Bush Vs Iraq - Opinions Please

I don't think the US should go in with guns ablazing like they like to do. let the UN deal with it. The US has thier view on what is good and right, and they go and impose this on other countries. this is why other countries dislike the states. I agree that this is not just terrorism based. there is always the 'mighty dollar' as I have been told, the US has the most. and because of capitalism, they want more. When the USA liberated Quwait during the gulf war under the UN the soldiers saw that Quwait wasn't a democracy. women still havee little rights.(they had a vote to see if women wanted to vote, but only since women couldn't vote. nothing changed. Iraq attacked Quwait for the oil, and then the US took it back. the gulf war was all about $$$. Afghanistan is also rich in oil, another coincidence that the US is in control there now?

And the reason Hitler brook the Vienna accord is because Germany lost everything from that accord. they were figurativly 'raped'. they had nothing, they couldn't build anything. and anything they did build was supposed to go to the allies. Iraq was also left with nothing. I just don't want another world war. I like peace. I would rather die skiing, or doing something I love, than end up fighting in a war that never should have happened.

'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'

it was like lightening, everyone was fighting, and the music was soothing, and they all started grooving.

and the man at the back said 'everyone attack' and it turned into a ballroom blitz.
 
Yea so he broke the versailles treaty, and then started annexing territory, OBVIOUSLY he only broke the versailles treaty to rebuild. His annexation is purely proof that it was appropriate to incapacitate him. And he wasn't even really incapacitated. He had maximum quotas on military artillery and such. And they had reparations to pay because of the trouble they caused problems in other European nations industry during WWI.

And yea the US just goes around dropping bombs in middle eastern countries, when was the last time we went a'-bombin before 9-11? You know what I want the same thing as you guys, I want the us to not intervene in anything ever, and see how long it takes to see people start complaining. I used to know a guy that lived in Portugal, and there was some kind of crisis going on over there that the US didn't get involved in and he was complaining to people that the US wasn't doing anything.

 
actually we were bombing a lot of countries before sept. 11. most notably a pharmacutical(sp?) company in sudan. we didnt have any proof that the company was making chemical weapons or had ties to bin laden, and yet we launch a 5mil cruise missle at it. that seems like an act of war to me, so i don't find it that strange that they bomb our embassy's and attack our country. to them, we are at war with them. and now they brought the war to us.

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
If I remember right that was when we were doing the Kosovo thing, our information was false or whatever, it really was dumb.

 
and kami, we didnt sell them nukes. we knowingly sold them dual use parts for chemical weapons

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
Yeah I know the states only gets a small percentage of their oil from the middle east, but alot of other countries get their oil form the middle east. What they could do though, is totally ignore the standard oil price of 20 dollars or 18 dollars a barrel and sell it for like 5 dollars a barrel. What you need to understand is, In the Middle East all they have to do is poke a whole in the ground and oil comes up, where as in Canada, Alaska and many of the other reserves, we have to pump oil, taking it out with hot steam through sand, which are really expensive procedures. So if they lowered prices then we would all be fucked, because we couldn't survive selling oil for 5 dollars a barrel. Its just to expensive here. That is why the economy would crumble.

 
Once again it'd be nice to see if people had some economics education before they said the economy would crumble. For one the states wouldn't be producing the oil for profit, it would be for sustenance. We don't have to worry about oil prices until they rise to around 30 dollars, that would mean gas prices of around 2.30 p/gallon. However, If oil producers believed they could sustain a price of $30-plus/bbl, then others would find it worth the trouble of refining low-grade oil and tar sands. (The world’s heavy oil resources are conservatively 10 times greater than conventional oil, but they go largely untouched when oil prices are low.)

If the Middle East decided to keep oil prices high around for ann extended period of around $30-plus/bbl, LNG (liquefied natural gas), a resource that’s usually burned as waste, would start to flood the market. Because LNG requires liquefaction and specialized tankers, LNG is extraordinarily capital-intensive, costing nearly twice that of oil today. So no one pursues it unless energy prices are high in the long-term.

When oil prices are high, you have to add emerging technologies that convert natural gas directly to gasoline to the equation. All these other sources coming on line, combined with competition-inspiring lost market share for traditional oil, would have to cause a price collapse. Oil prices aren't really a big deal to worry about.

 
Just a bit of info someone might like to know.

Hitler was named 'Man of the year' by Time magazine in the interwar period. just think of how drasticaly our outlook ona single person can change in a few years

'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'

it was like lightening, everyone was fighting, and the music was soothing, and they all started grooving.

and the man at the back said 'everyone attack' and it turned into a ballroom blitz.
 
Just another example of the dissillusionment that characterizes the 20's. He actually did a great job at unifying the country, as did other fascist regimes such as Italy.

 
i dont have anything to add right now but i think its still a good debate and i didnt want to see it on the second page. so post your opinions

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
wow, i had no idea you were all a bunch of hippies. can you ski in iraq? no, so whats the point. Nuke that son of a bitch. BOMB SADAM!

 
Ahh It's been done, Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Naji Sabri sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan saying they would let inspectors in w/o conditions. The head of the U.N. weapons inspection team met with an Iraqi delegation today (Tuesday). We'll see if Saddam is up to his old manipulative tricks, or if its the real deal this time, and hopefully no war.

 
yea i guess bush will have to find a new reason to invade iraq and get the oil, cause thats really what this is about

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
*rolls eyes* Ok the demands of Washington for a UN resolution aren't too complicated... no hidden oil scheme (like that could be legitimately pulled off w/o causing political chaos). Washington wants a U.N. resolution that demands compliance not only on the issue of disarmament but also on Iraq's other commitments to the UN, including an end to repression of minorities within Iraq, reparations to Kuwait, an accounting of missing military personnel from coalition forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the use of money raised from the oil-for-food program for humanitarian purposes.

 
Can you people get it through your heads that we dont even get THAT much oil from the MidEast for it to be worth starting a war over...

Gravteck is completely right...

-Andy

NewSchoolSkiing+dot+com

'I'm the best from the east, I'm a wild crazy beast' - Andrew 'Dice' Clay
 
well was worth going into afganistan to build a pipeline through it. dosn't it seem odd that we were planning an invasion of afganistan before sept.11. before we could build the trans-afgani pipeline we needed a stable government in place. for up to 2 years we had been giving the taliban money to fight the northern alliance but since they couldn't win we just switched sides. simple as that.and in the gulf war we got tons of oil from iraq.

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
its all well documented, minus teh oil in iraq, you have to search for a while but its actually true

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
im not an not an anti-american at all. i love this country. but there are some problems with it just like everyother country. i personally think that we shouldn't go into iraq.i dont think there is a legit reason. i posted an article from a different web page that is a little different from my opinion but you'll get my point. ill seach for the info about the trans-afgani pipeline and post a link. but we had plans for going into afganistan in around may or june, sept. 11 was just an excuse to go in there.

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
For years, US oil interests have been trying to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to access the oil and gas around the Caspian Sea; efforts that have continued past the 9-11 attacks.

Sourcehttp://www.wluml.org/english/new-archives/wtc/at-stake/unocal.htm

Enron was a key player in this game. Way back in 1996, Enron had cut a deal with the president of Uzbekistan for joint development of the nation's natural gas fields.

Source Houston Chronicle Date: TUE 06/25/96 Section: Business Page: 4 Edition: 3 STAR (sorry, no link)

Enron had also done the feasibility study for the pipeline.

Sourcehttp://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over.

Source
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.st m

I've added a few url's from oil industry websites to this forwarded email as further evidence of Enron's involvement in the motivation for the war in Afghanistan. Reading this material will allow you to see the Enron scandal and its ties to Bush-Cheney in a whole new light. To find thousands of other energy industry website articles on this do a GOOGLE searchhttp://www.google.com using these keywords: Pipeline Enron Uzbekistan Cheney Halliburton

--Robert

Enron and the oil pipeline dealhttp://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc85031.htm 'Enron/Uzbek Oil and Gas: Represented a multinational energy company in connection with its joint venture to develop an oil and gas deposit in Uzbekistan.'http://www.mbpprojectfinance.com/transactions/s_oilgas.htmlhttp://www.advancenet.net/~k_a/uzbekistan/companies.htm

'The one serious drawback companies have faced is getting the supplies to the right market, the energy-hungry Asian Pacific economies. Afghanistan -- the only Central Asian country with very little oil -- is by far the best route to transport the oil to Asia. Enron, the biggest contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2000, conducted the feasibility study for a US$2.5 billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline which is being built under a joint venture agreement signed in February 1999 between Turkmenistan, Bechtel and General Electric Capital Services.'http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/6_08/1.html

'UZBEKISTAN - The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) has agreed to provide $400 million in financing for a joint venture of Uzbekneftegaz and Enron oil and Gas Co. (Houston) to develop a clutch of gas fields in Uzbekistan. It is the largest OPIC commitment in Central Asia thus far.'http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/0801/96080107.html

Here's an email I recieved this morning. You may already know about the oil pipeline deal in Afghanistan and the Bush threats to the Taliban to invade BEFORE 9/11 but these links show how Enron and the new Afghan leader we just installed are all directly connected to Bush, to the so-called war, Cheney refusing to reveal who he met with and the supression of the 9/11 investigation Bush has threatened Congress with. --------------------------------------------------

FORWARD:

From: The Daily Brew:http://www.thedailybrew.com/

The Motive

For years, US oil interests have been trying to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to access the oil and gas around the Caspian Sea; efforts that have continued past the 9-11 attacks.

Sourcehttp://www.wluml.org/english/new-archives/wtc/at-stake/unocal.htm

Enron was a key player in this game. Way back in 1996, Enron had cut a deal with the president of Uzbekistan for joint development of the nation's natural gas fields.

Source Houston Chronicle Date: TUE 06/25/96 Section: Business Page: 4 Edition: 3 STAR (sorry, no link)

Enron had also done the feasibility study for the pipeline.

Sourcehttp://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over.

Source
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.st m

The Crime

Unfortunately, the talks broke down, and by late last summer, the US Government was threatening to commence war against Afghanistan (an attack which would have violated every precept of international law).

Sources
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney, the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.

Sourcehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8734-2002Jan19.html

Simultaneous with making, but not following through on these threats, Bush took a number of actions to make the US decidedly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. He ordered the Naval strike force, which Clinton placed in the Indian Ocean on 24 hour alert so he could hit Osama as soon as he had solid intelligence, to stand down. Bush threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill after Democrats tried to move $600 million out of Star Wars and into anti-terror defense. Bush opposed Clinton's anti-money-laundering efforts, which were designed to stop al Qaeda's money. Bush abandoned Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, or as the two star general Donald Kerrick told the Washington Post, reflecting on his service to both President Clinton and President Bush: Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. 'I didn't detect that kind of focus' from the Bush Administration.

Sourcehttp://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5714

Too high? You fucking pussy. - ski2824

Why is the name of the fear of long words

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

 
Well... first off. America bitches when we get hit with terrorist attacks, but then We willingly move straight to an attack on a Middle Eastern nation before weighing in other possivble options. Clearly a military effort will piss people off and create even more Anti-American Sentiment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

~~~~Phunkin' Phatt Phreerider~~~~

~'BigAirSkier1580: and i am a newschool skier

DatGrlyChick: skier??

BigAirSkier1580: yah

DatGrlyChick: whats that?'
 
What that is is a crazy ass attempt by democrats to blame republicans for wrongdoing... that doesnt make any sencee about why we'd attack iraq, or your statement that we got oil from iraq during the gulf war (which is false).

-Andy

NewSchoolSkiing+dot+com

'I'm the best from the east, I'm a wild crazy beast' - Andrew 'Dice' Clay
 
I'll post the same thing here as I did in the other post.

Alright here's the scoop, so the UN met w/ Iraqi officials twice this week already and almost have the whole plan set for inspection. This came after Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Naji Sabri wrote a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan disclosing that they would accept the return of UN inspectors without conditions. Meaning they can go anywhere anytime (in theory).

Here are 2 facts:

In September 2001, Congress authorized 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those deemed involved in planning or abetting the September 11 attacks on the United States.

A proposed resolution dealing with Iraq that was introduced in Congress in 1998 urged the president to 'take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'

Based on this logic, we can basically do what we want (which is bullshit), because the second premise 'could' possibly be taken care of if Iraq is going to hold it's side of the bargain.

But basically... Bush is throwing a hissy fit, because basically there was a leading US consensus among the UN security council, and now that there's a solution that might take us out of the forefront, Bush wants his 'wowwie-pop' back. His whole point besides Iraqi disarmament, and reparations to Kuwait, and accountability for some former military coalitions and investigation into the use funds of certain Iraqi 'oil-for food' programs, was basically, he doesn't let the inspectors in... sure Saddam might be buying time, but he needs to cooperate w/ the UN on their decision to negotiate the return of inspectors for at least the moment.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top