Do We Need To Be In Iraq?

[TheH3ntaiGuy]

New oil was recently found down near the Gulf of Mexico and somewhere up North-East of Canada. Turning oil into gas takes years, but this still signals something; we may not need in Iraq that much longer. Of course the U.S is quite friendly with both Mexico and Canada so I'm sureboth wouldn't mind sharing as long as we pay up. The only reason why were in Iraq in the first place was becuase we needed to keep the oil flowing from the Middle Wast to the U.S, becuase if we didn't, they could just say "Hey, we don't like you anymore' and 'pop', they cut us off. And that did happen a number of years ago, but we luckily won it back.

Main Idea: We don't need to be in Iraq that much longer with the new oil found in Mexico and Canada.

[ReiperX]

So do you have evidence that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was oil?

[dySWN]

At 10/17/06 03:31 PM, TheH3ntaiGuy wrote

Main Idea: We don't need to be in Iraq that much longer with the new oil found in Mexico and Canada.

You know, contrary to what certain groups would have you believe, petroleum is not the be-all, end-all reason for why we are in Iraq. In fact, unless I am mistaken, it is becuase we believed that there were either WMDs in Iraq in direct opposition to UN agreements or in another sense because Saddam was a destabilizing force in an otherwise volatile region of the world. Debates on the justice of the Iraq war aside, the premise of this thread is rendered moot by a deeper understanding of the situation over there.

And we should actually give a shit about some hentai lovers uniformed opinion why?

[WilliWowza]

Oh ok then, stick Saddam back in because we've got enough gas for the humvee!

[TheH3ntaiGuy]

You know, contrary to what certain groups would have you believe, petroleum is not the be-all, end-all reason for why we are in Iraq. In fact, unless I am mistaken, it is becuase we believed that there were either WMDs in Iraq in direct opposition to UN agreements or in another sense because Saddam was a destabilizing force in an otherwise volatile region of the world. Debates on the justice of the Iraq war aside, the premise of this thread is rendered moot by a deeper understanding of the situation over there.

That is true. However we did search for a number of years and we found nothing. However it is still possibile those silos are still over there, yet they would have used them by now wouldn't they? If they could hijack three planes on U.S soil and then attack us from inside, I'm sure they could sneak a missile somehow into our soil and attack us from inside. And let me ask this... do you think the governemnt truly cares what happens to those countries in the Middle East. Well yes, but only for the oil. If say the U.S had enough oil to alst us 1,000 years, then we wouldn;t care about Iraq. Also right now, one of the reasons why so many of our soilders are dying in the desrt sand is becuase the Iraqies are killing eachother, and we're trying to be the refere saying "Hold on there buddy!", but instead they kill them. If we leave Iraq alone, the'yy just kill themselves, and it won't really matter to us. I will aslo ass this: yes the war is deeper in conspiricay than most think, so we don't know much about it unless we are actually there. Having an Iraq discussion is a hard thing to do becuase it hides in shadows, not the war its self, but the reasons behind it and people in involved in it.

Also... we do not have enough gas for a Hummer, if we did it would be $1.05 a gallon not $2.50 a gallon. I will be honest, gas prices are going down, but very slowly.

And... we could send Saddam back home, but what do you think he'll do once her gets back? Duh! If there are any, he'll uncover the hidden missiles and launch them at us. And if there aren't any silos, then he'll do option #2, just like Hitler did: Take the minds away from the people of Iraq again , and then tell them to kill us again!

Oh and by the way... why should you listen to a guy with the word "Hentai" in his account name? One reason buddy:

Because you don't judge an account name on the owner... unless the name is "GoHitlerGo44"... then you can yell at them and stuff.

[TNT]

We needed to go there because of Saddam. We helped him in this the gulf war adn now he decided to go evil on the iraqis, pretty much betraying us. So we had to help thr iraqis in a new civilization, i hope that answers your question.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/06 05:58 PM, T-N-T wrote: We needed to go there because of Saddam. We helped him in this the gulf war adn now he decided to go evil on the iraqis, pretty much betraying us. So we had to help thr iraqis in a new civilization, i hope that answers your question.

so why was every one told it was because he was a threat to the west? if it was to remove an evil dictator, why did the US stop at Iraq, there are plenty worst world situations? why would you use violence that throws a country into a worst situation then it was before in order to "help" them?

[TNT]

At 10/17/06 06:01 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 10/17/06 05:58 PM, T-N-T wrote: We needed to go there because of Saddam. We helped him in this the gulf war adn now he decided to go evil on the iraqis, pretty much betraying us. So we had to help thr iraqis in a new civilization, i hope that answers your question.

so why was every one told it was because he was a threat to the west? if it was to remove an evil dictator, why did the US stop at Iraq, there are plenty worst world situations? why would you use violence that throws a country into a worst situation then it was before in order to "help" them?

I'm not sure it was a threat, unless it was that "weapons of mass destruction" which turn out to be false. There were plenty more reasons why we went to war including what I said.

[EnragedSephiroth]

There was never any reason to need to go to war. We were not supposed to go but we did and now things are arguably worse than they were. We can't afford to leave now because it would be retarded to go in, mess things up and leave the place in shambles without any real system of government. The U.S. is planning on gradually pulling troops out by 2008 after dividing power between the three warring factions. It beats staying and it beats suddenly leaving :\

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/06 06:08 PM, T-N-T wrote: I'm not sure it was a threat, unless it was that "weapons of mass destruction" which turn out to be false. There were plenty more reasons why we went to war including what I said.

we started being told about liberating the Iraqi people and all that jazz once the government realised it had made a mistake. so what reasons other than those i have shown to be logically flawed were there?

[JudgeDredd]

In either way, history will attribute all Iraqi deaths to America regardless if it's sectarian violence.

who wants to stand around next to a dead body with a bloodied knife?

[TNT]

At 10/17/06 06:42 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 10/17/06 06:08 PM, T-N-T wrote: I'm not sure it was a threat, unless it was that "weapons of mass destruction" which turn out to be false. There were plenty more reasons why we went to war including what I said.

we started being told about liberating the Iraqi people and all that jazz once the government realised it had made a mistake. so what reasons other than those i have shown to be logically flawed were there?

well..to start I watch a video explaning the middle east and it said why we went to war and what we did to it. I'm not saying that the people who think differently abou the war is stupid, but they don't exactly know why we went to war. If it was so no apperant reason, President Bush would have been impeach from office, have Dick Cheany Temporary run the presidency, and have another electon. But thats not all, then we have to stay in the war anyways because of its condicion in the war. If you go on to youtube and such source there should be a video explaning this. now if you found something different from this and really explain why we went to war, please show me, because I'm very sure that this is the reason.

[troubles1]

At 10/17/06 03:31 PM, TheH3ntaiGuy wrote: New oil was recently found down near the Gulf of Mexico and somewhere up North-East of Canada. Turning oil into gas takes years, but this still signals something; we may not need in Iraq that much longer

Congratulations you will be nominated for the person with no Idea what- so-ever, of what is going on in the world. seriously OIL I would love to bitch slap you, you don't even deserve the respect of being hit like a MAN. WE ARE NOT DYING FOR FUCKING OIL....

[TheH3ntaiGuy]

Congratulations you will be nominated for the person with no Idea what- so-ever, of what is going on in the world. seriously OIL I would love to bitch slap you, you don't even deserve the respect of being hit like a MAN. WE ARE NOT DYING FOR FUCKING OIL....

Then what are we dying for? Fun? I think not! Now the government keeps saying "Oh, we're in Iraq becuase we don't want them killing eachother", when really they're saying, "Oh we're only in iraq becuase we need to keep oil flowing so gas prices can go down and out people can be happy". Now the government only wanted to go to iraw for two reasons:

One) Saddam, becuase the U.S new he was a threat and that over time he could become to powerful and then take us down. And this has happened before, yes dumb ass, I'm talking about Hitler.

Two) Most oil we need for gas comes from where? China? I hope not! Russia? Good luck with that one! Most of the Middle East with countries like iraq? There you go. Here's another question: What does oil get turned into?

A) Teddy Bears
B) New Video Games
C) Candy
D) Gas

If you answered A,B or C then you need help. Of course the answer is D. Now for every two Americans in the U.S, there's a car. And what do cars run on?

A) Your Mom
B) New Grounds
C) Juice
D) Gas

If you picked A,B or C... then you REALLY need help. Cars run on gas. Now put the equation together

Gas comes from the Middle East. We need gas for our cars. Though the government is deniying it, they are really in iraq to keep that oil flowing. That was just the main reason we were over there. And if we aren't over there becuase of oil... then what are we over there for? To protect Iraq from its self? Yeah right!

[TNT]

Then what are we dying for?

Please read what I reply to this, I don't want to type again.....

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/17/06 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/17/06 06:42 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

You certainly haven't shown the liberation of 25 million Iraqis to be "logically flawed", if you're somehow implying the kurds are still being gassed by Saddam.

We've mearly liberated them from a despot to total anarchy.

[dySWN]

So, HentaiGuy, If this war really is about oil, then why have we not invaded Venezuela and tapped ANWR? Because these would be far more feasible from a polical and military standpoint. It's just plain dumb to assume that we're only in if for oil, because the price of a wide-scale military operation like the Iraq war makes whatever economic gains we would get from their oil reserves moot. No, there has to be a better reason, and I fail to see why Saddam's constant bickering with his neighbors and stirring up conflict and killing thousands upon thousands of innocents doesn't count as good enough reason to be in Iraq.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/06 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote: You certainly haven't shown the liberation of 25 million Iraqis to be "logically flawed", if you're somehow implying the kurds are still being gassed by Saddam.

somehow the concept of saving a limited number of people from opression by putting a large group in mortal danger doesn't work out as the best plan of action. along with the new instability and religious infighting that Saddam had virtually elliminated.

[Proteas]

At 10/17/06 09:03 PM, TheH3ntaiGuy wrote: And if we aren't over there becuase of oil... then what are we over there for? To protect Iraq from its self? Yeah right!

This war is going to cost the U.S. upwards of 400 BILLION dollars and a considerable amount of change. If all the government wanted was oil, we could have spent that money on getting it legally for decades to come without decimating a country. There are many reasons why gas has been going down as of late, most of them having jack shit to do with the war in Iraq.

And I'm just curious, but.... have you forgotten the fact that gas actually went up after the war started?

[SolInvictus]

At 10/18/06 12:25 AM, Grammer wrote: And they were perfectly safe under Saddam's control. Thanks for that.

my statement did indeed imply that people were being killed under Saddam's regime.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/18/06 12:23 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/17/06 09:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/17/06 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/17/06 06:42 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

Maybe that's just me, but I feel like I'm the only one appreciating the fact that the kurds aren't being gassed.

Kurds are certainely safe, there policing themselves in a society.

Otherwise, hundreds of thousands have been killed from secatarian violence with the democratic government having little power to stop it.

[Gunter45]

Here's the fact of the matter. It would have been far, far cheaper to buy the oil than start a war, and that's not even taking the fact that we've been there longer than originally predicted. That's a hard, glaring fact to get around.

[Viper-010]

Before America went into Iraq saddam had the country in termoil and under dictatorship, killing whoever he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted.
Of course Iraq is not nice at the moment, no country ever is when its in the middle of a god damn fucking war, think before you speak will ya.
America is trying to set up a government for Iraq that will stamp out dictatorship and remove future threats of terror such as Saddam.
Incase you people forgot, this is the second time Saddam has been in power, the first time wasn't pretty and the second time was even worse.
You talk about America going in and killing people, try putting it into context, America is spending billions of dollars and putting alot of effort into getting a government set up in Iraq, the only people that American soldiers are killing are those stupid enough to try and attack them.
Ofcourse some innocent people will die, take any other war in history for example, innocent people die, it cannot be helped.

No one apart from the Government is 100% sure jsut why America went into Iraq due to conspiricys that have cropped up, in no way am i condoning America going into Iraq without knowing fully why, but atleast they are not jsut pulling out and elaving the country ina narchy, they are helping set things up and get Iraq into a stable democracy.

[Jose]

At 10/17/06 07:41 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: In either way, history will attribute all Iraqi deaths to America regardless if it's sectarian violence.

You know, if we would have kept the iraqi army in place, and used them as a security force after they had been defeated, we wouldn't be in Iraq any longer.
Just think, we disbanded any army of 300,000 people. They went home with their gun, and got mad because they were now unemployed.

So instead of a working policing force, we had 300,000 angry iraqis with gun in their hands.

[camobch0]

If we leave Iraq the saudis and the other group are going to slaughter eachother.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/18/06 03:16 PM, camobch0 wrote: If we leave Iraq the saudis and the other group are going to slaughter eachother.

the Saudis?

[Peter-II]

Oil is just one of the factors. It's really not as clear-cut as the troops going in for oil OR to set up a brilliant democracy which will infinitely benefit the Iraqis for evermore.

Reasons for going to war:

--Remove Saddam from power
--Setting up pro-American government
--Getting at middle-Eastern oil reserves
--Allow Republican party to be voted in again

Like I say, not that clear cut. There was no "single" reason.

[hongkongexpress]

At 10/17/06 03:31 PM, TheH3ntaiGuy wrote: New oil was recently found down near the Gulf of Mexico and somewhere up North-East of Canada. Turning oil into gas takes years, but this still signals something; we may not need in Iraq that much longer. Of course the U.S is quite friendly with both Mexico and Canada so I'm sureboth wouldn't mind sharing as long as we pay up. The only reason why were in Iraq in the first place was becuase we needed to keep the oil flowing from the Middle Wast to the U.S, becuase if we didn't, they could just say "Hey, we don't like you anymore' and 'pop', they cut us off. And that did happen a number of years ago, but we luckily won it back.

Main Idea: We don't need to be in Iraq that much longer with the new oil found in Mexico and Canada.

>> In the ARtic of Canada. There are even MORE untapped and undiscovered oil sources! but it's too far north, so nobody has gone up there yet. There are lots in Norhtern BC, and the rigs of Nova Scotia. But even at current levels Alberta's oil sands have at least 100 more years worth of oil left, and STILL proven but untapped oil wells in Alberta. However, if we haven't found any other sources of fuel in 100 years, then we deserve what we get. Russia also has huge oil reserves.

[AdamRice]

This post is just retarded.
The US presence in Iraq has disrupted far more oil production then it has created.
The cost of the war to our deficeit does not out weigh the benefit of the oil that would be gained.

New oil field discoveries have declined to the point where the bell curve production will peak in a few decades.

$2.50 is not expensive for gas compared to the rest of the world.

Hummers are stupid unless you have like 4 kids or something.