USA did NOT invade Iraq for oil

[Naoto Shirogane]

You can't really tell someone to watch their mouth for stating their opinion.

Just because people serve in the military doesn't mean they are fighting for their country. I have a friend in the marines who is on his third tour who will tell you the same exact thing. You fight for your own reasons but don't assume the war revolves around the reasoning of "defense". If anything, we've defending our country and if that's the only reason we went there it's now time to pack up and go home.

(Which we have not done, btw)

If you can't take how "offensive" someones opinion is then I would not advise going in search of topics like this one as quite a few Americans will argue it's not "for our country" anymore.

Who Said i searched for this topic? i saw it. and Ran across the quote. please don't put words in my mouth.

You do realise that we have other american's taking offense to this as well? It's not just us Canadians. or Brits. He can have his own opinion. Do I have to like it? No. Can i find it offensive? Yes. Do I have the right to tell him to watch his mouth? No. Maybe not. but It dosen't change the fact that I am offended. and that other people might be offended.


All i'm saying is. that Even if no one but me someone else take offense to this. The fact stands that,That quote is offensive to some people. and some people do not know how to shut up. and if he said that in real life. chances are someone would be Foaming at the mouth with anger.


I find the quote careless and imature. it Insults the many people our there fighting,dying and saving. Thats MY opinion. If I was too rude. say so. I'll tone it down next time. But you can't berate me for Being offended.

 

[Crunchy Moogle]

You can't really tell someone to watch their mouth for stating their opinion.

"...but not enough to put our lives on the line for it." Isn't an opinion. (s)he's stating that there aren't people who are willing to put their lives at risk over others living in foreign countries. I wanted to clarify that this isn't true.

Just because people serve in the military doesn't mean they are fighting for their country. I have a friend in the marines who is on his third tour who will tell you the same exact thing. You fight for your own reasons but don't assume the war revolves around the reasoning of "defense". If anything, we've defended our country and if that's t

Exactly. Individuals join for their own agendas. Whether it's for financial gain, selfless service, or for their county's triumph is the soldier's intent, not necessarily what the media may imply.

 

[Ethics]

You saw the thread title and clicked it anyways, ergo you should have known what context would lay within it.

It doesn't insult anyone. If they are not fighting for the right to have the freedom to think for oneself, then they are not fighting for any patriotic reason as it was such a principle that democracy is built upon.

Anyone who is foaming at the mouth in anger over this deserves little respect to begin with, let alone consideration enough to watch what I say.

"...but not enough to put our lives on the line for it." Isn't an opinion. (s)he's stating that there aren't people who are willing to put their lives at risk over others living in foreign countries. I wanted to clarify that this isn't true.

If you're foolish enough to take every opinion stated like that with a "matter of fact" tone then it really doesn't surprise me you put patriotism before logic. In the end humanity should win out over nations. It's highly unlikely they believe every soldier there is taking oil home in their pockets and bags made of skinned Iraqi citizens.

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

You saw the thread title and clicked it anyways, ergo you should have known what context would lay within it.

It doesn't insult anyone. If they are not fighting for the right to have the freedom to think for oneself, then they are not fighting for any patriotic reason as it was such a principle that democracy is built upon.

Anyone who is foaming at the mouth in anger over this deserves little respect to begin with, let alone consideration enough to watch what I say.

The thread title was "USA DID.."(least int he reply section thingy) So..No. I Didn't know what to expect. Call me stupid for not hovering over it then.

Sometimes people fight for more reasons than freedom. They fight to get money for their family. Or leave a war torn country. Patriotsim dose not run an entire army. Not today.

So overly sensitive people deserve no respect then? Ok then. Next time i see a bipolar person I'll insult them then. or kick someone in a wheel chair. Anger is the emotion most common in the world. and with the many people taking more offense everyday because of work. and stress. and problems. and the fact that. People yell more each day..

Yeah. People can read it over 12 diffrent times. Dosen't mean they wont be offended. Sure it's the internet. But People have commited suicide from Cyber bullying. so People can certaintly get angry over a comment.

 

[Ethics]

The thread title was "USA DID.."(least int he reply section thingy) So..No. I Didn't know what to expect. Call me stupid for not hovering over it then.

Sometimes people fight for more reasons than freedom. They fight to get money for their family. Or leave a war torn country. Patriotsim dose not run an entire army. Not today.

So overly sensitive people deserve no respect then? Ok then. Next time i see a bipolar person I'll insult them then. or kick someone in a wheel chair. Anger is the emotion most common in the world. and with the many people taking more offense everyday because of work. and stress. and problems. and the fact that. People yell more each day..

Yeah. People can read it over 12 diffrent times. Dosen't mean they wont be offended. Sure it's the internet. But People have commited suicide from Cyber bullying. so People can certaintly get angry over a comment.

That bipolar comment makes little sense. Comparing the war in Iraq with a medical condition does very little as one of those can be avoided and mended.

Being angry for an unreasonable cause is completely worth disregarding someone. Cyber bullying and being unable to think outside the box are two completely different things. One has to do with purposely taking digs on a particular person, the other has to do with a hyper sensitive individual who takes differing logic as insulting.

If the war on Iraq were a story of David vs Goliath, patriotism is the people cheering on Goliath and logic is stone in the slingshot. One encourages the issue and the other destroys it.

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

That bipolar comment makes little sense. Comparing the war in Iraq with a medical condition does very little as one of those can be avoided and mended.

Being angry for an unreasonable cause is completely worth disregarding someone. Cyber bullying and being unable to think outside the box are two completely different things. One has to do with purposely taking digs on a particular person, the other has to do with a hyper sensitive individual who takes differing logic as insulting.

If the war on Iraq were a story of David vs Goliath, patriotism is the people cheering on Goliath and logic is stone in the slingshot. One encourages the issue and the other destroys it.

Please do realise that not all sensitive people are Bipolar. I was using a bipolar person as an example. You wouldn't go insult a sensitive person would you? Not only is it rude. but they might over react. Especially after a traumatic eperiance. or abuse. You would have no clue. so Thats why you should watch what you say.

Words are the most violent weapon on the planet. and they are also the most soothing song. This may be the internet. but it still hurts.

as i said in a previous post. People don't have to like opinions. The have the right to be angry. or offended. thats THEIR opinion. saying they don't deserve respect makes you worse than whats your trying to point out. since while I mention'd Sensitive people. you directed it to the Minority that take offense.

I said Patrotism dosen't run an ENTIRE Army. Because it dosen't it just runs about 75%.

 

[Ilyena]

This thread is straying far from the original topic. If you want to argue semantics, take it to a PM. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

worth about $3 billion dollars:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44681548/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

Rotfl.

Nice for the US to now have another customer for our defense industry.

Making money was part of the equation.Rather sad you can't see that Sir Roland.

Have a nice day.

The thread was about invading for oil....it was not the case. If the war was for profit then how come we went into recession over it? Even if it was for profit...the thread was about oil. The media will twist bullshit left and right.

Its likewise sad to see people saying we invaded for oil without a common logical explanation as to why or how... so you have a nice day sir.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

oil and profits...

go together sir roland.

You get oil and you make a profit from it.The oil companies do that all the time.

Getting access to Iraq's large oil reserves, so American companies could make profits was, in the eyes of most observers, the main reason behind the war in the first place.

Of course it didn't work out as the neocons, Bush and Cheney had expected.

They had said, if you recall, that the war would pay for itself:
http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?117766-Who-Said-the-War-Would-Pay-for-Itself-...





Since it didn't , the USA now has to resort to selling Iraq weapons to recoup its losses.


Sad some people can't see the logical progression of how this war started and why.

You have a good day too Sir Roland.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

go together sir roland.

You get oil and you make a profit from it.The oil companies do that all the time.

Getting access to Iraq's large oil reserves, so American companies could make profits was, in the eyes of most observers, the main reason behind the war in the first place.

Of course it didn't work out as the neocons, Bush and Cheney had expected.

They had said, if you recall, that the war would pay for itself:
http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?117766-Who-Said-the-War-Would-Pay-for-Itself-...





Since it didn't , the USA now has to resort to selling Iraq weapons to recoup its losses.


Sad some people can't see the logical progression of how this war started and why.

You have a good day too Sir Roland.

First of all man your link has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with this debate. That link is talking about Iraq rebuilding itself after the war using their own wealth before or after ours... please read your own sources. Furthermore it does not come from our presidents or our government... it is simply a thread.. just like the one we are talking on.

Man you cant see it anymore then anyone else. Your backbone for this debate is that they had to have evil intentions, yet with no evidence. There is more evidence to support that oil was not the cause of war.

Newflash dude, we already had access to their oil, in fact we were buying it every single day... just like the rest of the world. What you are trying to say does not make any sense.

The media can put a negative spin on anything man, they are ALWAYS biast... but that does not mean its correct.

Getting access to Iraq's large oil reserves, so American companies could make profits was, in the eyes of most observers, the main reason behind the war in the first place.

The bottom line is that this is wrong. When you say most observers you must mean only ignorant Americans...because as far as I am concerned most of the world knows it wasn't for oil. After being abroad in different countries for a few years and asking around... I have come to the realization that people just think it was all Bush's fault... for the reasons Draklor pointed out.

However if you want to agree to disagree then thats fine, because you are like a broken tape recorder playing the same beat and tune as far as your argument goes. You have not explained HOW we could profit from it, or HOW we would get away with it, or HOW we would deal with OPEC, and furthermore you have NO evidence of their intentions other then biast bush hating media. Also OPEC is exactly what I described it as... a balance of control for the middle east's oil reserves and untapped resources. There is no getting around it unless we subject ourselves to being pirates and hyjacking boat or plane loads of it while we sit on the boats going "yarg".

Tell me... if the war went exactly according to plan... how would we be profiting in oil? The point is that even if Iraq transformed into a democracy peacefully and all of the gevernments wishes came true... we are buying oil the very same. And just as before the war, we would not have a say in the prices, or who it gets sold to.

Im sorry man but Im just looking at things in a realistic perspective. Every governmet is greedy... sure. However to just go along thinking we invaded for oil is (in my eyes) pretty ignorant. 2+2 does not equal 7.

 

[Shahab]

I can kind of see what TTT is talking about. However, I insist to know how in the hell America stands to gain anything out of this? First of all the war is brutally expensive. second of all, nobody reported us stealing oil from under their noses... and the whole UN was watching. Third of all, OPEC controls the entire sales of oil in the middle east, and they fluxuate the costs themselves. Saddam stands to profit from oil being sold in his country, however OPEC controls all of those sales, and not just from his own country. I think there would have been a swell of international news proving we were stealing anything.

.

Fist: The expense of war, comes from US people's tax. But the oil income doesn't get back to US people but mega companies like The Military Industrial Complex. So as long as it's peoples' tax, they don't care.

Second: Do you expect Iraqi peasants have access to reporting access point to report it to..wait, report it top who? If report it to UN or US, it's useless and if they report it to other countries, the news get denied

Third: Iraq oil sales was dropped significantly until 13 Oct 2008 that returned back to its sales again.

Anyway I don't call you stupid for what you think unlike what you called those who say US gov steals oil from Iraq like you know everything. Read some news from different sources.

 

[Pajama_Pants]

OP: You raise an interesting and hot topic for people, however I do not think you have provided enough evidence for me to believe that the U.S. did not go to Iraq for oil. The reasons are simple as this:

-You did not go to war and witness this first hand.
-You are not directly involved in any of the so-called organizations or people involved in the war.
-Whether you like it or not, people are going to take stuff in war, whether secretly or not. That's what an agenda is. That's what propaganda is about. Looting, whether anyone considers it right or wrong, is a bi-product of war.

I'm not trying to hound you. But you were not there as a soldier nor a person in charge, therefore I don't think you know the complete truth. However, you can try to rally people or convince people that looting or going to war against other countries for what they have is wrong, by all means.

 

[ribbit]

I'm not trying to hound you. But you were not there as a soldier nor a person in charge, therefore I don't think you know the complete truth. However, you can try to rally people or convince people that looting or going to war against other countries for what they have is wrong, by all means.

Do you actually think that people all go to war knowing exactly why they're going there? I guarantee you many believed they were going because they were told that Sadaam Hussein attacked the US and had weapons of mass destruction. Do you seriously believe that the US government would tell the entire truth about a war when they can't even tell us the truth about the most trivial of things? At the time, they didn't even know themselves the whole reason we went in. Trying to argue that you can't know if you weren't there doesn't work in this sort of situation.

 

[Pajama_Pants]

Do you actually think that people all go to war knowing exactly why they're going there? I guarantee you many believed they were going because they were told that Sadaam Hussein attacked the US and had weapons of mass destruction. Do you seriously believe that the US government would tell the entire truth about a war when they can't even tell us the truth about the most trivial of things? At the time, they didn't even know themselves the whole reason we went in. Trying to argue that you can't know if you weren't there doesn't work in this sort of situation.

I never said every soldier, nor official knew about what was going on and why they were going to war against Iraq. Ultimately, the soldiers are pawns, expendables. They do as they're told, but even then like it's been beaten down a dead horse, everyone has their own reason for joining the army.

As for the US government telling the entire truth, of course they wouldn't, no country to this date in my eyes have ever told the complete 100% truth. So I do not get what you're getting at, considering I never even claimed that the US government was telling the entire truth. Where are you coming from, seriously?

And actually, it does work in this situation. A civilian who has never even been a part of a goverment or involved in the war closely as a soldier or any war personnel, does not have the credibility of actually providing cold, hard facts. If he does, he's probably a journalist or something, and he would be doing the world a favor by going out there and editing and publishing stuff instead of posting on a forum that, as far as I can see, has been countered by another member of this forum. It's basically like this, for example: Someone who was actually at the site of a crime, versus someone who's heard the information from a 2nd hand, 3rd hand, or even 34723489372th hand information. Who do you think has more credibility? Think about it. Long and hard.

 

[ribbit]

And actually, it does work in this situation. A civilian who has never even been a part of a goverment or involved in the war closely as a soldier or any war personnel, does not have the credibility of actually providing cold, hard facts. If he does, he's probably a journalist or something, and he would be doing the world a favor by going out there and editing and publishing stuff instead of posting on a forum that, as far as I can see, has been countered by another member of this forum. It's basically like this, for example: Someone who was actually at the site of a crime, versus someone who's heard the information from a 2nd hand, 3rd hand, or even 34723489372th hand information. Who do you think has more credibility? Think about it. Long and hard.

The point I'm making is that being in the war versus not being in the war doesn't prove anything about your knowledge of the situation. Being in the war won't give you the cold hard facts about why you were actually there. Would you believe a Vietnam war veteran, that just so happens to have been in the war, who says that we won the war in Vietnam versus a "second hand" source who tells you that we didn't? Which is the truth? I know which one is. Think about that one. Long and hard. Your argument doesn't work, because neither source can be believed if neither source knows the true reason that we were there. The US was told why we went to war in Iraq. Do you think the US soldiers were told something different?

 

[Pajama_Pants]

The point I'm making is that being in the war versus not being in the war doesn't prove anything about your knowledge of the situation. Being in the war won't give you the cold hard facts about why you were actually there. Would you believe a Vietnam war veteran, that just so happens to have been in the war, who says that we won the war in Vietnam versus a "second hand" source who tells you that we didn't? Which is the truth? I know which one is. Think about that one. Long and hard. Your argument doesn't work, because neither source can be believed if neither source knows the true reason that we were there. The US was told why we went to war in Iraq. Do you think the US soldiers were told something different?

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do think the US soldiers were told something different, because if you know anyone who's in the US armed forces, be it the army, navy, whatever, there are some if not an agreement they signed when they enlisted saying they cannot disclose some information.
It also completely depends on the definition of winning, and losing. Would you have the guts to tell battleworn soldiers that we lost, after they've fought for us and lost a lot more than comrades most likely? It's a really simple yes and no question. If you say yes, and you live in any country that has fought any war, I believe you are quite cold-hearted and I personally would not think twice about your existance.

As for your reasoning, step it up a little bit and use your own words instead of copying other peoples, your adolescent side and epidermis is showing. But let's look at where we're standing now. We waged war against Iraq. Iraq does have oil. We have pretty much been victorious, despite the ugly truths strewn everywhere. The events that have happened have presented a predicament of actually taking another country's oil, whether it was already in the plans, or was a biproduct of invading another country. We're not talking about the Vietnam war, stay on topic buddy.