Unfotunately America is much dumber than I thought. To misinterprate the war in Iraq as a ploy for oil companies to make bank is prepostorous. Do Americans not understand the simple economics of supply and demand. Supply is scarce, demand is constantly increasing, thus price goes up. Does gauging occur, yes, sometimes, but th eonly reason the oil companies make tons of money is because of the government approved mega-mergers that occurred, thus turning the market into an oligopoly. In two years China alone will be demanding the amount of oil that the world does now. So buckle your seat belts cause it's only going to get worse. To think that a war in iraq will solve the oil problems is ridiculous because it can't happen. America could own the mideast and prices would still go up! So all those libs out there can stop ranting and raving about their alleged war for oil, and the american people need to educate themselves a little.

Since you brought this up I have a question. Do you think they should tax the oil companies? I only heard bits and pieces of what is going on so I am not quite sure how they plan to do this. I know, they said something about putting the money back into expanding refineries and things but that was all I heard. Also, I had heard through a radio source that the government is going to have to eventually bring the price back down to reasonable pricing because of the surplus they have. Have you heard anything about and what do you think? I am trying to educate myself but unfortunately do not have the time to keep up on all this stuff.

Hi,
You have some very interesting, and true, points. Exxon/Mobile corporation, during the last quarter, made 9.9 Billion dollars profit, more than any time in history! The corporations kept saying they raise prices because of supply and demand, and had to keep up with their wholesale prices... all lies!
The American people did not approve of most of this; the US Fed Gov't did! The American voters will decide in the next elections what they want, and I for one, hope the President of the US is someone who will not be controlled by the oil companies, and that most of the Congress of US are kicked out of office. Most have been there for 60 yrs, and it's time for some new people running the show.
The US Fed Gov't needs people who aren't being "paid off" by the oil companies and will set limits on gas prices... something that is probably just a dream. If the Environmentalists in American would back off just a little, there is plenty of oil in America for our needs, but it won't happen until Congress makes it happen. At the same time, big money from the US Auto makers keeps Congress from demanding non-polluting vehicles. Maybe someday, it will change.
As far a Iraq and the "war", it's another "vietnam". Get our men and woman out of there, stop this "slaughter" of Americans, caught between a civil war in that country. We cannot keep trying to "control" the rest of the world... we are running out of money.

Hi,
You have some very interesting, and true, points. Exxon/Mobile corporation, during the last quarter, made 9.9 Billion dollars profit, more than any time in history! The corporations kept saying they raise prices because of supply and demand, and had to keep up with their wholesale prices....all lies!!
The American people did not approve of most of this; the US Fed Gov't did! The American voters will decide in the next elections what they want, and I for one, hope the President of the US is someone who will not be controlled by the oil companies, and that most of the Congress of US are kicked out of office. Most have been there for 60 yrs, and it's time for some new people running the show.
The US Fed Gov't needs people who aren't being "paid off" by the oil companies and will set limits on gas prices.....something that is probably just a dream. If the Environmentalists in American would back off just a little, there is plenty of oil in America for our needs, but it won't happen until Congress makes it happen. At the same time, big money from the US Auto makers keeps Congress from demanding non-polluting vehicles. Maybe someday, it will change.
As far a Iraq and the "war", it's another "vietnam". Get our men and woman out of there, stop this "slaughter" of Americans, caught between a civil war in that country. We cannot keep trying to "control" the rest of the world....we are running out of money.

I first would reiterate (even though you didn't refute it) my point that the war itself is not for oil. Yes, oil companies are making a bundle, but if the government regulates it we all will be screwed. Government regulating price would destroy the market, we'd be paying just as much but for rationed oil. The oil companies to show dissapproval would reduce supply because price is decreasing. We would be in even worse shape. Can you really criticize companies for making money. This isn't communism, we canot regulate a free market or we screw it up. The only thing the government could and should do is subsidize oil. In other words, subsidize it for smaller oil companies. This will increase competition and more businesses will join the market, like the wildcats of the 80's, and in a decade or so could turn the oil market from an oligopoly to perfect competition. The free market would than reduce prices, increase supply not just for the US but the whole world satisfying the ever increasing demand, this shift would drastically shift the whole economy because nearly every market is in someway tied to oil, whether it be consumption for equipment or transportation etc. But my main point was that the war in iraq cannot be nor ever will be a war for oil.

Your absolutely right.

I agree with Fredg's comments. I think that this war is mostly about oil. Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. Bush may have been motivated by a number of factors when contemplating military action, the speculation grows that one of them would have been the potential for driving up the price of oil, a benefit to the administration’s oil industry allies.

The Bush administration insisted that its purpose was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and establish democracy. But there was no clear evidence that Iraq posed the immediate threat that the administration depicted. Looking for mass weapons of destruction was like looking for a needle in a hay stack or waldo, they couldn't find anything to support their claim.

This man that we elected president with his bloodlust has lead us to conflict. Things have gotten worse since the invasion, and I believe that there is still worse to come. This is why so many people are demanding an end to the occupation. Innocent people, women, children and elderly are dying. Many of our soldiers have died and came home with broken limbs. The Iraqis don't want our soldiers there, so the violence will escalate. They want to rebuild their own country, therefore, we should let them. The war with Iraq should have never happened, there was no direct threat. I hope the Bush administration stop the insanity and bring our troops home.

Very good comments; I wholeheartedly agree.

There is still NO EVIDENCE to say that the war is for oil. Everyone in america cannot seem to comprehend the simple laws of supply and demand. You guys think that the oil market is an american market. IT'S NOT. It's a world market, thus our prices are dtermined not by our demand but world demand. World demand is constantly increasing especially in china and india. Those two countries alone hold over a quarter of the world population, so it's obvious that with increasing economies and technology demand is not just increasing but dramatically increasing. Petite seems to only believe what she reads. If you keep reading the Nation or LA Times your not going to know. Ask ANY economist and they will tell you that the war is not for oil. You cannot cap prices, that's what socialists do and violates everything our capatalist market is for. Stop listening to extreme liberal propaganda, and use simple logic because that's all it takes. Petite also said we need to remove our troops. I guess 2000 soldiers isn't a worthy sacrifice to save the millions of people in Iraq. You seem to suffer from democratic selective amnesia. Don't worry, your not the only one. Democrats were among the strongest supporters for our invasion. I can give you all the quotes too. Yes, the intelligence was flawed, but dem's seem to be contradicting themselves. They all keep complaining about us doing nothing in Darfur because of the genecide that is currently taking place. Well maybe you forgot the blood baths of iraq when saddam would put thousands upon thousands in stadiums and drop biochemical weapons on them to test the effectiveness of his missles. Are the people in darfur worth more to you than the people of iraq? You also said the iraqi people don't want us there. That's bull, you seem to again be referring to the New York Times or Boston Globe. Try asking US soldiers coming from iraq, because there story is totally different. I know a number of guys out there right now, and they don't say what you seem to be saying. Or do you happen to know more about the war then the actual soldiers there. No one in this country has a right to judge the war except for those that are living, fighting, and dying there.

“WE HAVE KNOWN FOR MANY YEARS THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS SEEKING AND DEVELOPING WMD’S”. - SEN. TED KENNEDY (D, MA) 9/27/2002

“I WILL BE VOTING TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE - IF NECESSARY - TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT A DEADLY ARSENAL OF WMD’S IN HIS HANDS IS A REAL AND GRAVE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY.” - SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D, MA), 10/9/2002

“WE BEGIN WITH THE COMMON BELIEF THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS A TYRANT AND A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND STABILITY OF THE REGION. HE HAS IGNORED THE MANDATE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND IS BUILDING WMD’S AND THE MEANS OF DELIVERING THEM.” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI) 9/19/2002

“WE KNOW THAT HE HAS STORED SECRET SUPPLIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS THROUGHOUT HIS COUNTRY.”- AL GORE, 9/23/2002

“IRAQ’S SEARCH FOR WMD’S HAS PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO DETER AND WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT IT WILL CONTINUE FOR AS LONG AS SADDAM IS IN POWER.” - AL GORE, 9/23/2002

“THE LAST UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS LEFT IRAQ IN OCTOBER OF 1998. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT SADDAM HUSSAIN RETAINS SOME STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND THAT HE HAS SINCE EMBARKED ON A CRASH COURSE TO BUILD UP HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE CAPABILITIES. INTELLIGENCE REPORTS INDICATE THAT HE IS SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS…” - SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D, WV), 10/3/2002

“THERE IS UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS WORKING AGGRESSIVELY TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WILL LIKELY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS… WE ALSO SHOULD REMEMBER WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATED THE PROGRESS SADDAM HAS MADE IN DEVELOPMENT OF WMD’S.”
- SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D, WV), 10/10/2002

“HE HAS SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATED, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST 11 YEARS, EVERY SIGNIFICANT UN RESOLUTION THAT HAS DEMANDED THAT HE DISARM AND DESTROY HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND ANY NUCLEAR CAPACITY. THIS HE HAS REFUSED TO DO.”
- REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA), 10/10/2002

“IN THE FOUR YEARS SINCE THE INSPECTORS LEFT, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS SHOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WORKED TO REBUILD HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK, HIS MISSILE DELIVERY CAPABILITY, AND HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN AID, COMFORT, AND SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS, INCLUDING AL QAEDA MEMBERS… IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED, SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE HIS CAPACITY TO WAGE BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE, AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS.”
- SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D, NY), 10/10/2002

“WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF WHAT I THINK TO BE COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS, AND HAS HAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, A DEVELOPING CAPACITY FOR THE PRODUCTION AND STORAGE OF WMD’S.”
- SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D, FL), 12/8/2002

“WITHOUT QUESTION, WE NEED TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN. HE IS A BRUTAL, MURDEROUS DICTATOR, LEADING AN OPPRESSIVE REGIME… HE PRESENTS A PARTICULARLY GRIEVOUS THREAT BECAUSE HE IS SO CONSISTENTLY PRONE TO MISCALCULATION … AND NOW HE IS MISCALCULATING AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO HIS CONTINUED DECEIT AND HIS CONSISTENT GRASP FOR WMD’S … SO THE THREAT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH WMD’S IS REAL”.
- SEN. JOHN. F. KERRY (D, MA), 1/23/2003

SIMPLY UNBELIEVEABLE…

Amazing how most of the Democratic Party has come down with a severe case of Democratic Selective Amnesia . They try to blame President Bush for lying about WMD’s in Iraq and are accusing our President of lying to the American people to justify the war when they themselves knew they existed and said such.

Here are some more quotes:

“ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE ARE DETERMINED TO DENY IRAQ THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP WMD’S AND THE MISSILES TO DELIVER THEM. THAT IS OUR BOTTOM LINE”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB 4, 1998

“IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE FORCE, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR. WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAM.”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB. 17, 1998

“IRAQ IS A LONG WAY FROM (HERE), BUT WHAT HAPPENS THERE MATTERS A GREAT DEAL HERE. FOR THE RISKS THAT THE LEADERS OF A ROGUE STATE WILL USE NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE.”
- MADELINE ALBRIGHT, FEB 18, 1998

“HE WILL USE THOSE WMD’S AGAIN, AS HE HAS TEN TIMES SINCE 1983.”
-SANDY BERGER, CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, 2/18/98

“(WE) URGE YOU, AFTER CONSULTING WITH CONGRESS, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS (INCLUDING, IF APPROPRIATE, AIR AND MISSILE STRIKES ON SUSPECT IRAQI SITES) TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ’S REFUSAL TO END ITS WMD’S PROGRAM.”
-LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON, SIGNED BY SENATORS CARL LEVIN, TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, AND OTHER DEMOCRATS OCT. 9, 1998

“SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WMD TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS A THREAT TO COUNTRIES IN THE REGION AND HE HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF THE WEAPONS INSPECTION PROCESS.”
- REP. NANCY PELOSI (D, CA) DEC 16, 1998

“HUSSEIN HAS ….CHOSEN TO SPEND HIS MONEY ON BUILDING WMD’S AND PALACES FOR HIS CRONIES.”
- MADELINE ALBRIGHT, CLINTON SECRETARY OF STATE, 11/10/99

“THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT….SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS INVIGORATED HIS WEAPONS PROGRAMS. REPORTS INDICATE THAT BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR PROGRAMS CONTINUE APACE AND MAY BE BACK TO PRE-GULF WAR STATUS. IN ADDITION, SADDAM CONTINUES TO REDEFINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND IS DOUBTLESS USING THE COVER OF ILLICIT MISSILE PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP LONGER-RANGE MISSILES THAT WILL THREATEN THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES.”
- LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, SIGNED BY SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D, FL) AND OTHERS, 12/5/2001

The original question: Is the Iraq war about oil?

Is that the only reason we are in Iraq? No! There are several reasons, oil just being one of them. Bush's ego had a big part to play, as did a misguided fear of Hussein. Other factors are the economic boost any war provides and the excuse to build up the military-industrial complex.

The point is you can't point to one reason as the major force behind this conflict. The only thing you CAN point is that all the reasons combined were, in NO way sufficient justification for the loss of american lives.

Now to Fred's comments:
I have some issues with those comments. The largest is this quote: "most of the Congress of US are kicked out of office. Most have been there for 60 yrs, and it's time for some new people running the show." I don't disagree with the first and last part of that, but where does he get this 60 years crap? The average congressional term is under 10 years. The longest serving congressman (John Dingell) just hit the 60 year mark. This is just typical of Fred to make exaggerated statements that are patently untrue.

What actually controls oil prices is the commodity markets. Wholesalers and distributors buy oil on these markets. That isn't to say that the oil companies couldn't keep wholesale prices down if they wanted to.

I was against the Iraq war before it started. I detest President Bush. But now that we are there, I must agree that a wholesale pullout would be the wrong move for this country. Bush committed us to a mistake, but we are now stuck with it.

I'm wondering who Fred voted for in the last 2 presidential elections.

Scott<>

I agree with you SSchultz0956. I think that Saddam did have WMD either hidden or he moved them. If he didn't have them then why wouldn't he prove he give proof of that? Politicians say they want ot help our children for the future but yet they don't see a threat if Saddam stays in power? The 60 and 70 year olds may never feel his wrath but my children certainly will. This man, and obviously the insurgence will stop at nothing to see people dead. I am glad we are trying to do something, instead of sitting back and waiting for another attack on our home land. ANother thing I always felt starnge as Schultz points out, politicians seem to be good at saying they like something then when it is convenient to them to criticize the very thing they support. For example:



“I WILL BE VOTING TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE - IF NECESSARY - TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT A DEADLY ARSENAL OF WMD’S IN HIS HANDS IS A REAL AND GRAVE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY.” - SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D, MA), 10/9/2002

“WITHOUT QUESTION, WE NEED TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN. HE IS A BRUTAL, MURDEROUS DICTATOR, LEADING AN OPPRESSIVE REGIME… HE PRESENTS A PARTICULARLY GRIEVOUS THREAT BECAUSE HE IS SO CONSISTENTLY PRONE TO MISCALCULATION … AND NOW HE IS MISCALCULATING AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO HIS CONTINUED DECEIT AND HIS CONSISTENT GRASP FOR WMD’S … SO THE THREAT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH WMD’S IS REAL”.
- SEN. JOHN. F. KERRY (D, MA), 1/23/2003

“ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE ARE DETERMINED TO DENY IRAQ THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP WMD’S AND THE MISSILES TO DELIVER THEM. THAT IS OUR BOTTOM LINE”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB 4, 1998

“IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE FORCE, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR. WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAM.”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB. 17, 1998



Interesting how these men supported these policies but now when the election was upon us, it was the wrong thing to do. Well, how should the President have done it men? Hmm, no suggestions seem to come into play at the time. Well, this is all I have to or want to say on the matter. I am not much for debating anyway.

I wouldalso like to add that when people say the proof that the iraqi's don't like us there is all the insurgents. Actually, I would point out, most of the captured insurgents are either syrian or from saudi. Also,to reitrate, socialism has never worked, that's why we will never see regulations work on oil and gas.

Finally, someone who looks at the real facts, not the liberal papers.

Good comments regarding the war.

I also agree with Scott regarding his view on the war. I stand by my comments. It became clearer to me that oil was the critical element for the war, and another season for the invasion was that Bush wanted to kill or capture Saddam because he was trying to impress his daddy. We all know that George Bush Senior and Saddam Hussein didn't see eye to eye. Bush started a war in Afghanistan, then pulled out to go after Saddam without thinking about the hardships and dangers it was going cause the troops, people, women and children. While Osama is still roaming around a free man.

The U.S. government acknowledges that America will benefit from taking control of Iraq's oil production, but they have not yet stated whether oil influenced their decision to invade. When you declare war on another it is essential that you are open and honest about your reasons. The Bush Administration implies that making war against Iraq is to prevent them from possessing weapons of mass destruction, yet they didn't find any proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If they want to see weapons of mass destruction ::cough:: ::cough:: North Korea. Korea is far more of a threat to us.

Americans have the right to speak out against the war. And don't tell me that I don't have the right to judge this war. I've lived through it, my brother was in the Gulf War. I know exactly how people who have loved ones fighting in the war feel, and I don't blame them for wanting their sons, daughters and spouses home. I believe that those who care about democracy in the U.S. and a global commitment to human rights have a moral obligation to speak out when we believe political leaders are taking us in a wrong direction. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

I will not debate this thread any longer. I just got home from work and I have a need for some fun and excitement. I think I will go out for a while, then come back and help the people who are in need of our help.

Not a lot of people realize this

Unfotunately America is much dumber than i thought. To misinterprate the war in Iraq as a ploy for oil companies to make bank is prepostorous. Do Americans not understand the simple economics of supply and demand. Supply is scarce, demand is constantly increasing, thus price goes up. Does gauging occur, yes, sometimes, but th eonly reason the oil companies make tons of money is because of the government approved mega-mergers that occured, thus turning the market into an oligopoly. In two years China alone will be demanding the amount of oil that the world does now. So buckle your seat belts cause it's only going to get worse. To think that a war in iraq will solve the oil problems is rediculous because it can't happen. America could own the mideast and prices would still go up! So all those libs out there can stop ranting and raving about their alleged war for oil, and the american people need to educate themselves a little.

Dumb and dumber...


Not America - any and all Americans who placed their trust in Dubya!!

The question was asked what should Bush have done? Economic boycott, sanctions anything except committing troops before we were actually attacked. The US has rarely been the aggressor or invader. I know some claim that 9/11 provided the justification, but there was no credible evidence to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.

I supported the action in Afghanistan and Desert Storm. Both actions were legitimate reactive strikes justified by aggressive attacks. But Iraq was never reasonably justified. Our government should have forseen the continued guerilla fighting we have to deal with. Anyone who though we would go in, overwhelm the Iraqi forces, be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people and get out quickly was living in a pipe dream. To think that shows the incompetence of the decision makers who embroiled us in this mistake.

Scott<>

I guess 2000 soldiers isn't a worthy sacrifice to save the millions of people in Iraq.

Why haven't you enlisted yet?

You can't just TOSS AWAY human lives like that. People aren't numbers. Stop thinking like an army general, the era of that ilk has ended.


We can't just blindly fly around the world and try to impose our values on other countries -- even if this attempt is sincerely well-intentioned. We've tried it before. Look at Vietnam. We didn't belong there, and we don't belong in Iraq.

Yes, Saddam wasn't a very nice guy, but we only make things worse by trying to "fix" things that are not ours to fix.

We cannot fix the world. It would be wonderful if we could, but Americans need to face the facts. We can't police and regulate the world.

And if you really think it's our right to "fix" the world, why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia and North Korea? Certainly those poor people in North Korea deserve freedom.

North Korea is quite clearly a greater threat that Saddam's Iraq. So what makes Iraq special?


Think about it.

Perfect, let him put his money where his mouth is.

I guess 2000 soldiers isn't a worthy sacrifice to save the millions of people in Iraq.

I missed that assinine idea earlier. My answer to that is NO its not! ONE AMERICAN soldier isn't a worthy sacrifice to save millions of Iraqs. If the Iraqi people wanted to be "saved", they should have risen up against Hussein. It is not the US's job or responsibility to save people who are not our allies.

For whatever reason history tells us that iraq or whatever it was called thousands of years ago has been invaded and occupied every thirty or forty years regardless the reasons.the region has always been coveted by turks assyrian babalonians peresians anybody who could raise an army.even the pope raised money to "capture the holyland" a thousand years ago.(the crusades)there was no oil then just dumbasses who wanted power or wealth and didn't care who died as long as they got what they wanted.Even when oil was discovered in the 1920.s the british took over casting the population aside to get at the oil putting in a friendly regime to facilitate them lining their pockets.they eventually get kicked out and with the french germans and the rest of the euro guys and guess who fills the void?yep goood ole U S of A. so you think it ain't about getting rich?it.s always about the money.puppet regimes and all .if you grew up poor as the masses over there and watched the bully boys come to your hood for thousands of years and take everything worth something how wuold you feel? George bush is only doing what comes natural repeating history cause there's oil in them hills and he is an oilman damn the iraqis and the terroists it's all about the money(oil)

Hi,
ScottGem seems to be getting personal. It doesn't matter who I voted for.
The fact is, Americans and others are being killed in Iraq and surrounding countries.
We should either send enough troops to do the job, or get out.
Reasons were not the same for the VietNam war, and comparisons may not be the same, but the fact is, we made a mistake in being there, with tens of thousands of American lives lost.
I agree that sending troops there in the first place was an "ego" thing, on the part of the President of the US, maybe more so than the information he received at the time about WMD's. Evidently, from the latest CNN poll yesterday, the majority of Americans polled believe the President knew their were no WMD's, and "stretched the truth" about them.
As stated in another post, most of the oil and gas used by American does not come from our own country! This, in retrospect, is one of the problems. We rely too much on other countries for a product that is major to Americans.

Hi,
ScottGem seems to be getting personal. It doesn't matter who I voted for.
The fact is, Americans and others are being killed in Iraq and surrounding countries.
We should either send enough troops to do the job, or get out.
Reasons were not the same for the VietNam war, and comparisons may not be the same, but the fact is, we made a mistake in being there, with tens of thousands of American lives lost.
I agree that sending troops there in the first place was an "ego" thing, on the part of the President of the US, maybe more so than the information he received at the time about WMD's. Evidently, from the latest CNN poll yesterday, the majority of Americans polled believe the President knew their were no WMD's, and "stretched the truth" about them.
As stated in another post, most of the oil and gas used by American does not come from our own country! This, in retrospect, is one of the problems. We rely too much on other countries for a product that is major to Americans.

First, I don't agree that I'm getting personal or that who you voted for is irrelevant. You are complaining bitterly about the current administration and you have a good deal of justificiation for it. But if you voted for this current administration (I did not), then it matters that you have now changed your tune.

Second, I agree with you that the Iraqi war was a mistake for many reasons. True the reasons for being there are different from Nam. But there are many similarties in the conduct of the war. I also agree with you that this country has too much dependency on foreign energy sources (not just oil).

But I totally disagree that we should pull out. Maybe it would be a good idea to "send enough troops to do the job", but I'm not sure whether we have the resources to commit. We are stretched preety thin militarily as it is. As much as I am against starting the war in the first place, I strongly believe that since we are now committed we have to see it through.

Scott<>

Life is to important to be thrown away like this

We are not getting any free oil from Iraq. I think we actually should, the US should be getting paid back for all the money we are spending there.
They could perhaps even have funds for our soldiers that die or are seroiusly wounded.

To fight the war and spend millions ( billions?) but yet a very rich nation not be paying for the expense does not make since.

I know the politicians don't want us to look like we are doing war or oil.
We are still paying for the oil just like to all the other nations

The war was first done from some info that was in error but both political parties were given the same bad CIA info, so that was no ones fault, but in general it was done to respond to the terrorist threat and to "get back" at someone for 911.

In fact since it destoyed a lot of oil production, it was bad for the oil companies.

And just referring to the oil profits, they were called in and asked about their 9 percent profits, up from 6 percent.
That is called good business.

I don't see Radio Shack, Walmart or Wendy's being called in about their percentage profits. Our local Wendy's closed because they could not keep a 10 percent profit. If american people think 9 percent profit is too much there are a lot of companies making a large amount more than that.

Well said and very true.

Many years ago I worked in iraq when sadamm hussein was in power.I was totally against america involved in iraq but somehow or other someone had to stop rise/power of dictators in muslim countries and fanaticism,, in iraq at the time I was there RESEARCH was a big thing there in secret laboratorys all around the place be it bi-logical or just agriculture research,.
Besides all the arguments people in the western world do not understand the arabic people , the arabic people in general do not crave or know the meaning of the type of freedom people in the west aspire too,
But who would believe france germany italy britain spain usa japan etconly 50 years ago were in a WORLD WAR as part of some evolution of man,, so how are we in the west able to try and sort out iraq when its not too long since europe was at war and its only very recently television was available in iraq even then it was so censored and full of propaganda it was of no use to anyone but the batthists,, also I wonder about foreign european companys very much involved as well as undercover american corpos in helping saddam and as long as everyone got they were all happy,, remember the BIF BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL FAIR 14 DAYS OF BRILLAINT BUSINESS FOR SO MANY NATIONS,, MIKE FROM IRELAND

Your Thanksgiving Day editorial was thoughtful and welcome, as I am currently serving in Iraq as part of the state Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. (I try to read your paper every day online from the Internet café here in Baghdad.)
However, your editorial seems to imply that something may be wrong with America remaining "largely free of any calls for rationing or delayed gratification or any other sense of disruption."

I am serving in Iraq so America does not need to again ration, suffer or have a sense of disruption because of our enemies. We are bringing the fight to the enemy before the enemy brings the fight to our soil. America does not need to "sacrifice" because we are at war. America needs to indulge in all the things that makes it such a great country.

I left my family and my prestigious law firm in Colonie so Americans would never again have to suffer or have a sense of disruption, like they did on Sept. 11, 2001. Enjoy your holiday, don't feel bad that I and others are here on the frontlines of freedom when you need to open your pants after stuffing your face with some great home-cooked food.

I love what I am doing, I am proud to be here and I am happy that you are free to indulge yourself.

I also have one more problem with your editorial. You claim, "Another presidential visit would bring what's missing" to service men and women in Iraq. Unless the President is bringing my wife, Kimberly, and my dog, Oslo, on Air Force One with him, let me assure you his visit would not "bring what's missing" for me.

MATHEW B. TULLY

Major, Field Artillery

U.S. Army, Baghdad

[email protected]


This is a quote from my local paper. I decided to include this to look at a different view as to why we are there. You can agree or disagree but this is how many soldiers feel. Sorry for the length but I decided to keep everything in as to not have anyone think I cut and pasted to make it look good.

First yea, the 9 or so billion sounds like a lot of money, but look at it in a percentage profit, first the government regulates how they can get the oil, where they can get it, how it is transported and the majority of the cost is in taxes.

So first Walmart made a much higher percentage profit than the oil companies, why not tax them higher, since they are making such high percent profit.

And in general, this was not a forever profit, and they oil companies will need to make profits to invest in more drilling, more refineries and the such.

Many businesses would close if they are restricted to making only 5 or 6 percent profit, if we require the oil companies to make less than 10 percent profit, we should then require all the companies to do the same,

How about the company you work for, restrict them to less than 10 percent profit, and would they be willing to do a lot for things.