FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

[Guest]

I am sick of people saying GW is after Iraqi oil. If anti-war activists had two brain cells to rub together or a longer attention span then a cockspaniel they would realize the oil GW wants is in ALASKA not Iraq. Now that he has a republican controlled congress he could push that through without too much problem so that critisism of a war on iraq has got to stop being used.

[Anonymous]

I concur.

[peaccenicked]

I suupose this article is just propaganda then..
Why bother reading it.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/...2055034013.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/22/1032055034013.html)

[Tkinter1]

Whoa, if it's in an Australian newspaper it must be true.

[RedCeltic]

I’m often surprised at how little the supporters of capitalism and the status quo know about how capitalism is run and money is made.

While unexplored regions of Alaska that are currently environmentally protected potentially have fossil fuels, oil was discovered in Iraq 75 years ago. Ever since it’s discovery Iraq’s foreign policy has been marked with the stuff. While Bush has never come out and said that Oil as at the heart of the reasons for toppling Saddam, military action in Iraq will affect the world market.

Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves in the world, the second largest is Iraq. Today, it is believed that Iraq may possess even greater reserves than previously estimated in under explored and underdeveloped regions. Enough to rival Saudi Arabia.


The United States has already tried to gain support of military action by promise of a role in the post war oil development in Iraq. French, Russian and Chinese companies have already invested in revitalizing Iraqi oil industry. With a friendlier regime, the world could see a substantial increase in Iraq’s oil output.

War on Iraq is not only about oil by any stretch of the imagination. However there is an oil dimension in the motivation to attack Iraq. Ousting Saddam will open up the country to American companies that have long been banished from the nation. Deals are already being reshuffled in world petroleum markets. As the United States tries to push for harsher restrictions on Iraq, it finds that the nations oil an important bargaining chip in negotiations to win backing of the UN. All five members of the security council have international oil companies investing in Baghdad.


(Edited by RedCeltic at 11:28 pm on Dec. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

It is not Fox/CNN speak, must be too much for you to handle., Sorry for trying to make your brain muscles move.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:37 am on Dec. 29, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

Peaccnicked, that was just a lame attempt to discedit the article you posted. The Washington Post recently ran a similar story.

[peaccenicked]

thanx RC

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Guest on 4:01 am on Dec. 29, 2002
I am sick of people saying GW is after Iraqi oil. If anti-war activists had two brain cells to rub together or a longer attention span then a cockspaniel they would realize the oil GW wants is in ALASKA not Iraq. Now that he has a republican controlled congress he could push that through without too much problem so that critisism of a war on iraq has got to stop being used.


Um, ever heard of using everyone else's oil first? then Bush can charge loads for the stuff in Alaska or just use it all when everywhere else runds out. How about it?

[BOZG]

Bush also knows that he faces a battle and public outcry if he destroys Alaska while it is much easier for him to whip up a wave of patriotism and support for a supposed "war on terrorism" where he can install his influence.

[RedCeltic]

Not to mention the simple fact that there is a hell of alot more of the stuff in Iraq.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 4:38 pm on Dec. 29, 2002
Bush also knows that he faces a battle and public outcry if he destroys Alaska while it is much easier for him to whip up a wave of patriotism and support for a supposed "war on terrorism" where he can install his influence.

...and Bush has lots of other lovely reasons for going in there: he's distracting his potential voters from his past, which is particualrly sordid, and he is also taking attention away from Israel and Palestine, while also trying to uphold the Bush name.

[BOZG]

Some people may disagree and think this is an awful thing to say but September 11th was a blessing for Bush and the greatest thing that could have happened to him during his Presidency.

[Communist Chris]

Quote: from Guest on 11:01 am on Dec. 29, 2002
I am sick of people saying GW is after Iraqi oil. If anti-war activists had two brain cells to rub together or a longer attention span then a cockspaniel they would realize the oil GW wants is in ALASKA not Iraq. Now that he has a republican controlled congress he could push that through without too much problem so that critisism of a war on iraq has got to stop being used.

Dude if they take out Saddam there will be 1.2 billon barrels of crude oil. Iraq is the second major producer of oil after Saudi Arabia.

[ComradeJunichi]

Some people may disagree and think this is an awful thing to say but September 11th was a blessing for Bush and the greatest thing that could have happened to him during his Presidency.

A blessing to Bush? That could have happened to him? Hm, I think it 'happened by him'. The pieces do not fit, they really don't.

I'm going to write up a report and my theory on it, in the next week or so...:P!

[Panamarisen]

I agree with ComradeJunichi: pieces just don´t fit. For instance, the crashing of the airplane on the Pentagon doesn´t look real at all if we watch carefully the photographs. And the plane itself apparently just "vanished" after it. This sort of things is still being studied by specialists, as far as I know...

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[ComradeJunichi]

A lot of my facts will be coming from 9/11 Aftermath videos on GNN, but also some of my own research. I shall present a great theory! Haha, jk.

Anyway, here's just a few...Why the military didn't intervene, or why it took them so long. Why they weren't prepared? September 12th, 1970. They had briefings saying planes may be highjacked, blah blah. Intelligence from France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Germany said planes (United and American) maybe highjacked one from at least an airport in Boston, being crashed into the WTC.

Blah, blah...Yes it's true the facts don't piece together, but we have to ask why. Instead of just jumping to a conclusion that Bush is evil and he wants 'oil', like everyone says. Now WHY would the Bush administration want to crash airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and etc? Because they were bored? I'm pretty positive that's not it. Why? You will read in my report, one of the theories! Hehe...

[HankMorgan]

The other side of the equation is more important.

Saddam Hussein has in the past attempted the annexation of Kuwait and used poison gas on people in his own country to name a few of his crimes against humanity. It would be foolish to give this man the kind of money that comes from having the second largest reserves of oil in the world. Only the most naive and simple minded would believe that he would spend the oil revenues on the Iraqi people.

Most people are good and want nothing more than to be left alone to live life as they see best. This includes people in the Middle East as well as the US. However, there is a tiny, tiny population of assholes in the world such as Bin Laden, Hussien and Arafat who for various reasons have to ruin life for the vast population of people who just want to live peacefully. From time to time things come to a head and the good people in the world have to take out the trash. The attack of 9/11/2001 was an indicator that the time has come again.

Life will be ugly and brutal for awhile, perhaps years but when the hard work is over, people, all people everywhere will be better off. When good rises in indignant anger, there can be only one outcome.

Saddam Hussein's time has come.

[synthesis]

Saddam Hussein has in the past attempted the annexation of Kuwait and used poison gas on people in his own country to name a few of his crimes against humanity.

Kuwait consists of a bunch of fucking political prostitutes with the exception of a few good people; for the latter, the U.S. government encouraged him to do so.

However, there is a tiny, tiny population of assholes in the world such as Bin Laden, Hussien and Arafat who for various reasons have to ruin life for the vast population of people who just want to live peacefully.

Note that the U.S. installed the fomer two. I'm no universal supporter of Arafat, but I prefer him over that fucking war criminal, Ariel Sharon.



________________
ComradeJunichi:

Check this link out, is this what you meant?

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...eTerrorism.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html)

I don't really agree with its main thesis, but it makes a pretty damn good case.

[HankMorgan]

DyerMaker, do you favor letting Saddam Hussein have the oil revenues from the world's second largest reserve? Do think he will do good deeds with that kind of money?

[ComradeJunichi]

Wasn't Kuwait part of Iraq? Just wondering. Why didn't the good ol' US of A stop the gassing of the Kurds?

Regime change! Yeah, history prooves the US has a great taste in new *****es.

I don't want to read it, but I bookmarked it. I have an agonizing headache right now. And I think I'm in a *****y mood. Gah, I'll write more about my idea later.

[synthesis]

DyerMaker, do you favor letting Saddam Hussein have the oil revenues from the world's second largest reserve?

Hank Morgan, do you favor letting the U.S. kill over 200,000 Iraqi civilians to further capitalist bloodlust?

Do think he will do good deeds with that kind of money?

Touché.

[BOZG]

Joon,
I was trying to avoid the starting of a conspiracy theory thread.

[ComradeJunichi]

Joon,
I was trying to avoid the starting of a conspiracy theory thread.

What?

[Communist Chris]

I just think it is not right to go into Iraq. Anyways the US always uses airraids when they go in there. A bomb dosn't care who you are. You can be the richest guy in the world but it the bomb dosen't care it will simply explode. My point is that innocent civilians will die over some nonsense! And another thing is that in the news they only talk about the war with Iraq. Why aren't they not talking about bombing North kore or something? Propaganda? Hank Morgan your agruments are true about Saddam not using the money for good deeds. I think he has the weapons just to protect his nation from an American invasion. but what if he dosen't have the weapons? Will America go in? If the American army goes in it really is for the oil!The guy may be a mad man but he must have a good side, sorta like the grinch.

(Edited by Communist Chris at 8:07 am on Dec. 30, 2002)

[ComradeJunichi]

North Korea is all over the news, what do you mean? And I wouldn't like to hear things about North Korea being bomb, considering my life is 30 minutes away.

[Anonymous]

it is not a conspiracy theory, USA gov. knew ther kurds were being exterminated, and did nothing, well, they did sold guns, and technology, but to sadam, like england and other west countrys.....

[PlasticJesus]

Quote: from the anarchist on 3:04 am on Dec. 30, 2002
it is not a conspiracy theory, USA gov. knew ther kurds were being exterminated, and did nothing, well, they did sold guns, and technology, but to sadam, like england and other west countrys.....

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

[ComradeJunichi]

Can I get a source? I'd like to read up on this deeply.

[Lysenko]

Quote: from PlasticJesus on 3:27 am on Dec. 30, 2002

Quote: from the anarchist on 3:04 am on Dec. 30, 2002
it is not a conspiracy theory, USA gov. knew ther kurds were being exterminated, and did nothing, well, they did sold guns, and technology, but to sadam, like england and other west countrys.....

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.


I heard differently. This so called Iraqi attack on their own civilians never occured. Kurds were caught in the cross fire of a battle between the iranians and iraqi. Only a few were actually even killed.

Of course i could be wrong.

[Umoja]

Saddam shouldn't be in power, but neither should quite a few world leaders. Why doesn't the United States care about Angola or the Congo? Wars have gone on non-stop there! I've heard over three million people have died in the war in the Congo, but does the United States care? No! Congolese don't fund terrorist, they make diamonds to sell to the United States, so they can further kill themselves!

But Iraq has oil, even though the citizens don't appear to be in open revolt, Saddam must be a terrible leader. Saddam must be using his national resources like most world dictators! To buy more weapon crap from the west!

Imperialism+Rice White Men (Japanese are catching up though)= Trouble!!!

[synthesis]

I've heard over three million people have died in the war in the Congo, but does the United States care? No!

Probably due to the fact that it's their fault in the first place.

[Stormin Norman]

Probably due to the fact that it's their fault in the first place.

Good call!

[synthesis]

Good call!

No, I meant that the war is the USA's fault in that Sese Soko is our *****.

[Umoja]

Our Diamond *****.

[mentalbunny]

Well I don't know very much myself on this subject, but according to my mother's friend the people who are being supported by the US to take over when Saddam is chicked otu are far worse.

Ok, Saddam's been a right bastard but at least he knows what he's doing, he's not mad, he's very intelligent but he has no scruples. He may have a lot of faults but apparently his potential succesors are much worse. If anyone knows anything about them can they give me some info on them.