It's NOT about Oil? What part don't you understand? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Funkito · 03-10-2003, 07:02 PM

Getting caught up on the question of oil only goes so far. My own opinion is that it is a factor, but not the heart of the matter. The U.S. would be fine with Hussein in power (or anybody else who could deliver stability) if it was only about oil.

The heart of the matter is this:

1. The Middle East is fucked up, the Arabs hate us, and they want to kill us. Take a look at our foreign policy for the last 50 years in the region if you don't understand why yet.
2. WMD--the new technologies allow people that hate us to kill us in large numbers is a new situation. And it ain't going to change any time soon. So we really have to reduce our enemies--not just take away bombs from the bad-guy-of-the-month.

So the question I have is if a war in Iraq is going to make us safer by:

A. Reducing our enemies and giving the people in the Middle East a reason to believe we actually are the good guys and actually give a shit about their lives.
B. Reducing the chances of people getting WMD. Invading Iraq might help that--but then again Hussein is probably giving out whatever he has to the highest bidder as we speak because he has nothing left to lose.

I have my doubts that getting rid of Hussein is going to do much good for our long-term security. We really have to stop making enemies and find a way to turn old enemies into friends. And I don't think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have the answers here, unfortunately. I mean they are really fucking things up with our allies (and everybody else) as far as I can tell.

BTW-50 mutherfuckers

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unclebubba
actually to be quite honest I could give a damn about the war one way or the other

what concerns me is the idea that king George the lesser has about unilateral action... we are becoming our own definition of a rogue nation.

also we have burned more political capital in the last few years than we'll be able to make up in the next 20.

I really can't believe Bush came out and said that the UN doesn't matter. We have been slapping countries around for that exact same attitude for years... Our economy will continue on its downward spiral towards the shitter if we become isolated from the rest of the world.

We've managed to alienate most of europe, all of the middle east, and I would guess large portions of the rest of the world... fuck Sadam the guys got lymphatic cancer he'll die in a few years with or without our help... but long after he's gone we're going to be dealing with the ramifications of an estranged europe and a broken UN... won't that be great

Bush's diplomacy skills (yes, an oxymoron) suck--no doubt about it. The administration has made numerous mistakes from the get-go. However, I and many other people (who gain nothing from oil), have thought Saddam should have been ousted long ago.

Over the past 12 years we've tried pretty much everything with Saddam. Nothing has worked. Why would sanctions/inspections work now? Nothing short of an invasion will work. Remember we attacked Iraq under Clinton too, and did little to sway Sadamm into compliance.

Kimmykim · 03-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Jeremy, I hate to break it to you but nothing spells a fight like high prices at the pumps. GM, Ford and Chrysler are NOT going to start making small efficient cars that they cant charge dick for instead of 40k SUVs that roll over the curb like Hitlers army marching into France...

Is this specifically about Iraqs oil? No. Nor is the Middle Eastern situation the only thing to blame for high gas prices, since the US is not nearly as dependant as Europe is on that source of fuel.

However the situation in Venezuela and elsewhere doesn't help things either so far as pricing goes.

At the end of the day we're going into Iraq to show the rest of the Middle East that we will come after you if you piss us off and disrupt our lives.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 07:30 PM

Saddam was a friend of the US until OPEC decided to raise the price of oil from $3 a barrel to $22 a barrel. That's when they decided that he was an enemy and declared him a terrorist leader because he refused to charge more than 9x what he was currently charging for oil. This makes his oil cheaper than the others. For small companies in the US, we call what OPEC does price fixing, and it's illegal.

We also supplied him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

When they were supposedly about to invade Kuwait, the US got it's right to get into middle east by lying to the Saudis and saying that spy satellites showed that he had a large number of troops near the Kuwait border. Commercial satellites however showed that they simply weren't there. When the press decided to publish the info, the government begged them not to. The press said that if they could see the satellite images that proved that they were there, they wouldn't because they simply didn't exist.

When the first Bush started attacking Iraq, they vowed and still claim that they only targeted military stations. Within 24 hours, they had taken out the power plants, resevoir dams, hospitals, and the like. Iraq was then without power or water. The damage has not been fixed for the most part.

Not only that, but they used depleated uranium in their ammunition(that's where gulf war syndrome comes from). This has caused massive cancer outbreaks in Iraqi civilians. The radioactive material will still be contaminating the land for 4.6 billion years, no culture that lives on that land will ever be without the problems caused by it.

They've had embargos the whole time. It is insane that we still get Iraqi oil, but we are not allowed to export medicine to those dying from the effects of our strikes. Not allowing them to get medicine is clearly genocide.

They could have gotten Saddam in the gulf war, but Bush stopped attacking when a movement against him within Iraq. This gave Saddam time to stop them from overthrowing him.

Funny how they've been letting Saddam and his aristocratic friends live comfortably, while they've been killing the civilians the whole time. Makes you think maybe they want him to stay because then they have an excuse to be over there. The only reason we were there the first time is that we tricked Saudi Arabia into inviting us in. Also funny how the bases that were supposed to be temporary became permanent after the gulf war was said and done.

Think about all that.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 07:34 PM

Another thing about the depleated uranium. Just before the gulf war studies were done and the use of it was going to be banned because of it's effects. The folks over at the pentagon forced these studies to stop. The shells are even used today. The majority of them are used at bases in Okinawa, Japan. My cousin was stationed there. Hearing that makes me very upset. When my cousin gets cancer and dies, I'll know who did it to him. It was the country he was supposedly fighting for.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Is this specifically about Iraqs oil? No. Nor is the Middle Eastern situation the only thing to blame for high gas prices, since the US is not nearly as dependant as Europe is on that source of fuel.

However the situation in Venezuela and elsewhere doesn't help things either so far as pricing goes.

At the end of the day we're going into Iraq to show the rest of the Middle East that we will come after you if you piss us off and disrupt our lives.

Hmmm.....let's see. I agree with you 100%.

"Is this specifically about Iraqs oil? No."

Yep...

"Nor is the Middle Eastern situation the only thing to blame for high gas prices, since the US is not nearly as dependant as Europe is on that source of fuel. "

Yep....

"At the end of the day we're going into Iraq to show the rest of the Middle East that we will come after you if you piss us off and disrupt our lives."

In a nutshell, yep.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

Dead right!

Iarq owes France over a billion dollars in oil for weapons bought, including a nuclear power plant that the isrealis bombed back in the 80's. It has everything to do with oil.....for the French! Despite the bullshit they feed everyone about it being about humanitarian reasons.

FRANCE HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED DICTATORS!! Does the Munich treaty of 36 mean anything to anyone?

We supplied Saddam with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons until the refused to raise oil prices. Get some education before you decide to attack other countries for doing exactly what we did

phogirl69 · 03-10-2003, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

Look at Qatar for example, one of our strongest allies in the region. They are now enjoying real elections, their women can vote and hold public office...they've made tremendous strides over the past 10 years [/B]

I read that Qatar is so wealthy that all the citizens get free healthcare, free utilities and water, free/subsidized rent and
its tax free, and their GDP is estimated to reach $50,000

in 2006 That's pretty incredible for a middle eastern country, I always thought they were more backwards...

cluck · 03-10-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phogirl69

I read that Qatar is so wealthy that all the citizens get free healthcare, free utilities and water, free/subsidized rent and
its tax free, and their GDP is estimated to reach $50,000 in 2006 That's pretty incredible for a middle eastern country, I always thought they were more backwards...

That sounds close to a socialist society. I'm sure they didn't learn all that from the good ol' capitalist US of A.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

We supplied Saddam with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons until the refused to raise oil prices. Get some education before you decide to attack other countries for doing exactly what we did

Like ALL of the west we (or American companies) played a significant role in arming Saddam. However, we were hardly the worst culprits. Longtime Iraqi allie, Russia was the #1 supplier of weapons to Iraq. France was #2 .

The U.S. did NOT supply Iraq with nuclear technology. That would have been France. Chirac and Saddam were cozy bedfellows back in the 70s. Saddam was even Chirac's guest touring the south of france together. Chirac and France helped Saddam get nuclear technology which Israel later blew up Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

.:Frog:. · 03-10-2003, 08:01 PM

What I don't understand?

Let me tell you, I don't understand the urgent rush to attack Iraq. So far weapon inspectors are making progress and most people (except Bush, and Blair) believe they should be allowed to continue their job and attack only as a last resort.
attack as a last resort
Iraq isn't an immediate threat, the problem is Bush being impatient.
I find that fucking pathetic.

The majority of the world would support war if the UN voted for war, but so far they have not. They are against war without UN concent.
Hope this clears things up.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phogirl69

I read that Qatar is so wealthy that all the citizens get free healthcare, free utilities and water, free/subsidized rent and
its tax free, and their GDP is estimated to reach $50,000 in 2006 That's pretty incredible for a middle eastern country, I always thought they were more backwards...

Yep....and rightfully we have supported their reforms by protecting them militarily and increasing American investment in the country from 300 million ten years ago to 50 billion last year. Cornell and another university are also establishing state of the art medical schools/facilities in the country.

Thanks to their democratic reforms, Qatar will be a major force in the middle east in the near future. They'll leave Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the dust.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by .:Frog:.
What I don't understand?

Let me tell you, I don't understand the urgent rush to attack Iraq. So far weapon inspectors are making progress and most people (except Bush, and Blair) believe they should be allowed to continue their job and attack only as a last resort.
attack as a last resort
Iraq isn't an immediate threat, the problem is Bush being impatient.
I find that fucking pathetic.

You're point is valid, and that may be the route we have to take. But, let's look at history. It's not like we just started inspections a year ago. We've been trying to do inspections for 12 years and they haven't worked.

1) I think the urgency aside from growing impatient is that if we don't act in the next month, we will be pushing into Spring and very hot desert weather which makes it harder to fight a war.

2) This would mean we have to wait until things cool down again, at least 6 months of further Saddam defiance.

3) The military has been deployed. They are at their peak readiness TODAY. They won't be if we keep waiting.

4) If we back down now we send the message to Hussein that he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants to do because the spineless U.N. and others really don't want to do anything. They'll let Saddam do whatever the hell he wants.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 12 YEARS. EVEN CLINTON TRIED FORCE. NOTHING SHORT OF AN INVASION WILL BE EFFECTIVE.

Quote:

Hope this clears things up.

Yes. All cleared up now. Thank you!

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by .:Frog:.
What I don't understand?

Let me tell you, I don't understand the urgent rush to attack Iraq. So far weapon inspectors are making progress and most people (except Bush, and Blair) believe they should be allowed to continue their job and attack only as a last resort.
attack as a last resort
Iraq isn't an immediate threat, the problem is Bush being impatient.
I find that fucking pathetic.

The majority of the world would support war if the UN voted for war, but so far they have not. They are against war without UN concent.
Hope this clears things up.

We are at the last resort dude. Iraq has had 12 years to disarm. The only time they fake it is when we bring pressure, and we can only bluff for so long. Ask yourself this, if Saddam was close to having nuclear capability in 98, where do you think he is now. Can you Reaaaaaaaaaaally tell me that you think a couple of dozen UN guys can find something in a country that size if the government does not want them to find it.

I ahve served in uniform,in combat twice, and I can tell you that most vets, like me, like the idea of going in and taking a guy out before he becomes trenched in. Iwo Jima mean anything to you?

Negotiations have NEVER solved a conflict like this. Munich treaty of 36, look it up.

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

Like ALL of the west we (or American companies) played a significant role in arming Saddam. However, we were hardly the worst culprits. Longtime Iraqi allie, Russia was the #1 supplier of weapons to Iraq. France was #2 .

The U.S. did NOT supply Iraq with nuclear technology. That would have been France. Chirac and Saddam were cozy bedfellows back in the 70s. Saddam was even Chirac's guest touring the south of france together. Chirac and France helped Saddam get nuclear technology which Israel later blew up Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

Again, correction, it was Mitterand who ordered the sale of Nuclear technology to Iraq, not Chirac. Although Chirac was the errand boy.

DavePlays · 03-10-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck
Saddam was a friend of the US until OPEC decided to raise the price of oil from $3 a barrel to $22 a barrel. That's when they decided that he was an enemy and declared him a terrorist leader because he refused to charge more than 9x what he was currently charging for oil. This makes his oil cheaper than the others. For small companies in the US, we call what OPEC does price fixing, and it's illegal.

We also supplied him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

When they were supposedly about to invade Kuwait, the US got it's right to get into middle east by lying to the Saudis and saying that spy satellites showed that he had a large number of troops near the Kuwait border. Commercial satellites however showed that they simply weren't there. When the press decided to publish the info, the government begged them not to. The press said that if they could see the satellite images that proved that they were there, they wouldn't because they simply didn't exist.

When the first Bush started attacking Iraq, they vowed and still claim that they only targeted military stations. Within 24 hours, they had taken out the power plants, resevoir dams, hospitals, and the like. Iraq was then without power or water. The damage has not been fixed for the most part.

Not only that, but they used depleated uranium in their ammunition(that's where gulf war syndrome comes from). This has caused massive cancer outbreaks in Iraqi civilians. The radioactive material will still be contaminating the land for 4.6 billion years, no culture that lives on that land will ever be without the problems caused by it.

They've had embargos the whole time. It is insane that we still get Iraqi oil, but we are not allowed to export medicine to those dying from the effects of our strikes. Not allowing them to get medicine is clearly genocide.

They could have gotten Saddam in the gulf war, but Bush stopped attacking when a movement against him within Iraq. This gave Saddam time to stop them from overthrowing him.

Funny how they've been letting Saddam and his aristocratic friends live comfortably, while they've been killing the civilians the whole time. Makes you think maybe they want him to stay because then they have an excuse to be over there. The only reason we were there the first time is that we tricked Saudi Arabia into inviting us in. Also funny how the bases that were supposed to be temporary became permanent after the gulf war was said and done.

Think about all that.

Everyone already thought about all that - weeks ago, and it was discarded as bull shit then too.

Accept it -

cluck · 03-10-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

We are at the last resort dude. Iraq has had 12 years to disarm. The only time they fake it is when we bring pressure, and we can only bluff for so long. Ask yourself this, if Saddam was close to having nuclear capability in 98, where do you think he is now. Can you Reaaaaaaaaaaally tell me that you think a couple of dozen UN guys can find something in a country that size if the government does not want them to find it.

I ahve served in uniform,in combat twice, and I can tell you that most vets, like me, like the idea of going in and taking a guy out before he becomes trenched in. Iwo Jima mean anything to you?

Negotiations have NEVER solved a conflict like this. Munich treaty of 36, look it up.

I hope it wasn't the gulf war you served in. The government you were helping out didn't seem to think it was important that they knew if you didn't die fighting, you'd die from those uranium shells they gave you.

The whole world is ass-backwards. You really can't defend any country nowadays. They're all fucked up in 100 different ways.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

Do you have issues with abandonment and betrayal? Tell us about your childhood.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

Everyone already thought about all that - weeks ago, and it was discarded as bull shit then too.

Accept it -

Can you deny that they lied about the photographs, or the uranium bullets? Everyone's lying, Saddam, Bush, France, everyone. Most people just decide on the lesser evil. I, for one, think there is none.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

Do you have issues with abandonment and betrayal? Tell us about your childhood.

Everyone in life has either taken advantage of me or fucked me over. Right now I look into situations and try to figure out real motives before I trust people, even the government. A little research has brought up the many times they've lied to us and other countries. Sorry, they lost my trust.

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

Everyone already thought about all that - weeks ago, and it was discarded as bull shit then too.

Accept it -

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

Again, correction, it was Mitterand who ordered the sale of Nuclear technology to Iraq, not Chirac. Although Chirac was the errand boy.

I didn't mean Chirac ordered the sale of nuclear technology. You're right, it was Mitterand. However, Hussein's initial aspirations in acquiring nuclear technology were first articulated to Chirac in the 70s on a trip to the south of france. Chirac, ever the Gaullist, conceded they had an understanding. Why wouldn't Iraq need nukes to protect their sovereignty?

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

Can you deny that they lied about the photographs, or the uranium bullets? Everyone's lying, Saddam, Bush, France, everyone. Most people just decide on the lesser evil. I, for one, think there is none.

so you went in to porn, thinking that you would be safe from evil here amongst us pornographers?

OK then. I did serve under US command, and I was around Uranium shells all the time. Nothing wrong with me kj;nbpjo;O
AS;L,M;L

C,L;,LS,L'S;. TYPING JUT FINE, WOooohoooo!

cluck · 03-10-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

so you went in to porn, thinking that you would be safe from evil here amongst us pornographers?

OK then. I did serve under US command, and I was around Uranium shells all the time. Nothing wrong with me kj;nbpjo;O
AS;L,M;L

C,L;,LS,L'S;. TYPING JUT FINE, WOooohoooo!

You're lucky then, and though I disagree with you I'm happy that nothing happened to you.

The thing that REALLY pisses me off is that they still use those, mostly in Okinawa. My cousin was stationed there for a long time and the fact that they don't care or even make him aware of that pisses me off a good deal.

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

I didn't mean Chirac ordered the sale of nuclear technology. You're right, it was Mitterand. However, Hussein's initial aspirations in acquiring nuclear technology were first articulated to Chirac in the 70s on a trip to the south of france. Chirac, ever the Gaullist, conceded they had an understanding. Why wouldn't Iraq need nukes to protect their sovereignty?

fucking Chirac, I am so ashamed of my French ancestry. Good thing I gave it up to be an American.

DavePlays · 03-10-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

Can you deny that they lied about the photographs, or the uranium bullets? Everyone's lying, Saddam, Bush, France, everyone. Most people just decide on the lesser evil. I, for one, think there is none.

Sure "everybody's lying" - and only YOU know the truth?

I cannot deny that most of that is a crock of shit.

You get your news where you get it -
I get mine where I get it.

You believe anything you want -
and so will I.

You live in your world....
Not me.

Have a nice day.

JeremySF · 03-10-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

fucking Chirac, I am so ashamed of my French ancestry. Good thing I gave it up to be an American.

are you really French? my Dad still lives there.

Mr.Fiction · 03-10-2003, 08:38 PM

Dave Plays is in the house.

Hey Dave, do you think it's all about oil or not?

If you don't think it's about oil, then you can't use the talk radio favorite "France is only against the war for financial reasons" bullshit.

If you do think that it's all about the oil, then Bush looks fucked.

Which one is it?

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

are you really French? my Dad still lives there.

born there, raise there, moved to the US in the eighties. Sworn in and proud american now.

cheese4acp · 03-10-2003, 08:44 PM

The war with Iraq, isn't really about the oil bush is from texas and has degrees from yale and harvard, The man has stock in oil. He really could probably care less about it really, cause can you say cha- ching. I think that it is more about finishing what his father started in his plea to get reelected. If we wanted to put saddam out of power we could have done in the first war it was just polititcs that kept his ass alive this long, by the way I was in the last conflict in 98' called desert fox. So the shit will start on the 18th when there is a new moon. and we will probably win but we are gonna have to deal with the fallout. That is the problem, because we are gonna be looked at as the bad guy. And that is gonna give us more problems that we are overlooking right now. War is never the answer. It is just a shame that it looks as though we are headed right for it.

DavePlays · 03-10-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Dave Plays is in the house.

Hey Dave, do you think it's all about oil or not?

If you don't think it's about oil, then you can't use the talk radio favorite "France is only against the war for financial reasons" bullshit.

If you do think that it's all about the oil, then Bush looks fucked.

Which one is it?

You'll have to tell me what the talk radio favorites are - I assume you listen to them, I don't.

As far as what this has to do with oil -
I know for sure it is where Saddam got his wealth and power from.

As far as Bush looking fucked - I'm going to wait and see. About half of us are going to be very suprised I think - only time will tell which half huh?

Saddam said they will "fight to the last infant..." do you not see how fucking sick that is? I am VERY gratful for the people we have over there ready to take the sorry bastard out.

Like I said... we'll see.

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

Saddam said they will "fight to the last infant..." do you not see how fucking sick that is? I am VERY gratful for the people we have over there ready to take the sorry bastard out.

Like I said... we'll see.

Yeah, right, to the last man, til the last man surrenders he means, like the guy that jumped into the UN jeep, or the eight Iraqis, who thought the war had started and walked across the border to surrender yesterday morning. They were sent back, since we are officially at war. giggle

DavePlays · 03-10-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

Yeah, right, to the last man, til the last man surrenders he means, like the guy that jumped into the UN jeep, or the eight Iraqis, who thought the war had started and walked across the border to surrender yesterday morning. They were sent back, since we are officially at war. giggle

If he would have last MAN - I'd be ok with it and just laugh about it too -

but he said "till the last infant" - that's different - that says a lot of who we are dealing with.

Snapper · 03-10-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

If he would have last MAN - I'd be ok with it and just laugh about it too -

but he said "till the last infant" - that's different - that says a lot of who we are dealing with.

Too true. but lets negotiate with him and take him at his word......NOT!

theking · 03-10-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck
Saddam was a friend of the US until OPEC decided to raise the price of oil from $3 a barrel to $22 a barrel. That's when they decided that he was an enemy and declared him a terrorist leader because he refused to charge more than 9x what he was currently charging for oil. This makes his oil cheaper than the others. For small companies in the US, we call what OPEC does price fixing, and it's illegal.

We also supplied him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

When they were supposedly about to invade Kuwait, the US got it's right to get into middle east by lying to the Saudis and saying that spy satellites showed that he had a large number of troops near the Kuwait border. Commercial satellites however showed that they simply weren't there. When the press decided to publish the info, the government begged them not to. The press said that if they could see the satellite images that proved that they were there, they wouldn't because they simply didn't exist.

When the first Bush started attacking Iraq, they vowed and still claim that they only targeted military stations. Within 24 hours, they had taken out the power plants, resevoir dams, hospitals, and the like. Iraq was then without power or water. The damage has not been fixed for the most part.

Not only that, but they used depleated uranium in their ammunition(that's where gulf war syndrome comes from). This has caused massive cancer outbreaks in Iraqi civilians. The radioactive material will still be contaminating the land for 4.6 billion years, no culture that lives on that land will ever be without the problems caused by it.

They've had embargos the whole time. It is insane that we still get Iraqi oil, but we are not allowed to export medicine to those dying from the effects of our strikes. Not allowing them to get medicine is clearly genocide.

They could have gotten Saddam in the gulf war, but Bush stopped attacking when a movement against him within Iraq. This gave Saddam time to stop them from overthrowing him.

Funny how they've been letting Saddam and his aristocratic friends live comfortably, while they've been killing the civilians the whole time. Makes you think maybe they want him to stay because then they have an excuse to be over there. The only reason we were there the first time is that we tricked Saudi Arabia into inviting us in. Also funny how the bases that were supposed to be temporary became permanent after the gulf war was said and done.

Think about all that.

I have and you need to replace the tinfoil.

cluck · 03-10-2003, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I have and you need to replace the tinfoil.

I didn't make any conspiracy theory claims, just said historical facts. The only ounce of info from that that came from my own mind was the idea that sanctions are an attack on the civilians.

theking · 03-10-2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

I didn't make any conspiracy theory claims, just said historical facts. The only ounce of info from that that came from my own mind was the idea that sanctions are an attack on the civilians.

There is not one single thing in your post that is fact. Not a single thing. FYI power plants, dams, communications etc. are always targets on the list of military targets, with power and communications being the first to go, so you even screwed that up. We never intentionally target hospitals unless the enemy has made the hospital into a military target.

rossiya2 · 03-11-2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

.....
screwed that up. We never intentionally target hospitals unless the enemy has made the hospital into a military target.

Was the children's school and hospital in Serbia a military target? Just wondering.

cluck · 03-11-2003, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

There is not one single thing in your post that is fact. Not a single thing. FYI power plants, dams, communications etc. are always targets on the list of military targets, with power and communications being the first to go, so you even screwed that up. We never intentionally target hospitals unless the enemy has made the hospital into a military target.

But isn't that technically targetting civilians? I mean they're the ones who have to go without power and clean water. I'm sure the ruling class can get theirs, but what happens to the common people?

Kat - Fast · 03-11-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

We never intentionally target hospitals...

Want to watch the beginning of Bowling for Colombine again?

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

intentionally target ...

I'm still pissed off with the fact the US killed more Brits in Gulf War I than the Iraqis did - so much for 'intentions'...

For the record - why didn't we just nuke Saddam back in '89?

JeremySF · 03-11-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rossiya2

Was the children's school and hospital in Serbia a military target? Just wondering.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war. In the Gulf War more Americans were killed from friendly fire than from Iraqi troops. The U.S. would never intentionallys targets civilians. The military doesn't intentionally target allied forces. The military doesn't intentionally target it's own forces. Shit happens.

JeremySF · 03-11-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

I didn't make any conspiracy theory claims, just said historical facts. The only ounce of info from that that came from my own mind was the idea that sanctions are an attack on the civilians.

One man is responsible for sanctions: Saddam Hussein.

Likewise, there is an oil-for-food program, but guess why much of the food doesn't get to its intended recipients?

Again, one man: Saddam Hussein

Do you see a patern here?

ADL Colin · 03-11-2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unclebubba

Dick Cheney's firm Haliburton has already received the contract to go set up Iraq's oil fields in the case of a war.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that someone would use their position or contacts to arrange such deals with a company they used to work for. It wouldnt surprise me, that's for sure.

However, Halliburton IS one of the world's leading oil service companies with vast experience in such arrangements, a company with 85,000 employees in more than 100 companies so it's quite possible they would have been chosen anyway.

So anyway, I was looking at the Halliburton website and couldn't find anything in their releases regarding such a contract. Couldn't find anything anywhere else either. Anyone have more info? I'm interested in reading it. Only info I can find regards contracts with Iraq that were made in 1998 to repair oil fields there - a legal deal in accordance with the oil-for-food program.

ADL Colin · 03-11-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
I cant believe there hasnt been a big stink about how Haliburton. The company which Cheney was CEO of got the contract to fight the oil fires. If there are any during the war. A

Hi Tony,

Sounds interesting. Do you have any further info or links on this?

Snapper · 03-11-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck

I didn't make any conspiracy theory claims, just said historical facts. The only ounce of info from that that came from my own mind was the idea that sanctions are an attack on the civilians.

Jeremy is exactly right. The sanctions only impact the civilians because Saddam chooses it to be that way. The Oil for food program has been there since the sanctions began. Saddam was too obstinate and too proud to allow oil for food, so he turned that down for years, until he decided to kick out inspectors.

As far as the intentional targeting of civilians, there is only one kind of force that intentionally target civilians...terrorists.

Neither US nor NATO forces have ever intentionally targeted civilians. Our opponents have, from the German Stukas bombings of polish civilians and the Japanese imperial army's murder of 350,000 chinese in WWII (almost twice what the Atom bombs in Japan killed) to the Iraqi massacres in Kuwait and the Serbian ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. America has always fought, sometimes with nothing to gain (Where was the oil in Somalia? Kosovo?) to oppose evil in the form of dictators and etnic cleansing.

Do civilians get hurt or killed in wars? Yes, even modern day weapons are not fully precise. Remember also that guys like Saddam like to disguise their soldiers as civilians, or use their civilians as soldiers. "If a bystander pulls a gun, he is no longer a bystander"

You're the one who needs to check his facts, Cluck. I'm worried that the media bullshit has taken a hold of you.

DavePlays · 03-11-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat

For the record - why didn't we just nuke Saddam back in '89?

Just for the record - you can thank the fucking UN for that - BELIEVE ME - I honestly think Bush Sr. and our military would have LOVED to have "finished the job". Why else wouldn't they have? - The UN mandate. That is why some of us today don't really give a shit what the UN does this time.

Rocky · 03-11-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheese4acp
The war with Iraq, isn't really about the oil bush is from texas and has degrees from yale and harvard

Then there's the question of your college tranhahahahahahas, if those really are your tranhahahahahahas. How did you get into Yale when other applicants in 1964 had higher SATs and much better grades?

Michael Moore, chapter "Dear George" from Stupid White Men

Quote:

Originally posted by cheese4acp
The war with Iraq, isn't really about the oil. The man has stock in oil. He really could probably care less about it really, cause can you say cha- ching.

Is it true that the bin Laden family has been funding the Bush family for over twenty years? According to the New York Times, your very first oil venture in 1979, a company called Arbusto, was financed, in part, by the bin Ladens. The bin Ladens have been investors in your father's company, the Carlyle Group, one of the largest military contractors in the U.S. Such odd coincidences deserve an explanation.

Michael Moore, from the Epilogue of Stupid White Men

ADL Colin · 03-11-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rocky

How did you get into Yale when other applicants in 1964 had higher SATs and much better grades?

Legacy applicants have easier admissions criteria than regular admissions. Quite normal.

Bush's SAT scores have been reported as a little higher than 1200 which is on the low end of admissions but not unheard of in any way.

JeremySF · 03-11-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper

Remember also that guys like Saddam like to disguise their soldiers as civilians, or use their civilians as soldiers. "If a bystander pulls a gun, he is no longer a bystander"

Very true!

Also, it should be noted that in many U.S. engagements from Somalia to Iraq, enemy fighters use civilian shields. It's a disgusting practice, but they do it. In a most extreme example, in Somalia fighters would shoot at American soldiers behind the shield of a woman or child. In such a situation, what do you do?

Likewise, weapons/soldiers/terrorists/warlords are hidden in schools, places of worship, civilian houses, etc. Then when we get intelligence about that there X is in location Y, we attack and then low and behold there is a civilian casualty (or casualties) but it wasn't our fault. But of course we shoulder the blame.

There's yet another tactic rival warlords use it to manipulate U.S. intelligence. They will inform intel that there are weapons or what-not at a particular location. U.S. attacks. Turns out it was a warlord's rival village. There motivation was to get the U.S. to bomb a rival faction. They know how to manipulate the system. Sad but true.

Rocky · 03-11-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

Legacy applicants have easier admissions criteria than regular admissions. Quite normal.

You found yourself admitted to an exclusive New England boarding school simply because your name was Bush. You did not EARN your place there. It was bought for you.

When they let you into Yale, you learned you could bypass more deserving students who had worked hard for twelve years to qualify for admission to college. You got in because your name was Bush.

You got into Harvard Business School the same way. After screwing off during your four years in Yale, you took the seat that rightfully belonged to someone else.

You then pretended to serve a full stint in the Texas Air National Guard. But one day, according to the Boston Globe, you just skipped out and failed to report back to your unit - for a year and a half! You didn't have to fulfill your military obligation, because your name was Bush.

Michael Moore, chapter "Dear George" from Stupid White Men

i don't find this quite normal, do you?

03-10-2003, 07:30 PM	#54
cluck Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,248	Saddam was a friend of the US until OPEC decided to raise the price of oil from $3 a barrel to $22 a barrel. That's when they decided that he was an enemy and declared him a terrorist leader because he refused to charge more than 9x what he was currently charging for oil. This makes his oil cheaper than the others. For small companies in the US, we call what OPEC does price fixing, and it's illegal. We also supplied him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When they were supposedly about to invade Kuwait, the US got it's right to get into middle east by lying to the Saudis and saying that spy satellites showed that he had a large number of troops near the Kuwait border. Commercial satellites however showed that they simply weren't there. When the press decided to publish the info, the government begged them not to. The press said that if they could see the satellite images that proved that they were there, they wouldn't because they simply didn't exist. When the first Bush started attacking Iraq, they vowed and still claim that they only targeted military stations. Within 24 hours, they had taken out the power plants, resevoir dams, hospitals, and the like. Iraq was then without power or water. The damage has not been fixed for the most part. Not only that, but they used depleated uranium in their ammunition(that's where gulf war syndrome comes from). This has caused massive cancer outbreaks in Iraqi civilians. The radioactive material will still be contaminating the land for 4.6 billion years, no culture that lives on that land will ever be without the problems caused by it. They've had embargos the whole time. It is insane that we still get Iraqi oil, but we are not allowed to export medicine to those dying from the effects of our strikes. Not allowing them to get medicine is clearly genocide. They could have gotten Saddam in the gulf war, but Bush stopped attacking when a movement against him within Iraq. This gave Saddam time to stop them from overthrowing him. Funny how they've been letting Saddam and his aristocratic friends live comfortably, while they've been killing the civilians the whole time. Makes you think maybe they want him to stay because then they have an excuse to be over there. The only reason we were there the first time is that we tricked Saudi Arabia into inviting us in. Also funny how the bases that were supposed to be temporary became permanent after the gulf war was said and done. Think about all that. __________________ icq 279990726 www.mcdonalds.com <- great money making opportunity

03-10-2003, 07:34 PM	#55
cluck Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,248	Another thing about the depleated uranium. Just before the gulf war studies were done and the use of it was going to be banned because of it's effects. The folks over at the pentagon forced these studies to stop. The shells are even used today. The majority of them are used at bases in Okinawa, Japan. My cousin was stationed there. Hearing that makes me very upset. When my cousin gets cancer and dies, I'll know who did it to him. It was the country he was supposedly fighting for. __________________ icq 279990726 www.mcdonalds.com <- great money making opportunity

03-10-2003, 08:01 PM	#61
.:Frog:. Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ~ C A N A D A ~ Posts: 2,123	What I don't understand? Let me tell you, I don't understand the urgent rush to attack Iraq. So far weapon inspectors are making progress and most people (except Bush, and Blair) believe they should be allowed to continue their job and attack only as a last resort. attack as a last resort Iraq isn't an immediate threat, the problem is Bush being impatient. I find that fucking pathetic. The majority of the world would support war if the UN voted for war, but so far they have not. They are against war without UN concent. Hope this clears things up. __________________ <a href="http://www.pornopayouts.com/?rid=pp3076">PornoPayouts</a> Tons of Hosted Galleries.

03-10-2003, 08:44 PM	#80
cheese4acp Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: www.sexxxgames.com Posts: 110	The war with Iraq, isn't really about the oil bush is from texas and has degrees from yale and harvard, The man has stock in oil. He really could probably care less about it really, cause can you say cha- ching. I think that it is more about finishing what his father started in his plea to get reelected. If we wanted to put saddam out of power we could have done in the first war it was just polititcs that kept his ass alive this long, by the way I was in the last conflict in 98' called desert fox. So the shit will start on the 18th when there is a new moon. and we will probably win but we are gonna have to deal with the fallout. That is the problem, because we are gonna be looked at as the bad guy. And that is gonna give us more problems that we are overlooking right now. War is never the answer. It is just a shame that it looks as though we are headed right for it. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

03-10-2003, 07:02 PM	#51
Funkito Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 92	Getting caught up on the question of oil only goes so far. My own opinion is that it is a factor, but not the heart of the matter. The U.S. would be fine with Hussein in power (or anybody else who could deliver stability) if it was only about oil. The heart of the matter is this: 1. The Middle East is fucked up, the Arabs hate us, and they want to kill us. Take a look at our foreign policy for the last 50 years in the region if you don't understand why yet. 2. WMD--the new technologies allow people that hate us to kill us in large numbers is a new situation. And it ain't going to change any time soon. So we really have to reduce our enemies--not just take away bombs from the bad-guy-of-the-month. So the question I have is if a war in Iraq is going to make us safer by: A. Reducing our enemies and giving the people in the Middle East a reason to believe we actually are the good guys and actually give a shit about their lives. B. Reducing the chances of people getting WMD. Invading Iraq might help that--but then again Hussein is probably giving out whatever he has to the highest bidder as we speak because he has nothing left to lose. I have my doubts that getting rid of Hussein is going to do much good for our long-term security. We really have to stop making enemies and find a way to turn old enemies into friends. And I don't think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have the answers here, unfortunately. I mean they are really fucking things up with our allies (and everybody else) as far as I can tell. BTW-50 mutherfuckers

03-10-2003, 07:27 PM	#53
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Jeremy, I hate to break it to you but nothing spells a fight like high prices at the pumps. GM, Ford and Chrysler are NOT going to start making small efficient cars that they cant charge dick for instead of 40k SUVs that roll over the curb like Hitlers army marching into France... Is this specifically about Iraqs oil? No. Nor is the Middle Eastern situation the only thing to blame for high gas prices, since the US is not nearly as dependant as Europe is on that source of fuel. However the situation in Venezuela and elsewhere doesn't help things either so far as pricing goes. At the end of the day we're going into Iraq to show the rest of the Middle East that we will come after you if you piss us off and disrupt our lives.

03-10-2003, 08:38 PM	#78
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Dave Plays is in the house. Hey Dave, do you think it's all about oil or not? If you don't think it's about oil, then you can't use the talk radio favorite "France is only against the war for financial reasons" bullshit. If you do think that it's all about the oil, then Bush looks fucked. Which one is it?