OK, let's continue here, since the SC speach thread was locked down. (unnecesserily)

Gany said:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"
-----------------------------
First any competent politican realizes that we are going to stay in Iraq for the next 2-3 decades, until oil is still the most important energy source. So if a politican says that we can withdraw in the next 10-20 months, he is either lying or not competent.

We will not build any permanent bases? We already built something like 16!!! Is he even aware of it?
To keep troops in the embassy? That is a missnomer because that is a fort and not an embassy, and they could get easily kept under siege without outside support. So just troops in the embassy is a dream....
Al-Qaeda building bases in iraq? Supposedly they are already there, so there is no need to use conditional.

The whole Obama stand on Iraq is just smoke and mirrors. Sure he could withdraw a few brigades, nevertheless the US is going to have 100K+ troops in Iraq for a very long time....

That is the reality and don't believe anybody who says otherwise.

Why do you feel our occupation of Iraq is inevitable? If the president orders us out, they will leave. We built bases, but occupying them is optional, the Iraqis could use them. The US cannot sustain these troop levels without a draft, or seriously comprimising our national security. What would happen if we need to fight a war somewhere else? The military knows they aren't combat ready anymore.

So Obama is in on some oil conspiracy? How does one get in on this?

The people who believe that our invasion of Iraq was due to oil rank right up there with the "truthers", though the people who believe it was due to 'terrorism' aren't too far behind.

Name the first Ministry in Iraq that US troops secured.

The people who believe that our invasion of Iraq was due to oil rank right up there with the "truthers", though the people who believe it was due to 'terrorism' aren't too far behind.
US special envoy to the middle east Anthony Zinni already revealed on 60 minutes why the US invaded Iraq...he called it the worst kept secret in Washington that the invasion was carried out to appease the Israeli lobby.

Not for oil or Al-Qaeda.

Or the Iraqi lobby. But the oil companies benefitted, and Bush/Cheney are both former oil men. If there were no oil there, no one would care about Saddam. He wouldn't have the money to invest in weapons programs.

The people who believe that our invasion of Iraq was due to oil rank right up there with the "truthers", though the people who believe it was due to 'terrorism' aren't too far behind.

That would include Alan Greenspan, who said it was both for oil and the right thing to do, iirc. As spidergoat said, we wouldn't care about Saddam if there were no oil.

Iran and Iraq were threats to Israel. By taking out Saddam and building up troop strength within Iraq, we can better put pressure on Iran, especially if we get Afghanistan calm and build up there too. Also, now that our troops are out of Saudi, and in Iraq we can start putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, as they are the real source of 9/11.

That would only be true if Saddam and Iran were allies. Taking out Iraq makes Iran the major power in the region. We aren't putting any pressure on Saudi Arabia, just the opposite. We seek their goodwill and sell them weapons.

Having military force on three of Iran's borders isn't putting pressure on them?

I'm not saying that I agree with those reasons to invade Iraq, but I'm just pointing out the neocon logic.

Iran and Iraq were threats to Israel. By taking out Saddam and building up troop strength within Iraq, we can better put pressure on Iran, especially if we get Afghanistan calm and build up there too. Also, now that our troops are out of Saudi, and in Iraq we can start putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, as they are the real source of 9/11.

iraq really wasn't that big of a threat.

Except they know if we invade Iran, Iraq will be left unguarded. It was much better when Saddam and Iran were mutual enemies. In fact, Saddam pretended to have WMDs just to keep Iran away.

Boys, boys,boys....

Who said there had to be only ONE reason for occupying Iraq? There were several:

1. Oil, oil and more oil.
2. We had to put the soldiers kicked out of SA somewhere. We need continuous military presence in the ME.
3. Saddam switching to Euros in oildeals. Nothing like making a good example.
4. Saddam was dangerous for Israel, so we fought a proxy war for them.

I don't mention WMDs, because that was clear bullshit, a fake casus beli...

Why do you feel our occupation of Iraq is inevitable?

Simple math. The USA exports 2/3 of its oil. Iraq is the last still aviable cheap and plenty oilreservoir, not to mention it was weak.

The US cannot sustain these troop levels without a draft, or seriously comprimising our national security. What would happen if we need to fight a war somewhere else?

That is why Obama's stand is a safe bet. ANY new president is going to withdraw SOME troops, not because he/she wants to, but because we have to logistically speaking. This is actually going to start in the summer.

I forgot to mention the euros argument, but the oil one is still bullshit.

If we wanted cheap oil, then we could have dropped the sanctions and/or invaded Canada.

Oh no, it wasn't cheap oil we were after, not at all... it was control over the oil supply.

Or the Iraqi lobby. But the oil companies benefitted, and Bush/Cheney are both former oil men. If there were no oil there, no one would care about Saddam. He wouldn't have the money to invest in weapons programs.

We didn't go for oil. If so we'd be reaping the benefits by now since we "invaded and now control Iraq." Why is oil hovering around $100/barrel and why were gas prices $4.49/gallon?

War for oil? Nope.:rolleyes:

Oil for food, yes. :(

Why do you feel our occupation of Iraq is inevitable? If the president orders us out, they will leave. We built bases, but occupying them is optional, the Iraqis could use them. The US cannot sustain these troop levels without a draft, or seriously comprimising our national security. What would happen if we need to fight a war somewhere else? The military knows they aren't combat ready anymore.
Define "combat ready".

Iraq is a troop sponge because the nation building/counterinsurgency fight requires more manpower than traditional warfighting. If there was a real emergency somewhere else, any notions of saving buildings/cities/whatever would be long out the window, and the full destructive potential of our military (which requires comparatively little manpower) would be unleashed.

If we wanted cheap oil, then we could have dropped the sanctions and/or invaded Canada.

You still have no idea how much oil Canada produces and how much we need....
Also, sometimes just depriving your competition's access to natural resources can be half of the victory...

P.S.: Just because you don't believe in gravitation, apples still going to fall downward. :)

First any competent politican realizes that we are going to stay in Iraq for the next 2-3 decades, until oil is still the most important energy source. So if a politican says that we can withdraw in the next 10-20 months, he is either lying or not competent. That is the reality and don't believe anybody who says otherwise.The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the country's armed forces. If he gives an order they have to obey. There is no recourse except impeachment, which takes a long time. If Obama orders the troops home the troops will come home.

Ron Paul has said the same thing and he means it too. I trust him a little more because he's an old guy (quite a bit older than me even) and doesn't have much to lose in terms of screwing his career. Obama has a bright future ahead of him and the scoundrels in politics and industry might succeed in convincing him that it would be a disaster for his career to bring the National Guard home to deal with hurricanes and fires. Ron Paul has no reason to give a shit, he can just follow his conscience and his libertarian principles.

Both of them are outsiders to the political arena, just like Jimmy Carter. They would probably get nothing done at all during their one term in office, just like Jimmy Carter. (Well actually Carter created the Taliban on the advice of his incompetent advisors but who cares about little details like that.) But if they ended the occupation of Iraq that's all they would need to do to get the country moving in the right direction. Other than that, a government that does nothing except steal our money is just about the best government we can hope for in modern America.

Anyone who wishes we were not so dependent on foreign petroleum should be a champion of the telecommuting movement. About one-fourth of America's petroleum consumption goes directly into commuting, and that doesn't count all the second-order effects.

If you "go to work" every day without loudly complaining, regardless of how you get there unless it's by walking or biking, then you have no right to pontificate about the inevitability of petrocracy. You're just part of the problem.

We didn't go for oil. If so we'd be reaping the benefits by now since we "invaded and now control Iraq." Why is oil hovering around $100/barrel and why were gas prices $4.49/gallon?

War for oil? Nope.:rolleyes:

Oil for food, yes. :(

thats what they wanted

Sandy, honeybun, haven't you heard that things didn't go according to PLAN????

And as long as the war prevented the Chinese to make a special deal with Saddam with exclusive oilrights, (not to mention the earlier Russian and french deals) it has been still a success.

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the country's armed forces. If he gives an order they have to obey.

You guys still don't get it. NOBODY gets to be the president, unless they are for the occupation. Clear now? The powers in charge let a cancdidate bullshit about withdrawal as long as they know he/she is lying. If the person was serious, his/her chances would drop immediatelly....

P.S.: Diebold machine and such. Worked well in Iowa....

We didn't go for oil. If so we'd be reaping the benefits by now since we "invaded and now control Iraq." Why is oil hovering around $100/barrel and why were gas prices $4.49/gallon?

War for oil? Nope.:rolleyes:

Oil for food, yes. :(

I think that proves we did go for the oil. Not for cheap oil for you and me, but the oil companies are posting record profits, that's what it's all about.