Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

[bears]

was it nationalized before 2003?

no

[bears]

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998


 answer mine now.  was he lying?

[Roger Bacon]

Getbiggers in 2005:  "We are here to spread DEMOCRACY!  We're here to help people!  IT has NOTHING to do with oil!  That's CT talk!"

haha... Bunch of dumbfucks

Beach Bum was leading the charge! 

[bears]

     Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #3 on: Today at 11:23:11 AM » Quote Modify Remove 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.  Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    Addressing the US Senate
    October 10, 2002
 

was she complicit in the conspiracy?

[bears]

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He's a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

    State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
    Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
    October 2, 2002

what about him?  complicit?  yes?  no?

[OzmO]

no

it wasn't?

so the authors assertion (Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.) is only half true?

squirm squirm squirm

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998


 answer mine now.  was he lying?

He was incorrect. AND it was political blabber designed for the ignorant.   I said it back then, I said often after the 2003 invasion.

those with common sense could see that Iraq was only a regional threat up until the 1st gulf war, after that, any aggression outside his borders would lead to his removal from power; something he would never risk.

[OzmO]

Bears, add the same response to all those others and then lets get back to talking about the REAL ISSUE!

Was Iraqi oil nationalized or not before 2003?

[bears]

Bears, add the same response to all those others and then lets get back to talking about the REAL ISSUE!

Was Iraqi oil nationalized or not before 2003?

you're leaving gaps i could drive a truck through in your theory.  and not answering basic questions that any rational person would want answered.  and anyone with half a brain can see that you're reaching.

[OzmO]

you're leaving gaps i could drive a truck through in your theory.  and not answering basic questions that any rational person would want answered.  and anyone with half a brain can see that you're reaching.

Reaching what?

The guys article can't go on without establishing those facts.

So i ask you again, are they true or not?

Or at the very least, drive some gaps through his theory or opinion.  Or keep squirming. 

So far all you have done is avoid and run.

Do you know the difference between rhetoric and results?

You are posting rhetoric, this is about the results.

actions speak louder than words...etc.

[bears]

Reaching what?

The guys article can't go on without establishing those facts.

So i ask you again, are they true or not?

Or at the very least, drive some gaps through his theory or opinion.  Or keep squirming. 

So far all you have done is avoid and run.

Do you know the difference between rhetoric and results?

You are posting rhetoric, this is about the results.

actions speak louder than words...etc.

its funny you say that since you've doged both my quesitons.  so i'll ask you again.  who were the major players in the conspiracy?  it has obviously been going on since the late 80's.  quit dodging my questions and spewing your rhetoric.  give ME results.  when did this conspiracy begin?  and with who?

[240 is Back]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIB vs. CON!

it's a lot easier to make it that way, so there's a "side".   In this case, the only "side" is fact or fiction.  Iraqi oil is managed by foriegn companies now.  fact.

[whork]

funny no mention of how Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, all voted in favor of this war.  i accept the fact that there could possibly have been a conspiracy, but for that to be true, a lot of people from both sides would have had to have been complicit.  Guarantee this guy doesn't mention that fact at all.  Why?  Because he's pandering for book sales. 

Do you work for the GOP ber

[bears]

Do you work for the GOP ber

the adults are talking whork.  go play.

[240 is Back]

Do you work for the GOP ber

i dont seee this about the GOP or DNC or anyone else.  they're on the same side when it comes to milking iraq for oil.  I'm not saying it's morally right, but it works out well for americans, keeping the oil sold in USD using our own companies.  It sure helps us out.

the parties argue about wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they'reunited in global conquest for natural resources.

[bears]

i dont seee this about the GOP or DNC or anyone else.  they're on the same side when it comes to milking iraq for oil.  I'm not saying it's morally right, but it works out well for americans, keeping the oil sold in USD using our own companies.  It sure helps us out.

the parties argue about wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they'reunited in global conquest for natural resources.

all i'm asking for is an explanation as to who were the major players of the largest conspiracy in world history.  and no one wants to answer the question.

[blacken700]

well it would have to start at the top,right

[bears]

all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US.  MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!!  like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words.  tell me who started it.

[whork]

the adults are talking whork.  go play.

I can see that.

You are a useful adult sheep bear.

Or

You work for the GOP.
At least that way you get paid.

[bears]

well it would have to start at the top,right

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

    President Clinton
    Oval Office Address to the American People
    December 16, 1998
  

so was he lying when he said this?  i do not believe he was.  which is why i don't know why whork is asking me if i work for the GOP?  whork you know Clinton was a democrat right?

[bears]

all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US.  MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!!  like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words.  tell me who started it.

yeah..... crickets

[OzmO]

its funny you say that since you've doged both my quesitons.  so i'll ask you again.  who were the major players in the conspiracy?  it has obviously been going on since the late 80's.  quit dodging my questions and spewing your rhetoric.  give ME results.  when did this conspiracy begin?  and with who?

?  

first off, i haven't charged this as a conspiracy, you have.  Secondly, your intial argument is based on political babble which i put in its place.

third, you still won't address whether or not Iraqs oil or was not nationalized in prior to 2003.  why not?  at the very least back it up with some facts.

forth, i am the one who is askign about results.  so we will start at the beginning, and if you can't keep up, don't bother.  You are starting to get tedious.

________________________ ________________

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

speaking of results, is this true or not?

cause we already know how the WMD's were, don't we?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  


BTW, i think its important you know.  I don't think this was a CT.  This is how we do things.  Have for decades.  I just think 3000 american lives aren't worth it this time.

all i'm asking for is an explanation as to who were the major players of the largest conspiracy in world history.  and no one wants to answer the question.

and again, quit it with the largest CT in history.  

Is calling it a CT the only way you can defend it?  

squirm squirm squirm

[OzmO]

all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US.  MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!!  like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words.  tell me who started it.

first of all i didn't make the claim.  The author did.  I have been asking you to disprove it. 

squirm squirm squirm

[bears]

?  

first off, i haven't charged this as a conspiracy, you have.  Secondly, your intial argument is based on political babble which i put in its place.

third, you still won't address whether or not Iraqs oil or was not nationalized in prior to 2003.  why not?  at the very least back it up with some facts.

forth, i am the one who is askign about results.  so we will start at the beginning, and if you can't keep up, don't bother.  You are starting to get tedious.

________________________ ________________

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

speaking of results, is this true or not?

cause we already know how the WMD's were, don't we?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  


BTW, i think its important you know.  I don't think this was a CT.  This is how we do things.  Have for decades.  I just think 3000 american lives aren't worth it this time.
and again, quit it with the largest CT in history.  

Is calling it a CT the only way you can defend it?  

squirm squirm squirm

if we told the american public we were invading Iraq because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction when it was really only part of a larger plan to denatioalize Iraq's oil industry, thats a conspiracy theory.  you're ducking and dodging and not answerign my questions.  the same thing you're accusing me of.

[bears]

first of all i didn't make the claim.  The author did.  I have been asking you to disprove it. 

squirm squirm squirm

and you posted it because you don;t agree with it right?  duck.  dodge.  duck dodge.  you're an amateur

[OzmO]

if we told the american public we were invading Iraq because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction when it was really only part of a larger plan to denatioalize Iraq's oil industry, thats a conspiracy theory.  you're ducking and dodging and not answerign my questions.  the same thing you're accusing me of.

and you posted it because you don;t agree with it right?  duck.  dodge.  duck dodge.  you're an amateur

what ever dude.   

We are still left with you posting poltical blabber and avoiding the basic of question of Iraq's oil.

I agree with the article, i am asking to for actual debate of the facts starting with whether or not iraq's oil was nationalized before 2003 and dominated by foriegn companies after wards.  You have only answered 50% of the question and REFUSE to back up the other half.

GO BACK TO THE START OF THE THREAD AND READ YOUR DODGING.

FACT:  WMD's were a lie.

FACT:  we are profiting big time from Iraq's oil.

FACT:  the war cost the tax payers big time

go ahead and post something clinton now, or talk about the largest CT in history.   

In the mean time bend over and get it again while you cheer it on watchign the news.