Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.
You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
GET REAL!
I used to support Bush. That was before he insulted my intelligence.
Yea and either should have France, Germany, Italy, the UN ... France should not have signed a special oil deal with the dictator that would go into effect when sanctions ended. This only emboldened Saddam and encouraged him to ignore the UN and not comply with 1441. But we're not her for a honest assessment of how the French propped up Saddam and hastened the war. We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.
Except for the last sentence. I agree completely.
Quote:
We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.
No just certain political officials that SHOULD be held accountable and not be given a free pass under the guise of patriotism.
Quote:
shoulda coulda woulda Not going all the way was the first time was the biggest mistake. I doubt we'll make that again.
What is it with Bushes, that country and Mistakes... ?
The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.
Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???
Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.
_Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussein, ?Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?
_ _ _ _Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq?s intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium.
We've been strangling Iraq's economy for 12 years.
But it's been shown in previous threads that the history of this situation isn't your forte, so we should just let that go for now.
---
Harald:
Quote:
Put it another way: the money generated by this oil will flow directly to US conglomerates. It will not flow into the Iraqi economy until this COLOSSAL debt is paid off. This enormous debt that no Iraqi has OK'd. This enormous debt that will keep Iraq in indirect economic control by the US for eh well, for ever.
All that money could have gone to Iraqi industry.
You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?
Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?
You're making very broad statements with very very little information.
You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
GET REAL!
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
Who said the situation in Afghanistan is the same as in Iraq. The outcome may have been but the reason for going in is very different (or at least it was somewhat clear in Afghanistan...)
It gets uglier. The Taliban lusted after the $25 million a year in would-be pipeline royalties. Such a prize leads William O. Beeman, a professor at Brown University who's an authority on Central Asia, to conclude that Osama bin Laden's bombings in 1998 of U.S. embassies in Africa were designed to nip the budding relationship between the Taliban and Western interests. "Bin Laden didn't want the Taliban to be in bed with the U.S.," he says. "It would have made his position untenable."
Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???
Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.
Just something to think about for once.
Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.
SHUT UP
Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
Here is a clue... Not me.. Get a Clue.
Do you care to understand why I am upset at Bush?
Do you care to actually know my point of view? Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?
I am against this war in Iraq because it was sold with lies. ohhh "mistakes"
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"
When that day comes trust me there will be those who want to knock us off our perch.
If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.
If he is less than that I will not vote for the guy again. VERY VERY SIMPLE
Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?
I agree with you here... I am not anti-US
I am anti-Bush
The form of freedom the American People have is top notch. The actions of the Bush Admin is another story. Don't try to mesh the two together.
According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.
When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.
Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.
Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.
Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.
When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.
After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.
SHUT UP
Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
It's a place where we also intervened. Your words:
Quote:
So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
I can understand why you don't want me to mention Afghanistan. It doesn't fit your cynicism.
Quote:
Do you care to actually know my point of view?
You're telling me to SHUT UP and I'm suposed to care about YOUR point of view? Actually I do. That is, if you have something to contribute more than bitterness and vitriol.
Quote:
Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?
I've criticized him in the past and I will in the future. I simply have no problem with the intervention in Iraq. A year ago I thought it was the right thing to do and I still think that way. You say Bush lied. When? When he said Saddam had WMDs? Even anti-war people didn't dare claim prior to the war that he didn't have WMDs.
Quote:
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"
Actually, Hitler did quite a bit more than that.
Quote:
If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.
If you're going to get cranky with me, I want something more serious than SHUT UP. Really now.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.
You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
GET REAL!
I used to support Bush. That was before he insulted my intelligence.
Fellowship
Yea and either should have France, Germany, Italy, the UN ... France should not have signed a special oil deal with the dictator that would go into effect when sanctions ended. This only emboldened Saddam and encouraged him to ignore the UN and not comply with 1441. But we're not her for a honest assessment of how the French propped up Saddam and hastened the war. We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.
Except for the last sentence. I agree completely.
We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.
No just certain political officials that SHOULD be held accountable and not be given a free pass under the guise of patriotism.
shoulda coulda woulda Not going all the way was the first time was the biggest mistake. I doubt we'll make that again.
What is it with Bushes, that country and Mistakes... ?
Originally posted by SDW2001
The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.
Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???
Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.
Just something to think about for once.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Scott
Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.
There are still lots of them around just like him so what's your point?
_Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussein, ?Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?
_ _ _ _Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq?s intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium.
Fellowship
We shouldn't be there in the first place!
We've been strangling Iraq's economy for 12 years.
But it's been shown in previous threads that the history of this situation isn't your forte, so we should just let that go for now.
---
Harald:
Put it another way: the money generated by this oil will flow directly to US conglomerates. It will not flow into the Iraqi economy until this COLOSSAL debt is paid off. This enormous debt that no Iraqi has OK'd. This enormous debt that will keep Iraq in indirect economic control by the US for eh well, for ever.
All that money could have gone to Iraqi industry.
You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?
Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?
You're making very broad statements with very very little information.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Groverat why are we in Iraq?
Fellowship
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.
Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.
But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.
Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.
Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.
But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.
1) yes
2) not sure : Saudi Arabia is much a safer place for US troops than Iraq, where many soldiers are attacked week after week.
3) Gain influence : yes, Growing exponentially ? : i hope it for Iraq, but it's not a cakewalk
4) it's possible, but the reverse is also possible, the future will tell. This is a very difficult task.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
GET REAL!
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.
Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.
But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.
1. Yes but with this regard it was because Saddam had WOMD and was a threat. Uh huh.
2. I'll bet they are still there 10 years from now.
3. Yes I expect some kind of monetary return.
4. And lose half a dozen others in other regions.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
Who said the situation in Afghanistan is the same as in Iraq. The outcome may have been but the reason for going in is very different (or at least it was somewhat clear in Afghanistan...)
(not that i think it was the majoirty of the case there, it was all about taking out al -queda. )
There was talk of some oil pipeline that corps.were drooling over before 9/11.
Here's some links from google.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/p...e_timeline.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1749
Message to oppressed people: Dig for oil!
Ugg:
from the forbes article:
It gets uglier. The Taliban lusted after the $25 million a year in would-be pipeline royalties. Such a prize leads William O. Beeman, a professor at Brown University who's an authority on Central Asia, to conclude that Osama bin Laden's bombings in 1998 of U.S. embassies in Africa were designed to nip the budding relationship between the Taliban and Western interests. "Bin Laden didn't want the Taliban to be in bed with the U.S.," he says. "It would have made his position untenable."
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???
Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.
Just something to think about for once.
Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.
SHUT UP
Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
Here is a clue... Not me.. Get a Clue.
Do you care to understand why I am upset at Bush?
Do you care to actually know my point of view? Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?
I am against this war in Iraq because it was sold with lies. ohhh "mistakes"
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"
When that day comes trust me there will be those who want to knock us off our perch.
If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.
If he is less than that I will not vote for the guy again. VERY VERY SIMPLE
Fellowship
Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
He really should read the links i posted above....
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?
I agree with you here... I am not anti-US
I am anti-Bush
The form of freedom the American People have is top notch. The actions of the Bush Admin is another story. Don't try to mesh the two together.
Fellowship
According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.
When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.
Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.
Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.
Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.
goes on in link below:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
oh geez:
When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.
SHUT UP
Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
It's a place where we also intervened. Your words:
So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
I can understand why you don't want me to mention Afghanistan. It doesn't fit your cynicism.
Do you care to actually know my point of view?
You're telling me to SHUT UP and I'm suposed to care about YOUR point of view? Actually I do. That is, if you have something to contribute more than bitterness and vitriol.
Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?
I've criticized him in the past and I will in the future. I simply have no problem with the intervention in Iraq. A year ago I thought it was the right thing to do and I still think that way. You say Bush lied. When? When he said Saddam had WMDs? Even anti-war people didn't dare claim prior to the war that he didn't have WMDs.
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"
Actually, Hitler did quite a bit more than that.
If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.
If you're going to get cranky with me, I want something more serious than SHUT UP. Really now.