Welcome to EMUSE!

EmuseForum is your #1 forum for General Discussions, The weird & wonderful, Politics, Sexy Babes, Porn and more!

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kinda confused on the left's position

Discussion in 'World News & Events' started by Deathmate, Sep 28, 2005.

?

Why did we invade Iraq?

  1. Oil

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  2. Israel

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  3. Saudi Arabia

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

    4 vote(s)
    9.8%
  5. Halliburton

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
  6. Bush hates brown people

    4 vote(s)
    9.8%
  7. Bush wanted to avenge his dad

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Bush thinks God told him too

    3 vote(s)
    7.3%
  9. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc made Bush do it

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
  10. Saddam was a tyrant dictator who deserved to be taken out

    17 vote(s)
    41.5%
  1. Deathmate

    Deathmate Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    According to the left the war in Iraq was for... oil? israel? saudi arabia? pnac? wtf? they come out with a new conspiracy theory every day. Please vote in this poll on what you think the war in Iraq was for
     
  2. Kazimierz

    Kazimierz Vox Vocis of Causa
    Premium

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    8,201
    Ratings:
    +366 /0 /-0
    You may be surprised to find that you are wrong in thinking that everyone can be grouped into 2 categories of political thought. Many of us have the ability to think critically, and make up our own conclusions based on what we know (and dont know). While it may be convenient for people like yourself to consider the "other side" as being homogenous, that's not the fact.

    I personally believe that the Iraq war happened for many reasons. First, finding and capturing bin Laden failed, and the administration needed something to draw attention away from it. Secondly, oil supplies are dwiindling, and our economy would fail without cheap oil that's easily accessible (prevented by Iraq's trade quotas for oil prior to Saddam's overthrow). Third, America's economy is heavily reliant on military projects, creating planes, bombs, tanks, etc, and the only way to keep these companies afloat is with war. The fact that possible intelligence hinted at Iraq being a problem, however vague, was all the extra push the administration needed. There's more behind it as well, ill add it later, since my class just ended and i want to go to the bar.
     
    #2 Kazimierz, Sep 28, 2005
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2005
  3. bergshadow

    bergshadow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,280
    Ratings:
    +48 /0 /-0
    Since the left didn't do the invading, there's bound to be a bit of guesswork and possibility-weighing from the left about the motives of those who did. For instance, it's barely possible that the Euro-oil threat was overlooked by the decisionmakers, the possibilities of military contracting, economy takeover, and oil-dealing profits were secondary issues, etc, and the real reason the US invaded was that, as the Commander in Chief himself put it: "He tried to kill my daddy".

    So the left has to speculate. That's not odd. What's odd is that there's such a confusion of nonsensical reasons for the war given out by the people who did start it. Don't they know?
     
  4. Chewy

    Chewy C8 H10 N4 O2

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    15,183
    Ratings:
    +704 /0 /-0
    I didn't see inadequate leadership capacities coupled with incompetent appointments and overzealous public with an attachment to avenge being attacked listed so I’ll have to abstain from voting.
     
  5. vchampionl70

    vchampionl70 Trust Me

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,515
    Ratings:
    +64 /0 /-0
    Not in the American two-party system.

    Fortunately, it keeps extremists in check.
     
  6. Chewy

    Chewy C8 H10 N4 O2

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    15,183
    Ratings:
    +704 /0 /-0
    There are some of us that think Bush and his merry band of cronies are extremists. They when pretty much unchallenged because of a weak 2nd party.
     
  7. reggie jax

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    I don't know what the geniune reason for the war is.. but I say: if the war is for oil, just take the shit and let's go. I know I'm tired of paying 4 bucks a gallon, don't know about you.
     
  8. Easy

    Easy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    It's a shame you can only pick one and there's load of others missing.
     
  9. Devastation

    Devastation Fac et Spera
    Premium

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,046
    Ratings:
    +632 /0 /-0
    It better not be for oil.

    We have an untouched pipeline in Alaska that we can't use because *gasp* it might kill some stupid caribou.

    Personally, I believe it's for a myriad of reasons, the removal of So-Damn Insane's ass and to finish daddy's business included.
     
  10. reggie jax

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    There isn't shit in Alaska. Going up to Alaska just to get that tiny amount of oil is like when crackheads search through their carpet lint for remains of crack rock and end up smoking a piece of drywall. Don't ask...
     
  11. Devastation

    Devastation Fac et Spera
    Premium

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,046
    Ratings:
    +632 /0 /-0
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002210277_anwrside17m.html

    Nobody really knows how much oil we can get from there, but estimates reach 10.4 billion barrels.
     
  12. reggie jax

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    Is that alot? I mean we use a shitload of oil.. how long would that last us?
     
  13. Devastation

    Devastation Fac et Spera
    Premium

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,046
    Ratings:
    +632 /0 /-0
    I have no clue, it'd be better to ask somebody like Shade who pays attention in their economics classes.
     
  14. Liberator13

    Liberator13 Beer me

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,591
    Ratings:
    +98 /0 /-0
    What happened to the leftist "humanitarian" standpoint?
    After what Saddam had done over the years, he should have been their #1 enemy.
     
  15. reggie jax

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    I don't know but they better figure somthing out.. I'll be damned if I'm about to ride a bicycle to work.
     
  16. Stanky105

    Stanky105 Anti-Spoon & Anti-Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,206
    Ratings:
    +43 /0 /-0
    Do not quote me on this, because I could very well be wrong.

    But I have heard that if we ran off of Alaska's oil alone, it would only last a year or two.
     
  17. blank_109

    blank_109 No comment

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    580
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    Your just joking on that part, RIGHT? We have Al Queda Broke apart and Bin Laden on the run.

    If we were so out for oil then we would take the middle east by storm such as Iran. The radical liberals must love hearing you.

    So your saying we went to war for oil. Thats all you had to say. Iraq is a problem, was a problem and would have been more of a problem in decades to follow. Saddam is gone and the people are free and you don't even care. All you talk about is oil.

    Go get drunk! Come back and then add on. Maybe you will be honest in your answers drunk off your butt.
     
  18. Zantutsuken

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    769
    Ratings:
    +31 /0 /-0
    The problem was we didn't first go over there to save the Iraqi people. It went from ties to Al Qaeda, to weapons of mass destruction, to he's a brutal dictator to his people.

    I believe if it was stated we were going over there to stop a dictator, things would have gone over better than exhausting previous reasons for invading.

    Which leads me to something I've been asking from day one:

    Where are the republicans that tore Bill Clinton a new one, for lying over a blowjob, this go-around? He lied over fellatio, they called for his impeachment. Someone lies over grounds for war, changing their excuse for invasion, and it's unpatriotic to even question it? It's an unfair double standard.

    I honestly believe this administration would have won over those "lefties" if it was just stated that Saddam Hussein was committing crimes against humanity. Without a doubt that there will always be people who oppose war, but I think a lot more people would have been willing to go along with the war if it didn't seem like the dictator "thing" was the third excuse to fall back on.

    That being said, although I'm not a democrat or republican, I do tend to lean towards whatever side makes the most sense in the current situation, lately that's become more and more rare. It's getting to the point people don't even disagree with someone because of their views or opinions, they just disagree because of political affiliation, and that's just worrisome.
     
  19. Devastation

    Devastation Fac et Spera
    Premium

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,046
    Ratings:
    +632 /0 /-0
    Partisanship will be what tears our country into 50 nations.
     
  20. Liberator13

    Liberator13 Beer me

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,591
    Ratings:
    +98 /0 /-0
    Or 100 nations....
    But I agree, Partisanship is our downfall.
     

Share This Page