POLL: Was Bush's War in Iraq really about oil?

[QUOTE="fidosim"] It decides what the U.S. government is allowed to do...Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]We are a sovereign nation, with our own constitution. Jaguar_Shade

Iraq is a sovereign nation too.

On the international stage, I don't think countries should act just because they think another country's government is better off overthrown. International laws and regulations may not be perfect, but it is the most objective measure to act upon on. Without those regulations, nothing is gonna stop a country with many enemies such as Israel from being attacked. Of course, Israel's allies would step in, but then we're back with the two big faction mentality that divided the world (Allies vs Axis, West vs USSR).

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="fidosim"] It decides what the U.S. government is allowed to do...fidosim

Congress also authorized that action based on lies; once again, the planted story about the yellow cake, and the fraudulent links to al queda.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="fidosim"] It decides what the U.S. government is allowed to do...fidosim

If national laws are more important than international laws, virtually no invasion would ever be illegal.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Not internationally it doesn't. If you're a member of the UN you're supposed to submit to UN law. Ninja-Hippo

Congress also authorized that action based on lies; once again, the planted story about the yellow cake, and the fraudulent links to al queda.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] It doesn't supercede the US constitution. Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq.fidosim

Congress also authorized that action based on lies; once again, the planted story about the yellow cake, and the fraudulent links to al queda.

..Certainly doesn't make it a good move at all either way. Congress should never give that much power to a president. Thats how the Vietnam war escalated with LBJ.

Either way, I'm not worried about a decision that happened 7 years ago. What I'm worried about right now is the instability of Iraq.

Has Obama kept the soldiers like he said he wasn't going to do over there for the same reasons? You gotta ask the same questions about our current president...as Bush has been gone for quite some time now.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Not internationally it doesn't. If you're a member of the UN you're supposed to submit to UN law. one_plum

If national laws are more important than international laws, virtually no invasion would ever be illegal.

if it was about the right to get iraq's oil, why did china get it first????:lol:

i really doubt oil was the sole reason for it, its not like there was a shortage or something

I'm very disappointed in 33% of OT. its obvious what it was about. The US and Hussein got in a fight and wanted a divorce.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] It doesn't supercede the US constitution. Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq.fidosim

If national laws are more important than international laws, virtually no invasion would ever be illegal.

Yes, it's a shame that the UN isn't working well, but it was supposed to enforce laws (Kuwait-Iraq). But I would have assumed a permanent member of the security council would set an example, since after all, a security council member is supposed to act as an enforcer to the system.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

If national laws are more important than international laws, virtually no invasion would ever be illegal.

Yes, it's a shame that the UN isn't working well, but it was supposed to enforce laws (Kuwait-Iraq). But I would have assumed a permanent member of the security council would set an example, since after all, a security council member is supposed to act as an enforcer to the system.

Personally? I think it was unfinished business with Saddam dating back to Bush Sr and Desert Storm. I thought it was a bad move leaving Saddam in power.

But, I think the WMD excuse was a pretty good excuse. All throughout the 90's, Saddam made life hard for the UN inspectors, often closing the borders to them for months (years?) at a time. He wouldn't let them finish their job properly. Those huge gaps in continuity gave rise to a lot of suspicions that he still had WMDs. He had used WMDs on his own people and the Iranians before. That was never in doubt. He had a history of WMD. The problem was he brought on the suspicions himself. So even if he came clean, no one would believe him.

In any case, the lessons learned weren't lost. Libya's Khaddafi came clean with his country's WMD program and didn't give the UN any crap. As a result, Libya got taken off the State Department's s*** list and now, he's free to mouth off again (this time mostly against his fellow Arabs).

Not sure, in fact basically everybody isn't sure.

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"] Because there were no WMDS and the reports on them were bogus?

I'm going to recommend a film for you!!

Thank me later!

UnknownSniper65

Ahhh yes Green zone very good movie indeed.Makes you wonder after watching it.

That movie is fictional :roll:

One I know it was fictional.Two.My question to you did the Americans find any WMD's???.when they went into Iraq??.A simple yes and no.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

Yes, it's a shame that the UN isn't working well, but it was supposed to enforce laws (Kuwait-Iraq). But I would have assumed a permanent member of the security council would set an example, since after all, a security council member is supposed to act as an enforcer to the system.

fidosim

And so the only options are either to respect the sovereignty of every country or to accept the big eats small world. One is idealistic and the other is potentially catastrophic.

I don't think it was about oil. At least not directly. Saddam had tried to have Bush's father, George HW Bush assasinated. I'm sure there was some bad blood there. Bush also viewed Iraq as a threat to the security of that region - probably wrongly so.

My question to you did the Americans find any WMD's???.when they went into Iraq??.A simple yes and no.

Promised_Trini

That's like someone asking me if I have a gun and me answering, "No" even though I have several "souvenirs" buried somewhere in the desert around my hometown in Northern Nevada.

It'd be nice if Saddam was given a lie-detector test before he was hanged.

I highly doubt that it was about oil. Seems like conspiracy theorist propaganda. I think that there was either honest concerns about WMDs, there was interest to further military power in the region, or it was done for political purposes. (wartime presidents tend to get reelected...)

Yeah I'm sure we went to Iraq to promote democracy and for the beaches. If you honestly think oil is not the whole reason we are entrenched in the middle east at large I got a bridge on the other side of town to sell you I promise!ScorpionBeeBee

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]My question to you did the Americans find any WMD's???.when they went into Iraq??.A simple yes and no.

That's like someone asking me if I have a gun and me answering, "No" even though I have several "souvenirs" buried somewhere in the desert around my hometown in Northern Nevada.

It'd be nice if Saddam was given a lie-detector test before he was hanged.

I highly doubt the war was for oil, as I haven't ever heard any Iraqi politician say anything about "giving oil to the U.S.".

Nor has there been any news releases about Exxon or Shell Oil obtaining any lucrative oil deals, either.

It's BS how we don't even know why we went to war.

It's BS how we don't even know why we went to war.

The_Gaming_Baby

edit: typed "BS" mod is a coming

Looking back, do you think Bush started the War for oil or did he really belive Iraq had WMD's?

[Saddam]he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction becausehe was worried about appearing weak to Iran" he told the FBI

and

China gets Iraq oil

It's simple really, Saddam was not playing mr puppet for the US anymore and bush was already in afghanistan so he must have thought to himself hey! while I'm here I could deal with that Saddam problem!! Even if Iraq had WMDs why invade them? Iran also has suspected WMDs why not invade them? Why not invade Israel when that guy spilled the beans on their nuclear program? Oh well........

It's simple really, Saddam was not playing mr puppet for the US anymore and bush was already in afghanistan so he must have thought to himself hey! while I'm here I could deal with that Saddam problem!! Even if Iraq had WMDs why invade them? Iran also has suspected WMDs why not invade them? Why not invade Israel when that guy spilled the beans on their nuclear program? Oh well........

Espada12

It was a factor, but there was a lot of factors (I'm sure WMDs were NOT one of them) and there's no way we'll ever know for sure exactly what made us invade.

It was a factor, but there was a lot of factors (I'm sure WMDs were NOT one of them) and there's no way we'll ever know for sure exactly what made us invade.

MystikFollower

For their overall national strategy, I believe oil security was a part of the plan. But I think the WMD case was something they actually believed in. I've read a few articles that describe a vast network of secret contracts by the Russian government to secure WMD development in countries like Iraq. The Russians even sent in specialists before the invasion to secure evidence and destroy anything that might point a finger to their illegal deals.