BF2S Forums Time for Bush to swallow his pride?

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Do you really think they went there to lower the price of oil for you, lol?  They went there to increase their profits.

When the nation's three biggest oil companies - Exxon Mobil (Charts, Fortune 500), Chevron (Charts, Fortune 500) and ConocoPhillips (Charts, Fortune 500) - report results later this week, the numbers could again be staggering. In 2006, the three companies earned nearly as much as the other seven companies in the top 10 on the Fortune 500.  And with consumers forking over $3 a gallon or more for gas in many parts of the country, the public outcry over the profits could be loud.

And you think this is because the Iraq war...lol funny stuff. If you hadn't noticed Iraq's oil production is down considering where it was pre-war. You should probably know that American oil companies such as those you listed make most of their money off the refining process. A big gaping hole in your logic. Insert some common sense rather than the weak generalization that since there is oil in Iraq and oil companies are profitable "that must be the reason we invaded". How is getting less oil in an unsecured area controlled ENTIRELY by Sunnis and Kurds increasing their profit? Let that one sink in for a minute. Profits will be whatever they want irregardless. The oil execs don't have shit on what the Kings of the Oil Kingdom can do when they decide they want to turn the supply off.  When supply is cut by the real people who have some control "OPEC" guess what, the cost is passed immediately to the consumer (and vice versa). You owe it to your fellow Bush haters to at least put forth a more plausible explanation for the motivation. There are plenty of other reasonable choices that allow you to use greed and power as your platform.

Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday.  A draft of this controversial law, which the U.S. government has been helping to craft and has been seen by the Independent, would give oil giants such as BP PLC (BP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and let these foreign oil companies undertake their first large-scale operations in the country since the industry was nationalized.

Care to address any of the inherent flaws I pointed out or just url me to what you think will? It will be Iraqis who decide what will be of their oil. Please for all of our sakes learn about what is going on now instead of digging up accusations from 4 months ago.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13298/

Wait wait wait, I thought we were "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". If they're making it here, how does that prove anything besides what a bullshit idea that is? That's talking like US forces have an actual recognized and organized military bogged down in Iraq. They don't. There's no supply lines to cut, no factories to bomb, no armored divisions to clash with, no planes to shoot down, no ships to sink. This is fighting shadows with a shotgun.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Wait wait wait, I thought we were "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". If they're making it here, how does that prove anything besides what a bullshit idea that is? That's talking like US forces have an actual recognized and organized military bogged down in Iraq. They don't. There's no supply lines to cut, no factories to bomb, no armored divisions to clash with, no planes to shoot down, no ships to sink. This is fighting shadows with a shotgun.

Exactly, were not fighting a conventional army here, we're fighting the hearts and minds of iraq's people. If we cant win the peoples support nothing will happen at all.

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

And you think this is because the Iraq war...lol funny stuff. If you hadn't noticed Iraq's oil production is down considering where it was pre-war. You should probably know that American oil companies such as those you listed make most of their money off the refining process. A big gaping hole in your logic. Insert some common sense rather than the weak generalization that since there is oil in Iraq and oil companies are profitable "that must be the reason we invaded". How is getting less oil in an unsecured area controlled ENTIRELY by Sunnis and Kurds increasing their profit? Let that one sink in for a minute. Profits will be whatever they want irregardless. The oil execs don't have shit on what the Kings of the Oil Kingdom can do when they decide they want to turn the supply off.  When supply is cut by the real people who have some control "OPEC" guess what, the cost is passed immediately to the consumer (and vice versa). You owe it to your fellow Bush haters to at least put forth a more plausible explanation for the motivation. There are plenty of other reasonable choices that allow you to use greed and power as your platform.

Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday.  A draft of this controversial law, which the U.S. government has been helping to craft and has been seen by the Independent, would give oil giants such as BP PLC (BP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and let these foreign oil companies undertake their first large-scale operations in the country since the industry was nationalized.

Care to address any of the inherent flaws I pointed out or just url me to what you think will? It will be Iraqis who decide what will be of their oil. Please for all of our sakes learn about what is going on now instead of digging up accusations from 4 months ago.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13298/

It will be Iraqi puppets who will decide.  Don't forget the key word here, puppets.

fadedsteve wrote:

I still think there are WMD's somewhere. . . .They may not be in Iraq, but they are somewhere over in that region. .

Yeah, we sold them to Saddam back in the late 80s.  We still have the receipts.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with American puppets running the Iraqi government -- it would certainly beat how the current leaders are puppets of Muqtada.

Either way, now is the time to leave.

Turquoise wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

I still think there are WMD's somewhere. . . .They may not be in Iraq, but they are somewhere over in that region. .

Yeah, we sold them to Saddam back in the late 80s.  We still have the receipts.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with American puppets running the Iraqi government -- it would certainly beat how the current leaders are puppets of Muqtada.

Either way, now is the time to leave.

All past their use by dates by now though. These chemicals don't last forever.

Bertster7 wrote:

All past their use by dates by now though. These chemicals don't last forever.

Correct. That stuff has a shelf-life, and not a very long one as far as weapons go.

farmerfez wrote:

Hey, this is my first post in D&ST so please excuse any errors or if its not up to standards.

OK, onto the topic. I feel president Bush should swallow his foolish pride and admit he was wrong in attacking Iraq. I think more people would respect him and support him. The catch is however he would have to pull out which is why i say swallow his pride. The whole reason we're there is because of his foolish pride and not manning up and admitting he made a mistake in entering Iraq.

Discuss!!!

Kmarion wrote:

First off welcome to the D&ST section.

Harry Truman had a approval rating in the twenties too, now he is regarded as a strong leader during the Cold War, and the public face of the end of WW2.
I still believe giving those people a shot at freedom was worth fighting for, as for Haliburton, mercenaries and other general incompetence, don't ask me, I dunno. It could be that history will be kinder to George Bush than the present is.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Wait wait wait, I thought we were "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". If they're making it here, how does that prove anything besides what a bullshit idea that is? That's talking like US forces have an actual recognized and organized military bogged down in Iraq. They don't. There's no supply lines to cut, no factories to bomb, no armored divisions to clash with, no planes to shoot down, no ships to sink. This is fighting shadows with a shotgun.

I disagree. the reality imo is that there ARE known supply lines and command chains that COULD be broken but are not because of A) the still developing nature of the war B) political correctness C) lack of desire by the high command to use tactical weapons. These guys were youtube fans who watched one too many beheading videos. Kids, internet geeks. While their plan was not without plausibility the fact remains they were bitter residents of the U.S, sympathetic to the jihadists, perhaps with some knowledge of how to conduct war from living in Bosnia and other shitholes, not " terrorist cells" in the recognized sense, infiltrating our borders on OBLs direct orders.

Your position that there's no supply lines to cut, no factories to bomb, no armored divisions to clash with, no planes to shoot down, no ships to sink is predicated on the belief that there are no governments involved in mischief and that all weapons killings our boys are indigenous.

And that sir, is why your analysis fails.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" just flat out doesn't apply to asymmetrical warfare since it implies that the enemy can be bottled up in a particular area of the world through conventional military force. This enemy cannot.

I disagree.

Bertster7 wrote:

ATG wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" just flat out doesn't apply to asymmetrical warfare since it implies that the enemy can be bottled up in a particular area of the world through conventional military force. This enemy cannot.

I disagree.

I can't see how people can form that impression when there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The whole "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" nonsense is just more political rhetoric cooked up to justify a failing and expensive war.

As can be seen by the number of terror attacks targeted at places outside of Iraq during the course of the war.
The Iraq war has increased the level of (Islamic) global terrorism and terrorism in Western nations. Those are plain straightforward facts. Unless it is all coincidence, one can easily conclude that the Iraq war has had a negative effect on the "war on terror".

The very fact that terrorism levels outside the region have increased shows that it is not being contained in Iraq.

i contend the enemy clearly saw that terrorism works through 9-11, and it would have gained popularity among extremist groups regardless of the war in the ME.  the real question: is the war a catalyst for the inevitable tactic of terrorism?  speculation to follow.

as for "fight them over there", no, they are not "bottled up in a particular area", but it is working in the sense that terrorists have better access to ‘better’ US assets through our involvement in their county(ies) and thus preventing terrorist attacks on US soil.  is this 'better'? hard to say.