Colin Powell's New Book: War With Iraq Never Debated

Cheney was NEVER an oilman.. He spent his whole life in govt except the few years with oil services company Haliburton.. His job was to use his govt contacts to lobby the Clinton administration for lifting sanctions against Iraq, Libya and the Stans.

He failed.

We never got control of Iraqi oil nor did we benefit. Iraqi oil production is hardly up to prewar amounts even now.

 

Iraq doesn't even compare in the slightest with Vietnam. Death toll? Benefits after the war? There are solid positive outcomes that have come from Iraq. Veitnam, not so much. Never should've been there. Iraq had a guy threatening us with nuclear weapons(even if it was all talk), who already had a history of owning WMDs and attacking neighboring nations.

 

What benefits? Making Iran more powerful?

 

Bush got Congressional and world support. Saddam was dangerous. Liberals are trying to re-write history, and Powell is one of them. Now, how about that economy?

 

Colin Powell, the last intelligent Conservative.

 

Saddam was NO threat. Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.......... Powell knew that as did everyone in the oil business, diplomats, historians, and senior military personnel.

 

Wow, yet so many Democrats voted for it. What a shocker!

 

How was Gaddhafi a threat to us?

 

Khadafi was an uneducated bedouin boy.. He was always a problem. Constantly threatening to assassinate one leader or another over some imagined slight.. The Libyan people hated and feared him from the moment he threw out their constitution in 1969.

 

He was less of a threat than what the intelligence showed, and that is a GREAT thing. Not a bad thing. Can you imagine if he had those weapons, he would have used them on our troops, Israel, etc. The initial invasion was so much more effective that he DIDN'T have them. It is totally irrelevant what was found/not found, to the reasons we had to go in and find out for ourselves, and take out a very evil dictator. Saddam set the stage for that one, not the US. Today, this is a far cry from a worst case senario. I don't regret the war, not happy about it either. It was the right thing to do at the time. Bush properly got Congressional approval and saw it through.

 

You didn't really answer his question.

 

Oh brother.. 4,000 dead.. 30,000 maimed.. 10 years later the country is still a mess.

 

Nice rant. But still, he was no threat to us. Furthermore, it was a war for oil. It's time you face reality. Or are you aware of it being a war for oil and simply don't want to talk about it?

Oh and furthermore, there's a lot more wars we can get ourselves into based on your logic of going in to Libya. Get ready for wars in North Korea and Iran, for starters. Of course, the only thing that will change your decision to support or oppose is one single letter after the name of the president in the White House.

By the way, I have a friend starting a pipeline patrol business using airplanes. Good thing he didn't listen to you when you said airplanes aren't used to patrol pipelines anymore, eh?

 

And rest assured she won't.

 

War is too complicated to quantify everything. You also can't quantify benefits of the regime change. You cheapen our troops and their mission when you just simply throw numbers around. ONE soldier's life lost is tragic and too many. If you use numbers, then no war is "worth it". It is what it is...necessary sometimes.

 

Libya? It wasn't for oil.. Hess, Marathon, Conoco Phillips, TOTAL, ENI, Dutch Shell, BP etc were ALL operating in Libya before the people decided to throw Khadfi out.

 

The problems with Saddam/Iraq could have been resolved without war....... but Bush went in calling him "Hitler" so there was NO possibility of diplomacy.

The Iraq war came out of the PNAC and Clean Break Strategy circa 1998.

 

Nice try sweetheart, but your attempted straw man doesn't mean it wasn't a war for oil. Not at all.

The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/blog/162908/obamas-nato-war-oil-libya

U.S. Democrat: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...bout-oil-US-lawmaker-says/UPI-48361300801026/

Even your pals at Al Jazeera know it was a war for oil: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201182511546451332.html

Do you plan on staying in denial forever, or just until Obama is out of office?

 

By the way, how was our ally Mubarak a threat to us? And which of our allies do you think we should help overthrow next?

 

How do you provide air cover "for oil" when seven oil companies already have lucrative oil production concessions??????

Libya was NOT about Obama.. That's lame.

 

He wasn't a threat to the US.. The EGYPTIANS wanted him GONE.

You seem to be under some illusion that the US is in control of the Arab Spring.

 

Obviously you are choosing to remain ignorant. The facts are there for you to learn and answer your own question.

And yet another attempted straw man, saying Libya wasn't about Obama. I never said that. I said it was a war for oil and backed it up with credible links from viable sources. It is YOUR choice to shuck, jive and remain ignorant.

School's out, you're dismissed.

 

One wonders if Obama has discussed with the NSC what more he could do, as he said the the Russian President, after he is re-elected?

 

The press spins alot.. I know Libya.. I used to live there and I have followed the story for 40 years.

These opinion blogs haven'tt lived that long.

The oil companies I mentioned were and are solidly in production in Libya and have been since about 2004.

The Arab Spring has gotten messy so every twerp wants to blame Obama, the US, Israel, the Saudis etc.........

Obama would have been thrilled if the Arab Spring hadn't happened during his administration.

 

It was for oil, but not oil for America...

It was for oil for Europe, without Russian interference, like Odessa...

Thats why France fought.