17 Sep 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I agree with excuse, however lame, but also: Saudi-Arabia is co-operating
why did bush go for Iraq?
Saudi Arabia has the terrorists and more oil anyway!
nicely with Bush and his interests, so there's no need to invade there.
Remember, Saddam was also a little pet for a long time until he decided to
exclude the US from his wealth. This is politics at it's best.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30maybe Saudi Arabia has more oil in production but Iraq has more in reserves. i think a country would not expend such an enormous amount of $$ and risk so many lives without getting something back ten times as much, in return.
why did bush go for Iraq?
Saudi Arabia has the terrorists and more oil anyway!
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by chrissybThey're going to get 10 times as many lives back? How so?
maybe Saudi Arabia has more oil in production but Iraq has more in reserves. i think a country would not expend such an enormous amount of $$ and risk so many lives without getting something back ten times as much, in return.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by chrissybI have never seen any logic in "Iraq for oil."
maybe Saudi Arabia has more oil in production but Iraq has more in reserves. i think a country would not expend such an enormous amount of $$ and risk so many lives without getting something back ten times as much, in return.
If oil was the motive and USA is an imperialist nation after an empire. Then why did they not simply keep Kuwait?
o Kuwait has more oil than Iraq, that's why Saddam went there
o The entire US armed forces were there (more than now in Iraq)
o Saddam had killed what little Kuwaiti resistance there was
o The largest army in the area was the Iraqi army, it was obliterated
There was no one who could have opposed them. It is just not logical for USA to return to the area at this late date to spend (perhaps trillions) dollars for smaller cache of oil than was in their fingers then!
Everyone says Bush is stupid. Is it possible that he is simply stupid enough to have thought that the UN really wanted to enforce all those resolutions they passed?
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainWould you say it is more plausible that by invading Iraq GWB gained a military and governmental foothold in the region.
I have never seen any logic in "Iraq for oil."
If oil was the motive and USA is an imperialist nation after an empire. Then why did they not simply keep Kuwait?
o Kuwait has more oil than Iraq, that's why Saddam went there
o The entire US armed forces were there (more than now in Iraq)
o Saddam had killed what little Kuwaiti resistance there ...[text shortened]... nough to have thought that the UN really wanted to enforce all those resolutions they passed?
The US will set up Army bases there and will control the Iraqi's nations oil, government and territory for many years to come.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateAre you reading MacSwains post?
Would you say it is more plausible that by invading Iraq GWB gained a military and governmental foothold in the region.
The US will set up Army bases there and will control the Iraqi's nations oil, government and territory for many years to come.
There is no need to guess and speculate when history is providing you with the answer? Why did not the US do it with Kuwait if all they are interested in is securing the oil ?
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainWhy they chose Iraq over Kuwait I have no idea. I haven't delved into possible theories. I just think Iraq was strategically targetted and invigorate posits one such suggestion. Bush is being advised by people at the top of their game and its not just a matter of getting oil for oil sake, but the benefits that are likely to flow from it, for example, maybe weakening OPEC's power and increasing the US's economic power. But again, i am just speculating and know very little about the economic arguments.
I have never seen any logic in "Iraq for oil."
If oil was the motive and USA is an imperialist nation after an empire. Then why did they not simply keep Kuwait?
o Kuwait has more oil than Iraq, that's why Saddam went there
o The entire US armed forces were there (more than now in Iraq)
o Saddam had killed what little Kuwaiti resistance there ...[text shortened]... nough to have thought that the UN really wanted to enforce all those resolutions they passed?
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by chrissybIf oil was the motive and USA is an imperialist nation after an empire. Then why did they not simply keep Kuwait?
Why they chose Iraq over Kuwait I have no idea. I haven't delved into possible theories. Bush is being advised by people at the top of their game and its not just a matter of getting oil for oil sake, But again, i am just speculating and know very little about the economic arguments.
Everyone says Bush is stupid. It is possible that he is stupid enough to have believed the UN actually wanted to enforce all those resolutions they passed.
17 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by chrissybWell said.
....I have no idea. .... i am just speculating and know very little .....
Everytime without fail, fools (like you and invigorate) predict that the US is going in to help because of some ulterior motive like control. or ecconomic power or oil or .... something other than actual helping with a problem. And everytime history proves the fools (like you and invigorate) wrong. But fools (like you and invigorate) dont learn from past mistakes and will keep repeating the same garbage time after time.
In 1991 the US assisted Kuwiat by kicking Saddam and his morons back into their God-forsaken country. The fools of the world (like you and invigorate) all said that the US only did that because they wanted to control the Kuwaiti oil. So the question is in the last 16 years did that happen? Did the US seize control ?.
While the US will certainly benefit from helping an ally, there is no prime objective to control the world's oil. But I dont expect fools (like you and invigorate) to get that into your thick skulls.