wellyrn
Anyway, my actual point, before you slice and diced it, was that you don't really understand the issue because you aren't given the full picture. Not that you have no right to an opinion.
No one here is under that impression. What we do know is that when someone has a certain viewpoint on a topic, and someone else claims that person's viewpoint is faulty, misguided or just plain wrong because he has not exercised his own judgment but is instead accepting someone else's viewpoint without question, doesn't lead anywhere. It cannot be a valid argument in any sensible forum.
Imagine trying to use this argument in a court of law. "Your honor, I request counsels entire argument be struck from the proceedings on the grounds that he is simply repeating the viewpoints of the media." Its pointless. Both sides can just go back and forth all day like that without any real facts or issues being addressed.
wellyrn
The point that im dismissing you? No, i WAS getting tired of them refuting arguements that i didn't make.
Sure you did. You just choose to ignore the true nature of your arguments.
wellyrn
I was getting the impression that they weren't even reading what i was writing because they have such an ingrained symbol-response mechanism.
Clearly I am reading your repsonses. Otherwise, I wouldn't quote them.
wellyrn
Again, 87 chevy has piped up with assertion that i can't be neutral. I am against the conflict and the damage it causes. If Iraq were the invading force and there were Iraqis here trying to tell me America has no right to fight back within it's own borders I would be calling them tools of Jihadist propoganda. No im not anti-american.
You are not neutral. Why not just admit it? If you were neutral you wouldn't be here. That's why this is the
opinions forum.
It wasn't anyones opinion or news story that made me think the US invaded Iraq for the oil. I just added things up on my own and every time thats where i land.
What, did you think the coalition forces were just going to TAKE the oil away? That's absurd. The Iraqis have been controlling their own country's oil for months now, in case you haven't noticed. The proceeds from oil revenues have in fact, always been returned directly into the reconstruction efforts and NOT into the pockets of Halliburton execs, as much as some people would like to think so.
And the oil fields were secured to prevent Baathist loyalists from destroying them during the fighting. If we actually wanted the oil, it'd be gone by now and there'd be a bunch of pissed off Iraqis wondering where it all is. Given how that hasn't happened, I doubt this is so.
Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea. Why weren't these countries targeted? Iran and North Korea have well known WMD programs and are both known to support terrorism.
How do you know they haven't been?
Its been over a year now of complete chaos in Iraq. Who knows how much longer it could go on for. No one wants to live under a dictator. But, given the situation, every day that goes by makes it harder and harder for me to imagine this is any better. I can certainly imagine that more good could have been done with 120 billion dollars and counting. Lives on both sides that could have been spared and the US-Arab and Isreal-Arab relations have been worsened greatly because of this conflict.
Ah, finally. Substance.
The Iraqi people have their sovereignty back today. The governing council can ask coalition forces to leave anytime they want. I doubt they would want to, since the internal police force is not ready to take on the insurgents on their own yet. I'd say things are looking better there, though. At least they have January elections to look forward to, and this is a big step for them.
Last I checked, state relations between governments haven't changed. It is the average Arab's opinion of the US that is on a deep decline. There are a few (and I stress few) good reasons for this, and there are some I consider crappy ones. These have already been hashed out in this topic. I suggest you go back and read them.
It may have been with good intentions but the US made a huge mistake.
I wouldn't not discount that as a possibility. But there is never a way of knowing for sure unless you can see into alternate futures. If we left Saddam alone, I know for certain he would have done whatever was in his power to take revenge on the US in particular, Kuwait and his other neighbors when he had a chance.
I am certain America traded away one possible threat for another. Which was the greater threat, I doubt anyone can here tell us for sure. Last I checked, George Tenet was not a member of this forum.
Were they influenced by the chance to gain more control over the worlds oil production? It seems more likely than not
It is always easy to be cynical when trying to determine the deepest motivations of others. Rich people only give to charities so they can write it off their taxes. A young man only treats a woman well only because he wants to sleep with her.
The problem is that people and events are rarely one dimensional. Since the US has not already made off with a bunch of Iraqi oil after more than a year of being in Iraq, I don't think this is a true statement.
M
