Phoenix Network Forums

The Gulf War was just, but i dont fail to find the solid logic in the iraq war.

Its not for humanity reasons, if it were we would be in africa bringing order... and there is a genocide somewhere in south america which we don’t seem to notice.

WMD, saddam does not have nukes. If you watch saddams revenues and spending you will realize that he wouldnt be able to afford nukes. He spends LOTS of money on himself. (I studied the gulf war extensively 2 years before the iraq war for a project worth half my grade so I knew the topic)

Stop terrorism. Terrorism has gone up significantly since the war, especially lately. Saddam also does not have the money to fuel terrorism.

We might be there to finish the job from the gulf. Clinton f*ed up with the clean up after the gulf war... so bush might be there to finish what his father started... this would only be a vendetta bush has for the war and he would have to spin it with another story to convince the senate and such

Oil.. very possible. Just about everything we produce has petroleum in it. For a while i refused to believe it was all for oil because gas was 2.80 but then it dropped to 2.20 around the holiday season (when its usually up) so far im leaning towards oil… but hoping to see another reason.

We've already discussed this a bit at http://forums.phoenix-hosting.org/viewtopic.php?t=1260 but I'm open to continue the discussion!

antirem wrote:WMD, saddam does not have nukes. If you watch saddams revenues and spending you will realize that he wouldnt be able to afford nukes. He spends LOTS of money on himself. (I studied the gulf war extensively 2 years before the iraq war for a project worth half my grade so I knew the topic)

It wasn't publically said that they HAD nukes, rather they had the drive and the resources to get them. You'll find PRE-Invasion most everyone agreed that Saddam was a threat- they just disagreed on how to handle it. This reminds me of a quote John Kerry said in the presidential debates in '04, after Invasion I know. "You've got WMDs crossing the border everyday trying to blow us up."

Hmmm.

antirem wrote:Stop terrorism. Terrorism has gone up significantly since the war, especially lately. Saddam also does not have the money to fuel terrorism.

The increased terrorism is more of the result of a critical failure to properly estimate the enemy. We assumed we'd be liberators. I'll give you this point.

We might be there to finish the job from the gulf. Clinton f*ed up with the clean up after the gulf war... so bush might be there to finish what his father started... this would only be a vendetta bush has for the war and he would have to spin it with another story to convince the senate and such

Oil.. very possible. Just about everything we produce has petroleum in it. For a while i refused to believe it was all for oil because gas was 2.80 but then it dropped to 2.20 around the holiday season (when its usually up) so far im leaning towards oil… but hoping to see another reason.

This is the argument that is very sexy to listen to, but is inherently wrong.

From the previous mentioned post:

nighhawk wrote:Which is why we have actually slowed Oil Production in Iraq, and the army has to actually IMPORT oil into Iraq right now?

Believe or not, the majority of our oil comes from Canada with 1,616 barrels of crude oil per day from our friends up North. Want a war for Oil? Then we should have invaded the oil rich Saudi Arabian pennisula. Or Venezuela. Or Mexico. Or Nigeria. Or Angola.

All of those countries export more gasoline then Iraq does/has.

In additon, recent oil surverys in Canada reveal it has at least just as much as the Arabian Pennisula.

Oil prices went down during Christmas because of highly competitive price slashing to counter balance the highs after the Katrina/Rita disaster. After one oil company refused to go any lower, they all went higher again.

antirem wrote:The Gulf War was just, but i dont fail to find the solid logic in the iraq war.

Its not for humanity reasons, if it were we would be in africa bringing order... and there is a genocide somewhere in south america which we don’t seem to notice.

Who says we aren't, just because there is no media coverage doesn't mean nothing is being done. Just because the public has been kept in the dark for whatever reason doesn't mean nothing is being done.

antirem wrote:WMD, saddam does not have nukes. If you watch saddams revenues and spending you will realize that he wouldnt be able to afford nukes. He spends LOTS of money on himself. (I studied the gulf war extensively 2 years before the iraq war for a project worth half my grade so I knew the topic)

It would not take very sophisticated accounting to arrange funds for massive weapons development. As his government was made up of people who had at least some loyalty to their ruler, then if the record showed they were supposed to get x dollars and only got y dollars then they wouldn't make a massive outcry would they?
It was never said that there were WMD's to find but there was the opportunity for them to exist based on past actions however, the public were lead to believe that it was said in another sense, and then, who is to say there aren't WMD's in iraq?
The only reason they currently don't exist is because we are yet to find them.

antirem wrote:Stop terrorism. Terrorism has gone up significantly since the war, especially lately. Saddam also does not have the money to fuel terrorism.

As I remember it, the war on terror is not to eliminate terrorism (as that is a theoretical impossibility) but to show those who endorse it that we will not sit down and take it, we will not have terror invoked on us.

antirem wrote:We might be there to finish the job from the gulf. Clinton f*ed up with the clean up after the gulf war... so bush might be there to finish what his father started... this would only be a vendetta bush has for the war and he would have to spin it with another story to convince the senate and such

I doubt it, if anything that would just be an added bonus.

antirem wrote:Oil.. very possible. Just about everything we produce has petroleum in it. For a while i refused to believe it was all for oil because gas was 2.80 but then it dropped to 2.20 around the holiday season (when its usually up) so far im leaning towards oil… but hoping to see another reason.

Based on what nighthawk said on this subject last time I can't see this being a major reason.

Im really curious about what USA ppl thing about reasons,
coz here in greece lot of ppl think that this war made
about oil and selling weapons!(and also some other that the poll say)
we always buy weapons from USA after a war ends

I never heard about other countries buying lots of weapons after wars... i assume it would happen but never thought a bout it

where u from antirem?
just to know, after the was of vietnam, we got a lot of weapons!
I joined army 7/2/2005 and i leave from there 12 months later
(in about 10 days yeahh!! )
indeed, when i watch war movies from vietnam i think that all
guns, explodings, wireless "phones", cars, river mechanic bridges
are like being in my army camp!!!

I live in minnesota.. in america. When i think of US army camps there always organized unlike vietnam movies where there are random weapons lying around. Get a picture on photobucket.. You do any training yet,

nighthawk wrote:We've already discussed this a bit at http://forums.phoenix-hosting.org/viewtopic.php?t=1260 but I'm open to continue the discussion!

Oil.. very possible. Just about everything we produce has petroleum in it. For a while i refused to believe it was all for oil because gas was 2.80 but then it dropped to 2.20 around the holiday season (when its usually up) so far im leaning towards oil… but hoping to see another reason.

This is the argument that is very sexy to listen to, but is inherently wrong.

From the previous mentioned post:

nighhawk wrote:Which is why we have actually slowed Oil Production in Iraq, and the army has to actually IMPORT oil into Iraq right now?

Believe or not, the majority of our oil comes from Canada with 1,616 barrels of crude oil per day from our friends up North. Want a war for Oil? Then we should have invaded the oil rich Saudi Arabian pennisula. Or Venezuela. Or Mexico. Or Nigeria. Or Angola.

All of those countries export more gasoline then Iraq does/has.

In additon, recent oil surverys in Canada reveal it has at least just as much as the Arabian Pennisula.

Oil prices went down during Christmas because of highly competitive price slashing to counter balance the highs after the Katrina/Rita disaster. After one oil company refused to go any lower, they all went higher again.

Ah, but you fail to see that the American economy RELIES on oil to be stable. It is indeed very feasable that good 'ole Dubya invaded (as one of many reasons) for the purpose of securing long term interests for the long-term stability of the American economy. Without oil, America has nothing.

Bandit[/b]

BanditZA wrote:Ah, but you fail to see that the American economy RELIES on oil to be stable. It is indeed very feasable that good 'ole Dubya invaded (as one of many reasons) for the purpose of securing long term interests for the long-term stability of the American economy. Without oil, America has nothing.

Bandit[/b]

Thank you. Americas economy does run off oil. I voted that we went in search of oil but the state of the union address messed me up.. Bush said we were going to pump oil from alaska from now on and be less dependent on other countries. Bush senior owns a lot of those oil countries so that may be one of the reasons for this... but leaves oil less of a reason for war.

antirem wrote:Thank you. Americas economy does run off oil. I voted that we went in search of oil but the state of the union address messed me up.. Bush said we were going to pump oil from alaska from now on and be less dependent on other countries. Bush senior owns a lot of those oil countries so that may be one of the reasons for this... but leaves oil less of a reason for war.

Hmm, I think you were misled by some clever speech writing by Bush's 100man speech writing team. However, not being an American, being a South Africa, gives me a unique unbiased view on the situation. As far as I can see, America is a TECHNOLOGICAL, INDUSTRIAL nation. To dispute this would be foolish. Second to that is the fact that America is one of the world's leading ommiters of evironmentally degrading gases that come from the burning of Fossil Fuels. Third, the leading fossil fuel burnt is without a doubt OIL. Fourth, and most convincing, is the fact that the U.S.A REFUSES to sign the document that most countries have signed promising to decrease the omission of fossil fuels. Its reasoning? Its not proven that global warming is caused by the burning of these fuels.

Now of course America would have no problem signing this document if they did not RELY on the revenue generated by oil. Just like they had something to gain when they had 'proof' of WMD in Iraq (thats erark not I-raq - the funny thing about this mispronounciation is that the president of the most powerful nation in the world is not informed enough to know the proper name of the country he declared war against!)

Bandit

I thought i agreed with you? The american news and the president says that we are in iraq for wmd and to stop terrorism... a little humanatarian effort is thrown on top of that. I do not belive that and i have shown why above. The president said we were going to begin getting oil from alaska. He did not mention that the oil we will be getting is mostly owned by his father, which is why i think he wants that oil. I doubt that will be shown on the news but i wont know because i dont watch it. I did not watch the state of the union because i knew it would be mostly fluff and bs. I did read a summary of it which was quick to the point.

I know that the US runs on oil. Almost all our products have petroleum in it. We need oil. Its also a huge revenue for taxes. I want to say $1.50 is the tax on $2.20ish of gas right now.

Where was i misled?

lol, sorry!!! I misread in my haste my mistake, apologies

Oil, period.

BanditZA wrote:Ah, but you fail to see that the American economy RELIES on oil to be stable. It is indeed very feasable that good 'ole Dubya invaded (as one of many reasons) for the purpose of securing long term interests for the long-term stability of the American economy. Without oil, America has nothing.

Bandit[/b]

If we are looking at long-term oil prospects, then once again we should have invaded Canada. Recent speculation has shown Canada to have 2x as much oil as Arabia. Also, Iraq isn't the wealthiest oil nation out there. Why not take out Venezuela, an enemy to the US, when they have more oil then Iraq?

Bush said we were going to pump oil from alaska from now on and be less dependent on other countries. Bush senior owns a lot of those oil countries so that may be one of the reasons for this... but leaves oil less of a reason for war.

The oil company Bush Sr has ties to has not attempted to get the Alaska contract.

Third, the leading fossil fuel burnt is without a doubt OIL. Fourth, and most convincing, is the fact that the U.S.A REFUSES to sign the document that most countries have signed promising to decrease the omission of fossil fuels. Its reasoning? Its not proven that global warming is caused by the burning of these fuels.

Off-topic. If we want to talk about global warming, we can open another thread

Now of course America would have no problem signing this document if they did not RELY on the revenue generated by oil.

America DOESN'T get massive revenue from oil. Oil companies do. America doesn't get rich off of oil, OPEC and other Oil producing nations do. People seem to confuse them. The American government doesn't sell oil. Privately or publically owned companies sell the oil. Shell isn't owned by Uncle Sam. Neither is Saudi Arabia.

Just like they had something to gain when they had 'proof' of WMD in Iraq (thats erark not I-raq - the funny thing about this mispronounciation is that the president of the most powerful nation in the world is not informed enough to know the proper name of the country he declared war against!)

Meh. A minor point. Are we going to nuke the french for saying all of our words in a French accent? No.

He did not mention that the oil we will be getting is mostly owned by his father, which is why i think he wants that oil. I doubt that will be shown on the news but i wont know because i dont watch it.He did not mention that the oil we will be getting is mostly owned by his father, which is why i think he wants that oil. I doubt that will be shown on the news but i wont know because i dont watch it.

Evidence? Once again, his father doesn't own Canada or any other OPEC nation.

heres a new spin on it....

lets say that we went there to find wmd.... but there wernt any. Iran's idea of democracy is making a ballot with Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as your only choices. Who decides whos name goes on these ballots are the Fundamentalists (I forgot what words go before fundamentalist and leaving it blank so not to offend) The fundamentalists want palestine. Russia has 11,000ish nukes (we have 3,600ish) enough to destroy the world 4 times over. They overstocked and knew it.. why? To sell it. They sold iran parts to make nuculer power plants... they aslo sold them the thing that detonates nukes (forgot what its called) There are no explosions in power plants for them to work and the only use for it is for nukes. I doubt that they will nuke palestine because they want the territory not to mention all the sacred buildings. I think we should have gone after iran.. we didnt have enough proof of iraq having wmd. Im withdrawing from my war for oil statment because GW's state of the union address said we were going to mine from oil.

north korea is the real problem. They have said "we dont plan to use the nukes against you but we hate you" and at a later time "if we had to the power to take out the US or china we would"... or at least thats what the statments meant. Theyre not word for word. Reason for taking out china is because as soon as you take out china our economy dies.