WMD found in Iraq...

[Tiger Al 0]

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."

But...but...but...it's not about the OIL!

Of course, the terrorists would have to be a lot more efficient at moving it than Halliburton has been. Remember, the oil will fund the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer!

LINK

[channonc 466]

Al, how dare you bring FACTS into the discussion!!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Japan attacked the United States over Oil. Kinda forgot about all that though, huh?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Japan attacked the United States over Oil. Kinda forgot about all that though, huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Japan attacked the United States over Oil. Kinda forgot about all that though, huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

Not a fan of history, are ya ? Oil = stability for a nation and its economy. Hold a nation hostage by threatening its oil supply , and you basically declare war on that nation. Japan was invading other soverign nations in the 1930's. The US , and other countries, didn't care too much for that sort of behavior, and took measures to stop Japan's aggressive attitude. Japan responded not by diplomacy, but with Pearl Harbor.

Capeche?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Japan attacked the United States over Oil. Kinda forgot about all that though, huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

Not a fan of history, are ya ? Oil = stability for a nation and its economy. Hold a nation hostage by threatening its oil supply , and you basically declare war on that nation. Japan was invading other soverign nations in the 1930's. The US , and other countries, didn't care too much for that sort of behavior, and took measures to stop Japan's aggressive attitude. Japan responded not by diplomacy, but with Pearl Harbor.

Capeche?

It's a nice history lesson. However, securing oil was never given as a rationale for going to war in Iraq by the administration. In fact, when accused by some leftists of that very thing, the administration vehemently denied that the war was about oil, but rather was about WMD:

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion." (emphasis mine)

So while interesting back story and certainly true of Japan's motives in WWII, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[CCTAU 3,349]

But...but...but...it's not about the OIL!

Of course, the terrorists would have to be a lot more efficient at moving it than Halliburton has been. Remember, the oil will fund the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer!

I'm not sure that plan has been abandoned. The ability to get that oil out of Iraq has become an issue. As soon as they are back up to full production, we may see some reparations. Once again, don't claim a fact when its just speculation. I don't think this was a pay as you go plan. Hopefiully we will see some of that money. It will probably come to pass about the time a dim gets elected and he can take credit for it. Not that he would have had anything to do with it. Sometimes the turkey in the oven is not ready until its ready.....

[Tiger Al 0]

But...but...but...it's not about the OIL!

Of course, the terrorists would have to be a lot more efficient at moving it than Halliburton has been. Remember, the oil will fund the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer!

I'm not sure that plan has been abandoned. The ability to get that oil out of Iraq has become an issue. As soon as they are back up to full production, we may see some reparations. Once again, don't claim a fact when its just speculation. I don't think this was a pay as you go plan. Hopefiully we will see some of that money. It will probably come to pass about the time a dim gets elected and he can take credit for it. Not that he would have had anything to do with it. Sometimes the turkey in the oven is not ready until its ready.....

We, and Congress, were told that the oil would be used to fund the reconstruction, not taxpayers. That's not speculation, that's a fact. After 3 1/2 yrs. they can't get oil production up to pre-invasion levels. That's not speculation, that's a fact. Sometimes the turkey isn't ready because the oven was never turned on. That's a fact.

[CCTAU 3,349]

But...but...but...it's not about the OIL!

Of course, the terrorists would have to be a lot more efficient at moving it than Halliburton has been. Remember, the oil will fund the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer!

I'm not sure that plan has been abandoned. The ability to get that oil out of Iraq has become an issue. As soon as they are back up to full production, we may see some reparations. Once again, don't claim a fact when its just speculation. I don't think this was a pay as you go plan. Hopefiully we will see some of that money. It will probably come to pass about the time a dim gets elected and he can take credit for it. Not that he would have had anything to do with it. Sometimes the turkey in the oven is not ready until its ready.....

We, and Congress, were told that the oil would be used to fund the reconstruction, not taxpayers. That's not speculation, that's a fact. After 3 1/2 yrs. they can't get oil production up to pre-invasion levels. That's not speculation, that's a fact. Sometimes the turkey isn't ready because the oven was never turned on. That's a fact.

You must have been a philosophy major, cause you can't add 2 + 2. If you can't get the oil out of Iraq, how can you use it to pay for anything. They said they would use the oil to help fund it. And until they have that opportunity, YOU HAVE NO FACTS. Once again, you are a dim proclaiming failure and disaster at a pre-mature time. Typical dim, throw it out there and if it comes to pass, you run around and say I told you so. If it don't you, never address it again. You then want to tell the world that you and all the dims have it figured out. But nobody ever hears about the many more things you were wrong about. The media has your back on that one. So until it comes to pass, please preface all you say with "I think." Because until it actually happens, it is not a fact.

[Tiger Al 0]

But...but...but...it's not about the OIL!

Of course, the terrorists would have to be a lot more efficient at moving it than Halliburton has been. Remember, the oil will fund the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer!

I'm not sure that plan has been abandoned. The ability to get that oil out of Iraq has become an issue. As soon as they are back up to full production, we may see some reparations. Once again, don't claim a fact when its just speculation. I don't think this was a pay as you go plan. Hopefiully we will see some of that money. It will probably come to pass about the time a dim gets elected and he can take credit for it. Not that he would have had anything to do with it. Sometimes the turkey in the oven is not ready until its ready.....

We, and Congress, were told that the oil would be used to fund the reconstruction, not taxpayers. That's not speculation, that's a fact. After 3 1/2 yrs. they can't get oil production up to pre-invasion levels. That's not speculation, that's a fact. Sometimes the turkey isn't ready because the oven was never turned on. That's a fact.

You must have been a philosophy major, cause you can't add 2 + 2. If you can't get the oil out of Iraq, how can you use it to pay for anything. They said they would use the oil to help fund it. And until they have that opportunity, YOU HAVE NO FACTS. Once again, you are a dim proclaiming failure and disaster at a pre-mature time. Typical dim, throw it out there and if it comes to pass, you run around and say I told you so. If it don't you, never address it again. You then want to tell the world that you and all the dims have it figured out. But nobody ever hears about the many more things you were wrong about. The media has your back on that one. So until it comes to pass, please preface all you say with "I think." Because until it actually happens, it is not a fact.

They've had the opportunity for 3 1/2 yrs.!!!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Well, if they had been honest with the Amercian public do you guys believe they would have had support for the war? NO. So, they had to lie. It's in our best interests to control oil, at least until they get serious about alternates and build more nukes. It takes oil to build anything. It takes oil to dig up coal to generate power and heat/cool your homes, work places and schools. It takes oil to process crude into the various forms we enjoy today. So, they lied, so what? Right?

Iran is shutting down the Iranian public internet access. Why do you think this is happening? Because they are going to destoy us in Iraq. We're building up troop levels and if Iran hits Iraq with nukes, we won't have much of an Army left to defend our country. I believe the Iraq policy could have been tweaked a bit before the hastened attack "W and Co." released on that country. Chalabi is a double agent for Iran. Let's hope I'm wrong.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Japan attacked the United States over Oil. Kinda forgot about all that though, huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

Not a fan of history, are ya ? Oil = stability for a nation and its economy. Hold a nation hostage by threatening its oil supply , and you basically declare war on that nation. Japan was invading other soverign nations in the 1930's. The US , and other countries, didn't care too much for that sort of behavior, and took measures to stop Japan's aggressive attitude. Japan responded not by diplomacy, but with Pearl Harbor.

Capeche?

It's a nice history lesson. However, securing oil was never given as a rationale for going to war in Iraq by the administration. In fact, when accused by some leftists of that very thing, the administration vehemently denied that the war was about oil, but rather was about WMD:

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion." (emphasis mine)

So while interesting back story and certainly true of Japan's motives in WWII, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Ok, if you say so. I'm not saying the threat of WMD wasn't real, it was. But because of the region, and who it could influence, we had to be pragmatic about things. Save for the Suez cannal, there's nothing of value in that region EXCEPT for Oil.

'nuff said.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

No, not if I say so...because the Bush Administration insisted so. So if indeed it was about oil, they lied. Bald-faced lied.

And if the WMD were real, where are they? You said in another thread there's all this great proof and they're sitting on it, which infuriates Republicans...are they really that stupid to have solid proof and not offer it while getting clubbed like a baby seal in the elections tonight?

[AURaptor 1,126]

No, not if I say so...because the Bush Administration insisted so. So if indeed it was about oil, they lied. Bald-faced lied.

And if the WMD were real, where are they? You said in another thread there's all this great proof and they're sitting on it, which infuriates Republicans...are they really that stupid to have solid proof and not offer it while getting clubbed like a baby seal in the elections tonight?

After all this , you STILL suggest that WMDs never existed ? Holy sh*t.... this is pointless.

[tigerfan1234 0]

Most wars, especially this one are pointless. America was lied to and it is time some of you people on this board own up to it. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Afghanistan did, yet there are more NATO troops stationed in that country than AMerican troops. Meanwhile, the Taliban is resurging and Al Queada is alive and kicking and Bin Laden stills sends his blessing. Oh, we now have countless more enemies thna before this mess began. Yes, this war is pointless and one that our children will have to clean up, if the world is still in one piece by that time.

[Tiger Al 0]

No, not if I say so...because the Bush Administration insisted so. So if indeed it was about oil, they lied. Bald-faced lied.

And if the WMD were real, where are they? You said in another thread there's all this great proof and they're sitting on it, which infuriates Republicans...are they really that stupid to have solid proof and not offer it while getting clubbed like a baby seal in the elections tonight?

After all this , you STILL suggest that WMDs never existed ? Holy sh*t.... this is pointless.

Strawman Alert!!!

[TitanTiger 20,511]

No, not if I say so...because the Bush Administration insisted so. So if indeed it was about oil, they lied. Bald-faced lied.

And if the WMD were real, where are they? You said in another thread there's all this great proof and they're sitting on it, which infuriates Republicans...are they really that stupid to have solid proof and not offer it while getting clubbed like a baby seal in the elections tonight?

After all this , you STILL suggest that WMDs never existed ? Holy sh*t.... this is pointless.

Does it take a lot of practice to continually shift the argument and not answer the original question, or does it come naturally?

I only indulge this WMD tangent because of the central issue of this thread: whether we went to Iraq because of oil. The administration claimed we were in Iraq because of WMDs. To date, we haven't found anything of consequence. The administration further insisted that not only was it about WMDs but it was specifically NOT about oil. Period. At all. But you come along and act like oil was part of it the whole time. If that's so, the Bush adminstration bald-faced lied.

As far as whether or not the WMDs ever existed (tangent alert)...I was willing to believe it, but at some point, you have to go with concrete evidence, not suspicion. Right now, if you're being charitable, it appears that the intelligence was bad regarding WMD. So I'm not saying right now that I know Bush lied about that. As far as I know, he believed the intelligence he had and was simply wrong.

But can you get back to the fascinating history lesson you were schooling us all on and stop trying to make this about something else?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Does it take a lot of practice to continually shift the argument and not answer the original question, or does it come naturally?

I only indulge this WMD tangent because of the central issue of this thread: whether we went to Iraq because of oil. The administration claimed we were in Iraq because of WMDs. To date, we haven't found anything of consequence. The administration further insisted that not only was it about WMDs but it was specifically NOT about oil. Period. At all. But you come along and act like oil was part of it the whole time. If that's so, the Bush adminstration bald-faced lied.

As far as whether or not the WMDs ever existed (tangent alert)...I was willing to believe it, but at some point, you have to go with concrete evidence, not suspicion. Right now, if you're being charitable, it appears that the intelligence was bad regarding WMD. So I'm not saying right now that I know Bush lied about that. As far as I know, he believed the intelligence he had and was simply wrong.

But can you get back to the fascinating history lesson you were schooling us all on and stop trying to make this about something else?

Did you simply forget the 17 UN resolutions? Did you forget the 10 years which lead up to the Iraq war? Did all the threats and sabre rattling by Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al when THEY were in power simply escape your memory? Time and time again, Iraq failed to abide by the UN resolutions. Do you NOT comprehend that ? Clearly, Iraq is in a sensitive area of the world, affecting not just the U.S, but the entire industrialized community.

We didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil, if that's what you're trying to insinuate. It goes w/ out saying ( at least w/ most people ) that Iraq's geographical status merrits an acknowledgement of that fact. I don't get where you said Bush lied. He clearly did not lie. But if that's all you have, I guess you have to stick w/ what you have. Sad as it is.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No, not if I say so...because the Bush Administration insisted so. So if indeed it was about oil, they lied. Bald-faced lied.

And if the WMD were real, where are they? You said in another thread there's all this great proof and they're sitting on it, which infuriates Republicans...are they really that stupid to have solid proof and not offer it while getting clubbed like a baby seal in the elections tonight?

After all this , you STILL suggest that WMDs never existed ? Holy sh*t.... this is pointless.

Strawman Alert!!!

Hey TigerAl, go f*** yourself !

[Tiger Al 0]

Does it take a lot of practice to continually shift the argument and not answer the original question, or does it come naturally?

I only indulge this WMD tangent because of the central issue of this thread: whether we went to Iraq because of oil. The administration claimed we were in Iraq because of WMDs. To date, we haven't found anything of consequence. The administration further insisted that not only was it about WMDs but it was specifically NOT about oil. Period. At all. But you come along and act like oil was part of it the whole time. If that's so, the Bush adminstration bald-faced lied.

As far as whether or not the WMDs ever existed (tangent alert)...I was willing to believe it, but at some point, you have to go with concrete evidence, not suspicion. Right now, if you're being charitable, it appears that the intelligence was bad regarding WMD. So I'm not saying right now that I know Bush lied about that. As far as I know, he believed the intelligence he had and was simply wrong.

But can you get back to the fascinating history lesson you were schooling us all on and stop trying to make this about something else?

Did you simply forget the 17 UN resolutions? Did you forget the 10 years which lead up to the Iraq war? Did all the threats and sabre rattling by Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al when THEY were in power simply escape your memory? Time and time again, Iraq failed to abide by the UN resolutions. Do you NOT comprehend that ? Clearly, Iraq is in a sensitive area of the world, affecting not just the U.S, but the entire industrialized community.

We didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil, if that's what you're trying to insinuate. It goes w/ out saying ( at least w/ most people ) that Iraq's geographical status merrits an acknowledgement of that fact. I don't get where you said Bush lied. He clearly did not lie. But if that's all you have, I guess you have to stick w/ what you have. Sad as it is.

Simply stated, the UN resolutions worked. UNSCOM accomplished its mission and Saddam was disarmed. That point is moot. Whatever sabre rattling you're referring to is moot, also. Neither Clinton, Kerry nor Kennedy engaged our country in a war of choice. Again, the UN resolutions were a success so invasion was not necessary. If there were real reasons then Bush should've put them forward, but, he didn't. He chose to use WMD's as his basis. This fact was not more obvious than in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Did you simply forget the 17 UN resolutions? Did you forget the 10 years which lead up to the Iraq war? Did all the threats and sabre rattling by Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al when THEY were in power simply escape your memory? Time and time again, Iraq failed to abide by the UN resolutions. Do you NOT comprehend that ? Clearly, Iraq is in a sensitive area of the world, affecting not just the U.S, but the entire industrialized community.

Yes they did. But they were not the threat we were told they were and now we're stuck in there for God knows how long while we piddled away an opportunity to concentrate on Afghanistan and do it right. They were being contained.

We didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil, if that's what you're trying to insinuate. It goes w/ out saying ( at least w/ most people ) that Iraq's geographical status merrits an acknowledgement of that fact. I don't get where you said Bush lied. He clearly did not lie. But if that's all you have, I guess you have to stick w/ what you have. Sad as it is.

"Steal?" No. "Gain a measure of control over?" Yeah, I think so.

Regarding the lying: please try to keep up. I've explained this twice. You came into this thread acting like the decision to go to Iraq was at least partly about securing Iraq's oil (just like Japan attacked us for) and that it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Remember "Oil = stability for a nation and its economy"?

So I pointed out that if the oil motive was a rationale in any respect for going into Iraq, then the administration lied to us. Donald Rumsfeld himself said:

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."

So which is it? Did we go over there to secure oil while telling the American people that it "had nothing to do with oil", or did we go over and put our guys in harm's way over WMDs that we've yet to find?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Iraq " being contained " was no longer an option after 9/11. Especially in light that it wasn't being contained, with the exposing of the Food for Oil scam that involves every greedy hand from the U.N. Or do you need to have THAT explained too? Also, it's best to take the gun away from the maniac before he either uses it himself or gives it to someone who will.

We'd have gone to war either way. It's naive to say Oil had nothing to do w/ the decission, but in the end, the threat of WMD was the deciding factor. I don't see why the Left get so hung up on the non stop splicing and semantics of this issue what so ever. The Left lies when it says Bush lied about WMD. Then, to cover it's a$$, the Left lies again and says " oh, it was all about the oil !" , when no..it wasn't ALL ABOUT THE OIL. It's clear that all this bickering is nothing more than political jockying by attempting to deceive the public. Iraq had WMD when Clinton was in office, and Saddam had better come clean, or else! . But when Bush gets into office, and Saddam still refuses to come clean, and we decide enough is enough....... the Dems start their D.C. doci - doe. Unfu*kingbelievable.

And drop the condescending try to keep up crap. Despite what you may think, it doesn't help your argument.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Iraq " being contained " was no longer an option after 9/11. Especially in light that it wasn't being contained, with the exposing of the Food for Oil scam that involves every greedy hand from the U.N. Or do you need to have THAT explained too? Also, it's best to take the gun away from the maniac before he either uses it himself or gives it to someone who will.

Yes, I know about the 'Oil For Food' scandal. You can take steps to deal with that problem that don't involve diverting our attention from Afghanistan.

And in this case, it wasn't a matter of taking the gun from the maniac. It was taking away the plans to possibly build the gun if he ever got his hands on the hard to acquire raw materials.

We'd have gone to war either way.

Possibly. But taking a more deliberate approach rather than the bullheaded one we chose might have resulted in us not shouldering the burden for 90% of the money and manpower.

It's naive to say Oil had nothing to do w/ the decission,

Then Donald Rumsfeld and everyone in the administration that parroted the line that it had "literally nothing to do with oil" are either naive, stupid, or liars. Take your pick.

but in the end, the threat of WMD was the deciding factor. I don't see why the Left get so hung up on the non stop splicing and semantics of this issue what so ever. The Left lies when it says Bush lied about WMD. Then, to cover it's a$$, the Left lies again and says " oh, it was all about the oil !" , when no..it wasn't ALL ABOUT THE OIL.

You keep acting like this was some foregone conclusion that us poor saps are missing when we're just taking the administration at its own word. And point of fact...the deciding factor wasn't just "the threat" of WMDs. It was blatantly stated that they possessed significant quantities of WMDs with plans to acquire even more. The facts on the ground have yet to bear that assertion out.

It's clear that all this bickering is nothing more than political jockying by attempting to deceive the public. Iraq had WMD when Clinton was in office, and Saddam had better come clean, or else! . But when Bush gets into office, and Saddam still refuses to come clean, and we decide enough is enough....... the Dems start their D.C. doci - doe. Unfu*kingbelievable.

And this is where I get pissed because I'm sick and tired of being painted as someone who simply doing some "political jockeying" because I can't believe the bulls**t anymore. I supported the war initially. I believed the administration. Hook, line and sinker. But it is apparent to me now that someone in the administration...not saying Bush specifically (in fact, I tend to believe he was lied to as well)...knew better. Or should have. They knew the intel was sketchy as to the existence of these weapons...either that or their ideological blinders would not allow them to give proper consideration to other views. They should have known that the post-invasion situation would not be candy and roses but ethnic vendettas, radical Islamic terrorism and sabotage and rampant Arab hyper-nationalism and that it would be a completely mess unless you had the manpower to crush it early.

I was an apologist for this decision for quite a while and I'm done. It was an ill-advised invasion to begin with, but even if you give them that, the strategy has been a cluster**** since Saddam was toppled. Don't get me wrong. The average joes on the ground there are working hard and making the best out of a crappy situation they've been dropped into. But the people that conceived this war and made it happen screwed up royally. They believed overly rosy projections of what would happen and thus did not plan adequately for it going much worse than expected and they've thrown $200 BILLION down this rathole that could have been better spent over here or even distributed back as further tax breaks to the American people. This damn thing is costing us $1.4 billion a week. And now we're stuck there for God knows how long because we can't get a handle on the insurgency and the simmering ethnic conflict that is just on the bleeding edge of becoming all-out civil war. That really pisses me off and I'm not defending it anymore despite any warm fuzzies I might have about George W. Bush as a person.

And drop the condescending try to keep up crap. Despite what you may think, it doesn't help your argument.

You're right. That was overly snotty. But I had explained the argument about 3 times already and you were still mischaracterizing it as if it was the first time you'd seen that line of thought. I got frustrated. But I'll refrain from it going forward.

[tigerfan1234 0]

TitanTiger put it best. I believe this war will turn out to be America's biggest blunder when history judges this generation. We are no longer seen as the good guys, just another invasion/imperial force. How are we going to correct this mess? I don't know that it can be corrected b/c the ball is rolling and picking up steam everyday. Saddam was an evil guy, no doubt, but he didn't orchestrate 9-11. That is what this whole deal is about, 9-11. Now it has morphed into a monster wayyyy out of our control. I for one don't feel America is any safer than before 9-11. It is only a matter of time before one of the kooks finds a way to hit us again. Meanwhile, we are putting gasoline on the fire by making new enemies everyday.

[CCTAU 3,349]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......