Blood for Oil?

[ReppinTheD]

When the United States first decided to invade Iraq; right after invading Afghanistan, people all over (mostly people of Middle Eastern decent, and hippies) called this whole war as a war that essentially was "Blood for Oil". I believed this, and now with hindsight - it's interesting to see if "Blood for Oil" was really what happened.The main question to ask here is...What have we accomplished, as a result of this war that bettered the United States situation? Well, you could say: We took out Saddam Hussein, and freed a country from a tyrant ruler who killed many people.Yes, he killed many people...but as of now it's estimated that as a result of this war 655,000 Iraqis have died. (Source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061011/3/43zlq.html) In 3-4 years, we've done more damage than even Saddam would have done. Intelligence was proven wrong, and Saddam did not posess any Nuclear weapons, or even any weapons that could remotely reach the United States. Yes, Saddam was a terrible man, but he was also someone who liberated, educated, and built his country from the chaos that was before Saddam's government. The main thing is, the effects of this war will last for decades, and will cost many more innocent Iraqis their lives. With Saddam still in power, none of these chain reaction problems would have ever happened. Besides the already screwed up situation that we've caused IN Iraq, we've also caused problems for us now. We've spent more money than we have on this war, and the bill increases exponentially. As of now, the United States hasn't really gained anything out of this war. We've made conditions considerably worse all around the world because of the huge impact this war has. Finally to my point...even though this is unconfirmed - do you guys really think with all that unmined oil in Iraq, the United States would just invade Iraq, and just simply leave without taking some. I bet all of you, that as we speak, the United States is handing out contracts by the millions to US oil companies. What does this mean for us? It means, at a time of an energy crisis (Oil)...what better place to fix that problem, and at the same time boost the United States out of this economic lull. So what have we gained? Oil.What have we spent? Blood. hence..."Blood for Oil"

 

[MaRdYC26]

Yeah...it was one of the dumbest wars and even bush supporters now will look back in 15-20 years and say, "god, G.W. Bush was a horrible president"

 

[primetime]

I do not think we really needed to start the war, but getting Saddam out of power alone is worthy of this war. If nothing had been done to Iraq, likely Iraq would have taken over much of the middle east. One less dictator in the world(with how dangerous even the possibility of a nuke in the wrong hands) I can see why we went there. What if Saddam had Nukes and had the ability to destroy every part of our lifes with a click of the button? And What if he acquired them in a few years if not back in 2001. The Risk outweighs the consequence. I'm not a Bush supporter but I understand where they were coming from. And if we're making so much money on oil, Why are Gas prices so god damn high?

 

[ReppinTheD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 27 2007, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I do not think we really needed to start the war, but getting Saddam out of power alone is worthy of this war. If nothing had been done to Iraq, likely Iraq would have taken over much of the middle east. One less dictator in the world(with how dangerous even the possibility of a nuke in the wrong hands) I can see why we went there. What if Saddam had Nukes and had the ability to destroy every part of our lifes with a click of the button? And What if he acquired them in a few years if not back in 2001. The Risk outweighs the consequence. I'm not a Bush supporter but I understand where they were coming from. And if we're making so much money on oil, Why are Gas prices so god damn high?</div>LOL Saddam was not about to invade other middle-eastern countries! hahaha.Second, he DIDN'T have nukes...we tore the country apart - there were none found.and lastly, gas prices won't be cheap because we haven't gotten any oil yet...in a few years when the oil starts flowing - gas will be cheap.

 

[primetime]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ May 27 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL Saddam was not about to invade other middle-eastern countries! hahaha.Second, he DIDN'T have nukes...we tore the country apart - there were none found.and lastly, gas prices won't be cheap because we haven't gotten any oil yet...in a few years when the oil starts flowing - gas will be cheap.</div>Saddam wasnt going to invade other countries? That's why he was at war with Iran(and if he had gotten Iran he would control most of the middle east) Then what would stop him from taking the rest of the middle east over and producing his own nukes if he wanted with his newfound power?and exactly we havent gotten any oil yet, so right now its blood for blood to protect the future. America didnt do anything when Hitler came in power and we saw what happened, we must ensure that doesn't happen again.

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam wasnt going to invade other countries? That's why he was at war with Iran</div>you mean the iran-iraq war that took place during the reagan administration?

 

[primetime]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ May 27 2007, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>you mean the iran-iraq war that took place during the reagan administration?</div>I mean the Chemical weapons he unleashed on Iran and I believe several other middle eastern countries. It was only a matter of time until Iraqi fully attacked Iran, and thats why Iran agreed to help us so much.

 

[desi tmac91]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ May 27 2007, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL Saddam was not about to invade other middle-eastern countries! hahaha.Second, he DIDN'T have nukes...we tore the country apart - there were none found.and lastly, gas prices won't be cheap because we haven't gotten any oil yet...in a few years when the oil starts flowing - gas will be cheap.</div>That and neither could Bush find anything on Saddam being associated with terrorists.We spent so much money on this war, but to think we could have spent that money on research to find another source of fuel.I heard about Alaska having a good source of oil, couldn't we just go there? But do you think the citizens there would like it?

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I heard about Alaska having a good source of oil, couldn't we just go there? But do you think the citizens there would like it?</div>we do go there for oil, but it pales in comparison to the middle east.Also, Desi, while perhaps an Iraq war wasn't justified, that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was an awful dictator who killed over 2 million people.

 

[desi tmac91]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ May 27 2007, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>we do go there for oil, but it pales in comparison to the middle east.Also, Desi, while perhaps an Iraq war wasn't justified, that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was an awful dictator who killed over 2 million people.</div>Its still oil, better than spilling blood for middle eastern oil.I wasn't protecting Saddam, I know how awful he was. I was just pointing out that Bush couldn't find anything on him.

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Its still oil, better than spilling blood for middle eastern oil.</div>yeah, but they say all the oil in alaska would last us about a week and a half if we used it solely and didn't use anywhere else's

 

[desi tmac91]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ May 27 2007, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>yeah, but they say all the oil in alaska would last us about a week and a half if we used it solely and didn't use anywhere else's</div>That'll be a problem, still the world is giving the US oil as much as it can. The US isn't the only country out the btw and Arabia loses money each year when they give the US oil. And I still think we could have used the war money on research too.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ May 27 2007, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>and lastly, gas prices won't be cheap because we haven't gotten any oil yet...in a few years when the oil starts flowing - gas will be cheap.</div>I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Memphology]

Gas will get cheaper, America went through the same thing in the 70s where the gas prices got very expensive, but they went down. It will most likely get back to normal, then we will forget all about it and it will eventually happen again except this time we really are short on gas...

 

[redneck]

I don't think it was a war for Oil, but it wasn't a war to free an oppressed people either. this war was about a family vendetta. If this war was about getting oil, why not invade Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, Utah, Texas or Alaska. all have more oil than Iraq(except the environazis wont let us drill in Canada, Texas, Utah or Alaska) plus the food for oil program was getting oil for the US at a dirt cheap price.Saddam wasn't going to invade another country. He didn't have the needed support from his Military(as evident by the number of defections prior to the US invasion in '03), nor did he have the military might to invade any of his neighbors. What was left of his armored divisions was a complete joke, his airforce was none existant, and there was hardly any ammunition for their fire arms(thats taken from a report of the Iraqis having no ammo during the invasion).The scaries thing I've read so far about this war, is that Saddam may have actually had WMDs and the US has found some. but most have made their way into the hands of terrorist organizations. I remember a report from 03 stating that the US had found some VX in Iraq in an empty bunker, but soon after that I heard nothing else about it. A few months ago an Irish newspaper claimed that the US completely F*cked up and let these weapons get away. and that the Bush Administration doesn't want to say anything because these weapons are now in Europe. It makes some sense if its that big of a F*ck up that Bushco would rather let it be known that there is no WMD rather than having everyone know they are responsible for WMD being in the hands of terrorst.

 

[Memphology]

what is VX and WMD?

 

[redneck]

VX is a nerve agent, and WMD is short for weapons of Mass distruction.

 

[gentile]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 27 2007, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I do not think we really needed to start the war, but getting Saddam out of power alone is worthy of this war. If nothing had been done to Iraq, likely Iraq would have taken over much of the middle east. One less dictator in the world(with how dangerous even the possibility of a nuke in the wrong hands) I can see why we went there. What if Saddam had Nukes and had the ability to destroy every part of our lifes with a click of the button? And What if he acquired them in a few years if not back in 2001. The Risk outweighs the consequence. I'm not a Bush supporter but I understand where they were coming from. And if we're making so much money on oil, Why are Gas prices so god damn high?</div>Saddam was so weakened since the Gulf War...there was no capability for him to harm anybody but Iraqis. It's interesting that we worry about Saddam in the 90's and 2000's, when the U.S. propped him up tremendously in the 80's.Same with Bin Laden. Bush administration used typical American geopolitical ignorance on the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden to launch the attack and "modernize" the U.S. military. The whole thing looks like a sick experiment to see how well we would do with half the troop force needed. 655,000 dead Iraqis are not worth getting rid of one weak dictator. The middle east will never forget this.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 27 2007, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam wasnt going to invade other countries? That's why he was at war with Iran(and if he had gotten Iran he would control most of the middle east) Then what would stop him from taking the rest of the middle east over and producing his own nukes if he wanted with his newfound power?and exactly we havent gotten any oil yet, so right now its blood for blood to protect the future. America didnt do anything when Hitler came in power and we saw what happened, we must ensure that doesn't happen again.</div> Your honestly comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler? They are completely different situations. First off, Saddam's military when we invaded was a shell of the former military he had when he invaded Iran, Iraq's military when we invaded was not very strong, not strong enough to take over countries. Iraq didn't have the supplies, airforce capable of taking over countries. You make it sound like producing nuclear weapons is easy, Saddam tried that in the 1980's and Israel wiped out any hope of Iraq/Saddam getting nuclear weapons. (He was not even close when Israel took them out). Adolph Hitler had an elite German military. Comparing Saddam in the last 15 years to Hitler and saying if left unchecked Saddam would have wreaked terror, is very ridiculous. Saddam didn't have the military to take over Iran, let alone the middleast (which is a ridiculous notion, the western nations wouldn't allow it and we would have stepped in, and would have squashed Iraq's military). Your post comes off as pretty silly/uneducated. And your completely overrating Iraq's military power.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ May 27 2007, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your post comes off as pretty silly/uneducated.</div>You do realize he's just a high school grad who has been in prison for however many months.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ May 27 2007, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gas will get cheaper, America went through the same thing in the 70s where the gas prices got very expensive, but they went down. It will most likely get back to normal, then we will forget all about it and it will eventually happen again except this time we really are short on gas...</div> What happened in the 1970's was completely different, that was a oil embargo. How would gas prices get cheaper with more demand, more issues, gas prices will always keep going up by small increments.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Getting back to the topic. I think the Iraq war was about oil, completely. Just because we don't benefit directly right now, it doesn't mean anything. Getting rid of a unpredictable, anti-US dictator was the reason, so the future would be better for us and oil. We didn't invade directly for oil, but look around, we don't attack directly for it, Saudi Arabia has most of the worlds oil, but the difference is, that government is an ally and can be trusted. Same thing with Kuwait. I think we simply wanted an ally leader/government in Iraq instead of having a unpredictable tyrant in charge of it.

 

[gentile]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ May 27 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think we simply wanted an ally leader/government in Iraq instead of having a unpredictable tyrant in charge of it.</div>That's the problem. In the west, we think everybody has a price. In the middle east, that form of arrogance, that axiomatic assumption that eveyone is like us, can be dicey.Apparently, we can only buy off Middle Easterners to a degree. They'd rather blow themselves up than sell out. How is that ally leader/government possibly achievable in Iraq after the administrative screw ups of the last five years?

 

[ReppinTheD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ May 27 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Getting back to the topic. I think the Iraq war was about oil, completely. Just because we don't benefit directly right now, it doesn't mean anything. Getting rid of a unpredictable, anti-US dictator was the reason, so the future would be better for us and oil. We didn't invade directly for oil, but look around, we don't attack directly for it, Saudi Arabia has most of the worlds oil, but the difference is, that government is an ally and can be trusted. Same thing with Kuwait. I think we simply wanted an ally leader/government in Iraq instead of having a unpredictable tyrant in charge of it.</div>I'm glad you finally agree with me - I remember getting into many arguments about this "Blood for Oil" topic with you always on the disagreeing side.

 

[primetime]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ May 27 2007, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You do realize he's just a high school grad who has been in prison for however many months.</div>uh gee golly boss yup im just a simple southern negro. Diggin and Pickin cotton all I know. :ranting:I was locked up for 10 days bi*ch.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 28 2007, 01:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>uh gee golly boss yup im just a simple southern negro. Diggin and Pickin cotton all I know. :ranting:I was locked up for 10 days bi*ch.</div>I didn't say anything about you being black. You're the one playing the race card, apparently.I have never been in jail, so I wouldn't know anything about all that.

 

[primetime]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ May 28 2007, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't say anything about you being black. You're the one playing the race card, apparently.I have never been in jail, so I wouldn't know anything about all that.</div>''just a high school grad who has been in prison for however many months.''I didnt say anything about being black either,But you seem to be trying to sterotyping me.It would be better if you just keep your mouth shut on things you know nothing about from now on. We'll get along alot better that way.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 28 2007, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>''just a high school grad who has been in prison for however many months.''I didnt say anything about being black either,But you seem to be trying to sterotyping me.It would be better if you just keep your mouth shut on things you know nothing about from now on. We'll get along alot better that way.</div>What? Hahaha.Yeah, I totally stereotyped you by things that I already knew were true. That makes a ton of sense.I only talked about things I knew, like the fact that you were in jail and that you had only graduated high school. I'm pretty sure that falls into the "things I know about people" subset of Justice's knowledge. No need to get your panties in a bundle, cupcake.edit: And yes, you did talk about being black. You said you were a negro, which is another term for black. Negro means black in Spanish, but I'm sure you didn't know that.

 

[gentile]

It's college graduates that started this stupid war. And some of them predominantly white men probably BEEN should've been sent to jail. And what about the overwhelming support that Americans gave to this president for this decision? Well educated or not, America was completely pussy and reactive to stimuli that led us to a huge error of judgment.Race, education, or illegality had nothing to do with the way we perceived this war. ALL the black people I knew, ex-cons, single moms, high school kids, knew this was bullsh** from the start of the Iraq propaganda. We're very well educated when it comes to the bait and switch.PrimeTime has a different opinion. But it's not based on jail or undereducation. Nothing to do with that unless the well-educated are pretty undereducated. It's the same ignorance that 70% of the country was swimming in in 2002.

 

[ReppinTheD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ May 28 2007, 12:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's college graduates that started this stupid war. And some of them predominantly white men probably BEEN should've been sent to jail. And what about the overwhelming support that Americans gave to this president for this decision? Well educated or not, America was completely pussy and reactive to stimuli that led us to a huge error of judgment.Race, education, or illegality had nothing to do with the way we perceived this war. ALL the black people I knew, ex-cons, single moms, high school kids, knew this was bullsh** from the start of the Iraq propaganda. We're very well educated when it comes to the bait and switch.PrimeTime has a different opinion. But it's not based on jail or undereducation. Nothing to do with that unless the well-educated are pretty undereducated. It's the same ignorance that 70% of the country was swimming in in 2002.</div>The ONLY reason a large portion of Americans supported George Bush's decision to invade Iraq because its the classic situation. At a time of national disaster, meaning 9/11...the people tend to follow the President through whatever he decides to do. The Bush group used the American inflamed emotions to get his people to support his decision to go to war.