Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

[Secret Squirrel]

President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its 1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops," said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief."

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure" from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/)[/quote]

[Durandal]

Actually FDR had to lay down some heavily lies and propaganda on the American people to get them to fall in strongly behind a Germany First mentality.

They were hell bent for Jap blood in Dec of 1941 but still a bit isolationist towards the European conflict.

[Jobu]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

[Secret Squirrel]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

[Mailman]

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Actually Bush makes a good point here. If Iraq is controlled by Bin Ladin and other terrorists then they would have unlimited funding because of the oil they could sell off to the highest (or lowest bidder).

Its a bit of a stretch to say that Bush said the war was because of the oil when in fact he never said any such thing :roll:

Mailman

[Secret Squirrel]

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Actually Bush makes a good point here. If Iraq is controlled by Bin Ladin and other terrorists then they would have unlimited funding because of the oil they could sell off to the highest (or lowest bidder).

Its a bit of a stretch to say that Bush said the war was because of the oil when in fact he never said any such thing :roll:

Mailman

Lovely red herrings. :lol: Is it a stretch to say that Bush said he wanted to protect Iraq's oil from being used by terrorists? ;) Has he said this before or is this a new spin on "stay the course"?

[Mailman]

Obviously SS you are an anti-war goon because the meaning of his words are quite clear. If the terrorists win then they gain both brownie points with the ignorant muslims around the world but more importantly gain access to massive amounts of oil which can be used to sponsor terrorist operations around the world. :roll:

Mailman

[Sir Zach of R.]

It was always a point even before the war started that the fields needed to be secured, in which they were. Mainly to prevent Saddam from torching them like he did in 91.

[Secret Squirrel]

Obviously SS you are an anti-war goon because the meaning of his words are quite clear. If the terrorists win then they gain both brownie points with the ignorant muslims around the world but more importantly gain access to massive amounts of oil which can be used to sponsor terrorist operations around the world. :roll:

Mailman

Obviously you're just using the same talking points and red herrings over and over. :roll: Of course the words are quite clear, but has he tried before to spin "stay the course" into protecting Iraq's oil from falling into the hands of terrorists? Obviously he must be speaking about the post-invasion period because I dont think Bin Laden and AQ could have taken down Saddam.

[Miles.]

It wasn't a reason stated in the run-up to the war.

I'm with Squirrel on this one. It's new.

[Weasel]

Oil was always one of the main reasons. First they protected the oil fields, after that libraries and cultural assets. ;)

[achilles]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

He probably called up Jobu and Wolfowitz and told them in person. p-)


The fact that at the same time oil prices are sky rocketing is no coincidence am i right?

I am wondering, is he udnerestimating the intelligence of his own people and the rest of the world?

[joe mama]

It wasn't a reason stated in the run-up to the war.

I'm with Squirrel on this one. It's new.

I don't believe he's saying this was a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, I think he's saying we need to be there fighting the terrorists now because we can't just leave and let them get the oil fields.
At this point, how much does it matter why we went in? Whether there was one reason, or one hundred, and if there were a hundred and they were all spoken or just one of them was, we're there now. Should we stay or not? This sounds like why we should stay. Maybe it's a newly mentioned reason why we should stay, but does anybody really think that at every speech Bush (or whoever) is going to list every single reason? Even if they did, the press would never report it all, they'd focus on one or two.

[Secret Squirrel]

It wasn't a reason stated in the run-up to the war.

I'm with Squirrel on this one. It's new.

I don't believe he's saying this was a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, I think he's saying we need to be there fighting the terrorists now because we can't just leave and let them get the oil fields.
At this point, how much does it matter why we went in? Whether there was one reason, or one hundred, and if there were a hundred and they were all spoken or just one of them was, we're there now. Should we stay or not? This sounds like why we should stay. Maybe it's a newly mentioned reason why we should stay, but does anybody really think that at every speech Bush (or whoever) is going to list every single reason? Even if they did, the press would never report it all, they'd focus on one or two.

Obviously the comment was directed as the post-invasion period. And actually, he's on (or just finished?) his little tour to drum up support for the Iraq occupation so yes it's not illogical to expect the same reasons to resurface. However, it just seems more than a little absurd to suggest that Bin Laden or Zarqawi would even have a chance to take control of Iraq's oil.

[Miles.]

It wasn't a reason stated in the run-up to the war.

I'm with Squirrel on this one. It's new.

I don't believe he's saying this was a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, I think he's saying we need to be there fighting the terrorists now because we can't just leave and let them get the oil fields.
At this point, how much does it matter why we went in? Whether there was one reason, or one hundred, and if there were a hundred and they were all spoken or just one of them was, we're there now. Should we stay or not? This sounds like why we should stay. Maybe it's a newly mentioned reason why we should stay, but does anybody really think that at every speech Bush (or whoever) is going to list every single reason? Even if they did, the press would never report it all, they'd focus on one or two.

Obviously the comment was directed as the post-invasion period. And actually, he's on (or just finished?) his little tour to drum up support for the Iraq occupation so yes it's not illogical to expect the same reasons to resurface. However, it just seems more than a little absurd to suggest that Bin Laden or Zarqawi would even have a chance to take control of Iraq's oil.

Well, I disagree there. Bin Laden is also a smart business man, as are most Arabic folks.

They really could take it over, buying these radical's support, in turn oil profits makes their way over to AQ, inc.

It's not so absurd, that's all I am saying.

This war has always been about oil. I, for one, am fine with that, but oil was never a reason to go in. Or stay.

[jmatucd]

Oil was always one of the main reasons. First they protected the oil fields, after that libraries and cultural assets. ;)

Because the oil fields can be set on fire as they were in 1991. This would halt air and ground assets due to zero visibility. It would also cost vast amounts of funds to stop the fires and rebuild the fields.

I doubt saddam and his forces thought that burning libraries or cultural assets would slow the US advance in any way. Use you head, not the little book in your pocket that's labeled "no blood for oil".

[Secret Squirrel]

Oil was always one of the main reasons. First they protected the oil fields, after that libraries and cultural assets. ;)

Because the oil fields can be set on fire as they were in 1991. This would halt air and ground assets due to zero visibility. It would also cost vast amounts of funds to stop the fires and rebuild the fields.

I doubt saddam and his forces thought that burning libraries or cultural assets would slow the US advance in any way. Use you head, not the little book in your pocket that's labeled "no blood for oil".


British Royal Air Force spokesman Jon Fynes told CNN the burning wells were "the real shame."

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is "setting fire to his oil wells and it has no tactical advantage," he said. "The modern weapons that we have don't have to see the targets."
link (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.oil.wells/)

[Secret Squirrel]

Well, I disagree there. Bin Laden is also a smart business man, as are most Arabic folks.

They really could take it over, buying these radical's support, in turn oil profits makes their way over to AQ, inc.

It's not so absurd, that's all I am saying.

This war has always been about oil. I, for one, am fine with that, but oil was never a reason to go in. Or stay.

Fair Enough. My point was that Bush, regardless of public opinion isnt going to pull out of Iraq tomorrow. And should AQ some how take over Iraq's oil, how hard would it to take it back? Or even to cripple it and make it useless? Once a terrorist organization takes up a permanent residence, how easy would it be to target them rather than to fight them as ghosts in the desert? All in all, it just seems like more scare tactics with a thinly veiled reference to what Afghanistan once was.

[Deuterium]

I find it quite ironic that the Dims make comparisons (negative) between Roosevelt and Bush. Never forget it was a Democrat, Roosevelt, who ordered the interment of thousands of women, children, and men during WWII. Sad day for America and it was a DEMOCRAT who did this. Oh it was a Republican, Ronald Reagan that eventually apologized.

[joe mama]

Obviously the comment was directed as the post-invasion period. And actually, he's on (or just finished?) his little tour to drum up support for the Iraq occupation so yes it's not illogical to expect the same reasons to resurface. However, it just seems more than a little absurd to suggest that Bin Laden or Zarqawi would even have a chance to take control of Iraq's oil.

I don't think of it as Bin Laden or Zarqawi assuming the throne of Iraq and running it as a full nation and putting Amalgamated BinLaden/Zarqawi Incorporated on all the oil barrels and wells and pipes...that's not the threat...the threat is that if we leave without having done enough to give them a chance to avoid true civil war type chaos in the whole country (not just in the areas that have been trouble all along), the oil might not be controlled by anyone (meaning it can't be reliably pumped and moved by companys and/or the government), and that's, effectively, control by terrorists. They don't have to be running the pumps and sending it all to their secret base under Mt Everest or pocketing all the profits from it to "control" it, all they have to do is disrupt normal production enough to make it nowhere near normal.

[pistol]

Here is a more complete list of rationales:

- we're in a war on terror
- we need to prevent the proliferation of WMD
- there are no inspectors
- the Hussein regime has to go
- Saddam is evil
- the Iraqi people should be liberated
- it's in our capacity
- Poppy didn't finish the job
- Iraq poses a threat to the region
- a war conflict for oil
- Saddam breaks promises
- revenge
- history will look kindly upon it
- win over the Middle East
- make an example out of Iraq
- Saddam hates the US
- Iraq must be disarmed
- the world will be made safer
- for the sake of posterity
- Saddam is an imminent threat
- preserve peace
- Iraq threatens freedom
- al Qaeda is connected
- Iraq is unique
- the UN's relevance is in question
- it will help the economy
- Iraq violated international law

A student at UIUC did a thesis (http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm) on the subject.

[Miles.]

Well, I disagree there. Bin Laden is also a smart business man, as are most Arabic folks.

They really could take it over, buying these radical's support, in turn oil profits makes their way over to AQ, inc.

It's not so absurd, that's all I am saying.

This war has always been about oil. I, for one, am fine with that, but oil was never a reason to go in. Or stay.

Fair Enough. My point was that Bush, regardless of public opinion isnt going to pull out of Iraq tomorrow. And should AQ some how take over Iraq's oil, how hard would it to take it back? Or even to cripple it and make it useless? Once a terrorist organization takes up a permanent residence, how easy would it be to target them rather than to fight them as ghosts in the desert? All in all, it just seems like more scare tactics with a thinly veiled reference to what Afghanistan once was.

I can't answer the military questions.

It is a scare tactic, both to the American public, and the Iraqi public.

I have a question for you, Not-so-Secret Squirrel. It's not a hostile insinuation. Just a way to relate to your perspective...

Why do you even care if the US Govt uses scare tactics and propaganda? We both know the founders of this country were basically white male landowners who owned slaves, but proclaimed that all men are created equal, *chuckle* everyone except ******s and women.

Does your life revolve around the current Administration's dirty deeds, as though they are the only ones that kill people for oil, skin color, and small-***** complex, or do you know what I know? ;) ...That the United States Government are really just organized criminals, who were the crack dealers in their day (bootlegging), and that they are lining their pockets (like they always do) with oil, insurance, and drug (prescription and Drug War) money? What's your deal? We agree more than we disagree, but it seems as if we can hear each other speak, but not really listening...

[Secret Squirrel]

Obviously the comment was directed as the post-invasion period. And actually, he's on (or just finished?) his little tour to drum up support for the Iraq occupation so yes it's not illogical to expect the same reasons to resurface. However, it just seems more than a little absurd to suggest that Bin Laden or Zarqawi would even have a chance to take control of Iraq's oil.

I don't think of it as Bin Laden or Zarqawi assuming the throne of Iraq and running it as a full nation and putting Amalgamated BinLaden/Zarqawi Incorporated on all the oil barrels and wells and pipes...that's not the threat

Actually that is the threat that Bush laid out. ''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."


...the threat is that if we leave without having done enough to give them a chance to avoid true civil war type chaos in the whole country (not just in the areas that have been trouble all along), the oil might not be controlled by anyone (meaning it can't be reliably pumped and moved by companys and/or the government), and that's, effectively, control by terrorists.

The terrorists wouldnt have control of the oil, only control of Iraq's ability to profit from the oil.


They don't have to be running the pumps and sending it all to their secret base under Mt Everest or pocketing all the profits from it to "control" it, all they have to do is disrupt normal production enough to make it nowhere near normal.

Again, that's not controlling the oil. And it doesnt actually help them nor does it take into context Bush's warning about terrorists funding their attacks with Iraq's oil/money.

[Miles.]

I don't think of it as Bin Laden or Zarqawi assuming the throne of Iraq and running it as a full nation and putting Amalgamated BinLaden/Zarqawi Incorporated on all the oil barrels and wells and pipes...that's not the threat...the threat is that if we leave without having done enough to give them a chance to avoid true civil war type chaos in the whole country (not just in the areas that have been trouble all along), the oil might not be controlled by anyone (meaning it can't be reliably pumped and moved by companys and/or the government), and that's, effectively, control by terrorists. They don't have to be running the pumps and sending it all to their secret base under Mt Everest or pocketing all the profits from it to "control" it, all they have to do is disrupt normal production enough to make it nowhere near normal.

Read what we posted before. Way past that!!

[Mailman]

Fair Enough. My point was that Bush, regardless of public opinion isnt going to pull out of Iraq tomorrow.

And neither should he pull out. The massive PR this would earn terrorists isnt worth pulling out of Iraq.


And should AQ some how take over Iraq's oil, how hard would it to take it back?

One would think impossible. Given the amount of pressure being heaped upon the US by the anti-war goons both within america and outside the country it would be virtually impossible to go back in to Iraq at a latter date to "free" the country from the grips of the terrorists.

Then you would have all the arguements from the anti-war goons about how the war is all about oil (while those same goons go on driving their ****ty little trucks that get them 2 miles to the gallon :roll:


Or even to cripple it and make it useless?

What like you mean through sanctions and stuff like that?

Hell we already have the anti-war goons going on about the cruelty of the old UN sanctions on the people of Iraq and how the sanctions didnt hurt those in power :roll:

Mailman

[Secret Squirrel]

I can't answer the military questions.

It is a scare tactic, both to the American public, and the Iraqi public.

I have a question for you, Not-so-Secret Squirrel. It's not a hostile insinuation. Just a way to relate to your perspective...

Why do you even care if the US Govt uses scare tactics and propaganda? We both know the founders of this country were basically white male landowners who owned slaves, but proclaimed that all men are created equal, *chuckle* everyone except ******s and women.

Does your life revolve around the current Administration's dirty deeds, as though they are the only ones that kill people for oil, skin color, and small-***** complex, or do you know what I know? ;) ...That the United States Government are really just organized criminals, who were the crack dealers in their day (bootlegging), and that they are lining their pockets (like they always do) with oil, insurance, and drug (prescription and Drug War) money? What's your deal? We agree more than we disagree, but it seems as if we can hear each other speak, but not really listening...

Simply put, they represent me just as they represent you. A democratic government, regardless if the people in question voted for them or not, represents the entire populas both at home and aboard. Of course this isnt the most corupt government in history and genocide certainly isnt part of their resume, but I dont comment on other countries current governments for the same reason that I dont panic if the price of tea goes up in China; China has nothing to do with my identity.

[panzerjager]

Thankfully Secret Squirrel found a new article to bash Bush on. The other 16,000 Bush bashing threads were becoming a bit tedious.

[Durandal]

I find it quite ironic that the Dims make comparisons (negative) between Roosevelt and Bush. Never forget it was a Democrat, Roosevelt, who ordered the interment of thousands of women, children, and men during WWII. Sad day for America and it was a DEMOCRAT who did this. Oh it was a Republican, Ronald Reagan that eventually apologized.

Shhhh...you're making sense. ;)

[Miles.]

@panzerjager, Mailman

HAHAHA Flame on, flame warriors!

Engage substance. Your comments are nothing but disrespect to the human brain. I have learned something from "anti-war goons", defeat or at least understand their logic.

@ Squirrely

What I mainly spoke of were political elites like the Kennedys, Northeastern liberals masquerading as conservative Bushs, the Deans, and everyone else.

They represent me no more than you do! ;) Why would you let yourself be represented by scum such as this? They won the lottery of life, and yet ruin other's lives. Why would you even assign yourself in their camp?

[Durandal]

Why do you even care if the US Govt uses scare tactics and propaganda? We both know the founders of this country were basically white male landowners who owned slaves, but proclaimed that all men are created equal, *chuckle* everyone except ******s and women.

*cough*

A sterling example of modern day public education. ;)

Do you mean men like Samuel Adams? Do you mean the northern politicians that nearly seceded from the Union prior to the Louisiana Purchase because of the maintaining of the 3/5s clause?

Yes, some of the founding forefathers did in fact own slaves. All were white. Do not ever consider that they all supported slavery. Fully half wanted it abolished, and of those some were willing to have a Civil War over it., but cooler heads prevailed and this is what we got.

Not bad considering.

I think you also need to see the changes that have happened since the creation of this nation.

Like for instance....

No Federal Tax AND a unanimous vote required by both houses of Congress to add a Supreme Court judge...solid checks and balances. A modern nantion has been corrupted by greed making subtle changes here and there to core things that have a negative impact on this country, that in many ways subvert positive changes like suffrage for people not white males. What good is sufferage if it means so little?

[panzerjager]

@panzerjager

Engage substance. Your comments are nothing but disrespect to the human brain. I have learned something from "anti-war goons", defeat or at least understand their logic.


My comments are meant to disrespect leftist douche-nozzles but if I'm hitting some in the brain, that's ok by me.

[budgie]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.
.

We can handle more than one reason but sadly they've mostly been false. Under Saddam there was little chance that the oilfields would fall under the control of Islamic extremists. Unless Bush defines anyone other than his Texas oil buddies as Islamic extremists.

[gaijinsamurai]

I can respect the fact that there's more than one reason for the Bush Administration to have started the war. I just wish they'd been up front about it from the beginning. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I still think we went to war for insufficient reasons.
Milespenhall-Texas, I still disagree with you, but I have to tell you that you are starting to make better and stronger arguments for your positions; I doubt you'll "win me over", but you are beginning to show more brains. Please take this as a compliment! ;)

[Miles.]

@Durandal

Don't project your views of the US public education on me. First of all, I graduated a year early, drank and smoked my way through my "high school career." I have never assigned those years any more importance than time spent on the toilet. Yes, it's bad, but no, my views are not influenced by their watered-down culturally-sensitive BS.

I may not have set-up the context for my post. Yes, the founders of this country were white male landowners. They did own slaves (the majority.) They did proclaim that all men are equal, except for ******s and women. Now, I'm not going "black power" on you, but this country was built by humans, for humans, so prejudice is going to happen. That was my point with that.

My second point, about the wealthy elite has nothing to do with the founders. The US Govt as we know it, the elitist, proffessional politicians, was founded in the early 20th Century.

Previously, the Govt had cracked down on the Mafia in places like Chicago and New York. In the 1920's, during Prohibition of Alcohol, the heyday of the Mafia, the Kennedys, the Italian Mob, and others were basically a state within a state. The Govt was still seriously fighting these scum. They killed kids, and police officers, and bragged. That's why I say, "the crackdealers of their day."

Soon, the Govt began to realize...if they could legitimize the Mafia, and make the tactics profitable to their corporations, all under the guise of legal business with a government mandate, they could build a fortune that you can't get rid of with a couple whores and a bad coke habit. ;)

The birth of the Insurance industry. A private service, mandated by the Govt, which the Govt does NOT provide, yet punishable by (in some parts of Texas) seizing uninsured private property. If that's not a corporate Police State run by gangsters, then I don't know what is.

Same with stiff drug sentencing. The Govt, (including Bush himself) makes a hell of a lot of money sending people to prison. The folks who supply the food (Bush), the soap, the towels, the clothes make a killing off of regular joes. But hey, why should the fun end there? How about when the prison gets too crowded? "Well, Johnny, we can't be having that sort of thing...Build a new one!"

So to get back on topic...

I could care less about the reasons we go to war. The fact is we are there, support the troops/support the mission. Pray for the souls that are called off to fight.

Just have the satisfaction of knowing these Dogs of War will get their just reward. On both sides, the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, and the defense industry...All crooks.

[Miles.]

Milespenhall-Texas, I still disagree with you, but I have to tell you that you are starting to make better and stronger arguments for your positions; I doubt you'll "win me over", but you are beginning to show more brains. Please take this as a compliment! ;)

Well thanks! You're an old-timer right? Marine?

'Preciate it! *in my syrupy Texas accent*

[gaijinsamurai]

I suppose at age 38, and with a growing beer gut and slowly-graying hair, I can now consider myself as an old-timer, as much as I hate it. And yes, I am a former Marine (six years). :D

[SOG]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

his department and cabinet have mentioned it many times as well as it making media news when we 1st went in and secured the fields and have constantly protected them as a priority. and since everyone blames bush for anything and everything his cabinet and lowers do then it is only fair to encompass thier statements in conjunction for the war in iraq. also if you look at this from a "protecting ourselves from terrorists" view, then he has been saying this since 9/11 way before the iraq war.

but then again im sure the left would like to bitch about blood for oil and the riots and deaths we would have without it which they conviently forget not to mention giving billions every year to a state for oil that supports terrorism against us and our allies.

damn that logic!

[Secret Squirrel]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

his department and cabinet have mentioned it many times as well as it making media news when we 1st went in and secured the fields and have constantly protected them as a priority.

Do you have a link to a statement or anything where Bush specifically says "'If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks...They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions." or something to that effect?

[supercontra]

Hahahaha what will be the next reason, war in Iraq to protect the Iraquis from Iran? Hahahahaha

[Argyll]

As if there was ever enough Foreign Terrorists and AQ types to seize these oilfields in the first place...............what a crock of **** GWB.

They might have been able to seize a few wells,but to seize complete pumping facilities then hold them is another matter,and did he seriously think the locals,especially the Kurds/Pesh in the North would simply let that happen?

Wake GWB............stop clutching at straws......fcuk if AQ wanted to seize oilfields they can do it anywhere they produce it........where there are no US Military Forces to prevent it.

Hmmm don't OBL have some kind of oil for money thing already going on in his native Saudia Arabia.?

[Mailman]

The only people who need to wake up are people like yourse Arg. Quite clearly you have taken bushes speach right out of context and lost the meaning of his words in your own veiled hatred of america and everything they stand for :roll:

Go shoot some iraqis or something.

Mailman

[Argyll]

mailman,what's your problem?

You have these digs at me in nearly every forum,what is that you don't like..........is this a personal issue?

If I make a post and you disagree,then post anecdotal evidence to refute what I'm saying

Funny but I don't seem to recall stating I hate America.......that's your assumption.......and assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups

You don't know Jack about me,or what I think,I've probably got more American close friends than you have.....it's you who harbours some kind of hatred

and your closing comment was totally uncalled for


It shows just what an arsehole you actually are!!

[Mailman]

I guess if you didnt have such a large chip on your shoulders (right about where you brain used to be) then I wouldnt be such a wanker woot

Mailman

[Argyll]

I guess if you didnt have such a large chip on your shoulders (right about where you brain used to be) then I wouldnt be such a wanker woot

Mailman

:lol: ..........oooooooooh you're such a clever bloke,what chip would that be then?

Like I said,you don't know a thing about me,you think because I don't like Bush you have me all figured out eh?

Bush is a bumbling asshole,just like Tony Blair,you think these tossers care about the real **** going on in Iraq,whens the last time either of them drove up the BIAP road in a 4x4 High profile?.......when's the last time either of them went onto the ground with their troops?

George Bush's amazing Thanksgiving appearance happened in the Bob Hope Dining facility within the Secure are of the BIAP......he didn't leave there,he didn't even go to the Green zone ;)


I hate all politicians because they are all born liars,I've yet to meet one who hasn't talked BS yet!!

[BarkingSquirrel]

Mailman, chill a bit. I hate him too, but ya don't gotta go around the forums making sure he knows every chance you get.

[n4292936]

It was always a point even before the war started that the fields needed to be secured, in which they were. Mainly to prevent Saddam from torching them like he did in 91. SZ of R, True it's always been a goal to secure the oil fileds. As one of the principle ancillary goals of the campaign it's always figured prominently on our agenda, however, protecting them against terrorism was never an issue until the insurgency gained momentum. That we are now forced to consider protecting anything in Iraq from terrorism is not telling of a long laid plan or incentive to wage war in Iraq so much as it is our need to protect them from an enemy and an environment of hyper-insecurity that we have basically created. The breading ground /rallying point/ raison d'etre of Islamic extremism that is Iraq was quite a bit more docile in the not to distant past.

In effect he's saying "through our actions we've ceated a need to continue those actions and so we'll stay the course"..... this is all very circular

[Mailman]

Question is...why would you put your highest politically ranked offcers in the line of fire? Just to make you feel better about yourself?

Not gonna happen...thats why chumps like yourself and those in the real military are in situations like that.

Mailman

[ArmedPacifist]

Obviously SS you are an anti-war goon because the meaning of his words are quite clear. If the terrorists win then they gain both brownie points with the ignorant muslims around the world but more importantly gain access to massive amounts of oil which can be used to sponsor terrorist operations around the world. :roll:

Mailman

The way I interpret that, it's ****ing racism buddy.

You clearly seem to support the occupation of Iraq, yet you hate Argyll for.....putting his neck on the line IN Iraq so that it can one day be a better place?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, respect those who know what the **** they are talking about....even if you don't like the person.

I don't follow your logic and I don't appreciate your veiled racism and hatred of Arabs.

[Atlantic Friend]

Here is a more complete list of rationales:

- we're in a war on terror
- we need to prevent the proliferation of WMD
- there are no inspectors
- the Hussein regime has to go
- Saddam is evil
- the Iraqi people should be liberated
- it's in our capacity
- Poppy didn't finish the job
- Iraq poses a threat to the region
- a war conflict for oil
- Saddam breaks promises
- revenge
- history will look kindly upon it
- win over the Middle East
- make an example out of Iraq
- Saddam hates the US
- Iraq must be disarmed
- the world will be made safer
- for the sake of posterity
- Saddam is an imminent threat
- preserve peace
- Iraq threatens freedom
- al Qaeda is connected
- Iraq is unique
- the UN's relevance is in question
- it will help the economy
- Iraq violated international law

A student at UIUC did a thesis (http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm) on the subject.

;) You forgot "Saddam wanted to kill my Poppy" and "he fired on our aircraft". Or maybe that would be under the "revenge" category.

[Argyll]

Question is...why would you put your highest politically ranked offcers in the line of fire? Just to make you feel better about yourself?

Not gonna happen...thats why chumps like yourself and those in the real military are in situations like that.

Mailman

Because other leaders have done it ;)

The only chump around here is behaving like a sphincter muscle!!

[WolverineBlue]

Milespenhall -- use the 'N' word one more time and you're gone.

[Miles.]

Milespenhall -- use the 'N' word one more time and you're gone.

Understood.

I was using the "N" word as a tool to convey what I believe the founders thought. I'll certainly stop if it is offensive.

[Miles.]

As if there was ever enough Foreign Terrorists and AQ types to seize these oilfields in the first place...............what a crock of **** GWB.

They might have been able to seize a few wells,but to seize complete pumping facilities then hold them is another matter,and did he seriously think the locals,especially the Kurds/Pesh in the North would simply let that happen?

Wake GWB............stop clutching at straws......fcuk if AQ wanted to seize oilfields they can do it anywhere they produce it........where there are no US Military Forces to prevent it.

Hmmm don't OBL have some kind of oil for money thing already going on in his native Saudia Arabia.?

I have a question.

I don't believe that terrorists could "capture" or "control" oil fields in an old-school military sense, but wouldn't it be more likely that they just blackmail/threaten the AQ sympathizers in the Iraqi Govt, who would kick back oil money to finance more operations?

[moughoun]

As if there was ever enough Foreign Terrorists and AQ types to seize these oilfields in the first place...............what a crock of **** GWB.

They might have been able to seize a few wells,but to seize complete pumping facilities then hold them is another matter,and did he seriously think the locals,especially the Kurds/Pesh in the North would simply let that happen?

Wake GWB............stop clutching at straws......fcuk if AQ wanted to seize oilfields they can do it anywhere they produce it........where there are no US Military Forces to prevent it.

Hmmm don't OBL have some kind of oil for money thing already going on in his native Saudia Arabia.?



I have a question.

I don't believe that terrorists could "capture" or "control" oil fields in an old-school military sense, but wouldn't it be more likely that they just blackmail/threaten the AQ sympathizers in the Iraqi Govt, who would kick back oil money to finance more operations?you mean like what the Saudi's do?.......I said it before the war, should have turned left a Day early in the Gulf and blown the **** out of the Saudis, backstabbing Bastard's :|

[Chops]

Mailman

You're a ****ing tool buddy. And you're also on your first and last warning.

Out

C

[SOG]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

his department and cabinet have mentioned it many times as well as it making media news when we 1st went in and secured the fields and have constantly protected them as a priority.

Do you have a link to a statement or anything where Bush specifically says "'If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks...They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions." or something to that effect?

nope, never said i did, but i do have many links to him talking about terrorists and terrorism which applies DIRECTLY in this case. terror funding, terror state, all connections to terrorists both local and abroad, and IN ANY WAYS IN WHICH TERRORISM MAY FUND ITSELF. hence going after bank accounts, investigating saudi companies that have links to US, investigating "charities" that give to "causes" in the middle east. Wow, you think a terror driven dictator state would use americas life line of oil against us? hmmm..... how many times have insurgents tried blowing up oil lines in iraq? how heavily gaurded are they? what did we quickly secure when we went in? ya think oil is a NATIONAL THREAT interest? no never, that would make too much ****in sense.

simply amaizing the retarded abandonment the left has. oil for blood! yah, no ****, our blood in our streets with riots and societal decay if we dont stabilize our sources!

oil for iraqi blood? less blood now then under sanctions. god forbid the spinsters come screaming into the light!

chavez in venezuela? threatning oil productions, giving funding and ARMS to communistic groups and rebels to destabilize the nation and any forward interests, has STOPPED cooperation with the US in regards to DRUG TRAFFICKING so the coke may flow freely and his own people think hes a great leader and a revolutionary? WTH. and saddam passed this guys ****-ometer ages ago and was finally dealt with.

[SOG]

As if there was ever enough Foreign Terrorists and AQ types to seize these oilfields in the first place...............what a crock of **** GWB.

They might have been able to seize a few wells,but to seize complete pumping facilities then hold them is another matter,and did he seriously think the locals,especially the Kurds/Pesh in the North would simply let that happen?

Wake GWB............stop clutching at straws......fcuk if AQ wanted to seize oilfields they can do it anywhere they produce it........where there are no US Military Forces to prevent it.

Hmmm don't OBL have some kind of oil for money thing already going on in his native Saudia Arabia.?

I have a question.

I don't believe that terrorists could "capture" or "control" oil fields in an old-school military sense, but wouldn't it be more likely that they just blackmail/threaten the AQ sympathizers in the Iraqi Govt, who would kick back oil money to finance more operations?

easily. control can be asserted on many different levels. anytime a government buddies up to those kinds of people? saddam? YES. anytime you want to **** with america raise the prices or by all means just rig a few pumps and blow em and watch the americans pay. the saudis have been doing this for years going back and forth and running a fine but cooperative line with the US in regards to doing business and caetering to extremists.

and yes binladen or AQ had many sources of financing from the saudis many of which were exstingueshed locally and abroad and im sure many more are still in operation today.


'If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

obviously terrorists cannot "literally" sieze oil fields and sell oil to fund thier activities as oil fields would be very easy targets for US Force so it is logical to conclude bush is reffering to structure in the simple sense that once a infrastructure is corrupted or taken then they can literally fund themselves directly from oil as they control the supporting non physical financial back end. DUH!

its entirely plausible since saddam was doing it before we invaded! OOPS! control of iraq does not mean bin laden for president! it means fear and terror translating into bribes and funding and tolerance towards the anti american freedom of ejaculation movement otherwise known as terrorists. you actually think bin laden would take iraq as visual head of state? are you ****ed in the head? hardly what bush meant.

now chavez in venezuela? he wants power, he wants office, he wants money. so what does he do? makes the US into a demon by agitating them 1st with oil production threatning. then he goes on to fund and arm groups that threaten to pull apart the venezuela democracy then he ceases working with the US to stop drugs coming into our country from his?

saddam did the same ****, same game, invaded raped and pillaged a neighbor. unless you missed the graphic pictures that adorned the web of what he did to kuwaiti's. you know, what he has been doing to his own people for years on end. weapon inspectors want to come in. wether there is wmd is questionable at the time. a alarming fact is that he yanks the inspectors around, limits where they can go at times, kicks them out at other times, and then suddenly has a change of heart and reverses sometimes. known to award suicide bombers "terrorists" against our allies. manufactures explosive vests, priming and documentation supplies. meets with terrorist or' im sorry, freedom fighters, condones wholesale jihad against israel and the US and any allies constantly and publicly. and takes all the money we give him for oil, the billions and billions and does what with it? funds all the **** above all over again. why didnt we invade syria or iran? because we dont do billions in business with them every year!

[Argyll]

They could easily extort their influences right now,there's nothing to stop them ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Sorry that's not a new reason. It was always one of the many reasons for the war.

Sadly, most liberals cannot handle the fact that things can happen for more than one reason. That's why it is always about Saddam or WMDs or Al Qaeda or democratic imperialism or whatever.

They cannot handle the fact that it's all of the above.

When has he mentioned protecting Iraq's oil from terrorists before? I guess I must have missed it.

his department and cabinet have mentioned it many times as well as it making media news when we 1st went in and secured the fields and have constantly protected them as a priority.

Do you have a link to a statement or anything where Bush specifically says "'If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks...They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions." or something to that effect?

nope, never said i did....

Then why did you respond to my post? You said his admin. have mentioned it before and then you said you didnt have anything to prove it. Simply put, the answer is no, Bush hasnt used this recent reason as a spin on "stay the course" before.