[rob666]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

i watched this.. i think they proved that the oil theory was the main focus but regardless of that fact, we were honestly somewhat forced into iraq anyway (or would have been).

Hitchens makes a great point when he said that we are (because of out alligences with other countries... i forget which treaty in particular...the UN mandates, i think) mandated to take action to stop countries from doing certain things. Iraq had broken this mandates and instead of the US acting on these, like they were supposed to, they sent UN weapons inspectors over to try to get them to find evidence of WMDs so the UN could act. those inspectors were repeatedly denied access and Iraq repeatedly violated UN mandates.


then 9-11 happened and the world changed...

...so, while the actual decision to invade should have been made and followed through earlier, in all honesty.

what happened after 9-11 is clear though... we were lied to about the full reasons for why we invaded iraq. the search for WMDs was real and, if you really examine the political climate of the world before 9-11, was a valid threat... but there were, for sure, other reasons and motivations on top of the WMD threat... and after the invasion started, the whole thing was handled in the worst possible manner.

so, im not saying that oil wasnt an issue... im simply saying that the WMD threat was also a real issue, one that needed to be acted on, and was a valid reason for invading when we did....

there was just obviously also more to the story that we were lied to about.

The whole issue with violating UN mandates becomes void when we pick and choose which ones to enforce base on political reasons.
Israel has violated more than any other place on earth, and has never faced any consequence for doing so. The chief weapons inspectors in the leadup to the second Iraq war have stated that they felt war was already a certainty. Hans blix and Scott Ritter have both condemned the process, and what they perceive as American meddling with it.

[Zambini]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

The whole issue with violating UN mandates becomes void when we pick and choose which ones to enforce base on political reasons.
Israel has violated more than any other place on earth, and has never faced any consequence for doing so. The chief weapons inspectors in the leadup to the second Iraq war have stated that they felt war was already a certainty. Hans blix and Scott Ritter have both condemned the process, and what they perceive as American meddling with it.

Rob, Israel is the biggest & best aircraft carrier the USA has in the region, and the USA won't allow any nation to disrupt the flow of oil to the west.

The USA controls the UN through foreign aid and the members fear of US sponsored internal coups. Get out of line, the aid is cut off and your enemies are armed and supported.

That's it in a nutshell, pretty much.

Sealed with a kiss between Roosevelt and Saud in 1945, oil for US enforced peace and stability in the region

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Zambini ↗

Rob, Israel is the biggest & best aircraft carrier the USA has in the region, and the USA won't allow any nation to disrupt the flow of oil to the west.

The USA controls the UN through foreign aid and the members fear of US sponsored internal coups. Get out of line, the aid is cut off and your enemies are armed and supported.

That's it in a nutshell, pretty much.

Sealed with a kiss between Roosevelt and Saud in 1945, oil for US enforced peace and stability in the region

I couldn't agree more..... 100% accurate summary.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

The whole issue with violating UN mandates becomes void when we pick and choose which ones to enforce base on political reasons.
Israel has violated more than any other place on earth, and has never faced any consequence for doing so. The chief weapons inspectors in the leadup to the second Iraq war have stated that they felt war was already a certainty. Hans blix and Scott Ritter have both condemned the process, and what they perceive as American meddling with it.

i disagree that the issue becomes void when we are talking about a state that had already used chemical weapons against civilians and was thought to be hiding more weapons. Im not saying the US acted wisely but im saying that there was more motivation there for this war than just oil and to make it seem like oil was the only reason we went to war is a bit disingenuous. i also think that just because the US has done stupid things (and they do...repeatedly) that doesnt mean it shouldnt act when actually needed....which is less often than they currently do.

Israel is a whole different issue and the US would be better off if it stayed out of Israel's affairs all together, in my opinion.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

i disagree that the issue becomes void when we are talking about a state that had already used chemical weapons against civilians and was thought to be hiding more weapons. Im not saying the US acted wisely but im saying that there was more motivation there for this war than just oil and to make it seem like oil was the only reason we went to war is a bit disingenuous. i also think that just because the US has done stupid things (and they do...repeatedly) that doesnt mean it shouldnt act when actually needed....which is less often than they currently do.

Israel is a whole different issue and the US would be better off if it stayed out of Israel's affairs all together, in my opinion.

Either we believe in international laws or we don't, we can't pick and choose which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce. There was no UN mandate for the second Iraq war, the UN's inspectors found nothing and were against an invasion or military
Intervention. The UN inspectors said from the outset that there might be nothing there despite claims of Iraq hiding hundreds of tons, and in the end not 1 gram of anything was found.

The whole issue of iraq's previous use of chemical weapons becomes suspect when we look at the response at that time. Normal diplomatic relations were quickly restored, and behind the scenes it was business as usual. As long as the weapons were being used against an enemy, it wasn't an issue..... In fact, precursors and satellite mapping were provided to saddam to increase the effectiveness.

I have no idea what the endgame was. I'm not believing that it was purely for oil, but the official reason ( WMD's) has so many huge holes in it it's not funny.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Either we believe in international laws or we don't, we can't pick and choose which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce. There was no UN mandate for the second Iraq war, the UN's inspectors found nothing and were against an invasion or military
Intervention. The UN inspectors said from the outset that there might be nothing there despite claims of Iraq hiding hundreds of tons, and in the end not 1 gram of anything was found.

The whole issue of iraq's previous use of chemical weapons becomes suspect when we look at the response at that time. Normal diplomatic relations were quickly restored, and behind the scenes it was business as usual. As long as the weapons were being used against an enemy, it wasn't an issue..... In fact, precursors and satellite mapping were provided to saddam to increase the effectiveness.

I have no idea what the endgame was. I'm not believing that it was purely for oil, but the official reason ( WMD's) has so many huge holes in it it's not funny.

again, it wasnt about WMD's...it was about the fact that Iraqs actions had cost them their sovereignty and the US was obligated to act.

[Shakey]

I believe it.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Shakey ↗

I believe it.

i believe that oil was an issue... and there was a reason for it. I think Hitchens does a good job of making this point in his interviews and in that debate. to be honest, i dont know enough about it to really be able to debate it but i feel that Hitchens has a great point that shouldnt be written off.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

again, it wasnt about WMD's...it was about the fact that Iraqs actions had cost them their sovereignty and the US was obligated to act.

The US was obligated to act on behalf of who? What actions are you referring to?

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

The US was obligated to act on behalf of who? What actions are you referring to?

sorry, i didnt notice this until now... my bad.

they violated the non proliferation treaty, they were harboring terrorists, they showed aggression to a neighboring state and committed genocide. Geneva convention treaties mandate action from nations when these conditions are violate. iraq violated all of them many times.

the decision to remove saddam was made in 1998... the Iraq Liberation Act... going into iraq shouldnt have been a shock to anybody.