• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 93 87.7%

  • Yes, but only Special Forces troops

    Votes: 5 4.7%

  • No. Maybe in the future.

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • Total voters
    106
NolaMan said:
Is that why the Chinese got the first big oil contracts out of Iraq? :roll:

That aside -- we did not invade Iraq because of oil.
Click to expand...

Did do it because of wmds either.
 
Boo Radley said:
Did do it because of wmds either.
Click to expand...

Finding no WMD's, and indeed the potential that none were there to be found at all, does not negate that looking for WMD's played a role.
 
NolaMan said:
Finding no WMD's, and indeed the potential that none were there to be found at all, does not negate that looking for WMD's played a role.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what makes it not the reason. They never had any real reason to use that as a rationale to begin with. They came up with the action, to invade, and then sought to find a reason. Tenent's famous slam dunk quote in context was that it was a reason that would play, that we'd buy.
 
NolaMan said:
Is that why the Chinese got the first big oil contracts out of Iraq? :roll:

That aside -- we did not invade Iraq because of oil.
Click to expand...

All oil is sold on the world oil market and all the big oil companies were kicked out of Iraq when the Nationalized their oil 35 years ago. We fixed that. Big oil is once again back in Iraq after 35 years of exile thanks to the US military.

The price spikes caused by Iraq by withholding oil from the world market was the only threat to the US that has been verified. Cheney's Energy task force recommended military action in Iraq for this purpose 2 years before our invasion and occupation.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that isn't what makes it not the reason. They never had any real reason to use that as a rationale to begin with. They came up with the action, to invade, and then sought to find a reason. Tenent's famous slam dunk quote in context was that it was a reason that would play, that we'd buy.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to defend Iraq -- but from my perspective, if there is a national interest at stake, then I believe we have every right to go wherever we want and protect that interest.

I think Iraq in hindsight was a blunder based on bad information.
 
Catawba said:
All oil is sold on the world oil market and all the big oil companies were kicked out of Iraq when the Nationalized their oil 35 years ago. We fixed that. Big oil is once again back in Iraq after 35 years of exile thanks to the US military.

The price spikes caused by Iraq by withholding oil from the world market was the only threat to the US that has been verified. Cheney's Energy task force recommended military action in Iraq for this purpose 2 years before our invasion and occupation.
Click to expand...

I am interested to see some documentation that "big oil" was the leading cause for why we went to war -- since you assert we sold our military to the highest bidder in this regard.
 
NolaMan said:
I'm certainly not going to defend Iraq -- but from my perspective, if there is a national interest at stake, then I believe we have every right to go wherever we want and protect that interest.

I think Iraq in hindsight was a blunder based on bad information.
Click to expand...

It was a reckless blunder that ahd nothing to do with information. We never had anything that would warrant an invasion.
 
NolaMan said:
I am interested to see some documentation that "big oil" was the leading cause for why we went to war -- since you assert we sold our military to the highest bidder in this regard.
Click to expand...


The politicians and their corporate sponsors are who profited from our war in Iraq on their behalf.

"Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so."

"Review policies towards Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and 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 program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. "

"Middle East Gulf crude oil currently makes up around 25 percent of world oil supply, but could rise to 30-40 percent during the next decade as the region’s key producers pursue higher investments to capture expanding demand for oil in Asia and the developing world. If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe."

"This reopening is important and should be on the bilateral U.S. agenda with these countries. The Department of State, together with the National Security Council, Department of Energy, and Department of Commerce, should develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in these important states of the Middle East Gulf."

"More oil could likely be brought into the marketplace in the coming years if oil-field development could be enhanced by participation of U.S. companies in countries where such investments are currently banned"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES


No other threat to the US from Iraq has been verified.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that isn't what makes it not the reason. They never had any real reason to use that as a rationale to begin with. They came up with the action, to invade, and then sought to find a reason. Tenent's famous slam dunk quote in context was that it was a reason that would play, that we'd buy.
Click to expand...

:roll: that's a theory that belongs in the conspiracy forum.

A) Saddam did have both the missiles that were denied him (we counted more treaty-violating missiles flying over our heads in the first 48 hours of the war than the UN found in 10 years), and he did have WMD.

B) What he did not have were active WMD production lines, which is what we thought he had.

C) On-record as believing that Saddam had active-production lines are the leadership of both parties back into the 1990's, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the UN, and evidence collected after the fall of Baghdad suggests that even Saddam may have believed he had active production lines. You didn't do well in Ba'ath Party circles by being the one to report failure.

But yeah. I'm sure that Democrats lied for years so that Bush could justify invading Iraq. :roll:

enjoy:

 
Catawba said:
The politicians and their corporate sponsors are who profited from our war in Iraq on their behalf.

"Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so."

"Review policies towards Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and 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 program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. "

"Middle East Gulf crude oil currently makes up around 25 percent of world oil supply, but could rise to 30-40 percent during the next decade as the region’s key producers pursue higher investments to capture expanding demand for oil in Asia and the developing world. If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe."

"This reopening is important and should be on the bilateral U.S. agenda with these countries. The Department of State, together with the National Security Council, Department of Energy, and Department of Commerce, should develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in these important states of the Middle East Gulf."

"More oil could likely be brought into the marketplace in the coming years if oil-field development could be enhanced by participation of U.S. companies in countries where such investments are currently banned"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES


No other threat to the US from Iraq has been verified.
Click to expand...



Do you have the names of the oil companies currently operating in Iraq?

Excerpt

The increased flow and vital port improvements have produced a 20 percent jump in exports this year to nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, making Iraq one of the premier producers in OPEC for the first time in decades.

Energy analysts say that the Iraqi boom — coupled with increased production in Saudi Arabia and the near total recovery of Libya’s oil industry — should cushion oil markets from price spikes and give the international community additional leverage over Iran when new sanctions take effect in July.

“Iraq helps enormously,” said David L. Goldwyn, the former State Department coordinator for international energy affairs in the Obama administration. Even if Iraq increased its oil exports by only half of what it is projecting by next year, he said, “You would be replacing nearly half of the future Iranian supply potentially displaced by tighter sanctions.”

For Iraq, the resurgence of oil, which it is already pumping at rates seen only once — and briefly — since Saddam Hussein took power in 1979, is vital to its postwar success. Oil provides more than 95 percent of the government’s revenues, has enabled the building of roads and the expansion of social services, and has greatly strengthened the Shiite-led government’s hand in this ethnically divided country.

Oil has also brought its share of pitfalls for the fledgling democracy, fostering corruption and patronage, and aggravating tensions with the Kurdish minority in the north over the division of profits, a festering issue that could end up fracturing the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/w...raq-easing-markets.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
 
cpwill said:
:roll: that's a theory that belongs in the conspiracy forum.

A) Saddam did have both the missiles that were denied him (we counted more treaty-violating missiles flying over our heads in the first 48 hours of the war than the UN found in 10 years), and he did have WMD.

B) What he did not have were active WMD production lines, which is what we thought he had.

C) On-record as believing that Saddam had active-production lines are the leadership of both parties back into the 1990's, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the UN, and evidence collected after the fall of Baghdad suggests that even Saddam may have believed he had active production lines. You didn't do well in Ba'ath Party circles by being the one to report failure.

But yeah. I'm sure that Democrats lied for years so that Bush could justify invading Iraq. :roll:

enjoy:
Click to expand...



At least the majority of Democrats had the good sense to vote against AOF in Iraq. Sadly, all but 7 Republicans voted for it!!!
 
sharon said:
Do you have the names of the oil companies currently operating in Iraq?

Excerpt

The increased flow and vital port improvements have produced a 20 percent jump in exports this year to nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, making Iraq one of the premier producers in OPEC for the first time in decades.

Energy analysts say that the Iraqi boom — coupled with increased production in Saudi Arabia and the near total recovery of Libya’s oil industry — should cushion oil markets from price spikes and give the international community additional leverage over Iran when new sanctions take effect in July.

“Iraq helps enormously,” said David L. Goldwyn, the former State Department coordinator for international energy affairs in the Obama administration. Even if Iraq increased its oil exports by only half of what it is projecting by next year, he said, “You would be replacing nearly half of the future Iranian supply potentially displaced by tighter sanctions.”
Click to expand...

That's what it was all about! There are many Western oil experts that predicted if Iraq's oil was properly exploited, it could even out produce Saudi Arabia. That's why it was such a valuable prize!

No, I don't have the names of all the oil companies that are back in Iraq for the first time since they were kicked out when Iraq Nationalized their oil over 3 decades ago.
 
]Land Destroyer: CNN, Al Jazeera Caught Red-Handed Staging War Propaganda


cpwill said:
:

A) Saddam did have both the missiles that were denied him (we counted more treaty-violating missiles flying over our heads in the first 48 hours of the war than the UN found in 10 years), and he did have WMD.

B) What he did not have were active WMD production lines, which is what we thought he had.

C) On-record as believing that Saddam had active-production lines are the leadership of both parties back into the 1990's, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the UN, and evidence collected after the fall of Baghdad suggests that even Saddam may have believed he had active production lines. You didn't do well in Ba'ath Party circles by being the one to report failure.

But yeah. I'm sure that Democrats lied for years so that Bush could justify invading Iraq. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, the Obama Admin. is more diplomatic. Hillary announces to the world why Libya has to be bombed back to the stone ages, before she actually does it. Now she has announced Syria must be invaded and the U.S. drones are already invading that country. Way to earn that Nobel Peace Prize, by ratcheting up the war machine.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
No, the United States has not been attacked, is not in imminent danger, and Syria is not a nuclear threat.
Click to expand...

Gee, doesn't that sound just like Iraq and Saddam? Coinkydink! Hell no! Gottal keep that USA Military Offense budget up. Screw a bunch of cuts. Gin up another war. Jus' bidness, don't ya' know. That'd be the bidness of the USA. War for Korporate profit.
 
DaveFagan said:
Gee, doesn't that sound just like Iraq and Saddam? Coinkydink! Hell no! Gottal keep that USA Military Offense budget up. Screw a bunch of cuts. Gin up another war. Jus' bidness, don't ya' know. That'd be the bidness of the USA. War for Korporate profit.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton thinks that she has to antagonize foreign governments/ entire groups in order to legitimize herself or to springboard her success. (Somehow people think that what makes them a leader or a stand up gal they need to threaten Irans population with nuclear attack.) What a tryrant.
Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton | Consortiumnews
 
Catawba said:
That's what it was all about! There are many Western oil experts that predicted if Iraq's oil was properly exploited, it could even out produce Saudi Arabia. That's why it was such a valuable prize!

No, I don't have the names of all the oil companies that are back in Iraq for the first time since they were kicked out when Iraq Nationalized their oil over 3 decades ago.
Click to expand...

Iraq's oil production has been very low for the past two decades. Before GW1 they were producing about 4 million bpd.

Then it hovered around 2 billion until Bush attacked.. but you can see its recovering.

Screen+shot+2012-05-24+at+3.59.24+PM.png
 
sharon said:
Iraq's oil production has been very low for the past two decades. Before GW1 they were producing about 4 million bpd.

Then it hovered around 2 billion until Bush attacked.. but you can see its recovering.

Screen+shot+2012-05-24+at+3.59.24+PM.png
Click to expand...

Indeed.

"Neighboring Iraq has only just begun to methodically develop its oil sector with the benefit of modern
technology, and has the potential to surpass Saudi Arabia as a producer and exporter. Even if it only achieves
half of its stated production target of 12 million barrels per day by 2017, an Iraq with significant spare capacity
would challenge Saudi Arabia’s dominance as an exporter."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:QcgOw_9PJEsJ:www.ergo.net/ErgoSpecialReport_Saudi_Oil_Feb2012.pdf+Iraq's+oil+reserves+may+eventuall+surpass+Saudi+Arabia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShQ0fDPu6u6ZXJXT6F0sNQHLzgIRrq_I4hJHbylYrJyqmeqhc-TnpGsWXMnwOOtelQnouakXBClEN0ZABaty_J_d9vvnZ4VvC3Ay5LMOwvTzkcWZbQENTSTtkQm1oIo91OKIsLk&sig=AHIEtbRxjtL0rexjO0qR3upyoZRKqKa67g



"Western oil producers have emerged as the big winners of the Iraq war.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera wire service. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

"Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their best access to Iraq's southern oil fields since 1972," Business Week noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq's oil fields.)"

"A group led by BP will receive $2 billion per year to develop Iraqs Rumalia field and a Shell-led group is to get $913 million per year. An Exxon-led group is to get $1.6 billion per year, Bloomberg News reports. Each calculation is based on the agreed-to per-barrel fee times the maximum production level, Bloomberg explains.

David Bender, a Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group, Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg, "Iraq is one of the most attractive oil markets in the world. The international oil companies may feel that getting in at the beginning improves their long-term prospects."
Western Oil Firms Big Winners in Iraq War - Worldnews.com
 
Catawba said:
Indeed.

"Neighboring Iraq has only just begun to methodically develop its oil sector with the benefit of modern
technology, and has the potential to surpass Saudi Arabia as a producer and exporter. Even if it only achieves
half of its stated production target of 12 million barrels per day by 2017, an Iraq with significant spare capacity
would challenge Saudi Arabia’s dominance as an exporter."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:QcgOw_9PJEsJ:www.ergo.net/ErgoSpecialReport_Saudi_Oil_Feb2012.pdf+Iraq's+oil+reserves+may+eventuall+surpass+Saudi+Arabia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShQ0fDPu6u6ZXJXT6F0sNQHLzgIRrq_I4hJHbylYrJyqmeqhc-TnpGsWXMnwOOtelQnouakXBClEN0ZABaty_J_d9vvnZ4VvC3Ay5LMOwvTzkcWZbQENTSTtkQm1oIo91OKIsLk&sig=AHIEtbRxjtL0rexjO0qR3upyoZRKqKa67g



"Western oil producers have emerged as the big winners of the Iraq war.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera wire service. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

"Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their best access to Iraq's southern oil fields since 1972," Business Week noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq's oil fields.)"

"A group led by BP will receive $2 billion per year to develop Iraqs Rumalia field and a Shell-led group is to get $913 million per year. An Exxon-led group is to get $1.6 billion per year, Bloomberg News reports. Each calculation is based on the agreed-to per-barrel fee times the maximum production level, Bloomberg explains.

David Bender, a Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group, Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg, "Iraq is one of the most attractive oil markets in the world. The international oil companies may feel that getting in at the beginning improves their long-term prospects."
Western Oil Firms Big Winners in Iraq War - Worldnews.com
Click to expand...

12 million bpd is pretty optimistic... but I think they could reach 8 million bpd.
 
Catawba said:
Indeed.

"Neighboring Iraq has only just begun to methodically develop its oil sector with the benefit of modern
technology, and has the potential to surpass Saudi Arabia as a producer and exporter. Even if it only achieves
half of its stated production target of 12 million barrels per day by 2017, an Iraq with significant spare capacity
would challenge Saudi Arabia’s dominance as an exporter."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:QcgOw_9PJEsJ:www.ergo.net/ErgoSpecialReport_Saudi_Oil_Feb2012.pdf+Iraq's+oil+reserves+may+eventuall+surpass+Saudi+Arabia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShQ0fDPu6u6ZXJXT6F0sNQHLzgIRrq_I4hJHbylYrJyqmeqhc-TnpGsWXMnwOOtelQnouakXBClEN0ZABaty_J_d9vvnZ4VvC3Ay5LMOwvTzkcWZbQENTSTtkQm1oIo91OKIsLk&sig=AHIEtbRxjtL0rexjO0qR3upyoZRKqKa67g



"Western oil producers have emerged as the big winners of the Iraq war.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera wire service. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

"Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their best access to Iraq's southern oil fields since 1972," Business Week noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq's oil fields.)"

"A group led by BP will receive $2 billion per year to develop Iraqs Rumalia field and a Shell-led group is to get $913 million per year. An Exxon-led group is to get $1.6 billion per year, Bloomberg News reports. Each calculation is based on the agreed-to per-barrel fee times the maximum production level, Bloomberg explains.

David Bender, a Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group, Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg, "Iraq is one of the most attractive oil markets in the world. The international oil companies may feel that getting in at the beginning improves their long-term prospects."
Western Oil Firms Big Winners in Iraq War - Worldnews.com
Click to expand...

So, the war in Iraq was worth the losses in treasure and blood.

Worth it, that is for BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.
 
No troops. We donot need another war. We nee diplomacy. Calm minds must prevail. War is not always the answer. This is why foreign policy is very important. I know we all are hurting financially in this country. I need a job but I also need my children to live in a world without war. So if we dont stop this rambo attitude we will never get out of this mess and any other mess we get into. Remember how we got into this free for all in the first place.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the war in Iraq was worth the losses in treasure and blood.

Worth it, that is for BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.
Click to expand...

What a sweet deal getting taxpayers to pay for getting them back into Iraq after exile for over 3 decades from one of the biggest (if not the biggest) reserves of cheap oil left on the planet.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I will submit my personal opinion later in the thread. Simple question, complicated issue.
Click to expand...

Not really that complicated. The US needs to stop being the worlds police force. 15.7 Trillion Dollars in debt and growing. We need to stop getting into these damnable wars.
 
No, because it will be seen as an Israeli aggression and Asad and his people could easily use it as an excuse to rally the population behind him. On top of that, where exactly would these troops be staged to go into Syria?

Iraq? Doubt the Iraqies would allow the troops back in.
Turkey? Doubt the Turks would want to allow US troops in the kurdish area..
Lebanon? HAHAHA
Jordan? LOL dream on.
Israel? MUHHHA yea right...

Then maybe a sea landing? D-Day 2.0? LOL!
 
Catawba said:
What a sweet deal getting taxpayers to pay for getting them back into Iraq after exile for over 3 decades from one of the biggest (if not the biggest) reserves of cheap oil left on the planet.
Click to expand...

""Everything is calm. I went out to see my friends. Homs is not without communications, all roads are open. We're safe. The army did not bomb. These are self-styled militias, the "Free Syrian army" who attack the military or police and kill civilians. Even today, a soldier was killed. I know because he lived in my neighborhood," said an inhabitant of the place.

Another resident reported after the Syrian army was able to dislodge the militias (armed gangs) and take over, "We returned to our homes in neighborhoods that were nearly empty. Insecurity continues in three districts, especially in Khaldiyeh, where the national army continues to pursue the militias that keep many families as hostages. My uncle who had been kidnapped two months ago returned home yesterday very ill, very tired, but very lucky considering. He's in the hospital. Many other kidnapped people have not returned and the families have no news of them."

This statement mentions one of the most dramatic subjects because of the amount of people, including families, which the aggressors kidnapped and brought with them.

Days before, Silvia Cattori interviewed another resident, a Syrian man 75 years of age who lives in a village in the province of Homs: "What happens here is all the opposite of what they say in their country. I beg your pardon ma'am. Our soldiers are not mercenaries. They are the sons of the people, all mixed religions. They are my brother, my son, my uncle. This is our army. It is impossible for the children to deliberately kill their parents. Our soldiers have faced for many months mercenaries paid by foreign funds to commit their murders. "

Disinformation against Syria is criminal - English pravda.ru

This is an opinion piece from Pravda, but it contains details that absolutely run counter to the Mass Media line. This is what happened in Libya also. That's what I mean about the "Mighty Wurlitzer."
 
MarineTpartier said:
I will submit my personal opinion later in the thread. Simple question, complicated issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think some special forces troops should go in as advisers to help the Syrian rebels. But I think that's all the support we can give them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom