G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » Quick Board » Archive through January 31, 2010 » Why are we still in Iraq?(politcal thread for those that are slow) « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through January 21, 2010Oldog30 01-21-10  02:02 pm
         

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cityxslicker
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 06:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Oil sure, strategic trade access, yep, historical basis and alliance treaty ties, yep.

We are there for oil. Admit it, lets quit fiddle farkling about it. Seize the pipelines, grab the ports, lock down the airports, and harden the refineries.

We are not there for nation building, that is some cr@p drummed up by some damn liberal biased pansy think tank to sell the war to the left.

If there was no oil, we wouldnt be there with the presence we are. Look at Darfur, throw a lil genocide, and we dont care.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 07:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

IMHO I think if there is anyone Iran will hit it will be somewhere in Israel, but Israel has way many more nukes than Iran.

You have to factor in the fact that any nukes that Israel has have the keys to turn them on held by BO. They can't just retaliate without our involvement. I have my doubts that BO would ever unlock them for Israel.

There will be troops in Iraq to protect Exxon's, BP's, etc. profit interests. That was the whole point of the Iraq War.

You seem to ignore reality on this point. If the point was to get oil it would have much easier in every aspect to simply stop the oil embargo against Iraq. Stopping the embargo would have been politically easier, less costly for the country in terms of money and military lives. We could have the oil quicker and cheaper by that method too. Please explain how going to war was the easiest way to make this happen. I don't think you can.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 07:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Bhillberg, I think you have the essentials down. One of the ideas of the opening of the Iraqi front were to attract bad guys to Iraq, where you can see across the desert and have a potential ally in the local populace. As opposed to Afghanistan, where it's hilly, and extreme tribal. Or here, with U.S. dead. Cold hearted, sure, but that's one of the reasons. ( the others were to establish a democracy in the heart of darkness, and to free the Iraqi people, done, and done. Oh, yeah, the WMD's the U.N. inspectors insisted were there last time they looked, but were moved to Syria while the Russians & French politicians that took huge bribes from Saddam delayed U.N. action. )

The reason that the "news" quit harping on Iraq is that the "surge" worked, and now we are in disengagement mode. Once the dems saw that saying the sky is green had little traction, ( except with a few BDS types ) they simply dropped all mention of Iraq, to avoid admitting any misjudgement.

Hey, City...where's my damn oil? ( also, Vietnam WAS about oil... but find that in the history books. )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nik
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 07:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

You have to factor in the fact that any nukes that Israel has have the keys to turn them on held by BO. They can't just retaliate without our involvement. I have my doubts that BO would ever unlock them for Israel.

They've retaliated without our involvement many other times and done just fine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 07:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

They've retaliated without our involvement many other times and done just fine.

I did make it clear I was talking about nukes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nik
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 08:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I fail to see how that changes anything. They've already allegedly armed their alleged nuclear arsenal before during the Yom Kippur war.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 08:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

They've already allegedly armed their alleged nuclear arsenal before during the Yom Kippur war.

If true it was with our involvement. I have my doubts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 08:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

No way Israel is beholding to Obama for their right to defend themselves, nukes or otherwise.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rockns
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Just a thought on the topic and maybe why we havn't pulled people out and is adding more can anyone think what pulling out would do to our already lousy unemployment problem.
No more re-ups, no more contracts for equipment, arms,food,ect...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 09:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Rockns, please be more cynical.

Sifo, other than passage over Iraq to get to Iran, what possible thing would Israel need from us to drop an alleged nuke on someone?

It's not like other country's nukes have PAL's ( the lock on U.S. nukes that needs a code to unlock ) Their tech is allegedly classic fission warheads, All the safety gizmos they need is the crowbar you stick in to prevent the mass from being collapsed by the shaped charges. You think WE have the keys? Bush, maybe could have talked them out of retaliation, but I doubt it. Obama? Hah! Bush the elder did keep them from retaliating against Iraq, but I doubt that leash would have held if Saddam had shot nerve gas or biologicals.

Really, I don't get your point.

(Message edited by aesquire on January 21, 2010)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rockns
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 09:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

OH I'm sorry I thought the topic was.
"Why are we still in Iraq?"

Just something to think about.

And I don't think there's squat the current admin. can do to stop Israel from retaliating on a major attack.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cyclonedon
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 10:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

"Why are we still in Iraq?"

simple, one little three letter word!

OIL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reindog
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 10:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

How bout IRAN?
How bout DEMOCRACY?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cityxslicker
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 11:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Vietnam was about a southern expansion of the communist ideology that would have given their navy/submarine force a warm water deep draft sea port. And our anti submarine assets were significantly focused north for surveillence and tracking....
Welcome to scenic Cam Rahn Bay Comrade.

PS, there are still conspiracy theories that the Gulf of Tonkin was faked. In fact the USS Turner Joy is parked practically in my front yard.

http://www.maritimeheritage.net/attractions/attrac tion_select.asp?id=80
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pso
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 08:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Court-I worked for a neighboring jurisdiction police dept. during Bush the Elders years. A thread that went through our ranks was that Barb. Bush would even take hot chocololate out to the officers on the gate on some cold nights.
Back to topic-my idealism (perhaps resultant from the aging process) leads me to want to believe we are still there because if we leave there will possible be a civil war or attack from external forces, and that we must take full and complete responsability for our actions. I know dumb but makes me happy to be an American.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Juicehead
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 09:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Why are we still in Japan?
Why are we still in Europe?
Why are we still in S. Korea?

etc, etc, etc...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 02:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Sifo, other than passage over Iraq to get to Iran, what possible thing would Israel need from us to drop an alleged nuke on someone?

It's not like other country's nukes have PAL's ( the lock on U.S. nukes that needs a code to unlock ) Their tech is allegedly classic fission warheads, All the safety gizmos they need is the crowbar you stick in to prevent the mass from being collapsed by the shaped charges. You think WE have the keys?


It has been my understanding (and I've heard this numerous times) that the nukes that Israel has are from the US and that, yes we do hold the keys. It's possible that I am wrong, do you know otherwise?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nik
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 03:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Way wrong. Israel's alleged arsenal is of their own production. If anything they were aided by France early in its development, 'for peaceful purposes.' It has no ties to the US. Their current capabilities probably have greater ties to Russia given how many Russian Jews emmigrated there after the fall of the Soviet Union, including nuclear scientists.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 06:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Nik, After a bit of reading I believe you are correct. Big oops on my part.

It's interesting that I've heard the US being bashed more than once for being the provider of nukes to Israel. Now I know better on that point. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 06:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

What Nik said.

There is a rumor that some of the plutonium is of U.S. origin, but no U.S. admin gave them any nukes, approves openly of those alleged nukes, nor is there any proof that they exist. ( Tom Clancy novels are not "proof")

There is also a quiet rumor that the reason Egypt made peace with Israel after the 1973 war was a back channel alert to Egypt that a F4 Phantom could make it one way from Israel to the Aswan Dam. The idea that a wall of radioactive water flushing the Nile valley ( where most of the people live ) would erase a millenia old civilization, forever, if the Israeli's thought they were in extremis..... Well, that's the rumor. The facts are that when the Russian's Dammed the Nile, they put both a sword of Damocles over Egypts head, and created an ecological disaster that is still unfolding. ( no yearly floods, no replenishment of rich soil, no flushing the salt water back out into the Med. )

yes, Vietnam was about a warm water port for the Soviet Union, but was about stealing the oil from the South for the North. The first 1960's terrorist/Cong murders were against oil pipeline workers and rural villages for manpower. I won't turn your stomach at the means.

Oil bearing Islands off the coast are still in dispute, with China looking like the eventual winner. You may recall the Mayaguez incident, where we dropped a big "daisy cutter" bomb on the refinery on Koh Tang. ( why? distraction? payback? in any event why was there an oil refinery on Koh Tang? because of the Oil. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayaguez_incident
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M2me
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

If the point was to get oil it would have much easier in every aspect to simply stop the oil embargo against Iraq. Stopping the embargo would have been politically easier, less costly for the country in terms of money and military lives. We could have the oil quicker and cheaper by that method too. Please explain how going to war was the easiest way to make this happen. I don't think you can.

Oh, yes I can! Notice that in this sentence, "There will be troops in Iraq to protect Exxon's, BP's, etc. profit interests.", the word "oil" is never used. The word is "profits". Exxon, BP, etc. would not have realized one dime of profits if we had simply lifted the oil embargo. Their profits would have likely actually gone down. Iraqi oil fields had to be privatized and opened up to foreign corporations. The only way to achieve that was to invade Iraq and bring them "freedom and democracy".

Iraq is not only sitting on one of the largest known oil reserves but those reserves are among the easiest and cheapest to tap into and that means it's very, very profitable. The problem was Exxon, BP, etc. could not tap into and profit from Iraq's oil because it was nationalized (all OPEC oil is). That's why we invaded Iraq. To get those fields privatized and open to foreign contracts so that Exxon, BP, etc. could realize higher profits. It's not just about the oil, it's about who profits from the sale of the oil.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Road_thing
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 12:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

M2me:

Regarding "nationalized" vs. "privatized" oil--the USA and certain parts of Canada are the only countries in the world which allow for the private ownership of oil in the ground. Every other country asserts national ownership of all subsurface oil. Foreign companies may be allowed, under contract, to explore and develop the oil reserves, but the host country owns them.

rt
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cowboy
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 02:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

There are parts of the country where you only own the land 1 meter deep. comes to mind that in new mexico you may not dril for waater with out states permission.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 03:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Oh, yes I can! Notice that in this sentence, "There will be troops in Iraq to protect Exxon's, BP's, etc. profit interests.", the word "oil" is never used. The word is "profits". Exxon, BP, etc. would not have realized one dime of profits if we had simply lifted the oil embargo. Their profits would have likely actually gone down. Iraqi oil fields had to be privatized and opened up to foreign corporations. The only way to achieve that was to invade Iraq and bring them "freedom and democracy".

"Exxon, BP, etc." That etc. is a long list that includes all other oil companies in the world. There is nothing that guarantees Exxon or BP oil contracts. They can simply bid for contracts just like every other oil company in the world. There wasn't even any guarantee that this type of bidding would have been allowed. Bottom line is that it's up the Iraqi government who will see profits. Don't let any of this ruin your delusions of conspiracy though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M2me
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 05:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

There is nothing that guarantees Exxon or BP oil contracts. They can simply bid for contracts just like every other oil company in the world.

What guaranteed that they would get contracts, and favorable contracts at that, is our military. Saddam would not grant Exxon, BP, etc. contracts so we invaded and overthrew his government. Do you think the current Iraqi government is not aware of this? Don't worry about Exxon. They are going to be doing business in Iraq. That's guaranteed.


quote:

"Yes, we are very pleased to be the first American oil company signing a deal in Iraq," Occidental's Executive Vice President, John M. Winterman told The Associated Press on the sideline of the signing ceremony at the Oil Minister in Baghdad.

Iraq has pending deals with six consortiums, which include major firms such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and China's CNPC consortium. The deals are scheduled to be wrapped up next week.




January 22 AP story

Gee, Iraq has a "dilapidated oil sector". How do you think it got dilapidated? This plan has been in place for decades, probably since the Reagan administration after Saudia Arabia bought out Aramco. The goal is an Iraq version of Aramco, call it Iraqamco or something like that. That's why we invaded Iraq and are still there today.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 06:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Seems BP got screwed out of their 'guarantee'. Doesn't say much for your conspiracy theory. I have full confidence that you will adjust the theory as necessary to fit what the future brings.

As to how the oil infrastructure became dilapidated in Iraq, I would say it got that way the same way as the rest of the infrastructure in Iraq became dilapidated under Saddam. Like all other dictators he failed to maintain basic infrastructure while skimming money off for his own narcissistic desires.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

No, Sifo, it's that plot by the masons...or the trilateral commission, or the oil companies.. oh, wait that's what he said!

Now I don't doubt that a bit of "good for Exxxon, good for America" talk went on, and no doubt that bribes...er, campaign.. bribes were cheerfully accepted.

I even agree that pos countries like Sudan would likely get more attention if the thousands and thousands being murdered by the jihadi there had villages with oil under them. But it's just one more front in the war on ( whatever it is this week...I think the Prez now calls it the "war on AQ" so that's at least the second name change in a year. ) and we have commitments from the Pacific through Eurasia with our troops helping locals in this war.

So if you have a bug about Sudan, or any other non-oil bearing land we should be getting hated for helping out, but aren't, send reporters over to get killed so Congress will intervene. ( that's sarcasm, folk. I'm not into "world's policeman" either. )

But "the evil oil barons rule from their thrones of asphalt, and the government's in their pocket" bit is a bit tired. True, mind you....but gee, didn't you know that?

btw, I only pick on this admin's re branding the war on radical jihad because I think that kind of marketing shows desperation, and I'd really rather Obama doesn't fail to successfully bring peace & troops coming home. I wish him all the luck in the world at that endeavor. I feel free to bitch when I disagree, but I want him/us to win. Different story on domestic agenda, but that's another thread. You realize, now all the forms have to change to reflect the new logo? ( a reason it''s a marketing fail imo ) LBJ mis-read the model # of the Blackbird in a speech, and they had to change it to match.

NPR announced that the white house will have the troops out by August. I doubt it, but wish them luck.

(Message edited by aesquire on January 23, 2010)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Funny thing but I see very little BO bashing about his handling of current conflicts. I would guess that those that politicized that issue before don't want to make BO look bad. Those that see it as necessary want the best result regardless of who gets credit.

The big exception to this was when BO couldn't make a decision on sending more troops when he was being advised that we were on a current course of failure. He still shorted us by 10,000 troops promising that they would come from allies. Does anyone know if those 10,000 troops have been promised by any allies yet?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ft_bstrd
Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Saddam would not grant Exxon, BP, etc. contracts so we invaded and overthrew his government

M2me, are you serious?


Are you aware of UN Security Council Resolution 661 enacted August 6, 1990?

Exxon, BP, etc. were PROHIBITED from contracting with Iraq under the guidelines of a trade embargo.


Are you aware of the Oil For Food Program?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M2me
Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 12:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Seems BP got screwed out of their 'guarantee'

Nope! BP did not get screwed. They are doing business in Iraq. That's guaranteed.


quote:

A consortium made up of BP PLC and China National Petroleum Corp. finalized an agreement to develop southern Iraq's giant Rumaila oil field, having won the contract in the country's historic oil-field auction over the summer.

The deal is a coup for the British super major, which holds the biggest stake in the venture. But it also makes the Chinese oil company the dominant foreign player so far in Iraq's promising oil patch, following another big development deal in Iraq signed last year by CNPC.




BP, CNPC Sign Iraq Oil Deal
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bhillberg
Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 02:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

what does it really matter if big business has got a foot hold in Iraq? Darfwar? The difference between them and Iraq is that the Darfwar has never posed a threat to us It was a pre emptive strike. UN could not locate or be allowed to inspect the possible existence of weapons that could attack the United States. Cry your liberal oil tears all you want but the UN could not say that there were not WMDs. The entire world though there were. For pete's sake this bastard gassed 6000 of his own so how do you trust him. Yep, it's oil you ignorant fools. (ignorant is different than stupid) I really don't care if you can prove that the initial attack was for oil. I think you're wrong but I would love to see the proof. The fact of the matter is, in the title of this post "why are we still in Iraq?" It's because the fight is in the back yard of the Jihadists. Challenge me with more knowledge than my own. Prove me wrong. Don't sit back in your easy chairs and form an opinion that is fed by the media. Meet me and I will tell you how it is

semper fi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 10:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

So the fact that big oil companies from around the world, not just Exxon & BP, got oil contracts in Iraq, that is somehow proof of a conspiracy to get guaranteed contracts for Exxon & BP. I don't think so. It simply shows that big oil companies from around the world got oil contracts.

I guess what we should have done was what we are doing in the US with our oil fields. Prevent oil companies from extracting the oil. Then Iraqis could continue to live as a failed state by not using the resources available to them to build a thriving economy. We could have turned Iraq into another Afghanistan. Now that would have been a plan for success!
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration