- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It is funny how many posters are confusing 1990-91 with 2003. Cheney's interview concerns the later, not the former. Saddam wasn't a "threat to the flow" in 03.The line libs use is we wanted to take over Iraq oil when the truth was we wanted to protect the flow of oil which we rely on, huge difference.
Of course you condone your country committing immoral acts in your name, as long as YOU get to decide what is moral and immoral.
More evidence that conservatives don't understand democracy, don't like our Constitution, and don't have any moral core.
Our elected government is limited by any number of laws, national and international, which bar certain forms of aggression. Even Bush realized that and had to lie about why he attacked Iraq. But the truth is out now. Applying the law, Bush may be a war criminal.
It is funny how many posters are confusing 1990-91 with 2003. Cheney's interview concerns the later, not the former. Saddam wasn't a "threat to the flow" in 03.
Saddam was always a threat to the oil supply in the mid east, if not at that precise moment then in the future when he waited out the UN and got back to business. Cancer in remission is still a threat.
Saddam was always a threat to the oil supply in the mid east, if not at that precise moment then in the future when he waited out the UN and got back to business. Cancer in remission is still a threat.
The reason for military action against Iraq was spelled out by Cheney's Energy Task Force before the Saudi's attack on 9/11.
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 6, 2002 by Exclusive By Neil Mackay
President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary.
Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on "energy security" from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
"The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."
Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.
The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non- executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20021006/ai_n12580286/
All that just to agree with me?
If your point was that military action was planned in 2002 to get big oil back in Iraq, then yes.
Free flow of oil from the mid east, Saddam threatened it.
" President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary."
One has to wonder why Reagan armed Saddam then. It's as if conservative presidents just do one stupid thing after the next.
Free flow of oil from the mid east, Saddam threatened it.
" President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary."
Saddam was withholding Iraq oil to drive up world prices. You do not believe in property rights? Do you think someone with bigger guns has the right to tell you what you can do with the resources on your property?
Guess you never heard of Iran and the whole hostage thing. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Reagan sent arms to Iran too, remember. Go figure! Then he sent arms to the jihadist in Afghanistan who planned 9-11.
Was there any mortal enemy of the US in the world that Reagan didn't find a reason to send arms to?
The Nicaraguan Rebels for one.
The arms for hostages thing was iffy at best but if you can't appreciate arming the Afghan rebels to keep the soviets from taking the place over you truly are delusional.
Don't f*** with our oil we won't f*** with you.
You sure are a lot more cavalier about sacrificing our young men and women so you can drive a gas guzzler, than most, I'll give you that.
You sure are a lot more cavalier about sacrificing our young men and women so you can drive a gas guzzler, than most, I'll give you that.
National Interest? War and oil or war and soldiers or the price of war. OR reality.
Truthdig - The Last Letter
"I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences. "
Wow, absolutes and bad analogies along with ignoring the real situation in 03. No matter what you believe, he was not threatening "the flow" in 03, you are still confusing one decade for another.Saddam was always a threat to the oil supply in the mid east, if not at that precise moment then in the future when he waited out the UN and got back to business. Cancer in remission is still a threat.
Welcome to geopolitics. Exits from geopolitics are located upon death.
Oil is the life blood of our economy, if you threaten that you have to be dealt with, that is just reality. If you enviros would let us drill our own oil we wouldn't have to be involved in the mid east so you are really the ones cavalier about sacrificing our young men and women. You would rather have wars for oil than drill here.
Wow, absolutes and bad analogies along with ignoring the real situation in 03. No matter what you believe, he was not threatening "the flow" in 03, you are still confusing one decade for another.
The "flow" out of Iraq was the target of the neocons, and they got their wish.....at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and TRILLIONS of US tax dollars, with nearly no benefit to the US.
What you are saying is oil is more important than human life. Sorry, wasn't raised that way.
We have drilled here, and since 1971 our consumption has been greater than our production no matter who was in control of the government. Did you think we could be wasteful forever and not use up our finite supply of affordable oil? We are 4% of the world's population and use 25% of the world's oil. You are just completely ignoring reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?