# Was Iraq war for oil?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think the war in Iraq was to conquer Iraq and take their oil, but perhaps a secondary reason for the war was to stabilize the mid-east and part of that reason would be to insure a steady oil flow. For the security of the United States, for our economy, and for our very survival I would have done the same thing. So would many of the hypocrites who condemn us for doing any such thing.



> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
> 
> From The Sunday Times
> September 16, 2007
> ...


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

If that were the case ...

Would it not have been easier to conquer Mexico and Venezuela?

Lots and lots of oil and a whole lot closer to go fight a war and to haul home the spoils after victory.

Sure oil wealth is intertwined as a huge dynamic, but the key word there is wealth (not oil.)

The oil is the source of the wealth which gives these seventh century thinkers the ability to create such problems for the remainder of earths population.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I said way back when that this war was about oil, but I gotten beaten for it on this site. Now a Republican comes out and says it. Why would he lie? Why put thousands of US soldiers in harm's way for oil?

I agreed with Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Time to either come home or get them over to Pakistan so we can finish what was started. It is time to hang Osama Bin Laden by the neck in a public hanging.

Someone needs to get this country back on the right course.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Yeap ... that sounds like a wonderful plan ...

Let's vacate Iraq and go to Pakistan.

Let's leave the State and the oil of Iraq to the Terrorists and then go east to chase them all to Iraq.

What a great idea ... let me go call Mr. Bush right now :eyeroll:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

L2H

And the right course is???????????

Just give me the Readers Digest version.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Let's leave the State and the oil of Iraq to the Terrorists and then go east to chase them all to Iraq.


What terrorists? How many Iraqi's were on those planes when they hit us on 911?

Seems to me there aren't terrorists in Iraq, just Sunnis and Shiates that love to fight each other. Which ones are the terrorists?

How much Iraq oil are we pumping into the US right now anyways?

Sorry, but I want Bin Laden's head on a platter. I want this guy strung up on a *ucking rope. Is that enough Reader's Digest for you?

If you want beat me down again for wanting that, go ahead. Our problem is Bin Laden and the stuff he is organizing now. It won't be some Iraqi's that hit us next (other than in Iraq), it will be a true terrorist organized by Bin Laden.

:******:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Islam is the genesis of the Terrorists ... If you have an Islamic Theocracy and not Secular rule ... Islam controls all ... it's called Sharia Law.

Uncontrolled Isalm is the Terrorist.

Our only bet for safety is to have the more Secular thinking memebers of Islam controling the Government and in turn controlling Isalm's ability to control all.

I am presuming you know who and where Muqtada Al Sader is??

If you do know ... then many things become much clearer about by whom and how Iraq would be controlled in our absence..


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

L2H

Sorry didn't want you to feel beat on. Just asking the question.

The difference between us is I fear all Muslims no matter where they are located. You seem to single out Ben Laden.

I belive what Harry S Truman is quoted in my tag line :sniper:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> I am presuming you know who and where Muqtada Al Sader is??


This is a guy I can't understand one bit and how ironic that Saddam Hussien had killed his uncle, 2 brothers, and his father. Yet when we take out Saddam, he decides to wage war against the U.S. Geeze, you would have thought he would have thanked us for that one.

Just goes to show you that nobody wants us there. You would think that a guy who had to go into hiding in Iraq from Saddam would come out with open arms to thank us from him being executed by Saddam Hussien, yet he is anti-American????? :huh:

Iraq was a double edged sword. We went to take out one enemy and made another one or two or three....So Decoy which one is worse? Saddam or Sadr?

zogman wrote:


> The difference between us is I fear all Muslims no matter where they are located.


No where did I say I didn't fear Muslims or that I like some and dislike others. To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about them. It seems they are the root of many of the problems in this world, but then I look at Mohammed Ali and think he is no threat to America and he is muslim.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

live2hunt ...

Just for the record here ...

Al Sader goes into hinding NOT in Iraq ...

but in ... The Islamic Republic of IRAN ... he is there as we type.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Maybe it was to settle a score, after all Saddam did try to kill the President's old man. Whatever the reason, the big guy and his entourage get an F- for their naivety when it came to Islamic extremists and the Muslim world in general.
Our boys' blood for oil? I may be a cynic, but even I believe it was a hell of a lot more complicated then that.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Why does he need to go into hiding? We overthrew Hussein who had executed 4 of his family members.

Shouldn't he like the US?

I will ask you again. Which one is worse? Hussein or Sadr? Seems we can't win can we?

Iran....now there is one messed up country. Moreso I think than Iraq ever was, but as Greenspan says, "this was about oil". If it truely was about taking terrorists out, then our troops should be sitting in Tehran instead of Baghdad shouldn't they?


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Pretty hard to argue that the war wasn't isn't about oil. But that statement is a bit simplistic. Further expanation of "the war is about oil" should mention what the sale of oil is able to fund. Iran's nuclear ambitions, terrorist training camps all over the region, and terrorist actions all over the world, the list could go for pages.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Reading about Greenspan, I would suspect he has a bone to pick with Bush. For what reason I haven't the slightest idea.
Was the war for oil? In the aspect that it was one of the factors I think so. I do not think it was a deciding factor. I think first and foremost all countries believed there were WMD's. They all said so, and many important democrats were in the forefront of stopping Sadam. 
So where does the oil fit in. Sadam went after Kuwait to take their oil. I think he thought controlling oil controlled the world, and he may have been right. Our economy is extremely dependent on oil. If we think the planes hitting the world trade center was tough on the economy try to imagine the oil stopping. Our country would be as helpless as a nuke going off in Washington. Sure I think oil was part of it. We have agreements with countries that Sadam attacked to stop our oil flow, or hold us hostage. 
It's easy to condemn others when we aren't stuck with the tough decision. What would any of us have done?
Bottom line, I think we went to disarm Sadam, and to stop oil from funding terrorism like the suicide bombers in Israel. Further, I think we went to stabilize the mid-east, and I think we went to insure our oil supply. There may have been more reasons that unimportant people like myself are unaware of.


----------

