You are aware that the US has plenty of natural gas? (apologies for double entendre....uh oh, did I use a French word?)
Typical crap from you, show me where I ever said: " blah blah blah blah - - yadda yadda - - blah blah blah " Whether it’s that or saying I called the protesters "unamerican," it’s all putting words in my mouth. Timeless and his everlasting quest to make a point only to be pointless.
And the link you provided backs your bias? But its not like following an invasion this is going to immediately pay off as you would like to mislead. Where in my posts did I say it would be immediate? And again your information didn't contradict mine at all. If it's a pissing contest you want, try walking into the boy's room at the high school you obviously attend! Oil output will increase but the question is when it will pay off. Not anytime soon. Sooner than you think. If Bush were so adamant about getting Iraqi oil the sanctions would had been dropped yesterday. It would not only be the cheaper alternative but the quickest course of action. Bullsh*t. He wouldn't be able to drop the sanctions alone, but he sure can invade alone...and he will.
Rocketman Tex: You know, you're not helping your cause by loudly proclaiming your belief that it's all about oil. Even most of the left (those who aren't whacko protest-addicts) have laid off that particular argument, because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And curiously, some of the most vocal opponents to the war have been US oil companies... Wonder why? It is painfully obvious that you simply hate Bush (and Republicans in general) with a passion, and that you're using oil as an excuse to vent. You're better off just sticking to a so-called "moral" or principled argument. Everyone can argue it, but at least it isn't so obviously indefensible and subject to ridicule. But if you insist on continuing with the "it's all about oil" line, whatever floats your boat. I'm just letting you know that you only weaken your position by taking it.
Dude, that's the Longhorn response to everything, next he'll post, "I'm from UT, we're just better" As far as the war being about oil, did anyone hear the report on 740AM Wednesday saying that Halliburton already had an investment team to evaluate possibilities in Iraq. I don't have a link, sorry.
You sir, are no mindreader. You don't know who or what I "hate", so I suggest you refrain from trying to read my mind. I don't "hate" Bush or Republicans. I do, however, question their beliefs and values. Personally, I do not believe this war has anything to do with "weapons of mass destruction". To me, WMD is a convenient excuse for the Bush Administration attacking Iraq and obtaining what they really want: Oil. There are dictators in the world who are more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Why isn't Bush going after them? They have no oil, that's why! What will you have to say if we occupy Iraq and do not find a single weapon of mass destruction? Believe what you want to believe, and I will too. History will show us who was correct. I respect your position even though I disagree with it.
It is *painfully* obvious what you think of Bush and his cabinet - you take a jab at them in practically every single post you make on the subject. But whatever, I'm no mindreader. Perhaps it's just a mild case of scorn? As far as the WMD/oil arguments go, yes - everyone would look like a fool if no WMD were found. No one more than Bush (dontcha think he realizes that?). If none are found, then I will never post here again - how's that for confidence? As far as the oil goes - your arguments regarding that issue are juvenile and pretty much indefensible. Q: If we only wanted the oil, then why don't we just lift sanctions? A: We cannot lift the sanctions alone, and therefore cannot... what? (a more mature rephrasing of your response) I am not getting the logic here. We are supposedly the only nation that doesn't want to lift sanctions, yet we cannot lift them because we can't do it alone? Oh, I suppose the Brits would oppose us? Yeah, fine logic there. Obviously, oil is a factor here - on that single point you are correct. Ever heard of Lukoil? How about Fina? Both the French and Russian oil giants have huge contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields. Perhaps that is a factor in their opposition to a war? Your "it's all about oil" probably only applies to them. Will American companies develop Iraq's oil fields? There is a good chance of that, although pretty much everyone except for France, Germany, Russia, and China will be able to bid on those contracts (they will be punished for their behavior). Will anyone - American oil interests included - be allowed to steal the Iraqis' oil? No, they will pay for it just like everyone else. They will cut the Iraqis a big fat check for every barrel that they extract. As our government has repeatedly stated, that oil belongs to the Iraq people - and no one else. Everyone else seems to have realized this obvious fact - why haven't you?
RocketManT ex, As the funny anti-war video link presented, why not just keep the Oil after Gulf War I? If it was sooooo important?
Weren't the sanctions imposed by the UN rather than the USA? How can the USA lift UN sanctions by itself? Please, enlighten me oh great one....
If Bush Senior would have gone into Iraq and deposed Saddam during Gulf War I, Iraqi oil would be ours. As for Kuwait, the mission was to drive Saddam's army out of Kuwait, not "nation-build" Kuwait, as Bush Junior wants to do with Iraq.
You obviously have alot more faith in the government than I do. Will anyone be "allowed" to steal the Iraqi's oil? Let me ask you a question...after Saddam is deposed and Iraq is occupied, who is going to stop American oil interest from stealing Iraqi oil? The Bush Administration? The only "big fat check" the Bush Administration is going to cut will be to defense contractors! Regardless...I still respect your position, even though I disagree with it.
Who? N Korea's? I am only convinced of their desire to build WMD for extortion purposes. Saddam's motives are more personal and more sinister. Here's an interesting excerpt from a Senate hearing: ... Iraq never made clear the purposes of many of these programs and experiments, extensive though they were. It seemed probable that military use was not the only purpose. In fact, the military seemed to have almost no interest or relationship to the program. It is difficult to understand why Iraq would produce and put into aerial bombs, aflatoxin. It has the effect of causing cancer over a period of several years. Experiments Iraq conducted in mixing aflatoxin with riot control agent appear particularly insidious as they would mask the exposure of individuals to this cancer causing agent. The experiments with wheat smut are evidently aimed at developing economic weapons. It was clear that Iraq understood that depending on the method of dispersal, the origin of the agent could be concealed. In other words, they understood the potential for conducting an attack that would be near impossible to connect to Baghdad as the responsible actor. The sites where Iraqi BW work was known to have occurred were accounted for by UNSCOM. The largest, al Hakam was destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in 1996. Another, the Daura Foot and Mouth disease facility is being used for civilian purposes according to public accounts. There were elements of production equipment that UNSCOM understood were shipped into Iraq, but which were never located. ... It's a very interesting read: http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2002/Duelfer.pdf I think that this administration may spin some, but the level of spin I can accept is moderated by my trust in Powell. To believe that this is all about oil sounds incredibly simplistic and naive. I honestly believe that Bush feels compelled to do this for US security. I think we should all consider Bush's statement about 'either with us or against us' as fairly serious since I believe it is playing out here. I think he is very convinced about Iraq's threat to the US, but as a covert threat. There are many indications that Iraq could be a threat to the US (see above) and world peace. These 'theoretical' attacks might never be traced back to Iraq. I'm not arguing here whether Bush is justified or not in his motives, just what his motives are.
Iraqi oil would not 'be ours'. How would it have been 'ours'? You mean our oil companies would have pumped it? Maybe. Do you mean that we would have rec'd the revenues as if we owned the oil in the ground? Is that really what you are arguing? Again, if the oil was so important, why didn't we just take Baghdad back then? Why stop, if such a HUGE prize is within our reach?
