Honestly, I have no clue why we invaded Iraq...does anybody at this point? Hence why the thread title is in the form of a question. :wink: I'm just saying it is possible. We have a President and Vice President with ties/former ties to the oil industry. The war in iraq tied with Iraqi oil has been a suspected reason since day one. Now, a deal is being snuck into possible iraqi law while the country is in turmoil over Sadaam's hanging. Funny these companies are British and American (two major players in the invasion). Funny that these companies are getting more profit from the oil extraction than they would get anywhere else. Something stinks.....
The only companies deserving of such contracts are from countries who supported and paid for the war. I'm sure the majority of the contracts in Iraq are given to companies from these two countries, as it should be. I certainly wouldn't want a french (or any other country that didn't help out) oil company to reap the benefits from our work.
The Iraqi people didn't agree to this war, why should they have to pay the cost of the US led war? Mainly the Sadaam regime were the ones we wanted out. THIS IS IRAQI OIL. We invaded their country to implement a regime change (so they say), what right do we have to THEIR oil on THEIR land? Iraq is still a country, not a US/UK possession. This law is getting pushed through the Iraqi system by pressure from the US with little to no imput from Iraqi reps. Some hadn't even heard of it when interviewed. (See article I posted few posts ago)
I'm not sure you understand how this works ... or maybe it's me. Oil companies like Exxon, BP, Shell do work all over the world. They work in almost every oil producing country, even in places like Saudi Arabia where oil is controlled by the government. They have the equipment and technology that most of these countries simply don't have and they are hired to do the work for them. Iraq, like Iran today, didn't hire western oil companies prior to the war. As a result, their infrastructure and technology is sorely lacking. Ever wonder why Iraq and Iran, with all their oil money, had to import gasoline? They didn't have the means to refine their own oil. It will still be Iraqi's oil. We're not stealing anything from them. These oil companies are building them an infrastructure using the latest and greatest equipment and technology. And they are going to be paid an outrageous amount of money for their risk.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/ http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Republican_Congress_members_claimed_that_evidence_0621.html http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php Isn't it funny that some people will believe conspiracy theories before they will believe there were WMD's in Iraq? There is more proof of WMD's in Iraq than there is of an oil conspiracy. Reminds me of the other theories like the government blew up levees and the WTC for various reasons. 1) Everyone should know that there were terrorist camps found in Iraq. 2) You can argue all day but WMD were found in Iraq, some of us had that argument over "old" WMD's in Iraq in this forum weeks ago. This is the last thing I will say about that old argument and beating a dead horse because I'm more interested in where we go from here such as Al Quada, Iran and Syria in Iraq fighting Americans. I will be glad to talk about GWB's failed Iraq strategys as well as his failure to keep his promise of protecting America.
After reading that first article I found this: "The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s." ""This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."" Sadaam would not pose a threat to any country with 500 nerve gas ammo. These were produced before the Gulf War restrictions your article says. --- Terrorist camps are not equal to Al-Q terrorist camps....the latter being a main reason to invade.
it kinda irritates me that people repeat "where were the wmd" over and over like zombies and act like that was the only reason for war. thats what people like to tell each other so they can get indignant. again, if you want information on why something happens, dont continue to repeat what the media says, go to the source. read what bush says, not what people claim he said. " Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region. In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) yes, bush mentions wmd, among a long list of other things. when you fight a war, like we did in 1991, and there is a cease-fire, the other guy sticks to it exactly or the war resumes. case closed.
Double Standard of the Left. 1) It is ok when a Democratic president uses the military for a humanitarian purposes or other such as Somolia and Bosnia. 2) It is ok when a Democratic president does anything including humanitarian 3) It is not ok when a Republican president does anything including humaitarian. 4) American POW unaccounted for but if we had a Democratic president who did this it would be a totally different story. 5) Iraq also repeatedly fired at our aircraft but people on the left must not care about that or the missing POW. 6) Speaker Polosi doesn't think that anyone that doesn't have children should be able to make US Policy or obviously have an opinion on US Foreign Policy. The Arrogance of politicians on the left is rediculous!
According to the cease fire Iraq could legally have these weapons? That fine and all I showed you proof of WMD in Iraq. Some people would rather believe oil conspiracys versus WMD's? I NEVER heard any politician or ANYONE discuss the age of WMD's in Iraq as being a reason to go or not go into Iraq. Where is your proof on the oil conspiracy?
George Bush sent us into Somalia. Clinton didn't get a pass on Bosnia. He got blasted. Until his strategy proved effective and we won the war without even one casualty. I don't know where you get this crap. Remember the hostages in Iran? Did Carter get a pass? The press blasts the President when he is incompetent. This one, like Carter, is just that. I don't even know what you are talking about here. I didn't know someone's comments could be taken any more out of context.
