Question for those who thought we were justified for invading Iraq all along

[conley]

OK, so we agree that invading Iraq after all was for our own (national) best interest, correct? Even if they did have WMDs, even if the intel was correct...having said all that. AFTER we invaded, obviously, seizing the oil would also be in our best interest and in the interest of national security and at least in the short term do nothing but stabilize our economy and basically set us up for the next 20 years while we develop alternative energies.

So, in all seriousness, why did we not finish the deal? Why back out at the last minute? Where do you draw the line between respecting a sovereign nation and if you're going to invade and occupy it -- keeping some of the spoils?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

There are no spoils. This was never a war of conquest. This is one of the fundamental differences between Russia's actions in Georgia and our actions in Iraq. The neocons believed that they could transform the region by establishing a functioning democracy there. We'll see. This was a long term plan. Even if we develop alternative energy sources we will still be using oil for a long time to come.

Besides, can you imagine liberal apoplexy if our goal really was to plunder Iraq? Can you imagine if the "war for oil" mantra carried real weight? 

[conley]

There are no spoils. This was never a war of conquest. This is one of the fundamental differences between Russia's actions in Georgia and our actions in Iraq. The neocons believed that they could transform the region by establishing a functioning democracy there. We'll see. This was a long term plan. Even if we develop alternative energy sources we will still be using oil for a long time to come.

Besides, can you imagine liberal apoplexy if our goal really was to plunder Iraq? Can you imagine if the "war for oil" mantra carried real weight? 

I don't believe the Neocons believe in giving the Iraqis the right to vote al Queda in (edit: al Sadr or whoever). You make them sound so noble. Neocons want the US #1 and taking the oil would have done that. Furthermore, why would anyone care what these lefties would say? As we've seen they will say it regardless. Lastly, the biggest difference between Russia and us is that when they decide to go to war they don't pussy foot around. If the point of this war was our national interest, WHY STOP NOW

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I made them sound noble? No, I just didn't make them sound like cartoon villains. Perhaps, you've gotten too used to thinking of certain administrations and movements in this manner? No offense. Neocons certainly did conceive of a plan to transform Arab society. It should surprise no one. The same thinking pervades their stance on immigration. They believe that our culture and mores can be transmitted to anyone. For this reason they aren't alarmed by millions of low IQ Mexicans flooding into our country. For the same reason once Arabs see how great Western democracy is it will spread all over the region.

Most Americans want the US to be #1. Don't you? Are you a neocon?

Yes, that is one difference between the US and Russia. How would you have felt if US troops in Iraq flattened everything in their path? Would you be proud of our servicemen or would you be demonizing them on this forum?

[conley]

you made it sound like their primary goal in invading iraq was to spread democracy. that is noble, and that is also not reality. is has nothing to do with any administration. perhaps it is you who are overly sensitive. neocons are only too happy to continue to support non-democratic regimes like saudi arabia, and in all honesty it does seem to be what benefits our country the most -- at least in the short term.

if you go back and read my post, you'll see my point was that keeping the oil -- as i've said all along -- would best benefit our country.

try to take your emotions out of it and discuss this logically...i'm really tired of all the bullshit.

[conley]

also, there is a big difference between raping/pillaging/burning to the ground ala sherman and taking advantage of an occupation. there is nothing wrong with combing our economies and both countries benefiting from the arrangement rather than

I am so fucking sick of being attacked on here...go back and look at my threads and you'll see i was AGAINST China swooping in and getting the oil from Iraq we worked to secure. we should be the ones signing that contract.

since you obviously have no interest in debate and would rather just question my patriotism rather than engage in a legitimate discussion, i am not sure what else to say. if you want to bring it down to that level i'll take it down a step further and say fuck you.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

That was the primary goal of invading Iraq. It can be noble. It can stupid. It can be a lot of things and at the same time. It depends on your perspective. Alas, the world proves too complex for dopey partisan bickering....(not a shot at you)

The threat of Arab terror came to the fore over the last decade or so. Neocons, among others, were not content to just deal with Arab strongmen. The Cold War was over. They knew we would have an interest in the Mid East for a long time to come and what better way to help push them into the modern world?

My emotions aren't in it. I'm not sure what you perceived (wrongly) as emotion? Frankly, I don't care what you're tired of. If you'd rather discuss this with someone else I certainly won't be offended. 

Finally, if you don't understand why plundering Iraq would be wrong then I can only suggest you acquire a basic sense of decency. What is logical is not necessarily what is right. You understand that right? Or is that just too much emotional BS?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

OK.

[-]

also, there is a big difference between raping/pillaging/burning to the ground ala sherman and taking advantage of an occupation. there is nothing wrong with combing our economies and both countries benefiting from the arrangement rather than

I am so fucking sick of being attacked on here...go back and look at my threads and you'll see i was AGAINST China swooping in and getting the oil from Iraq we worked to secure. we should be the ones signing that contract.

since you obviously have no interest in debate and would rather just question my patriotism rather than engage in a legitimate discussion, i am not sure what else to say. if you want to bring it down to that level i'll take it down a step further and say fuck you.

Conley, it's fucking awesome to have you back. 

[conley]

also, there is a big difference between raping/pillaging/burning to the ground ala sherman and taking advantage of an occupation. there is nothing wrong with combing our economies and both countries benefiting from the arrangement rather than

I am so fucking sick of being attacked on here...go back and look at my threads and you'll see i was AGAINST China swooping in and getting the oil from Iraq we worked to secure. we should be the ones signing that contract.

since you obviously have no interest in debate and would rather just question my patriotism rather than engage in a legitimate discussion, i am not sure what else to say. if you want to bring it down to that level i'll take it down a step further and say fuck you.

Conley, it's fucking awesome to have you back. 

 

[conley]

That was the primary goal of invading Iraq.

Do you honestly believe the primary goal of invading Iraq was spreading democracy?

Really?

[-]

Interests.

[conley]

I made them sound noble? No, I just didn't make them sound like cartoon villains.

Perhaps, you've gotten too used to thinking of certain administrations and movements in this manner?

Most Americans want the US to be #1. Don't you? Are you a neocon?

How would you have felt if US troops in Iraq flattened everything in their path?

Would you be proud of our servicemen or would you be demonizing them on this forum?

All of these statements are taken from your one post, none of them contain any facts or evidence to support your claims, and all of them are emotional.

edit: and don't question my patriotism nor my support of American servicemen and not expect me to get upset

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Do you honestly believe the primary goal of invading Iraq was spreading democracy?

Yes. Do you think it was to take all the oil? You were sure of that but needed to start a thread to find out why that wasn't happening?

Why don't you and this other emotional basket case support each other tonight? You can trade stories about how your patriotism has been attacked and how angry you are about it.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

OK, so we agree that invading Iraq after all was for our own (national) best interest, correct? Even if they did have WMDs, even if the intel was correct...having said all that. AFTER we invaded, obviously, seizing the oil would also be in our best interest and in the interest of national security and at least in the short term do nothing but stabilize our economy and basically set us up for the next 20 years while we develop alternative energies.

So, in all seriousness, why did we not finish the deal? Why back out at the last minute? Where do you draw the line between respecting a sovereign nation and if you're going to invade and occupy it -- keeping some of the spoils?

because you and the rest of the left were/are wrong.  this war was never about seizing iraqi oil.