Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

Let me ask you a question. Did a single one of those individuals rely on the Iraq invasion to get their job?

Rely on their job or their wallet?
I was talking about the wallet, why do you ask me about the job?

 

[RandFan]

Rely on their job or their wallet?
I was talking about the wallet, why do you ask me about the job?

For crying in the dark. Did or does a single one of them rely on the war for the money they have made? Can you demonstrate that they profited as a result of the invasion? Are you making another CT argument? Do I need to take you to the CT forum again?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I can't imagine how. So what if we "helped out Kuwait"? Maybe invading Iran and the fact that Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy doesn't equate to America controlling the Mid-East.

Equates to America trying to control the Middle East
My point stands

Like I said, OPEC tried that. History is not on your side on this.

Yes, and they caused big problems.
I remember, at that time, we could not use cars on weekends, I remember..
My point stands

Ok, I'm willing to accept this (I conceded this point 4 years ago when I outlined why there was an invasion). It makes sense that having some influence on the oil in the region was a factor in the decision to invade. That isn't the same as invading Iraq for oil.

OK.
The U.S. invaded Iraq, mainly, also for, but not only for, oil.

I have no choice. When OPEC tried to control the market in 1973 it caused them very serious problems that took more than a decade to recover from.

It caused them?

The market scares the hell out of OPEC. OPEC knows that if they cut supplies to sharply that Americans could cut back like they did before and drown OPEC in a sea of surplus oil and price would fall through the floor like it did before.

Where the U.S. would take the surplus oil from?
Mars?
Venus?
Neptune?
Uranus?

Chavez has already done it.

He claims America has tried to get him off the way, Robertson` s style.
Another coincidence

Neither is Iraq. Misses the point BTW.

Look at the oil reserves of Iraq..

Robertson is an idiot. What does this have to do with the question at hand?

Nope.
He is a well-respected U.S. politician

Of course, again, look at history. OPEC is not one country. If these nations don't sell their oil they don't make money. Let me clue into something. They want money. That is why they learned their lesson from the 1973 Embargo. As long as oil producers want money there will be oil for America. Period. End of story.

They can make a cartel, in the near future, and sell oil at 200USD a barrel.

You let me know when that happens. Until then it's just speculation and my point stands.

Yes, we are speculating here.

Not really, no. Just stick to evidence and sound logic.

International politics is not maths, not physics.
You have no Randi Challenge for International politics..

He may have. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though.

That international politics is not math

 

[Matteo Martini]

You're right. He's more like 66% as important as the Middle East (As in 2005 America imported 1,537,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela and about 2,334,000 from the Middle East).

Look at the reserves..

Almost everyone over-estimates the importance of Middle Eastern oil for the American economy. For example, did you know that in 2005, the top 5 countries that America imported oil from are as follows:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudia Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Niger

Look at the reserves..

Yes, you read that right. Only one middle eastern country is in the top five of American importers. If we extend it out to the top 10, we see the following:

6. Iraq
7. Angola
8. Ecuador
9. Algeria
10. Kuwait


So, out of America's top ten importers, only three come from the Middle East.



Other facts:

- The oil America imports from Canada and Mexico is roughly 1/3 more than we oil receive from ALL of the Middle East.

- Of the oil we import, only 20% comes from the Middle East/Persian Gulf.

- America produces 40% of its own oil.

So, if my math is correct (and given that it's late and math is not my strong suit, it may not be), that means that approximately 12% of all American oil comes from the Middle East. While that is important, it's hardly as significant as it is commonly portrayed.



* These statistics come from the Energy Information Administration

You are dreaming, dreaming, ..

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

So nice, to dream, uh?

 

[jsiv]

Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to pull off 9/11, huh?

Now that one belongs in the CT forum.


So Oliver, what do you think the outcomes of the various conflicts would have been if the US had simply done nothing? Fewer deaths, more deaths? Better, worse? It's a difficult issue, and while the body counts may be factually accurate, presenting them in a way that is designed to give viewers the impression that things would have been better without US intervention is perhaps a litte dishonest.

Don't you agree?


(And before you start, no, I am not saying that the US is necessarily justified in everything it does.)

That's not what the video says. The video says that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training." Neither Bin Laden nor his fighters had any relationship with the CIA, so how could there have been any "expert CIA training?"

Yes, the CIA did train the afghan mujahideen, but that's hardly relevant to this particular argument.

Oliver, why do you keep defending propaganda videos even after they have been shown to be misleading and to contain factual errors and flawed conclusions?

I'm genuinely curious. Is it because you want them to be the absolute truth?

 

[Matteo Martini]

This is both factually and logically inaccurate.

Look at the video on youtube posted by Oliver

This is false.

First, it wasn't 2000.

Second, Condoleezza Rice never said any such thing or anything that could be construed that way. And she was told Iraq had WMD by the intelligence services.

February 2001.
powell: " Iraq has no significant capability of producing weapons of mass destruction ".

Rice ( July 2001 ): same thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAhJ1M2ZPGc&mode=related&search=

And third, it was Powell, not Cheney who said in February 2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." This is the statement that is always claimed to say Iraq had no WMD.

I also saw Cheney, in another video

It does not say that. It's talking about militarily significant quantities. But we weren't worried about militarily significant quantities ... what would be needed to project "conventional power against his neighbors." We were worried about terrorists acquiring small quantities which they believed Iraq still possessed.

And, some bad terrorist, can attack America with small quantities??

Maybe, with a knife and a gun?
What about the 5000 ICBM missiles America has??

Furthermore, in May 2001 Powell said "There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control".

Cheney said in August 2002 that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Who is the liar, here?

The NIE in October 2002 stated that "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Sex, Lies, and Videotape

The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Iraq did not have militarily significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons.

Even in 2004, Duelfer could only state "I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq."

So, they lied in 2001 or 2004?

That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED in Iraq after the invasion proves that Iraq still had the material we feared terrorists might acquire from them. There is a reason that Iraq's regime sanitized its files, computers and facilities that were thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. Something was in the truck conveys that went to Syria before the war. And various sources, including on that the ISG deemed credible, said the contents were WMD related.

Maybe, they had a kitchen knife, and, maybe some bazooka too..

Why would any JREFers persist in this "no WMD" woo? As far as I'm concerned, it's worse than the bombs in the WTC and no Flight 77 conspiracy nonsense.

Because it is true?

 

[Oliver]

For crying in the dark. Did or does a single one of them rely on the war for the money they have made? Can you demonstrate that they profited as a result of the invasion? Are you making another CT argument? Do I need to take you to the CT forum again?

Can you disproof that "one of them rely on the war for the money they have made" ?

Maybe you've noticed that I asked a question. If this alone is a conspiracy to you, feel free to make an Idiot out of yourself by posting a new Woo-Thread.

Anyway - you're not willing to contribute anything to answer my questions, so why should I care about you at all?

 

[Walk The Line]

Just a side-question: Does this include personal benefits in terms of Middle-Eastern Oil???

U.S. officials who have worked for the oil industry

• James Baker[5]
• Joe Barton
• Michael Boskin
• George H.W. Bush
• George W. Bush
• Robert Card[6]
• James Connaughton[7]
• Richard Cheney
• Philip Cooney
• Donald Evans[8][9]
• Alberto Gonzales[10]
• Wendy Lee Gramm
• J. Steven Griles[11]
• Robert Jordan (lawyer)
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• Henry Kissinger[12][13]
• Robert B. Oakley[14]
• James C. Oberwetter (ambassador to Saudi Arabia)
• Joseph Lieberman[15]
• Condoleezza Rice
• Gale Norton[16][17]
• James Schlesinger[18] (first Secretary of Energy)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...fficials_who_have_worked_for_the_oil_industry

Look at the reserves..



Look at the reserves..





You are dreaming, dreaming, ..

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

So nice, to dream, uh?

So essentially all the proof you and Oliver have for the reason America went to war in Iraq and will go to war with Iran is that the current administration has ties to the oil industry and a list of the countries with the most known oil reserves?

That's not terribly impressive.

 

[BeAChooser]

powell: " Iraq has no significant capability of producing weapons of mass destruction "

Which is NOT the same thing as saying Iraq had "no WMD" or saying that Iraq had "no capability". He said quite clearly that he believed Iraq still had WMD and a capability to build them. So why do you persist in this dishonest, quote-mining woo?

Why is it the "no WMD" woo'ers don't recognize that 9/11 changed things? It made us realize that with even small quantities of such materials, terrorists could wreak great havoc ... and were willing to wreak great havoc. Iraq agreed not to retain ANY WMD and to stop ALL efforts to research, develop and produce such weapons. They violated that agreement for a decade. And by supporting and continuing contacts with the very terrorist organization that launched 9/11 after 9/11, Iraq dealt itself into the WOT and made itself a high priority target.

Rice ( July 2001 ): same thing

Again, Rice did not say Iraq had "no WMD" and she was talking about Iraq's MILITARY threat, not its threat in terms of supplying terrorists with WMD related materials. All she said is his "military forces have not been rebuilt". That is not the same as saying he had "no WMD" and "no capability" to produce WMD ... and you darn well know it.

In a March 11, 2002 interview, Rice said: “We have a country that continues to flaunt its international obligations undertaken in 1991 in the armistice, that continues to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. After all, there is a reason that Saddam Hussein does not want weapons inspections in Iraq. It’s...obviously he’s got something to hide.”

And he must have had something to hide since the ISG concluded that Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD just before, during and even after the invasion. What were they hiding? What was in the trucks that went to Syria? Where did that binary sarin shell used as an IED come from?

Why do you persist in this dishonest quote-mining woo claiming they knew Iraq had "no WMD" before the invasion? It's not logical and it's not factual. It's no different than the *truthers* who quote mine statements by firemen about 9/11 to present a dishonest picture of what happened and what certain people think.

Senator Hillary said in February of 2003 that Iraq was " continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." She read the same intel reports as everyone else. Was she part of the conspiracy too? Is that logical?

All David Kay, the first head of the ISG, said after his team had had nearly a year to do their work is that they were wrong about finding "large stockpiles". That doesn't mean they concluded Iraq had "no WMD" and no capability.

That binary sarin shell proves the "no WMD" claim wrong and the ISG conclusion that with sanctions removed (which was going to happen if we hadn't invaded) Iraq would soon (in 6 months to 1 year) be fielding mass quantities of mustard and nerve gases proves the "no capability" claim wrong. And had that happened, what would you do then ... especially with al-Qaeda active in Iraq? Remember the words of Kay.

I also saw Cheney, in another video

Then find and link it because Cheney NEVER made any statement suggesting Iraq had NO WMD or NO capability to produce WMD. To claim that is nothing but woo.

And, some bad terrorist, can attack America with small quantities??

Why do you smile? Do you think the death of tens of thousands of American civilians in one fell swoop would be funny? Do you realize that al-Zarqawi ... a "bad terrorist" ... plotted and funded the death of tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians (and everyone in the US embassy in Amman) from Baghdad before the invasion? It was a plot involving a chemically laced bomb. Or do you simply filter out such facts because they don't fit your perception of nice terrorists.

What about the 5000 ICBM missiles America has??

What about them? What would YOU do with them after terrorists used a chemical, biological or radiological device to kill thousands ... or tens of thousands ... of Americans and wreak havoc on American society? I'll tell you what ... NOTHING. The truth is that one can't fight a WOT with nuclear armed missiles.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Furthermore, in May 2001 Powell said "There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control". Cheney said in August 2002 that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Who is the liar, here?

You, for claiming they KNEW there were "no WMD" before the invasion. The intelligence services were still telling them that there were WMD in Iraq. Should they just have ignored what they were saying and proclaimed "we know there aren't any WMD because ... because ... because a little birdie told me"?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The NIE in October 2002 stated that "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Sex, Lies, and Videotape

Cute. Nevertheless, that is what Powell, Rice, Cheney and Bush were being told. Thus, your claim that they "knew" there were "no WMD" is neither logical or factual. It's a woo lie. And you only embarrass yourself by persisting in it.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Iraq did not have militarily significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons. Even in 2004, Duelfer could only state "I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq."

So, they lied in 2001 or 2004?

Neither. Your problem is you don't know the definition of a lie.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED in Iraq after the invasion proves that Iraq still had the material we feared terrorists might acquire from them. There is a reason that Iraq's regime sanitized its files, computers and facilities that were thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. Something was in the truck conveys that went to Syria before the war. And various sources, including on that the ISG deemed credible, said the contents were WMD related."

Maybe, they had a kitchen knife, and, maybe some bazooka too..

In other words, you have no rationale response to the stated facts. That says a great deal about your side in this debate. But being a woorior, you won't understand. You'll just go on regurgitating the woo. At least that's what I now predict.

 

[jsiv]

Since Oliver isn't in the mood to answer my questions, I shall dedicate this classic to him instead:

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, why do you keep defending propaganda videos even after they have been shown to be misleading and to contain factual errors and flawed conclusions?

I'm genuinely curious. Is it because you want them to be the absolute truth?

Oh yeah. What's the propaganda-part here:

 

[jsiv]

Oh yeah. What's the propaganda-part here

No. We're not moving on until you start answering questions instead of sidestepping and changing the subject when you're backed into a corner.


Be a man and admit when you are wrong, Oliver. No one will think any of less of you.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So essentially all the proof you and Oliver have for the reason America went to war in Iraq and will go to war with Iran is that the current administration has ties to the oil industry and a list of the countries with the most known oil reserves?

That's not terribly impressive.

I was replying to another poster, about some of the issues he raised.

 

[Ion]

Every oil nation in the western world is trying to reap the benefits of U.S intervention in the Middle East, without having to get their hands dirty. Several european nations that strongly oppose the war are already in Iraq trying to take advantage of the situation and "steal" their oil.

Disgusting morals, and by no means something that is unique to the United States. Few countries "play by the rules."

Not starting a war is better than starting a war.

So U.S. is dirtier than anyone, Iraq-wise and now when pushing for war in Iran.
The British sailors captured by Iran in Iran or Iraq waters -it doesn't matter- that was a provocation that Iran side stepped fortunately.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Which is NOT the same thing as saying Iraq had "no WMD" or saying that Iraq had "no capability". He said quite clearly that he believed Iraq still had WMD and a capability to build them. So why do you persist in this dishonest, quote-mining woo?

Not the exact same thing, but extremely close.

Why is it the "no WMD" woo'ers don't recognize that 9/11 changed things?

I do recognize it.

It made us realize that with even small quantities of such materials, terrorists could wreak great havoc ... and were willing to wreak great havoc.

And gave the excuse to go to start wars that made 500000 deaths?
Congratulations!!

Iraq agreed not to retain ANY WMD and to stop ALL efforts to research, develop and produce such weapons. They violated that agreement for a decade. And by supporting and continuing contacts with the very terrorist organization that launched 9/11 after 9/11, Iraq dealt itself into the WOT and made itself a high priority target.

Basically, very low quantity ( if there were at all ), is so much close to zero, right?
And, you think that that was the problem?

Again, Rice did not say Iraq had "no WMD" and she was talking about Iraq's MILITARY threat, not its threat in terms of supplying terrorists with WMD related materials. All she said is his "military forces have not been rebuilt". That is not the same as saying he had "no WMD" and "no capability" to produce WMD ... and you darn well know it.

But that is what Powell said.

In a March 11, 2002 interview, Rice said: “We have a country that continues to flaunt its international obligations undertaken in 1991 in the armistice, that continues to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. After all, there is a reason that Saddam Hussein does not want weapons inspections in Iraq. It’s...obviously he’s got something to hide.”

This is 2002, which comes after 9/11

And he must have had something to hide since the ISG concluded that Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD just before, during and even after the invasion. What were they hiding? What was in the trucks that went to Syria? Where did that binary sarin shell used as an IED come from?

Mm..
You are assuming quite a lot of things, here.
Proofs?
Evidence?

Why do you persist in this dishonest quote-mining woo claiming they knew Iraq had "no WMD" before the invasion? It's not logical and it's not factual.

To somebody who does not want to see.

It's no different than the *truthers* who quote mine statements by firemen about 9/11 to present a dishonest picture of what happened and what certain people think.

Do not put in my mouth words I have never said.

Senator Hillary said in February of 2003 that Iraq was " continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." She read the same intel reports as everyone else. Was she part of the conspiracy too? Is that logical?

Where did I speak about a conspiracy at all?
Can I quote me the passage?

All David Kay, the first head of the ISG, said after his team had had nearly a year to do their work is that they were wrong about finding "large stockpiles". That doesn't mean they concluded Iraq had "no WMD" and no capability.

Depends on the definition of " small ".
Maybe, they found two grams of some white powder somewhere in some lab, and they declared that there were, after all, WMD in Iraq, and that a war was needed.
And you, suckers, drank the whole thing..

That binary sarin shell proves the "no WMD" claim wrong and the ISG conclusion that with sanctions removed (which was going to happen if we hadn't invaded) Iraq would soon (in 6 months to 1 year) be fielding mass quantities of mustard

Mustard?
You do not make hot-dogs with that?

and nerve gases proves the "no capability" claim wrong. And had that happened, what would you do then ... especially with al-Qaeda active in Iraq? Remember the words of Kay.

Ah, so you attacked Iraq, because, in the future, they could have acquired WMD?
Makes sense to me.

Then find and link it because Cheney NEVER made any statement suggesting Iraq had NO WMD or NO capability to produce WMD. To claim that is nothing but woo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDnu8WOcZBM&mode=related&search=
Look at what Richard Clarke says..

Why do you smile? Do you think the death of tens of thousands of American civilians in one fell swoop would be funny?

The point, is that you guys, care only of the lives of American citizens, but do not give a heck, to the lives of the Iraqis, and, these posts of you are just the proof of this

Do you realize that al-Zarqawi ... a "bad terrorist" ... plotted and funded the death of tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians (and everyone in the US embassy in Amman) from Baghdad before the invasion? It was a plot involving a chemically laced bomb. Or do you simply filter out such facts because they don't fit your perception of nice terrorists.

Nothing that many American presidents, whom you highly respect, did not in the past.
Not that I agree with that criminal ( al-Zarqawi ).
Just to point out.

What about them? What would YOU do with them after terrorists used a chemical, biological or radiological device to kill thousands ... or tens of thousands ... of Americans and wreak havoc on American society? I'll tell you what ... NOTHING. The truth is that one can't fight a WOT with nuclear armed missiles.

The problem, is that Iraq did not have " chemical, biological or radiological device to kill thousands ".
By the way, I do not know what a " radiological device " is.
So, I can not be sure about that..
Is not it something they use in hospitals?

You, for claiming they KNEW there were "no WMD" before the invasion. The intelligence services were still telling them that there were WMD in Iraq. Should they just have ignored what they were saying and proclaimed "we know there aren't any WMD because ... because ... because a little birdie told me"?

They should have told the truth

Cute. Nevertheless, that is what Powell, Rice, Cheney and Bush were being told.

By who?
By Wizard Merlin?
Does this take away from them one iota of their responsibilities?
I started a war, in which half a million people got killed, but, it was because of inaccurate information.
I am not guilty..

 

[jsiv]

Not starting a war is better than starting a war.

[...]

Not really relevant to the point I was making.


Although several of the countries with an interest in Iraq's oil are countries that originally took part in the invasion. The US was not alone in the invasion, even if they were leading the rest.

Even some of the countries that contributed nothing to the war effort still bought the story.

 

[Ion]

Look at the reserves..



Look at the reserves..





You are dreaming, dreaming, ..

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

So nice, to dream, uh?

What is corruption abou this, is that four days ago maybe, The San Diego Union Tribune was writing about Democtars who try to write legislation that ensures U.S. withdraws entirely from Iraq and doesn't grab Iraq's oil other than on the free market.

The Republicans indignantly said the point is moot, because Bush was never concerned about these things.

Yeah, right.

Like if one can trust Bush:

the one who lied about WMDs in Iraq, about links between 9/11 and Iraq, is 'trustworthy'...

 

[Ion]

Not really relevant to the point I was making.


Although several of the countries with an interest in Iraq's oil are countries that originally took part in the invasion. The US was not alone in the invasion, even if they were leading the rest.

Even some of the countries that contributed nothing to the war effort still bought the story.

U.S. was pretty much alone.

Show me a country that participates at over 100,000 troops in Iraq.

There isn't.

The participation of other countries in Gulf War II is symbolic, to position themselves like brown nosers to the good graces of Fascist U.S..

 

[Oliver]

No. We're not moving on until you start answering questions instead of sidestepping and changing the subject when you're backed into a corner.

Be a man and admit when you are wrong, Oliver. No one will think any of less of you.

Okay, I'm a man and I am wrong all the time. Now would you explain this to me, too? :

 

[Ziggurat]

U.S. was pretty much alone.

Show me a country that participates at over 100,000 troops in Iraq.

There aren't.

There isn't another country in the world which was capable of deploying that many troops. France and Germany sure as hell couldn't do that even if they had wanted to - they simply do not have the force projection capabilities. This is in no small part a relic of WW2: Europeans expected that any serious need for their militaries would be in defense of their own territory from Soviet agression, and so force projection wasn't important, whereas the US would need to move much of its army across an entire ocean to defend its allies and so needed quite a bit of force projection capability.

So either you're intentionally setting a standard you know no other country could match, or you're just a clueless idiot. I suspect the latter.