining and a significant bio fuel exporter.
The puzzle pieces start to match.

 

[dilloduck]

Overall, yes. It was a combination of getting the oil flowing into the world market, and also Saddam threatening to sell oil in Euros.

Actually, also with one eye on the subsequently arranged chaos elswhere, I tend to think the US are in a middle term run to shorten the oil and gas supplies to the world market, except their own. Which could be increasingly self sustaining too, if fracking stays an option. I am not really sure about this point.
There is presently no more oil from Libya, Iran is blocked too, Irak is in the grip of the US solely, and the gas supply from Russia is threatened indirectly by forcing the Europeans into the US sanction policy. Which started wirh a staged government overthrow in the Ukraina.

I see no other sense behind pushing whole world regions from relative stability or even beginning prosperity into pure chaos.
We have additional trade threatenings ageinst for example Brazil, which is more or less self sustaining and a significant bio fuel exporter.
The puzzle pieces start to match.

Before the invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was sputtering, largely walled off from world markets by international sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein, so his overthrow always carried the promise of renewed access to the country’s immense reserves. Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi government’s rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts.

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Post #207

That's only half the definition, and you didn't distinguish "neo" conservative from conservative. They are "new" conservatives, not conservatives.

The difference is they are tax and spend liberals who want to do that. Hence the "new" in new conservative.

That is why calling Laura Ingram a "neo" conservative was idiotic. She is a conservative, the traditional kind, there is nothing "new" in her conservatism.

Yeah you accuse me of making up definitions and here you are. It isnt even a definition. It's just an insult based on ignorance.
Move along, s0n. You're way out of your league here.

The contributor to who you are responding above, is entirely and irrefutably correct.

It is YOU that is making up definitions. Neo-Conservatives are socially liberal, with a nationalist bent and often fiscally conservative as well... . Therefore the Neo-conservative is merely, yet another reinvention of the leftist organ which have been previously known as Progressive and Fascist.

In the GOP we refer to them as RINOs... and we're presently in the process of culling them from our ranks.

You don't want them, we don't want them, so they're erroneously touted as 'Moderates or Centrists', the oh so reasonable, who feel so sure that 'the best form of governance manages a mixed economy...'. They're idiots, fools and halfwits and demonstrators of the principle that there are no Moderates, only Leftists, who lack courage.

The bolded is entirely and irrefutably incorrect.

Fascism exists on the right side of the political spectrum, it is reactionary, totalitarian, and conservative – having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

Otherwise, conservatism, however it manifests – neo-con, social conservative, Christian fundamentalist, TPM, fiscal conservative, paleoconservative – is the bane of the American Nation, it is predicated on ignorance, fear of change, and hostility toward diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

 

[kaz]

Fascism exists on the right side of the political spectrum, it is reactionary, totalitarian, and conservative – having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

Government controlling industry is "conservative." LOL, what a dumb ass. You're one of the most vacuous posters on the board. Fascism is socialism light, both are centrally planned economies. When government controls industry, you call it "totalitarianism," but when government owns industry, you consider that ideal. LOL. You're just ranting.

BTW, the Nazis were the national ... socialist ... party. Conservative, what a dumb ass...

 

[Penelope]

Overall, yes. It was a combination of getting the oil flowing into the world market, and also Saddam threatening to sell oil in Euros.

Actually, also with one eye on the subsequently arranged chaos elswhere, I tend to think the US are in a middle term run to shorten the oil and gas supplies to the world market, except their own. Which could be increasingly self sustaining too, if fracking stays an option. I am not really sure about this point.
There is presently no more oil from Libya, Iran is blocked too, Irak is in the grip of the US solely, and the gas supply from Russia is threatened indirectly by forcing the Europeans into the US sanction policy. Which started wirh a staged government overthrow in the Ukraina.

I see no other sense behind pushing whole world regions from relative stability or even beginning prosperity into pure chaos.
We have additional trade threatenings ageinst for example Brazil, which is more or less self sustaining and a significant bio fuel exporter.
The puzzle pieces start to match.

Before the invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was sputtering, largely walled off from world markets by international sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein, so his overthrow always carried the promise of renewed access to the country’s immense reserves. Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi government’s rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts.

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't think it worked out quite the way they figured. Now I'm not an economist by no means , but the Federal Reserve is the Zionist banking right, which is the dollar, so they do not want countries switching to the euro is what I gather, right??

 

[Bush92]

Iraq War is meaningless now. We have terrorism in our own nation. It's the liberal media and the Bloods in Missouri. We must send in troops to secure the US border and to control savages from within.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ansd you know what Bush was thinking how?

2/3 of Americans know what Bush has said and did and have arrived at the rational conclusion that what Bush did to Iraq actually did not involve 'thinking'.


I'll answer you four year old question:

Please post where someone besides Saddam said he didnt have a WMD program.

After three months of tough and unprecedented inspections both UN Chief inspectors said no evidence was found in Iraq of WMD and that within a few months that verdict could be confirmed.

Bush was ignorant to not listen to them.

Absolute NONSENSE!

Both the Kaye and Dulfer Reports found profound evidence of active CBW programs, facilities, and stores, including hundreds of tons of uranium yellow cake and other chemicals and substances used in the manufacture of Chemical, Biological Weapons, which comprise 2/3rds of the elements common to WMD.

Claims that such did not happen are revisionist nonsense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From what I know our initial and long term involvement in the ME involves oil. Everyone knows that...and for good reason. Lately the radicals want us out of there so they can control the area and the wealth. Religion is a cover. If Obabble would get off his ass and make us energy independent we could nuke the fuggers and be done with them.

so go buy an electric car and stop blaming Obama for the energy independent BS... YOU be energy independent.

see how easy it is to be INDEPENDENT ?

So where do you get the electricity for the car, Homey? Most of it comes from power plants that burn ... wait for it ... fossil fuels ... Liberalism, can't make that shit up...

America's First Car :: The Southwest Michigan Directory

If you were standing on the sides watching The Baushke family's first care you would be yelling "get a horse". You have no curitosity, no imagination and a closed mind. Hey, that makes you a ... wait for it ... a conservative.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=America's first car

 

[The Rabbi]

Post #207

That's only half the definition, and you didn't distinguish "neo" conservative from conservative. They are "new" conservatives, not conservatives.

The difference is they are tax and spend liberals who want to do that. Hence the "new" in new conservative.

That is why calling Laura Ingram a "neo" conservative was idiotic. She is a conservative, the traditional kind, there is nothing "new" in her conservatism.

Yeah you accuse me of making up definitions and here you are. It isnt even a definition. It's just an insult based on ignorance.
Move along, s0n. You're way out of your league here.

The contributor to who you are responding above, is entirely and irrefutably correct.

It is YOU that is making up definitions. Neo-Conservatives are socially liberal, with a nationalist bent and often fiscally conservative as well... . Therefore the Neo-conservative is merely, yet another reinvention of the leftist organ which have been previously known as Progressive and Fascist.

In the GOP we refer to them as RINOs... and we're presently in the process of culling them from our ranks.

You don't want them, we don't want them, so they're erroneously touted as 'Moderates or Centrists', the oh so reasonable, who feel so sure that 'the best form of governance manages a mixed economy...'. They're idiots, fools and halfwits and demonstrators of the principle that there are no Moderates, only Leftists, who lack courage.

Leftists are fiscally conservative? Wow, who knew?
Take that claptrap and stick it elsewhere, einstein. We're full up with stupid here.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Absolute NONSENSE!

Both the Kaye and Dulfer Reports found profound evidence of active CBW programs, facilities, and stores, including hundreds of tons of uranium yellow cake and other chemicals and substances used in the manufacture of Chemical, Biological Weapons, which comprise 2/3rds of the elements common to WMD.

Claims that such did not happen are revisionist nonsense.

Where is your respect and use of facts?


The Yellow Cake was locked up and in storage that was sealed by the IAEA prior to 1998. It was inspected every year by the UN inspectors and it was not disturbed until after the US invasion of Iraq. The UN inspectors knew all about the yellow cake during the inspections from December 2002 through March 2003. It was not an Iraqi violation of UNSC Res 1441.


Your other nonsense is settled and you are wrong:

The Iraq Survey Group, whose job was to find WMD, made an interim report in October 2003 saying it had found none. Its leader David Kay resigned in early 2004 and said of WMD: "I don't think they existed."

BBC News - Would Saddam have rebuilt his WMD?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Of course he thought----he had his staff drum up a casus belli that was "legal" and that he could sell to congress and the people. Legit or not he pulled it off.

Legal under what jurisdiction? It was not legal under the UN. His caus belli was that Iraq was hiding 'the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors". He told the American people and the world that on March 17, 2003. He could not sell that to anyone but Bush duped fools after it was found out that Iraq was not hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors on March 17, 2003.

 

[kaz]

so go buy an electric car and stop blaming Obama for the energy independent BS... YOU be energy independent.

see how easy it is to be INDEPENDENT ?

So where do you get the electricity for the car, Homey? Most of it comes from power plants that burn ... wait for it ... fossil fuels ... Liberalism, can't make that shit up...

America's First Car :: The Southwest Michigan Directory

If you were standing on the sides watching The Baushke family's first care you would be yelling "get a horse". You have no curitosity, no imagination and a closed mind. Hey, that makes you a ... wait for it ... a conservative.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=America's first car

Damn you're dumb. You said buying an electric car makes you "energy independent." I pointed out that isn't true. I didn't say the rest of the strawman you made up, that makes you ... wait for it ... stupid. Or a liberal, same thing. Dumb ass.

Here's how you know what I was talking about, you read my post, moron.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We're full up with stupid here.

It appears Rabbi has defended the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq:

Bush didn't start two wars.

We didn't invade two countries during his presidency?

We ddint harbor bin Laden and we didn't violate the UN sanctions, both causes of their respective wars.

By 2010 it was apparent that Obama was opposing the anti-war left and pursuing nothing faster than the Bush/Maliki set drawdown of the US military from Iraq. But Obama really by 2010 had alienated much of the Dem base when by announcing and delivering a tripling the number of US troops fighting in Afghanistan.

So why in 2010 is Rabbi, who supports both invasions when Bush did them, participating in a thread two years into Obama's first term, piling on Obama as a failure for taking three times the fight to Afghanistan as Bush did and following Bush's agreement in Iraq.

Rabbi made no sense in 2010 and makes no sense now. Making no sense is being stupid. So on that score Rabbi is correct. We are full up with stupid here.

Think in terms of being back in 2010 when it was known that Obama's campaigned on Iraq being a dumb war that Bush wrongly started but Afghanistan being the justified war.

And here we see how that campaign pledge by Obama is translated in the Rabbi's mind:

It was a given from the get-go that Obama would fail. He was so non-specific about what he would do that everyone saw what he most wanted in Obama. The media of course gave him a pass on all this.

Obama was very specific on both of Bush's invasions. But Rabbi was already so invested with the political right in painting Obama as a failure the minute he was elected, that Rabbi and his fellow cons and libertarians absolutely did not care about the truth. And still don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

We're full up with stupid here.

It appears Rabbi has defended the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq:

We ddint harbor bin Laden and we didn't violate the UN sanctions, both causes of their respective wars.

By 2010 it was apparent that Obama was opposing the anti-war left and pursuing nothing faster than the Bush/Maliki set drawdown of the US military from Iraq. But Obama really by 2010 had alienated much of the Dem base when by announcing and delivering a tripling the number of US troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Do why in 2010 is Rabbi who supports both invasions when Bush did them participating in a thread two years into Obama's first term piling on Obama as a failure for taking three times the fight to Afghanistan as Bush did and following Bush's plan.

Rabbi made no sense in 2010 and makes no sense now. Making no sense is being stupid. So on that score Rabbi is correct. We are full up with stupid here.

Think in terms of being back in 2010 when it was known that Obama's campaigned on Iraq being a dumb war that Bush wrongly started but Afghanistan being the justified war.

And here we see how that campaign pledge by Obama is translated in the Rabbi's mind:

It was a given from the get-go that Obama would fail. He was so non-specific about what he would do that everyone saw what he most wanted in Obama. The media of course gave him a pass on all this.

Obama was very specific on both of Bush's invasions. But Rabbi was already so invested with the political right in painting Obama as failure the minute he was elected that Rabbi and his fellow cons and libertarians absolutely did not care about the truth. And still don't.

Hey, give it a rest, sock.

 

[Redfish]

The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil


It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.