Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
C-17 Hit by SAM near Baghdad
- Thread starter atpcliff
- Start date
- Watchers 8
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
WrightAvia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Posts
- 1,223
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Posts
- 1,178
WrightAvia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Posts
- 1,223
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq109.html
I supported the overthrow of Saddam as much as the next American, but you can't MAKE anyone want to live in a free country. Those people have lived under a dictatorship for so long, I don't know if they can figure out how to live in a free society. If they don't show some initiative soon, I say pull out.
At least the South Koreans held the line after we helped them.
Mogus
Eh?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2001
- Posts
- 157
So maybe the president was wrong about the WMD's--or not, I still think it's to early to make that conclusion. According to a man I respect greatly, Colin Powell (a great leader whether or not you agree with him), good leaders make decisions based on having around 60 to 70 percent of the information. If you wait until you have 100 percent information, then, often, this information is old and worthless. President Bush did the former. The main thing is, he acted. He stopped this evil man before he could pose a serious thret to global stability. But think about it. In adition to having a stable country in the Middle East, we'll also be in a perfect position to deal with any other conflicts we may have with these ME counttries.
Freight Dog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,232
Freight Dog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,232
We've already discussed this before. This war is not about the WMD's or we would have bitchslapped North Korea a long time ago who's openly threatening us with nukes and nuclear proliferation (selling technology and weapons to ragheads).
This is not about Iraqi people either because they are turning against us. If it was about them, we would have shown them a LOT more respect and let them rebuild their own country under our guidance.
What is this about then? Let's see... the second largest oil reserve in the world. Halliburton getting paid MASSIVE amounts of cash from the government. As a Republican, I am simply disgusted by this administration. I thought we were restoring honor to the White House. I thought we were gonna go in there, find WMD's, give the power to Iraqi people, and get out. Instead, there are no WMD's, we told Iraqis to f**k off, we're bringing our own workers to rebuild Iraq, and to hell with you people who live here. We're gonna keep you unemployed. It's no wonder the insurgency has gone up tremendously - they need to feed their families and those loyalists are offering money to ordinary Iraqis to go plant IED's. Thank you very much Mr. Bremer! Instead of getting Iraqis excited about freedom, new employment, etc., we're bringing Halliburton and the rest of Dubya's friends to do the job Iraqis should be doing themselves. If this is not lining up their pockets, I don't know what is.
My wife is going to Iraq next month for a year. Is this worth risking her life? In March 2003, I would have said, absolutely. Now, not only no, but HELL NO!!!
You'd rather fight them there than here? Why not just deny them entry visas to the U.S.?
This is not about Iraqi people either because they are turning against us. If it was about them, we would have shown them a LOT more respect and let them rebuild their own country under our guidance.
What is this about then? Let's see... the second largest oil reserve in the world. Halliburton getting paid MASSIVE amounts of cash from the government. As a Republican, I am simply disgusted by this administration. I thought we were restoring honor to the White House. I thought we were gonna go in there, find WMD's, give the power to Iraqi people, and get out. Instead, there are no WMD's, we told Iraqis to f**k off, we're bringing our own workers to rebuild Iraq, and to hell with you people who live here. We're gonna keep you unemployed. It's no wonder the insurgency has gone up tremendously - they need to feed their families and those loyalists are offering money to ordinary Iraqis to go plant IED's. Thank you very much Mr. Bremer! Instead of getting Iraqis excited about freedom, new employment, etc., we're bringing Halliburton and the rest of Dubya's friends to do the job Iraqis should be doing themselves. If this is not lining up their pockets, I don't know what is.
My wife is going to Iraq next month for a year. Is this worth risking her life? In March 2003, I would have said, absolutely. Now, not only no, but HELL NO!!!
You'd rather fight them there than here? Why not just deny them entry visas to the U.S.?
Fly-n-high
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Posts
- 49
I love you fools that say that there is no proof that Saddam has or had WMD's.
In the last 10 years when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Northern Iraq I guess you all were asleep or something? Or maybe you just weren't watching the news that year.
It's not a question of "if" he has them. It's a question of "where" he has them.
You Dems out there who keep saying stupid crap like this are really starting to get old. Do you really think that your blabbing is causing me to doubt GW???
In the last 10 years when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Northern Iraq I guess you all were asleep or something? Or maybe you just weren't watching the news that year.
It's not a question of "if" he has them. It's a question of "where" he has them.
You Dems out there who keep saying stupid crap like this are really starting to get old. Do you really think that your blabbing is causing me to doubt GW???
photopilot
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 44
I just have a quick question, without trying to add to the argument. I am genuinely interested in the answer. For those who believe we are in Iraq for the oil, to help Halliburton, explain the reasoning to me. It seems to me that if Iraqi oil was embargoed (sp?) then there would be less world supply and the oil companies could charge more for gas. If Iraq's oil fields are opened up to the market there would be a glut of oil and the excess supply would cause falling prices. Assuming demand is somewhat steady, where do the oil companies stand to make a huge profit from opening the Iraqi supply?
atpcliff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,260
Hi!
There are two reasons that we are in Iraq, and they both have to do with oil.
Since we are in Iraq, we now control the oil in Iraq. Iraq was not a part of OPEC, and with us in there, it will not be part of OPEC. This gives us some leverage to combat the OPEC monopoly.
The second reason we are in Iraq has to do with the dollar being the main trading currency for oil worldwide. A few countries have begun using the Euro as the trading currency for oil, and we were worried about this practice spreading to Iraq and OPEC. If this were to occur, it would mean very, very serious consequences for our country's financial situation.
And, obviously, the reason that all of the above matters is we are dependent on a resource that we don't have. Our foreign trade deficit is growing every day, and it won't ever be favorable for us again until we kick the oil habit.
We can stop using oil, but it will take big changes. As automobiles were introduced, there were many people who said they would never amount to anything.
People wouldn't buy cars, they said, because they were hard to operate, there weren't any roads for them to drive on, and there weren't any places for them to refuel or get repaired.
We spent HUGE sums of taxpayer monies to build roads, and the gas stations, car repair stations, etc. were built. There were many horse-drawn buggy makers who went out of business because they couldn't see the huge change that we went through to change to oil-based personal automobiles for transport.
The sooner we leave oil behind, the better off our country will be both economically and with our physical security. I hope my two kids don't have to go fight in South-west Asia (the old Middle East) to secure the oil flow, as I did.
Cliff
GRB
PS-Our country is #1 in terms of potential wind AND solar power. Using our own resources will make us more secure and provide jobs here in America, instead of our dollars going to pay foreigners in foreign lands.
PPS-There is an excellent article on GM, and how they want to be the clear #1 auto manufacturer worldwide by building huge numbers of hydrogen powered cars. I believe that "Forbes" magazine published the article. I couldn't find this-it's on my other computer-I'll post the info from this later.
This is the best article I could find on short notice that explains why we need to kick the oil habit:
"The End of the Oil Age"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717
There are two reasons that we are in Iraq, and they both have to do with oil.
Since we are in Iraq, we now control the oil in Iraq. Iraq was not a part of OPEC, and with us in there, it will not be part of OPEC. This gives us some leverage to combat the OPEC monopoly.
The second reason we are in Iraq has to do with the dollar being the main trading currency for oil worldwide. A few countries have begun using the Euro as the trading currency for oil, and we were worried about this practice spreading to Iraq and OPEC. If this were to occur, it would mean very, very serious consequences for our country's financial situation.
And, obviously, the reason that all of the above matters is we are dependent on a resource that we don't have. Our foreign trade deficit is growing every day, and it won't ever be favorable for us again until we kick the oil habit.
We can stop using oil, but it will take big changes. As automobiles were introduced, there were many people who said they would never amount to anything.
People wouldn't buy cars, they said, because they were hard to operate, there weren't any roads for them to drive on, and there weren't any places for them to refuel or get repaired.
We spent HUGE sums of taxpayer monies to build roads, and the gas stations, car repair stations, etc. were built. There were many horse-drawn buggy makers who went out of business because they couldn't see the huge change that we went through to change to oil-based personal automobiles for transport.
The sooner we leave oil behind, the better off our country will be both economically and with our physical security. I hope my two kids don't have to go fight in South-west Asia (the old Middle East) to secure the oil flow, as I did.
Cliff
GRB
PS-Our country is #1 in terms of potential wind AND solar power. Using our own resources will make us more secure and provide jobs here in America, instead of our dollars going to pay foreigners in foreign lands.
PPS-There is an excellent article on GM, and how they want to be the clear #1 auto manufacturer worldwide by building huge numbers of hydrogen powered cars. I believe that "Forbes" magazine published the article. I couldn't find this-it's on my other computer-I'll post the info from this later.
This is the best article I could find on short notice that explains why we need to kick the oil habit:
"The End of the Oil Age"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717
Checks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2001
- Posts
- 447
ATPCLIFF, are being serious?
We just spend 87 billion dollars on IRAQ, dont you think we could have bought a hell of a lot of oil for 87 billion?
I agree with most of what you say but OIL is not the reason we went to Iraq.
You can say it was
-WMD,
-George jr. was fighting Dadddys fight,
-election politics,
-9/11,
-peace in the middle east,
-or just because we felt like fighting a war but please dont say it was for oil.
If it was for oil then we would have just lifted the Iraq embargo and let Saddam pump all the oil he wanted. Price of gas would have dropped to 90 cents a gallon.
We just spend 87 billion dollars on IRAQ, dont you think we could have bought a hell of a lot of oil for 87 billion?
I agree with most of what you say but OIL is not the reason we went to Iraq.
You can say it was
-WMD,
-George jr. was fighting Dadddys fight,
-election politics,
-9/11,
-peace in the middle east,
-or just because we felt like fighting a war but please dont say it was for oil.
If it was for oil then we would have just lifted the Iraq embargo and let Saddam pump all the oil he wanted. Price of gas would have dropped to 90 cents a gallon.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
