Fasten your seat belts folks, you’re entering the twilight zone.
In an interview Australias Defense Minister admitted oil has been a major reason for the Iraq war. Brendan Nelson was asked with if oil is a factor in why Australian troops are still in Iraq in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Here’s the answer he gave:
“The defence update we’re releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia’s defence and security, and resource security is one of them, and obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.”
It’s not like we didn’t know that we are partially staying in Iraq to have a foothold in the region. Whether to fight terrorism or to fight for oil, the main reason we won’t withdraw is to keep that foothold in the Middle East.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
It’s not like we didn’t know that we are partially staying in Iraq to have a foothold in the region. Whether to fight terrorism or to fight for oil, the main reason we won’t withdraw is to keep that foothold in the Middle East.[/quote]
It is common knowledge indeed. The news is that a public figure acknowledged that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
It’s not like we didn’t know that we are partially staying in Iraq to have a foothold in the region. Whether to fight terrorism or to fight for oil, the main reason we won’t withdraw is to keep that foothold in the Middle East.
It is common knowledge indeed. The news is that a public figure acknowledged that.[/quote]
Australians don’t matter, until an American or British public figure from the Blair or Bush administrations people will always deny this
[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
It is common knowledge indeed. The news is that a public figure acknowledged that.
Australians don’t matter, until an American or British public figure from the Blair or Bush administrations people will always deny this[/quote]
The flow of oil (aka basis for much of the world’s economy) was always AN issue. The same as it is for Iran. What happens when Saddam or Iran’s leader decide to hold the economies that supply 1/3 of the oil in the world hostage with NBC weapons? Or start another regional war with these weapons?
However, terror supporters like Lixy, or clueless leftwingers on the board would have us believe that it was THE issue: that George Bush went to war because his dad was in the oil business, or “Darth Cheney… Haliburton… AAGAHAHAGA [short circuit]”, or that every Republican congressman has a secret oil contract in Kurdistan.
The reasons for going to war have been listed ad nauseam on the board for the last FIVE YEARS. I know it’s easier to stick your fingers in your ears and sing, but there you go.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
The reasons for going to war have been listed ad nauseam on the board for the last FIVE YEARS. I know it’s easier to stick your fingers in your ears and sing, but there you go.[/quote]
Bullshit. A bunch of shifting excuses for going to war have been listed, but no valid reason ever has been. Every time one of those “reasons” has been shown to be a lie the response is something like: “well it wasn’t ever really about X anyway, it was really about Y all along. Try to keep up.”
Which leaves us with either control of the oil reserves, or a personal score to settle. I’m going to take C, a combo of those two.
[quote]tme wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
The reasons for going to war have been listed ad nauseam on the board for the last FIVE YEARS. I know it’s easier to stick your fingers in your ears and sing, but there you go.
Bullshit. A bunch of shifting excuses for going to war have been listed, but no valid reason ever has been. Every time one of those “reasons” has been shown to be a lie the response is something like: “well it wasn’t ever really about X anyway, it was really about Y all along. Try to keep up.”
Which leaves us with either control of the oil reserves, or a personal score to settle. I’m going to take C, a combo of those two.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You said no valid reason has ever been given.
[/quote]
There is such thing as proportionate measures. If I play my guitar too loud and it wakes up the neighbor’s kid, is it a “valid reason” for him to shoot me? Use some common sense for heaven’s sake (if you have any!).
There was absolutely no reason to obliterate a country, create millions of refugees and actively make a country fall prey to extremists of all kind. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Had Saddam launched missiles targeting US soil or had there been evidence that he had WMDs and was on his way to supply some terrorist group with them, I’d be the first to support blowing him up. But all we were presented with was baseless suspicions. When everyone knew about the lies, we got lip service about how he was torturing his opponents and how the US was fighting for democracy and freedom.
Sorry PudgeR, I said valid reason. If that was all it took they wouldn’t have had to get Powell to go tell lies to the Security Council. If there were any real valid reasons they would have presented the facts to the UN and built a coalition of the willing, rather than the coerced and bribed.
The Bushies decided that telling the truth wasn’t going to work for them, so they went with the unilateral mother of all fuck-ups.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
It’s not like we didn’t know that we are partially staying in Iraq to have a foothold in the region. Whether to fight terrorism or to fight for oil, the main reason we won’t withdraw is to keep that foothold in the Middle East.[/quote]
You must be joking. Terrorism is fueled by the war that you guys have started.
What do you think will happen when you kill innocent civilians in the crossfire? Lots of people fucking hate you to death, as a country/society.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Had Saddam launched missiles targeting US soil or had there been evidence that he had WMDs and was on his way to supply some terrorist group with them, I’d be the first to support blowing him up. …[/quote]
How about launching missiles at US planes, trying to assassinate an ex-president and training and funding terrorists?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…
Had Saddam launched missiles targeting US soil or had there been evidence that he had WMDs and was on his way to supply some terrorist group with them, I’d be the first to support blowing him up. …
How about launching missiles at US planes, trying to assassinate an ex-president and training and funding terrorists?[/quote]
With money from the States.
And assassinating an ex-president? You mean Clinton?
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You said no valid reason has ever been given.
There is such thing as proportionate measures. If I play my guitar too loud and it wakes up the neighbor’s kid, is it a “valid reason” for him to shoot me? Use some common sense for heaven’s sake (if you have any!).
There was absolutely no reason to obliterate a country, create millions of refugees and actively make a country fall prey to extremists of all kind. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Had Saddam launched missiles targeting US soil or had there been evidence that he had WMDs and was on his way to supply some terrorist group with them, I’d be the first to support blowing him up. But all we were presented with was baseless suspicions. When everyone knew about the lies, we got lip service about how he was torturing his opponents and how the US was fighting for democracy and freedom.[/quote]
lixy,
I need a macro button. Everytime one of you revisionists trot out the “WMD was the only issue” I just hit the macro button.
Read W’s speeches from 2002-2003. He gave a myriad of reasons to invade Iraq.
Among them was both the WMD threat and breaking the cease fire.
It’s not Bush’s fault that you cannot remember. It is abudantly plain that you choose the WMD issue (and the lack of huge stockpiles) to try to negate all the other valid reasons to remove the guy.
That says more about your intellectual honesty than anything else.
Sorry PudgeR, I said valid reason. If that was all it took they wouldn’t have had to get Powell to go tell lies to the Security Council. If there were any real valid reasons they would have presented the facts to the UN and built a coalition of the willing, rather than the coerced and bribed.
The Bushies decided that telling the truth wasn’t going to work for them, so they went with the unilateral mother of all fuck-ups.
[/quote]
runt,
Stop weasling. You asked for a valid reason. That reason cannot be refuted.
That’s why I chose it. It wasn’t the only reason given.
However, I know my audience (you). Therefore, I rammed that into your brain.
I have to go very slow and keep hammering away. It’s the only way to get through that thick skull.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…
Had Saddam launched missiles targeting US soil or had there been evidence that he had WMDs and was on his way to supply some terrorist group with them, I’d be the first to support blowing him up. …
How about launching missiles at US planes, trying to assassinate an ex-president and training and funding terrorists?