Last edited by Shahter (2012-03-04 07:39:51)
Oh the oil subject yes it was ..if the US hadn took over the oil pumps an was greedy..they basicly provoked the irainies an they took that as a threat an so they too revange on the 2 towers so if the us goverment would have mind their own biswax half of the wars an such ..most of it wouldn have happenedShocking wrote:
Oil was never an issue in regards to Iraq. Conspiracy-people made it an issue. Based on non-existant facts that is, as there is a complete lack of proof that the invasion had anything to do with oil whatsoever.
Has the US confiscated any oilfields in Iraq? No
Does the US now have a major stake in the Iraqi oil market? No
Do any nations part of the coalition have any significant stake in the Iraqi oil market? No.
Has anyone from these nations profited significantly from Iraqi oil? No.
Does it at all make sense to invade Iraq for oil? Nox10.
Were the Iraqi oil fields auctioned on the international market by the Iraqi government? Yes.
Who profited most from that? Russia and China.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak02.htmlBEIJING - Former United States vice president Dick Cheney, ex-defense minister Donald Rumsfeld and assorted US neo-cons will have plenty of time to nurse their apoplexy. One of their key reasons to unleash the war on Iraq in 2003 was to seize control of its precious oilfields and thus shape a great deal of the new great game in Eurasia - the energy front - by restricting the access of Europe and Asia to Iraq's staggering 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
(...)
Win-win for Russia and China
Cheney's and Rumsfeld's script was never supposed to develop like this. Instead of US Big Oil getting the lion's share, strategic competitors Russia and China turned out to be big winners.
NONE of the revenue those fields may generate will find its way to the US. Nobody in the western hemisphere profits from Chinese investors getting oil money. It will actually enrich one of the nations the US dislikes the most.Shahter wrote:
USA&co are on top of the pyramid, they don't need to run everything themselves anymore. the point of all their adventures around the globe is to integrate markets and resources into the scheme. what's there in iraq relevant to their "global market"-schtick? oil? then that's what they went there for.
whatChillieD0g wrote:
Oh the oil subject yes it was ..if the US hadn took over the oil pumps an was greedy..they basicly provoked the irainies an they took that as a threat an so they too revange on the 2 towers so if the us goverment would have mind their own biswax half of the wars an such ..most of it wouldn have happenedShocking wrote:
Oil was never an issue in regards to Iraq. Conspiracy-people made it an issue. Based on non-existant facts that is, as there is a complete lack of proof that the invasion had anything to do with oil whatsoever.
Has the US confiscated any oilfields in Iraq? No
Does the US now have a major stake in the Iraqi oil market? No
Do any nations part of the coalition have any significant stake in the Iraqi oil market? No.
Has anyone from these nations profited significantly from Iraqi oil? No.
Does it at all make sense to invade Iraq for oil? Nox10.
Were the Iraqi oil fields auctioned on the international market by the Iraqi government? Yes.
Who profited most from that? Russia and China.
Hmmm. No idea where I got that idea...AussieReaper wrote:
We didn't say there were no photos. We said that the photos presented didn't equal a thing once the invasion started.Dilbert_X wrote:
Did they? Did they really?
Invisible WMDs?AussieReaper wrote:
If they were invisible then what did all those satelite images show?Dilbert_X wrote:
What satellite images?
Where did I say those WMD were actually there? Oh, that's right...I didn't.AussieReaper wrote:
There since had been no evidence of any WMDs other than a few shells from the original Gulf War that were small scale and in no way of any use as a "mass destruction" weapon.
Where did all these weapons go? The facilities? The stockpiles of chemicals?
It has been explained. Over and over and over again. You're just like a little kid with his fingers stuck in his ears.Dilbert_X wrote:
So how was none of that found after the invasion?
Were all those text bubbles made up by drunk interns? They might as well have been given how much connection they had with reality.
'Sanitised bunker' 'decontamination truck' since we now know for certain Iraq's WMD programs had been closed down ten years prior all you're really doing is proving how poor the analysis of the supposed 'intel' really was.
No, they were satellite images of people doing what they (the people doing it) thought was decontamination of sites and movement of WMD. Why would they go through the effort of decontamination and clean up of a site the UN has announced it will visit if they aren't worried about what will be found there? Again--evidence that Hussein's people thought they had WMD, and acted accordingly. Exactly how he wanted it.Dilbert_X wrote:
What have you 'explained'?FEOS wrote:
You're not paying attention.Dilbert_X wrote:
How was anything 'corroborated' if there was never anything there?
I already explained that. I'm not going to enable your self-imposed reading comprehension problem by explaining it...again.
They were satellite images of exactly nothing. I could obtain satellite images of, say, Paris and stick lots of text bubbles based on the ramblings of some hobo all over them - it still wouldn't be proof of anything and I don't know why you're still trying to claim there was any concrete evidence of anything when its crystal clear there never was.
Way to completely ignore the next two posts. haha!FEOS wrote:
Hmmm. No idea where I got that idea...AussieReaper wrote:
We didn't say there were no photos. We said that the photos presented didn't equal a thing once the invasion started.Dilbert_X wrote:
Did they? Did they really?
Invisible WMDs?AussieReaper wrote:
If they were invisible then what did all those satelite images show?Dilbert_X wrote:
What satellite images?
Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh, those satellite photos.
I thought you had some real ones for a minute there.
AussieReaper wrote:
Nope. Just the stuff Powell gave to the UN.
Intel indicators must be different to actual intel. Because there was never any concrete evidence and most countries didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.Feos wrote:
Where did I say those WMD were actually there? Oh, that's right...I didn't.
I explained how the intel indicators led multiple countries to believe that there was an active WMD program.
Totally different concepts...which you would be able to grasp if you had any objectivity on the issue. Which you don't. So I'm basically banging my skull against a brick wall.
Then why go after oil fields at all if they were already selling their wares in dollars (ergo being part of the global US led evil empire economy)? You're not making much sense shahter.Shahter wrote:
@Shock: whether you will admit it or not, there's only one global economy, regardless. as long as one side can simply print as much money as they please it doesn't really matter who does actual business, produces stuff and turns the profit - the only important thing is that everybody gets involved.
Most countries?AussieReaper wrote:
Intel indicators must be different to actual intel. Because there was never any concrete evidence and most countries didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-03-05 11:18:46)
because saddam said he would not?Shocking wrote:
Then why go after oil fields at all if they were already selling their wares in dollars?Shahter wrote:
@Shock: whether you will admit it or not, there's only one global economy, regardless. as long as one side can simply print as much money as they please it doesn't really matter who does actual business, produces stuff and turns the profit - the only important thing is that everybody gets involved.
Says the guy who couldn't post the firearm injury stats after making a multiparagraph rant against gun ownership.Shocking wrote:
because you just like to talk shit about topics you know fuck all about.
What does that have to do with Saddam?Macbeth wrote:
Says the guy who couldn't post the firearm injury stats after making a multiparagraph rant against gun ownership.Shocking wrote:
because you just like to talk shit about topics you know fuck all about.
Be more hypocritical kthx
It doesn't have anything to do with Saddam. I am just jumping on you for accusing others of stuff you do.Shocking wrote:
What does that have to do with Saddam?Macbeth wrote:
Says the guy who couldn't post the firearm injury stats after making a multiparagraph rant against gun ownership.Shocking wrote:
because you just like to talk shit about topics you know fuck all about.
Be more hypocritical kthx
Besides I spent 2/3rd of the topic telling you in various ways that that stat was irrelevant yet you kept on tunnelvisioning the argument. Well done macbeth.
Figuring that legal gun ownership translates itself into more gun related crimes as compared to western countries where it's illegal must be crazy I know. So tell me again what the relevance of that statistic is if you can't reproduce similar ones for any other nation that has not legalized guns?Macbeth wrote:
It doesn't have anything to do with Saddam. I am just jumping on you for accusing others of stuff you do.Shocking wrote:
What does that have to do with Saddam?Macbeth wrote:
Says the guy who couldn't post the firearm injury stats after making a multiparagraph rant against gun ownership.
Be more hypocritical kthx
Besides I spent 2/3rd of the topic telling you in various ways that that stat was irrelevant yet you kept on tunnelvisioning the argument. Well done macbeth.
Yeah, the stat you didn't know doesn't matter. Uh huh
The stat was relevant because you made a post about gun violence and danger in a country you couldn't find or didn't know the amount of actual injuries related to guns. You wanted to argue stats without knowing all the stats.Shocking wrote:
Figuring that legal gun ownership translates itself into more gun related crimes as compared to western countries where it's illegal must be crazy I know. So tell me again what the relevance of that statistic is if you can't reproduce similar ones for any other nation that has not legalized guns?Macbeth wrote:
It doesn't have anything to do with Saddam. I am just jumping on you for accusing others of stuff you do.Shocking wrote:
What does that have to do with Saddam?
Besides I spent 2/3rd of the topic telling you in various ways that that stat was irrelevant yet you kept on tunnelvisioning the argument. Well done macbeth.
Yeah, the stat you didn't know doesn't matter. Uh huh
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-03-05 11:48:31)
Do France and Germany count? How did the UN vote on this invasion?Shahter wrote:
Most countries?AussieReaper wrote:
Intel indicators must be different to actual intel. Because there was never any concrete evidence and most countries didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.
Pretty much the majority of the western world did believe so. I can't speak for what the Chinese or Russians believed.
What is it really you're trying to say? That the evidence was 'doctored'? That all the hundreds or thousands of intelligence agents that were involved in the gathering of this information were actually all part of this evil plot to remove Saddam just because? Hurrdurr evil muricah?
I believe the major problem you people have is thinking the government is completely infallible. That mistakes cannot be made. That it is wholly impossible that the top officials who declared war on Iraq did so because they actually believed the evidence provided was accurate.
Surely it cannot be the case that errors were made (by humans no less)?
Now that we've been granted our 20/20 hindsight vision it's very easy to state that "Saddam never had any WMDs!" but if you just for a moment consider the pictures, the facts around his chemical, biological and most importantly nuclear research and do this with the period of 2001-2002 in mind it suddenly isn't so strange anymore to imagine that people were (rightfully) highly suspicious of Saddam, even to the point where war would be considered to stop him. Given his history, for anyone who actually read up on it, it makes a whole lot of sense. I doubt you or Dilbert did actually read anything though because you just like to talk shit about topics you know fuck all about.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-03-05 12:16:09)
yes they did. germany especially said that the us must not believe curveballShocking wrote:
Germany and France didn't dispute the accuracy of the reports they just didn't want to invade Iraq.