Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 22, 2003, 09:01:22 PM
-
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030523/D7R6N4PG1.html
Putting aside bitter divisions over the Iraqi war, the U.N. Security Council gave the United States and Britain a mandate Thursday to govern Iraq and use its oil riches to rebuild the country. The resolution opened the door to a quick resumption of oil exports.
The 14-0 vote was a victory for the Bush administration, which won the backing of the chief opponents to the Iraq war - France, Russia and Germany - even though those nations felt the United Nations wound up with too little say in shaping Iraq's future.
Syria, the sole Arab country on the council, was absent during the vote. Syria's deputy U.N. ambassador Fayssal Mekdad told the council later Thursday that his government would have voted for the resolution if the vote had been delayed for a few hours as he requested. He said he wanted the record to reflect that the vote would have been unanimous.
The resolution immediately ends economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, opening the country to international trade and investment.
So, those that opposed the war..... what part of the war don't you like? If the only argument against it was that you feel you don't like the stated reasons for the war, then you really have little or nothing to argue about.
Iraq is now free of UN santions, Saddam is gone, Iraqis are free and the UN security counsel unanimously endorsed US and UK rule in Iraq, as well as the end of sanctions.
How many more worms are left that will still argue that the war and it's outcome was a bad thing?
Oh, by the way, Russia, Germany and even France are back-peddling and hoping to mend ties with the US.
-
We have not found any WMD. If they do exist, we don't know who, if anyone, has them in possession. If there aren't any, we were either lied to by the Bush administration, or our intelligence services failed mightily. But hey! No biggie! USA is number 1, baby!!!!!!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
We have not found any WMD. If they do exist, we don't know who, if anyone, has them in possession. If there aren't any, we were either lied to by the Bush administration, or our intelligence services failed mightily. But hey! No biggie! USA is number 1, baby!!!!!!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
so what part of the war was bad? That we didn't find WMD yet or the fact that Iraqis are free, UN lifted sanctions and Saddamn is gone?
You can't argue that the war had a negative outcome, can you? And since you can't argue that the outcome was negative, you can only sight the "reasons" for the war ( and possitive outcome) as your source of misery.
You people are sad, yet funny
-
the part of the war that's bad is that we attacked a Sovereign nation for OIL ..... not for our own safety, HA!... for OIL .... as long as your fine with that ... All of the war is bad .. do you know half the crap 'we' did in the name of WMD .. err i mean Iraq freedom .. err i mean OIL... proably not .. US media doesn't report the hospitals we bombed .. instead they talk about rescued women soldiger's.. great happy propganda drama
The problem is it's dough and your eating it ..
"You people are sad yet funny."
Funny, we (anti-war) think the same thing about you.
-
Yes Manedew it was about oil - US soldiers are returning home with buckets of the stuff...
Since you anti war types are so fond of asking "where" let me ask you where is the stolen oil, how much have we stolen allready?
Yes the USA deliberatly bombs hospitals, just like.... Cmon you know you wanna say it......
:rolleyes:
-
Yea techincally that piece of trash Weimar thing was a democracy. But what kind of democracy was it when allowed political parties to control the streets with their own pirivate armies, and it wasnt just the nazis. What I'm saying is it depends on the type of democracy and how strong the rule of law is. I'll tell you something, the same protestors in the international community who opposed the war are now the ones demanding the USA leave right now. And interestingly enough the hard right islamists in Iraq want the same thing - for the USA to leave so they can impose their version of "democracy" by way of a weak and impotent democracy as would likely develop if the USA was not there. Basically both groups want the USA to fail in setting up a real strong democracy; the Iran style islamist fanatics so they can get power, and the anti-USA anti-war crowd so they can gloat, complain, and blame the USA about the subsequent disaster.
-
"Yes Manedew it was about oil - US soldiers are returning home with buckets of the stuff...
Since you anti war types are so fond of asking "where" let me ask you where is the stolen oil, how much have we stolen allready?
Yes the USA deliberatly bombs hospitals, just like.... Cmon you know you wanna say it...... "
Wow you so full of BS Bush should hire your ass. Did I say we seeked out hospitals.. no, that we bombed them .. which is a fact.
"Stolein" Oil is being shiped out of Iraq as we speak, lol... UN sanctions have been lifted.
Guess you don't seem to understand 'we' (aint-war) are aginsts this, reguardless of how good 'we' (USA) are at kicking ass. Iraq in noway threatend the USA .. in fact several US Sentors feel this war has signifcantly hurt the war on terrorism. By diverting funds and resources. (NYC still has not gotten money promised for terrorism protection!)
In otherwords one big crock of BS... I don't like to eat it .. it tastes like cheese.
This about OIL and the Neo-Conservitive plan for the middle-east.
Sorry, but your just wrong if you think otherwise ...
-
Yep I must agree this whole war was just a scheme to steal oil...
:rolleyes:
And so what if the US government has an agenda in the mideast? Do you propose we just ignore the region.
Maybe you think if we crouch in the corner of the world, cover our eyes and ears, bury our head between our knees and be really, really quiet all these people who are trying to kill us stuff will go away by itself....
-
Haliburton Oil Inc.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
All democratic governments can do what they want as long as the people agree. If elections are held in Iraq today the Shiite's will win outright, and as long as the (misled) people of Iraq (who has no experience with freedom or democracy) agree, the Shiite leaders can change the constitution and laws just like Hitler did. It's a massive "catch 22": Leave now = Shiite Theocracy. Establish a democracy and leave = Shiite Democratic Theocracy. Stay and govern Iraq until they are ready for democracy = Occupying force, increasing hatered, more terrorism, and in the end when you leave it prolly will still become a Shiite Theocracy. Install a new dictator that can control Iraq's Shiites like Saddam did (before turning agains the west) = Total loss of credibility, and public outcry in the western world.
Every human being faces situations that are bad, but will only get worse if you do something. It is very difficult to accept that you can do nothing, but somethimes that IS the only thing you can do without making it worse. IMHO this war was such a situation. Oh well ... too late now.
Typical european handwringing do nothing appeasement rubbish! Peace in our times!!!
-
Glad you liked that. :)
But seriously I think the US presence can be a positive force in setting up a stable democratic future for iraq, naturally people can differ in their opinion of this.
-
Iraq in noway threatend the USA
Blitz? Is that you?
-
Yes it was the reason stated for the war that upset most of the anti-war crowd (disarm Iraq from WMD´s), always been that reason and always will be that reason....
Regards.
-
Lol! Sirloin - you avatar is a picture of that fella who was prosecuted for shagging a goat in front of a crowded (and shocked) commuter train, over here! :D Classic.
-
Manedew, please post your records showing stolen oil is being shipped out of Iraq as we speak. you typed it so authoritatively that I'm confident you must have significant data to back your statement. I'm sure you know that if you were to type something like that without hard data that you'd just be a loud mouthed, blow hard, liar. So I know you wouldn't deliberately paint yourself as such... so post your hard evidence please.
-
Why do you assume that all the Shiites would automatically want a hardline religious government? Heck there is growing public resentment in Iran about that very issue. Not all of them are fanatics, and wwhat the USa must do is give those people a chance to participate freely.
What you are saying is that we should just give up now, do nothing, and leave it up to the gang with the most guns and most fanatics. I dont like that attitude. Perhaps you rationalize this in some way but the reality of it is just that - your thinking will naturally guarntee a government of militant fanatics who will supress moderates. My view is that we give it an honest go and try to positively inflence Iraq's future, and this will literally reduce the probability of a hardline undemocratic militant rgime popping up. Thats a better way, and frankly I also think the USA has a somewhat better track record on building solid post-war democratic traditions than does europe, so maybe europe should let America do it's thing again. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Glad you liked that. :)
But seriously I think the US presence can be a positive force in setting up a stable democratic future for iraq, naturally people can differ in their opinion of this.
God bless your optimism Grunherz, already there is talk of replacing American troops in Baghdad with Brits. Simply because the US Army has failed to secure the city properly and large parts of it are basically lawless largely because the US army wont't go into them. The US Army simply has no experience of working in an urban environment. A few more months of this and Baghdad will be a terrorist timebomb.
Maybe better to get out and leave it to the 'hand wringing European appeasers.'
Nuke the vote is no endorsement of the war, merely an example of realpolitik. They had to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists right now and move on. The aim is to do what's best for Iraq and the rest of us right now.
I was in two minds about the war believing that in the end it might be good for the Iraqis even though I doubted the WMD issue. This seems borne out. Just exactly where are all these WMD's? There should be some evidence somewhere, but nothing has appeared.
It seems to me that there will soon be a subtle campaign saying that while WMD's were not found, they had either all been destroyed to cover the evidence or that Saddam was planning to make more.
-
But blue my point is that Iraq will be nutcase country if the USA and Brits (of course gotta give them recognition for the help) pull out now as some people want. However if we stay there is a chance that we will help move the contry in the right direction and make it better and more stable in the long run. Thats worth staying agound for. Iraq was once a great highly educated nation of teachers, scientists, engineers, musicians and architects - it can be so again but we must be there for them in the long run.
-
For you people that think the US is stealing Iraq's oil, The UN security counsel voted 14-0 in favor of the US and UK using Iraq's oil revenues to help rebuild Iraq. So I guess the UN condones the stealing of Iraq's oil.
And wasn't a typical lefty argument that millions of Iraqis were dying as a result of UN sanctions ?
-
That's true Gruny, hence the unanimous vote. The US and the British are the de facto powers in Iraq and the best hope for a secure future right now. Even the French know that. The problem is that the US Army is blunt instrument and has little or no experience in these situation. The Brits on the other hand have long and bitter experience in dealing with semi hostile locals in cities. It would be a pity if after all the good stuff was thrown away because a few farmboys and street kids in uniform with poor fire discipline setback American efforts to get the country running again. In any case European or other troops on the streets have less kudos as targets for the zealots.
So there is a case to be made for US troops to back off and let others do the re-building. But for the US to remain the dominant factor in the background. It is frightening how fast soldiers can go from 'liberators' to 'occupiers' or 'oppressors'.
Incidently I think the war was partly about oil, not to steal it but secure it. The strongly anti war crowd act as if that was a bad thing. But the fact of the matter is that we need a secure supply of oil until something else replaces it. It looks to me as if Saudia Arabia is in the early stages of going the way of Iran only this time it will be a Sunni theocracy actively hostile to the West and it's Shiite neighbours Iran and Iraq. Keeping Iraq onside is I suspect an important insurance policy against the loss of Saudi oil.
The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.
The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.
Life, politics and war, as ever is always a lot more complicated than some people think.
Nuke says
"How many more worms are left that will still argue that the war and it's outcome was a bad thing?"
My answer to that is, we don't yet know the outcome. Give it ten years then I give you my answer.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
For you people that think the US is stealing Iraq's oil, The UN security counsel voted 14-0 in favor of the US and UK using Iraq's oil revenues to help rebuild Iraq. So I guess the UN condones the stealing of Iraq's oil.
So now you're listening to the UN?..lol
-
Originally posted by blue1
The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.
The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.
Life, politics and war, as ever is always a lot more complicated than some people think.
Yeah Blue!!
Interesting post, but watch out.
You will become labeled soon as US-heater. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
so what part of the war was bad? That we didn't find WMD yet or the fact that Iraqis are free, UN lifted sanctions and Saddamn is gone?
You can't argue that the war had a negative outcome, can you? And since you can't argue that the outcome was negative, you can only sight the "reasons" for the war ( and possitive outcome) as your source of misery.
You people are sad, yet funny
What the hell are you blabbering on about now? Read my post again.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030523/D7R6N4PG1.html
So, those that opposed the war..... what part of the war don't you like?
Death.....
-
I enjoyed watching Walter Rogers deliver his front-line combat reports via satellite mobile camera phone. My inner child really got a kick out of watching those tanks roll through the desert blowing stuff up. Ka-Boom! Yeah!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You can't argue that the war had a negative outcome, can you?
Yup! Did it have a positive impact in Iraq...maybe. Saddam is gone (which is a plus), but the question of who/what will replace him is still unanswered.
So, what have been the negative impacts?
1) The economy stupid. My biggest argument against the war was that we should not waist our resources to liberate a bunch of folks who did not have enough intestinal fortitude to take Saddam out for themselves.
As of 4/16 the cost of the war was estimated at $20 billion. The continuing operation, ie occupation, costs $2b per month, so we are up to about $22b (BTW, these numbers are from the White House and therefore may be conservative). This does not include the money the US will be kicking in to help with reconstruction (this is despite using oil revenues for that purpose). The President has asked for a total of $63b for the next year to pay for the war/occupation and $10.3b for reconstruction of Iraq. So, we have $73b of our taxpayer dollars going towards paying for a war when our economy is in the toejamter.
What else could we have done with that money that would have provided a real benefit for our citizens? What benefit did we get from that expenditure? Did we get rid of the WMD? Has the action impeded terrorist? Has our national security improved? Would our national security and war on terrorism have been better served if that $73b were spent on counter intelligence? Frederic Bastiat would say we will never know.
The war also had a domestic economic impact. The airlines estimated that they lost nearly $7b in revenues due to the war and the build up. Not to mention the impact that oil prices that reached nearly $40/bbl had on the economy (while part of that increase can be blamed on Venezuela's drop in production, but uncertainty due to the war was definitely a major cause for the price increase). The added cost to the US for the last 6 months that oil prices have been increasing has been approximately $25b...and those are the direct costs, which does not include the trickle down effects from increased production and transportation costs that are passed on to the consumer.
2) Lost credibility. "Every statement I make today is backed up by ... solid sources," Colin Powell told the United Nations. OK...so where are they now? Who are those sources? Saddam is gone, the threat to them is over...lay it out. Unfortunately, it appears the Bush Administration lied us into war. So if Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a hummer in the Oval Office (note that the shot he fired killed no one, but did ruin a perfectly good dress), what should happen to Bush for lying to the American people (which cost both lives and wealth)? And if Bush was simply trusting the information (intelligence is too strong a word for this case) given by his advisors, then who in the Administration is the liar and what should be their punishment?
-
There is nothing bad. We should have more wars! they are great.It worked so well you should have a war in the states every 4 years instead of an election.
I gather since you are writing this you are not one of the 3000 Iraqi civilians killed in the war. or the little boy with his arms and legs blown off. Nor was that your son I imagine.
As a general priciple its bad to lie to start a war. It puts a leader and a country in very bad company.
-
"HI, welcome McSaddam's! We'll have your 'WMD Proof' out in 30 days or less or your money back! Please drive to the next window for pickup."
Maybe they lied. Maybe they didn't. I'm still waiting to see. Was it really just 1 May that they declared the "combat phase" over? Was it really just 3 weeks ago?
Give me a year to hide 50 semi loads of 55 gallon drums in the New Mexico desert and I'll give you 3 weeks to find one semi load. :D
As I've said many times, I'm willing to give it 6 months or a year. Plenty of time before the next election to hold him responsible if he lied. And count on this: If he did, I will hold him responsible and vote (and support others) accordingly.
I know what the definition of "is" is.
The old slippery slope. One guy faces the camera and puts out baldface lies to the audience, gets away with it and the next thing you know, they think they all can get away with it.
-
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.
-
Yer right. Better those relative few civilians survive and some new mass Shiite or Kurd graves get created at a later date.
I'm selectively indignant about needless civilian death too! ;)
-
Originally posted by blue1
The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.
The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.
Interesting! Here is what I wrote a few months ago regarding what the war was about and why we were fighting it and why it was important:
"Its funny how the anti-war crowd has all of a sudden decided a war is only justified if and only if it has a single objective and that it never changes or other elements become more important or see more public light.
It is about WMD.
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about terrorism.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms."
Looks like we have almost the same thoughts on this. :D
-
Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.
This coming from a guy who opposed the war and wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power indefinetly..... But of course you dont see the irony in that attitude do you?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel . . . Wheeeeeee.
Come on now, it's always a good idea to clean out the media gene pool every now and again!
-
Gruny, don't say we have the same thoughts. We merely passed close by in the dark on diverging tracks :eek: LOL
Your version is a bit more cuddly than mine.
I do believe there are three good reasons to go to war, oil, water and protecting your land. Everything else is an ego trip by someone.
crowMAW made a good point about the monetary costs. In the end that may cost GWB dearly and the taxpayer and this comment:
"1) The economy stupid. My biggest argument against the war was that we should not waist our resources to liberate a bunch of folks who did not have enough intestinal fortitude to take Saddam out for themselves."
A good point
Normally when the US Government wants someone gone. They don't attack them with the Marines. They usually organize a coup or an assassination attempt. Saddam's problem was that he had tied up the country too tight. No coup could succeed and no assassin could get close. War was the only option. Saddam's biggest problem was his hostility to America
-
"The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991."
I'd say were pretty identical on these counts, dont let that frighten you though... Shocking isn't it? :D
-
I think that since now they are beggining to lose some real money, they decide the "moral" thing to do is to support the resolution.
Of course, we all know how much UN resolutions/mandates are worth nowadays no?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.
Oh, you would be speaking of the reporters told to leave Iraq before the war and refused, instead choosing to remain in a war zone.......and the van full of women and children forced by Iraqis to run a checkpoint?
Yur smart.
Of course death is horrible, I was speaking of the outcome and even though 10 years havent gone by yet ( as someone mentioned) to prove it out over time, so far everything looks to be better for Iraq and Iraqis.
Would you go on record as saying you would rather have left Saddam in power than have had the war? You probably wont answer that directly.
Maybe you would prefer continued UN sanctions, continued tyranny, opression and fear being applied to the Iraqi people.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Assassinating Saddam would also have been a great risk, but preferable to this war.
... IMHO.
BTW Gscholz dont get too mad at me here even if you want to - I dont wanna offend you even though I'm a bit upset. :) Read on!
I think this is dumbest thing you ever said. Really no offense Gscholz but it seems to me you are so opposed to this war that you prefer even almost any fantastical impractical alternative to what the USA actually could do. Tell me, do you think the chances of Iraq being stabilized would be any better with Qusay or Uday leading, or worse fighting each other for power, or even worse a general civil war nightmare breaking out that would make the post GW1 actions seem like a comfy dream in our warm beds. Simply nuts Gscholz.
You are here complaining that Iraq will now turn out bad or become some islamic nutcase country yet every course of action you suggest would gurantee that result 100% while you vehemently argue against strategies we can and are implementing aimed at at least reducing the probability of that outcome.
Listen up buddy, you either want this to happend or you are some sort of powerless fatalist who only knows to complain and warn the action takers of their imminent doom. Frankly I dont care which it is but you attitude is very negative and counterproductive and is clearly tinged of a bias towards failirue and catastrophe - and that does nothing for anyone. If we try and it fails then so be it, but if we, give up ala eurostyle, tuck tail and run and do nothing then it will be shameful and we would have let the decent iraqis down and taken away their chance at a better life. But I see how this is of no concern to you, your soldiers arent there, your soldiers did not fight to free those iraqi cities, your soldiers did not make this cause their own with their own blood, your soldiers are not there now. Frankly it is our responsibility to finish this right. Remember responsibility? It was the thing that a twice destroyed europe gave up to the USA after two world wars they started. So again I say I have no doubts that its easy for you to say "aw hell pull out now all is lost" - but were there to stay until the job is finished to our satistaction.
-
Iraq is now free of UN santions, Saddam is gone, Iraqis are free and the UN security counsel unanimously endorsed US and UK rule in Iraq, as well as the end of sanctions.
The outcome will probably be positive to the general world interests.
BUT, did the US had the RIGHT to attack Iraq?
Doing the right thing and having the right to do the right thing is not exacly the same.
The answer to that is completly subjective.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by blue1
crowMAW made a good point about the monetary costs.
Actually, that money isn't going up in smoke. Isn't 90% of it going to US companies or to soldiers pay? I'm not saying it will cause a economic boom, but is it really hurting the economy much? Purely analitical thinking, non-emotional.
-
First of all I didnt call you a eurostudmuffin...
Ok so now you wish that we started a civil war and then invaded... You see Gszholz, see what kind of bizzare carp you put forth just because you disagree with the war...
And tell me something if we wanted a stable Iraq why not just agree to remove sanction allow saddam to sell oil and be rich like before the GW and all would be well and tht way we caould also increase the supply of oil in the world thus dropping prices. You see that would have been great no? everyone happy?
And all Saddam had to do to have that happend was to prove to the UN and the USA that he was no longer gonna be athreat in the region and he had 12 years to do this and he did not even if it mean losing billion and billions in oil revenues.
Why disnt he if he wasnt intent on being a threat? Ceratinly billions of dollars is a great incentive for such a man...
Let me remind you... You just said that starting a civil war by assasinating saddam
and then inavding would have been a better choice... Are you nuts?
-
All best achieved by still having the Baath party in control of Iraq ... under new leadership of course.
WOW!!! You are really making a run for the record today! :rolleyes:
Uday and Qusay sure are sweethearts and they love America and would pose no threat to US intersests in the region... Have you lost your mind?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Oh, you would be speaking of the reporters told to leave Iraq before the war and refused, instead choosing to remain in a war zone.......and the van full of women and children forced by Iraqis to run a checkpoint?
Yur smart.
Of course death is horrible, I was speaking of the outcome and even though 10 years havent gone by yet ( as someone mentioned) to prove it out over time, so far everything looks to be better for Iraq and Iraqis.
Would you go on record as saying you would rather have left Saddam in power than have had the war? You probably wont answer that directly.
Maybe you would prefer continued UN sanctions, continued tyranny, opression and fear being applied to the Iraqi people.
What I would prefer for the Iraqis is as meaningless as what you or other non-Iraqis would prefer for them. To invade and force "what we want" on them is an abomination and a little stupid on the side. My guess is that in 10 years we will have accomplished as much in Iraq as my generation did in ten years in Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
The problem is it's dough and your eating it ..
Funny you have the brown stained lips and the stench.
-
Originally posted by blue1
I do believe there are three good reasons to go to war, oil, water and protecting your land. Everything else is an ego trip by someone.
Just to clarify Blue1, your fine with invasion and plundering of another countries natural resources?
WOW!
-
We are stealing their oli!!! We are stealing their oil!!!
Look 10Bears the only reason anyone gives a flying fck about the arabs in general is because of their oil but thats a far far cry from the childishly idiotic opinion of yours and other that this was a war to steal Iraqs oil.
First of all we cant steal it, were gonna have to pay for it - if you dont know why we will then thats your problem.
Second were gonna have to pay the market price for the stuff anyway or damn close - againthats just haow thats gonna work.
So with those realities in mind why did we not just drop sanctions in the 1990s and let Saddam sell us the oil. Or let me put it into general terms you undersatand and use with Bush.
"Why did that evil child molestor draft dodger drug user buthcher Bill Clinton continue keeping up the sancions and murderging tens of thousands of Iraqi children every month just so that oil supply was low amd prices were high so he could push his left wing environmental agenda and reduce use of oil."
Maybe just maybe, Bill Clinton like GWB thought Saddam was a threat and that Saddam had not demonstrated his willingness to no loner be a thread and thus did not deserve the lifting of sanctions? Nah thats just too simple and paints good ole harmless uncle Saddam in a bad light... No the USA mush be wrong, Saddam is no threat!
So maybe you should stop applying bizzare alterior motives to American actions wrt Saddam and just see the blindingly obvious thing - he was a threat. Bill Clinton thought so, as did the the first Bush and as did GWB. You know sometimes, imagine just sometimes america isnt the evil bad big nazi country you wanna think it is - nah thats too big of a step for a "world citizen" like yourself..
You see we could have accomplished our oil stealing objectives simply by dropping the sanctions, and belive me the Russainas and French would have supported us on that 100%, and letting saddam sell us the oil at market prices - and yes he would have sold the US that oil as he has really very little control who gets it belive it or not on the open market and of course the USA is biggest oil user in world.
But we did not because three succesive US administyrations thought that Saddam was a great enough threat....
So basically this "stealing oil" or now "plundering oil" argument is childish nonsense - you would do yourself and your pro-Saddam cause a great service if you would stop using it.
-
My apologies for not hitting the thread earlier, tons of work coming my way lately.
Look 10Bears the only reason anyone gives a flying fck about the arabs in general is because of their oil but thats a far far cry from the childishly idiotic opinion of yours and other that this was a war to steal Iraqs oil.
Yes Gurn, it must be my childish idealism to think one should not steal a gas can from the neighbor’s garage. If you need gas, you ask the neighbor if you can buy some. What’s that crack about not giving a flying fck about arabs?.. sounds racist to me. Since we don’t give a flying fck, it’s ok to nab their oil.
Second were gonna have to pay the market price for the stuff anyway or damn close - again thats just haow thats gonna work.
True enough.. we as regular people will pay the market price, but the President’s main contributors will receive a massive windfall in profits. In short, they have taken control of the oil... exactly what I’ve been saying.
So with those realities in mind why did we not just drop sanctions in the 1990s and let Saddam sell us the oil. Or let me put it into general terms you undersatand and use with Bush.
I wonder that myself. Dick Chaney wanted sanctions in dropped in 1999.. I agree with that and would go one further, drop sanctions on all these folks. Cuba, N. Korea the works.. Why?.. I believe rather than punish countries like small children, you treat them like adults and offer partnerships on a variety of issues. This would lessen the likelihood of terrorist or military attack. Secondly, it financially benefits all the people evolved and helps floats everybody's boat.
This is an older article from last year..
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/30-12-19102-1-15-53.html
THE US said yesterday that it plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades the country and it is looking at the possibility of using oil production to pay for post-war reconstruction.
(snip)
International oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell would want to take part in any rehabilitation of the country's oil industry, analysts said.
(snip)
and this from May 23rd..
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid
Iraq's oil minister announced yesterday that three oil production contracts signed by the previous regime with Russian and Chinese companies would be either terminated or frozen, according to Reuters news agency.
(snip)
Phillip J. Carroll, the former Shell executive chosen by the Pentagon to advise the oil ministry, said there was some doubt whether existing foreign contracts "gave the Iraqi people the full benefit of their oil wealth".
-
I'm still looking for instances where we've stolen oil. I've heard lots of crying about it, but I have yet to see it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We are stealing their oli!!! We are stealing their oil!!!
Currently it's more
We have stealed their soli(*)!!! We have stealed their soil!!!
:D
(*) I'm too lazy to correct your typo ;)
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I wonder that myself. Dick Chaney wanted sanctions in dropped in 1999.. I agree with that and would go one further, drop sanctions on all these folks. Cuba, N. Korea the works.. Why?.. I believe rather than punish countries like small children, you treat them like adults and offer partnerships on a variety of issues. This would lessen the likelihood of terrorist or military attack. Secondly, it financially benefits all the people evolved and helps floats everybody's boat.
[/url]
I guess someone forgot to tell that to the Roman Empire, the Mongals, or lets pick someone more modern, how about Japan in 1940?
You have all the right answers to solve the worlds problems. I vote for you for President!!!:D :D
-
So using oil proceeeds to rebulid IRAQI society is staeling oil. I guess you would also consider the proposed Iraqi oil proceeds sharing program, like we have in alaska, also stealing oil?
Cmon 10Bears show me the oil, show me the stolen oil...
As for treating countries like "adults" and offereing them "partnerships", does this mean you were all for the USA supporting Saddam in the 1980s?
Let me tell you something you naive child, some counbtries do not share the same intersests as the USA and would not respond to some naive "parthership"...
Grow up 10Bears.... Damn... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Actually, that money isn't going up in smoke. Isn't 90% of it going to US companies or to soldiers pay? I'm not saying it will cause a economic boom, but is it really hurting the economy much? Purely analitical thinking, non-emotional.
Yes, it does hurt the economy...here is how:
To man this war it was necessary to call up reserves. This pulls privately employed individuals from gainful employment pumping goods and services into the US economy and places them in a position performing a function (ridding the world of Saddam) that does not add to the US GDP. Further, many companies will supplement the pay of an employee called to active duty if his/her duty pay is lower than their regular salary...those dollars increase the cost of production for the employer. Even if the company does not supplement salaries, they must bear the expense of temporarily replacing the soldier (which may include hiring costs, training costs, and probably an unemployment insurance assessment when the temp is released after the soldier returns to work).
Also, while deployed, these soldiers will spend a portion of their pay in a foreign country...whether it is at the camp PX or at a Baghdad market, those are dollars that are not going into a local US economy (I emphasize "local" because the items purchased at the PX do not support local retailers). Further, if the soldier is single and has no household to maintain in the states, it is likely he/she is saving quite a bit...interest rates are already at all time lows indicating that there is too much money in savings and not enough being spent or invested in the private sector, so their added savings are not helping spur the economy.
As for the US companies getting the contracts for re-building Iraq...it is unlikely that they will exclusively use US employees, i.e. they are not going to ship in a thousand construction workers to rebuild the bridges. Instead, it is more likely that they will use local labor. So again, the majority of that money goes into the Iraqi economy rather than ours.
When the economy is weak, increased government spending can help so long as it is for the right thing. If spent on infrastructure or some other means of reducing transaction costs, then the expenditure will provide long term benefits to the economy by reducing the cost of doing business and simultaneously increasing employment. But pumping temporary dollars into the economy will not cause a recovery from recession...it is like eating candy when you are hungry, it will only produce a temporary sugar high but not end your hunger.
-
Yes avoiding neccessaary military confrontations for the sake of domestic economic concerns has always been a decision..
Peace in our Times!!!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
Blitz? Is that you?
Sure! That wmd thing was a propaganda thingie to keep people in line. Iraq was never a threat to the USA.
Joseph Goebels would be proud of that one, classic.....
Regards P. Wolfowiz aka Blitz
Iraq was in no way threatening the USA, it was just plain ridiculous, everyone know that by now.
-
Ok thats enough blitz!
I think you personally singling out and vilifiying wolfowitz in this way is pretty good proof that you are anti-semitic and a general jew hater - this would be consitent with your support of the islamic radical terrorists, support for saddm and opposition to whatever the USA is trying to do to stop these people anmd protect our allies and interests.
Its sad to see that this kind of garbage lives on in germany to this day...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Grun is trying the anti semite lure again. Let's see if the fish bites.
Shouldn't that be "All Heil PNAC!" Grun?
Is it anti-Semitic to say that Israel is not worth WWIII?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Is it anti-Semitic to say that Israel is not worth WWIII?
No, because Palestinians are semitic too.
Semite: A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
-
Got it... thanks Holden.
Still I always chuckle that the media portrays anti-semitism as if it were a special form of racism. :)
-
Yea anti-semitism isnt any special class of racism unlike how popular culture tries to define it - in fact its one of my personal annoyances when people try to make it seem like that.
Nonetheless it's a commonly used expression and it's taken to mean hatred of jews and so even i use it from time to time.
Anyway it seems to me that blitz fits that pretty god with his unceasing support of terrorists and saddam hussein and opoposition of any effort to deal with them. And now he starts focusing on Paul wolfowitz, who everyone knows is Jewish and then I gotta wonder - certainly it seems to fit and many of his anti USA staements are similar to those of consiracy nuts who balme jews for everything.
"Is it anti-Semitic to say that Israel is not worth WWIII?"
No, of course Israel isnt worth WW3 but Poland with her worthless dirty population of untermensch wasnt really worth WW2 either, yet France and Britain came to her aid anyway... Right, the dirty Poles werent worth fighting for no, no way, never! :rolleyes:
-
The part of the Iraq war that was bad was all the loudmouth, know it all, blowhards who came here every day to give their views on it.
-
Originally posted by aztec
The part of the Iraq war that was bad was all the loudmouth, know it all, blowhards who came here every day to give their views on it.
Hell, if that's the only part that was bad, let's do'er again!
Fire it up boys, Yee Haw!
-
I am not trolling Gscholz...
BTW Gscholz why did you choose a troll caricature with a large nose, hairy beard and large ears, that smacks of nazi anti-semitic propaganda posters, care to explain yourself? And the "troll" is even portrayed as preying on a virtuous German families by wrecking their hard won BMW car - shame on you Gscholz!!! :)
-
"The part of the Iraq war that was bad was all the loudmouth, know it all, blowhards who came here every day to give their views on it."
I hear ya in one regard: it's just painful to listen to these guy's opinions. Mine are the only ones worth paying attention to, natch, so if you had put everyone but me on ignore you'd have been in fine shape. I guess you didn't read the memo.
Erhm but seriously... War being what it is these days, and this here being a UBB and all, it kinda goes without saying that there's gonna be some discussion. If they had Solitaire built into the board somehow I'd probably be doing that. Until then we're left with the blowhards and their musings.
The characterizations "loudmouth" and "blowhard" are directly and inversely proportional to the degree with which you happen to agree with what's being said. It's extremely hard for a lefty communist bastard to win the love and respect of all of his peers in this joint, that's for sure.
WooT! I just spent 5 minutes typing.... NOTHING. All of it horse****, for no other reason than to... well, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Why the hell did I just do that? I must be one of them blowhards! :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes avoiding neccessaary military confrontations for the sake of domestic economic concerns has always been a decision..
Peace in our Times!!!! :rolleyes:
Well it seems to me, that from the time of Henry V and before, starting a war on foreign soil was always a first class method of promoting national unity and taking peoples' eyes off troubling trends at home.
Still works today!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I am not trolling Gscholz...
BTW Gscholz why did you choose a troll caricature with a large nose, hairy beard and large ears
Because that is what a troll looks like, you tard =)
that smacks of nazi anti-semitic propaganda posters, care to explain yourself?
Oh you mean the famous one of the Jewish man dangling the jewish boy over the bridge to catch a fish?
And the "troll" is even portrayed as preying on a virtuous German families by wrecking their hard won BMW car - shame on you Gscholz!!! :) [/B]
That's not a BMW proper, its an ersatz BMW aka the 'British' Rover 400 - no wonder it got flattened.
-
Oh you mean the famous one of the Jewish man dangling the jewish boy over the bridge to catch a fish?
Oh course it's anti-semitic. Hitler had it tattoed on his left testicle which, incidentally, resides in the Albert Hall.
Grunherz has an authentic signed sketch of it with all his other 'memorabilia'. :D
-
ROFL, why yes you are Nash, however recognition is the first step on the way to recovery.;)
-
The international community and organisations now has to spend years and lots of money to clean up all the undetonated cluster munitions that the US and Britain droppede on iraq. :rolleyes:
It is already killing and mutelating alot of children in iraq and it is estimated that it will do more damage than the iraqi regime would have spent years doing.
WTG ! :mad:
-
I donno bounder, I still think Gscholz is a nazi. ;)
Dowding, you wish you had the same - dont be hatin... :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
The international community and organisations now has to spend years and lots of money to clean up all the undetonated cluster munitions that the US and Britain droppede on iraq. :rolleyes:
It is already killing and mutelating alot of children in iraq and it is estimated that it will do more damage than the iraqi regime would have spent years doing.
WTG ! :mad:
Right, the USA is still killing more iraqis than Saddam.....
Why cant you impotent europeans just accept the joyous fact that we wiped out yet another terrible dictatorship from the face of the earth - you didnt seem to complain the last three timesamerica did it in europe...
Or are you gonna say that the USA killed more than hitler ever would have or killed more than the USSR...
-
The UN has deployed BLIX to Texas to look for stolen Oil Caches.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
The international community and organisations now has to spend years and lots of money to clean up all the undetonated cluster munitions that the US and Britain droppede on iraq. :rolleyes:
It is already killing and mutelating alot of children in iraq and it is estimated that it will do more damage than the iraqi regime would have spent years doing.
WTG ! :mad:
Could we have a source for this accusation please? I haven't seen anything in any media on it.
-
It will reach you to eventually i guess.
One link from The Observer, if you google you will find lots more:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/05/31/landmines2.pdf
Not an accusation, its called fact.
The british minister of defence last week for the first time admitted that they had used cluster munitions against populated areas. Adam Ingram had to admit this to the BBC and that the use of those weapons against sivillians is illegal.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
It will reach you to eventually i guess.
One link from The Observer, if you google you will find lots more:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/05/31/landmines2.pdf
Not an accusation, its called fact.
The british minister of defence last week for the first time admitted that they had used cluster munitions against populated areas. Adam Ingram had to admit this to the BBC and that the use of those weapons against sivillians is illegal.
Okay, thanks. I'll check it out.