Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

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.

You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.

The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.
 
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.

You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.

The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.

Cheney was and is a slimeball. But the war was not about Haliburton and profits. As to the no bid contracts, in most cases there is/was no other company that would do what Haliburton did, when there is no competition the govt has to revert to no-bid contracts, whose prices are negotiated by the procuring agency, they do not just accept whatever the company quotes.

If removing Saddam and his regime was the goal and reason for the war as you say. Then that goal could have been accomplished much more efficiently through covert actions and specific targeting. A ground war was a stupid waste of lives and money.
 
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.

You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.

The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.

you are also correct about our loss of credibility. we declared defeat in Viet Nam and will do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of american lives and billions of dollars for NOTHING.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
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.

You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.

The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.

Cheney was and is a slimeball. But the war was not about Haliburton and profits. As to the no bid contracts, in most cases there is/was no other company that would do what Haliburton did, when there is no competition the govt has to revert to no-bid contracts, whose prices are negotiated by the procuring agency, they do not just accept whatever the company quotes.

If removing Saddam and his regime was the goal and reason for the war as you say. Then that goal could have been accomplished much more efficiently through covert actions and specific targeting. A ground war was a stupid waste of lives and money.
I am sure that was tried. The US has a ban on assassinations.
 
We're full up with stupid here.


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




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.

Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.
 
It appears Rabbi has defended the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq:




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:





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.

Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.

Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.
 
Far left talking points aside.

In 2003 there were many charges for the cause of the removal of Saddam and Baathist party.

Saddam had become increasingly paranoid so he started turning power over to his generals and the hierarchy of the Baathist regime. So to just remove Saddam would have done no good. Just like what was happening with Arafat and the PLO. You could take out Arafat or Saddam, but they were nothing more than figure heads.

Regardless of what anyone will say we had decimated the Iraq army so the US would have to defend Iraq against any aggressor.

The problems comes in to play when you have the far left mindset like Obama who cut and run to appease his far left political base here. No negotiations, no mutual defense treaty, nothing. It was going to spell disaster. Obama had a problem with Maliki ,so he took his ball and went home.

However Maliki was not the president of Iraq, so Obama just does what he needs to in order to get his base fired up for 2012.
 
The US has a ban on assassinations.

The only justification and reason for the US ground invasion of Iraq was according to Bush on March 17, 2003 was because Iraq was slkedgegly hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 200 UN inspectors that were in Iraq not finding them.

You show that you know nothing about anything in Iraq because assassinating Saddam Hussein and even his two sons would not keep those 'hidden' WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Assassination of top Iraq leadership would not force regime change from Baathist control to majority rule Shiite dominated control of some guaranteed pro-US, anti terrorist democracy.

Removing Saddam when his cooperation with weapons inspectors was unprecedented was the biggest presidential blunder of all time.

Your attacks on Obama along with your ridiculous defense of Bush starting the Iraq war makes your flawed outlook a considerable joke.
 
The US has a ban on assassinations.

The only justification and reason for the US ground invasion of Iraq was according to Bush on March 17, 2003 was because Iraq was slkedgegly hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 200 UN inspectors that were in Iraq not finding them.

You show that you know nothing about anything in Iraq because assassinating Saddam Hussein and even his two sons would not keep those 'hidden' WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Assassination of top Iraq leadership would not force regime change from Baathist control to majority rule Shiite dominated control of some guaranteed pro-US, anti terrorist democracy.

Removing Saddam when his cooperation with weapons inspectors was unprecedented was the biggest presidential blunder of all time.

Your attacks on Obama along with your ridiculous defense of Bush starting the Iraq war makes your flawed outlook a considerable joke.

sock-puppet-1.jpg
 
Hey, give it a rest, sock.

Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.

Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.


Why do you think you are right? On specific points you are wrong about everything. Any clown can say he is right.

Why did you claim Obama was not specific about supporting the war in Afghanistan? That is not true. And then Obama tripled the number of troops needed in that war because Bush neglected it to invade Iraq.

Why can't you refute what I'm writing?
 
Last edited:
Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.

Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.


Why do you think you are right? On specific points you are wrong about everything. Any clown can say he is right.

Why did you claim Obama was not specific about supporting the war in Afghanistan? That is not true. And then Obama tripled the number of troops needed in that war because Bush neglected it to invade Iraq.

Why can't you refute what I'm writing?
The facts refute your statements.
 
Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.


Why do you think you are right? On specific points you are wrong about everything. Any clown can say he is right.

Why did you claim Obama was not specific about supporting the war in Afghanistan? That is not true. And then Obama tripled the number of troops needed in that war because Bush neglected it to invade Iraq.

Why can't you refute what I'm writing?
The facts refute your statements.

Lets see one of your facts.
 
You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.

The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.

Cheney was and is a slimeball. But the war was not about Haliburton and profits. As to the no bid contracts, in most cases there is/was no other company that would do what Haliburton did, when there is no competition the govt has to revert to no-bid contracts, whose prices are negotiated by the procuring agency, they do not just accept whatever the company quotes.

If removing Saddam and his regime was the goal and reason for the war as you say. Then that goal could have been accomplished much more efficiently through covert actions and specific targeting. A ground war was a stupid waste of lives and money.
I am sure that was tried. The US has a ban on assassinations.

Yeah, right. What exactly are these drone hits, if not assassinations? What was the hit on OBL if not an assassination? What was the attack on Kadaffi's house if not an attempted assassination.

In addition, we could have hit Saddam and done it in such a way that no one would have known the US had anything to do with it.
 
Yeah, right. What exactly are these drone hits, if not assassinations? What was the hit on OBL if not an assassination? What was the attack on Kadaffi's house if not an attempted assassination.

In addition, we could have hit Saddam and done it in such a way that no one would have known the US had anything to do with it.


When has a drone been used to assassinate a governmental top leader?

OBL was not assassinated. He went for his weapon. Both were rotten human beings but OBL was not the head of a sovereign government.

The UNSC passed a resolution that required that Gadhafi stop using his artillery and armored units on the civilian population. I understood the hit buildings in Tripoli were used as command and control to defy the UN Resolution passed against the Libyan dictator. Gadhafi was not there. So what is your point?
 
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.



Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?
 
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.



Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

You are consistently among the least informed posters here. I'd shut up if I were you. Then again, if I were you I'd probably kill myself.
 
In 2003 there were many charges for the cause of the removal of Saddam and Baathist party.

Just name the top three reasons Bush should've asked a US soldier to give his life to remove the Baathist Party from power in Iraq in March 2003.
 
Last edited:
Its painful to think that some people profited in the rebuilding of Iraq. That is sad. Beware of the military industrial complex as well.
 
HTML:
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.



Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

You are consistently among the least informed posters here. I'd shut up if I were you. Then again, if I were you I'd probably kill myself.


I provide information with my posts - you provide no information at all.

If I am least informed then you are not at all informed.

This thread you started proves you are not informed because you have no information to convey.

I say Obama was specific about his support for the military effort in Afghanistan. You have no information to support an argument that he did not support that war and finishing it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top