I don't even want to argue any more.



I do believe this was originally a troll post.

 

I agree, though my first post may have seemed harsh it was intended that way. Someone comes on with 4 post counts and then ask a very liberal question about Iraq and oil and the good ol’ Saddam lovers the liberal’s line of “It’s all about the oil”

No, it wasn’t about the oil “specifically” it was about WMD’s it DON’T matter that we didn’t find any “YET” because the premise was based, first on Saddam and his big mouth claiming he had them and second it was based on the facts at hand that was agreed to by ALL free nations, those associated with the United Nations.

Yes, the entire United Nations agreed that Saddam had/has WMD’s, except now the wussys are claiming ”Gee, maybe he didn’t have them after all”

To late, so sad, it’s done and over and this should teach other nations if they want to run their big mouths and LIE about what they have they could be in for a major *** whooping.

The main purpose for going into Iraq was because they were, or very possible could have been the Home Depot to the world’s terrorist and supplying them with WMD’s to bring to America.

If their oil had been dried up BUT the same dangers were present before we went in I do believe we would have went in since is was NOT about the oil “specifically”.

Now if you want to be like BHibbs running around blind believing everything he reads on “particular” web sites and TV news then great, we can all be like Kerry and pretend every thing is great, kind of like Clinton as well, just sit around thinking no terrorist wants to hurt us and the planes flying into building on nice clear days was a complete accident.

Either you face reality or you don’t that choice is yours to make but it is a very dangerous choice and one you might not be able to make again.

Now, as far as oil, yes that is a part of it, perhaps even 40% because it is about stability in the Middle East, if there is no stability then America is doomed. What I mean is if you start having major problems or someone like Saddam who would have loved to control all the oil, from Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well as a few others then he has a major trump card on America.

It don’t take oil prices raising a whole lot, say $10 - $15 a barrel and you start affecting the economy in a MAJOR way. Regardless what the liberals may have you believe America operates and is very dependant on foreign oil, that’s what makes America tick. No oil, or prices going through the roof and you are going to have one major CRASH, not recession but CRASH as in DEPRESSION. And here is the thing, the liberals are partly responsible for that since we can’t really drill for oil in our own country and many of them love driving big SUV’s and flying in jets, some of them in private jets.

So, was this particular war in Iraq based on Oil? NO! it was not based on oil, it was based on a very REAL threat, that our intelligence had, British, and the rest of the free world, those associated with the United Nations.

Now maybe your new and had no idea what your particular question would cause. If that is the case then I would highly recommend the next time you join a site as a new guy to read threw many of the threads before you post a “liberal” type of question so you will know what to expect…

Welcome to F150online…

 

Didn't mean to cause a argument just some opinions. This wasn't meant to be a right or left bash. I will watch what I post in this forum. 01 xlt sport "jokingly" you would be a good addition the the bush administration. You definitley have strong beliefs and thats what makes america great. Thanks for the educated answers.

 

 

frankjr,

Sometimes things can get a bit heated down here in General Discussion and now and then you have a new person come by and you wonder if they are just adding to it or just posting.

You seem like a good person and NEVER EVER worry or watch what you say, that’s what it’s all about hearing everyone’s different opinion and letting it get heated at times without getting into name calling.

There are a lot of good people here, even BHibbs

Being serious I respect BHibbs as I do everyone else who post an opinion. Trust me I wouldn’t be a good addition to the Bush administration I would be causing some problems for them for some of the things they do that I don’t agree with…

I have my views, opinions and beliefs many are strong, but it never means with additional information even through debating that they necessarily can not be changed, hell if I had to I would even drive a Chevy…

Ahhhh, scratch that on the “drive a Chevy” I think that opinion is pretty much set in stone…

 

Odin's Wrath,

You know who is knocking on your door?














PETA...

 

You might want to mold you mind at the UN website. Hans Blix reported both chemicals and chemical warheads that were in violation of 1441. As a matter of record EVERY issue cited in Resolution 1441 has been found to be correct to include - long range missles, WMDs, lack of humanitarian aid, repression of the population, terrorism, not making repairs with Kuwait.

Then research the largest amount of oil that the US ever imported from Iraq. Hint - it was very small as a percentage, and insignificant then, even less significant after the Gulf War.

When you get done there, research on the large percentage of Haliburton contract work that is being done by foreign countries, and paid out in salaries. The company is providing little more than basic structure, and will profit very little with the contracts.



Who is following the facts, and who is following conspiracy theories?



I realize that some would prefer to chase such theories and ignore the fact that the interim Constitution for Iraq was signed yesterday. It includes, among other things, a bill of rights for the Iraqi people. 25 million people have now been given the chance to enjoy those things that we take for granted in daily life.

 

Really, They found WMD now? I must have missed that one.

Last I heard Haliburton owed 87 million to a food company. That's just One of their contracts. Yea, small fries.

We were getting 8% of our oil from Iraq. I don't know what that means. That's just what we're getting. I don't think the entire reason for the war was oil myself. I'm sure it helped though. Once relations are well established I could see us getting 20% from them, no problem. Maybe more.

 

A chance to re-arm? He had ample time before the first Gulf War and no one was watching him and the best he could do was to lose the war in 2 months. How would he go about re-arming with the US watching him closely?

Saddam thought he could get away with invading Kuwait because he did not think we would get involved. We proved otherwise. He liked being in power and he liked being alive. He was not about to start World War 3 in the Gulf for his own amusement. He was going to play games with the UN but he was less of a threat than the new country will be.

The real terrorist supporters are in Saudi Arabia and yet you conveniently left them off your list.

North Korea feels threatened? Give me a break. They have one of the largest standing armies in the world and probably have nuclear missiles capable of destroying our closest allies in the area. Can you imagine the devastation an attack on Japan, South Korea or Taiwan would have on the world economy?

-Don

 

Iraq has the largest mapped oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Iraq is suspected of having the largest unmapped reserves in the world with the possible exception of Siberia (and they are a lot easier to reach).

-Don

 

Yes, that was a fact known by many people. Many of his programs were laying in wait until the heat was off so he could start them up again and one was nuclear weapons. He had hoped that the world would get tired of dealing with him and finally have to leave him alone “poor ol’ Saddam, why's everyone always picking on him” Saddam to a point was quite smart, he knew the USA pretty well and how Americans forget things in a matter of months and “pretend” everything is great, like people not remembering 9/11 or “pretending” it was a one time thing, no biggy…

Saddam got a good *** whooping over that one, but then he became very close with the French and Germans figured they were his buddies. And he did good by getting close to them paying them off, cheap oil to them, buying some of the military goodies and even some chemical goodies as well.

They held the USA back for a number of years as did some other wuss bag countries in the UN, then along came a real leader, a real man no more talking the talk but walking the walk. Now Saddam’s closest allies, the French and Germans could not protect him. Saddam had really believed we would NEVER invade up until the bombs starting dropping on his ***.

Saddam may have never started WWIII, but then we will never know because we did the RIGHT thing and stopped a terrorist supporter and terrorist supplier of WMD’s to deliver anywhere in the world they wished since in America we were only searching old ladies and kids for weapons at the airports. (Freaking liberals will never get it, but at least they are not in charge…)

Libya was indeed a player, maybe not as big as Iraq, but a player nevertheless and they seen the light, when the man talks (President Bush) you had better listen or you might be in for the next *** whooping…


Absolutely they feel threaten, why else to you think they keep whining over America to sign a non-aggression act with them. They know damn well they could be next for a major *** whooping and want us to sign a useless paper saying we won’t whoop their ***.

THANK GOD Clinton or Algore, and for that matter Kerry is not in office or they would have signed it and let them carry on with their nuke program…

 

Excellent, hopefully we will all have very cheap gas soon...

 

Er, yes I did. Sorry about that.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Saudi Arabia is a supporter of terrorism. Syria too for that matter. How should we address the problem?

1. Ignore them and hope they will go away.

Nope. Appeasement never works. Proven historically.

2. Ask them nicely to stop or we will refuse to buy their oil.

I can't see that one working either. Bad for the economy and some of our supposed friends (you know who they are) are not very good at sticking to sanctions.

3. Bomb the ***** out of them and invade the place setting up a puppet government in the process.

I don't think I would lose too much sleep if we dropped a few MOABS on Saudi, Syria and the Pakistan/Afgan border but thats technically illegal and smacks of colonialism. We could invade Iraq because they were in breach of UN 1441 and the terms of the first ceasfire.

4. Exert diplomatic pressure on them to change their ways by offering them trade deals, friendship or whatever.

That's what we are doing now.

What did I miss Don?

 

I too agree with have to deal with Saudi Arabia and I believe in time we will do that, well if we have President Bush in office, otherwise Saudi Arabia will be free to do what they do now.

We have to finish up with Iraq first, and then perhaps we can deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In time my friend we will, there is only so many messes left by Clinton we can clean up at a particular time…

 

What you missed is the fact that we have been completely unsuccessful in curbing Saudi support for terrorism. So should we start planning the invasion?

-Don