• 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!

Syrian Warplanes Strike in Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People

Lord of Planar said:
Links of opinion stated by people when several factors were in play?

Ok.....
Click to expand...

I particularly like this opinion... people think of it as fact:

I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.
Click to expand...

How does this suggest it's about oil:

"Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."
Click to expand...
 
US Conservative said:
Since we didn't go in for oil, didn't get any oil, and didn't even get repaid for the war, I dont see how it was about oil. :doh
Click to expand...
I wonder how many times the facts will be ignored. Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act laid out the groundwork for a reason to remove Saddam. The UN resolutions were far from being complied with, in fact, Saddam was flagrantly impeding his what amounted to his parole. After the fear of WMD being used in another attack as bad as 9/11, it was a nobrainer to go in.

All Saddam had to do to save his sorry ass, was comply with the UN resolutions.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Links of opinion stated by people when several factors were in play?

Ok.....
Click to expand...

Some response Lord. Testimony and documentation besides casual interviews with former Bush/Blair administration officials confirm that the war in Iraq, had nothing to do with the war on terror, nor did Iraq have any connection to OBL, al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, but rather was for the stabilisation of oil supply/price. Your dishonesty and partisan cover is part of the reason we have such corruption in Washington!!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder how many times the facts will be ignored. Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act laid out the groundwork for a reason to remove Saddam. The UN resolutions were far from being complied with, in fact, Saddam was flagrantly impeding his what amounted to his parole. After the fear of WMD being used in another attack as bad as 9/11, it was a nobrainer to go in.

All Saddam had to do to save his sorry ass, was comply with the UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

And the rest of us wonder how long you and USC are going to ignore the facts?


Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents


The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

So, only after Blair joined in the lie about Iraqi WMD, and scared his parliament did they pass thru a go vote.
 
US Conservative said:
And do we have a direct interest in making sure AQ is obliterated? Right now our president is acting as if we dont, though we was swift to take credit for things when they were going well. I disagree. Im not going to lose this war only to be worse off than when we started it.
Click to expand...

How much better off do you think the US would be if they won the war? They already won it once and look what happened?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063457394 said:
:laughat:



And they don't under Obama's watch?
Click to expand...

Yes! They absolutely do, read more of my posts. I'm an apologist for neither party. Big money has influenced US policy and law for a very long time now and both parties pander to it. The take away from this, DON'T BE A PARTISAN.



The Rothschilds

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
 
Montecresto said:
Some response Lord. Testimony and documentation besides casual interviews with former Bush/Blair administration officials confirm that the war in Iraq, had nothing to do with the war on terror, nor did Iraq have any connection to OBL, al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, but rather was for the stabilisation of oil supply/price. Your dishonesty and partisan cover is part of the reason we have such corruption in Washington!!
Click to expand...
How was it going to stabilize prices? It did nothing but destabilize them. They became the highest ever in the past 30 years, using inflation adjusted dollars.
 
US Conservative said:
Until the US is attacked again.
Click to expand...

Then respond with Hell's fire, not appeasement. The time for politically correct wars is over. Strength is greatest negotiation tool leadership in the ME, Westen Europe, and the radical Far East understands.

War is Hell.
William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Lord of Planar said:
How was it going to stabilize prices? It did nothing but destabilize them. They became the highest ever in the past 30 years, using inflation adjusted dollars.
Click to expand...

As Ike famously said, "once hostilities begin, all plans go out the window".


You discount the impact that Saddam's nationalisation of the regions second largest oil producer would have done to the market place, had it been let stand.

And the involvement of Russia and China in the region. China is the largest exporter of ME oil, and their consumption has skyrocketed in the 13 years since Bush took the country to war on false pretence!
 
US Conservative said:
Weve been attacked for many reasons, including our values-as they aren't radical islamist. But these terrorists dont just attack us-they attack nations that have nothing to do with "ME interference".
Click to expand...

Because they know the US won't respond in kind.
 
Montecresto said:
As Ike famously said, "once hostilities begin, all plans go out the window".


You discount the impact that Saddam's nationalisation of the regions second largest oil producer would have done to the market place, had it been let stand.

And the involvement of Russia and China in the region. China is the largest exporter of ME oil, and their consumption has skyrocketed in the 13 years since Bush took the country to war on false pretence!
Click to expand...

Don't you see, your argument we went in for oil is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would expect anything but oil prices to rise from reduced output in the global commodities market.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Don't you see, your argument we went in for oil is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would expect anything but oil prices to rise from reduced output in the global commodities market.
Click to expand...

Don't you see, its not my argument!! I've posted the stated purpose being oil from multiple officials in both the US and UK governments. It's little skin off my teeth that you hide from this truth, but the shed blood, that troubles me.
 
Montecresto said:
Don't you see, its not my argument!! I've posted the stated purpose being oil from multiple officials in both the US and UK governments. It's little skin off my teeth that you hide from this truth, but the shed blood, that troubles me.
Click to expand...

That's not what they said though. That's what the journalist implied they said.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's not what they said though. That's what the journalist implied they said.
Click to expand...

Nobody has implied anything. You have been shown documentation both on and off record that the Iraq war was fought over oil, FOIA documents. Your dishonesty proves you're not interested in truth but protecting your party like the rest of the partisans on the left and right that are a dime a dozen.
 
Montecresto said:
Nobody has implied anything. You have been shown documentation both on and off record that the Iraq war was fought over oil, FOIA documents. Your dishonesty proves you're not interested in truth but protecting your party like the rest of the partisans on the left and right that are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. Did you?
 
Montecresto said:
I know, it's about your endless tirade on the president.
Click to expand...

Fact it this president is totally incompetent...Even a lot of Dems are saying so.......He is incompetent. The polls say so. His administration is crumbling.
 
Navy Pride said:
Fact it this president is totally incompetent...Even a lot of Dems are saying so.......He is incompetent. The polls say so. His administration is crumbling.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. About as similar to the Bush administration at this point. So what's the take away on this, we will have wasted 16 years on failed policies and ideas. Neither party is capable of leadership. Time for something new. But like your left wing partisan cousins, you'll continue to carry for yours as they do for theirs, and well have another 8 years of looser leadership in the Whitehouse, regardless of which party controls it. In the meantime, you massage yourself in Obama bashing and well all continue on in the same direction.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
if we return to iraq we have to go into syria. the two conflicts have become a single entity.
Click to expand...

Both China and Russia correctly predicted that US interference in Syria would cause the conflict to spread throughout the region. It must be the intended goal.
 
Montecresto said:
Both China and Russia correctly predicted that US interference in Syria would cause the conflict to spread throughout the region. It must be the intended goal.
Click to expand...
Yes, ever since that day O-Bomb-A lobbed 112 cruise missiles into Libya, it was obvious that he was intent of causing chaos over there.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, ever since that day O-Bomb-A lobbed 112 cruise missiles into Libya, it was obvious that he was intent of causing chaos over there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Long term foreign policy objectives for the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom