Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why would it have been wrong to go to war with Iraq over oil? I seriously doubt this is the reason, and I've argued against about a million times. However, I am just curious. Does this somehow negate the good we've done, or what? Please explain :)

No need for apologies :) I was prolly a little brash in my comments and should have just pointed out the numbers. But as for your arguement, you have to either remember or realize that Iraqs production isn't what it used to be. If Iraq were able to build production facilities throughout the 90s they could easily prduce upwards of 7 million bb/d, as opposed to the 2.5 million bb/d they produce now. The benefit of this war in term of oil might not be seen for a few years to come, but by then it will have been worth it, to the people who will be making money off the oil anyway.

haha...well most people tend to be aggressive when trying to prove themselves right or when they find a fact against what someone else has said :-p. but as for my argument;
its true that iraqs oil production may not be what it used to be but, im not seeing where your getting 2.5 million bb/d...your own source shows that as of sept (i think it was the 23rd) 2005, iraq produces 0.650 million (650,000) barrels of oil a day that is supplied to the U.S. and like the oil drilling in Alaska, we wouldnt see reults of the oil in Iraq for another 10-20 years. also, with the way things are goin in iraq, it doesnt seem likely that we can take up safe occupation in iraq to drill the oil. on top of this, bush is out of office next term whether he wants to be or not. that means that any wishes and wants he has for oil industry in iraq (and alaska for that matter) could be reversed in a few congressional hearings. so if the next president deems it unsafe we wouldnt be able to drill there anyway, which brings me back to my original argument that i believe that the war is not about oil but about the safety of the world community with the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction that may or may not be in iraq, the middle east etc. but this is only speculation for i dont agree with bush on many topics but i can see how there would be concern to protect the country.

At 10/1/05 12:06 AM, hellomikie92 wrote:

If we go to Saudi Arabia. I belive more U.s troops will get killed what do yall think?

We don't attack our own bitches!

At 10/2/05 04:32 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Why would it have been wrong to go to war with Iraq over oil? I seriously doubt this is the reason, and I've argued against about a million times. However, I am just curious. Does this somehow negate the good we've done, or what? Please explain :)

it wouldnt neccessarily be wrong because there have been worse things that countries have gone to war for. its all really in the view of the person arguing their point. personally, i think that people are upset about iraq because there has been no set reason as to why we'er there. first it was to find weapons of mass destruction, then it was to find saddam houssein, now its to create democracy. what ever the reason we are in iraq may be, it does not negate the good we've done at all, it just isnt with the morals of the people and thats what makes it "bad." then the media is using every bit of bad news they can find to try and get better ratings so the views out there are very obscured and sontrolled by what they have to say unless people actually take the time to research and kno whats going on for themselves. but overall the reason its seen as "bad" is because teh mojority doesnt agree with it, and as we all kno, majority rules 99.99999999% of the time. whether or not you see it as just is your own opinion, i hope that answers your question

At 10/2/05 09:14 PM, random8982 wrote: haha...well most people tend to be aggressive when trying to prove themselves right or when they find a fact against what someone else has said :-p. but as for my argument;
its true that iraqs oil production may not be what it used to be but, im not seeing where your getting 2.5 million bb/d...your own source shows that as of sept (i think it was the 23rd) 2005, iraq produces 0.650 million (650,000) barrels of oil a day that is supplied to the U.S.

The source I supplied only shows how much oil USA imported from Iraq recently, it doesn't show Iraqs total oil production. I may have been a little off on the 2.5 million bb/d, this source says Iraq produced about 1.9 mbb/d by May 2005, while this source says they produced 2.25 mbb/d in 2004.. Either way, production is not what it could be in Iraq. The DOE source above says they could produce around 4 mbb/d by the end of the decade.

and like the oil drilling in Alaska, we wouldnt see reults of the oil in Iraq for another 10-20 years. also, with the way things are goin in iraq, it doesnt seem likely that we can take up safe occupation in iraq to drill the oil. on top of this, bush is out of office next term whether he wants to be or not. that means that any wishes and wants he has for oil industry in iraq (and alaska for that matter) could be reversed in a few congressional hearings. so if the next president deems it unsafe we wouldnt be able to drill there anyway,

But imagine if Bush and Cheney were to set up some nice oil contracts in Iraq for some US companies like say Haliburton (which has already set up shop in Iraq). Then Bush wouldn't need to be in office in order to reap the rewards, and those congressional hearings wouldn't be able to do jack about it.

which brings me back to my original argument that i believe that the war is not about oil but about the safety of the world community with the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction that may or may not be in iraq, the middle east etc. but this is only speculation for i dont agree with bush on many topics but i can see how there would be concern to protect the country.

The UN weapons inpectors found no evidence of WMD or WMD facilities being used prior to the invasion. And to back that up, the CIA didn't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, or that any were moved out of Iraq. The biggest thing the UN inspectors found that was deemed "illegal" were the Al Samoud 2 missiles which could fly something like 18 miles beyond what Iraq was allowed to posses, and that was without any payload. And on top of that, the UN was destroying those that were found on a daily basis. So considering all this, there really was no threat whatsoever to your country, or the world for that matter.

get over it mike.

i think our troops should come home because there is nothing that they can do in the middle east that could make their government a democracy.

The war was mismanaged, people who should have spoke out, didn't speak out until it was too late. Colin Powell regrets going to war with Iraq, and he was embarassed about going in front of the United Nations and presenting the U.S.'s case for Iraq. (all they had was satellite pictures of bulldozers which supposeduly.."buried" the WMD's...nice...I can't believe I fell for it at the time, because if the WMD's are buried...then there can't be an immediate threat)

Saddam Hussein was a bastard, but he was our bastards. We had him by the balls, hence the reason why Baghdad fell so fast.

We need a Goals for Iraq. The President says we should stick the course...but the course doesn't have any goals or targets. If we did have an goals or targets (or "deadlines" as he calls them), he claims that the insurgents would wait us out.

The United States cannot and should not play mother to Iraq. Iraq needs to quit sucking out titty and start walking on its own. The role of the United States is to be friends with Iraq...and to catch them if they ever fall and put them right back up on their feet.

At 10/3/05 03:29 AM, Wamzlee wrote: The United States cannot and should not play mother to Iraq. Iraq needs to quit sucking out titty and start walking on its own. The role of the United States is to be friends with Iraq...and to catch them if they ever fall and put them right back up on their feet.

Iraq is not sucking your titties. You created a hell hole in Iraq, it's your job to clean it up. When you figure out how to and accomplish cleaning up one of the biggest US military blunders of all time, then and only then can Iraq begin to walk on its own.

At 10/2/05 09:34 PM, madzakk wrote:

At 10/1/05 12:06 AM, hellomikie92 wrote:

If we go to Saudi Arabia. I belive more U.s troops will get killed what do yall think?

We don't attack our own bitches!

i KNOW i FINALLY JUST NOTICED!

The source I supplied only shows how much oil USA imported from Iraq recently, it doesn't show Iraqs total oil production. I may have been a little off on the 2.5 million bb/d, this source says Iraq produced about 1.9 mbb/d by May 2005, while this source says they produced 2.25 mbb/d in 2004.

ahhh, i see, i was just looking at the export to the U.S.

:Either way, production is not what it could be in Iraq. The DOE source above says they could produce around 4 mbb/d by the end of the decade.

this is what they COULD produce by the end of the decade, not what they will or will have produced.

But imagine if Bush and Cheney were to set up some nice oil contracts in Iraq for some US companies like say Haliburton (which has already set up shop in Iraq). Then Bush wouldn't need to be in office in order to reap the rewards, and those congressional hearings wouldn't be able to do jack about it.

even if there were to be contracts set up in iraq for oil, and lets say iraq reaches half of its oil producing potential, it still deals with other countries, such as china, and would not give its entire production to the u.s. therefore, what we would be getting from Iraq at the current oil consumption rate in the u.s. would probably only sustain us for a day, mayb even two if it was summer and people didnt want to drive their cars for a day.

:The biggest thing the UN inspectors found that was deemed "illegal" were the Al Samoud 2 missiles which could fly something like 18 miles beyond what Iraq was allowed to posses, and that was without any payload. And on top of that, the UN was destroying those that were found on a daily basis. So considering all this, there really was no threat whatsoever to your country, or the world for that matter.

i never said that there were WMD's in Iraq, i said that there was suspicion beforehand to go in and search for them. and if you will remember, Iraq did not cooperate fully with the UN Inspectors for quite sometime when they launched their inspection. i dont know about you, but that would kind of hint to me that something was wrong, even if there was really nothing to find. and regardless of how far these missles can travel (with or without payloads) there's always a way to transport them to a different location and attack in a terroistic effort. i mean personally, the u.s. isnt the most loved country in the world right now, and never really was by terrorist groups. (recall that countries in the middle east celebrated and passed out candy in the streets when news of the sept. 11th attacks reached them.) and when you take a look at these illegal weapons (no matter what the destructive force) they should not have been there to begin with in accordance of the treaty for the Gulf War back in the 90's. France was given orders to make sure that weapons of this sort were not to be constructed, bought, etc in iraq for any reason. yet there they are. so i can't see how you can say that these missles wouldnt cause a threat to the world community when they could have been transported in secret to a place where they could have been launched at a neighboring country or a place in asia, europe, etc.

The source I supplied only shows how much oil USA imported from Iraq recently, it doesn't show Iraqs total oil production. I may have been a little off on the 2.5 million bb/d, this source says Iraq produced about 1.9 mbb/d by May 2005, while this source says they produced 2.25 mbb/d in 2004.

The biggest thing the UN inspectors found that was deemed "illegal" were the Al Samoud 2 missiles which could fly something like 18 miles beyond what Iraq was allowed to posses, and that was without any payload. And on top of that, the UN was destroying those that were found on a daily basis. So considering all this, there really was no threat whatsoever to your country, or the world for that matter.

these are quotes from you....didnt want any confusion so i was just making sure you could notice lol:-p

At 10/3/05 06:31 PM, random8982 wrote: even if there were to be contracts set up in iraq for oil, and lets say iraq reaches half of its oil producing potential, it still deals with other countries, such as china, and would not give its entire production to the u.s. therefore, what we would be getting from Iraq at the current oil consumption rate in the u.s. would probably only sustain us for a day, mayb even two if it was summer and people didnt want to drive their cars for a day.

I'm not talking about the USA getting more oil from Iraq. I'm talking about US oil companies making huge money off Iraqi oil production, like Haliburton is already.

i never said that there were WMD's in Iraq, i said that there was suspicion beforehand to go in and search for them. and if you will remember, Iraq did not cooperate fully with the UN Inspectors for quite sometime when they launched their inspection. i dont know about you, but that would kind of hint to me that something was wrong, even if there was really nothing to find. and regardless of how far these missles can travel (with or without payloads) there's always a way to transport them to a different location and attack in a terroistic effort. i mean personally, the u.s. isnt the most loved country in the world right now, and never really was by terrorist groups. (recall that countries in the middle east celebrated and passed out candy in the streets when news of the sept. 11th attacks reached them.) and when you take a look at these illegal weapons (no matter what the destructive force) they should not have been there to begin with in accordance of the treaty for the Gulf War back in the 90's. France was given orders to make sure that weapons of this sort were not to be constructed, bought, etc in iraq for any reason. yet there they are. so i can't see how you can say that these missles wouldnt cause a threat to the world community when they could have been transported in secret to a place where they could have been launched at a neighboring country or a place in asia, europe, etc.

Sure, I remember Saddam giving UN inspectors a hard time, but they still never found anything, nor did the CIA after the invasion. Hans Blix even said an invasion over WMD was wrong because there were none. But without invading, those US oil companies would have never gotten into Iraq, well not legally (due to sanctions) anyway.

Iraq is not sucking your titties. You created a hell hole in Iraq, it's your job to clean it up. When you figure out how to and accomplish cleaning up one of the biggest US military blunders of all time, then and only then can Iraq begin to walk on its own.

Thanks for taking things out of context and completely ignoring the message I was conveying. Haha.

Alright, look: There are a few major points that we have to look at here.

1) Bush is a Christian: I think that kinda blows a whole lotta things out of the water. For one thing, God states that homosexuality is an abomination. So of course you can argue "why did God make people Gay?" He didn't its their choice. This also shows that his moral values are up. Do you really think that Bush wanted to go to war? I don't.

2) This is a war on terrorism, not on a people: So the people live in Iraq. So theres Oil in Iraq. If we went to war with terrorism in Russia then they'd say that we hadn't gotten over the Cold War. If we went to war with terrorism over in Alaska then they'd say that we went to war for oil and not to fight tyrany.

3) Tyrany has gone bye bye: If we implant Democracy over there, then don't you think that Egypt will say, "hey we want that too?" Of course. That whole AREA is oppressed by dictators and the likes. So don't tell me that they don't want Democracy. Don't tell me they should speak up. Cause right now, They cant.

And that sums it up. Theres always a good and a bad side. So either Democracy is wrong and tyrany is right, or we SHOULD be over there helping them with their problems.

God Bless

1) Bush is a Christian: I think that kinda blows a whole lotta things out of the water. For one thing, God states that homosexuality is an abomination. So of course you can argue "why did God make people Gay?" He didn't its their choice. This also shows that his moral values are up. Do you really think that Bush wanted to go to war? I don't.

You haven't read the Bible have you?

To icorrectyourgrammer:

Your statements are pretty weak - they are based merely on opinions, not facts
Please provide some references to defend your case...

Guys, check out the sources i linked on the 2nd page - there's an awesome amount of firepower that can used to attack Halliburton ;)

At 10/4/05 01:37 AM, icorrectyourgrammar wrote: Alright, look: There are a few major points that we have to look at here.

1) Bush is a Christian: I think that kinda blows a whole lotta things out of the water. For one thing, God states that homosexuality is an abomination. So of course you can argue "why did God make people Gay?" He didn't its their choice. This also shows that his moral values are up. Do you really think that Bush wanted to go to war? I don't.

Please show me where his morals are correct. I don't see how your statement of "Bush is a christian" justifies any of his views. You jump from 'he's a christian' to an opinion of god's view on homosexuality, to how that means bushs morals are superior, to 'do you think bush wanted to go to war? i don't'. WEAK CASE - its all your own opinion.

2) This is a war on terrorism, not on a people: So the people live in Iraq. So theres Oil in Iraq. If we went to war with terrorism in Russia then they'd say that we hadn't gotten over the Cold War. If we went to war with terrorism over in Alaska then they'd say that we went to war for oil and not to fight tyrany.

First of all - you have no clear motive. You make no link between the 'war on terrorism', and oil in iraq. No links what-so-ever are made. Your last sentence (hate to say it) proves you are a complete moron. Alaska is a US state, not a country - it is government by the federal government of the USA. So yea, it would be funny if they said they went there to fight tyranny.

3) Tyrany has gone bye bye: If we implant Democracy over there, then don't you think that Egypt will say, "hey we want that too?" Of course. That whole AREA is oppressed by dictators and the likes. So don't tell me that they don't want Democracy. Don't tell me they should speak up. Cause right now, They cant.

Again, there's no real facts to back up you case - just opinions. Give me some revolts, give me some civil disobedience - terrorism is a prime example (yes, the middle east has terrorist attacks too, much more frequent that what we experience). We'd like to assume they want democracy, because it is something we appreciate - but nobody seems to reference to what their views are on our culture, our views, our freedoms. It's contradictory to state their opinions for them, in an act to free them (like freedom of speech - I hope you don't consider yourself speaking for any other person than yourself.) They don't live in the dark ages - I know they have reports of peoples opinions (in the middle east) - so provide some links to their opinions, don't assume for them.

And that sums it up. Theres always a good and a bad side. So either Democracy is wrong and tyrany is right, or we SHOULD be over there helping them with their problems.

Have you (or anyone else) ever heard the phrase 'There is no good or evil, only differences in perspective' ? There is no right and wrong, only what is better and what is worse - in morality, we regard certain things as right and wrong, good and evil - but, in a utilitarian fashion, maximizing pleasure (for the public whole), and minimizing pain should be the deciding factor. Yes, morality can be a confusing topic (take a philosophy course, its fun), and I agree that democracy is better than a despotism, but theres a shit load of factors to go through before considering forcing democracy is morally correct (tyranny = coercion)

God Bless

Something I can agree on.

I personally agree with the war and have afriend in the marines. Though the bombing gets to be extreme some times I mean it's like " we have dropped more bombs today and widened the crate from yesterday, good job men"

If we could mearly move the seals in alaska we would have enough oil for the next 100 years. We can't so we must wage war so we can pay a diffeent foreiner to sell us what we should just take by force

quite the hilarious but slightly prbable event in the not so near future.

Wait why wasn't Iraq producing the maximum oil out put that it could?

Oil is soo 20th century....its time to move onto something efficient and reusable that is better than oil.

Look how computers evolved, I think automobiles can too.

USA will have no problem with Saudi Arabia if they go in war with them, but they wont cuz Saudi Arabia is kissing their asses. But it would be a problem if USA goes to war with Iran, that country has 3 times more population then Iraq and Afganistan. And 5 times more militairy strenght. It would be a whole new level on warfare!

Anytime there is a war, there had better be a good reason for it. People die in wars. They shouldn't die for oil or that sort of thing. We don't need another Vietnam...

At 10/5/05 02:41 AM, Wamzlee wrote: Oil is soo 20th century....its time to move onto something efficient and reusable that is better than oil.

Look how computers evolved, I think automobiles can too.

hydrogen would be the perfect alternative...plenty of it and it produces nothing but water. the only problem is that now you would have to build refuling stations for hydrogen cars all over the world BEFORE you can even put them on the market. then you would have to fight the people in congress since they all own oil companies or have huge shares in them. its certainly possible to have an alternative but theres just no drive right now for them to be mass produced.

i forgot to add this in my last post:

i personally think its time for the U.S. to stop with the wars, and move on from its bloodstained past in the 19th and 20th centuries. together as one nation, we should open the doors to new opportunities and ways of life. this era, should be an era of science and technology, used in a way that will improve the world around us. together, as one nation, we need to extend the hand of friendship to other countries, and as one world, as one people, with a common goal for good and peace, we could achieve this. but this is just my opinion...and no one asked me as of yet on what we should do :-p

At 10/2/05 09:34 PM, madzakk wrote:

At 10/1/05 12:06 AM, hellomikie92 wrote:

If we go to Saudi Arabia. I belive more U.s troops will get killed what do yall think?

We don't attack our own bitches!

I don't know if they are really our allys.

Okay sou think we are going into sauid arabia? wtf show some damn proof!