Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How easily you forget, liberals in American said that we went to Iraq for the Oil and that Bush was going to benefit from it.
Did not happen.
Liberals said the war is about oil and it will benefit who ever has ties with the oil industry.
The deal is signed. Are you ignoring that EXXON has signed a major contract in Iraq?
Or did you expect EXXON Mobil to start drilling in 2003? Heres an eplanation just for you in case you have missed what was happening in Iraq in the last years:
The recent activity around Basra is the start of an overhaul that was supposed to have taken place seven years ago, after the U.S. ousted Mr. Hussein. Then-U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials touted plans to quickly ramp up Iraqi production as a way to fund rebuilding. But violence and lawlessness across the country in the wake of the invasion derailed much of those early efforts.
Yeah, no one thought it would be so tough to get this country under control.
It was YOU that claimed so far that the US did not benefit from the invasion when it comes to oil. And here you have an US company that signed a huge deal an will get access to the oil.
We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.
Ron is wrong. The 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Iraq signed, gave the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq if it was broken, which it was.
I think you are a troll. There were many links on here but you ignore it just as you ignore that an US company signed a major deal for Iraqi oil but it was just Russia and China, right as you mentioned. Do your homework.
Start with: Murat Kurnaz and other innocent people that were tortured.
We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.
You are exactly correct! Just because the justification of the Iraq invasion was 'legal',(barely) doesn't mean it was an honest moral decision.
To bad we can't convict on this.
If there is such a thing as Karma, there are many who will have to answer in the grander scheme of things for this.
"Barely" legal? It's either legal or not.
The only ones who should be convicted are terrorists.
Why are you defending Iraq/terrorists more than the U.S.? Iraq supported, aided and gave comfort to terrorists.
Ron is wrong. The 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Iraq signed, gave the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq if it was broken, which it was.
Are you talking about that?
[SIZE=2]Some Bush administration officials have argued that because Iraq has not complied with the cease-fire terms of Resolution 687(a subsequent relevant resolution), which required it to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors, among other things, member states still have sufficient legal authority to use force ("all necessary means") against Iraq.
But critics have found flaws in this theory as well. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998.[/SIZE]..
How can be Ron Paul wrong when there is no legal consensus about the legality of the war? Only because Bush and Blair thought it was legal doesn't mean that the war was legal indeed.
Here is a rather long speech of Ron Paul about it. For sure not for people with a short attention span like Fox News viewers but definitely interesting.
Example:
Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force. Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but definitely interesting.
