Dems Want Iraqis To Pay Up: With Oil
- Thread starter xd9fan
- Start date
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
I do agree that Bush and his "cabinet" could not propose such a thing because it would confirm what the Dems have been saying the whole time. So I guess since they came up with it everything's OK.
I see that passing with flying colors with bipartisan support.
I also see it funny that the tree huggers are making a proposition that will make the "Evil black stuff" cheaper and more affordable for us to pollute the environment with and to further "global warming".
I see that passing with flying colors with bipartisan support.
I also see it funny that the tree huggers are making a proposition that will make the "Evil black stuff" cheaper and more affordable for us to pollute the environment with and to further "global warming".
Recently there was a story about the Combat Engineer Brigade blowing up and rebuilding a bridge because it was too low for certain trucks.
Meanwhile bridges in the US are either collapsing or on the brink of it.
Why shouldn't the Iraqi government reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of destroying and rebuilding that bridge, for example?
Meanwhile bridges in the US are either collapsing or on the brink of it.
Why shouldn't the Iraqi government reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of destroying and rebuilding that bridge, for example?
grymster2007
New member
I can only guess, but we did what we did that doesn't prove that we installed Sadaam into power.
Good question! We wouldn't be if it were up to me, but manipulating history to justify the folly of today doesn't fly.
grym you've thrown me, please explain. Manipulating history, what?
Don't get me confused with the net-debater-type that would lose a few IQ points if their internet was cut off. Do your own homework, read a book, think laterally, deduce. But please don't ask me to go link digging for you.
Don't get me confused with the net-debater-type that would lose a few IQ points if their internet was cut off. Do your own homework, read a book, think laterally, deduce. But please don't ask me to go link digging for you.
The terms of the Cease Fire were specifically in our national security interest with regards to free and unhindered WMD inspections. That cease fire may have been the "UN's Rules" but it was also our rules to stop killing their troops, destroying their equipment, and obliterating their command structure in 91.
Cease fire, ties to Al Qaeda, WMD, tyrant murderist Saddam, terrorist harboring, 911...
Does anyone know the reason that will be in our children's history books? Because I've not heard that one yet. Certainly we've come up with the official answer to this one.
Sorry xd9fan, back on topic.
Does anyone know the reason that will be in our children's history books? Because I've not heard that one yet. Certainly we've come up with the official answer to this one.
Sorry xd9fan, back on topic.
grymster2007
New member
Claiming we installed Sadaam in power when the evidence doesn't exist is an attempt to manipulate history such that events fit neatly into your argument. Show me credible evidence and I'll capitulate.
Is it not apparent that I've read a couple of books, done some thinking and deductive reasoning? Go ahead, take a swipe, I'll survive.
Didn't ask you to, but since you made the claim that we put Sadaam in power the onus to provide proof lies with you.
mountainclmbr
New member
So, was this Bush's war-for-oil really just projection from the left
Oh boy Grym, take it to pm if you must.Pardon me but I find this highly amusing. Under the original plan the Bush administration had expected Iraq to repay the entire cost of rebuilding their country and much of the cost of providing them with security. But then the liberals started braying that we had just gone to war to "steal" Iraqi oil, so the administration bowed to Democratic pressure and let the US taxpayer pick up the bill so that we could not be accused of stealing oil. Now the Democrats have decided that they want the oil. Do you think that the press will remind them (or the American people) that Iraq would have been picking up most of the tab five years ago if the Dems had just shut up? Nope it will be be kept top secret by the press.
grymster2007
New member
i remember well, but supporting him doesn't equate to installing him in power. My memory is OK, I just pointed to a statement made by ericp and asked that he show some credible evidence supporting his allegation. If it is merely his opinion, then stating so would also suffice to quiet me.
So a private whipping by you should straighten out this uneducated, simple-minded and unreasoning fool?
ericp said:
Guess I've fixed that rare problem now also.
Last edited:
General Petreaus outlined yesterday how Iraq has already began out pacing the US financial burden of the load there.
It is discussed at about time marker 13:30 in the clip labeled 'Gen. David Petraeus, Multinational Force Iraq Commander' under the main heading of 'Watch the Entire Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing ' at C-Span's web site. http://www.c-span.org/special/iraq2008.asp
It should be a direct concern and priority to those wishing to informed about what is ACTUALLY going on in Iraq and HOW it is acomplished to view the Petreaus testimony. Operation Iraqi Freedom is far more important then Barracks preacher or Hillary's repeated lies. To discuss this subject without having this information is to speak from an uninformed position. MUCH of what has been debated on this forum is covered there. If you feel this is an important issue then view the testimony.
About re-embusment, it was demonized as a war for oil by the same people that are now proposing that it actually become a war for oil. It wasn't, and hasn't been thus far. But to now saw pay us back in oil may be percieved as villianous by Iraq. Maybe not but that would sure be a 'see I told ya so' for those such as AlQ and Iran to hold up in the face of Iraqis.
As stated we are there now at the request of the Iraqi government. And Crockers testimony outlines that structure. It is justifiable now in my mind that Iraq not only be taking the financial responsibility they are now, but that it increase as it understood to be increasing now. Money, not oil directly is resonable and is being recieved as we speak. It appears that the Democrats are attempting to take credit themselves for the work of a General that ast September they worked to discredit. They are counting on most people NOT viewing Petreaus' testimony and counting on the Genral never speaking up about thier 'new proposal' actually being his currently implemented work.
It is discussed at about time marker 13:30 in the clip labeled 'Gen. David Petraeus, Multinational Force Iraq Commander' under the main heading of 'Watch the Entire Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing ' at C-Span's web site. http://www.c-span.org/special/iraq2008.asp
It should be a direct concern and priority to those wishing to informed about what is ACTUALLY going on in Iraq and HOW it is acomplished to view the Petreaus testimony. Operation Iraqi Freedom is far more important then Barracks preacher or Hillary's repeated lies. To discuss this subject without having this information is to speak from an uninformed position. MUCH of what has been debated on this forum is covered there. If you feel this is an important issue then view the testimony.
About re-embusment, it was demonized as a war for oil by the same people that are now proposing that it actually become a war for oil. It wasn't, and hasn't been thus far. But to now saw pay us back in oil may be percieved as villianous by Iraq. Maybe not but that would sure be a 'see I told ya so' for those such as AlQ and Iran to hold up in the face of Iraqis.
As stated we are there now at the request of the Iraqi government. And Crockers testimony outlines that structure. It is justifiable now in my mind that Iraq not only be taking the financial responsibility they are now, but that it increase as it understood to be increasing now. Money, not oil directly is resonable and is being recieved as we speak. It appears that the Democrats are attempting to take credit themselves for the work of a General that ast September they worked to discredit. They are counting on most people NOT viewing Petreaus' testimony and counting on the Genral never speaking up about thier 'new proposal' actually being his currently implemented work.
The article is no longer on the link, but there is a reason we have not been able to squeeze any oil out of Iraq so far...
They blow up the pipelines every time we fix them. They will not let us have their oil and I doubt the party that wants it makes any difference to them.
The pipelines that run to the south are constantly exploding, and the only other pipeline runs into Syria. We won't do business with Syria. Trucking it out in tankers is so inefficient you can't make any money doing it that way and you sure can't fly it out.
As long as there is one person in Iraq with explosives and a desire to deprive us of their oil, we will not get any. The political party of the Americans who want the oil will not change a damn thing.
They blow up the pipelines every time we fix them. They will not let us have their oil and I doubt the party that wants it makes any difference to them.
The pipelines that run to the south are constantly exploding, and the only other pipeline runs into Syria. We won't do business with Syria. Trucking it out in tankers is so inefficient you can't make any money doing it that way and you sure can't fly it out.
As long as there is one person in Iraq with explosives and a desire to deprive us of their oil, we will not get any. The political party of the Americans who want the oil will not change a damn thing.
It is still there. It not an article though, it is video of the testimony. You may not have a media player that can see it. Try RealPlayer. It seems to work on most media formats.
Iraq is currently exporting oil BTW. At a rate equal to that before our invasion. Iraq's average production for February was 2.4 million barrels per day. Exports averaged 1.93 million barrels per day during that month.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/29/africa/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Exports.php
Again, to discuss the subject without information..........
Iraq is currently exporting oil BTW. At a rate equal to that before our invasion. Iraq's average production for February was 2.4 million barrels per day. Exports averaged 1.93 million barrels per day during that month.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/29/africa/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Exports.php
Again, to discuss the subject without information..........
If export is up and running again, that's great, but it is a very recent development and we'll see how long it lasts...
What do you mean "again"? I have never discussed anything with you that I recall, Bruxley.
Also, about 2/3rds of the article you posted a link to discusses continuing attacks on the pipeline system. I would say that you have supported my assertion that attacks on the Iraqi oil infrastructure are still a big issue.
What do you mean "again"? I have never discussed anything with you that I recall, Bruxley.
Also, about 2/3rds of the article you posted a link to discusses continuing attacks on the pipeline system. I would say that you have supported my assertion that attacks on the Iraqi oil infrastructure are still a big issue.
toybox99615
New member
oil sales revenue uses
OK oil is being sold by Iraq to someone. It is fair to believe it is not being given away so there has to be some revenue coming in. Where is it going? Its their oil, their pipeline and their profits. When do they get to pay for the cost associated with protecting it? Given the past history of the Iraq official to line their pockets and abandon thier country when they accumulate a few million in a bank out of the country I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect some accounting for the oil revenues.
2 million barrels a day in sales has to be generating a fair amount of money some place in all this mess. Buy we never seem to hear about the money or what Iraq is doing with it. Meanwhile we sure have no problem funding everything they Iraq army needs using American dollars.
OK oil is being sold by Iraq to someone. It is fair to believe it is not being given away so there has to be some revenue coming in. Where is it going? Its their oil, their pipeline and their profits. When do they get to pay for the cost associated with protecting it? Given the past history of the Iraq official to line their pockets and abandon thier country when they accumulate a few million in a bank out of the country I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect some accounting for the oil revenues.
2 million barrels a day in sales has to be generating a fair amount of money some place in all this mess. Buy we never seem to hear about the money or what Iraq is doing with it. Meanwhile we sure have no problem funding everything they Iraq army needs using American dollars.