4 ms·
Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/ar
by guildwriter 9y ago
Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again.
http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-i...
It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.
- jacquesm 9y agoThat's an argument from utility, whether it worked or not is not important, what matters is why Iraq was invaded.
- EliRivers 9y agowhat matters is why Iraq was invaded. Not in this thread, perhaps.
- Hasknewbie 9y agoI agree that "Iraq was invaded for its oil" has no compelling evidence (although they certainly were not above using that as a nice plus once in the place), but God are the two sources you provided bad. scottmanning.com: it does not matter how much "Iraqi oil" gets into the US, oil is oil not fine wine. What matters is that the oil fields are managed by US-aligned companies, and a lot of them are. Foreign Policy: ouch, that is like a motherlode of bad faith put into article form to justify the invasion, so basically because they found (after the facts) some documents relating wishful thinking about future coordination with Al-Qaeda, that justifies the patently off-based and oversold WDM claims, and makes all the sick 9/11 dog whistles "not lies"? Wow.