Iraq: U.S. definitely was NOT out for oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

If it makes you feel better, I like Canada and Canadians!

---

I feel the love brother...I feel the love!!

We Canadians take such criticism too personally. For most our history, we have always tried to be in the middle and try to use diplomacy and consenses building in human affairs. We don't like being the bad guy or giving ultimatums. That is why many here took that Copenhagen condemnation and turned it on ourselves. There are politicians in this country that piled on that and condemned our Prime Minister for not being out in front of this and cutting our CO2 and being a good little boy. What they forget, and the activists wont care about is the livelihoods of those people in the oil patch. Not to mention the massive tax revenues and money that the industry generates.

All of this climate change political speak is not about the climate in the end, it is about the developed economies of the world feeling guilt and giving money to the poor to keep on polluting. That is what it is when you get down down to it. That and the creation of a world Carbon market where scum like Al Gore make money pretending to be helping the planet. The one company in the US that was so gung ho for a North American carbon market was Enron, and we know how pure their motives were now don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But they did die for a purpose, freedom for the Iraqis.

---

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

---

Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

---

Unless you fight a war after being directly attacked, any war could be seen as selfish by some. Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it.

As long as the volunteer military grunts on the ground can believe in the mission, which pointy headed intellectuals can say it isn't worth it? It isn't their skin in the game now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

So you think it was the Iraqis them self who made the power vacuum in their country?

---

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

Before this thread gets muddled any further I'm just trying to find out the flip side of this story. Something is going on behind closed doors to where the United States stands idly by and allows rival countries to take control of Iraq's oil for the next two decades. 'What's up?' is my question.

Just want some input if you have any ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?

---

Okay, let's try to define selfish.

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.

9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it.

---

:crazy:

Bonkers, and no, I don't think that way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.!

---

The US kept troops over there mainly through the Cold War as a deterrent. They are still there today for that reason, and because the Japanese government WANTS them there. If they didn't, they wouldn't BE there. The presence of a US miltary base of that size in that area says to possible foes such as China or North Korea that Japan is a valuable ally of the US and the US is prepared to defend that ally. The cost of American isolationism is higher than having bases around the world. Ignoring potential enemies with a hate America agenda has never worked in the history of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.

---

The Patriot Act was passed by both parties in Congress and was used to track potential threats in cyberspace communication and hopefully stem any attacks by sleeper cells on US soil. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the FBI and CIA had the power to co-ordinate data and information of threats in and out of the country and their communication to the "head office" in Afghanistan. So the Patriot Act was born. It had to be repassed every year, so the politicians always knew that they had to justify it's existance as an emergency measure. As for the civil rights being abused, in theory yes. Name me one person tho you have met who had their mail read? Name me someone who had their phones tapped? You cannot. We may never know how much was monitored, but the way elint is gathered, the reality is other spy agencies such as SDECE, and MI5, not to mention Canada's CSIS can do covert spying and mail reading of American communications leaving the country to other nations on the CIA's behalf and then warn the CIA covertly of the threat. There are many ways that even without the Patriot Act the US Government can be informed of threats against the USA. The Patriot act was more public relations than people realize.

US citizens still have more civil rights to free speech and unflitered communications than almost any other soceity. The Patriot act didn't do much more than threaten it more in theory than in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

---

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

---

The analogy is what Iam speaking of Tomi. Blaming the US for the fact Iraqi's are willing to kill each other unless a brutal dictator is running the country is just silly. The US may have removed the force that was stopping the sectarian strife, but that force (Hussein) was killing 25000 people a year according to many UN and Amnesty International reports. So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

Yes it would, who has said like that?

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

---

This last is nothing but speculation, better wait and see, but I belive that there will be some group who feels that they have been unfair treated so the violence will last for long time.