Bush and Iraq's oil

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I've noticed that many arguments related to Bush and the war in Iraq imply that Bush wants to get Iraq's oil. It seems to me that this is not a very realistic statement, and furthermore it's kind of a racist (or the equivalent) comment. It's almost as bad as saying that the Jews want to conquer Switzerland so that they can get all the banks there.

I don't see how toppling the government of Iraq would allow Bush to "get Iraq's oil"

Does anyone really think that the world community will let Iraq get conquered by the US?

[P-Chan]

At 1/26/03 10:25 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I've noticed that many arguments related to Bush and the war in Iraq imply that Bush wants to get Iraq's oil. It seems to me that this is not a very realistic statement, and furthermore it's kind of a racist (or the equivalent) comment. It's almost as bad as saying that the Jews want to conquer Switzerland so that they can get all the banks there.

How is that racist?

I don't see how toppling the government of Iraq would allow Bush to "get Iraq's oil"

Easy. You a US friendly puppet government (like they did in Afghanistan) and then the oil falls under the United States sphere of control. Afghanistan's current ruler Hamid Karzai is actually a former UNOCAL consultant. (UNOCAL was the company that wanted to install the Afghan pipeline, that the Taliban rejected). Do you think it was a coincidence that he was made ruler of Afghanistan?

Does anyone really think that the world community will let Iraq get conquered by the US?

I don't think the United States cares about the world community. And sadly enough, while you do hear plenty of opposition, I don't think the world has the political or physical will to "forcibly" stop the United States.

[P-Chan]

At 1/26/03 10:35 PM, P-Chan wrote:

At 1/26/03 10:25 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I've noticed that many arguments related to Bush and the war in Iraq imply that Bush wants to get Iraq's oil. It seems to me that this is not a very realistic statement, and furthermore it's kind of a racist (or the equivalent) comment. It's almost as bad as saying that the Jews want to conquer Switzerland so that they can get all the banks there.

How is that racist?

Opps. I should have probably said...

Could you please elaborate on that example? If the United States is having a war for oil, then why is it racist to point that out?

[aznacker2002]

I don't think U.S. is after Iraq's oil, if you really think about it. But, isn't there any U.S. pride?

[chesteroo]

I'll have US pride when the US is no longer controlled by greed.

[Speechless]

Very nice comment chesteroo i totally agree

[P-Chan]

At 1/26/03 11:59 PM, aznacker2002 wrote: I don't think U.S. is after Iraq's oil, if you really think about it.

You don't think, you learn more. If you sit there and think with only a tiny portion of the available information, you will get an inaccurate picture no matter how you think about it.

But, isn't there any U.S. pride?

In invading nations for the sake of conquest? Maybe there is, but I wouldn't want to take part in that.

[whitedragon-my]

At 1/26/03 11:59 PM, aznacker2002 wrote: I don't think U.S. is after Iraq's oil, if you really think about it. But, isn't there any U.S. pride?

What other reason would we have for attacking Iraq? The whole War on Terrorism thing is bullshit anyway. I think even Saddam is smart enough to realize that if he uses any kind of weapon the UN is gonna come down and own his n00b arse. This is of course if the guy even has those kinds of weapons, which he may have, I believe that Saddam probably has some sort of secret weapon bunker hidden somewhere. But he'd have to be an idiot to think about using them, as that would bring most of the Western world against him.

[Siiike]

Well the USA went to war with Nazi Germany even though the Germans didnt do anything to us other than be allied with the Japanese, and yet no one argued about going to war. Its the same now though Iraq allies with terror oragnizations (30,000 bucks to homicide bombers in Palistine). Iraq is like Nazi Germany in which both were and are fascist police states where there are none of the freedoms which we are taking advantage of now. The Germans killed Jews. The Iraqis killed Kurds, and would continue to do so if it wasnt for the no fly zones. Im not saying that we should go to war immediatly, but just consider who you are defending when you say we should not invade Iraq because its just about oil, for other countries in the world (most notably France, Russia, and China who are all on UN council)who do trade with Iraq and benifit from Sadam being in power just as the USA would with him out, but also that Sadam is the closest thing to Hitler as there ever has been.

[TheEvilOne]

At 1/27/03 11:28 PM, fattony945 wrote: Well the USA went to war with Nazi Germany even though the Germans didnt do anything to us other than be allied with the Japanese, and yet no one argued about going to war.

I think that I should point out that it was actually Germany who declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Other than that, though, I agree with what you said.

[P-Chan]

At 1/27/03 11:28 PM, fattony945 wrote: Its the same now though Iraq allies with terror oragnizations (30,000 bucks to homicide bombers in Palistine). Iraq is like Nazi Germany in which both were and are fascist police states where there are none of the freedoms which we are taking advantage of now.

The Germans killed Jews. The Iraqis killed Kurds, and would continue to do so if it wasnt for the no fly zones.

Turkey killed Kurds as well, with support, arms and munitions from the United States. Once the Kurds were crushed in Turkey, the US declared it as a victory for peace. Hahahha..

United States also supported the Genocides going on in East Timor by the Indonesian government.

Im not saying that we should go to war immediatly, but just consider who you are defending when you say we should not invade Iraq because its just about oil, for other countries in the world (most notably France, Russia, and China who are all on UN council)who do trade with Iraq and benifit from Sadam being in power just as the USA would with him out, but also that Sadam is the closest thing to Hitler as there ever has been.

Hitler? That's an interesting label. You know Fidel Castro has been called Hitler by the Americans, and so has Slovidan Milosevich. It's funny how such a nasty label is being so frivilously thrown around on anyone who disagrees with the United States.

If those guys are Hitler, you should probably put all the awful generals/dictators that the United States have forcefully proped up as well.