Iran and the right to defend themselves

Iraq nationalised their oil in 1972 which you don't do unless you want US invading your country looking for WMD.

Since the invasion and Iraq Oil Law of 2007, just 17 of 80 Iraq oil fields are under puppet state control, with the rest given to US foreign companies.

US oil companies would get under 2006 prices, $30 trillion dollars worth of oil.

So, 1 million dead civilians, american debt at critical levels and you think this is all about some ideology?

You think the US government spends $1 trillion tax dollars a year for liberty? for democracy? lol
It's big business, nothing else and it's no different for Iran.

They stopped selling oil with dollars which is good enough reason for US to invade.

anymore wrote:

The US is only responsible for a minority of Iraqi civilian deaths

Watching too much Fox news lately?

Buddy, i doubt you'll ever be convinced of what's really going on over there so i'll say no more.

anymore wrote:

I watch neither Fox nor CNN News. Neither do i watch RTE PRAVDA and I make up my own mind on issues rather accepting the biased leftwing claptrap that is trotted out by so much of irish Society.

Yeah? I'm fairly tired myself of people who believe these genocidal acts and atrocities carried out by an imperialist tyrannical empire like the US are in fact good for humanity.

They've invaded more countries and covertly assassinated more democratically elected leaders than i've had hot dinners.

It's completely absurd to accept the US is a poster boy for democracy and freedom around the world..what a sick joke.

How about you keep researching and come back later with something that makes sense.

How much irish attention has ever been given to the slaughter in Chechnya, Algera etc, etc.

Why aren't the US over there liberating them? maybe because they have nothing to steal..

Deleted User wrote:

The wonderful thing about hindsight is that you can always ask the most useful questions....

Apparently the state department had been planning the invasion for 2 years but Rumsfeld didn't even bother to read the report.

Let's be honest, US and UK oligarchs have been interfering with Middle East together for almost 100 years and the only interest they have, is the huge amounts of energy there.

They don't give a sh|t about the people and never have.

As much as I dislike the US, and what they've done to the Middle east, they have been learning to deal with the problems that come up, just as everyone else has to. They probably didn't foresee all the problems that would arise from Saddams fall, and neither did too many other people.

You don't think they knew disbanding the structures which ensured law and order would cause problems?

I'll bet if you asked a 10 year old "what would happen to the country if we disbanded the police and border guards" ? they'd atleast have the sense to know it was a terrible idea.

The decision to remove border guards permitted free movement of insurgents into the country, free movement of human and drug traffickers causing more untold misery to people's lives.

They disband the police force and turn a blind eye to looting.
Disband the military but still allow the soldiers access to weapons.

Recipe for disaster and Rumsfeld knew it, but don't worry, Billy the Kid and Blackwater/XE gun slingers will sort it out.

I'm sure the US admin could point to perfectly logical reasons for why they did all of the above. And perhaps at the time it was happening, it was justified. But you are looking backward in time and judging. I have to wonder did you post anything at the time of the Invasion and subsequent conflict, which suggested that these issues would occur?

In 2003 I argued with friends it was an invasion for oil, some still continue to regurgitate propaganda from newspapers and large media corporations that this is some struggle for freedom and democracy...how stupid are people?

At the time I didn't know what the overall end plan was but since reading about The New Great Game, it's a little clearer the primary objective is to seize control of energy in central asia.

We're constantly distracted by the media into believing these regions in the middle east are volatile because of religious inter communal conflicts when that's just part of the destabilization process.

As someone said, it's much easier to gain control over those areas when you have the domestic population fighting each other, it's the classic military strategy of divide and conquer being played out.

Now regarding the oil issue. Do any of you know just how much fuel it takes to move a tank a 100 kilometers? or an Apache Helicopter? No? Have a look. Its quite staggering what only one or two vehicles need to maintain effectiveness. Now consider the size of the force they have had over there, the level of operations, and the added fuel costs of transport from the states across to the gulf.

Yes, US military are using Iraq as a petrol station to continue their futile attempts of controlling central asia.

The US has probably used more oil during the whole period than what they have "stolen" out of Iraq. So.. going in there to steal oil seems a little off. I can totally understand the aspect of ensuring "western" (i.e. US) interests in the region. Or even that Bush wanted a feather in his cap to put in the histories of US presidents.

I don't know how much oil US military have used but i'd rather you showed people how much oil is available in Iraq and how much US military has used since the invasion.

Iraq has a reserve life of 150 years so i doubt US oligarchs are too concerned about how much oil the tanks and apache helicopters use to play their game..anyway, it's all billed to the US tax payer so why should crooks care?

Manic Moran wrote:

For starters, the police were never disbanded

Yes, they were actually.

It's funny watching you try justify destruction of a country for oil.

Under the 2007 Iraq Oil Law, The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields,leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

"Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East" -- US General Jay Garner said in 2004


"We dictate the way they live and talk... It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." -- US Brig. General Looney


"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." --
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," -- General John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq.


“Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” -- Kenneth Derr, in 1998, the chief executive of Chevron

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." -- PNAC (Project For New American Century) Founded by Rumsfeld and Cheney.

"So where is the oil going to come from? ... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," -- Dick Cheney, ex-US vice president and CEO of Halliburton.

Wars in Iraq over oil.

Seven Oil Wars to Control Iraq

Before coming to the Iraq war of 2003, we will review the modern history of conflicts over Iraq. There have been a total of seven wars in the past ninety years, all closely related to oil. What follows is a thumbnail sketch of those conflicts, to suggest the constant military struggle over this oil-rich territory.

1. Colonial Conquest (1914-18). The first conflict took place during World War I, when the British captured the area from the Ottoman Empire during a bloody four-year campaign. Lord Curzon, a member of the War cabinet who became Foreign Minister immediately after the war, famously stated that the influence of oil over British policy in Iraq was “nil.” “Oil,” said Curzon, “had not the remotest connection with my attitude over Mosul,” the major city in Iraq’s northern oil-bearing region.27 Studies by a number of historians have shown that Curzon was lying and that oil was indeed the major factor shaping British policy towards Iraq.28 Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the War Cabinet, even insisted enthusiastically in a private cabinet letter that oil was a “first class war aim.”29 London had ordered its forces to continue fighting after the Mudros Armistice was signed, so as to gain control of Iraq’s main oil-producing region. Fifteen days later, the British army seized Mosul, capital of the oil region, blocking the aspirations of the French, to whom the area had been promised earlier in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement.30

2. War of Pacification (1918-1930). To defend its oil interests, Britain fought a long war of pacification in Iraq, lasting from 1918 throughout the next decade. The British crushed a country-wide insurrection in 1920 and continued to strike at insurgents with poison gas, airplanes, incendiary bombs, and mobile armored cars, using an occupation force drawn largely from the Indian Army. This carnage killed or wounded thousands of Iraqis, burning villages and extracting colonial taxes by brutal means. Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, saw the defense of Iraq’s lucrative oil deposits as a test of modern weaponry and military-colonial use of force, enabling Britain to hold the oil fields at the lowest possible cost.31

3. Re-Occupation (1941). Though Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq in 1932, it maintained a sizeable military force and a large air base in the country and continued to rule “indirectly.” In 1941, fearful that Iraq might fall into the hands of the Axis, London again decided to seize direct control of the country through military force. Broad geo-strategic wartime goals drove this campaign, but not least was British concern to protect the Iraqi oil fields and keep them in British hands, free not only from German but also from US challenge.32

4. Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). In 1980, Iraq attacked its neighbor, Iran. A long war ensued through 1988, a savage conflict causing hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, costing tens of billions of dollars and destroying much of both countries’ oilfields and vital infrastructure. Foreign governments, interested in gaining geo-strategic advantage over both nations’ oil resources, promoted, encouraged and sustained the war, some arming both sides.

The US and the UK supplied Iraq with arms, chemical and biological weapon precursors, military training, satellite targeting and naval support. Other powers participated as well, notably France, Germany and Russia.33 The big oil companies profited mightily, as war conditions kept Iraqi and Iranian oil off the market, driving worldwide prices substantially higher.

By bankrupting the two governments and ruining their oil infrastructure, the war also potentially opened the way for the return of the companies through privatization in the not-too-distant future. But after the war, when Iraq and Iran turned to Japanese oil companies for new private investments, including a Japanese role in Iraq’s super-giant Majnoun field, the stage was set for yet another conflict.

5. Gulf War (1991). Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the US decided to intervene militarily and Washington assembled a number of secondary military partners, including the UK and France.

As US President George Bush summed up the oil-centered threat posed by Saddam Hussein at the time: “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”

US forces heavily bombed Iraqi cities and military installations and then launched a short and decisive ground war, ending the Iraqi occupation of its neighbor. The war badly battered Iraq, destroying much of its electricity and water purification systems and claiming 50-100,000 casualties.

link

my god

the truth is staring you in the face and you still have doubts..it's bloody hopeless.

Deleted User wrote:

So I should accept your viewpoint without question? Strange from someone talking about the media, or the US "hidden" agenda's.

I will always have doubts about any activity that I wasn't personally involved in... Relying on any information from external sources is always subject to suspicion. And it should be.

:rolleyes:

What's my viewpoint? the Iraq invasion was motivated by oil?

Yes, it's one of the main factors, it's exactly what the men behind it have already openly admitted, yet you still have doubts? guessing that's the result of being brainwashed by TV.

Do you remember that poll that was carried out between june and september 2003 which asked people if they believed WMD had been found in Iraq since the end of war and 33% of fox news viewers said "yes"

Are you part of that 33% ?
That's good propaganda.

Are you also conveniently forgetting it was the UK and US governments who sold WMD to Iraq in the first place..but of course, that's a conspiracy theory.. lol

North Korea last month threatened to nuke america yet I don't see any build up to an invasion, do you wonder why?

Not really that surprising, maybe it's because they have nothing to steal over there, do ya think?

"Those who seek to bring down the system in the (North), whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army,"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-threatens-unprecedented-nuclear-strikes-on-america-2010-3#ixzz0mlnYyMpx