• 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!

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

  • Total voters
    102
Jack Hays said:
I see. So Iraqis acting rationally in pursuit of their economic interests is proof what exactly? Do you receive secret messages via the fillings in your teeth?:lamo
Click to expand...

The Iraqis did not overthrow their government and install another corrupt government, we did under military occupation.

"It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access."

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

"For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does."



Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com
 
Jack Hays said:
You're welcome again. When you think you have some actual evidence please let me know.:lamo
Click to expand...

There is already enough evidence to convince the majority of people, in this country, the UK, and in Iraq. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
 
Catawba said:
There is already enough evidence to convince the majority of people, in this country, the UK, and in Iraq. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Can you give us a figure of how much oil is stolen from Iraq and put directly into the American market?
 
Capster78 said:
Can you give us a figure of how much oil is stolen from Iraq and put directly into the American market?
Click to expand...

You need to go back and read through the thread as to what I've been saying and have referenced. Because its nothing close to your comment.
 
Catawba said:
You need to go back and read through the thread as to what I've been saying and have referenced. Because its nothing close to your comment.
Click to expand...

I have.. you seem to believe the war was all about oil. Well, where is the oil then? Last I checked, the oil prices have at least doubled since the war started.
 
Capster78 said:
I have.. you seem to believe the war was all about oil. Well, where is the oil then? Last I checked, the oil prices have at least doubled since the war started.
Click to expand...

Not sure that follows. While I don't think he war was completely about oil, just because our prices aren't lower doesn't mean it wasn't. ;)
 
Catawba said:
They said it would a cakewalk in Iraq too, 6 weeks tops!
Click to expand...

We did not make a parking lot out of Iraq, we will NK.

Obama won't do that in Afghanistan but he will do it to Asians.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure that follows. While I don't think he war was completely about oil, just because our prices aren't lower doesn't mean it wasn't. ;)
Click to expand...


Not sure we have taken a gallon of oil from Iraq yet.
 
Navy Pride said:
We did not make a parking lot out of Iraq, we will NK/SIZE].

[SIZE=4Obama won't do that in Afghanistan but he will do it to Asians.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...



Why not just let China handle it? Do we really need more unnecessary spending?
 
US companies get slice of Iraq’s oil pie

"Companies are well positioned to win the work because they have been in Iraq for years on contract.

When Iraq divided up its oil pie two years ago, the Russian company Lukoil won a slice equivalent to about 10 per cent of Iraq’s known reserves.
It was part of a trend: Five of the six major fields, together representing several million barrels per day of potential output, went to European, Russian and Asian oil companies. It looked as though not much was going to companies from the US, the country that took the leading role in the war.

But read the fine print of those contracts, and companies more familiar to Americans are now poised to benefit handsomely as the oil business picks up in Iraq.

The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors.

Halliburton and Baker Hughes are American, while Schlumberger is based in Paris though its drilling subdivision is headquartered in Houston. Weatherford, though founded in Texas, is now incorporated in Switzerland. “Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex

Halliburton has won drilling and well refurbishment contracts at three of the six major fields, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes at two others. One Chinese oil-services company is also working on these projects, as is a domestic Iraqi subcontractor, the Iraq Drilling Co.

Iraq signed the production contracts with international oil companies with the goal of increasing its oil output from about 2.4 million barrels a day in 2009 to as much as 12 million barrels a day within six years. So far, output has risen to 2.7 million barrels of oil per day.

"US oil-services companies are well positioned to win the work because they have been in Iraq for years on contract with the US occupation authorities and military. Rather than scaling back as the US military pulls out, Halliburton is planning to expand."

US companies get slice of Iraq’s oil pie
 
Catawba said:
Why not just let China handle it? Do we really need more unnecessary spending?
Click to expand...


That is really funny coming from and Obama supporter the biggest spender in the history of this country.
 
Navy Pride said:

That is really funny coming from and Obama supporter the biggest spender in the history of this country.
Click to expand...

it's simple liberal logic NP. the less money we spend on the military, the more money he has to use to buy votes via entitlement programs. That's why the left hates military spending
 
Navy Pride said:

That is really funny coming from and Obama supporter the biggest spender in the history of this country.
Click to expand...

After inheriting a country headed for another great depression and two simultaneous wars, president has reduced the deficit. Who was the last GOP president to do that?
 
Catawba said:
After inheriting a country headed for another great depression and two simultaneous wars, president has reduced the deficit. Who was the last GOP president to do that?
Click to expand...

must be that "new math" I keep hearing about :laughat:

Federal spending and federal deficits have both increased sharply under President Obama. In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before Obama took office, the federal government spent $2.9716 trillion. In fiscal 2012, the federal government spent $3.538 trillion.

In fiscal 2008, the federal deficit was $454.8 billion. In fiscal 2012, it was $1.2967 trillion. By this measure, President Obama did not reduce federal deficits by $2.5 trillion. He increased the annual deficit by $841.9 billion.
Click to expand...
 
OscarB63 said:
must be that "new math" I keep hearing about :laughat:
Click to expand...

Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

"With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Taken purely at face value, this number is enormous. Yet every Democrat, and especially the Obama campaign, ought to be telling anyone who will listen: Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction."

Bob Cesca: Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years


Now back to the topic of this thread:

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima

"The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions. “[C]hildren being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems,” are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution.

In certain Iraqi cities, the health consequences are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WWII."

http://raniakhalek.com/2013/03/20/u-s-turns-a-blind-eye-to-iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
it's simple liberal logic NP. the less money we spend on the military, the more money he has to use to buy votes via entitlement programs. That's why the left hates military spending
Click to expand...

Of course your right on the mark. I have never been able to figure why some of our left wing friends have such disdain for our military and want to make it 3rd rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom