Iraqi oil: Once seen as U.S. boon, now it's mostly China's

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Come on man.

He left you a response, and so have other people.

Really ?
Me Come on.

In an earlier post, He complained of the Dogma associated with the US/Iraq.

Stated the War was Not for Oil

I dont think my asking for the Real reason for the Deaths of 600,000 Iraqies, 7000 Allied troops is a Trick question.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1

Come on man.

He left you a response, and so have other people.

Really ?
Me Come on.

In an earlier post, He complained of the Dogma associated with the US/Iraq.

Stated the War was Not for Oil

I dont think my asking for the Real reason for the Deaths of 600,000 Iraqies, 7000 Allied troops is a Trick question.


Well, it wasn't for oil. Bush Stated that numerous times. Now, after all these years, we see it for what it is.

And, I still think that Saddam needed to go. Do you think Saddam would have went out peacefully? Tell me?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


So how does this post start out?


www.abovetopsecret.com...




but why EXACTLY did we go to war with them?


Gee maybe if the onion wrote it it might be "substantive".



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


And why is it our job to take care of that? Why did we waste thousands of lives doing that when the people who lived there weren't even keen on doing it? It doesn't matter how Saddam would have gone out. It isn't the responsibility of American citizens.

We aren't the world's daddy, maybe we should stick to fixing our own problems. It's not our responsibility to give everyone "freedom".
edit on 27-3-2013 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You guys are just confusing me now and spinning circles.

Cheers!

-SAP-



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm still stupefied that ANYONE can say "all the lives lost in the Iraqi War."

How many lives were lost under Saddam reign? How many would still be lost today, if he was still in power?

Granted, This was the biggest problem with the US, and its intrusiveness. Put a madman in control of a Country, expect madness.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by sonnny1
 


And why is it our job to take care of that? Why did we waste thousands of lives doing that when the people who lived there weren't even keen on doing it? It doesn't matter how Saddam would have gone out. It isn't the responsibility of American citizens.

We aren't the world's daddy, maybe we should stick to fixing our own problems. It's not our responsibility to give everyone "freedom".
edit on 27-3-2013 by antonia because: added a thought


I agree.

We put Saddam in power, and this was the end result.

But ended it is. I think Saddam would have killed more people, then the whole war combined, if him and his family continued their reign. That's a give in.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

And, I still think that Saddam needed to go. Do you think Saddam would have went out peacefully? Tell me?

After Saddam had his Butt handed to him in desert Storm, he was complying with ALL the Sanctions Levied against him.

There were no WMD. You are telling us now it wasnt for Oil. So what was it then?

How is this such a Hard Question.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Yea, but it was their problem to fix. It sounds cold, but you can't live someone else's for them. In that regard, you can't direct the future of an entire nation for those people. It has to be their choice.

It doesn't really matter who gets the oil in the end. There isn't enough of it to run the economy for the next century. It's coming to the point where most sensible countries will invest their time moving away from it if they want to survive. The U.S. is not one of those states though.
edit on 27-3-2013 by antonia because: opps



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1

And, I still think that Saddam needed to go. Do you think Saddam would have went out peacefully? Tell me?

After Saddam had his Butt handed to him in desert Storm, he was complying with ALL the Sanctions Levied against him.

There were no WMD. You are telling us now it wasnt for Oil. So what was it then?

How is this such a Hard Question.


It wasnt about the US getting the oil?

How hard is that for you to understand?



It was about letting China and other Countries getting their hands on the oil, at that time. China would have owned the US if it had cheap oil, closer to home. Dude, Ive spelled it out posts ago...........Come on.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by neo96
 


You guys are just confusing me now and spinning circles.

Cheers!

-SAP-


Confused about what?

Spinning circles? Like having the same 10 year old "argument?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Well I said that I wasn't disagreeing with you in the last page. I just asked a question hoping you wouldn't saying something about the WMD. I agreed with you that it WASN'T about oil...

Then you said this, when I was just asking a question and agreeing with you...

I was confused by this,

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


So how does this post start out?


www.abovetopsecret.com...




but why EXACTLY did we go to war with them?


Gee maybe if the onion wrote it it might be "substantive".


-SAP-



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

It was about letting China and other Countries getting their hands on the oil, at that time. ...Come on.
So this is your answer ?

The US invaded a country, to allow China to get their hands on the Oil.

Do I have it correct now?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





I'm still stupefied that ANYONE can say "all the lives lost in the Iraqi War."


Yep like as soon as the US got there Al queda, and Iran and every other "freedom" fighter showed up, and started taking lives.




How many lives were lost under Saddam reign? How many would still be lost today, if he was still in power?


Quite a few what i don't get is the victim card played for Saddam and Iraq, "oh the poor guy he got invaded by them evil Merkians", who like to invade countries(Kuwait) himself.




Granted, This was the biggest problem with the US, and its intrusiveness. Put a madman in control of a Country, expect madness.


Leave a madman in control of a country you can still expect madness.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Yea, but it was their problem to fix. It sounds cold, but you can't live someone else's for them. I


Sorry, but the US made the mess. They needed to fix it, albeit they did it in a way that they tried to fool the World.

Second?

If the US had the same attitude in WW2, Europe would have fell to the Nazi's. Sometimes a Country has to go to war, and its something that should be done with Human rights in mind.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


Sorry the poster said I didn't answer him which is why I linked that post.

That was directed to someone else.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That explains my confusion. Thank you.


-SAP-



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1

It was about letting China and other Countries getting their hands on the oil, at that time. ...Come on.
So this is your answer ?

The US invaded a country, to allow China to get their hands on the Oil.

Do I have it correct now?






The US had many reasons.....

One of them was so China didn't have its hands on Iraqi oil. Saddam was using the Euro. It was a stop gap for a few years. BTW, Do you know ANYTHING about how our money works?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1

It was about letting China and other Countries getting their hands on the oil, at that time. ...Come on.
So this is your answer ?

The US invaded a country, to allow China to get their hands on the Oil.

Do I have it correct now?






The US had many reasons.....

One of them was so China didn't have its hands on Iraqi oil. Saddam was using the Euro. It was a stop gap for a few years. BTW, Do you know ANYTHING about how our money works?

Money?
I know once we lose our Worlds Reserve Currency , the Cows will come home, and we could see ourselves slide into a 2nd world country status.
I imagine before that happens , there will be a few more countries to destroy, because " they hate us for our Freedoms"



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   


he US invaded a country, to allow China to get their hands on the Oil.


As opposed to the other answer that Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld are just a bunch of murders, and did it for fun.

Which is what so many people make it out to be.





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join