My Sadaam Rant

[wonton]

Man, it's all pretty simple and pretty obvious. We are going to war for OIL and only for OIL. All this weapons of mass destruction shit and UN resolution garbage is all bullshit. North Korea, Israel, Russia, Libya... all have weapons of mass destruction and have violated numerous UN resolutions. Why aren't we invading them?! BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FUCKING OIL THAT'S WHY!!!

And all this bullshit about Saddam being Dr. Evil is just that - bullshit! Of course he's nasty but he was nasty since 1973. He was nasty when he gassed the Kurds in 1988 WITH GAS THAT BUSH SENIOR SOLD HIM as head of the CIA. He was nasty when he slaughtered 500,000 Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war - WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN FULLY SUPPORTED HIM!

But now Saddam is suddenly public enemy # 1? Of course...CNN recently reported that global oil production has peaked and Saddam just happens to be sitting on the world's second largest reserve on the planet.

Even a six year old could figure this out. It's about OIL and only about OIL.

But hey - I'm all for it. I want cheap gas and want to maintain my American lifestyle. Fuck 'em all, I say. But at least let's be honest about it!

[dacash]

Nice, if only more people would understand.

[The Truth Hurts]

And on that logic, I blame the upcoming war on all the people that put up a big stink about tapping into our own oil in Alaska.

[wonton]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts
And on that logic, I blame the upcoming war on all the people that put up a big stink about tapping into our own oil in Alaska.

You're not far off the mark on that. Part of the problem is not using our own oil reserves. The other part of the problem is that we want to maintain our extremely high standard of living (and who wouldn't?) which is fundamentally centered on oil consumption. America is an oil and war economy. Those are the two fundamental cornerstones of our entire industrial machine. The fact that the former is a rapidly depleting resource makes the latter all the more dominant.

I say, let's KICK THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS!!!

(them being Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia)

[Jakke PNG]

Saddam's moustache look gay.

[Luc]

It's about OIL and only about OIL.

And that's the truth plain and simple. Now which one of
you guys wants to die for oil?

CNN was talking about how US military plans to immediately
secure the OIL fields and disarm the remote detonators
which are known to be in place. There are several US companies
that have contracts and are ready to take control
over the oil once the war results in US victory.

Let them keep their fucking oil, it's not worth getting
nuked!

[FlyingIguana]

North Korea, Israel, Russia, Libya

when was the last time one of these countries invaded another country?

[wonton]

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
North Korea, Israel, Russia, Libya

when was the last time one of these countries invaded another country?

Are you joking or just ignorant? North Korea invaded South Korea in the 1950s. Ever hear of the Korean war? They threaten to re-invade the south almost weekly. They threatened to launch an attack just last month.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and besides that, Israel is basically built on the land of displaced peoples.

Russia invaded just about all its neighbors throughout the 20th century and to this day still oppresses its conquered neighbors in such places as Chechnya.

If you want maniacal goverments with weapons of mass destruction, you can find them all over the world. The only reason that we are invading Iraq is because they have a HELLUVA LOT MORE OIL than just about anyone else. And mark my words...a conquered Iraq will be used as a staging ground to invade Saudi Arabia and Iran next!

Yeeeeehaaaaa!

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts
And on that logic, I blame the upcoming war on all the people that put up a big stink about tapping into our own oil in Alaska.

You're probably joking, but some people actually believe that.

It's staggering how some people will believe anything that comes out of Bush/Rush's mouth.

[wonton]

And while we're at it consider that:

* America has more weapons of mass destruction than all other nations combined, including nuclear, chemical and biological.

* America actively supported terrorism all over the world, for "good causes" in Iran, Vietnam and South America, toppling many democratic regimes. See the current film 'The Quiet American' with Michael Caine and Brendan Fraiser for just a small taste.

* America is the ONLY country to have ever nuked civilian populations. Yes, we can all argue that Hiroshima may have been necessary. But Nagasaki was a crime against humanity, no if's and's or but's.

* America invaded Grenada in 1983

* America invaded Panama in 1988

* America will invade Iraq in 2003

* Did I mention America's weapons of mass destruction?

I'm all for America. Hell, I live here and am proud to be an American. But let's at least be honest and cut the bullshit. We rule because we wanna rule. We are more dangerous than all the dictators in the world combined. But it's for a good cause - OURS!!!

[Triple 6]

Fuck oil, fuck SUVs, fuck cars, fuck gas. Fuck it all. How bout we all go back to walking?

[Triple 6]

nevermind, FUCK THAT.



Bombs awayyyyyyyy!

[KRL]

I was in the Oil and Gas business years ago. I'll tell you it makes the porn biz look like panzies. The guys in O&G are pirates to the max and super cut throat. It really is like that show that used to be on Dallas. All hardcore power mongers.

So yes undelying all this hype on Saddam. The bottom line is we wantz da oil and wez gonna getz da oil.

Iraq has several hundred million barrels. Its also shallow oil fields which means the lift and recovery costs are the lowest on earth which means lots more profits. If you figure at $30 a barrel there is several trillion dollars there. And they've only developed 20% of their fields so far. Talk about a big juicy steak! Georgie boy and his Texas oil buddies are licking their chops right now.

[wonton]

Bush, Cheney and that chick Condaleeza are all former OIL CEOs. And they are in command of the most powerful military force on earth. Ya think they are just gonna pass up the chance to grab a multi-trillion dollar puddle of oil sitting in the desert and protected by some third-world, undernourished Iraqis with tin rifles?

HELL NO!!!

BOMBS AWAY!!!!!

[Webby]

wonton:

Undeniable facts - all of em!

Thanks to the US Admin, the country is sadly now a rogue state which creates enemies with words and lies, has little international credibility and has amassed a feeling of "anti Americanism" across the globe. Forget the question, "Why do they hate us?" - "they" don't hate US people/country - they hate the US government to hell and back.

If the US governement ever intended to be a service to the US population, - it has totally failed. It is the "civilized world's" most repressive government which, years later, has still not even ratified basic human rights treaties - yet on the other hand, proclaiming "freedoms" and "our values" in patriotic propaganda. The US is the most "unfree" country in the Western World - sad shit when you see what it could have been.

I seriously don't know if the majority of US citizens actually see this - else they would have kicked out the assholes already and scrapped the reams of invasive laws. "Federal government" does not mean God or something sacred.

Sad, but thanks to the "caring" government who have, over many years, literally spawned it's "evil terrorists", there will be more attacks on the US, despite the billions in "defence of the homeland" crap. Why can't the US live like most other countries, have *some* sense and understanding and we are unlikely to be seeing the stupidity of the current favorite war - "terrorism"? But hell.. each to his own...

[FlyingIguana]

Originally posted by wonton


Are you joking or just ignorant? North Korea invaded South Korea in the 1950s. Ever hear of the Korean war? They threaten to re-invade the south almost weekly. They threatened to launch an attack just last month.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and besides that, Israel is basically built on the land of displaced peoples.

Russia invaded just about all its neighbors throughout the 20th century and to this day still oppresses its conquered neighbors in such places as Chechnya.

If you want maniacal goverments with weapons of mass destruction, you can find them all over the world. The only reason that we are invading Iraq is because they have a HELLUVA LOT MORE OIL than just about anyone else. And mark my words...a conquered Iraq will be used as a staging ground to invade Saudi Arabia and Iran next!

Yeeeeehaaaaa!

soviet union was dismantled. korea hasn't attacked anyone for over 50 years. korea also has nuclear weapons and if the states attacked would risk a ton of lives in south korea. you don't want iraq to build up to where korea is now, which is why saddaam needs to be taken care of.

wake the fuck up

[OneHungLo]

All for oil? You think were gonna roll in there and take all that oil for ourselves?? Please think again. What about Milosevic In Kosovo?

[wonton]

Originally posted by FlyingIguana


soviet union was dismantled. korea hasn't attacked anyone for over 50 years. korea also has nuclear weapons and if the states attacked would risk a ton of lives in south korea. you don't want iraq to build up to where korea is now, which is why saddaam needs to be taken care of.

wake the fuck up

Time for YOU to wake the fuck up, Neo. The US knew that North Korea was about to build nukes in 1994 but did nothing. No invasion. The US knew that Pakistan was near building nukes throughout the entire nineties and Pakistan is a brutal dictatorship that sponsors terrorism (even against the US!). But again - no invasion. Syria, another dictatorship that sponsors terrorism, is a helluva lot closer to building nukes than Saddam - no invasion. And the list goes on...

no oil = no invasion

oil = invasion

It's pretty simple.

[FlyingIguana]

yugoslavia, vietnam...

yup, its only about oil baby! what happened during desert storm? they didn't take over iraq's oil then. they gave saddaam a chance and he fucked up, so now they're going in.

attacking korea could cause the north to attack south korea, plus in 94 clinton was getting a blowjob and gore was busy with his invention. attacking iraq would be fairly isolated without involving other countries.

do you really think the UN would allow the states to attack pakistan? its a much different situation than iraq, where the UN in considering it at this very moment.

in your little mind you may think its simple, but in the real world its not so cut and dry.

[rooster]

Exactly. if it was so about oil, why didnt we take over the oil last time?



"* America has more weapons of mass destruction than all other nations combined, including nuclear, chemical and biological."


Have we ever used them on neighbors. No. Do we have ambitions of taking over neighbors. No.



"* America actively supported terrorism all over the world, for "good causes" in Iran, Vietnam and South America, toppling many democratic regimes. See the current film 'The Quiet American' with Michael Caine and Brendan Fraiser for just a small taste. "


Sometimes you gotta pick the lesser of two evils. This is real life, not a fairytale.



"* America is the ONLY country to have ever nuked civilian populations. Yes, we can all argue that Hiroshima may have been necessary. But Nagasaki was a crime against humanity, no if's and's or but's. "


Perhaps, but that was a much different situation. The fighting on those islands were absolute bloodbaths and it needed to end, and the japs refused surrender. Those assholes commited their share of atrocieties such as the bataan death march. Then we completely rebuilt japan afterwards.

[kevinl]

Man, it's all pretty simple and pretty obvious. We are going to war for OIL and only for OIL. All this weapons of mass destruction shit and UN resolution garbage is all bullshit. North Korea, Israel, Russia, Libya... all have weapons of mass destruction and have violated numerous UN resolutions. Why aren't we invading them?! BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FUCKING OIL THAT'S WHY!!!

If that is true why dont we have the Kuwaiti oil fields.

Saddam was ordered to disarm just like the Germans and the Japanese were at the end of WWII. They did, he didnt so now he will be disarmed.

[Webby]

rooster:

Exactly. if it was so about oil, why didnt we take over the oil last time?

I dunno and I doubt we will ever know the real truth - ya can only guess that one - there were pressures from Arab countries for a start to show that the US was not gonna convert Iraq into it's oilwell and install MacDonalds in Bagdad.. And, who knows, but Storming Norm opposed further action.

America actively supported terrorism all over the world

If US did not behave in this way, it is doubtful Iraq would have ever been a problem... same with many countries it supplied arms to. It seems no lessons have ever been learned where the supplying of arms to "today's friends" are a danger with "tomorrows enemies" - this has been repeated time and time again. It just makes the US look stupid.

Even lately, within weeks of Bush declaring Iran part of his "Axis of Evil".. there was an arms fair in Iran where the US was very well represented (as the world's major supplier of weapons)... Iran may be Bush's "enemy", but sure as hell, you will find the US there when there is a dime to be earned! We gotta keep the orders going into the companies the Admin and their families have interests in - and war business is always good business


What a fucked up scenario!

That State of the Union address where the Oil Mafia declared the "good things we are gonna do cos we need to show we actually care about any US domestic issues" - including development of some replacement fuel technology - other than oil, was pathetic - another one of the non-happenings we can look forward to! (Reminds me of that big deal Bush made at election time on "environment issues" - again, all bullshit!) Bush cannot be trusted - full stop - and is not trusted by many other countries - so why the hell should anyone believe a word he says on "terrorism" or any other subject or believe one word in the puppet media? Sheesh... tis a sad joke!

[Webby]

OK.. This weeks "Bushism" and I gotta work! :-)

The war on terrorism involved Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.....

Bush is so fucked up on Saddam Hussein he ain't got one fucking clue about what is real and what's not - else he needs some medical attention cos he's gotta be dyslexic or a retard... He has continued two fucking years uttering this dribble - shit.. my cat can do better

[rooster]

"And, who knows, but Storming Norm opposed further action. "

This is completely untrue. He was just on tv the other day and said they wished they could have taken a few more days and gone all the way to baghdad but were not given permission to.

It would be much easier to debate with people on the far left if they didnt use so many lies and spin.


I need a liberal to fact translator.

It would include such things as...


everyone hates bush = everyone except the over 50% of people that do like him


the usa has no allies in the war = none except a good chunk of europe, austrailia, isreael, turkey, etc.

[Webby]

rooster:

Mmmm I dunno about the halting with Iraq... I only remember some comments at the time about Norm not liking the idea of going forward. But hell.. I doubt they would be much interested in what he thought once the Iraqi forces collapsed.. Who knows?

OK - give ya a clue!

If there is "spin" in the world... the biggest spinner is Bush.. the diatribe and rhetoric is absurb and infantile...

I dunno if I could say "I hate Bush"... I never met anyone that I hated yet :-) But.. I depise the man for the promises and undertakings he has made and never fulfilled.. or attempted to fulfill - both to US citizens and abroad. We all may make promises and for some reason or other just cannot complete on. But Bush has mouthed so much over his two plus years in office and failed in the majority of what he promised or agreed to. So.. what ya expect??

This has nothing to do with "left wing" or any other political persuasion... I don't give a toss about any political shit :-)

As for allies... don't believe the crap in US media about "allies". Yes, most countries, if it came to the crunch, are gonna be supporting the US - they are already, tho it may look like some ain't :-) The "disagreement" is in the behavior of the US Admin.
As an example... the favorite ally is the UK. But... as of a day or so ago... there is a vast majority of the UK public opposing Bush's proposal... in fact only 10% actually support him. (10% didn't know.. so forget them! *g*) .. A good number just think the man is a lunatic. This is pretty common throughout Europe. 60% even oppose action in Iraq even if Bush gets a further UN resolution. I got little doubt there is tension right now between Bush and Blair - obvious from Blair's Washington visit.

Maybe if the situation changed in respect to actual "evidence" of the Bush claims, - but hell.. he has been talking about "evidence" for many months and produced nothing.. so tis little surprise people are sceptical :-) It looks pretty similar within the US as well.

Na.. I ain't a "hater"... but I sure wish there was some sense in a President - especially if the guy is the President of the US. He behaves like .. a combination of a maiden aunt waving fingers at naughty kids and a kid himself when he loses his favorite toy.

Sorry.. but that ain't a President.. that's a joke.. No offense meant!

[Ollie]

oh no...here I go

Wonton, you're 100% right...for sure there are subtleties that we are not aware of regarding this conflict, but the truth remains: Bush and his "oil-digging crew" are going to Irak for its oil reserves. period.

kevinl:

If that is true why dont we have the Kuwaiti oil fields.

huuuuh... maybe we should build a list of all the US oil companies who have well-established activities in the middle-east. That would be fun. Massive installations in Algeria, Iran, Kuweit, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would be found. The US are drilling the Middle East for its oil, and it has been going on for quite a long time I think. You really think the US is not profiting one way or another from the Kuweti oil fields...c'mon...

BTW, the US government always finds evil in its path. For example: THE TALIBANS. The talibans...weren't they the people who helped the US during the afghan war about 20 years ago? They were heroes at the time. Its scary how an entire population can "go bad" in a matter of years...
oh yeah, if you guys do some research you'll find that there was an american oil company that wanted to go through a portion of Afghanistan at the time (2001) but the Taliban government didn't want to. BIN LADEN is hiding in your country...bombs away, out the Talibans, in the oil pipeline.

Now if some of you guys want to take the position "i want to maintain my standards of life at the expense of other people I don't give a shit for", there's nothing anybody in the world can do.
But, if you look at Iraqis (or any other population) as residents of planet Earth (men, women and children), maybe you'll rectify your position.

...and Webby, keep up the good work with the Bush quotes, I just love 'em

[strainer]

Its worth explaining to people that if you think America is making a grab for oil you ar basically a moron. You probably also think we faked the moon landing, the CIA killed Kennedy, and the Easter Bunny is real.

Get a grip, people. Sadaam was our budy before he invaded Kuwait. Even today we are still his #1 customer - oil flows through the world under its own rules.

The main reason the French and Russians resist the invasion is that they are afraid a freed Iraqi people will eventually reward American companies with lucrative contracts building and maintaining oil fields, but only an idiot thinks we are going to grab the oil itself with a few billion muslims watching.

It will be sold under U.N. supervision, and for the first time in dozens of years, for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

There are lots of legitimate reasons why you can be opposed to freeing Iraq. Like, too much risk, he'll die anyway in 10 years, etc. It will anger a muslim world because they'll loose face even though millions less will die of starvation or execution, etc.

Be for gods sake people don't believe stupid moron shit like "its all about the oil". It has fucking nothing to do with oil. In 5 years Russia will be our #1 supplier, and the world has been doing just fine with reduced Iraqi oil for 10 years.

[wonton]

Originally posted by rooster
Exactly. if it was so about oil, why didnt we take over the oil last time?

Your first question is a good one. Here is the answer to that one and I might address your other points in another response.

The US did not topple Bagdhad in 1991 for two major reasons:

1- At the time, the US had to drag the arab world (except Kuwait) kicking and screaming into the war. They made major concessions to these nations. These countries were adamant that the US should NOT take over a major arab country like Iraq but simply expel Iraq from Kuwait like the UN resolution called for. At the time, it would have been an international political nightmare if the US marched into Baghdad. The arab world, even the rest of the world, was just not "ready" for such a dramatic manouver. Plus the hypocracy of such a move would have been amplified - Iraq just took over Kuwait so now the US does the exact same thing and takes over Iraq?

2- The biggest reason we did not march into Baghdad is that Bush Sr. was trying hard to lick the "Vietnam Syndrome" in the US. He knew that high American causaulties would be a nightmare and would cause a widespread anti-war movement. Invading a major city is the most dangerous type of warfare. House to house fighting results in high causalties on both sides. There is no way in hell that the American public was ready for such a thing, especially since the whole war was ostensibly to rescue one arab dictorship from another arab dictatorship.


So what is different this time? Everything! At the end of the first gulf war, the US created the so-called "no fly zones" that cut off huge swath's of Iraq at the north and south and pretty much put these areas under US control. These "no fly zones" are in contravention to international law. They are not part of the UN reslolutions and are blatantly illegal. But that is besides the point. For the past 12 years, the US has been mercilessly bombing Iraq into total submission. Economic sanctions has pummelled the civilian population. Iraq is so weak right now that a squad of plastic GI Joe's (the ones with Kung Fu grip) could defeat them. During the past 12 years, US intelligence has been trainging two large armies on Iraqi territory - Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. The plan, as was openly and recently described on Fox News by several 5-star generals, is to have these "freedom fighters" do all of the dirty fighting in Baghdad. They will be the ones who intially go house to house. Of course most of the video you will eventually see on CNN will be of US soldiers mopping up what's left of the Republican gaurd in downtown Baghdad (after the Kurds and Shiites do most of the hard work). It will all be made to look quick and easy and indeed there will be minimal US causalties. As for the "freedom fighters" think Bay of Pigs to foretell their fate.

In addition to training spearhead armies, the last 12 years of bombing Saddam has enabled the US to create the necessary propaganda wave and prime the US population to topple Baghdad. This effort has managed to keep the "bogey man" Saddam on TV for over a decade. The US propaganda machine has drilled it into our heads that Saddam is pure evil. That he is a major problem. The plan to take over Iraq has been 12 years in the making. The day the no-fly zones were initially set up was the day the decision was taken. The Bushies (Sr. and Jr.) are not the only ones pulling the strings. They pull some of the strings but not all of them. The military-industrial establishment of Oliver Stone fame (now you can ridicule my post) is indeed independant from democratic control and has been for decades. They don't give a shit who the president is - Republican or Democrat does not make much of a difference. There is always an agenda and the agenda gets played out according to the most opportune timeline. Now is the time for the invasion of the primary oil-producing countries in the world - Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. It will all play out over the next decade.

So we'll get the oil. There is no question about that. But we will likely get something else - more terrorism directed against us. And future attacks may make 911 look like a walk in the park. But if ya wanna rule the world, sometime ya gotta pay yer dues.

[wonton]

Originally posted by strainer
Its worth explaining to people that if you think America is making a grab for oil you ar basically a moron. You probably also think we faked the moon landing, the CIA killed Kennedy, and the Easter Bunny is real.

Get a grip, people. Sadaam was our budy before he invaded Kuwait. Even today we are still his #1 customer - oil flows through the world under its own rules.

The main reason the French and Russians resist the invasion is that they are afraid a freed Iraqi people will eventually reward American companies with lucrative contracts building and maintaining oil fields, but only an idiot thinks we are going to grab the oil itself with a few billion muslims watching.

It will be sold under U.N. supervision, and for the first time in dozens of years, for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

There are lots of legitimate reasons why you can be opposed to freeing Iraq. Like, too much risk, he'll die anyway in 10 years, etc. It will anger a muslim world because they'll loose face even though millions less will die of starvation or execution, etc.

Be for gods sake people don't believe stupid moron shit like "its all about the oil". It has fucking nothing to do with oil. In 5 years Russia will be our #1 supplier, and the world has been doing just fine with reduced Iraqi oil for 10 years.

You are totally misinformed. The UN has no plan to oversee the disbursement of Iraqi oil. The UN has not even given the go-ahead for an invasion. So where are you pulling this "fact" from?

The world has not been "doing just fine with reduced Iraqi oil for 10 years". Do you not recall that last year Bush opened up America's emergency oil reserves so that people in the northeast could have heating fuel for the winter? That might not have been widely reported in the media and in fact was somewhat downplayed but that is a DRAMATIC indication that there is a problem. Anyone who does not see that is in denial.

As for the easter bunny and the CIA, I am not one to believe in chocolate-egg dispersing marsupials. And yes, we walked on teh moon. But to say, point-blank, that the CIA had nothing to do with the JFK assasination means that you are simply not well read. I would not jump to the opposite conclusion either, to say that they definitely were involved, but there is certainly a TON of evidence to demonstrate that they likely were. At best, that question remains open.

[theking]

Originally posted by wonton



Your first question is a good one. Here is the answer to that one and I might address your other points in another response.

The US did not topple Bagdhad in 1991 for two major reasons:

1- At the time, the US had to drag the arab world (except Kuwait) kicking and screaming into the war. They made major concessions to these nations. These countries were adamant that the US should NOT take over a major arab country like Iraq but simply expel Iraq from Kuwait like the UN resolution called for. At the time, it would have been an international political nightmare if the US marched into Baghdad. The arab world, even the rest of the world, was just not "ready" for such a dramatic manouver. Plus the hypocracy of such a move would have been amplified - Iraq just took over Kuwait so now the US does the exact same thing and takes over Iraq?

2- The biggest reason we did not march into Baghdad is that Bush Sr. was trying hard to lick the "Vietnam Syndrome" in the US. He knew that high American causaulties would be a nightmare and would cause a widespread anti-war movement. Invading a major city is the most dangerous type of warfare. House to house fighting results in high causalties on both sides. There is no way in hell that the American public was ready for such a thing, especially since the whole war was ostensibly to rescue one arab dictorship from another arab dictatorship.

The reason we did not topple Sadam, and did not totally destroy his military in 1991 is very simple. We wanted to leave him with enough power to deter the Iranians from attempting an invasion of Iraq. Geo political balance of power. The "Vietnam Syndrome" or a high casualty count had nothing to do with the decision. There would not have been a high casualty count on the US side as the Iraqi's simply did not and do not have the ability to fight. Very poorly led, very poorly trained, and technologically outmatched in 1991 and the same applies today but even more so.

So what is different this time? Everything! At the end of the first gulf war, the US created the so-called "no fly zones" that cut off huge swath's of Iraq at the north and south and pretty much put these areas under US control. These "no fly zones" are in contravention to international law. They are not part of the UN reslolutions are blatantly illegal. But that is besides the point. For the past 12 years, the US has been mercilessly bombing Iraq into total submission. Economic sanctions has pummelled the civilian population. Iraq is so weak right now that a squad of plastic GI Joe's (the ones with Kung Fu grip) could defeat them. During the past 12 years, US intelligence has been trainging two large armies on Iraqi territory - Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. The plan, as was openly described on Fox News by several 5-star generals, is to have these "freedom fighters" do all of the dirty fighting in Baghdad. They will be the ones who intially go house to house. Of course most of the video you will eventually see on CNN will be of US soldiers mopping up what's left of the Republican gaurd in downtown Baghdad (after the Kurds and Shiites do most of the hard work). It will all be made to look quick and easy and indeed there will be minimal US causalties. As for the "freedom fighters" think Bay of Pigs to foretell their fate.

The "no fly" zones were established to prevent Sadam from waging further killing of the Shites in the South and the Kurds in the North as he was in the process of doing.

The US has not been "mercilessly bombing Iraq into submission" for the past 12 years. If that were the case then there would not be anything left standing in Iraq. The US and the British aircraft that patrol the "no fly zone" have knocked out air defenses along the border of the two "no fly zones" that have either lite up the patroling aircraft and were tracking them as targets, or in fact fired upon the patroling aircraft.

The US has not been training two large Armies in Southern, or Northern Iraq. Iraq's military forces have access to the North and access to the South and exercise that access. It was not that long ago that they were holding military excercises along the Kuwaite border in a show of force. It is only their fighter aircraft and attack helicopters that are not allowed into the "no fly" zones.

In addition to training spearhead armies, the last 12 years of bombing Saddam has enabled the US to create the necessary propaganda wave and prime the US population to topple Baghdad. This effort has managed to keep the "bogey man" Saddam on TV for over a decade. The US propaganda machine has drilled it into our heads that Saddam is pure evil. That he is a major problem. The plan to take over Iraq has been 12 years in the making. The day the no-fly zones were initially set up was the day the decision was taken. The Bushies (Sr. and Jr.) are not the only ones pulling the strings. They pull some of the strings but not all of them. The military-industrial establishment of Oliver Stone fame (now you can ridicule my post) is indeed independant from democratic control and has been for decades. They don't give a shit who the president is - Republican or Democrat does not make much of a difference. There is always an agenda and the agenda gets played out according to the most opportune timeline. Now is the time for the invasion of the primary oil-producing countries in the world - Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. It will all play out over the next decade.

So we'll get the oil. There is no question about that. But we will likely get something else - more terrorism directed against us. And future attacks may make 911 look like a walk in the park. But if ya wanna rule the world, sometime ya gotta pay yer dues.

As for the rest of your misinformation...are you sure that you are not Massivecock?

[wonton]

theking, you are wrong, wrong, wrong!



A high-casuality count was a major driving force behind not invading Baghdad in 1991. The Iraqi army was a cinch to defeat IN THE OPEN DESERT. But any Ak-47 armed force, no matter how poorly trained, is very difficult to dislodge from an urban setting. Besides, the Iraqi army was in fact well trained. It was just that their weaponry was far inferior to US weaponry. The US managed to destroy over 3,000 Iraqi tanks from afar without suffering the loss of a single of their own tanks. And in any case, that technological edge would have been rendered near zero in urban fighting. Finally, Baghdad was, and still is, protected by the Republican Gaurd, who by all accounts is a well trained and well armed security force.

The no-fly zones being set up to "protect kurds" is total propaganda bullshit. The US does not give a shit about the kurds and never have. For that matter, no one else in the world seems to give a shit about them. How's this for "protecting the kurds" - the whole reason that Saddam ever bombed the kurds is because the US trained the kurds in the 1970s, at the request of the Shah of Iran, to topple Bagdhad, which the kurds tried to do in a CIA sponsored coup in the late 1970s. Saddam retaliated by attacking the kurds and continuing to oppress them for years. But the initial impetus came from the US. And that's not conspiracy shit. That's real-world news. Look it up on MSNBC.

The US has been training armies in the north and south of the country. Are you telling me that you know more than the generals who are all over the cable news stations admitting as much? They are admitting it so how in the world can you call that misinformation?!?

Maybe it is YOU who is MASSIVECOCK!!!

[jimmyf]

Nope....wonton You are wrong and theking is right. And it is not all about oil.

[jammyjenkins]

Originally posted by jimmyf
Nope....wonton You are wrong and theking is right. And it is not all about oil.

How can you be sure?

how can anyone be sure about the exact motives?

speak to bush regularly do you? he makes a habit of talking national security with you does he?

[theking]

Originally posted by wonton
theking, you are wrong, wrong, wrong!



A high-casuality count was a major driving force behind not invading Baghdad in 1991. The Iraqi army was a cinch to defeat IN THE OPEN DESERT. But any Ak-47 armed force, no matter how poorly trained, is very difficult to dislodge from an urban setting. Besides, the Iraqi army was in fact well trained. It was just that their weaponry was far inferior to US weaponry. The US managed to destroy over 3,000 Iraqi tanks from afar without suffering the loss of a single of their own tanks. And in any case, that technological edge would have been rendered near zero in urban fighting. Finally, Baghdad was, and still is, protected by the Republican Gaurd, who by all accounts is a well trained and well armed security force.

The no-fly zones being set up to "protect kurds" is total propaganda bullshit. The US does not give a shit about the kurds and never have. For that matter, no one else in the world seems to give a shit about them. How's this for "protecting the kurds" - the whole reason that Saddam ever bombed the kurds is because the US trained the kurds in the 1970s, at the request of the Shah of Iran, to topple Bagdhad, which the kurds tried to do in a CIA sponsored coup in the late 1970s. Saddam retaliated by attacking the kurds and continuing to oppress them for years. But the initial impetus came from the US. And that's not conspiracy shit. That's real-world news. Look it up on MSNBC.

The US has been training armies in the north and south of the country. Are you telling me that you know more than the generals who are all over the cable news stations admitting as much? They are admitting it so how in the world can you call that misinformation?!?

Maybe it is YOU who is MASSIVECOCK!!!

I repeat. The Iraqi Army was poorly led, poorly trained in '91 as it currently is. I repeat that a high body count had nothing to do with the decision to not topple Sadam in '91. There would not have been a "high" body count for US forces (higher, yes, but not high) to invade Bagdhad in '91 and there will not be a high body count this time around either. We do not need to send troops door to door and will not send troops door to door in the manner that you think we may. Whatever street to street fighting that takes place (and there will not be alot) will primarily be done by attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships and other assorted weapons platforms. The infantry will be followers and not on point.,

When the "no fly" zones were established, Iraqi military forces were activively egaged in killing Kurds in the North and Shiites in the south and were using their helicopter gunships in the process. It was to prevent these gunships from being used that the "no fly zone" was established.

I repeat that we have not trained any large Armies in the South or in the North. Iraqi military forces are in both the South and the North and have the unfettered right to rome as they please. On the other hand if you were to say that we have secretly inserted teams of Army Special Forces into both zones, to organize and train as much as possible some insurgent forces the answer is, I would highly suspect so. Have we trained large Armies in the South and in the North. No. Are there a large number of Shiites and Kurds that are willing to help topple Sadam, yes. They will become a problem after we topple Sadam as both want independent countries themselves. By the way Army Special Forces covertly operate around the world.

[wonton]

Listen people, if you want to debate this topic you need to be informed.

Here is a video lecture by Dr. Colin Campbell, a leading expert in the oil and gas industry. The lecture is entitled "The End of the Age of Oil". It explains how we will enter a major shortage within the next decade and how this reality is driving the current geopolitics, such as the invasion of Iraq.

The first minute is in German but the rest is in English. It's an hour long. If you don't have time for it that's fine. But then don't go posting here (or anywhere) like ya know what your talking about.

Why am I even bothering with any of this? Well, I think that adult webmasters, who are the forefront of internet innovations, can band together and change the world!!! Or maybe not...

End of the Age of Oil Video

Transcript with Graphs, End of the Age of Oil

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by wonton
He was nasty when he gassed the Kurds in 1988 WITH GAS THAT BUSH SENIOR SOLD HIM as head of the CIA.

Getting your conspiracy theories mixed up?

George Bush. Director of the CIA. 1976-1977.

Saddam Hussein. President of Iraq. 1979 - 2003.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by wonton


no oil = no invasion

oil = invasion

It's pretty simple.

Interesting formula. Anyone want to check it?

US Conflicts since 1980
---------------
Libya
Lebanon
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Somalia
Haiti
Kosovo
Afghanistan

[FATPad]

Originally posted by wonton

For the past 12 years, the US has been mercilessly bombing Iraq into total submission. Economic sanctions has pummelled the civilian population.

Fruitcake, if we mercilessly bombed anyone for 3 weeks, there would be nothing left, nevermind 12 years.

Economic sanctions have not pummelled anything. Saddam buying tanks and missiles instead of food and medicine with his UN Oil for Food money has done that.

[FATPad]

Originally posted by Colin


Interesting formula. Anyone want to check it?

US Conflicts since 1980
---------------
Libya
Lebanon
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Somalia
Haiti
Kosovo
Afghanistan

That's a lot of oil we've gained through military actions. I can definitely see a pattern of invading for oil emerging.

[Wilbo]

Let's not hinder a good rant with facts

[Shok]

What I love is all these polls, it's great...80% hate us, some say 45% hate us, maybe it's 90%....or 75% oppose this and that.....no one ever called me.

Lets ask 100 people what they think and this represents an entire continent, I love it.

All this bitching and moaning over Bush, who cares, he's not as dumb as some of you would like him to be. You can't be a complete moron and still get elected to president. Yeah he messes up words, I think thats funny shit, but big fucking deal.

The war is going to happen, and you can cry and protest all you want, but it won't stop anything. Unless you are the top brass in the military or on the cabinet, you can never know exact reasons for this and that, you can only guess, and make up comspiracy theories.

All I know is, 9/11 was fucked up, and I for one won't forget how I felt that day, and if this is some sort of message we are sending out for others countries to see, then so be it. Let them burn.

[cluck]

All I know is, 9/11 was fucked up, and I for one won't forget how I felt that day, and if this is some sort of message we are sending out for others countries to see, then so be it. Let them burn.

That was afghanistan buddy. Saddam's major crime that got him declared a terrorist was his refusal to jack up the oil prices by 1000% with the rest of OPEC.

Yep them oil guys are ruthless. OPEC sounds like the mafia to me. Isn't price fixing illegal?

[iroc409]

the us isn't in OPEC, correct?

[Shok]

Originally posted by cluck


That was afghanistan buddy.

Duh!

I'm all for heading off future threats of terroristic activity is what Im saying.
And if we have to go after a few others, so be it.

Bush should get up infront of the UN and say:

"First we are going to kick your ass, then when we are done with you, we are going to kick all your friends asses in alphabetical order"

[sheepster]

I spent 3 months in Europe, mainly Germany end of last year; and Bush isn't liked very much. Some of that is extended to the Americna people, however the German/French population is able to distinguish between our presidents beliefs and those of the American people pretty well. The French were holding up signs in protest such as "We like American people, we hate American policy".

Great article on CNN this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ink/index.html

Highlight:

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said he thinks the TV networks' news coverage has helped sell the Saddam-al Qaeda connection. "Suddenly, it was Osama, Osama, Osama ... Saddam, Saddam, Saddam ... and the networks -- the broadcast media -- simply picked that up [and] transferred our feelings of alarm and anger from one villain to another."

In a February CNN-Time poll, 76 percent of those surveyed felt Saddam provides assistance to al Qaeda. Another poll released in February asked, "Was Saddam Hussein personally involved in the September 11 attacks?" Although it is a claim the Bush administration has never made and for which there is no evidence, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely.

[Libertine]

People here keep believing the myth that the gulf war was won so easily only because iraq has a very weak army.
Fact is that they were attacked while they were on the retreat, which is a huge strategic disadvantage. Also, the portion of the army that was fighting in that war consisted largely of ill-discliplined southern shiites, not "saddam's best".

[Babaganoosh]

The oil will be placed into a trust controlled by the UN. Tony Blair was just talking about that yesterday. Did you know England EXPORTS oil? They don't need Iraqi oil. Iraq accounts for less than 2% of the worlds oil so it's pretty useless to us too. Claiming that the conflict is over oil is absurd.

To be perfectly honest, I hope there IS a war. Saddam will not willingly go into exile. If he disarms, he gets to keep his country and will be able to continue committing human rights violations in grand scale. The only way to take care of this is to arrest or kill him and remove his regime from power.

He was an immediate threat at the time we began sending troops over there. He's less of a threat now since he is surrounded by over 300K troops but as soon as the troops leave he'll be playing games again. It's time to act, even a 6 year old can see that.

[Toker]

Originally posted by KRL
I was in the Oil and Gas business years ago. I'll tell you it makes the porn biz look like panzies. The guys in O&G are pirates to the max and super cut throat. It really is like that show that used to be on Dallas. All hardcore power mongers.

So yes undelying all this hype on Saddam. The bottom line is we wantz da oil and wez gonna getz da oil.

Iraq has several hundred million barrels. Its also shallow oil fields which means the lift and recovery costs are the lowest on earth which means lots more profits. If you figure at $30 a barrel there is several trillion dollars there. And they've only developed 20% of their fields so far. Talk about a big juicy steak! Georgie boy and his Texas oil buddies are licking their chops right now.

You forgot to mention their grade of crude is very high quality but anyone who thinks this is about oil is sniffing glue! He's gassed his own people, supports terrorists like the bombers in Isreal and nobody trusts him..
Should everyone wait for him to sell gas or a dirty bomb to a terror group and leave it in New Youk Or La?
Too bad there wasn't something in France worth eradicating, they wouldn't be such ass kissers but then again they sleep in the same bed trade wise!..
Right now the French control one of the biggest fields there and they're gonna lose that soon.
Plane and simple he's had 12 years to disarm and he hasn't! Even the Saudis fear him, only bad thing about us getting rid the the Hitler of the 21st century is countrys like Saudi Arabia won't need to be our friend as much..Damn good thing they have so much money invested here!!

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by punkworld
People here keep believing the myth that the gulf war was won so easily only because iraq has a very weak army.
Fact is that they were attacked while they were on the retreat, which is a huge strategic disadvantage. Also, the portion of the army that was fighting in that war consisted largely of ill-discliplined southern shiites, not "saddam's best".

Punkworld,

Would you agree with me that it's not that they are weak but that they are vastly inferior?

Those "ill-disciplined" troops you mentioned were the ones surrendering to CNN camera crews. Ok, so we can ignore them.

How about those "elite" Republican Guards? It's a myth that "all five" Republican Guard divisions retreated and were never engaged. There were eight divisions at the time. Five did retreat but eight fought.

Republican Guard divisons didn't surrender.
Some of them fought. Some of them retreated. The ones that fought did so valiently but were routed nonetheless.

Schwarzkopf's mission notes detail the destruction of three Republican Guard divisions. It'a pretty hard to win a tank battle when they can shoot you before you even see them. Iraqi prisoners of war said they could see hear the US Abrams tanks firing at them but couldn't see them.

The Tawakalna was a Republican Guard division that was absolutely routed. Half of an Iraqi batallion was destroyed in the first 23 minutes. Notes from US commanders continually referred to this elite Republican Guard guard division as having "fought hard", putting up a "spirited defense", and fought with "extreme bravery". I'm sure they did but they didn't fight for long.