Iraq and it's Al-Queda problem

[monty16]

Exactly.

I think he was being sarcastic Shady.

No, he 'must' have been trying to be sarcastic. Nobody could be serious and say that Iraq isn't producing at record levels now, as opposed to very low level production prior to the US slaughter of the Iraqi people.

[GostHacked]

It's not about oil. Otherwise, there would be, and have been, an extensive supply chain transporting Iraqi oil to America. That never happened, or is happening. America has received, and is receiving, barely any oil from Iraq. That's a fact.

It was not about the control of the physical oil. It was about controlling the currency Iraqi oil was traded in. Anything other than the petrodollar is a threat to the US and the economy. This is the same reason Libya was taken down.

In the end it is about control in some form or another.

If the US has to buy back petrodollars from countries no longer using the currency, you would see a very fast collapse of the Unites States. So this is what they mean by their 'interests' in the region.

[monty16]

So you need to make a correction or at least a clarification. We would not want to be confused about what you are saying.

Oil was still part of it. Haliburton (oil and infrastructure) and Blackwater (protection for Haliburton) and other companies made a KILLING off Iraq.

Forget Blackwater and Haliburton. That's incidental side beenfits and just show that you don't understand either. The US didn't go to war for private companies and how it would benefit them.

Isn't it about time we had a detailed discussion so that maybe some people would start to understand. Yes, I know your intentions are good but you do damage to the real truth by mentioning Haliburton the the obvious benefit Cheney got out of it. Even I would never accuse the US of being so crass and evil as to go to war and kill millions for Haliburton!

Why is it so fu--ing hard to understand that freeing up Saddam's oil resources, making Iraq produce, and thereby bringing down the world price of oil for the US have-not country, the reason for US meddling throughout the ME?

And then it's pretty obvious that Shady has been caught flatfooted when he says that he's already explained it all! duhhhhhhh!

[monty16]

It was about Saddam Hussein, oil, terrorism, Israel, and the broader Middle East.

O.k. Good! Now let's take any one of those issues and we'll talk about it. Your choice! Take one and explain for us how that one issue was, along with oil, the reason for the Iraq war.

As far as I'm aware there hasn't been anyone who has actually made that kind of proposal/suggestion who has taken the time to get involved in explaining and reasoning it out.

[monty16]

I'm going to continue to strengthen the case for oil until Shady gets off his ass and picks another cause. Here's the start of the re-education:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/12/iraq-targets-45-million-barrels-2014/2415427/

Question: How much was Iraq producing prior to 2003?

[Shady]

It was not about the control of the physical oil. It was about controlling the currency Iraqi oil was traded in. Anything other than the petrodollar is a threat to the US and the economy. This is the same reason Libya was taken down.

In the end it is about control in some form or another.

If the US has to buy back petrodollars from countries no longer using the currency, you would see a very fast collapse of the Unites States. So this is what they mean by their 'interests' in the region.

That's just not true at all. Iraq's economy barely registers a blip on the global radar. America had absolutely nothing to fear from the vaunted Iraqi juggernaut of an economy. That's absurd.

[Shady]

I'm going to continue to strengthen the case for oil until Shady gets off his ass and picks another cause. Here's the start of the re-education:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/12/iraq-targets-45-million-barrels-2014/2415427/

Question: How much was Iraq producing prior to 2003?

And how much oil from Iraq has American gotten since it's so called war for oil?

[Shady]

Forget Blackwater and Haliburton. That's incidental side beenfits and just show that you don't understand either. The US didn't go to war for private companies and how it would benefit them.

Isn't it about time we had a detailed discussion so that maybe some people would start to understand. Yes, I know your intentions are good but you do damage to the real truth by mentioning Haliburton the the obvious benefit Cheney got out of it. Even I would never accuse the US of being so crass and evil as to go to war and kill millions for Haliburton!

Why is it so fu--ing hard to understand that freeing up Saddam's oil resources, making Iraq produce, and thereby bringing down the world price of oil for the US have-not country, the reason for US meddling throughout the ME?

And then it's pretty obvious that Shady has been caught flatfooted when he says that he's already explained it all! duhhhhhhh!

Bringing down the price of oil? What in the world are you talking about?

[GostHacked]

Forget Blackwater and Haliburton. That's incidental side beenfits and just show that you don't understand either. The US didn't go to war for private companies and how it would benefit them.

Right, not sure you can claim that you have all the answers either. If you do, you are no better than I or Shady.

Isn't it about time we had a detailed discussion so that maybe some people would start to understand. Yes, I know your intentions are good but you do damage to the real truth by mentioning Haliburton the the obvious benefit Cheney got out of it. Even I would never accuse the US of being so crass and evil as to go to war and kill millions for Haliburton!

If you want you have the whole forum to browse through for some great discussions on those points.

Why is it so fu--ing hard to understand that freeing up Saddam's oil resources, making Iraq produce, and thereby bringing down the world price of oil for the US have-not country, the reason for US meddling throughout the ME?

The price of oil may go down. But I keep paying more and more at the gas pump. Why?

Because the US gets less than 10% of it's oil from the Middle East. So hardly an impact on the US.

The Deepwater Horizon going down would have a much bigger and a more direct impact to the US.

Because the US had invested in hydraulic fracturing and opening up the Bakken oil fields for exploration. Making them them holding more stockpiles than Saudi Arabia.

The US is now essentially independent when it comes to oil. It could have been independent decades ago. The Bakkan field was discovered in the 1950s. Might as well run the rest of the world run dry before they tap their own resources.

If the Iraq oil was in such demand, the UN oil for food program would not have existed. Iraq was essentially boycotted from selling their oil abroad. OH and then you recall the oil fields that burned and burned and burned. Bringing Iraq to a standstill in terms of producing oil.

I agree with Shady, oil is just a part of it, but I do believe it was a major pillar in the invasion. But in not the ways you would initially think.

[GostHacked]

That's just not true at all. Iraq's economy barely registers a blip on the global radar. America had absolutely nothing to fear from the vaunted Iraqi juggernaut of an economy. That's absurd.

Alright, I get it, that you don't get it. For the fact you still blame Obama for Bush/Cheney's blunders in Iraq which led to the current state see taking place now, which many of us predicted here on this forum.

But then we need to go further back in history for more context. The further back we go, the more the context gets muddied and we have really no idea who the good guys really are.

This is why the media only goes back so far when talking about the current crisis. It makes their view with their context fit their narrative.

[Shady]

Alright, I get it, that you don't get it. For the fact you still blame Obama for Bush/Cheney's blunders in Iraq which led to the current state see taking place now, which many of us predicted here on this forum.

But then we need to go further back in history for more context. The further back we go, the more the context gets muddied and we have really no idea who the good guys really are.

This is why the media only goes back so far when talking about the current crisis. It makes their view with their context fit their narrative.

The fact that I blame (hold accountable) a current president for his recent policy of not keeping a residual force behind is perfectly apt. Especially when he inherited a situation that was signficantly improved. We don't have to go back in history very far. Just to his refusal to negotiate a status of forces agreement. He was warned of the possibly deterioration, but didn't care, for political reasons.

Who else are we to blame for an incompetent, irresponsible, and precipitous withdrawal, reversing all of the progress that was achieved up to that point? Somebody that had no say in that decision? That's absurd.

[GostHacked]

The fact that I blame (hold accountable) a current president for his recent policy of not keeping a residual force behind is perfectly apt.

Yeah but you are also in the same camp that blame Iraq for not getting it's crap together in order to combat this problem.

Especially when he inherited a situation that was signficantly improved. We don't have to go back in history very far. Just to his refusal to negotiate a status of forces agreement. He was warned of the possibly deterioration, but didn't care, for political reasons.

Who else are we to blame for an incompetent, irresponsible, and precipitous withdrawal, reversing all of the progress that was achieved up to that point? Somebody that had no say in that decision? That's absurd.

Mission Accomplished.

[monty16]

Gosthacked:

I agree with Shady, oil is just a part of it, but I do believe it was a major pillar in the invasion. But in not the ways you would initially think.

Good! then you and him can race each other and spill your guts on what other reason there was for the Iraq war. Or, if you prefer, any US meddling in the ME. Suits me either way. And you can even add to shady's list of the other reasons he's stated by coming up with one of your own!

So there's the challenge for you. Name the reason, show something to back it up, anything, and we'll get into a worthwhile discussion. Just remember, it can't be oil right?

You can do it! Shady doesn't stand a chance up against your intelligence and your immense knowledge of the reasons for the Iraq war! Right?

WRONG! You're both trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass. And the worst of it is that you have already stated dozens of times that the US went to Iraq for it's oil.

Blahhhhhh. Counterspin that for a while.

[monty16]

Blllllaaaaahhhhh, the US apologist mutts will run with their tails between their legs again. And changing the subject to argue which US president is to blame is just that.

Go with Iraq's cabbage crop, it's the most credible of the lot!

[Shady]

Gosthacked:

Good! then you and him can race each other and spill your guts on what other reason there was for the Iraq war. Or, if you prefer, any US meddling in the ME. Suits me either way. And you can even add to shady's list of the other reasons he's stated by coming up with one of your own!

So there's the challenge for you. Name the reason, show something to back it up, anything, and we'll get into a worthwhile discussion. Just remember, it can't be oil right?

You can do it! Shady doesn't stand a chance up against your intelligence and your immense knowledge of the reasons for the Iraq war! Right?

WRONG! You're both trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass. And the worst of it is that you have already stated dozens of times that the US went to Iraq for it's oil.

Blahhhhhh. Counterspin that for a while.

I already provided a list of reasons related to the complex issue of Iraq circa 2003. What I would like from you, is the amount of oil America has received from Iraq, or take from Iraq, since their "war for oil," Please give us an amount, in barrels please.

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked:

Good! then you and him can race each other and spill your guts on what other reason there was for the Iraq war. Or, if you prefer, any US meddling in the ME. Suits me either way. And you can even add to shady's list of the other reasons he's stated by coming up with one of your own!

You have interesting debating tactics.

So there's the challenge for you. Name the reason, show something to back it up, anything, and we'll get into a worthwhile discussion. Just remember, it can't be oil right?

You choosing to ignore my posts over the past couple pages? Or just deliberately being abrasive?

You can do it! Shady doesn't stand a chance up against your intelligence and your immense knowledge of the reasons for the Iraq war! Right?

You are using the wrong bait. Shady is not stupid, he might be a bit blind and staunchly partisan, but he is not stupid.

WRONG! You're both trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass. And the worst of it is that you have already stated dozens of times that the US went to Iraq for it's oil.

Blahhhhhh. Counterspin that for a while.

For the control of the currency oil is traded in. Not for the oil itself. There is a difference. A very key difference.

[monty16]

I already provided a list of reasons related to the complex issue of Iraq circa 2003. What I would like from you, is the amount of oil America has received from Iraq, or take from Iraq, since their "war for oil," Please give us an amount, in barrels please.

The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. I've already explained to you that it comes out of the same bucket for the world.

Now it's your turn to give us one more reason why the US waged war on Iraq, second time. You can't do it and so you're a waste of time. And as for your claim that the US received no Iraq oil, I'll get around to proving that's just another lie. But only if you ask me to and you think it's worth it. Now it's your turn first.

[GostHacked]

The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. I've already explained to you that it comes out of the same bucket for the world.

Now it's your turn to give us one more reason why the US waged war on Iraq, second time. You can't do it and so you're a waste of time. And as for your claim that the US received no Iraq oil, I'll get around to proving that's just another lie. But only if you ask me to and you think it's worth it. Now it's your turn first.

Let's flip this around, let's see the numbers of Iraq oil going to the USA over the last 40 years.

I think you should go first.

[Shady]

The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. I've already explained to you that it comes out of the same bucket for the world.

Now it's your turn to give us one more reason why the US waged war on Iraq, second time. You can't do it and so you're a waste of time. And as for your claim that the US received no Iraq oil, I'll get around to proving that's just another lie. But only if you ask me to and you think it's worth it. Now it's your turn first.

You're not making any sense. Please provide concrete statistics. If it was a war for oil, you know, that black stuff itself, please identify how much of the black stuff America was able to take from Iraq after 2003 that it wouldn't have been able to pre 2003. I know you can do it!

[Shady]

Let's flip this around, let's see the numbers of Iraq oil going to the USA over the last 40 years.

I think you should go first.

I would think it would be significant amounts, considering the two were allies for much of those years.

[GostHacked]

I would think it would be significant amounts, considering the two were allies for much of those years.

That is why I'd like to go back that far and compare it to what the US is getting since the first and second wars.

[monty16]

Question for the experts: If the US is the world's largest supplier of oil to the world then why does the US still import about half of it's oil requirements?

When we embark on trying to understand how the world's 'bucket' of oil works then we are a little less prone to shoot off our cakeholes over denial of what the Iraq war was all about.

But some just continue anyway.

[monty16]

Let's flip this around, let's see the numbers of Iraq oil going to the USA over the last 40 years.

I think you should go first.

Off the top of my head, in 2000 the US imported about 250 million barrels from Iraq and about 500 million from Canada. That's all I'm going to do until you and/or your friend 'put up'.

Confusion, ignorance, and doubletalking, make strange bedfellows. I really, really, really know that you have it firmly fixed in your mind as well as shady having it in his mind that there is another good reason for the US's Iraq war!

I also understand that it's usually the empty bottle that makes the loudest noise when it's rattled. Two great minds do indeed think alike!

[On Guard for Thee]

You're not making any sense. Please provide concrete statistics. If it was a war for oil, you know, that black stuff itself, please identify how much of the black stuff America was able to take from Iraq after 2003 that it wouldn't have been able to pre 2003. I know you can do it!

It may not have been war for oil, but war for bucks. An interesting fact that never seems to get mentioned is that Sadam made a move to modify the so called "oil for food" program so as to sell his oil for Euro's instead of greenbacks. How dare he suggest that the US dollar was collapsing and being overtaken by the Euro? The timing of the invasion vis a vis that effort is interesting to say the least.

[monty16]

It may not have been war for oil, but war for bucks. An interesting fact that never seems to get mentioned is that Sadam made a move to modify the so called "oil for food" program so as to sell his oil for Euro's instead of greenbacks. How dare he suggest that the US dollar was collapsing and being overtaken by the Euro? The timing of the invasion vis a vis that effort is interesting to say the least.

It was all about oil and nothing else but they can try to put a different spin on it by initiating a new approach saying it wasn't 'for' oil.

The power of US propaganda. Pretending that it wasn't all about Iraq's oil at this late date when the US has been revealed as the pariah nation. Small brains can never escape their US propaganda indoctrination even when we now know the whole truth.

And again tonight Rachel Maddow screams about how Cheney was responsible for the Iraq war. It's not only an attempt to absolve Bush2 from any responsibility but it also attempts to clear the US.

Are you going to join their club or are you just pointing out that war for bucks is war for oil?