Thread: Because Iraq Isn't An Oil War. Right?

That's what the White House neocons have been arguing for years now right?

That this war has nothing to do with oil and was about WDM?

No wait, not WMD. 9/11.

No wait, not 9/11. Bringing freedom to Iraqis.

Yea that's it. Freedom for Iraqis. :whistling:


ReviewJournal.com - News - Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

Lawmaker reports on his trip to country

WASHINGTON -- Gasoline prices could rise to about $9 per gallon if the United States withdraws troops from Iraq prematurely, Rep. Jon Porter said he was told on a trip to Iraq that ended this week.

The Nevada Republican, who returned Tuesday from his fourth trip to Iraq, met with U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Iraqi Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.

"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike. His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario "makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq."

Porter "can't speculate directly on what is going to happen with gas prices, but the market prices for oil reflect the stability in that region," Leffingwell said.

Petraeus and Crocker offered a "blunt" assessment of the situation, Porter said.

No, it isn't about any of those things, including saving Iraqis from Saddam. It's all about U.S. security and they have told you people that numerous times. Now join the dots and ask yourselves what security means and keep in mind that the U.S. sucks up 22 million barrels of oil a day and is toast if it's denied the M.E.'s contribution.

Since well before the Iraq war, going back to 98 at least and probably sooner, the U.S. has been pouring money into the Alberta tarsands in an effort to raise production. Production has probably been at least quadrupled from 98 levels and possibly more. It's not a subject that's talked about openly.

In addition to that, in talking to informed people on the subject, it's starting to seem inevitable to them that all hell is going to break loose in Saudi in the near future. This of course was spearheaded by Osama and the corrupt monarchy of Saudi are doing all they can to keep the lid on the situation. If an uprising should take place then all the cards will be on the table and the U.S. will need to take drastic measures to ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

It's undeniable that it absolutely must keep flowing.

Therein lies a sensible explanation for the Iraq war and the continuing war in Afghanistan. The M.E. simply must stay under U.S. control.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

That's what the White House neocons have been arguing for years now right?

That this war has nothing to do with oil and was about WDM?

No wait, not WMD. 9/11.

No wait, not 9/11. Bringing freedom to Iraqis.

Yea that's it. Freedom for Iraqis. :whistling:


ReviewJournal.com - News - Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

Lawmaker reports on his trip to country

WASHINGTON -- Gasoline prices could rise to about $9 per gallon if the United States withdraws troops from Iraq prematurely, Rep. Jon Porter said he was told on a trip to Iraq that ended this week.

The Nevada Republican, who returned Tuesday from his fourth trip to Iraq, met with U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Iraqi Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.

"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike. His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario "makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq."

Porter "can't speculate directly on what is going to happen with gas prices, but the market prices for oil reflect the stability in that region," Leffingwell said.


Petraeus and Crocker offered a "blunt" assessment of the situation, Porter said.

Well, again, this is a scare tactic by the neocons. When the withdrawal is completed, the tons of fuel saved on amourment alone will drive the demand down, hence lowering the price of crude.

The amount of oil consumed by the war machinery is of no consequence at all. There will be no withdrawal from Iraq in the foreseeable future because there is no political force of an significance which is pushing for it. Anyone who thinks the Dems are really pushing for withdrawal from Iraq must be totally brainwashed or dense!

Take a step back for a moment you antiwar people and think this thing through. The Dems are not even asking for a withdrawal of numbers which will amount to any change in the war policy. They are just in a good position to play popularity politics with the people now but will be in a total quandary if they elect a president.

I guess after denying it and labeling the leftists that called it an oil war liars for so long they did admit it a while ago. Well not exactly. They claim they just do not want "terrorists" to have oil.


Bush gives new reason for Iraq war - The Boston Globe
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.

Originally Posted by LieExposer

The amount of oil consumed by the war machinery is of no consequence at all. There will be no withdrawal from Iraq in the foreseeable future because there is no political force of an significance which is pushing for it. Anyone who thinks the Dems are really pushing for withdrawal from Iraq must be totally brainwashed or dense!

Take a step back for a moment you antiwar people and think this thing through. The Dems are not even asking for a withdrawal of numbers which will amount to any change in the war policy. They are just in a good position to play popularity politics with the people now but will be in a total quandary if they elect a president.

What time is it where you are LE? Here it's a bit too early to start drinking.

Originally Posted by LieExposer

No, it isn't about any of those things, including saving Iraqis from Saddam. It's all about U.S. security and they have told you people that numerous times. Now join the dots and ask yourselves what security means and keep in mind that the U.S. sucks up 22 million barrels of oil a day and is toast if it's denied the M.E.'s contribution.

Since well before the Iraq war, going back to 98 at least and probably sooner, the U.S. has been pouring money into the Alberta tarsands in an effort to raise production. Production has probably been at least quadrupled from 98 levels and possibly more. It's not a subject that's talked about openly.

In addition to that, in talking to informed people on the subject, it's starting to seem inevitable to them that all hell is going to break loose in Saudi in the near future. This of course was spearheaded by Osama and the corrupt monarchy of Saudi are doing all they can to keep the lid on the situation. If an uprising should take place then all the cards will be on the table and the U.S. will need to take drastic measures to ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

It's undeniable that it absolutely must keep flowing.

Therein lies a sensible explanation for the Iraq war and the continuing war in Afghanistan. The M.E. simply must stay under U.S. control.

Funny, I do not remember much on keeping the oil flowing in Powell's UN speech. :whistling:

Maybe you can point that part out while you are admitting that it was an oil war all along. You provide the quote. Find one mention of oil in it. I know I can find "WMD" mentioned in it and even freedom for Iraqi's.

So, where is this acknowledgement that it had even one shred to do with oil?

Here's the link:


Secretary of State Addresses the U.N. Security Council

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

What time is it where you are LE? Here it's a bit too early to start drinking.

It's about 11:30 a.m. in Nanaimo, B.C. But why not substantiate some of your wild claims about how the cost of oil will go down if the war ended? Tell us how much oil is being used in the war effort and post some kind of a link to prove it.

Note how it's not necessary to stoop to your level of insults in order to discuss the issues?

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Funny, I do not remember much on keeping the oil flowing in Powell's UN speech. :whistling:

Maybe you can point that part out while you are admitting that it was an oil war all along. You provide the quote. Find one mention of oil in it. I know I can find "WMD" mentioned in it and even freedom for Iraqi's.

So, where is this acknowledgement that it had even one shred to do with oil?

Here's the link:


Secretary of State Addresses the U.N. Security Council

WHat in the world has Powell's speech at the U.N. got to do with whether the war is about oil or not. You've lost me on that one. Please explain. I think perhaps you are not understanding what I have said!

Originally Posted by LieExposer

WHat in the world has Powell's speech at the U.N. got to do with whether the war is about oil or not. You've lost me on that one. Please explain. I think perhaps you are not understanding what I have said!

Your words?

"No, it isn't about any of those things, including saving Iraqis from Saddam. It's all about U.S. security and they have told you people that numerous times."

Powell's speech was the rationalle for the war. It is what they "told the world" about why Saddam had to be dealt with. They clearly thought it was at least some of those things I mentioned. Well, they said they were anyway.

We all know it was an oil war from the start and the rest of the justifications were flat out Bushco lies.