[war in iraq debate] - Official discussion

All of these topics seem to have died out or else been drowned out be #####. So I guess there ought to be some rules for one of these things.

Things to include in your post:

-FACTS. Make sure to have as many of these as possible. Simply theorizing on all your posts is unacceptable. Historical facts are as welcome as current. However, it is not required that you have them in every post, but highly recomended.
-STRUCTURE. Your post requires this. If it lacks any sort of structure and is full of run-on sentences and has everything mushed together without paragraphs or something to seperate trains of thought, then it's just too difficult to be read. This does NOT imply that everything needs to tie in together.. just seperate different ideas/statements.
-INFORMATION. Almost the same as facts, but this means that you can't just get away with an "i agree" or ":)" type post. If you don't have something significant to either contribute or at least back up with something that takes up some space on your post, it's deleted upon site :biggrin:
-RELEVANCE. If it is not relevant to what is being debated, it's gone.

Things you should NOT include in your posts:
-Flaming. Any of this will get your WHOLE post deleted.
-Discriminating. This goes for sexism, racism, discriminating against religion, and any other form it is classified under. Any of this will get your whole post deleted.
-Spam. Any of this will get your whole post deleted.
-Stupidity. Any of this will get your whole post deleted.

Rules:

Here's how it goes, one side states a reason for their "side" (either for or against the war). ex: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. If these are not stopped, they could sell them to terrorists." After that, the floor is open for debate on the issue as long as it relates to that reason, and that reason only. Straying from the subject will get a deletion of the off-topic sections (and continued action will get the whole thing deleted). See above above for more on what your posts should include. These discussions will be concluded when either myself or the person or who has placed the reason out on the floor feels it has been "done". Then turn will pass to the opposing side. It should continue in this manner until both sides run out of reasons.

Ok, now that all that everything has been explained, I give the floor to the pro-war supporters. Fire away... but remember, you only get ONE reason, then that's put on debate until it's finished.

[Roll's Friend]

Very well this is SBYRD5 talking...

I believe if we americans can get in control of Iraq we could control the Oil supply thier,but this plan is being foiled by Saddam he has ordered his men to burn the oil in an attempt to not let americans have there supply even if bush defeats him.Also the smoke from the oil was used as a smokescreen,but our advanced technology makes us americans far beyond simple smokescreen technics....

[Nantuko Joe]

Though this is true, we are not over in Iraq to control their oil. We really couldn't care less about their oil. Iraq is SIXTH in importing oil to the United States. We do not need Iraq's oil. In fact, their reserves are minute compared to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. If we really wanted cheaper oil, wouldn't we step in and stop the oil-workers strikes in Nigeria and Venezuela, since Venezuela imports TWICE as much oil here as Iraq?

2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil
(thousand barrels per day)
http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/bargraph.jpg

So anyone who thinks we're in there for oil is dead wrong.

Saddam is burning the oil fields (he already set at least one or two wells on fire as it is), because if the US goes in and liberated Iraq, he wants to get in at least one good hit on the US by blowing up the oil. Too bad he doesn't realize that his oil doesn't mean anything to us.

Uh, not to try and dissapoint you, but Iraq has a plethora of oil. Here's something the US federal government has put online:


Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia). Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is largely (90% or so) unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored. Iraq's oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 15 of 73 discovered fields have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,000 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,500-1,700 are actually producing oil), compared to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic), sufficient spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s, but has instead reportedly been utilizing questionable engineering techniques (i.e., overpumping, water injection/"flooding") and old technology to maintain production.

A lot more can be found on oil and other related Iraq statistics at the site mentioned in the above quote which comes directly from the US federal government.

When yous said that "Iraq is SIXTH in importing oil to the United States," I can only suppose you meant exporting (being the reason why US intentions would be brought into question here). Well, think of this for a moment... the UN created an embargo on Iraq exports of oil directly following the invasion of Kuwait. Because the US was the leader of this assault (not to mention was/is buying up plenty of Kuwaiti oil), naturally, they will be buying up the least amount of oil from Iraq.

However, a "reconstructed" Iraq would pose no limitations on the US ability to access this resource, not to mention actively produce it. As you should be hearing in the news by now, the US is already granting companies licenses to drill and export oil in "post-war" reconstruction, including Cheney's old company. I'm running low on time now, so I'll try to get some "facts" to support that by my next post here.

[asshole]

Though this is true, we are not over in Iraq to control their oil. We really couldn't care less about their oil. Iraq is SIXTH in importing oil to the United States. We do not need Iraq's oil.
Joe, what you said is TRUE, but why don't you think ahead?

Around in 100 years or so, America would be BEGGING for Oil!
See, you read the facts, but not the facts inside the facts. Now you are Probably thinking "By then, our America would Produce something better than Oil, we won't even need it", well Oil been here for a WHIIIIIIIIIIILE, and is STILL the #1 used thing..

SO you know.. ;]

[Nantuko Joe]

asshole: Between 2000-2002, we've gotten 1,960,000 barrels a day (on average) of oil from Iraq, and that was in three years. We got almost as much in a single year from Canada alone in 2002 (Canada ALONE supplied us with 5,551,000 barrels of oil from 2000-2002). We can do without Iraq easily. We've also got Saudia Arabia (our ally), Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria to supply us with oil, so we're not sweating Iraq cuz of oil.

2000warrior: Of course RIGHT NOW we're getting less. However, that graph showed the import of oil from 2000-2002. Back in 2000, we weren't at war with Iraq. Back in 2001, we weren't at war with Iraq. Back in 2002, we weren't quite at war with them yet. It still remains that we have enough other places to get oil than Iraq.

And of course we're gonna be issuing lisences/rights to drill the oil after we kick out Saddam. It's a viable natural resource. The oil would just be one of the...perks, i'll say...of kicking out Saddam. It's not THE reason we're in there. Our objective is NOT to take the oil, and kick out Saddam on the side. We're in there for one purpose: kick out Saddam. If oil comes with the victory, then so be it.

Nantuko Joe: To my knowledge, I havn't said the US was looking to import oil from Iraq...

Oh no, that's not even close to the case. It's more like capitalize off the export and production of Iraq's oil is more of my concern. Halliburton (Cheney's old company) has done dealing with Hussein in the past...


The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion.

The proceeds funded a sharp increase in the country's nutritional standards, nearly doubling the food rations distributed to Iraq's poor.

But U.S. and European officials acknowledged that the expanded production also increased Saddam Hussein's capacity to siphon off money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq may be skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program.

I suggest you take a look at this article (http://gwbush.com/spots/postpage.html) or this site (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/cheney.html) for more info on Cheney's past dealings (which btw that last site has quite a collection of relative official documents regaurding this debate).

Bush on the other hand, has amassed his wealth upon Harken Energy Corp.


Cumulatively,the President, Vice President and cabinet secretaries were worth somewhere between $149 and $434 million. By contrast, the net worth of the same 16 officials from the last year of the Clinton administration was in a range between $14.5 to $45.9 million.

And has been givin a quite a bit of money from oil companies for election money.

Bush received nearly $2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry during the 2000 election

However,I think these close oil-ties play directly into the hands of post-war plans.


The Bush administration is considering whether under international law it can increase Iraqi oil production beyond the UN program to pay for Iraqi reconstruction, officials said. At issue is whether foreign occupiers can sell oil from the occupied country, even if the money goes to that nation.

Now, due to this sentence structure, I can't tell wether they're saying that the proceeds would go to Iraq or the US (but it would make more sense for Iraq to be the reference there). But in any case, I think Bush's most recent announcements have made it clear that Corporate America is what will profit off of post-war Iraq.

Bush administration plans for rebuilding of Iraq reportedly call for private American corporations to undertake much of work, with United Nations development agencies and other multilateral organizations sidelined; with administration offering $1.5 billion in work to private companies and just $50 million to American aid groups, plan will leave out many large international organizations

Now, if you'll kindly note the 1,500,000,000 as compared to 50,000,000; you might notice that there seems to be some profit-motives here...

I'm not saying this is the only reason the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq, but it would seem pretty naive to say it wasn't a prodominant factor which made it more appealing.

[HAOHMARU2]

it doesnt matter if irak is the number 6 or number1000!!! irak to let you know has not even touched her reseve oil, i said never and it is situated in the north and it is still unusable so far, and u know what ,that reserve is considered the largest in the wrold!! ,and that reserve could satisfy a country like USA which consume more oil than the rest of the whole world together for hundreds and hundred years!!!, and sorry u all to tell you that the war in iraq is all about OIL OIL OIL OIL AND JUST OIL dont go wrong they are already setting up the pipes in the fields out there and also dont go wrong AND TRUST WHAT THE US MEDIA SAYS that s all bullpoop they just want you to believe what they want you to believe, wanna see the real news? go get a satelite and watch the european channels and especially the famous channel ALJAZEERA, dont worry about the language but the pics explains themselves, i once went to a friend's house and watched what was blind to realize earlier, many , hundreds of civilians are being killed over there because of the americans raid, many kids have been killed due to the bombing and horrible images... one of them is an 8year old girl who has been hit by an AMERICAN ROCKET IN the head.. that was an horrible moment.. americans are unfortunately condacting themselves as conquerors and not SEVIORS and that s what the whole world is realizing but not americans.
also i'd like to emphesize that the purpose of this war is pure 100% oil oil, dont MAKE URSELVES BELIEVE IT S ANOTHER THINGS *cough*nantuko*cough* there is one famous BOOK i forgot the name sorry who explains and justify CLEARLY that every and i said every single war that america got into the main hidden purpose was oil oil and oil EVEN THE vietnamese war was about OIL and that s what many people did'nt realize
thanks



Edited By HAOHMARU2 on Mar. 27 2003 at 23:24

[Digital Jihad]

Edit, 2000warrior: You know, this post is EXACTLY WHY I've had to delete so many others.
<span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>READ THE FIRST FRIGGIN POST BEFORE POSTING</span>.

I support this war.
Times have changed. Now it only takes 1 missile to start and end a war. We have bombs 100 times more powerful that the A-Bomb. Other countries could get access to that, and that could be a disaster.
However, Iraq has chemical weapons but no evidence of Weapons of Mass destruction. Now if North Korea is more advance in creating weapons of Mass destruction, why didn't we go after them first?
I don't believe anyone in here is pro-war in general. I mean who loves war? Sometimes war is necessary and I see that in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/interactive/wmd/tactical.nukes/gallery.b83.jpg
CNN WEAPONSFirst B-83 deployed: 1984
Dimensions: 12 feet long, 11 inches diameter, 35 inches in tail span
Weight: 2,399 pounds
Number stockpiled: approximately 650
Yield: One to two megatons (one megaton is equivalent to a million tons of TNT) Delivery method: B-2 Spirit, B-52H Stratofortress, or B-1B Lancer bombers

This weapon has a variable-yield feature, as does the B-61, which means the explosive power or yield can be adjusted. When used for strategic purposes, the B-83 has a high-yield with a low-level "laydown" capability, meaning it has a delayed blast of up to 120 seconds so the aircraft dropping it can do so from a low altitude and still have time to escape the blast. It was designed specifically for use against hardened targets. At high-yield, the B-83 is said to be 100 times more powerful than the "Little Boy," the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The B-83 is in the process of being replaced by B61-11.



Edited By 2000warrior on Mar. 28 2003 at 06:15

[Troy88]

This is a disgusting debate to me. This isn't about a war protest, this is about political party bias, and people that don't like Bush. Perhaps they're still pissed about the election, who knows. But what I do know is, a majority of the "war protestors" are Democrats. Would they still be against the war if Al Gore had won the election, and decided to take action against Saddam Hussein? Perhaps some of the more intelligent ones, that actually have legitimate reasons for being anti-war (besides hating Bush) would... but for the most part, I think not. This is just another excuse for Democrats to lash out at a leader that they can't stand. It's just like when Republicans were trying to impeach Clinton over that B.S. with Monica Lewinski (pffft...).

In order for me to take the protestors seriously, they would have to first prove to me that Iraq, and more importantly, Saddam Hussein, is not a threat to the safety of the American people. But instead of doing that, they whine about how much they hate Bush, and come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories about how he's trying to take over the world (even comparing him to Hitler), starting with Iraq. Give me a break. If you don't like Bush, fine. I could care less. But instead trying to discredit him and push propaganda and conspiracy theories, why don't you do your homework on Saddam Hussein. You compare Bush to Hitler, but you've got it all wrong.

I can't take credit for the following (excluding my own commentary). If you want more information, check out these links: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/27/sproject.irq.case.against.saddam/, http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/26/us.iraq.alqaeda/index.html, or [URL=http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20....tm]http ([URL=http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR1new.htm]http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20....new.htm)

------------------------------------------------------------

"When Saddam Hussein grew up, he did so in the shadow of a giant portrait that hung on the wall of his father's house, a portrait of the face of a man his father adored above every other political leader. It was the face of Adolph Hitler."

- Jan Willem van der Hoeven

During WWII, in April, 1941, in accordance to a 1930 treaty, Iraq permitted the British to move their troops into Iraq. Opposition Iraqis in the Army received Nazi support and attacked the British air base at Habbaniya. The Iraqi army was beaten and England resumed military control. Saddam Hussein's uncle Khayrallah Tulfa, an Iraqi Army Officer, was jailed for his role in the Nazi sponsored insurrection. He was released in 1946. He was a staunch supporter of Nazi Germany and revered Hitler.

In 1947, at the age of ten, Saddam was allowed to move in with his uncle, Khayrallah Tulfah, in Baghdad. Tulfah had a profound effect on young Saddam's political education and thought. He was so important to Saddam, that he later was appointed Governor of Baghdad under Hussein. In 1981, Saddam republished a pamphlet written by his uncle entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Iranians, Jews, and Flies."

Saddam joined the radical socialist nationalist movement Baath party when he was 19. In 1956, he participated in a non-successful coup attempt against the monarchy of King Faisal II. In 1958, a non-Baathist group of army officers succeeded in overthrowing the King. The group was led by General Abdul Kassim.

In 1959, Saddam and a group of Baathist supporters attempted to assassinate Gen. Kassim. The attack was unsuccessful, but it helped place Hussein in a leadership position in the Baath party. After the attack, in which Hussein was wounded, he fled to Syria and then to Cairo, Egypt where he would spend the next four years.

In 1963 Saddam returned to Iraq to take part in another revolt against General Kassim. A group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Kassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Kassim's devotees and showed their bodies in close up on the nightly news.

Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, known for his extreme efficiency as a torturer. He was appointed to be a member of the Baath Regional Command. In 1964, Hussein was jailed by some "rightist" military officers who opposed the Baathist takeover. In 1966 he "escaped" from prison and Saddam's older cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, appointed him deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists.

Saddam was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and built the Iraqi secret police network. On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's thirst for power.

Saddam called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979, where various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they were taken into custody.

A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty others were then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials.

During the next few days, 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a short, but far from complete list of some of Saddam's atrocities:

[Warmor]

Ok I came back to check the topic and my post was deleted, why was it deleted?

Warmor: Your post, along with others, were deleted because you either did not read the first post on this topic or did not follow the "rules" in this debate. Kindly direct yourself towards reading that and figuring out what the subject matter is in this topic before posting again.

[Neo_genic]

Have a look at the 8bit fighters in the links.
and get over the whole war thing, escape from reality...

[Warmor]

Warmor: Your post, along with others, were deleted because you either did not read the first post on this topic or did not follow the "rules" in this debate. Kindly direct yourself towards reading that and figuring out what the subject matter is in this topic before posting again.
I *did* read your whole post and I *did* make a valid opinion.