None of mine.
2007-09-23 08:43:22 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I did not fight for oil.
I fought to end Kurdish mass graves.
Secret police disappearing political prisoners.
Ba'ath Party torture cells.
Twelve years of refusing the will of the UN Security Council.
Oil has become such a convenient and tired "Red Herring".
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are another.
Leading Democrats - to include Senator Clinton - believed AT THE TIME that Iraq still maintained a covert program to improve their stockpile of unconventional weapons, to include nuclear.
What is wrong with saying "This was what was believed at the time the decision had to be made"?
I would ask of those that insist they NEVER existed just what were the Iranians and Kurds gassed with?
It was about enforcing the UN's mandate, something seemingly forgotten.
Prior to 2002, the UN Security Council had passed sixteen resolutions on Iraq.
In 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on Iraq unanimously.
Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to cooperate" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
So . . . just what part of the "or else" did Saddam not understand?
Should we have invaded Iraq? Well at the time, it was the will of the UN, then we dropped the hammer.
Then they backtracked, just like many other places such as The Balkans, Rwanda, Tibet, and now Darfur.
By omission of action, just how many INNOCENT lives have been lost due to the UN's ineptitude?
That is what should draw the REAL anger of the American people, or are they insincere when they speak of such things?
If it really was JUST about oil, why isn't gasoline less than a dollar per gallon?
Why are we having to fight the Al-Qaeda in Iraq franchise?
Why have there been several bombing plots foiled in Europe in the past few weeks?
Yes, you MUST demand answers, but don't allow yourself to fall into step with the so-called "Left-Wingers" where your thoughts can be readily dismissed.
Demand to know instead, why has the war not been prosecuted more effectively?
Why are millions being spent on high-end systems like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter . . .?
But at the cost of the Infantry being STUCK with a rifle system nearly FIFTY years old using a ballistic cartridge PROVEN to be inadequate in winning the fight effectively?
Especially when there are several designs ALREADY existing today that are far superior to the M16/M4 system?
Do people not care because "all guns are bad!"? Or worse, do they really NOT care about the men and women standing forward of the line, only giving lip-service in support?
That is how a lot of us felt.
Why are Army and Marine Combat Veterans getting the shaft with regards to their disability claims when Veterans of the Navy and Air Force average a default 20-30%?
I want to hear the answers to issues like these, don't you?
Respectfully, I challange you to ask more relevant questions, and not just here. Make calls to your Congressmen and Senators.
Don't just jump up and down on the soapbox, making smug, self-congratulatory commentary dating back to Desert Storm.
It is tired and old, bordering on academic irrelevance . . .
2007-09-23 09:44:10 · answer #1 · answered by ZepherGeist 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It is more than just Iraq's oil, if the world oil market can be brought under control as it was in the 90's w. the first Gulf war all the world's marketable oil can be bought for 5 to 20 dollars a barrel. Unfortunately the greedy people who council/advise and direct your idiot spokesman of a president believed that bogus threats of terror could lead to a war that would end up w. the US controlling first the world oil market through Iraq then the rest of the Middle East through fear of the example set and backing Israel. The people who really make these decisions laugh at the idea of spilling some dumb kids' blood to get what they want, power.
2007-09-23 15:57:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
I shed mine for the cuase in Iraq. It is not about oil as you can see by the price at the pump.
Liberals are the one's who claim it is about oil. If Bush wanted oil he could have done it with a lot less contreversy by pushing drilling in the area where drilling isnt allowed becuase of wildlife. It would have been a much less politically charged issue to get the oil that way.
If I was given my health back again (I was severly wounded in Iraq) I would go right back.
2007-09-23 15:55:00 · answer #3 · answered by Geoff C 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
The oil is irrelevant. So none, since it isn't all about oil.
Our troops volunteer to put their blood on the line of their own free will. That is exactly what makes their blood so precious and makes them heroes. Not everyone has the courage or conviction to be a soldier.
2007-09-23 15:54:32 · answer #4 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Good... If you Leftist Libs continue to rant about "no blood for oil" you should at least provide evidence for that statement by showing who has that oil and what they are doing with it. There is no creditable evidence that *anyone* has taken extra oil out of the Middle East in general or Iraq in particular. However what y'all don't seem to understand is that an unstable Middle East with the terrorist in control of the oil supplies (you did hear about the Saudis placing thousands of troops around *their* oil fields, didn't you?) would threaten the whole worlds economic stability, not just ours. So the war is, in that way, *about* oil... but not *for* oil... and who needs yellow blood anyway?
2007-09-23 16:47:57 · answer #5 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
How much American shed blood are we willing to let
murdering terrorists commit in America? If you don't
want to let this happen, then maybe it's worth some
American blood that's willing to fight in Iraq for our
freedom from terrorists (not oil). The fighting didn't start
in this war until the terrorists flew into the World Trade
Center in New York and the Pentagon and killed over 3000
innocent people minding their own business. That had
nothing to do with oil.
Otherwise, get ready for them to come here, plot and kill us at their will. They kill their own people, you know, who won't do as told (dictators, you know). Now rethink your question.
Thank our troops.
2007-09-23 16:12:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Have you not been listening? Obama...err I mean Osama himself said, if the western countries would convert to Islam, the terrorism would stop. It is not over oil, it is over religion yet again.
I cannot believe the number of folks out there who are oblivious to the statements of the radical Islam leaders. they have no interest in laying down arms, until Islam is embraced all over the world. Remember the days when Christians were doing the same thing during the inquisitions?
China wants our money middle eastern countries do not need our money, they just plain hate our lifestyle.
2007-09-24 03:00:06 · answer #7 · answered by Edward B 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That's okay. I'm sure the brave men and women who are there really don't want your blood there. Just remember when we when, what you have given.
The heroes that are there know it's not about the oil.
2007-09-23 16:10:25 · answer #8 · answered by time_wounds_all_heelz 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
considering this fight never was about oil whats your point? saddams defiance of the un, the ethnic cleansing of the kurds and the takeover by iraq of kuwait had nothing at all to do with iraq oil...check your facts.
2007-09-23 16:12:53 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You can not put a price on human life, because it is the most valuable thing on planet earth. Even more than power and money.
2007-09-23 16:23:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋