why we MUST stay in Iraq

Eh, there are better arguments. For instance, here's some:

1. There are terrorists who would love to bring down the United States.
2. The Iraqi people probably don't care that much, they want us out now that we've saved them (or so says the press)
3. Nope, Communism is not a big threat. It's a self-destroying form of government. Unless it's a theocratic communism (the early Christian Church being a good example), or well accounted (like the early Jamestown colony), it's not gonna be able to take over the world.

I am very much interested in reading your views on this. Please explain.

Guess what? Its not our decision. There is now an Iraqi Government which has control over their own sovereign territory and if you have been watching the negotiations on CSPAN between the US and Iraqi governments you would know that. Although they have not made a decision yet it looks like the majority of the parties involved in the Iraqi Parliament think the US troops still being there is in fact causing more problems and may in fact decide to have us start withdrawing troops sooner than you may think. So although I would agree Hussein was a nasty dictator and I strongly believe in Democracy I still don't think we are going to get a positive outcome over this war. We did get rid of a dictator, but it was a secular government and when the civil war going on there now ends we will see what type of government they end up with. Back when the Bush admin was debating the war in the UN before it started i happened upon a paper posted on the Naval War College website that outlined what the best and worst case scenarios would be and what we would need to do to try to avoid the worst case scenarios. As I watched the war being executed we failed to accomplish most of the objectives and saw many of the worst case scenerios actually occur. So the big question is not whether we should withdraw or not...its not our decision...but whether any of the true objectives of the war will be accomplised.....and only time will tell as far as answering that question.

Really, I think that terrorist killed over there rather than killing over here is a very positive outcome.



Excuse me, did I miss something? Only the news organizations and peace groups called it a civil war. Right now you can’t find any credible organization even the hard left news organizations that will say that there is or was a civil war. What Cspan channel are you watching? Even MSNBC the most far left anti war news organization when challenged to back up the claim of civil war in Iraq went very quiet very quickly.



Please tell me what you see as the true objectives of the war in Iraq.

The objective of the war was to create a democracy that would sign agreements for oil leases to American and British Oil Companies. If you don't believe that then you better do your homework. First I will pose a few questions then give u a link to a document abt the oil industry and a timeline of various wars in Iraq. Maybe then you will understand the true meaning of US Interests in the Middle East as has been set out and acted upon in the form of US National Security and Foreign Policy in that region over the past several decades.

Why was one of the first things US troops accomplished during the onset of the War?

They secured the oil fields.

What was the next objective?

To topple the Sovereign Government of Iraq and create a new one so they could declare all previous agreements regarding oil leases to Russian, Chinese, French, etc. oil companies invalid since the government under which those agreements were made would no longer exist.

So here is the link.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

Have you ever pondered why the current administration includes the following people:

G. Bush- Son of GW Bush- founder of Zapata Oil Corporation
R. Cheney- former CEO of Halliburton..now called KBR- Largest US Oil Support Equiptment Company
C. Rice- former board Member of Chevron.

These are not mere coinsidences. So if your read the linked document u should have no doubt as to the real reason.

US-UK forces invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, seizing the major oilfields and refineries almost immediately. When coalition forces later entered Baghdad, they set a protective cordon around the Oil Ministry, while leaving all other institutions unguarded, allowing looting and burning of other government ministries, hospitals and cultural institutions. Looters sacked the National Museum and burned a wing of the National Library, but the Oil Ministry stood relatively unscathed, with its thousands of valuable seismic maps safe for future oil exploration.

This is from your socialist friend Mr. James A. Paul. He documents what was reported but not the facts that it was not true. Sure we set up protection around the oil fields and ministry, with the scorched earth policy of Saddam insane it was important to protect them to provide a way for the nation to survive. Even with the protection some fields were set a blaze and pipe lines damaged. Though it was widely reported by the anti war people that the museum was looted it was later discovered that what was stolen were replicas as the real objects were safely stored in vaults undamaged. His writing is well documented but dated since he only had the benefit of what was reported rather than the ability of looking at it five years later and weed out the lies.





I think it was because he was elected to office.



I think it was because he was elected to office.



Still don’t see a problem with this. She has a doctorate in international affairs. She is well respected around the world for this. She was a prodigy that got her doctorate by age 25. She also wants to be commissioner of the NFL does that mean she is trying to drill for oil in football fields across America? My son has a doctorate in economics and works for an oil company. He also was a marketing director for healthy choice foods for a while. It paid for his MBA. People that work for a living should not be considered for jobs they have a proven track record of doing well in? Oh and Dr. Rice was confirmed by the Senate for her job. Does this mean that the Senate is also trying to go to war for oil?

Your comments about the National Museum are irrelavant to your question and my answer so ill sum up the objective of the current war in Iraq in 13 words:

Control of the worlds 2nd largest source of oil reserves in the world.

You have won me over to your way of thinking with your deep, clear, well-thought-out and thoroughly explained argument.

Thanks!

Iraq claims to have the world's fourth largest reserves of oil at approximately 115 billion barrels (18.3×109 m3), although it would rank third if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil were excluded.
As a result of war and civil unrest, these statistics have not been revised since 2001 and are largely based on 2-D seismic data from three decades ago. International geologists and consultants have estimated that unexplored territory may contain an estimated additional 45 to 100 billion barrels (bbls) of recoverable oil. However, in the absence of exploration data these estimates are highly speculative and do not meet the industry definitions of proven, probable, or possible oil reserves.

You say you have degrees pertaining to the oil industry yet you don’t know this? You are correct Google is your friend, acquaint yourself with it. Now if what you stated is true then why is it no one knows they attacked the wrong country if they wanted to take over the second largest oil reserves in the world? Canada followed by Iran depending on if you want to count their shale oil or not. Iraq only rates fourth if you count the estimates based on surveys taken 30 years ago. Seizing the oil ministry as you stated would be a waste of time and effort. With your vast education you would know that anything that old would need a more up to date survey or people would be drilling a lot of dry holes. Sorry I used Mr. Paul's data since that was the link you provided to support your theory.

That is because Shale is not the same as crude oil, is more expensive to refine, and does not contain the same distillates as crude oil. It is extremely difficult to estimate shale in terms of reserves since the concentration of extractable oils from it varies widely.

You can't use seismic data from 3 decades ago to estimate oil reserves. Recoverable oil reserves is an estimate that uses current economics conditions to calculate. The importance of Iraq's reserves lie in the cost and ease of recovery. It is extremely cheap to recovery the oil there compared to for example offshore oil fields or shale. Also a large portion of Iran's estimated oil reserves is currently deemed to be technologically or economically unrecoverable due to current technology and economic conditions.

You can pick apart whatever you wish about estimates but they are simply everchanging estimates. Your post is about why we should stay in Iraq. I'm simply pointing out that oil is the reason we went in which should affect ones opinion on whether or not we should stay. The fact is the Bush administration is trying to stuff down the throats of the Iraqis an occupation agreement which includes giving U.S. Oil companies control of Iraqi Oil leases. The Iraqi parliament and people do not like the agreement. So now when you form your opinion of why we must stay maybe you will see that some of the reasons to stay are not very noble.

If oil was the reason for going into Iraq then the war was a total waste. We did not get the oil, the price of gasoline has almost trebled since we went to war. On the other hand if we went to war to stabilize the region, to get the first democracy in that part of the world, to put fear in the hearts and minds of the petty thug dictators, that have been trying for the last 60 years to be king of the hill. All the pretenders trying to be leader of the Arab people, that time is long past. Democracy is the only thing that will give the people what they need and want without setting fire to half the world. A working democracy in the Middle East, this is what people have been saying for almost a century could never happen. The people don’t want to be free, all they know is strong man leadership they are happy being kept under the thumb of a dictator. Look at what has happened in just a few short years. Iran is on the verge of dumping their theocratic dictators for a true democracy. With that happening how much longer will the thugs in Syria and other nations last? Then the oil will be real cheap!

But if we keep up the conspiracy theories and the hate Bush crowd has their way and finally win the 2000 election. Then maybe we can get the job done.

Its not a conspiracy theory its US National Security Policy. Here's a link to an interview on Bloomberg with T.Boone Pickens.

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vXPI31EEg124.asf

You should listen to all of it but he talks about Iraq about half way through. You will hear him talk about us getting calls on Iraqi Oil futures. If you google proposed U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement you get all kinds of info about the recent talks about renewing the occupancy agreement. I watched the talks live on CSPAN the other day which showed Iraqi parliament members stating that they were in opposition to the agreement because it basically gave US companies control over the oil amongst other things. Some of them also mentioned that they were not happy with the fact that the US Govt. pushed to get it signed by Iraqi govt officials without it being revealed to their parliament.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205824-1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/03/iraq/main4150401.shtml
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ma10_delahunt/usiraqsecurityrelease64.html

In the future don't be so naive. The politicians on both sides of the aisle lie to us but if you look around the truth is there. Most of the time its on one of our governments own websites but most people are too lazy to search for it.

Please tell me when Mr. Pickens was a member of the government.

Of the three you offered I see nothing that supports your theory.
The CSPAN piece is a debate where all sides seem to be heard and argued. Hardly the ham-handed American puppet you suggest.

You cite a CBS news story that supports the democrats in their bid to damage relations with anyone that might support the president. If I read the story correctly the biggest Iraqi detractors is Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad until a May truce ended seven weeks of fighting. This man and his group have been all but defeated, the majority of the nation is against him, so counting this as proof of some problems we are having in the nation of Iraq is suspect at best.

You also cite Congressman Delahunt’s press release as proof of our government policy of doing ill to Iraq for oil. But congressman Delahunt is a congressman that has fought the Bush administration at every turn and still claims that we are losing in Iraq. Hardly fair, balanced or honest reporting from this person since he gains politically if he can hurt the administration.

Do you have any sources that don’t have a dog in this fight that support your theory?

You truly need to read a serious amount of non-fiction. Start with the history of the world wars because that contains much of the origin of the colonialization, oil exploitation, and national security policy in regards to the middle east. Its senseless for me to go further since you know so little about US foreign policy history concerning the middle east.

Nice dodge and I hope that it helps you feel better. In the real world your lies don’t work so well. Having carried out our US foreign policy for a decade and as a current member of our government I would have to say you are full of beans.

Face the facts. We've had a constant military presence in the Persian gulf since WWII. Its always been about protecting the flow of oil supplies there. Disruption of the oil supply of any of the major producing nations can bring down economies pretty quickly. Particularly these days when oil supplies are tight. There may be a bunch of reserves around the world but it only comes out of the ground so quickly. It costs less than a buck to get a barrel of crude out of Iraq compared to about 70 to get it from deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thats why I posted the link to the T.Boone interview because I figured the average person knows a lot less about the oil industry than I do.

How exactly are you a 'current member of our government' now, Paladin?

Ya right. lol....more like all policy is foreign to you

Wow, a post supporting the "liberal" perspective. This is a first on these forums. Keep up the discussion!

At least you gave an answer I can respect this time. I don’t agree with it but it was reasoned, and not dripping with insulting sarcasm. Yes, it is in our national interest to protect the flow of oil, but if you are trying to say that we went to war for reasons like lowering the price of oil then you dug a dry hole. It would be ever so easy to just take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait than going to war in Iraq. The peoples there would not mind a change in government and we would get a lot of support. It makes little economic sense to invade Iraq when Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada are so close and with minor work can be over thrown with little or no blood shed.

We have also had the military in Europe since WWII and I don’t see a lot of oil coming out of the ground there. It would be so easy to pull our troops out of Europe and let it fall than waste the tens of thousands of lives lost since the end of WWII protecting it.

The same can be said about the pacific region. The Philippines has huge oil reserves and little use for them other than to make money. We could have kept that country instead of setting it free. We don’t even buy oil from the Philippines and there are no real environmental laws to add to the cost of production there so it is relatively cheap to get. Before you argue that minor point allow me to point out that I have a home and land there.

My point is that oil is a weak reason to go to war at this time since any military action in oil producing countries causes speculators that set the price of oil would start betting that oil will become more expensive due to the unrest. Case on point is Iraq.




Ten years with the defense intelligence agency, No I am not a spy, James Bond does not live here. Most of that work was done in Europe and Asia till Clinton disbanded us. LOL
I am currently a paid consultant with DHS got the ID card and the secret handshake to prove it. I have taught counter terrorism to the government and am working on my DOD certification as an FSO, federal security officer, and in my spare time I own a real estate business, like taking long walks on the beach and watching sunsets.

Oh, so it's a 'secret-type' position, so there's no way to prove that you do, in fact, work for the government?

So very convenient . . . and yet so implausible.

Sure there is, I am in the public sector and have been on local TV a few times. It is not a secret. All that sarcasm wasted by ignorance. Pity.

Okay. Links to any of this? A name I can google, maybe?

I am truly sorry if I gave the impression that I was in any way going to provide for YOU any personal information. I have yet to see a serious answer from any of your posts on my articles. You are not one that I would trust with knowledge of the country I live in let alone a state or city. And if I would not trust you with information that can easily be read in my blogs or my posts here on JU what makes you think I would be so foolish to give you data that I deem important? Now if you give me your name phone number and SSN I will be happy to call you with data that would satisfy your supposed doubts.

Paladin77 i support you completely.