Oil-hungry Obama allows military strikes on country not involved with 9/11

[edthecynic]

Was Pakistan involved in 9/11?

Obama is allowing bombings by drones in Pakistan. Is he oil hungry? Is he funneling money to Haliburton? Is Cheney hiding in the oval office influencing him? Is he a war criminal?

Bombs Kill 15 In Pakistan; U.S. Drone Down - CBS News

He must be "oil hungry" to go after the oil of a country ranked 58th in oil production with 59,140 bbl/day.

Like Bush going after a country that we do not import oil from (Our top providers are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela)............and how we confiscated absolutely ZERO drops of Iraq's oil from 2003-today.

The purpose was to drive up the price of oil by removing the Iraqi oil production from the market, not steal it for ourselves and lower the price of our oil. So to the US oil monopoly the Iraq war was a smashing success well worth the lives and limbs of American cannon fodder.

 

[bucs90]

He must be "oil hungry" to go after the oil of a country ranked 58th in oil production with 59,140 bbl/day.

Like Bush going after a country that we do not import oil from (Our top providers are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela)............and how we confiscated absolutely ZERO drops of Iraq's oil from 2003-today.

The purpose was to drive up the price of oil by removing the Iraqi oil production from the market, not steal it for ourselves and lower the price of our oil. So to the US oil monopoly the Iraq war was a smashing success well worth the lives and limbs of American cannon fodder.

Yeah....except Iraq is selling it's oil.

 

[bodecea]

Also, while we're on the subject of Democrat war mongers......

Clinton went to war in Kosovo. No one there attacked us.

A Democrat took us to war with Germany, who didn't attack us.A Democrat took us to war in Vietnam, who didn't attack us.
A Democrat took us to war with Korea, who didn't attack us.
A Democrat nearly took us to war with Cuba and the USSR, who didn't attack us.
A far left Democrat took us to war in WW1, against nations who didn't attack us.


In fact, over 210 years, our wars have almost all been started by Democrats, against foes who didn't attack us. Exceptions: Japan, Bush 1 vs Iraq, Bush 2 vs Iraq.



Those damn war mongering, oil hungry Democrats.

Germany declared war on us.....idjit.

 

[bodecea]

The strikes target people not real estate. And yes the people were involved in 9-11

Oh, cool. So was Saddam and individual worth targeting?

Hitler was, and a Democrat targeted him.
Castro was, and a Democrat targeted him.
Saddam was, and a Republican targeted him.

None of the 3 attacked America.

And I agree w/ you regarding drones. They are a great tool!

I don't follow your point at all. What I do follow is not historically accurate

He needs to work on his talking points sources.

 

[edthecynic]

Like Bush going after a country that we do not import oil from (Our top providers are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela)............and how we confiscated absolutely ZERO drops of Iraq's oil from 2003-today.

The purpose was to drive up the price of oil by removing the Iraqi oil production from the market, not steal it for ourselves and lower the price of our oil. So to the US oil monopoly the Iraq war was a smashing success well worth the lives and limbs of American cannon fodder.

Yeah....except Iraq is selling it's oil.

Before Bush's war to avenge his father, Iraq exported 1.7 million bbl per day. In 2003 it was down to 790,000 bbl per day. It didn't get back to pre war levels until 2008.

 

[rightwinger]

And how can we declare war on a person, not a piece of land or country?

And do we have authority, without a declaration of war on a country, to strike at individuals inside that country?

Is Obama committing a war crime by targeting individuals inside Pakistan without a declaration of war against Pakistan?

Or can we finally just say.....what Bush did wasn't all that bad after all. Saddam deserved to be hanged. The Taliban deserved to be killed. And I'm glad Obama is continuing the fight.

Terrorists know no borders....I don't care if we take them out with a drone or a knife to the throat

You're 100% right on this.

So, would you say it was smart to topple a regime that was obviously anti-American and likely would've protected terrorists? Like we did in Iraq? If they know no borders they'd flee to Iraq.......just like they are fleeing to Pakistan now. But Pakistan is cooperating, Iraq wouldn't, not with Saddam. Right? So Bush was right to take out Saddam, and Obama is right to go after them in Pakistan.

Good job by both. One of the few things I support Obama on.

This is where you logic, as well as Bushs logic strays. Sad dam was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat to the US or his neighbors. He had been contained for ten years. Bush diverted the real war on terrorism to engage in nation building

The real terrorists are being targeted by those drones

 

[Londoner]

Was Pakistan involved in 9/11?

Obama is allowing bombings by drones in Pakistan. Is he oil hungry? Is he funneling money to Haliburton? Is Cheney hiding in the oval office influencing him? Is he a war criminal?

Bombs Kill 15 In Pakistan; U.S. Drone Down - CBS News

Obama & neocon foreign policy is like Nixon/Eisenhower and the New Deal.

Each president compromised with the other side because they lacked the political skill and courage to defeat them. Obama is a door man for Bush's policies in much the same way that postwar Republican presidents were doormen for the New Deal.

But let's be clear why the region has become such a mess. When Reagan defeated Carter on the biggest issue of our time, energy, America's fate was sealed. Reagan -- by going all in behind high oil consumption -- tied the health of the American economy to stability in the middle east. This meant that we would need to perpetually intervene in the region. This meant we would have to dump money and weapons into ruthless regimes, and become engaged in costly occupations. This is why Reagan removed Hussein's Iraq from the list of terrorist nations. This is why Reagan sold weapons to Iran. This is why Reagan supported the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan. He had to employ every asset he could find, terrorist or not. This is why the CIA trained Bin Laden, because the USA needed him as a pawn in their geopolitical struggle against Russia. [Does the Rightwing voter know any of this? No. Does the Rightwing voter know who ousted the popular Mosaddegh and replaced him with the ruthless Shaw? No. Part of the reason we can't intellgiently discuss the region (and part of the reason we accepted the Bush fantasy of a Democratic Iraq) is because the Rightwing voter gets his education from radio and TV pundits, i.e., people paid by the interests which control energy policy in the gulf]

But yes, the OP is correct. Obama is a rubber stamp for interests and policies he lacks the courage to change. [Hope & Change my ass. The Left needed an FDR but instead they got a flaccid compromiser]

Carter said that if we don't build a moonshot around the reduction of oil consumption, our economy would be tied too deeply to an unstable region. Specifically, he added, the military costs of stabilization will sink us along with rising oil costs. The Right, lead by Reagan and Big Oil, framed him as a hysterical Leftist and assured the country that the middle east was not going to be a problem.

Now we are being dragged to hell by the coming $6 gallon, as more enlightened nations take light rail and have the luxury of not having to maintain suburban sprawl at precisely the historical moment that it becomes unsustainable.

America swallowed poison in 1980 . . . and it is now starting to take full effect.

 

[JimH52]

This has to be the worst, misleading, delusional thread that I have ever seen on this board. Buc90, are you really Charley Sheen?

 

[Polk]

Obama is just a war monger.

NO WAR FOR OIL MR. OBAMA!!!!!

PAKISTAN WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11 MR. OBAMA!!!!!

I may be wrong on this one, but last time I checked, Pakistan doesn't have significant oil reserves.

 

[BlindBoo]

Was Pakistan involved in 9/11?

Obama is allowing bombings by drones in Pakistan. Is he oil hungry? Is he funneling money to Haliburton? Is Cheney hiding in the oval office influencing him? Is he a war criminal?

Bombs Kill 15 In Pakistan; U.S. Drone Down - CBS News

Currently it is suspected that bin Laden and the remnant of his grouip Al Queda are hiding in the lawless region of Pakistan (soon to be named Talibanistan)

You do remember who bin Laden and al Queda are, right? I know you righties thought that the WOT ended when Saddam was overthrown, but since he didn't attack us and bin Laden did, attacks on bin Laden's holdout is expected.

 

[8537]

This has to be the worst, misleading, delusional thread that I have ever seen on this board. Buc90, are you really Charley Sheen?

That's completely unfair!..........(to porn stars and casual crack users everywhere.)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Was Pakistan involved in 9/11?

Obama is allowing bombings by drones in Pakistan. Is he oil hungry? Is he funneling money to Haliburton? Is Cheney hiding in the oval office influencing him? Is he a war criminal?

Bombs Kill 15 In Pakistan; U.S. Drone Down - CBS News

You Teabaggers never were much for (actual) research......

(Fuckin' dummies......)

July 22, 2004

The Pakistan Connection

*

​

 

[BlindBoo]

And how can we declare war on a person, not a piece of land or country?

And do we have authority, without a declaration of war on a country, to strike at individuals inside that country?

Is Obama committing a war crime by targeting individuals inside Pakistan without a declaration of war against Pakistan?

Or can we finally just say.....what Bush did wasn't all that bad after all. Saddam deserved to be hanged. The Taliban deserved to be killed. And I'm glad Obama is continuing the fight.

Terrorists know no borders....I don't care if we take them out with a drone or a knife to the throat

You're 100% right on this.

So, would you say it was smart to topple a regime that was obviously anti-American and likely would've protected terrorists? Like we did in Iraq? If they know no borders they'd flee to Iraq.......just like they are fleeing to Pakistan now. But Pakistan is cooperating, Iraq wouldn't, not with Saddam. Right? So Bush was right to take out Saddam, and Obama is right to go after them in Pakistan.

Good job by both. One of the few things I support Obama on.

Saddam didn't give the Taliban or al Queda aid or protection. President Bushes invasion and occupation was/is not justified because President Obama is targeting the terrorist who carried out the attacks of 9-11.

 

[BlindBoo]

Was Pakistan involved in 9/11?

Obama is allowing bombings by drones in Pakistan. Is he oil hungry? Is he funneling money to Haliburton? Is Cheney hiding in the oval office influencing him? Is he a war criminal?

Bombs Kill 15 In Pakistan; U.S. Drone Down - CBS News

He must be "oil hungry" to go after the oil of a country ranked 58th in oil production with 59,140 bbl/day.

Like Bush going after a country that we do not import oil from (Our top providers are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela)............and how we confiscated absolutely ZERO drops of Iraq's oil from 2003-today.

Your list is lacking. You skipped 3. Saudia Arabia and 4. Nigeria.

CANADA 2,064
MEXICO 1,223
SAUDI ARABIA 1,076
NIGERIA 1,024
VENEZUELA 825
IRAQ 336

It was the Bush administration that said Iraqs' oil would pay for the war was it not? We certainly didn't increase our imports from Iraq after the invasion.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh, Pakistan was involved with 9-11? When did that happen?

The strikes target people not real estate. And yes the people were involved in 9-11

Oh, cool. So was Saddam and individual worth targeting?

Hitler was, and a Democrat targeted him.
Castro was, and a Democrat targeted him.
Saddam was, and a Republican targeted him.

None of the 3 attacked America.

And I agree w/ you regarding drones. They are a great tool!

Hitler/Germany attacked US Ships before declaration of war by Germany on Dec 8th. They (nazis) were a threat to the US.

Castro's forces defeated Batistia in 1959 and then betrayed his CIA suppliers.

Saddam's Iraq was not able to rebuild it's military machine after they were routed from Kuwait. Iraq did not attack us and was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.