No, this is a mature debate. People don't get owned. We have discussions. I only half disagreed with Kmarion anyway.=MI5=CHRISTIAN wrote:
/owned
/owned.
/owned.
You are correct btw Bubbalo. I just picked the most influential organization to demonstrate my point. When all the hurricanes came through and hurt our gulf coast region it had a direct affect on the price of oil. My point was people seem to be under the misguided idea that we invaded Iraq, took control of their oil, and now are simply stealing the oil from the Iraqi people. Listen, if you are against the war there are valid points that could be pointed out easily. It just does not make any sense when you have come to understand what happens when the faucet is turned off by the ones who really have the power to do so. I am probably one of the closest people to "center" in these forums which gives me a clear and open mind. I am just encouraging people to do some real research to understand how the market works. I would like to see people form their own opinions in these forums rather than simply youtube posting someone else's from time to time. Anyone can choose their own news source to push a view on someone. I would like to see members here bring something new to the table more often.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The fact that the man sitting in the white house for during the 90's was a liberal democrat, might have something t odo with it. Clinton thought Iraq wasa real threat all during his administration as well. Matter of fact google it and you can read all day long on Clintons views and actions and non-actions concerning Iraq.Bubbalo wrote:
Then why did you wait so long? What precipitated the sudden interest in Iraq?lowing wrote:
Iraq was about Saddam and his ignoring the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire.
And yet Bush didn't talk about it until well into his term. And he had almost a year before Sept 11 to talk about it.
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.Bubbalo wrote:
And yet Bush didn't talk about it until well into his term. And he had almost a year before Sept 11 to talk about it.
US backed illegal Iraqi oil deals.
The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon, whose 21 billion barrels are worth $1.5 trillion at today's prices.
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
Meanwhile, major oil firms were positioning themselves so that they'd have the best contacts in the new government. According to the Associated Press, "The world's three biggest integrated oil companies" -- BP, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell -- "struck cooperation or training deals with Iraq" in 2005. "It's a way to maintain contact and get the oil officials to know about them," former Iraqi Oil Minister Issam Chalabi told the AP. And it seems to have worked; in May, Iraq's current oil minister, Husayn al-Shahristani, said that one of his top priorities would be to finalize an oil law and sign contracts with "the largest companies."
The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon, whose 21 billion barrels are worth $1.5 trillion at today's prices.
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
Meanwhile, major oil firms were positioning themselves so that they'd have the best contacts in the new government. According to the Associated Press, "The world's three biggest integrated oil companies" -- BP, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell -- "struck cooperation or training deals with Iraq" in 2005. "It's a way to maintain contact and get the oil officials to know about them," former Iraqi Oil Minister Issam Chalabi told the AP. And it seems to have worked; in May, Iraq's current oil minister, Husayn al-Shahristani, said that one of his top priorities would be to finalize an oil law and sign contracts with "the largest companies."
No, I'm talking about pre-9/11, when he was not pushing it. Your theory does not pan out.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.Bubbalo wrote:
And yet Bush didn't talk about it until well into his term. And he had almost a year before Sept 11 to talk about it.
If Bush was really as worried about the sanctions as he claimed to be, why did he wait so long to do anything?
This is the problem with a lot of the Republican support base. The PNAC has been drawing up US government strategies for years now. Under Bush it has had the chance to implement some of those plans. They sell their plan under a 'gullible voter friendly' label - fearmongering with respect to Iraq in the wake of 9/11 allowed them to drum up enough support to realise a long term aim of theirs - the invasion of Iraq. The public bought it.
So what happened when no weapons of mass destruction were found there? "That doesn't matter - we were liberating Iraq from a vile regime". Again the public bought it.
Then there was the Abu Ghraib scandal which the government initially tried to suppress. "These things happen. It wasn't our fault. We'll bring those responsible to justice!". The public were happy the matter was being 'dealt with'.
Iraq filled with terrorists from all over the middle east, to beef up the rival Sunni and Shi'a militias already in existence in Iraq. Elections were held. A consititution was ratified and a government elected. "Job done. When are we leaving?" said the public. "When the Iraqis are ready to fight the terrorists in their country. This is all part of the war on terror. If we leave, the terrorists win." But aren't large numbers of Iraqis those 'terrorists' of which they spoke? There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the invasion - what went wrong?. "Look here buddy - this is a war on terror. No exit strategies or the terrorists think they've won!". The American public bought it. They also failed to ask why only a fraction of the troops in Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan - the bona fide home of Al Qaeda.
Iraq descends into anarchic civil war with in excess of 100 lives claimed every day and the US army death toll steadily climbing. The American public finally realise they've been duped. The Democrats take both the house and Senate. Bush is politically paralysed. When all is lost, he finally desparately admits the original PNAC goal in Iraq "We must protect their oil resources."
I thought it was about WMD George? Oh no I mean 'removing an evil dictator and liberating Iraq'. Oh no I mean 'fighting terror'. Americans have hopefully learned a valuable lesson and have turned the corner as it were. Let's make sure the NEEDLESS deaths of your fellow countrymen in uniform and the people of a distant nation never comes to pass again. I hope that all the business contacts of Bush and the neo-cons can sleep at night having gorged themselves on the opportunities for corruption and embezzlement being exposed in Iraq now during the 'reconstruction' effort while Iraqi men, women and children get their heads blown off on a daily basis.
So what happened when no weapons of mass destruction were found there? "That doesn't matter - we were liberating Iraq from a vile regime". Again the public bought it.
Then there was the Abu Ghraib scandal which the government initially tried to suppress. "These things happen. It wasn't our fault. We'll bring those responsible to justice!". The public were happy the matter was being 'dealt with'.
Iraq filled with terrorists from all over the middle east, to beef up the rival Sunni and Shi'a militias already in existence in Iraq. Elections were held. A consititution was ratified and a government elected. "Job done. When are we leaving?" said the public. "When the Iraqis are ready to fight the terrorists in their country. This is all part of the war on terror. If we leave, the terrorists win." But aren't large numbers of Iraqis those 'terrorists' of which they spoke? There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the invasion - what went wrong?. "Look here buddy - this is a war on terror. No exit strategies or the terrorists think they've won!". The American public bought it. They also failed to ask why only a fraction of the troops in Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan - the bona fide home of Al Qaeda.
Iraq descends into anarchic civil war with in excess of 100 lives claimed every day and the US army death toll steadily climbing. The American public finally realise they've been duped. The Democrats take both the house and Senate. Bush is politically paralysed. When all is lost, he finally desparately admits the original PNAC goal in Iraq "We must protect their oil resources."
I thought it was about WMD George? Oh no I mean 'removing an evil dictator and liberating Iraq'. Oh no I mean 'fighting terror'. Americans have hopefully learned a valuable lesson and have turned the corner as it were. Let's make sure the NEEDLESS deaths of your fellow countrymen in uniform and the people of a distant nation never comes to pass again. I hope that all the business contacts of Bush and the neo-cons can sleep at night having gorged themselves on the opportunities for corruption and embezzlement being exposed in Iraq now during the 'reconstruction' effort while Iraqi men, women and children get their heads blown off on a daily basis.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-09 10:56:34)
Cameron, hoping American soldiers don't die is un-patriotic you Communist Jihadii sympathiser! Why don't you just go have a party with Stalin and Osama you dirty peace loving hippy!
Hey - they've mended their evil ways Bubbalo!!! Nothing bad will ever happen again!!! I'm off outside to go and play.Bubbalo wrote:
Cameron, hoping American soldiers don't die is un-patriotic you Communist Jihadii sympathiser! Why don't you just go have a party with Stalin and Osama you dirty peace loving hippy!
Then listen to Clinton, he pointed to Saddam's refusing resolutions plenty. Was he wrong, too?Sacula wrote:
Around 20 seconds in the clip Bush says: "uhhh..the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had WMD...he didn't but he had the capacity to make WMD's..."
Not ONCE do I hear him talk about Iraq refusing UN resolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
It does pan out. Bush was wasting time with the worthless UN trying to throw a bone to the Dems. Classic . . . criticism no matter what course of action was taken. Try the UN route, that never works, so we go and take care of Saddam and suddenly we're the bad guys because the administration has changed from Dem to Rep! I've posted many, many times from speeches made by Clinton condemning Saddam and his disregard for UN sanction. You can use the search function, I'm not posting all those links again.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I'm talking about pre-9/11, when he was not pushing it. Your theory does not pan out.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.Bubbalo wrote:
And yet Bush didn't talk about it until well into his term. And he had almost a year before Sept 11 to talk about it.
If Bush was really as worried about the sanctions as he claimed to be, why did he wait so long to do anything?
Kracker as dumb as this administration is you and I both know the sale of Iraqi oil would never be in the name of the United States. Secondly, the sale of Iraqi oil is down substantially due to the lack of a steady power supply. Terrorist attacks and the private contractors pulling out before they fulfilled the obligation of rebuilding Iraq.kr@cker wrote:
he said he wanted to keep the T's from getting their fingers in it, not that he wanted to take it for himself, it's been a few years, perhaps one of you can show me the sale of a few million bbl's of iraqui oil in the name of the USA.
He didn't invade the country though.Stingray24 wrote:
Then listen to Clinton, he pointed to Saddam's refusing resolutions plenty. Was he wrong, too?Sacula wrote:
Around 20 seconds in the clip Bush says: "uhhh..the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had WMD...he didn't but he had the capacity to make WMD's..."
Not ONCE do I hear him talk about Iraq refusing UN resolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Iraq's oil production I believe is about 2 million barrels a day. Pre-war levels were at 2.5. It has been stated by the Iraq's oil minister to roughly double over the next four years to 4 million barrels a day.GATOR591957 wrote:
Kracker as dumb as this administration is you and I both know the sale of Iraqi oil would never be in the name of the United States. Secondly, the sale of Iraqi oil is down substantially due to the lack of a steady power supply. Terrorist attacks and the private contractors pulling out before they fulfilled the obligation of rebuilding Iraq.kr@cker wrote:
he said he wanted to keep the T's from getting their fingers in it, not that he wanted to take it for himself, it's been a few years, perhaps one of you can show me the sale of a few million bbl's of iraqui oil in the name of the USA.
It is the US's best interest for Iraq to have a sustainable economy of it's own. In case you haven't figured it out yet OIL is it's economy.
For those final people who still cling to the idea that Iraq was all about oil I invite you to read this Executive Order issued by the President of the United States.
George W. Bush, "Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest," May 22, 2003
Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has An Interest
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and
(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
Sec. 2. (a) As of the effective date of this order, Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, Executive Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, and Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003, shall not apply to the property and interests in property described in section 1 of this order.
(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or 13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA, except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in section 2(a) of this order.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any juris-diction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) The term "Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" means any petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-origin oil inventories, wherever located; and
(e) The term "Development Fund for Iraq" means the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the name of the fund.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulga-tion of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their statutory authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
(b) Nothing contained in this order shall relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Sec. 5. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 22, 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 22-15.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Correct, at the same time Clinton was describing Iraq as a developing threat, he wasn't doing anything about it, just like the UN sat on it's rear. GWB described Saddam the exact same way Clinton did, but GWB is the bad guy because he acted, instead of pointing his finger and waiting for the UN to do something? Did things change retroactively when the administration changed hands?GATOR591957 wrote:
He didn't invade the country though.Stingray24 wrote:
Then listen to Clinton, he pointed to Saddam's refusing resolutions plenty. Was he wrong, too?Sacula wrote:
Around 20 seconds in the clip Bush says: "uhhh..the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had WMD...he didn't but he had the capacity to make WMD's..."
Not ONCE do I hear him talk about Iraq refusing UN resolutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Bush Jr. has had a RADICALLY different FP strategy than was the norm during Clinton, Bush Sr. and the Last 4 years of Reagan. Bush is very into liberal philosophy (not liberalism, don't be stupid and point this out or I will tear you a new one on cross) and nation building.Kmarion wrote:
It's almost as if something major happened in between the two wars on US soil that maybe changed our policy... Anyways I suggest for anyone who thinks Iraq was all about oil to make an effort and truly try to understand how the cost of oil is really dictated.
On a side note you said that Sr knew the region would be "compromised". Has there ever been stability in the Mid-East? (Serious question)
Stability in terms of today? Yes. Part of the reason we instigate dictators in the Middle East country is to control the region. As I said, Hussein acted as a buffer to Iran.
Kind of like Iran and Korea huh? Don't see a lot being done there and they have or will have nuclear power. That is known.Stingray24 wrote:
Correct, at the same time Clinton was describing Iraq as a developing threat, he wasn't doing anything about it, just like the UN sat on it's rear. GWB described Saddam the exact same way Clinton did, but GWB is the bad guy because he acted, instead of pointing his finger and waiting for the UN to do something? Did things change retroactively when the administration changed hands?GATOR591957 wrote:
He didn't invade the country though.Stingray24 wrote:
Then listen to Clinton, he pointed to Saddam's refusing resolutions plenty. Was he wrong, too?
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-11-09 13:18:30)
asked and answer bubbalo read it again.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I'm talking about pre-9/11, when he was not pushing it. Your theory does not pan out.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.Bubbalo wrote:
And yet Bush didn't talk about it until well into his term. And he had almost a year before Sept 11 to talk about it.
If Bush was really as worried about the sanctions as he claimed to be, why did he wait so long to do anything?
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis, 2500 Americans, and didn't bring civil war to Iraq.Stingray24 wrote:
Correct, at the same time Clinton was describing Iraq as a developing threat, he wasn't doing anything about it, just like the UN sat on it's rear. GWB described Saddam the exact same way Clinton did, but GWB is the bad guy because he acted, instead of pointing his finger and waiting for the UN to do something? Did things change retroactively when the administration changed hands?GATOR591957 wrote:
He didn't invade the country though.Stingray24 wrote:
Then listen to Clinton, he pointed to Saddam's refusing resolutions plenty. Was he wrong, too?
Not even worth responding to..............suffice it to say, you need to post a real argument. Or someone could come back and say something just as stupid.sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis, 2500 Americans, and didn't bring civil war to Iraq.Stingray24 wrote:
Correct, at the same time Clinton was describing Iraq as a developing threat, he wasn't doing anything about it, just like the UN sat on it's rear. GWB described Saddam the exact same way Clinton did, but GWB is the bad guy because he acted, instead of pointing his finger and waiting for the UN to do something? Did things change retroactively when the administration changed hands?GATOR591957 wrote:
He didn't invade the country though.
May be, who knows? Any idea?lowing wrote:
Not even worth responding to..............suffice it to say, you need to post a real argument. Or someone could come back and say something just as stupid.sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis, 2500 Americans, and didn't bring civil war to Iraq.Stingray24 wrote:
Correct, at the same time Clinton was describing Iraq as a developing threat, he wasn't doing anything about it, just like the UN sat on it's rear. GWB described Saddam the exact same way Clinton did, but GWB is the bad guy because he acted, instead of pointing his finger and waiting for the UN to do something? Did things change retroactively when the administration changed hands?
yeah, jonsimon.sergeriver wrote:
May be, who knows? Any idea?lowing wrote:
Not even worth responding to..............suffice it to say, you need to post a real argument. Or someone could come back and say something just as stupid.sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis, 2500 Americans, and didn't bring civil war to Iraq.
Lowing > acid humor.lowing wrote:
yeah, jonsimon.sergeriver wrote:
May be, who knows? Any idea?lowing wrote:
Not even worth responding to..............suffice it to say, you need to post a real argument. Or someone could come back and say something just as stupid.
Yup and Clinton was the Only president in history brought before the grand jury and lied.IRONCHEF wrote:
Wow..another impeachable offense..by commission! lol