If the wars In Iraq are really about Oil, then...?

[Konstantium]

Then how can we say soldiers overseas are fighting for our freedom? We are safe in the UsA freedom has been here for a while now, no one is taking that away from us! So how are soldiers in Iraq fighting for our freedom? Not trying to be smart, just trying to be realistic.

[Turtle Hammer]

I see you've mastered the art of opening cans of worms. The opperation was called "Iraqi Freedom", I think we can infer from that the intention (at least on paper) to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The WMD claims were suprious, and so far, I haven't noticed much in the way of us plundering their oil, although to be honest, if we had I'm sure it would've been done on the sly. Maybe I missed something as I've not heard much about Iraq except the insurgency and civil disorder and I haven't felt terribly inclined to delve back into it, as it isn't that current.

This thread should provoke some intresting responses though...

[Konstantium]

Aside from the definition of "Iraqi Freedom", our views of our soldier isn't what it may have used to be. Blaming this for the wars being foreign everytime. But how much sense does it actually make to say Soldiers in Iraq/Afghan are fighting for our freedom? I see stupid mothers brainwashed and now everyone is fighting for our freedom. When they are in fact fighting by the command of politicians which decisions are usually constructed around there budgets and profits, not our freedom escaping us. Libyan soldiers are more of on a "freedom fight" along with USA, civil war for the benefits of Africans. It seems like people are expected to go to war and fight for a cause they know nothing about. The moms will stay home and say there hero is fighting for your freedom? Now, I admit being a soldier is very tough, VERY tough. Being in a war is extreme pressure, but they are fighting on a voice not of their own but rather an order. They are instructed to do as job as they are/ meanwhile USA Freedom within it's borders remains protected.

Afgani: Our goal now is to win over the rural population so they will back our efforts and support the Afghan government. We are currently there to help the newly established Afghan government eliminate the remaining insurgent fighters who are taking refuge in the mountainous region of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Al Qaeda's base of operations is in that area and we frequently bomb their targets with unmanned aircraft. The Taliban currently funds itself through the drug trade and maintains a presence in rural Afghanistan and receives a lot of support from the Pakistani Taliban in the border region. Until recently,Pakistan has not cooperated in helping us eliminate those insurgents. Since the Afghan government can easily be toppled by the Taliban after we leave,we are there to insure that does not happen so terrorists cannot plan attacks there. Is AMERICAS FREEDOM AT RISK HERE? Nope.

Iraq: Our president and our politicians believed there were nuclear,chemical and biological weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq. So we invaded. It was based on faulty evidence,lack of proper judgment and failure to understand the Iraqi people. Once the government disappeared and we placed a new one,sectarian violence and civil war conditions emerged. Different religious factions such as Shiites and Sunnis began killing each other and our troops. International terrorist organizations began to emerge in Iraq,which is the exact opposite of what we wanted.We took the help of local tribes and initiated a troop surge to crush the insurgents and now,Iraq is relatively stable but our troops are still there to insure the government is capable of protecting its own country from the insurgents and terrorist operatives.Once they are confident the Iraqi Military can handle the rest,we leave by August. Basically, we invaded for a stupid reason,but continue to stay for a damned cause. We took responsibility for our actions. Is AMERICAS freedom at risk here? No

Over thousands of USA troops killed to HELP the hanging Gardens at Baghdad and same with the warlords of Afghani. Maybe some will say, well they could come here and try to kill us. They never have, nor will so why now? Plus we have big missles and technology for that.

[Shneckie]

Aside from the definition of "Iraqi Freedom", our views of our soldier isn't what it may have used to be. Blaming this for the wars being foreign everytime. But how much sense does it actually make to say Soldiers in Iraq/Afghan are fighting for our freedom? I see stupid mothers brainwashed and now everyone is fighting for our freedom. When they are in fact fighting by the command of politicians which decisions are usually constructed around there budgets and profits, not our freedom escaping us. Libyan soldiers are more of on a "freedom fight" along with USA, civil war for the benefits of Africans. It seems like people are expected to go to war and fight for a cause they know nothing about. The moms will stay home and say there hero is fighting for your freedom? Now, I admit being a soldier is very tough, VERY tough. Being in a war is extreme pressure, but they are fighting on a voice not of their own but rather an order. They are instructed to do as job as they are/ meanwhile USA Freedom within it's borders remains protected.

Afgani: Our goal now is to win over the rural population so they will back our efforts and support the Afghan government. We are currently there to help the newly established Afghan government eliminate the remaining insurgent fighters who are taking refuge in the mountainous region of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Al Qaeda's base of operations is in that area and we frequently bomb their targets with unmanned aircraft. The Taliban currently funds itself through the drug trade and maintains a presence in rural Afghanistan and receives a lot of support from the Pakistani Taliban in the border region. Until recently,Pakistan has not cooperated in helping us eliminate those insurgents. Since the Afghan government can easily be toppled by the Taliban after we leave,we are there to insure that does not happen so terrorists cannot plan attacks there. Is AMERICAS FREEDOM AT RISK HERE? Nope.

Iraq: Our president and our politicians believed there were nuclear,chemical and biological weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq. So we invaded. It was based on faulty evidence,lack of proper judgment and failure to understand the Iraqi people. Once the government disappeared and we placed a new one,sectarian violence and civil war conditions emerged. Different religious factions such as Shiites and Sunnis began killing each other and our troops. International terrorist organizations began to emerge in Iraq,which is the exact opposite of what we wanted.We took the help of local tribes and initiated a troop surge to crush the insurgents and now,Iraq is relatively stable but our troops are still there to insure the government is capable of protecting its own country from the insurgents and terrorist operatives.Once they are confident the Iraqi Military can handle the rest,we leave by August. Basically, we invaded for a stupid reason,but continue to stay for a damned cause. We took responsibility for our actions. Is AMERICAS freedom at risk here? No

Over thousands of USA troops killed to HELP the hanging Gardens at Baghdad and same with the warlords of Afghani. Maybe some will say, well they could come here and try to kill us. They never have, nor will so why now? Plus we have big missles and technology for that.

Here it is, Afghanistan and Iraq together again. Don't draw Afghanistan into an Iraq discussion or vice versa, leads to a right mish mash.

I don't understand though. You conclude that America's freedom is not at risk, implying that Iraq was invaded in the interests of American freedom, however you acknowledge that Iraq was invaded on the pretence that it possessed WMD's?

[Konstantium]

Here it is, Afghanistan and Iraq together again. Don't draw Afghanistan into an Iraq discussion or vice versa, leads to a right mish mash.

I don't understand though. You conclude that America's freedom is not at risk, implying that Iraq was invaded in the interests of American freedom, however you acknowledge that Iraq was invaded on the pretence that it possessed WMD's?

Afghan and Iraq are not together. I labelled them both differently with my opinion. I'm arguing about when people say our soldiers(IN IRAQ and AFGHAN) are fighting for our freedom? When they are not. Can someone show me how our soldiers in Iraq and Afghani our fighting for "Americans freedom" Please?

[justicar5]

I see you've mastered the art of opening cans of worms. The opperation was called "Iraqi Freedom", I think we can infer from that the intention (at least on paper) to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The WMD claims were suprious, and so far, I haven't noticed much in the way of us plundering their oil, although to be honest, if we had I'm sure it would've been done on the sly. Maybe I missed something as I've not heard much about Iraq except the insurgency and civil disorder and I haven't felt terribly inclined to delve back into it, as it isn't that current.

This thread should provoke some intresting responses though...

It didn't give the US direct control of the iraqi oil reserves, it did however put them in the hands of a puppet, one who wouldn't cut off supply.

[Cooraan]

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/arch...ilfromiraq.php

Here are the facts:

• The U.S. gets less oil today from Iraq than before 9/11
• The largest source of crude oil for the United States is the United States
• Iraq has never represented more than 4.5% of crude oil used in the United States
• The United States' dependence on foreign oil has increased, but the amount of oil from the Persian Gulf has decreased

[xcorps]

It didn't give the US direct control of the iraqi oil reserves, it did however put them in the hands of a puppet, one who wouldn't cut off supply.

Please stop posting lies. The number of contracts awarded to US companies vs non US companies clearly contradicts statements like this. US companies have not done as well as Russian or Chinese companies. Contracts were awarded to various European companies that US companies bid for. US companies through December have not received any royalty based contracts, unlike 2 Russian companies. Most US contracts are for Phase II and Phase III drilling, but not production.

I'm not going to source this again. Google it.

[Darth Red]

I have moved this to the Acedemy as it's not really a current event. This topic has been discussed quite extensively multiple times but I'll give this thread a chance for now.

[Gelgoog]

The only ones who ever said we invaded Iraq for oil were idiotic hippie protesters like those code pink lunatics. So far places like china get more oil from Iraq then the US does.....so yeah......>_>

[Konstantium]

Aside from the oil. We are there for different reasons. So can a ignorant women still say my husband is fighting for your freedom? Our freedom is right here lady.

[Border Patrol]

The fighting for freedom thing is propaganda. And not very good propaganda. I'm surprised anybody bought that at all.
But they're right, the war wasn't exactly about oil. I'm not sure what that was over, but if I had to guess, I would say it was because the American people were ver, very angry at brown people.

[Gelgoog]

The fighting for freedom thing is propaganda. And not very good propaganda. I'm surprised anybody bought that at all.
But they're right, the war wasn't exactly about oil. I'm not sure what that was over, but if I had to guess, I would say it was because the American people were ver, very angry at brown people.

It was about regional stability. Stability= prosperity for US interests and business. We went into Iraq because it had been a sore spot since the gulf war and a continual threat to regional stability. So we decided to topple a dictator who continued to violate weapon inspections, and UN sanctions. The war was sold to the world as fighting for freedom, but just like every war in history, it was fought to protect our interests.

Nobody devotes those kind of resources into launching a major war unless there is some benefit for them. For stuff nobody cares about like the genocide in darfur, you get a token UN gesture of sending a few troops and relief aid in.

[Blaze86420]

Operation Iraqi freedom had nothing to do with freedom at all. American policy in the middle east, especially in Iraq and Iran, has been one of the most disgraceful in modern history.

[Gelgoog]

Operation Iraqi freedom had nothing to do with freedom at all. American policy in the middle east, especially in Iraq and Iran, have been one of the most disgraceful in modern history.

whats our policy in iran?

and how does our policy differ from any other occupation? or how is it worse to put another question at you? Name me one occupation that went better in recent history to make our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq the most disgraceful in modern history?

Because I can name you a lot of countries where they went much much worse.

[Blaze86420]

whats our policy in iran?

and how does our policy differ from any other occupation? or how is it worse to put another question at you? Name me one occupation that went better in recent history to make our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq the most disgraceful in modern history?

Because I can name you a lot of countries where they went much much worse.

The US was responsible for the rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and also guaranteeing his regime's survival. They supplied the chemical weapons that were used against the same Kurds they claimed to care about. They got rid of Mosaddegh in Iran and returned the Shah to power. Once that didn't work, they made a call to Saddam and encouraged him to start a war with Iran. The US has the blood of more than a million on its hands, yet it had the guts to starve a population for a decade then invade and massacre thousands based on the pretext of "liberating" the country.

People don't give a damn about the sufferings of a nation thousands of kilometers away as long as it puts food on the table. I don't care about whether another country would have the same or not, I've had tons of apologetics use the same argument. Hell, at least the British and French had the decency to admit they were imperialists.

[Imperial]

T yet it had the guts to starve a population for a decade then invade and massacre thousands based on the pretext of "liberating" the country.

LIES!!!!!!!!

We went there to steal oil.

*looks outside to see rising gas prices*

...I think

[Gelgoog]

The US was responsible for the rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and also guaranteeing his regime's survival. They supplied the chemical weapons that were used against the same Kurds they claimed to care about. They got rid of Mosaddegh in Iran and returned the Shah to power. Once that didn't work, they made a call to Saddam and encouraged him to start a war with Iran. The US has the blood of more than a million on its hands, yet it had the guts to starve a population for a decade then invade and massacre thousands based on the pretext of "liberating" the country.

People don't give a damn about the sufferings of a nation thousands of kilometers away as long as it puts food on the table. I don't care about whether another country would have the same or not, I've had tons of apologetics use the same argument. Hell, at least the British and French had the decency to admit they were imperialists.

A) saddam offered us something we wanted= geopolitical interests...all countries act in their own interests.

B) we never encouraged saddam to invade Iran. The two countries had been feuding with eachother for a long time. When the Ayatollah came into power he encouraged uprisings in Iraq to overthrow saddam. So when the Iran regime purged most of its military leadership much the same way stalin did then Saddam saw how militarily weakened they were (just like hitler) and attacked.

C) US support for Iraq only came after the Iranians started attacking all foreign Oil tankers in the region and disrupting supply lines for the rest of the world. So the US moved in to protect the tankers and firmly backed Saddam who was the lesser of two evils at the time.

D) The US did not starve the Iraqi people via blockades, that was done purely by the hands a saddam, just like those starving in north korea. When your a mad dictator who would rather buy weapons then food for your people, that is not the fault of those trying to keep you in check.

E) just like any major power the US does what is in its best interest. You can try to demonize us, but every country does it and some do it more because they have the power to get away with it. The US is not without its flaws, but for as much power and influence as it does have, we are much better than any major power who has come before. Afterall the last 50 years have been the most prosperous time in history with the US at the helm.

[Blaze86420]

A) saddam offered us something we wanted= geopolitical interests...all countries act in their own interests.

Yeah, and apparently setting a whole region on fire is fine as long as it serves their interests. At least we agree that the US is a shameless Imperialist state. Just don't be surprised when another 9/11 occurs, when you demolish enough homes someone might just be pissed off enough to go for yours.

B) we never encouraged saddam to invade Iran. The two countries had been feuding with eachother for a long time. When the Ayatollah came into power he encouraged uprisings in Iraq to overthrow saddam. So when the Iran regime purged most of its military leadership much the same way stalin did then Saddam saw how militarily weakened they were (just like hitler) and attacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

C) US support for Iraq only came after the Iranians started attacking all foreign Oil tankers in the region and disrupting supply lines for the rest of the world. So the US moved in to protect the tankers and firmly backed Saddam who was the lesser of two evils at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ry_involvement

Iraq started the Tanker War, and to suggest that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils is despicable to say the least.

D) The US did not starve the Iraqi people via blockades, that was done purely by the hands a saddam, just like those starving in north korea. When your a mad dictator who would rather buy weapons then food for your people, that is not the fault of those trying to keep you in check.

Thats what happens when you unleash a mad dog, the US should have though of that before. Saddam was never Iraq's leader, and they were never his people. He's a puppet turned rogue due to ambition.

E) just like any major power the US does what is in its best interest. You can try to demonize us, but every country does it and some do it more because they have the power to get away with it.

Like I said, I couldn't care less what other countries would have or not have done in its place. I'm so sick of hearing this argument, what if people used the same excuse when it came to war crimes or the Geneva convention? I mean, hell, everyone is raping and looting we might as well be doing it too!

The US is not without its flaws, but for as much power and influence as it does have, we are much better than any major power who has come before.

Hardly, the US is just as bad as Britain and France.

Afterall the last 50 years have been the most prosperous time in history with the US at the helm.

Thats such a stupid thing to say. I might as well be comparing the British empire's wealth to Rome's and using that as a basis for such argument. Civilizations advance over time, regardless of who happens to be the dominant power at the time. The last 50 years could have been just as prosperous had it been under any other power's domination.

[Mr. Scott]

Then how can we say soldiers overseas are fighting for our freedom? We are safe in the UsA freedom has been here for a while now, no one is taking that away from us! So how are soldiers in Iraq fighting for our freedom? Not trying to be smart, just trying to be realistic.

China, Russia, and even France all have more claims to Iraqi oil than the US. The oil going into the US from iraq didn't really change when comparing pre and post invasion periods.