By golly, it really *is* about oil...

[widebody911]

Straight from the ass's mouth:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

[skipdup]

You should protest by boycotting all oil & oil based products!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by skipdup
You should protest by boycotting all oil & oil based products!

I agree, sacrifice for your cause Thom!

[Joeaksa]

Totally agree. Follow your ass and stop using this terrible thing gas and oil. You can try to be like Howard "the blithering idiot" Dean and get everyone in the world mad at the Democratic party next!!

If some people used about 10% of the time and effort they waste in trying to lambast Bush and focused it into something good, just think of what they could accomplish!

Joe A

[kach22i]

From the article:

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Let's hang the bastards who put our national security at risk like this.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops," said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief."

Guess I'm even more outspoken than Howard Dean.

[stevepaa]

Three responses and three attacks on the messenger.

I don't understand that. He was just pointing out that the President has now said we need to stay to protect oil. His implication is that it was about oil to start with which is not an idea shared by most.

Staying to protect the oil fields is the question now at hand. Are they really in danger? Or is this a "run it up the flagpole idea and see how it flies"?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Three responses and three attacks on the messenger.

I don't understand that. He was just pointing out that the President has now said we need to stay to protect oil. His implication is that it was about oil to start with which is not an idea shared by most.

Staying to protect the oil fields is the question now at hand. Are they really in danger? Or is this a "run it up the flagpole idea and see how it flies"?

If your simple leftists minds can only comprehend one advantage of stability in Iraq at a time, then I fear we will have continued communication problems on this topic.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Staying to protect the oil fields is the question now at hand. Are they really in danger? Or is this a "run it up the flagpole idea and see how it flies"?

The new "green zone" will be around the oil fields and port faclities.

The governing admistration when ever they take over will be under pressure to kick the Americans (and Brit's) out ASAP. ...................In the end WE will get what we came for, by hook or by crook.

http://victoryshirt.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=41


http://infosuds.free.fr/2004/irak/resistanceirakienne.htm

Can anyone read the above site?

[Superman]

Well, we know that:

* Various justifications have been offered by the current "administration" (and I use that term loosely here) for the Iraq conflict. Let's just say the reasons for this conflict are "dynamic" or perhaps you prefer "fluid." Beginning with WMD, WTC terrorists, etc.

*In the absence of a substantive, rational defense of an announcement by the current "administration," conservatives on this board will immediately launch attacks against the announcer (with the exception of the official White House Spokesmen of course).

*Oil companies have never before seen the kind of earnings they have been taking in recent years. Today's American oil companies have made more money recently than any corporations in American history.

*Gasoline pump prices are at record-high figures.

We know some other stuff too. For example, Dubya won't sign the Republican-controlled Congress' Energy Bill because it has too much money in it for alternative energy research. And some other stuff.

These facts we know, may be related. It seems as though there is a common thread connecting these things, but I just can't quite figure it out. Do you guys see anything obvious about these recent developments?

[skipdup]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Three responses and three attacks on the messenger.

???

I did not "attack" (by any stretch of the definition). However, calling the President an ass (however juvenile), to me, is surely justification for an attack.

- Skip

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by lendaddy
If your simple leftists minds can only comprehend one advantage of stability in Iraq at a time, then I fear we will have continued communication problems on this topic.

Always a problem communicating when red herrings are put forward.

So, is there really any danger that if we left OBL would take over the oil fields?

Your response implies that, yes , protection of the oil fields from OBL is a valid concern.

[tabs]

MY Leftist Friends on this Board are SIMPLY IDIOTS....they seem to think that they exist iin a vacume...that there would be NO RAMIFCATIONS in leaving Irwreck.....

Today it takes Mom, Dad and the Credit Card to maintain the Middle Class LIFESTYLE.....if the USA bailed on IRWRECK and let it fall into a Civil War aka as CHAOS....this would DESTABILIZE the WHOLE REGION by giving the JIhadies the cover they need to operate...today Irwreck tommorow Saudi Arabia....and it is quiet possible that $7.00 a Gallon for Gasoline would become a REALITY.....and exactly what does one think that would do to the USA economy and the Middle Class lifestyle in America.... Bend over and KISS IT GOODBYE....

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Superman
*Oil companies have never before seen the kind of earnings they have been taking in recent years. Today's American oil companies have made more money recently than any corporations in American history.

*Gasoline pump prices are at record-high figures.

Supe- What is the cause of these two items? Is it the same old argument that W is stuffing his pockets with the $? Or, that he is making sure his friends get rich, for some reward to be realized later down the road after scrutiny has subsided?

- Skip

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by skipdup
???

I did not "attack" (by any stretch of the definition). However, calling the President an ass (however juvenile), to me, is surely justification for an attack.

- Skip

Maybe the term attack was too much, I apologise. His use of ass was juvenile. But instead of commenting on the information in the article you comment on the poster.

[tabs]

So BABY whether U like Bushy or not your in the same leaking boat with him....and let me tell you Bushy has the Ranch to go back to after his term is up......where are you gona go if you can't meet the rent or mortgage payment....

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by tabs
MY Leftist Friends on this Board are SIMPLY IDIOTS....they seem to think that they exist iin a vacume...that there would be NO RAMIFCATIONS in leaving Irwreck.....

Today it takes Mom, Dad and the Credit Card to maintain the Middle Class LIFESTYLE.....if the USA bailed on IRWRECK and let it fall into a Civil War aka as CHAOS....this would DESTABILIZE the WHOLE REGION by giving the JIhadies the cover they need to operate...today Irwreck tommorow Saudi Arabia....and it is quiet possible that $7.00 a Gallon for Gasoline would become a REALITY.....and exactly what does one think that would do to the USA economy and the Middle Class lifestyle in America.... Bend over and KISS IT GOODBYE....

ah yes, domino theory. Worked last time didn't it. Try it again.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Maybe the term attack was too much, I apologise. His use of ass was juvenile. But instead of commenting on the information in the article you comment on the poster.

No need to apologize...

My comment was based on the poster's "message". The article was used to back-up the message, it was not the core.

I don't believe Thom was relaying a message about the oil fields being in danger. I believe he was commenting on the idea that the war was for oil, hence the title of his post.

Make sense?

- Skip

[tabs]

Another question..exactly how much better do U LEFTISTs think life would be if Gore or Kerry were elected instead of Bush...

911 would have happened Afganistan would have happened...and then what....the war on Terror is almost all COVERT....we don't hear or know a fking thing about what is really going on...and that would be going on NO MATTER WHO THE PREZ IS...the Presidency of the USA is a REVOLVING DOOR....and the guy in office is nothing more than a SEAT WARMER....

[stevepaa]

Skip. Yep. That's why I commented on his implication also. But beyond his implication, I question the wisdom of the administration suggesting that a reason to stay and fight is to protect the oil fields from OBL.

And by TABS suggestion that we are protecting the whole middle east from falling into OBL's hands.

I bought into the original domino theory, but not again.

[jyl]

As the article says, Bush is trying out yet another new justification for the war.

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

I'm losing track of all the justifications.

First it was Saddam's arsenal of WMD. Which proved inconveniently non-existent.

Then it was Saddam's support for bin Laden. That "reason" didn't last long, as the evidence was too thin for even this Administration to mouth. Today we hear this only when Cheney preaches to his choir.

Next it was a free and democratic nation for the Iraqi people. Alas, reality intrudes. Perhaps the President's advisors eventually realized that creating the next Iran wasn't going to sell very well to America. (After all, these are the advisors that someone on this board called "the best and the brightest".)

I thought "mass graves" was going to be the new reason. Guess not.

So now - drum roll - on to the fourth (or fifth) "reason" for this war in 2.5 years.

This new spin directly ties the war to oil, and hence (in the public's mind, fair or not) to gasoline prices. That seems like a risk for Bush.

Edit: By the time I posted, the discussion had moved on. Sorry.