[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Savvy27+Sep 17 2004, 07:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Savvy27 @ Sep 17 2004, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry going to war and telling people things which aren't true in order to drum up support for the war would be considered warmongering.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

You know Dis its kind of sick to see American Soldiers guarding Haliburton oil fields in Iraq LONG before the war is over - but no, they decided to divert military resources to guard Haliburton.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.
2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Equally more disgusting is the handing out of these contracts before the first Soldiers set foot on Iraq soil

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

Terrorist attack coordinated by Osama Bin Laden, suggest connection between him and Saddam, realize that nobody believes Saddam and Osama to be connected, suggest WMD's present in Iraq, wait for UN to investigate... realize that nobody believes there are WMD's in Iraq, suggest to LIBERATE Iraqi's, everyone realizes that Saddam is a prick, INVADE Iraq.

It's not nearly as logical as I was hoping.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.

So Haliburton isn't profiting from the oil in Iraq?

2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Maybe the Haliburton employees shouldn't be there at all. If its the Iraqi's oil and they need it to recover from the war, they should be training and employing Iraqi people to profit from THEIR oil.

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

Don't you find it a little confusing that they did such a stellar job of planning how to drill for oil, but they have yet to develop a plan for exiting the country that they are occupying? [/b][/quote]
I'm loath to get involved in this but:

realize that nobody believes there are WMD's in Iraq,

The Russians told Bush WMD were in Iraq. The Presidents of Egypt and Jordan told General Franks they were sure the Iraqi's would use WMD on American troops. The head of the CIA said "slam dunk case." And Saddam refused to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors even as the hammer was hovering over his head, making it appear he actually had something to hide as the most paranoid and powerful nation on earth was preparing to obliterate him.

So, don't say "nobody."

As I noted in multiple threads earlier, since nothing was found, they were all idiots. Both the givers and the takers.

So Haliburton isn't profiting from the oil in Iraq?

They're profiting from rebuilding Iraqi oilfields and pipeline facilities and, as I understand it, paid by the USA government. That's why the USA Army is withholding payments to Halliburton over disputed billing.

Ironically, every time rebels stop oil production, Halliburton profits because they have to do the job again. I guess that means Halliburton is supporting the insurrection and helping the rebels destroy facilities. That would fit your theory.

Don't you find it a little confusing that they did such a stellar job of planning how to drill for oil, but they have yet to develop a plan for exiting the country that they are occupying?

I find it a little odd you wouldn't know that Iraq, like most Middle East nations, would be in the stone age without selling oil. Its the only product they have. Its real simple that way. Therefore restoring oil production is the logical underpinning of any recovery in that country. Not rocket science to figure out that's in the interests of the Iraqi population, regardless of whom might be in charge or whether Americans happened to be on the scene or Germans or the French. The dissidents know that, hence they're blowing up pipelines three times a week. Nice guys helping their local citizens out. There would be one-third the USA troops in Iraq right now if the psycho's weren't going around killing their fellow citizens. Or are you going to tell us the Americans actually want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping 135,000 troops there indefinitely?

The reasons for the conflict are certainly arguable. The management of the post-conflict scenario is very arguable, in fact, I'm on your side on a lot of it.

Some of you guys are a little overboard though.

Cowperson