Thread: US attack in Iraq (WAR Talk)

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
zahid, I know english is not your first language so I'm not attacking you here but I have no idea what you just said. Is there any way you could run through that and clean it up a bit?

You haven't yet applied your common sense. See almost every post is edited. If you were the administrator, you could see, how many times. That's the drive for perfection in every aspects.

>>no, I've been asking for facts for quite some time now. So far nothing has come from you.

You are not working hard, actually not working at all. Pay little attention, don't you see that facts already placed. Please first read what I write. Than answer. Didn't I tell you to study earlier. Do you want me to increase the size of the texts? Did you notice the fact about my country? I haven't see any comments on that.
I guess, if there is only one supporter of GWB on this WAR around the world, you will be that person.

I am siding with Fill on this one. I don't see how people can know so much about so many things without actually having any reliable proof (this is where the education part comes in) to back it up.

EDIT:

I have read your past posts Zahid (especially the one after this statement by fill:

see, this is what I'm saying. people who criticise the US of stealing oil always give opinionated editorials as evidence. I have not seen one shred of evidence to just how they are doing it. We purchase, yes. but can that be a crime? a reason to hate? You have yet to give one shred of evidence. You have yet to do anything but say "open your eyes" and "be educated". I challenge you. educate me. show me where the US has EVER stolen oil.

)
and every statement you make is pure bs speculation. I think fill is right on with wanting some evidence/proof. Educate the damn man. He's open minded to fair arguments.

For Silvercord:

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
US has stolen oil

LOL .. .. LOL
Lets investigate, "Who posted that phrase?"

Is that proof to some aspect of any of the arguments going on, or is it more meaningless speculation and hearsay?

EDIT: propaganda. That's the word I was looking for! All of your posts are propaganda Zahid. Look it up.

one of my favorite quotes but I don't know who said it:

Never argue with an idiot. First they drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience

thanks for the effort silvercord but I think he may just be hopeless

Edit: the quote is from Mark Twain apparently

SAMSAM, you're right about the cost outweighing the benefit. This was also the case with the sanctions. If we really wanted the oil, we could have lifted the sanctions on Saddam. But I don't want to get our side into the business of speculating about motives either. if all facts are acquired and laid out on the table, you can sort through them and see how foolish the oil argument is. But rhetoric must be thrown away.

What we are talking about ?? We are talking about "US attack in Iraq",

Q. Is that a good thing?
My Answer: No
Q. What is the reason of this attack?
My Answer: Main reason is not for the freedom of Iraqi people. Even not for the WMD.

So, why is that attack, there could be lots of reason. What are they? I started to believe, Oil is a reason. If you don't agree with me, don't. Follow the future. And may be Israel has influence on it too.

Who invented that Steal in this thread? Now Fill is sticked with that world. This is a nature of few people. We have explained few facts, which convince us (give us hints to the people against the WAR to find the reason) on act of evil (I don't want to use that words, I would use misuse, inappropriate, illegal, not moral) works by US gov.


Future will let us be more clear on the issue.

zahid, I agree that the reason for the war was not WMD or liberation.

the reason was in 91 after we removed Saddam from Kuwait, Iraq signed an agreement that he would follow certain protocol to end the war. When he failed to live up to his end of the bargain he in effect re-started the war.

edit:
the above can be seen as speculation as well. It is my feeling however. Based on the end to the first war being conditional it seems like a valid reason to return to war. You have to remember that Saddam was the invader.

But it is an additional theory that you did not mention in your post.

So muct to comment on, try to keep it short.

Lets start with SAMSAM's post. And the 'facts' he uses. Please post a link to the data you used as I find it totally incorrect.

>>Iraq Yearly revenue from oil;

$15 Billion<<

I work out if Iraq returns to pre Desert Storm level of 3.5 mill barrels per day at todays price of $25 per barrel comes to $32 billion, now add the natural gas.
Not to mention the huge untapped oil and gas reserves ready to be developed or the low cost of production.

This surplus is the real prize. The problem is that OPEC can cut production and so raise the price (as it has done in the past). Contoling this surpls negates this threat, but FIB will say I am speculating.

How can you put a price on it when Rumsfelt refuses to?

"Pentagon officials have said privately that a war and its immediate aftermath could cost between $60 billion and $100 billion. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...war-cost_x.htm

How much will be paid back? (as Iraq now pays 25% of its oil for food revenue in fines for Desert Storm)
How much will be earned in rebuilding contracts?

Who is speculating now?


>>Nope, it's called the government not interfering with business, as it should be.

So allowing a corporation to supply arms to one side of a conflict while the CIA 'advises' the other side is good bussiness practice?
Allowing oil companies to pillage other countries is OK as long as the US gets cheap oil?

>>We do not govern them.
But you supply them with arms and training. Your politicians are elected using their funds. Your govenment supports the dictator most willing to sign an oil contract and supply campaign funds, irregardless of their humanitarian record.

What of social responsibility?
What of environmental protection?

The US does not care. But then it does about the Iraqiis all of a sudden. Why?

from your second link, did you read this?

"Chevron has neglected us. They have neglected us for a long time. For example, any time spills occur, they don't do proper clean up or pay compensation. Our roofs are destroyed by their chemicals. No good drinking water in our rivers. Our fishes are killed on a daily basis by their chemicals, even the fishes we catch in our rivers, they smell of crude oil. Chevron know the right thing to do, they intimidate us with soldiers, police, navy and tell us that cases of spill are caused by us. We are tired of complaining; even the Nigerian government and their Chevron have treated us like slaves."

What would happen if to Chevron if it did this in the US?

http://www.moles.org/ProjectUndergro..._06/diary.html

Have a look at this about the US and French involvment in Angola. The oil corps send in arms in return for oil contracts.

"In addition to the French oil giant Total-Fina-Elf, oil companies like Chevron, Texaco, Philipps Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, and BP-Amoco -- all with close links to Bush and his White House oil team -- were heavily involved in propping up dos Santos in return for profitable off-shore oil concessions."

During Regan's terms, the US (thru the CIA) supports the Savimbi rebels. Savimbi is 'the George Washington' of Africa.
In Bush's term, as the rebels and their finanacers put $100,000's into GWB's campaign funds, this changed and Savimbi is assasinated.

"Bush did host dos Santos at the White House shortly after the killing of Savimbi. The timing of this meeting raises serious questions about the transfer of money to Bush's campaign coffers and its impact on changing the Republican Party's long-held policy of support for Savimbi."

That is they supported a known corrupt regime for oil profits.
Is that oil theft?

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=2576

Or on oil comp. using outdated technology or methods that would not be allowed in the US. Will the oil corporation clean up afterwards?

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...2002/story.htm


>>This remains to be seen but has little to do with the Oil discussion. Or have you run out of examples?

As you say remains to be seen.
But my point was;
if not for the masses of WMD Iraq was going to unleash on the world but appears not to actually have, what was the war for (it not oil)?

FIB: Please don't speculate about me or my motives until you have the facts on me. (that you think I hate the US )

Prahaps you should look at 'Sunlight oil fields' in Timor. Is it as big as injustice as Angola or Nigeria ect?
I would be the first to agree.

>>Iraq signed an agreement that he would follow certain protocol to end the war. When he failed to live up to his end of the bargain he in effect re-started the war.


On this topic could you post a link to the UN resolution that allowed the UK and US to establish the 'no fly' zones.

>>Based on the end to the first war being conditional it seems like a valid reason to return to war. You have to remember that Saddam was the invader.<<

Why did he invade?
Because the Kuwaitis were pumping excessive oil from the field shared by Kuwait and Iraq in violation of the treaties. The Kuwaitis refused to stop at a conference on the matter and so Iraq, bolstered by US, UK, French and Russian arms invaded. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait cost around 2000 lives.

The Kuwaits then spent 16million on a US PR firm. They falsely claimed that the Iraqiis had kill babies in the hospitals. GWB quoted this false report repeatedly to get congress to comit troops.
Why did Sadam have all these arms?
Because the West decided SH was better than the government of Iran. They did not want Iran to win the war.
Iran was winning but Iraq was supplied with advanced arms on credit (ie Stingers SH used to attack Iranian oil tankers), so ensuring that Iraq won the Iraq/Iran war.

Since Desert Storm 25% of all Iraqii oil sold has gone to pay back the Kuwaitiis ect for the damage done during war.

novacain. I am aware that the link I posted has some opinion in it. I was interested in the data/facts. I don't care even remotely about what one character in the country says. As to the CIA advising the country, be more specific and provide proof. CIA telling the country how to oppress it's people using oil? get real. Chevron's actions causing polution? blame the country without environmental restrictions. Chevron is an international company based in the US. It's not a tool of the US gov as much as you would have people believe that. I love also that your examples are still editorials and opinions. And if your insinuating that GWB had something to do with the Savimbi assassination then let's start playing the X-files theme song shall we?

As for SAMSAM's post. you aren't the first to say it was speculation.

FIB: Please don't speculate about me or my motives until you have the facts on me. (that you think I hate the US )

Didn't I believe I only directed that at Zahid. And he's admitted to hating the US gov.

On this topic could you post a link to the UN resolution that allowed the UK and US to establish the 'no fly' zones.

Iraq was the conquered nation. That's how things work see? (I know that'll set you off) *blows novacain a kiss*

Why did he invade?
Because the Kuwaitis were pumping excessive oil from the field shared by Kuwait and Iraq in violation of the treaties. The Kuwaitis refused to stop at a conference on the matter and so Iraq, bolstered by US, UK, French and Russian arms invaded. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait cost around 2000 lives.

This was a UN mission there chief. Take it up with them.

....but we're getting off the path.

The actual incidents that we have so far that make the US so terrible and point to oil as a motive are as follows:

1. Angola
The US along with Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain buy oil from what is apparently a corrupt government

2. Nigeria
The US along with Western Europe and Asia buy oil from what is apparently a corrupt government

3. Timor?
A search on Google doesn't turn up anything on "Sunlight oil fields" Perhaps you could enlighten us

so far I don't see a heck of a lot that could lead me to believe ANYTHING in Iraq. Seems not to relate at all to be honest with you. I'm wondering what it is that you think the US plans to do with the oil of Iraq. Perhaps I just need more facts right? sure....

...please continue