There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
Search
 
Civilized Debate
Tag Cloud
adware audio bios blue screen boot bsod computer connection crash dell email error excel firefox freeze freezing google hard drive hardware hijackthis install internet laptop linux malware network no sound outlook problem reboot recovery redirect router screen server slow sound speakers spyware startup trojan usb video virus vista windows windows 7 windows vista windows xp wireless
Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
So you Think Oil was not a Motive for the Iraq Invasion, eh?

Tip: Click here to scan for System Errors and Optimize PC performance
[ Sponsored Link ]

 
Thread Tools
valis's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 32,711 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Texas
Experience: cp/m -->
03-Jul-2009, 12:21 PM #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacor View Post
not picking on you but exactly how have we jumped on the oil?

Have we secured it to be sent to the US?

Have we controlled it and if so in what way?

If one wants to say we wanted to secure the safe passage and continued flow of oil in the region I would totally agree with that. The rest is just headline grabbing from the same old crowd.

Where is this oil we were after and why is it oil prices have spiked since then if it was all about the oil. Seeing how we made a grab for it?
not picking back, but 'from jump' is a colloquial term used to describe 'from the start'.



I don't believe we ever made an overt grab at it. I would instead describe it as 'protecting our interests in the region', which is a bit of doublespeak, but I'm sure you get the idea.
__________________
rate me | M.V.P. - Desktop Experience | M.C.S.A. | M.C.P. - MS Server 2k3, Network Architecture

"Ask Bill why the string in function 9 is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can't answer. Only I know that". - Gary Kildall
valis's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 32,711 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Texas
Experience: cp/m -->
03-Jul-2009, 12:24 PM #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge View Post
Bottom line...imo was for the oil but...

Saddam disregarded International rules/UN Council resolutions time after time year after year. Regardless of whether we went in for oil or not, Saddam was out on parole, set by the International community and totally and blatanly disregarded those International rules.

Bottom line...imo was for the oil but...

Saddam disregarded International rules/UN Council resolutions time after time year after year. Regardless of whether we went in for oil or not, Saddam was out on parole, set by the International community and totally and blatanly disregarded those International rules.
is N. Korea, Kim Jong Il, under any sanctions wrt nuclear technology?

Honestly don't know, but if he was, don't you think that he would be doing exactly what saddam got busted with ?
wacor's Avatar
wacor has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 24,624 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: You will never know
Experience: Depends on the definition
03-Jul-2009, 12:27 PM #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
not picking back, but 'from jump' is a colloquial term used to describe 'from the start'.



I don't believe we ever made an overt grab at it. I would instead describe it as 'protecting our interests in the region', which is a bit of doublespeak, but I'm sure you get the idea.
I agree we were protecting our interests. It was not a matter of the oil in Iraq, it was a matter of maintaining the flow of it in the region which could have been effected by Iraq.

I see by the way in todays paper that in questioning Hussein said they never had WMD's and that he led everybody on because he did not want to look weak to Iran. Unfortunately the story did not elaborate as to what he considered a WMD. Wonder if he thought the gas he used on the Kurds did not qualify.
__________________
Conservatives in Exile Club
http://forums.techguy.org/group.php?groupid=34
if you want an invite just ask
Sarge's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 4,068 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
03-Jul-2009, 03:56 PM #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
is N. Korea, Kim Jong Il, under any sanctions wrt nuclear technology?

Honestly don't know, but if he was, don't you think that he would be doing exactly what saddam got busted with ?
Yes I do and an international effort to stop him should be enforced.
aka Brett's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 7,616 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Surrounded by liberals-Midwest
Experience: Yep
03-Jul-2009, 05:21 PM #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge View Post
Im sure oil had alot to do with the war but how quickly we forget what Saddam did and didnt do.



April 3, 1991
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687.

May 1991
Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

June 1991
Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 1991
Iraqi officials confiscate documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

October 11, 1991
The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOMs plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

October 1991
Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715.
February 1992
Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

April 1992
Iraq calls for a halt to UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, stating that the aircraft and its pilot might be endangered. The President of the Security Council issues a statement reaffirming UNSCOM's right to conduct such flights. Iraq says that it does not intend to carry out any military action aimed at UNSCOM's aerial flights.

July 6-29, 1992
Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993
Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993
Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

November 26, 1993
Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

October 15, 1994
The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

March 1996
Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

March 19, 1996
The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added).

March 27, 1996
Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

June 1996
Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

June 12, 1996
The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

Whats this like the fifth chance they got?

June 13, 1996
Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

November 1996
Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

June 1997
Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997
Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997
The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

Again?


September 13, 1997
An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997
While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

November 12, 1997
The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

By this time when is enough, enough?

November 3, 1997
Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately.

December 22, 1997
The Security Council issues a statement calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added)

February 20-23, 1998
Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access for their inspections (emphasis added).

LOL, yeah riiiiight

August 5, 1998
The Revolutionary Command Council and the Baath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

TIMELINE



Soooo after being defiant for over ten years....we hear this

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." - Naji Sabri, Iraq's minister of foreign affairs, September 16, 2002


Pleeease, Iraq should have been attacked a long time ago and it should have been a world wide effort. The oil was an added perk. Saddam was playing a foolish game. If he had complied with all UN resolutions, the US wouldnt have had any grounds to attack.
Great post,
They always refused to cooperate...many seem to have forgot that.
We were very patient IMO and should have done it sooner

Last edited by aka Brett : 04-Jul-2009 01:48 AM.
buffoon's Avatar
buffoon has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 6,121 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
05-Jul-2009, 07:15 AM #36
The pertinent points seem to get missed here completely. It's not about getting hold of Iraq's oil to satisfy US demand. Last I heard US still has oil of its own and Canada and Mexico are conveniently close as supply sources.

If it was about securing domestic needs, what's the US interest in Saudi?????

In Nigeria????

Congo (not oil this time but precious metals)????

Elsewhere???

C'mon guys, I get tired of explaining corporate power and influence policy and how it is obtained thru govt. lobbying by proxy.

You come up with some intelligent ideas (and forget the silly yellowcake, ferchrissake).

As a hint, research Standard Oil, United Fruit, Aramco, Anglo-Iranian (let's not forget Britain) and have a look at French gneral biz interests in Iraq (let's definitely not forget France, they built a bloody reactor for Saddam, amongst other things)

THEN, you have the name of the game.

Have fun
__________________
Human affairs are not so happily arranged that the best things please the most men. Therefore it is often the sign of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob. ----Seneca----
valis's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 32,711 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Texas
Experience: cp/m -->
06-Jul-2009, 08:57 AM #37
buffoon.........

welcome back.....
buffoon's Avatar
buffoon has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 6,121 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
07-Jul-2009, 11:09 AM #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
buffoon.........

welcome back.....
Gee thanks This morning actually. Which makes me ponder why a country seems to be getting bigger and bigger as the night hours get smaller and smaller. Was the invasion (of Iraq) decision made in the wee hours?
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 50,012 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
17-Jul-2009, 12:43 PM #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmirror View Post
I thought you were a litle piddled that you couldnt get Bin Laden
so went for an easier target

Reply Bookmark and Share

Smart Search

Find your solution!



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who want to help you solve your computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.

Thread Tools


You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2009 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.