Why are we in Iraq?

Yeah, saying crap like that "Americans killed 50,000 Iraqis" when the troops are deployed and fighting for our freedoms IS traitorous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. It's the truth, and the first amendment is one of the freedoms that those troops are fighting for.

Deal with it. Once upon a time, that'd have been frowned upon. But I suppose the troops will also get the same welcome home they got after Vietnam, too, from ungrateful people who call them murderers for doing their job.
Click to expand...

Not likely. In my experience even the anti-war protesters (at least a vast majority of them) are just as thankful and respectful as guys like you. Most seem to have learned from Vietnam, and no longer blame individual soldiers for the poor policy decisions made by our leadership.
 
First of all, we are not over there fighting for our freedoms. We are losing our freedom at home while our soldiers are being killed in a war for OIL.

Second, I didn't say that out soldiers are murderers, I said one american is a murderer. The troops are just following orders. The same man who killed the 50,000 iraqis is the same one that has killed 3000+ of our own.
 
If we are fighting for oil, then why are the troops busy trying to stop insurgents from killing Iraqi civilians while the oil fields all lie wrecked and unguarded?

If that were true, which it's not, we'd leave Baghdad to go to hell and build defenses around the oilfields, and get those up and running. We haven't. We're not.

Therefore, that entire argument is false.

Second, I didn't say that out soldiers are murderers, I said one american is a murderer. The troops are just following orders. The same man who killed the 50,000 iraqis is the same one that has killed 3000+ of our own.
Click to expand...

You mean the guy who has been in charge while we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11, but lots of plots have been intercepted? That guy?
 
If we are fighting for oil, then why are the troops busy trying to stop insurgents from killing Iraqi civilians while the oil fields all lie wrecked and unguarded?

If that were true, which it's not, we'd leave Baghdad to go to hell and build defenses around the oilfields, and get those up and running. We haven't. We're not.

Therefore, that entire argument is false.
Click to expand...

Actually, we would need a fairly stable government in charge of the country in order for them to reliably sell us the oil...which would require establishing some semblance of security at least in their major cities and especially in the capital.

Not that I agree with his argument...oil was a factor in our decision to attack Iraq, but not by any means the only reason.
 
You really think the oil is unguarded? Back it up. I don't believe that.

We started to build a pipeline through Afghanistan weeks after it was invaded. We are pushing the Iraqi puppet government hard on this new oil law.

I backed up my claims, now you can back up yours.

You mean the guy who has been in charge while we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11, but lots of plots have been intercepted? That guy?
Click to expand...

We haven't been attacked because we are destroying ourselves through this war. OBL has said his strategy is to destroy the US economy by keeping us in a war we can never win. We haven't been attacked because it would be pointless to waste money doing it now. They can kill us much easier when we're over there.
 
If it were a war for oil, we could just let the civil war destroy the cities, build bases and have a neat little empire with guarded oil fields. What do we need with their cities full of people and factions? Why not let them destroy themselves, if we only want oil?

But the troops ARE in harm's way trying to stop the insurgents and ensure democracy. If it was just about the oil....we could let them all kill themselves, and just take it.

Instead, we're trying something more noble. It is NOT just about the oil.
 
Wow Manedwolf, you have been brainwashed very well.

Juan already explained that we need a stable government to take their oil.


ensure democracy
Click to expand...
How do you ensure democracy in Iraq when you prop up a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? You don't, you keep the government that gives you oil.
 
Yeah, saying crap like that "Americans killed 50,000 Iraqis" when the troops are deployed and fighting for our freedoms IS traitorous.
Click to expand...
That would make sense if they were fighting for our freedoms. They're not. No Iraqi insurgent is on his way to America to take away your guns or keep you from going to church.
 
If it were a war for oil, we could just let the civil war destroy the cities, build bases and have a neat little empire with guarded oil fields. What do we need with their cities full of people and factions? Why not let them destroy themselves, if we only want oil?

But the troops ARE in harm's way trying to stop the insurgents and ensure democracy. If it was just about the oil....we could let them all kill themselves, and just take it.

Instead, we're trying something more noble. It is NOT just about the oil.
Click to expand...

I doubt we'd have fun trying to "take" their oilfields. At least not in the way you seem to be suggeseting. Look how much trouble we're having now, and we're supposedly just trying to install some form of representative government run by Iraqis. Do you think the Iraqis that were left, or other Muslims in the region, would be particularly cooperative if we actually tried to lay claim to Iraq, or any portion thereof?

EDIT: You are correct, though, that it isn't just about oil. But I'm pretty sure oil is a major factor.
 
"Did I wander onto DU by accident?"

No, you came here on purpose. Remember, we used to talk about firearms before the invasion of the argumentabots. ;)

John
 
No, you came here on purpose. Remember, we used to talk about firearms before the invasion of the argumentabots. ;)
Click to expand...

And still do in the roughly 19 or so other subforums on TFL. And in firearms-related threads here in L&P.
 
"Juan already explained that we need a stable government to take their oil."

Yes, but then he went and shot that all the pieces... "You are correct, though, that it isn't just about oil. But I'm pretty sure oil is a major factor."

Pretty sure? That's it? Should I check back tomorrow in case you change your mind again?

Hey, I like to argue too. Can I play?

You know, I never stopped to count the subforums on TFL. That's good to know. Are you certain about the number or do I need to count them myself?

John
 
How exactly is taking something from the SOLE cause to only a MAJOR cause is any way a retraction ("shot it all to pieces").

It was simply a statement reflecting a complicated situation.

Black, white... there are even those out there with rose colored glasses. Of course they need to be restrained.
 
It's very simple. First it was all about oil, then it wasn't all about oil.


Not a stable government to take their oil and save the Kurds and keep Saddam from attacking Iran again or Kuwait again, but "to take their oil"

Then it was "You are correct, though, that it isn't just about oil. But I'm pretty sure oil is a major factor."

I'll trade reading lessons for ammo.

John
 
John.. I took the time to reread it.

The statements "it was a war for oil" and "it isn't all about the oil" aren't mutually exclusive.

The first is simply an oversimplification of the issue. That simplification originated from the administration.

It's just nuance. It's a good thing to understand.
 
Well I'm not talking about why they are blowing each other up in Pakistan, I'm talking about why they are attacking America. Islam does only allow killing in self defense but like all religions the message gets misinterpreted or changed by the followers of it.[/QUOTE


Sure you were, you said
FYI Islam only allows for killing in self defense.
Click to expand...

There are Muslims all over the world, besides the ones attacking the U.S., and the ones in Pakistan are probably the most important as far as keeping an eye on their actions.
97% of Pakistan is Muslim and they aren't blowing themselves up in self defense. Most of the violence here is secular. There is anti-west, anti-Musharraf violence, but it is small compared to the secular violence that occurs. The majority of the violence in the cities is secular; it's probably close to a 50/50 split in the tribal areas.
I'll agree that it's a distorted interpretation, but it is the current interpretation being taught worldwide; and Pakistan likes to export it's anti-western violence. The suicide bomber is fairly new here. They used to be reserved for export; as of late they are being used domestically.
Click to expand...
 
As to oil... does the United States have any other strategic interest in the Middle East? I can't think of one, unless we're importing large quantities of Saudi sand to convert into silicon for IC production.

Let's be honest, here. Were it not for the fact that we are dependent on rotting dinosaurs to make our entire economy function, we would have no involvement in the Middle East at all. We'd have thrown Israel under the bus decades ago, the House of Saud would never have gotten a dime, Pervez Musharref's neck would have ended up under a sword, and nobody on this side of the Atlantic would give a tinker's damn.

Wars are about the control of land and resources. Either taking them, or preventing them from being taken. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single counterexample.

As to victory in Iraq... it's an illusion. We could not prevent the civil war, nor can we effectively control it. A country which was created and held together by the iron fist is flying apart after that fist is removed. And we're surprised by this? Each of the factions over there is fighting not for the Iraqi state, but for control of that state. Well, the Kurds seem to be holding on to their own, and letting the Sunnis and Shiites beat hell out of each other for control of the areas they (the Kurds) don't want anyway, but that's not really where the problem is.

Al Queda's role in all of this is pretty small. Iraq is not consuming any significant amount of the non-Iraqi organization's attention or resources. "Al-Queda in Iraq" is an indigenous Iraqi Sunni group, that aligned itself with OBL and AAZ for the same reasons that Ho Chi Minh went to the Soviets and Chinese... Because they had guns and money and a willingness to spend them to harm us. Much like our support of the Mujaheddin in Afganistan. If we left, the flow of support from Al-Queda to Iraqi partisans would likely dry up, because I doubt very much that Osama Bin Laden cares who controls Iraq. His enemies are us, Israel, and the House of Saud. If it doesn't hurt his enemies, it doesn't help his cause.

And even if we killed every Al-Queda member in Iraq tomorrow, that wouldn't stop the civil war. There's still a country to be won, and plenty of folks who think they can win it.

None of that is our fight. We can make our deals with the winners. You can't eat oil, and we still buy more of it than anyone else. Yes, that throws the Iraqis under the bus. If I were an Iraqi, I'd care. But I'm an American, and I simply don't see any way in which our continued presence there furthers American interests.

As to "freedom"... that's a nonsensical argument. Nothing that is happening in Iraq is a threat to my freedom. How is my freedom affected by who ends up ruling Iraq? The willingness of my brothers and sisters who still wear the uniform to serve and sacrifice for our country serves all of our freedom. That is true in war and in peace. The mission they have been given in Iraq does not, at least not that I can see. That is the fault of the leaders, not the men and women who carry out the leaders' orders. The blame for a fool's errand belongs with the fool, not with the errand-boys.

If the real, non-symbolic consequences (to us, not the Iraqis) of our leaving are not demonstrably worse than the consequences of staying, we leave. I have seen no evidence at all that this is the case. If I'm right, than all of the blood and treasure we have poured into the sand has been wasted. I really wish I didn't believe that, but I do.

Sadly,
--Shannon
 
Iraq is bad. Very VERY bad. We need to get the hell out and let them be....they are going to continue to fight after we're gone anyway, why lose more of our kids? NO MORE IRAQ!

FACT......IRAN HAS THE NUMBER ONE LARGEST MILITARY FORCE IN THE WORLD.

BUT, lets just be thankful 'ol "G-dub" doesn't plan to invade Iran! Have you folks ever taken a look at Iran's military? It is HUGE and just as advanced as we are. THAT is a terrifying thought........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top