| McGran said: Ok, so that's twice you've tried to strawman me. I'll say one more time, my argument is that the article I linked makes a better case that the Iraq war was about oil than you are making that it was not. Here's another link - it makes a stronger case than anything you've said so far too. It seems Republicans agree that the war was about oil. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/top-republican-leaders-say-iraq-war-was-really-for-oil.html I'd like to believe you but the weight of evidence is not in your favour. Let's just call this a day. Clearly you think you're making a compelling case, while I think otherwise. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. |
Your article didn't make ANY arguements.
Hell, the articles you linked doesn't even refer the iraq war in most cases.
Again, the facts clearly don't support you. You can find all the taken out of context quotes you want.
When you look at the oil figures you see 2 basic things
1) American Companies have almost no Oil drilling contracts. FYI, oil drilled by these companies is owned by Iraq, not the oil companies, they are paid a little under $2 a barrel, then Iraq sells it for around 100 bucks a barrel.
2) America gets less oil from Iraq then it did before.
So your arguements are completely without factual merit.
Otherwise, you'd be able to show where all these control is. (That doesn't exist).
The US And EU actually had stronger control over Iraq when it was under Saddam.... as Saddam had to work within sanctions to export oil.
It's some random quotes vs actual hard data. Data wins everytime.
There was a time period people Republicans tried to Spin Iraq's oil fields as goldmines.
That was after the war on terrorism lie got old and they needed a new lie to placate the american people and makett hem feel like all the money they spent wasn't going to waste. It's another lie right up their with the humanitarian reasons and the other 50+ justifications given for the war.
