the iraq war

**harm** · December 22, 2006, 03:59 AM

What are everyones thoughts on the Iraq war?

**imb39** · December 22, 2006, 04:16 AM

Would you care to give some aspect to focus on?

My personal issues are:
1) We were lied to over the war.
2) It's about oil.
3) Given the hundreds that die every month, it has been an abject failure - not even Saddam would have killed as many as have been killed in Iraq.
4) It's about oil.
5) Both America's and Britains reputations have gone through the mud.
6) It's about oil.
7) We've made both ourselves and that region more vulnerable to terrorism.
8) It's about oil.
9) A brilliant campaign to destroy the Iraqi fighting machine with as bad a campaign of winning the peace as can be possibly done.
10) It's about oil.
11) I've maintained that we need to stay until the 'job is done,' having created the mess that Iraq is in. I am now not so sure.
12) It's about oil.
13) A ridiculous waste of human lives, money and resources.
14) It's about oil.
15) The men who made the decisions have no honour. Both administrations should have resigned due to the debacle. It wouldn't have solved anything, but at least some honour would have been salvaged.
16) It's about oil.
17) Britain has been America's lapdog. Both we and America need to learn that REAL friends will criticise us when we are in the wrong and not simply walk around joining in unnecessary fights.
18) It's about oil.
19) Not only have we wrecked Iraq's infrastructure we have been revoltingly negligent over Afghantistan. All the resources that have gone into Iraq should have gone into Afghantistan first. That was our top priority and always should have been.
20) Afghanistan has no oil; revenge was meeted out. It's about oil.

Some thoughts. I'm not sure if there is a theme or not... What would be interesting is, would the 'Coalition of the Willing', aka The Firm, have bothered if there was no oil. After all, Darfur gets scant attention. There is also a war brewing between Somalia and Ethiopia. But the only 'black gold' you will find there is of the human variety - not so precious to us in the West... (except when using rhetoric, of course).

**harm** · December 22, 2006, 04:22 AM

hmm. How about 16.

**Your Lame Sister** · December 22, 2006, 04:44 AM

hmmm, I dont think it was about oil. i think bush was just trying to make his mark in history as the "enemy of dictators". he failed, obviously, and now he needs to fix it.

**llama_attack** · December 22, 2006, 04:51 AM

Of course it was about oil! Oil may not be the only reason, but it certainly was part of it. That and finishing what daddy started...

Wasn't there something about WMDs as well, or is that evil liberal propaganda?

**imb39** · December 22, 2006, 04:54 AM

So, you want to focus about oil?

Well, it's this black gloopy stuff. Iraq, it appears, has some of the largest reserves of this liquid and it's highly prized for its ability to warm the atmoshpere - it does other things too, but they are by products.

The West, in particular, has always been scared of ice ages and so has gone out of it's collective way to remedy the problem. Iraq falls into this.

Apparently there were also stories that Iraq was about to change it's pricing from dollars to euros and if that happened, it was likely that others might do the same. Clearly, this is not in America's (and therefore, Britain's) interests.

Oh, Saddam had lots of weapons of mass destruction. The West, justifiably, felt threatened. So, in an effort to secure it's further hegemony, it took him out, sacked the police and army and attempted to run a generally hostioe population (no one likes foreigners running their country, not even the enlightened Coalition of the Willing) with a pitiful amount of troops. Now, in normal circumstances this might be simply difficult, but with the 'War on Terror' (yes, that oxymoron is still bandied about in some circles, I am sure) it was foolish in the extreme. Apparantly Bush and Blair felt that the Iraqi's would prostrate themselves, mass convert to Puritanism and launch a holy crusade on Byzantium.

**Your Lame Sister** · December 22, 2006, 04:54 AM

of course oil had contributed something to the decision, but i don't think it was 'the' reason behind bush's decision.

**turd** · December 22, 2006, 05:06 AM

what do i think of it?
i think most people have no scope of geopolitics.
presenting evidence a:

you figure it out

**Last Roman** · December 24, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by turd

what do i think of it?
i think most people have no scope of geopolitics.
presenting evidence a:

you figure it out

I don't think Bush had any plans to attack Iran directly, but having (this was the plan anyways) two American-friendly (ie, propped) governments around the country would make it less dangerous or at the very least, have less influence in the Middle East.

**Your Lame Sister** · December 22, 2006, 05:50 AM

maybe i'm an idiot, but i don't get it. care to explain, turd?

**llama_attack** · December 22, 2006, 05:55 AM

Don't get it I'm afraid, Unless its a map of places the US is involved in

**harm** · December 22, 2006, 06:10 AM

It's the double gang bang. Iran and Afghanistan are on both sides of Iran. So, he believes Iran will be easier to rape when it's surrounded.

The blue one on the far left is the oldest lady that never gets much play (Israel). She's just watching most of the time, until the end when the circle jerk is preformed.

**Your Lame Sister** · December 22, 2006, 07:00 AM

and what does that got to do with iraq?

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · December 22, 2006, 07:07 AM

US takes Iraq and Afghanistan (left and right shaded parts), therefore can easily enter Iran in two places. Think WW2 and the two fronts, and how that worked out.

**Your Lame Sister** · December 22, 2006, 07:13 AM

well, that might have been ANOTHER reason to attack, but not the main reason.

**King Sakkeus** · December 22, 2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Your Lame Sister

well, that might have been ANOTHER reason to attack, but not the main reason.

Indeed, the oil, putting pressure on Iran, easing the pressure on Israel, WMD's, terrorism and most likely gazillion of other stuff all contributed to the desicion to invade.
However none of those are alone responcible and I think that THE REASON why Iraq was invaded does not exist at all. It was the combination of many reasons, true or false.

**imb39** · December 22, 2006, 02:45 PM

The terrorism one is totally and utterly false. It is preposterous to link it with the invasion now - even though it was a key reason at the time, or so it seemed to me.

**AmeriBriton** · December 22, 2006, 03:02 PM

So we didn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction, but President Hussein did have them at some time. What he did with them? We may never know.

The mission has changed since the first US Military units entered Iraq.

We freed a common people from a Dictator who ruled with an iron fist. To say that operations in Iraq are only for oil is just plain stupid. If you live in the United States, and drive a motor vehicle, then you would know that gas prices are insanely high. $2.41 or more a gallon and our troops are in Iraq for oil?

Many Iraqis over there hate us, some love us and some don't really mind. The majority of the problems are coming from the people who were once in control of the country and are too ignorant and power hungry to let someone else have power for a short period of time.

When an American Soldier says he is defending Freedom, he is not only talking about the United States, he is talking about Freedom all over the world.

Opinions from an American Veteran,

thanks.

**Sher Khan** · December 22, 2006, 03:40 PM