Non sequitor

[indio]

Bush quote "I had a choice to make: either to take the word of a madman or take such threats seriously and defend America. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time," Bush declared.

If he isn't taking the word of a madman how can he take his threats seriously? Doublespeak is alive and well.The USA becomes more Orwellian by the hour.

 

[Legion]

Bush quote "I had a choice to make: either to take the word of a madman or take such threats seriously and defend America. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time," Bush declared.

If he isn't taking the word of a madman how can he take his threats seriously? Doublespeak is alive and well.The USA becomes more Orwellian by the hour.

I would say the real madmen are those still proclaiming this was a war for oil.

More specifically, a war for oil such that the US could break even the cost of the war . I will never cease to be amazed the depths of what people are willing to believe wrt to antiamerican propaganda.

I fail to see what the major complaint about Bush is now. Do people really think he is a cruel murder bent on oil imperialism? It would appear the reasoning behind such is toothless.

Whether Bush lied about the WMD or not (I am convinced he did not) Saddam needed to be removed for the progress of Iraq. I was for doing this years ago. As much as people proclaim war was not the best method I failed to hear the majority of them pose anything beyond economic sanctions (which would and did hurt the Iraqis more than their leadership) to deal with the situation.

I am glad to see Iraqi's provided a chance at democracy and capitalism rather then suffer under autocratic leaderships and socialistic ideologies.

 

[Natoma]

No one has ever identified grammatical eloquence as one of Bush's more desireable attributes. However, I think we know what he meant. Doesn't make it any less fun to make fun of though.

 

[Natoma]

I would say the real madmen are those still proclaiming this was a war for oil.

More specifically, a war for oil such that the US could break even the cost of the war . I will never cease to be amazed the depths of what people are willing to believe wrt to antiamerican propaganda.

I fail to see what the major complaint about Bush is now. Do people really think he is a cruel murder bent on oil imperialism? I would appear the reasoning behind such is toothless.

The administration pushed over and over again that the funds for the war would be paid for through the oil proceeds. It's fairly clear now that they didn't realize the extent of the damage and degradation to Iraq's infrastructure.

Was this gulf war about oil? Partly. Was the first gulf war about oil? Definitely.

Whether Bush lied about the WMD or not (I am convinced he did not) Saddam needed to be removed for the progress of Iraq. I was for doing this years ago. As much as people proclaim war was not the best method I failed to hear the majority of them pose anything beyond economic sanctions (which would and did hurt the Iraqis more than their leadership) to deal with the situation.

The only reason the american public got on board was because of WMD and Terrorist Ties. If we had gone in knowing the costs, and that we'd "only" get the removal of a bad bad man, I doubt support would have gone past the drawing board. In fact, reports show that it did not get past the drawing board with just that reasoning, because those in the administration knew that it would never play to the public.

Now that we know there is no WMD and no Terrorist Ties pre-invasion, we have a right to know what went wrong in every nook and cranny. The CIA and the Bush Administration must be held accountable.

 

[Legion]

The administration pushed over and over again that the funds for the war would be paid for through the oil proceeds. It's fairly clear now that they didn't realize the extent of the damage and degradation to Iraq's infrastructure.

This doesn't constitute a "war for oil". Rather i points out how baseless and irrational the realities of cost vs profit.

Was this gulf war about oil? Partly. Was the first gulf war about oil? Definitely.

About and Cause are two different matters entirely. If the first war were about oil control their would have been no need for the second if controling the oil were the purpose.

Oil is a significant factor in Iraq's economy. Protecting the oil should have been on the top priorities list.

Any attempt to distort such concerns into the rational this war was fought for the control of oil would be dishonest. Natoma i hope doing so is not your intention.

The only reason the american public got on board was because of WMD and Terrorist Ties.

I don't believe this nor do i believe you can prove it. It may have been one of the major reasons but it certainly was not the only reason.

If we had gone in knowing the costs, and that we'd "only" get the removal of a bad bad man, I doubt support would have gone past the drawing board.

So what you are saying man's self serving nature would have won out?

 

[Natoma]

The administration pushed over and over again that the funds for the war would be paid for through the oil proceeds. It's fairly clear now that they didn't realize the extent of the damage and degradation to Iraq's infrastructure.

This doesn't constitute a "war for oil". Rather i points out how baseless and irrational the realities of cost vs profit.

It translates to a "war for oil" for some people because of the fact that once the war is over, the US is left in charge, awards contracts to US oil companies (Halliburton ring a bell?), and they reap the profits of all the second largest oil reserve in the world. Notice this is what the administration has done basically. Though the infrastructure to reap the profits doesn't really exist anymore because of 12 years of degradation and neglect.

Was this gulf war about oil? Partly. Was the first gulf war about oil? Definitely.

About and Cause are two different matters entirely. If the first war were about oil control their would have been no need for the second if controling the oil were the purpose.

Oil is a significant factor in Iraq's economy. Protecting the oil should have been on the top priorities list.

Any attempt to distort such concerns into the rational this war was fought for the control of oil would be dishonest. Natoma i hope doing so is not your intention.

Pleaes don't at me when you don't know the history of the first gulf war conflict. The reason we got involved was because Saddam invaded and took over Kuwait, i.e. one of the largest producers of oil in the world. We certainly didn't intervene when he and Iran were going at it, and he was killing tens of thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons. So it certainly wasn't a humanitarian effort. Only other reason left was to prevent Saddam from having control of yet another oil producing country.

The only reason the american public got on board was because of WMD and Terrorist Ties.

I don't believe this nor do i believe you can prove it. It may have been one of the major reasons but it certainly was not the only reason.

If we had gone in knowing the costs, and that we'd "only" get the removal of a bad bad man, I doubt support would have gone past the drawing board.

So what you are saying man's self serving nature would have won out?

Internal memos leaked to the press regarding the reasons bandied about in the Bush Administration to give to the american public for going to war basically summed this up. They didn't believe they could sell the war based on just removing a bad man. But terrorism and terrorism-related WMD on the other hand would certainly sell.

 

[PatrickL]

Sure Legion why dont you make a poll in USA saying well North Koreans have one of the worst dictator in the world so do you want we go to make a war and remove it ?

I bet on the result when you want Saying US went in irak to remove a dictator is just BS and outside USA and maybe England who in the world believe it ?

 

[Ty]

I would say the real madmen are those still proclaiming this was a war for oil.

More specifically, a war for oil such that the US could break even the cost of the war .

That is not quite the argument though. The argument goes that some people will profit (oil companies, Haliburton, etc.) from the oil while others (the American public) pay for the war and rebuilding effort. It's not about the same people making the money back from oil to pay for the war.

Note that I don't believe this war was about oil.

 

[Vince]

It translates to a "war for oil" for some people because of the fact that once the war is over, the US is left in charge, awards contracts to US oil companies (Halliburton ring a bell?), and they reap the profits of all the second largest oil reserve in the world. Notice this is what the administration has done basically

God I hate that argument. Do these people (the "for some") ever stop to think that maybe it's because Halliburton is the world best and largest provider of petroleum and energy related services and product? Why not award them with a contract if they're the best... are we supposed to use lesser companies which are more ineffecient, less expert, and will end up costing us even more just because of a past (take note of tense) link?

As for those "awarded contracts," Halliburton in the third quarter announced that they made a profit of $34 million off of Iraq - Out of $900 million in revenues. HA! What a joke this argument is.

 

[pax]

The infrastructure isnt that badly off they expect oil production to hit 8-10 million barrels a day in about 5 years. Assuming the security issue is dealt with by then.

It has already been decided by the ruling council that oil will remain in iraqi hands. Doesnt mean that insanely profitable oil deals like in saudi arabia cant happen. I wouldnt measure public costs vs private gain legion. We've seen plenty of times how private profit gets a generous helping hand from gov.

 

[Natoma]

It translates to a "war for oil" for some people because of the fact that once the war is over, the US is left in charge, awards contracts to US oil companies (Halliburton ring a bell?), and they reap the profits of all the second largest oil reserve in the world. Notice this is what the administration has done basically

God I hate that argument. Do these people (the "for some") ever stop to think that maybe it's because Halliburton is the world best and largest provider of petroleum and energy related services and product? Why not award them with a contract if they're the best... are we supposed to use lesser companies which are more ineffecient, less expert, and will end up costing us even more just because of a past (take note of tense) link?

Vince, the reason why people are suspicious is because the contracts were no-bid, and most of the awards happened to go to the company that happens to be the former employer of a certain VP. But mostly because of the fact that the contracts were no-bid is there a lot of suspicion.

As for those "awarded contracts," Halliburton in the third quarter announced that they made a profit of $34 million off of Iraq - Out of $900 million in revenues. HA! What a joke this argument is.

It's fairly clear now that [the administration] didn't realize the extent of the damage and degradation to Iraq's infrastructure.....

Though the infrastructure to reap the profits doesn't really exist anymore because of 12 years of degradation and neglect.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I would say the real madmen are those still proclaiming this was a war for oil.

More specifically, a war for oil such that the US could break even the cost of the war . I will never cease to be amazed the depths of what people are willing to believe wrt to antiamerican propaganda.

Ya there is clearly no way the US could possibly ever hope to recover the billions they have spent.

Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

 

[Natoma]

The infrastructure isnt that badly off they expect oil production to hit 8-10 million barrels a day in about 5 years. Assuming the security issue is dealt with by then.

It has already been decided by the ruling council that oil will remain in iraqi hands. Doesnt mean that insanely profitable oil deals like in saudi arabia cant happen. I wouldnt measure public costs vs private gain legion. We've seen plenty of times how private profit gets a generous helping hand from gov.

Iraq was capable of exporting about 500K bbl a day before we went in. This is down from a pre-1991 gulf war high of 3 million bbl a day. The official estimate from the pentagon and companies in Kuwait is to get Iraq to 5 million bbl a day by 2010. Current production capacity sits at 1.55 million bbl a day.

8-10 million? That's close to what the saudis do, and they have probably the most efficient pipelines in the world, as well as an ample coastline with which to load the oil on ships for export. I doubt Iraq would be able to pump that much out unless some additional pipelines to sea ports are built.

 

[pax]

Oh def but adding capacity by then is likely as well as increasing production from Saudi Arabia. I had read 8-10 a few months ago But those numbers can always be revised as time and work goes by.

Heres hoping they find as much oil in the rest of Iraq as there is in SA. They are predicting 1$ a liter here by May. Gas prices are going up faster than anything else.

 

[Natoma]

Yea they're predicting $3 per gallon here by summer time. Our normal gas prices used to fluctuate between $1-$1.50. Glad I don't own a car, but I've seen a spike in the cost of our electric and gas bills over the past few months. Where we used to spend about $80 a month combined, now we're spending $100-$120 combined, for the same usage. Pretty scary.

 

[VtC]

Note that I don't believe this war was about oil.

In a sense it is, in that a militarily strong Iraq under Saddam Hussein would be a significant threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which is where we get a lot of our oil.

If the Middle East didn't have such high oil reserves it wouldn't be center stage, and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations wouldn't have the funding they require to be a global threat. So, in that sense, it's all about oil.

 

[Legion]

It translates to a "war for oil" for some people because of the fact that once the war is over, the US is left in charge, awards contracts to US oil companies (Halliburton ring a bell?), and they reap the profits of all the second largest oil reserve in the world.

So they win the bids and now these off base arguments are justified? Seems rather falacious especially considering Halibuton is not a US run originization.

You are forgetting these allegations were running about Natom long before Halliburton won the bids. To me that speaks of them rationalizing their position via the outcome of wining the bids. Meaning, if any US company won they'd feel justified.

Notice this is what the administration has done basically. Though the infrastructure to reap the profits doesn't really exist anymore because of 12 years of degradation and neglect.

How would the Administration reap the benefits from this private company? Furthermore, how would they reap benefits inlight of costs?

Pleaes don't at me when you don't know the history of the first gulf war conflict. The reason we got involved was because Saddam invaded and took over Kuwait, i.e. one of the largest producers of oil in the world.

Please do not insinuate i do not understand the history. We invaded to prevent Saddam from controlling and manipulating the oil resources. We did not fight the war to control the oil supplies. It wasn't until recently an US company had control over the oil. Before our recent intervention the major oil investors were European.

We certainly didn't intervene when he and Iran were going at it, and he was killing tens of thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons. So it certainly wasn't a humanitarian effort. Only other reason left was to prevent Saddam from having control of yet another oil producing country.

Yet again this is not the same as fighting a war to control the oil.

Internal memos leaked to the press regarding the reasons bandied about in the Bush Administration to give to the american public for going to war basically summed this up. They didn't believe they could sell the war based on just removing a bad man. But terrorism and terrorism-related WMD on the other hand would certainly sell.

So, what you are suggesting is these "leaked memos" suggest the WMD issue for war were fabricated encourage support. For what reason would the US wish to stage a war with Iraq? What is the insinuation here?

 

[Legion]

Sure Legion why dont you make a poll in USA saying well North Koreans have one of the worst dictator in the world so do you want we go to make a war and remove it ?

I bet on the result when you want Saying US went in irak to remove a dictator is just BS and outside USA and maybe England who in the world believe it ?

I would hope my fellow americans do not share your apathy.

 

[kyleb]

The CIA and the Bush Administration must be held accountable.

i don't see any reason to come down on the CIA, sure they had some errors with their intel but Tenet did argue agasint the invasion.

 

[Legion]

I would say the real madmen are those still proclaiming this was a war for oil.

More specifically, a war for oil such that the US could break even the cost of the war .

That is not quite the argument though. The argument goes that some people will profit (oil companies, Haliburton, etc.) from the oil while others (the American public) pay for the war and rebuilding effort. It's not about the same people making the money back from oil to pay for the war.

Note that I don't believe this war was about oil.

I disagree though i have seen some who have proferred that exact argument. What i have consistantly run into is the very base derivative that the US wishes to control the oil.