Keira Forums - View Single Post - Was the war on Iraq right?
View Single Post
Old 08-10-2005, 07:58 PM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! KKWiki Contributer Senior Registered Member #20
Sponsored Cunt
Hazzle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,168
Originally Posted by Foeni
There's no doubt the oil had a role to play in invading Iraq. But it's a minor reason. I don't think I could name one single oil-using country who isn't interested in a stabile oil market. But making it the one and only reason, which a lot have, is wrong.
Exactly. However the oil argument cuts both ways, some countries had more to gain from Iraq's oil trade being restricted (such as Russia), and in fact the anti-war argument had a lot more to do with oil as financially they would reap bigger benefits than the coalition will. You think the billions that the US will make out of these contracts is big? Russia, France and Belgium together stand to lose TRILLIONS. Russia's oil trade has rocketted since the first Gulf War and the restrictions on Iraq. They alone stand to lose several hundred billion. Yes, hundreds of billions.

The biggest problem is that Bush had a good plan to win the war but none to win the peace. The most unstabile areas in Iraq is controlled by US forces. That doesn't neccesarily mean that US forces are bad, it also has something to do with which area we're talking about. Let's have that in mind.
I will repeat what I said when I created this thread. Saddam didn't obey (sorry about the choice of words, don't really know what word to use - you know what I mean) the UN after having been threatened with war. If we just had let him shit on our threats everyone we threat will do the same, because we won't react to it anyhow.
Exactly. Going to war was not a mistake, but going to war without a proper exit strategy and long-term planning was.

Finally, no respect for those countries who declare themselves against the war only to be caught in having great deals with Iraq.
Such as France and err...Belgium
Hazzle is offline   Reply With Quote