you guys are lame

Post-9/11 Era Forum

How can you sit here in america and belive that life liberty and property are your natural rights but totally think that there is nothing wrong with saddam. you guys are so screwd up in your opinion on this war. how can you say that this war is about oil FREAKEN HYPOCRITS

well.. thanks for sharing.

Ugh... only have a few minutes to post, I hate that.

First, surf, I haven't heard anyone on here (including you nowar!) that supports Saddam or believes in him. There are posters that are either anti-war, against the way the US went in, or question the American motive(s).

DrPoke, I am not saying it will happen, but if the rest of the world benefits from the oil after all is said and done, why should the US not? For the freedom the coalition won for the Iraqis, for the new (non-US) government the coalition is willing to help set up (butheaded and run by Iraqis), for their new and improved lives, for helping in rebuilding Baghdad... wouldn't it be fair for the US, not to profit, but to be repayed by what the oil may provide?

I agree that we will increase the oil transported into the U.S. but i am not oplogizing. this war is not for oil but may be a plus in the end. we are fighting for the arabs natural right and if oil increases in the united states who freaken cares? as long as saddam is out of power and the iraqi people can live in peace

Good, so we are agreed, the war was instituted to increase the flow of the worlds second largest oil reserves to the USA.

Did not say I agree but it is obvious that you won't open your eyes and look at the bigger picture. That's pretty sad Dr. If there were never a war, repayment wouldn't be an issue. You are saying that the war was "instituted" and funded just so we could be repayed moneys that most likely we'll never see anyway? Come on.

DrPoke,
Is it your thought that the US can not increase the amount of Iraq oil exports received, at all?

Are we to make sure that we don't receive any more, even if other countries do, for fear of what it would look like?

That was my take TLB. I don't get it?

We do not support saddam and we never said there's nothing wrong with him. We were just wondering why did america bring him to power and give him the weapons, and then decided to take him out all of a sudden. Saddam ruled iraq and opressed his people for over 20 years and he was america's good old buddy. They just realized he's a bad leader?

I can not believe there are still idiots out there that still believe this war was about oil. Get a life or find a hobby.

brendy- you in england?

No, in USA celebrating freedom of Iraq!

your post times indicate you belong somewhere else- sorry!

it is very sad, people still thinking that this war is for oil, and DrPoke insults my intelligence!!!

<sarcasm>
Well you just can't tell. We all know when George Bush gets bored, he just throws a dart at a map and bombs wherever it lands.
</sarcasm>

HereinBigD,
Do you notice that the Dr never answered the 'specific' questions? I guess we know the answer. Must be a little too embarrassed to show how bigoted against the US, he really is.

Well said Rage

Dr.
(I'm more worried about the cells operating in my country)
It's about time you woke up.
Wouldn't it be nice to worry about something else?

What do you think this is all about? Oil? I will say this again.
WE DON'T NEED THE STINKING OIL.
You just stated the whole issue in one sentence.

Talking about oil... lets take that everyday a million barrels is drilled, each at a cost of $20, and US makes $20,000,000 * 365=$7,130,000,000 a year (minimum), if it steals oil from Iraq without paying for it. But if the US does buy it from them, then let's say it saves $500,000,000 a year. Less than a billion, come on guys!

I don't hate DrPoke. I just think that it is ridiculous to say that if we receive any more oil from Iraq than what we already do (no matter how small the percentage may be), that it automaticly means that we were there for the oil.

DrPoke, if I insulted you, I'm sorry.

DrPoke,
I guess we posted at the same time. If the amount of oil only increases by a tiny percentage, would you still think that we were there for oil?

if this war was for oil i think the people who didnt back this war like france and russia what do you think there motive was for not backing the war.....duhh...........oil they didnt want to loose there oil connections and all of you whiners keep saying it is the us/uk started this war for oil, wrongggggggg we did it to liberate and stop the mass murdering of iraqi and surrounding countries. The real oil monguls are france and russia ask them why they didnt get involved. So they wouldnt loose there oil connection. There the oil mongules not us/uk someone does good all knit pick and tear apart everything instead of looking for what it really is. WE are liberateing iraq from an murderous, tortueing man who cares for nothing or life but only for himself and his few shadey followers. he kept the millions and millions from oil exports instead of useing it for his country and you think the exports have stopped wrong again, look at france and russia and a few others lol helloooo...........wake up

Yes I'm sure that Russia and France thought about their oil contracts and the debts that Iraq owes them, not one of my posts will you see me supporting their view, (except possibly one about each individual country's right to make their own decision about war).
And sorry to inform you of the situation BUT the reason given to invade Iraq was nothing about the freedom of Iraqis but about the WMD and that was the sole goal of going to war, all the liberation stuff was called a side issue. Please read what is going on in the world of oil.
France certainly has alot of contracts with the Iraqis regarding oil, Russia also have lots of cash they are owed by the Iraqi government, I've never disputed that. USA has contracts through various intermedaries to import only a certain amount of cheap Iraqi oil, this will now increase by a long long way. Calling France and Russia the "real oil" moguls is funny coming from the country which uses 25% of the worlds oil on a yearly basis. All the countries of europe don't use that much.

This whole "war for oil" argument is really is far to simplistic. Unless of course you actually think that the USA is going to take over Iraqi oil production and keep it for itself.

The war is certainly related to removing a rogue leader who sits on top of the second largest known oil reserves, and has tried to control another 30-40% by military means. The WORLD needs a stable supply of oil. If it was just about money the US would have lobbied to remove sanctions - and won by the way - and increased supply from Iraq would have dropped prices significantly meaning BILLIONS of dollars in savings for not just the US. Of course if that happened the Russian economy would have completely collapsed.

So its not JUST about oil.

remember charles your dealing with simple minded people who dont have a clue and arnt open for anything or proof just there own aggenda

because so many americans take their freedoms for granted....and the worse part is...when they say they aren't taking it for granted...they're just making sure no-one makes that argument against them...

they still take it for granted.

for example, when you look at the iraqis and all you can do is scream 'that **** bush, where are those weapons, america is going to be embarrassed'...you most likely are one of those people.

when i see the footage of the iraqi people, i get a really strange feeling in my stomach and throat. i want to go to iraq and talk to those people and help them and find out about their lives under saddam's rule. my empathy for these people is through the roof.

they are the most important thing in this conflict, not weapons of mass destruction. period.

Charles, the US and UK were chiefly responsible for keeping sanctions when other member states wanted them lifted because of the genocide it was causing in Iraq. They wouldn't need to lobby to lift sanctions they just had to cast a yes vote. But they didn't which was why the Iraqi people remained in abject poverty for twelve years.

Yes photek they were. That's not some crazy idea I've just come up with, its the truth. A million Iraqis died from imposed sanctions due to starvation and disease and many tens of thousands more died from depleted uranium used in the first gulf war. Its not fair to say Saddam was completely responsible because he didn't impose the sanctions. US and UK knew they were not affecting him only Iraqis but vetoed any attempt to have the, lifted. Neither was he responsible for the lack of parts to fix bombed dams and water refining facilities so dirty water was consumed leadingto widesoread diptheria.
No-one saying that Iraq has only been around for 12 years. The point is it was once a prosperous place with an excellent education and health care system. Problem was the first gulf war put an end to that throwing back Iraq to almost pre-industrial times and destroying one of the oldest civilizations to boot.

'The point is it was once a prosperous place with an excellent education and health care system.'

this was iraq during hussein's rule??????????????????????????????????????

what planet have you been living on??

No joke, its true. Prior to 1991 Iraq had a medical and education system that was as good as anywhere in Europe. It had a literacy rate of 90% and one of the lowest child mortality rates in the world. The reason you find this so hard to believe is because you've been led to believe that Iraqis never came down from the trees. That the regime they lived under meant they were backward and primitive. Remember this is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Read The New Rulers of THe World by John Pilger. It's all in there.