• 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!

Why Wasn't Iraq Colonized?

Why wasn't Iraq colonized?

  • Liberal humanitarians would be shocked too much at home.

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Neocons were afraid of losing European geopolitical capital.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We were afraid of instigating Arabs.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • We were afraid of engaging Iran.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something else.

    Votes: 27 87.1%

  • Total voters
    31
The OPECkers are seizing our money, which is our property, by charging us $90 for oil worth less than $10. Besides, we discovered and developed those wells and pipelines, so why is it the natives' property? They didn't live there. In fact, most of them were nomads who never stayed in one spot.

The Big Oil conspiracy is easy when they control people's minds about what is really happening. Everybody here gives the answers required by Big Oil. And don't think the oily greedheads are hurt by all this wishful thinking about alternatives. It keeps people's minds away from the oilies' price-gouging, collaboration with jihadists, and hoarding of our supply of oil.

The OPPECkers are selling their property to us for our property. The price is set freely. We dont have to buy it. They dont have to sell it. Its theirs because they possess it.
 

Nothing to do with oil. Strike 1.


The entire intelligence community thought he had WMD's including the Russians, British, US, Israel etc. In fact the only one who lied about having them was Saddam, lol.

Nothing to do with oil. Strike 2.


Nothing to do again with oil. Strike 3.

Nothing about oil yet but let's continue.


A blog? You are kidding right?


Here is the lead story for that rag from today...

Special Report: The emerging history of 9/11 reveals that President George W. Bush’s failure to protect the nation resulted from neocon insistence that Iraq was the real threat, not al-Qaeda. The political relevance today is that the neocons want back into power under a Mitt Romney presidency, writes Robert Parry. - http://consortiumnews.com/

Fox News has more credibility. That says allot. So this is proof that fact checking is not big on the consortium's to do list.


This is a good article. It shows that Britan was afraid the the US was going to squeeze them out of some kind of big oil deal...

That never came to light. :roll:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week." - Read more: U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME

Read this well, lol.
 
Last edited:
How is that anti-Semitic? And why is it that every time someone mentions something that goes against Israeli interests it's anti-Semitic or racist?

It is antisemitic because it lies about the connection of the Jewish people to their land. How could Israel be a colony when the peopel who live there trace their history on that land back to over 3 millenia ago?

Just because stupid people say stupid things like Israel being a colony, that does not mean it is true.
 
Nothing to do with oil. Strike 1.



The entire intelligence community thought he had WMD's including the Russians, British, US, Israel etc. In fact the only one who lied about having them was Saddam, lol.

Nothing to do with oil. Strike 2.



Nothing to do again with oil. Strike 3.

Nothing about oil yet but let's continue.



A blog? You are kidding right?



Here is the lead story for that rag from today...

Special Report: The emerging history of 9/11 reveals that President George W. Bush’s failure to protect the nation resulted from neocon insistence that Iraq was the real threat, not al-Qaeda. The political relevance today is that the neocons want back into power under a Mitt Romney presidency, writes Robert Parry. - http://consortiumnews.com/

Fox News has more credibility. That says allot. So this is proof that fact checking is not big on the consortium's to do list.



This is a good article. It shows that Britan was afraid the the US was going to squeeze them out of some kind of big oil deal...

That never came to light. :roll:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week." - Read more: U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME

Read this well, lol.

It wasn't for altruistic reasons; it was lie. That's the first tnhing to establish that shoots down your assertions. Secondly, government people admitted it was a lie, so that makes room for the real reason, adn lastly NPR is not just "a blog".

You know very little about human history; so - read up and then get back to me.
 
It wasn't for altruistic reasons; it was lie.

I am not debating that. I am saying this "The mission was to capture oils fields." is bull**** and as history and FACT, has shown us it was not and is still not true.

That's the first tnhing to establish that shoots down your assertions.

Not at all. I asked about OIL and the WMD's which everyone again thought Saddam had because he lied about it. Hence my reply "Please post some proof of this? Oh wait, you can't because that was not the reason. Unless of course you are into conspiracy theories."

Now the funny part is you obviously knew what I was talking about. Now you try and change the goal posts like you never said anything about oil? LMAO!

Secondly, government people admitted it was a lie, so that makes room for the real reason, adn lastly NPR is not just "a blog".

So far the "real reason" has not come to light according to anything you have posted. It's strange how your other sources were easily dismissed, and you are concerned with an opinion piece from NPR.

You know very little about human history; so - read up and then get back to me.

I know plenty about human history, most Anthropology majors do. Granted that was a long time ago, but this does not change anything as far as your posts go. You can't blow smoke up my ass, and say it was not the smoke you were blowing.
 
I am not debating that. I am saying this "The mission was to capture oils fields." is bull**** and as history and FACT, has shown us it was not and is still not true.



Not at all. I asked about OIL and the WMD's which everyone again thought Saddam had because he lied about it. Hence my reply "Please post some proof of this? Oh wait, you can't because that was not the reason. Unless of course you are into conspiracy theories."

Now the funny part is you obviously knew what I was talking about. Now you try and change the goal posts like you never said anything about oil? LMAO!



So far the "real reason" has not come to light according to anything you have posted. It's strange how your other sources were easily dismissed, and you are concerned with an opinion piece from NPR.



I know plenty about human history, most Anthropology majors do. Granted that was a long time ago, but this does not change anything as far as your posts go. You can't blow smoke up my ass, and say it was not the smoke you were blowing.



I am not debating that.
That's all it takes. If it was a lie; then what do you suppose was going on over there? "liberty" that's a lie. it hasn't happened nor was it intended to. Iraq is now like Afghanistan.

And I'm not blowing anything up your ass. And you know nothing about human history, as the invasions of countries for their natural rescources has been going on since the time of the Romans. So your insults are really not helping you.

I have shown you evidense that verifies my argument. if you can't compete with it, then I can't help you any further.
 
It is antisemitic because it lies about the connection of the Jewish people to their land. How could Israel be a colony when the people who live there trace their history on that land back to over 3 millenia ago?

Just because stupid people say stupid things like Israel being a colony, that does not mean it is true.

Taking land you don't currently own from someone and giving it to one group of people isn't colonizing?
 
The premise is absurd. We had no right, and really no reason, to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. We certainly had no right, have no right to colonize other nations. Why would anyone even consider the question?
 
Taking land you don't currently own from someone and giving it to one group of people isn't colonizing?

What a childish, cartoon version of history you attempt to foist there, boy.

Try learing a little real history instead of just repeating one stupid meme after another.
 
The premise is absurd. We had no right, and really no reason, to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. We certainly had no right, have no right to colonize other nations. Why would anyone even consider the question?
I do not know the reasons that the people that made the decision to go in to Iraq truly held during the time, but it was an action that needed to happen.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was known for its severe violations of human rights. Secret police, torture, mass murder, rape, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical warfare, and the destruction of southern Iraq's marshes were some of the methods the country's Ba'athist government used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

To stand by while evil men do evil thing to innocent people because it is a “sovereign nation” is just wrong.
 
do you know smthng about globalization?

it is the new form of colonizing...........



..
 
do you know smthng about globalization?

it is the new form of colonizing...........



..

Exactly. The premise of this thread is false. Iraq was colonized. It was crypto-colonized.
 
Love your question. It actually was along with about half of the world from Christopher Columbus to the end of WWII, but I know you're talking about after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Interestingly, colonization and its residual effects are at the very least a key ingredient in much of the world's conflict today. Its hard to find anyplace on earth with unfortunate geo-political turmoil where that cannot be in someway traced back to colonialism as one factor in that turmoil.

- Unnatural borders creating new nations of people who would otherwise have very little in common.
- Societies emerging from colonialism engaging in power struggles over who's going to run things after the colonial power left often leading to the revolving door civil war.
- The colonial power granting limited autonomy to their former colony but wanting to keep the valuable natural resources. Once the former colony says that's okay we'll keep the natural resources. Not willing to relinquish the natural resources, the former colonial power covertly overthrows the democratically elected government of their former colony and installs a puppet dictator. After decades of iron fisted rule the local population kicks out the puppet dictator and replaces him with an extremist government.
 
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).

It's because colonialism tends to be pretty bad. Especially those who are colonized.
 
I do not know the reasons that the people that made the decision to go in to Iraq truly held during the time, but it was an action that needed to happen.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was known for its severe violations of human rights. Secret police, torture, mass murder, rape, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical warfare, and the destruction of southern Iraq's marshes were some of the methods the country's Ba'athist government used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

To stand by while evil men do evil thing to innocent people because it is a “sovereign nation” is just wrong.

Talk to me about Tibet. Where is your advocacy there? Or perhaps I should say, why isn't your advocacy there.
 
That's all it takes. If it was a lie; then what do you suppose was going on over there? "liberty" that's a lie. it hasn't happened nor was it intended to. Iraq is now like Afghanistan.

To be honest I always thought it was because Bush had some kind of vendetta because of daddy. In reality it is probably a whole slew of reasons that are classified for years. I am certain oil had something to do with it, as an after thought. Because we got nothing out of the oil, nothing at all.

And I'm not blowing anything up your ass. And you know nothing about human history, as the invasions of countries for their natural rescources has been going on since the time of the Romans. So your insults are really not helping you.

You mean like Korea or Vietnam? Oh wait, those wars had nothing to do with natural resources on our part. Many wars through history have had nothing to do with resources.

Acting like that is the only reason and having little to no evidence to back up your claim does noting to help your claims.

I have shown you evidense that verifies my argument. if you can't compete with it, then I can't help you any further.

LMAO! You have shown evidence that says we don't know the real reasons, that's as far as it goes. Your statement as I have shown is factually wrong. No way around that.

Wearing a tinfoil hat is no way to go through life.
 
Talk to me about Tibet. Where is your advocacy there? Or perhaps I should say, why isn't your advocacy there.
Deflection??

This thread is about Iraq not Tibet. I do believe that my statement;
“To stand by while evil men do evil thing to innocent people because it is a “sovereign nation” is just wrong”
Applies to all similar situations.
 
Because this is not the 16th century.
 
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).

Oddly, I don't see "it's not what we were there for" as one of your answers, being that it's the correct one.
 
Deflection??

This thread is about Iraq not Tibet. I do believe that my statement;
“To stand by while evil men do evil thing to innocent people because it is a “sovereign nation” is just wrong”
Applies to all similar situations.

My response was/is relevant. The US is extremely selective in when and if we stand by and watch evil men. We could have bombed the rail lines to the Nazi death camps in WWII, but we didn't do that. You apparently feel that your service in Iraq and the people you killed there were worth it. I disagree. You are wrong. You submit that it is somehow our duty to act like the global Lone Ranger. Your sanctimonious justification for selective intervention is self-serving. We see that. You need to know we see it.

The West, including the United States, has been ****ing over the people in the Middle East for over 60 years. We have assassinated their leaders, we have picked their new leaders, overthrown their governments, we have divided their countries, set new boundaries, killed their women and children, destroyed their infrastructures, armed regional nation against regional nation, provided logistics for one against the other, stolen the resources and occupied their lands. All in the name of truth, goodness and mercy? LOL! And you want to do it some more? Sign your butt back up and ship back over. You are a rare war dog, indeed.

How do you determine evil in such a way that it doesn't include the West's actions?

The best thing we can do for America, my country, is to get the hell out of the Middle East for good. Let them handle their own problems just as we prefer to handle our own problems. Or would you have no problem in other nations doing "for" us what we have done "for" them for the last 60+ years?
 
My response was/is relevant. The US is extremely selective in when and if we stand by and watch evil men. We could have bombed the rail lines to the Nazi death camps in WWII, but we didn't do that. You apparently feel that your service in Iraq and the people you killed there were worth it. I disagree. You are wrong. You submit that it is somehow our duty to act like the global Lone Ranger. Your sanctimonious justification for selective intervention is self-serving. We see that. You need to know we see it.

The West, including the United States, has been ****ing over the people in the Middle East for over 60 years. We have assassinated their leaders, we have picked their new leaders, overthrown their governments, we have divided their countries, set new boundaries, killed their women and children, destroyed their infrastructures, armed regional nation against regional nation, provided logistics for one against the other, stolen the resources and occupied their lands. All in the name of truth, goodness and mercy? LOL! And you want to do it some more? Sign your butt back up and ship back over. You are a rare war dog, indeed.

How do you determine evil in such a way that it doesn't include the West's actions?

The best thing we can do for America, my country, is to get the hell out of the Middle East for good. Let them handle their own problems just as we prefer to handle our own problems. Or would you have no problem in other nations doing "for" us what we have done "for" them for the last 60+ years?
Here are the instructions that will help you achieve your goal of global harmony that you would agree with.
1. Dig a hole in the ground
2. Place your head in the ground
3. Pull excess dirt around the empty spots so as to close them off
4. Congratulations! You have now accomplished global harmony.

People are not perfect and they never will be. If you are waiting for a perfect solution than you will never find one.
 
Here are the instructions that will help you achieve your goal of global harmony that you would agree with.
1. Dig a hole in the ground
2. Place your head in the ground
3. Pull excess dirt around the empty spots so as to close them off
4. Congratulations! You have now accomplished global harmony.

People are not perfect and they never will be. If you are waiting for a perfect solution than you will never find one.

That's it? Classic avoidance.
 
Back
Top Bottom