Should the US Arm and Trian the Syrian Rebels?

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Montecresto said:

And those five thousand US armed and trained so-called moderates will end up joining the Islamic State, watch!

Click to expand...

I think you are right on that. Then that will leave the reconstituted Iraqi Army as the Kurds are not going to roam very far from their own home territory. Another possibility this administration is missing is Assad's army. I know the president is dead set on Assad's ouster which I think is a mistake. But before all this is done and over with, this administration will have to either determine which force, ISIS or Assad is the lesser of two evils. Which if one survives would be less a threat to the U.S. I know my answer.

I personally would rather leave Assad in power and be rid of ISIS. Assad at least would rule over a stable Syria, he may be a bastard of the least worst kind, but he is better than an ISIS caliphate.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

MMC said:

Well like I have shown.....theres 50k in Syria. 30k in Iraq. Also the Syrian Rebels with the Largest force 25k fighters has made a pact with ISIS.

According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports

This is what we discussed about it here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ikes-deal-moderate-syrian-rebels-reports.html

Click to expand...

This portion says it all:

"This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

PirateMk1 said:

I believe we should arm and train the Syrians and anybody else in the area that so desires, for a price why should they get such valuable knowledge and equipment for free. If they got cold hard cash we have available time and goods.

Click to expand...

If we give them nukes, perhaps they will glass themselves hmm?

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Hamster Buddha said:

If we give them nukes, perhaps they will glass themselves hmm?

Click to expand...

Ya know.........

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Hamster Buddha said:

If we give them nukes, perhaps they will glass themselves hmm?

Click to expand...

As attractive as that option sounds, it would be bad for us economically. They have resources we could use and radiating the area would hinder our collection of those resources.

I firmly believe our coalition should be one of occupiers. Walk in, destroy anything that even looks like it is dangerous and then pillage the place for its wealth and resources. Leave behind a crater for them to spend the next century crawling out of. Let them focus so much on survival that they haven't the time to squabble over religious difference let alone turn an eye toward harassing us.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

MMC said:

Today, Congress is determining if we should give funds to Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels. So that they can fight ISIS. The Problem is the Syrian Rebels are not able to be trusted. They have used Chems and all they care about is removing Assad. Even their top commanders are all for a government that would be acceptable With Sharia Law.

They will say and do anything to get backing and assistance.....they have also pledged against the US. At least 29 opposition groups. While it is understandable to have the need to take on ISIS. This is a mistake waiting to Happen. What say ye?

Click to expand...

I don't have military, state department or intelligence advisers but armed with what I think I know now, no. I think we should handle it from the air and try to contain the problem. In the meantime, concurrently start treating advancing cars like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt and Tesla Model-S that don't require petroleum like the national security emergency it is and stop with the sometimes divisive climate change argument.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

MMC said:

Today, Congress is determining if we should give funds to Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels. So that they can fight ISIS. The Problem is the Syrian Rebels are not able to be trusted. They have used Chems and all they care about is removing Assad. Even their top commanders are all for a government that would be acceptable With Sharia Law.

They will say and do anything to get backing and assistance.....they have also pledged against the US. At least 29 opposition groups. While it is understandable to have the need to take on ISIS. This is a mistake waiting to Happen. What say ye?

Click to expand...

Not only no but **** no.

1.We have no way of knowing if these are the good rebels or the bad rebels.

2.These people we train and give weapons to can turn on us and or use their training and weapons against innocent civilians. Friends can become enemies and the one thing I d not want them to have is our know how and weapons.

3.We should not be training and arming rebels in any country.What goes on in another country is none of our ****en business. Many of these same people arguing we should train these rebels would be screaming bloody murder if another country did that to us or are screaming bloody murder at Russia arming the Ukrainian rebels.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

I think you are right on that. Then that will leave the reconstituted Iraqi Army as the Kurds are not going to roam very far from their own home territory. Another possibility this administration is missing is Assad's army. I know the president is dead set on Assad's ouster which I think is a mistake. But before all this is done and over with, this administration will have to either determine which force, ISIS or Assad is the lesser of two evils. Which if one survives would be less a threat to the U.S. I know my answer.

I personally would rather leave Assad in power and be rid of ISIS. Assad at least would rule over a stable Syria, he may be a bastard of the least worst kind, but he is better than an ISIS caliphate.

Click to expand...

Yes, well president Assad is bushels better then the Islamic State, and that should be a no brainer, can't figure out the hesitation on this, and, had we supported president Assad from the beginning, the conflict would have ended as soon as it started, there wouldn't have been 170,000 dead Syrians nor the vacuum that has given rise to the Islamic State. President Assad has been battling these militant Islamic extremists that were doing nothing more then tacking advantage of the Arab spring, and due to a long standing US desire for regime change in Syria, those groups of radicals have had US support and it has essentially backfired, and our interference, intervention, subterfuge, intrigue, regime change etc., in the ME has been just what that element in the Muslim community that has wanted to create an Islamic State Caliphate, have been waiting for, and they have rushed in to fill the voids. We, have unleashed a monster here with far more power and resources then al Qaeda or any other terrorist group in the ME. and even with 4,500 lost soldiers, 1-1/2 trillion dollars in a dozen years, AQ lives. And we have people here defending US policy in the Middle East! I don't understand this one bit.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Smeagol said:

I don't have military, state department or intelligence advisers but armed with what I think I know now, no. I think we should handle it from the air and try to contain the problem. In the meantime, concurrently start treating advancing cars like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt and Tesla Model-S that don't require petroleum like the national security emergency it is and stop with the sometimes divisive climate change argument.

Click to expand...

Heya Sméagol. :2wave: These terrorists are already spreading. They cannot be contained by just Air Strikes. It will require Boots on the ground. They don't have to be all of ours. Everyone should get in on this. All need the practice anyways.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Hamster Buddha said:

If we give them nukes, perhaps they will glass themselves hmm?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't give them the nukes, lease them perhaps? Say they lease for a certain term coverage for a particular target if meeting certain conditions. Or sell them tactical nuclear strikes perhaps. They get all the benefits of nukes without the hassle of owning them.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Montecresto said:

Yes, well president Assad is bushels better then the Islamic State, and that should be a no brainer, can't figure out the hesitation on this, and, had we supported president Assad from the beginning, the conflict would have ended as soon as it started, there wouldn't have been 170,000 dead Syrians nor the vacuum that has given rise to the Islamic State. President Assad has been battling these militant Islamic extremists that were doing nothing more then tacking advantage of the Arab spring, and due to a long standing US desire for regime change in Syria, those groups of radicals have had US support and it has essentially backfired, and our interference, intervention, subterfuge, intrigue, regime change etc., in the ME has been just what that element in the Muslim community that has wanted to create an Islamic State Caliphate, have been waiting for, and they have rushed in to fill the voids. We, have unleashed a monster here with far more power and resources then al Qaeda or any other terrorist group in the ME. and even with 4,500 lost soldiers, 1-1/2 trillion dollars in a dozen years, AQ lives. And we have people here defending US policy in the Middle East! I don't understand this one bit.

Click to expand...

Qaddafi kept a lid on the terrorist, regime change and look at Libya now. It is a hundred times worst off than prior to regime change. Syria I think will follow that model. If we as a nation want to deal with ISIS and be done with it, I think we have no choice but to make nice with Assad and use his troops, some 250,000 of them if we want to keep Americans combat forces out of Iraq or involved in this mess. The Kurds are not the answer, they won't drift far from home. The Iraqi forces are a force without will. They have the means, they had the training, but they do not have the will. At least Assad's troops will fight, whether they believe in Assad or are too afraid of him, it does not really matter. They will fight which is something the Iraqi Army won't.

I am not sure what our middle east policy is. So in a sense we can not approve or disapprove of it if we do not know what it is. Outside of reaction to events after they happen, what is it?

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

jamesrage said:

Not only no but **** no.

1.We have no way of knowing if these are the good rebels or the bad rebels.

2.These people we train and give weapons to can turn on us and or use their training and weapons against innocent civilians. Friends can become enemies and the one thing I d not want them to have is our know how and weapons.

3.We should not be training and arming rebels in any country.What goes on in another country is none of our ****en business. Many of these same people arguing we should train these rebels would be screaming bloody murder if another country did that to us or are screaming bloody murder at Russia arming the Ukrainian rebels.

Click to expand...

Seems strange that congress is only just now being asked to approve what the Obama administration has been doing all along at least in somewhat of a clandestine fashion.

The main Syrian opposition body - the Syrian coalition - receives logistic and political support from major Sunni states in the Middle East, most notably Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. France, Britain and the US have also provided political, military and logistic support to the opposition.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

Qaddafi kept a lid on the terrorist, regime change and look at Libya now. It is a hundred times worst off than prior to regime change. Syria I think will follow that model. If we as a nation want to deal with ISIS and be done with it, I think we have no choice but to make nice with Assad and use his troops, some 250,000 of them if we want to keep Americans combat forces out of Iraq or involved in this mess. The Kurds are not the answer, they won't drift far from home. The Iraqi forces are a force without will. They have the means, they had the training, but they do not have the will. At least Assad's troops will fight, whether they believe in Assad or are too afraid of him, it does not really matter. They will fight which is something the Iraqi Army won't.

I am not sure what our middle east policy is. So in a sense we can not approve or disapprove of it if we do not know what it is. Outside of reaction to events after they happen, what is it?

Click to expand...

al Sadr in Iraq has a 100K Shia Militias to go fight with.....but this will just spark off more sectarian conflict. Which has already spread beyond Iraq. Look at the Shia in Yemen and Bahrain.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

Qaddafi kept a lid on the terrorist, regime change and look at Libya now. It is a hundred times worst off than prior to regime change. Syria I think will follow that model. If we as a nation want to deal with ISIS and be done with it, I think we have no choice but to make nice with Assad and use his troops, some 250,000 of them if we want to keep Americans combat forces out of Iraq or involved in this mess. The Kurds are not the answer, they won't drift far from home. The Iraqi forces are a force without will. They have the means, they had the training, but they do not have the will. At least Assad's troops will fight, whether they believe in Assad or are too afraid of him, it does not really matter. They will fight which is something the Iraqi Army won't.

I am not sure what our middle east policy is. So in a sense we can not approve or disapprove of it if we do not know what it is. Outside of reaction to events after they happen, what is it?

Click to expand...

Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” allies see President Barack Obama’s decision to extend U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists into Syria as a new chance to achieve the long-treasured neocon goal of “regime change” in Damascus.

On the surface, Obama’s extraordinary plan to ignore Syrian sovereignty and attack across the border has been viewed as a unilateral U.S. action to strike at the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but it could easily evolve into a renewed effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government, ironically one of ISIS’s principal goals.

ISIS began as part of the Sunni resistance to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq which had elevated Iraq’s Shiite majority to power. Then known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” the terrorist group stoked a sectarian war by slaughtering Shiites and bombing their mosques.

The us doesn't give a crap about sovereignty, unless it's politically expedient, as in the case with Ukraine, suddenly Ukrainian sovereign borders are very important and we have all the hand wringing over Putin tending to his interests there.

In his national address Wednesday, Obama said he will order U.S. air attacks across Syria’s border without any coordination with the Syrian government, a proposition that Damascus has denounced as a violation of its sovereignty. Thus, the argument will surely soon be heard in Washington that Assad’s government must be removed as a military prerequisite so the attacks on ISIS can proceed. Otherwise, there could be a threat to U.S. aircraft from Syria’s air defenses.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/

"The United States would retaliate against Syrian President Bashar Assad's air defenses if he were to go after American planes launching airstrikes in his country, senior Obama administration officials said Monday."
These "senior officials" delivered an explicit threat against Assad. They said that any Syrian attempt to enforce that nation's sovereignty would provoke US attacks on Syrian air defenses.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

MMC said:

al Sadr in Iraq has a 100K Shia Militias to go fight with.....but this will just spark off more sectarian conflict. Which has already spread beyond Iraq. Look at the Shia in Yemen and Bahrain.

Click to expand...

A real catch 22. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. There is no right answer to Iraq. Just a bunch of very bad choices and it seems pretty darn near to a no win situation. At least for this administrations goals of defeating ISIS and forcing regime change on Syria.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

A real catch 22. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. There is no right answer to Iraq. Just a bunch of very bad choices and it seems pretty darn near to a no win situation. At least for this administrations goals of defeating ISIS and forcing regime change on Syria.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and BO giving Lebanon hellfire missiles and not knowing who is going to be doing what. Makes sense.....how?

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

A real catch 22. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. There is no right answer to Iraq. Just a bunch of very bad choices and it seems pretty darn near to a no win situation. At least for this administrations goals of defeating ISIS and forcing regime change on Syria.

Click to expand...

The Islamic State excuse is NOTHING MORE then a back door attempt at removing president Assad from power. And it's not just the Obama administrations goal btw!


President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports.

If Assad's troops fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, "Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system," Baker reports. "He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account."

http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...can-planes-would-lead-to-his-overthrow-2014-9

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Montecresto said:

Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” allies see President Barack Obama’s decision to extend U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists into Syria as a new chance to achieve the long-treasured neocon goal of “regime change” in Damascus.

On the surface, Obama’s extraordinary plan to ignore Syrian sovereignty and attack across the border has been viewed as a unilateral U.S. action to strike at the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but it could easily evolve into a renewed effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government, ironically one of ISIS’s principal goals.

ISIS began as part of the Sunni resistance to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq which had elevated Iraq’s Shiite majority to power. Then known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” the terrorist group stoked a sectarian war by slaughtering Shiites and bombing their mosques.

Click to expand...

I keep thinking of Joe Biden's solution when he was still a senator. Right after Saddam was caught and before all this nation building junk started, he suggested to dividing Iraq into three parts. One for the Kurds, one for the Shia and one for the Sunni. At the time I thought that was a great idea, but both sides and both parties laughed him out of the building. Looking back on it, perhaps that was the way to go.

I am sure if regime change happens in Syria, whomever replaces Assad will be ten time worse. As I said many times, the one thing the president and the U.S. could do to protect and abide by Syrian sovereignty is to make nice with Assad. An Assad ruled Syria in my view is better than an ISIS one, a Caliphate or an Islamic Republic. Sometimes the lesser evil is the way you have to go to avoid a much worse evil and a much worse situation.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

MMC said:

Yeah, and BO giving Lebanon hellfire missiles and not knowing who is going to be doing what. Makes sense.....how?

Click to expand...

Sometimes we do things just to do things. Then we sit back and hope it will all work out.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Montecresto said:

The Islamic State excuse is NOTHING MORE then a back door attempt at removing president Assad from power. And it's not just the Obama administrations goal btw!


President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports.

If Assad's troops fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, "Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system," Baker reports. "He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account."

Obama: Assad Shooting At American Planes Would Lead To His Overthrow - Business Insider

Click to expand...

Viola, ISIS wins and the Islamic radicals win. Syria becomes chaos and the violence continues minus perhaps the one person who could help bring stability back to Syria and Iraq. Does any one in Washington ever look at the big picture? Does any one in Washington ever do assessments as to what Syria and Iraq would look like or be after Assad?

We got rid of Qaddafi in Libya and look at it now. Tribes fighting each other, difference branches of Islam fighting each other, terrorists using Libya as their training base again, total chaos and turmoil.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

Viola, ISIS wins and the Islamic radicals win. Syria becomes chaos and the violence continues minus perhaps the one person who could help bring stability back to Syria and Iraq. Does any one in Washington ever look at the big picture? Does any one in Washington ever do assessments as to what Syria and Iraq would look like or be after Assad?

We got rid of Qaddafi in Libya and look at it now. Tribes fighting each other, difference branches of Islam fighting each other, terrorists using Libya as their training base again, total chaos and turmoil.

Click to expand...

Here's how badly the US lusts for regime change in Syria. Three times Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, all three times, Russia and China said hell no! Russian FM Lavrov clearly articulated that their reason was that the US had abused the resolution for the use of force in Libya to conduct regime change and Russia vowed that they would not allow it to happen in Syria. So plan B, Obama began using the Benghazi annex to smuggle arms, pilfered from Gaddafi's army to the opposition in Syria, then, with proxies, Russia ended that operation, and so now, plan C, violate Syria's sovereign border, hoping to draw fire from president Assad's forces, for pretext of regime change. I only wonder how Russia will handle plan C?

......the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-hidden-real-truth-about-benghazi

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Montecresto said:

Here's how badly the US lusts for regime change in Syria. Three times Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, all three times, Russia and China said hell no! Russian FM Lavrov clearly articulated that their reason was that the US had abused the resolution for the use of force in Libya to conduct regime change and Russia vowed that they would not allow it to happen in Syria. So plan B, Obama began using the Benghazi annex to smuggle arms, pilfered from Gaddafi's army to the opposition in Syria, then, with proxies, Russia ended that operation, and so now, plan C, violate Syria's sovereign border, hoping to draw fire from president Assad's forces, for pretext of regime change. I only wonder how Russia will handle plan C?

......the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

The hidden real truth about Benghazi

Click to expand...

I think anyone with a sense on how our government operates and the knowledge of how we run covert operations of this type knows or at least is fairly reasonable sure it was all about arms to the Syrian Rebels. We have done a lot of this type of stuff in the past. What I don't understand is the fixation on kicking Assad out of power in Syria regardless of the repercussions or what comes after.

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

I think anyone with a sense on how our government operates and the knowledge of how we run covert operations of this type knows or at least is fairly reasonable sure it was all about arms to the Syrian Rebels. We have done a lot of this type of stuff in the past. What I don't understand is the fixation on kicking Assad out of power in Syria regardless of the repercussions or what comes after.

Click to expand...

That's what stumps me as well. If its oil, that backfires because production in Libya has dropped from 1.3 million barrels a day under Gaddafi to just 300,000 now. Syria's not a big oil producer, but some have claimed a oil/gas line through Syria to the EU that Assad wouldn't go for???

Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Perotista said:

I think anyone with a sense on how our government operates and the knowledge of how we run covert operations of this type knows or at least is fairly reasonable sure it was all about arms to the Syrian Rebels. We have done a lot of this type of stuff in the past. What I don't understand is the fixation on kicking Assad out of power in Syria regardless of the repercussions or what comes after.

Click to expand...

That's what stumps me as well. If its oil, that backfires because production in Libya has dropped from 1.3 million barrels a day under Gaddafi to just 300,000 now. Syria's not a big oil producer, but some have claimed a oil/gas line through Syria to the EU that Assad wouldn't go for??? Chuck Hagel and Alan Greenspan amongst others have declared that Iraq was certainly about oil.