<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Sep 25 2003, 07:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Sep 25 2003, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't get it, is this about Bush getting aid or Iraq? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's an excellent point. Should UN send soldiers to help Bush or Iraqi people. Probably those countries who send soldiers are there to protect civilians from casualties. US troops are there to kill off the resistance(or freedom, depends on your point of view) fighters.
Well maybe it will be seen as giving aid to Bush - but that still dont look good for Bush. He had to crawl back to the UN for help - I dont think hes gonna start bragging about that one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jim has Skillz+Sep 25 2003, 01:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Sep 25 2003, 01:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Second of all, and just say this with me. We invaded a country that did absolutely nothing to us and killed thousands and thousands of their population, and for what, to take saddam out of power because he was bad for their people. Sure he was bad but I mean, he didn't kill thousands of HIS people(and by his, I don't mean the Kurds, cause thats a different faction IN Iraq trying to take it over). He may have killed a couple here and there, but nothing near the hundreds or thousands, and the only time he did kill people were times when they tried to overthrow the goverment.
You can say and manipulate whatever you want, it still doesn't change the facts. Even though everyone may not be able to clearly discern what the facts are, over time when empires fall, the truth comes out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What 'facts' are these? Your whole post is based on your opinion and presents no facts. Saying that Saddam Hussein didn't kill his own people by the hundreds of thousands is of course completely untrue, and no one on either side of the issue is arguing that. Saying that somehow killing kurds (or Kuwaitis) is somehow better than killing your own people is of course also nonsense.
Really, this post is borderline troll - please try to debate more civilly with us and not start flamewars or I'll have to sic Nem on you.
Well the UN is going to want to play a larger role in the reconstruction process if they do give aid. I don't know if Bush will allow that. I think he wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants UN aid but he doesn't want to share the reconstruction process with anyone. It remains to be seen what will happen; it could go to vote and the UN could say no.
There is definitely an 'old-boy network' feel to the process being run from the White House. I certainly think that the UN should provide aid to the process (to do otherwise is to forfeit their mandate and charter - not providing aid to a country in need in order to simply say 'neener neener' to a man they personally dislike is completely unjustifiable). I also think that Annan has basically been a complete wuss, especially considering that his own people are getting blown all to hell due to his mismanagement on multiple occasions. Turning down offered security in order to make some sort of show of independence isn't going to bring any widows their husbands back - he should have resigned that day in disgrace. Or the second time, for that matter. His intransigence is just as much about ego as Bush's is...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately, I agree with Ryo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought us agreeing gave you a warm and fuzzy feeling <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well looking at the question of aid, in the end it's not up to the "UN" as it were, but the member states. If they vote no, then no aid. Kofi can't control how nations will vote. Now I don't think it's unresonable for the UN to request a share in the reconstruction process if they are going to be putting material, men and money into Iraq. By placing such an investment, the member states of the UN would probably want to have a say in how their money is spent. I think Bush has to understand that he's not going to get aid for free.
The most puzzling question must be: Why is Bush being so stubborn? I mean, it's not like the UN is going to come into Iraq and set up a dictatorship (yes I know many UN member states are dictatorships but the US would never stand for anything other than a democratic government). Although I don't want to touch off a "corperations and conspiracy theory" arguement, I must confess that the only reason I can see for Bush wanting to keep the UN out is so that the US can control the reconstruction process just the way they want. Currently it's being done all by US companies. The UN would probably allow other corperations to come in and help. It sounds crazy and it probably is, but I think it bears mentioning.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 25 2003, 11:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 25 2003, 11:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The most puzzling question must be: Why is Bush being so stubborn? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aaahhhh, another helpless foreigner baffled by Texans (which is unto itself unlike any other American state, and would be considered a huge country in most parts of the world). <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> He's stubborn because Texans are stubborn. The same way the Swiss are stubborn. They just are - it's ingrained. It's part of the ridiculous fallacy that somehow Americans are all the same, a myth perpetrated by people that have never been there... Like in that silly UK Telegraph piece where yet another brainless reporter visits a couple towns and Washington DC and decides he's followed the scientific method and seen all there is to see. Nevermind that his report doesn't explain why the Bush government is about to get voted out, how organized religious attendance is at its lowest state in US history, and how it's possible for a country to have more than one political ideology at once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aaahhhh, another helpless foreigner baffled by Texans (which is unto itself unlike any other American state, and would be considered a huge country in most parts of the world). He's stubborn because Texans are stubborn.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heheh, I never expected that response <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Interesting stuff. I wonder if Texans being so differant has something to do with them technically being a seperate country from around the 1930's up to the American-Mexican war. (darnit I've forgotten the date when Texas broke away from Mexico. *rumages around US history textbooks*).
In any case that's an interesting take. It may be that Bush is being stubborn because that's his nature. Truth be told I never considered an answer as simple as that. Quite intriguing...
On the whole Bush getting re-elected do you truely think he's not coming back? The guy had approval ratings in the 90's post September 11 now they're under 50%? I thought the Iraq war had popular support amongst Americans. How the heck did Bush screw up so badly?
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 25 2003, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 25 2003, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heheh, I never expected that response <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Interesting stuff. I wonder if Texans being so differant has something to do with them technically being a seperate country from around the 1930's up to the American-Mexican war. (darnit I've forgotten the date when Texas broke away from Mexico. *rumages around US history textbooks*).
On the whole Bush getting re-elected do you truely think he's not coming back? The guy had approval ratings in the 90's post September 11 now they're under 50%? I thought the Iraq war had popular support amongst Americans. How the heck did Bush screw up so badly? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 2 October 1835 - Texas revolts against the Mexicans 21 April 1836 - Texans win independence at Battle of San Jacinto. 29 December 1845 - US President James Polk annexes texas and makes it the 28th state.
So yes, you can see that they are a pretty stubborn people bent on doing things there own way, and were a separate country unto themselves for almost 10 years. During those 10 years most modern texans ancestors were settling there, leading to that sort of western frontier 'don't tread on me' attitude you see in born Texans today.
To your second point, George Bush Senior lead America to perhaps the most decisive military victory in human history in February 1991 against Iraq, and had approval ratings that were higher than Franklin Roosevelt during WW2. 18 months later he was out on the street after his only term, replaced by Bill Clinton.
Because in America, as in most of the world, presidents may win wars, but <i>economics</i> wins presidencies. All Wesley Clark has to do is talk smart about how he plans on fixing the US economy and he might as well start having his wife pick out the new drapes for the oval office come 2004...
If I was Bush I would just start systematically invading middle-eastern countries taking their oil and using the huge reconstruction projects as job creation where he would give very high paying jobs to US civilians to do repairs and peacekeepings in the war ravaged countries.
I mean where does it say reconstruction has to be done by the military, plenty of people would ignore the danger if it paid 75 bucks an hour.
pfft that's cause I ran as an independant, no one gives third parties a fair chance.
I stood tough on the issues too "I will solve National Debt by stealing from weaker countries"
Education? "I will make cloning legal and breed super intelligent humans that will do all the hard jobs for us, so no need for education, it'll save millions!"
Any thoughts of Iraq somehow rejuevinating the US economy are pure nonsense, just as people saying we invaded Iraq for oil. It would take many decades for Iraq's oil profits to pay down even a fraction of the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Which is what was pointed out to individuals here many moons ago. And the thought that a couple billions of dollars that Iraq is worth every year in repair contracts is somehow going to make a dent in a 11 <b>Trillion</b> dollar annual GDP US economy is just as laughable.
That and the fact that 3 months of war would probably cost more than 60% of the profits you would make from the oil after it's entirety was sold over many many years.
I was looking at it more from a consumer economy basis, if say 10,000 US civilians got jobs as "reconstructors" that paid say 20,000 a month thats 10,000 people making 250 thousand a year, since it is their own personal money and they are free to spend it invest it whatever, might make a difference, but who knows.
I can even take it a step further and say make it an industry, where being an international peacekeeper would become a more desirable career than being a very successful attorney, doctor, professional athlete.
I see what you're saying. But with 8,900,000 people unemployed at home (6.1%) and that number being the number 1 concern of voters in the next election according to most news polls I've seen (yes Nem, even more important that terrorists and such), no matter what you do in Iraq, it will make no difference at all to the US economy. The US economy is simply far too big. Bush #1 left in disgrace due to the exact same economic situation in 1992, and Bush #2 is in a much worse situation politically as well.
No no, I wasn't limiting it to Iraq, I was saying any war/country the US has involvements in, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Syria, Samalia, etc. and even just countries that need support, instead of making it a job for the UN who completly suck at it (hehe just kidding UN) put the huge driving force of US economics behind it, and I can almost guarantee if the price insentive was right there would be plenty of people stepping up to do it.
Like you said 10 million people without jobs, that's 10 million people who would have an opprotunity to have a high paying job that requires no form of higher education, and usually consists of mostly manual labor, and some negotiating skills, which despite what anyone might tell you, every single person is capable of.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any thoughts of Iraq somehow rejuevinating the US economy are pure nonsense, just as people saying we invaded Iraq for oil. It would take many decades for Iraq's oil profits to pay down even a fraction of the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, as is usually pointed out, that only stands if the same people <i>paying</i> for the war (taxpayers) are the same ones <i>profiting</i> from the reconstruction and oil contracts.
Apples and Oranges, Msr. . . you're pulling numbers from two entirely different ledgers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 25 2003, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 25 2003, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Any thoughts of Iraq somehow rejuevinating the US economy are pure nonsense, just as people saying we invaded Iraq for oil. It would take many decades for Iraq's oil profits to pay down even a fraction of the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Which is what was pointed out to individuals here many moons ago. And the thought that a couple billions of dollars that Iraq is worth every year in repair contracts is somehow going to make a dent in a 11 <b>Trillion</b> dollar annual GDP US economy is just as laughable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I shall respond to everything in this post now, whether or not it's on topic.
Monse:
I wouldn't say Bush will be voted out. He's at 50% approval rating right now, but if the economy keeps improving at the rate it is now, then we will see another Bush term....
UN:
They should help. <---Notice the period. However, I think the UN should be given a bigger overall role in rebuilding Iraq to compensate.
Next, to whoever thinks that the 'UN' feels insulted at being downtrodden by the USA, that's complete crap. The UN has <b>always</b> been like this, where one country veto's out the other. If you didn't know, the only times the UN succesfully voted on anything was for the Korean War, and the Gulf War. ... o_0
The UN has always been vetoing itself to death. The country with the most use of the veto power was either the USSR or USA, I can't say which one for sure, but during the cold war you can imagine how much was accomplished. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The U.S. dropped more bombs on Iraq than in all other wars <b>combined.</b> Thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the last dozen years not from bombs but the leftover depleted uranium from the shells. The cancer rate within Iraq has risen some 1000% over that timeframe. Our sanctions throughout the 90s completely devastated that country. We have done nothing but repress them, kill them, invade them, and steal their oil. Far more so than Saddam <b>ever</b> did. You think what we've done to Iraq is honorable or justified? The Bush administration should be tried for war crimes. The U.N. should help in restoring Iraq, but the Bush clan should be kicked out. The reconstruction contracts already awarded to companies like Halliburton should be voided. The U.N. should demand complete U.S. withdrawal. After that, they should just kick us out of the U.N. completely.
The guerilla tactics being used by Iraqis wanting to remove their occupiers will only continue to get worse and worse. They want us out of there. You may claim they're all brainwashed. If so, what do you propose we do about it? Kill them all? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Iraq does not and has never posed a threat to the security of the U.S. It was a huge mistake to go in there at all. They lied to us and the U.N. and have thus far not revealed anything that they claimed they would find.
History will condemn America for this war more than any of our other past mistakes, including Vietnam. You do not have the right to attack another country merely because they pose a threat. We never attacked the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. We are not going to war with China or North Korea. The only reason Bush invaded Iraq is for the oil and because he knows no one is going to oppose him. That is the true injustice here... he can bring his "war on terror" to any country he deems necessary, and no one is going to do anything about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek+Sep 26 2003, 07:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Sep 26 2003, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US has used it's veto FAR more than anyone else, mostly to protect Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What you said may be true... I'm not sure...
but,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The U.S. dropped more bombs on Iraq than in all other wars combined. Thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the last dozen years not from bombs but the leftover depleted uranium from the shells. The cancer rate within Iraq has risen some 1000% over that timeframe. Our sanctions throughout the 90s completely devastated that country. We have done nothing but repress them, kill them, invade them, and steal their oil. Far more so than Saddam ever did. You think what we've done to Iraq is honorable or justified? The Bush administration should be tried for war crimes. The U.N. should help in restoring Iraq, but the Bush clan should be kicked out. The reconstruction contracts already awarded to companies like Halliburton should be voided. The U.N. should demand complete U.S. withdrawal. After that, they should just kick us out of the U.N. completely.
The guerilla tactics being used by Iraqis wanting to remove their occupiers will only continue to get worse and worse. They want us out of there. You may claim they're all brainwashed. If so, what do you propose we do about it? Kill them all? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Iraq does not and has never posed a threat to the security of the U.S. It was a huge mistake to go in there at all. They lied to us and the U.N. and have thus far not revealed anything that they claimed they would find.
History will condemn America for this war more than any of our other past mistakes, including Vietnam. You do not have the right to attack another country merely because they pose a threat. We never attacked the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. We are not going to war with China or North Korea. The only reason Bush invaded Iraq is for the oil and because he knows no one is going to oppose him. That is the true injustice here... he can bring his "war on terror" to any country he deems necessary, and no one is going to do anything about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure as hell that everything said this was wrong. Good lord kid, I wanna see where you got this load of crap. I'll put it on my banned adress's list.
Although the US actually isn't the nation who has used their veto power the most (that honour goes to the USSR / Russia, the US has used their veto power 29 times (some sites say 35 times, others go as high as 36) to stop resolutions against Israel.
Personally, I don't think Bush et al invaded iraq for oil, that was just a bonus. The real goal was to divert american attention from th fact that Bush's war on terror has ceased to accomplish anything of great import. Thats why he attempted to link Iraq to terrorism, and invaded in violation of international law. He figured that a victory in Iraq would improve his image as the US's savior from terrorism. Unfortunatly for him it has only served as a distraction and has hurt his image more then the non-results of the war on terror. That being said, I think the UN should help in Iraq, but only on sane terms. Saw a comic yesterday where bush was at the road side holding a sign that said "I need a ride, but only if I can drive". I think that sums his attitude up rather nicely. Frankly, I don't thinks its worth the effort trying to help civilians who are going to be more or less repressed by the same person who invaded their country, illegaly and under false pretenses, and who's agenda cannot be trusted. It should be enlightening to see how this plays out.
The War in Iraq was and is unjustified. US and Britain acted - well knowing - on FALSE claims about WMDs. Occupation Forces are responsible for security and safety in the occupied country. Seeking UN help on a continuing crime is pathetic, but only UN can really reconstruct the country. The problem is, the US want to get help, while THEY maintain command. Thats quite expected, the war was wagged for geostrategical interests after all. You dont unfold a huge military machine to just give your gained influence and power to some UN... With this attitude, UN should never help the occupational forces. But this will result in endless conflict between occupation forces and Iraqi resistance. The US have to put their interests aside, and TOGETHER with the UN help restore Iraq. Once Iraqis see that things are getting better, rather than worse as today, peace will follow. But most probably US will want to have the upper hand on Iraq matters, so kiss that goodbye...
<span style='color:red'>Try another post without the personal attacks. You are about to lose your posting privileges in Discussions otherwise. This goes for several other people flaming in this beaten-to-death thread. You will receive no more warnings - personal attacks are completely forbidden.</span>
Sorry, I apologize. Just responding to a flame in kind, and I got carried away because this is very important to me. I have a lot of useful information in here, so here goes attempt #2. These are some sources of information in backing up my past posts.
"During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II." - <a href='http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst112497.htm' target='_blank'>Texas Straight Talk</a>
"In addition, As UNICEF and other United Nations bodies and officials have reported, the sanctions (which the U.S. and U.K., primarily, refused to have lifted), added to the death toll since 1991 and was estimated to be close to 1 million deaths up to 1998 with mass starvations and disease (while Saddam Hussein had remained unaffected, and he himself sometimes used that for political advantage)." - <a href='http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp' target='_blank'>Effects of Sanctions against Iraq</a>
"A sharp increase was reported in the incidence of most of these types of cancer diseases: lung (five-fold), lymphoma (four-fold), breast (six-fold), larynx (four-fold), skin (eleven-fold). Among less prevalent cancer diseases, the increase is even sharper: uterus (nearly ten-fold), colon (six-fold), hyper-nephroma (seven-fold), malignant myeloma (sixteen-fold), liver (eleven-fold), ovaries (sixteen-fold), peri-anal (twenty-fold)." - <a href='http://www.isra.cix.co.uk/newsite/iraq/IrqaqDU.htm' target='_blank'>Impact of Depleted Uranium on Man and Environment in Iraq</a>
"In the 11 years since sanctions have been imposed on Iraq, the incidence of war-related health issues has skyrocketed. Depleted uranium from the bombs dropped into water supplies and residential areas has created a cancer epidemic. The incidence of malignancies in children and infants has increased by more than 10 fold, and a similar rise of congenital anomalies has been observed in Southern Iraq, the hardest hit area by missiles." - <a href='http://www.doctorsworldwide.org/projects/iraq.htm' target='_blank'>Doctors Worldwide - Iraq</a>
"Such weapons and munitions can cause unjustifiable pain and suffering to both the civilian population and the belligerents. In fact, they are an expression of hatred and of a desire to engage in random destruction and slaughter bordering on genocide, which the international community regards as a prohibited act, the perpetrators of which must be punished. Their use also constitutes a flagrant and gross violation of human rights." - <a href='http://www.isra.cix.co.uk/newsite/iraq/INA-Depleted%20Uranium.pdf' target='_blank'>Depleted Uranium - Facts for All the World to See</a>
"During the war, US and British forces shot ammo made from Depleted Uranium (DU), a radioactive and toxic waste that is suspected as a cause of some illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War." - <a href='http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/stand/du.html' target='_blank'>Depleted Uranium (www.bringthemhomenow.org)</a>
"Neither were the neocons deterred by intelligence summaries that told them there was no threat from Iraq. They just made sh1t up, repeated it five million times to a credulous, tele-hypnotic American majority, and we swallowed it whole... sugar provided by the ersatz journalism of America's entertainment media. Hearing only what we want is a generalized cultural characteristic shared by leaders and followers alike." - <a href='http://www.counterpunch.com/goff09152003.html' target='_blank'>The Occupation Runs Out of Gas. It Was the Oil and It Is Like Vietnam</a>
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
"Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight." - <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html' target='_blank'>Reason for War?</a>
"President Bush has finally gone on the record admitting that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks..." - <a href='http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=3956' target='_blank'>morons.org</a>
"Bush lied to Congress to get us into a war, and he now admits it." - <a href='http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html' target='_blank'>Bush Backtrack on Saddam/9-11 Link Creates Legal Problem</a>
"What is concerning about your speech is that in your attempt to legitimize the cause for war with Iraq, you cited intelligence listed in the National Intelligence Estimate that had already been refuted before you spoke. Even more disturbing is that it was your office, the Office of the Vice President, that learned of the false uranium story seven months before the NIE was written and issued in October 2002." - <a href='http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8923' target='_blank'>More Questions For Cheney</a>
"Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence." - <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1045361,00.html' target='_blank'>We are facing death in Iraq for no reason (letter from an active U.S. soldier</a>
"But according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and other critics, the Iraq war and occupation have provided a handful of companies with good political connections, particularly Halliburton, with unprecedented money-making opportunities. 'The amount of money [earned by Halliburton] is quite staggering, far more than we were originally led to believe,' Waxman said." - <a href='http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/28irhalliburton.html?urac=n&urvf=10639950422380.6407404785349302' target='_blank'>Halliburton's Iraq earnings rise</a>
Do you know what the <a href='http://www.howstuffworks.com/question478.htm' target='_blank'>Strategic Petroleum Reserve</a> is? It's an area in Louisiana that stores some 600 million barrels of crude oil for emergency purposes. Emergencies would be where the U.S. is unable to import enough oil. You see, oil runs this country. Bush and the oil cartel are a HUGE part of that. They've made their billions from oil. Unfortunately, the U.S. is running out of oil. Oil is a non-renewable source of energy. It's considered a fossil fuel, because, well, it's made from organic material... plants and animals that died millions of years ago. Once you tap and fully extract an oil reserve, there is no more.
When the U.S. oil companies extract the last gallon of oil from our reserves, what do you suppose they're going to do? Just give up and move on to something else? Never. Far too much money is at stake here. So what are the options? Well, it's simple: you acquire (read: steal) oil from those countries that are loaded with it.
"The major complicating factor is that the US is running out of oil. Unfortunately, our proven reserves are only 22 b barrels. That is a 7 year supply of oil, with obvious diminishing returns the closer we get to the limits of the fields. In effect, we are close to becomming nearly totally dependent on oil production from the Middle East." - <a href='http://jrobb.mindplex.org/stories/2002/12/16/2003OilAndWar.html' target='_blank'>2003: Oil and War</a>
"The Persian Gulf contains around 679 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, representing approximately 66% of total world oil reserves, and 1,918 Tcf of natural gas reserves (35% of the world total)." - <a href='http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/7_08/vs.html' target='_blank'>VITAL STATISTICS: Energy Overview: Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Iraq</a>
"Some geologists assert that proven reserve numbers for Central Asia and the Caucasus, commonly referred to as the Caspian Basin, are misleadingly low because huge areas of the region have not been explored. More than half of the Caspian region's proven oil reserves and 80 percent of its possible oil reserves lie in one country -- Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan holds large reserves of natural gas, but its distance from key consumer markets may mean those reserves will be commercially difficult to develop." - <a href='http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/studies/bipp_study_6/study_1998_04_01.html' target='_blank'>Baker Institute Study on proven oil reserves</a>
The Persian Gulf represents the largest proven oil reserve in the world. Everyone knows that. There's nothing else redeeming about the area. Saudi Arabia has the largest proven reserve in the world. Iraq is number two. Kuwait is number 3 or 4, depending on what year you compare and output totals. Iran is in the top 10. Looking at these countries and the last 30 years of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East it is incredibly easy to make connections.
The next big high-potential but unproven area is the Caspian area in Central Asia. All you need to do is find a way to get the oil from the Caspian Sea area to a country you can export from. Iran won't help. Russia is in turmoil and led by the mafia. China is communist and not particularly interested. Pakistan, however, is our friend. You can get to Pakistan from the Caspian Sea through one country. One guess as to what that country is. It's Afghanistan! [sarcasm]I'm sure it's just coincidence, though. Our bombings there, Russia's attempt at occupying... probably nothing to do with oil. Russia was after a bunch of caves. We're after terrorists... yeah, that's it![/sarcasm]
Well, there was a problem in Afghanistan. The Taliban. They're not very nice, they are hard to deal with, and we don't really understand them. We do know, however, they want a big piece of the action and they essentially rule Afghanistan. A pipeline through Afghanistan is going to have to go through them.
<a href='http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm' target='_blank'>Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline</a> <a href='http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html' target='_blank'>Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team</a> <a href='http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html' target='_blank'>Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?</a> <a href='http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html' target='_blank'>Afghanistan, Turkmenistan Oil and Gas, and the Projected Pipeline</a>
The easiest solution is just to wipe the Taliban out. So the commander in chief sent our soldiers over there. Under the auspices of a war on terrorism. Convenient. 9/11 gave Bush all the power in the world to do as he wanted. Bomb Afghanistan. Invade Iraq. Fabricate any kind of link between a country and terrorism, and you have a "get out of jail free" card to do whatever you want. And that's exactly what Bush is doing. People think that we're fighting terrorism. Truth is, our soldiers are fighting and dying to preserve the U.S. oil companies, and their dominance of world oil production. The oil cartel and the defense contractors are making an absolute fortune off of the entire ordeal. Iran will likely be next, you just watch. Meanwhile we won't even touch Israel and Palestine. Diplomacy there, bombs for Iraq.
Comments
That's an excellent point. Should UN send soldiers to help Bush or Iraqi people. Probably those countries who send soldiers are there to protect civilians from casualties. US troops are there to kill off the resistance(or freedom, depends on your point of view) fighters.
however, realistically, members of the UN could not give aid for the people of Iraq without it being percieved as giving aid to bush.
It sounds petty, but I think the difference matters, especially in the mind of Bush.
You can say and manipulate whatever you want, it still doesn't change the facts. Even though everyone may not be able to clearly discern what the facts are, over time when empires fall, the truth comes out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What 'facts' are these? Your whole post is based on your opinion and presents no facts. Saying that Saddam Hussein didn't kill his own people by the hundreds of thousands is of course completely untrue, and no one on either side of the issue is arguing that. Saying that somehow killing kurds (or Kuwaitis) is somehow better than killing your own people is of course also nonsense.
Really, this post is borderline troll - please try to debate more civilly with us and not start flamewars or I'll have to sic Nem on you.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There is definitely an 'old-boy network' feel to the process being run from the White House. I certainly think that the UN should provide aid to the process (to do otherwise is to forfeit their mandate and charter - not providing aid to a country in need in order to simply say 'neener neener' to a man they personally dislike is completely unjustifiable). I also think that Annan has basically been a complete wuss, especially considering that his own people are getting blown all to hell due to his mismanagement on multiple occasions. Turning down offered security in order to make some sort of show of independence isn't going to bring any widows their husbands back - he should have resigned that day in disgrace. Or the second time, for that matter. His intransigence is just as much about ego as Bush's is...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought us agreeing gave you a warm and fuzzy feeling <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well looking at the question of aid, in the end it's not up to the "UN" as it were, but the member states. If they vote no, then no aid. Kofi can't control how nations will vote. Now I don't think it's unresonable for the UN to request a share in the reconstruction process if they are going to be putting material, men and money into Iraq. By placing such an investment, the member states of the UN would probably want to have a say in how their money is spent. I think Bush has to understand that he's not going to get aid for free.
The most puzzling question must be: Why is Bush being so stubborn? I mean, it's not like the UN is going to come into Iraq and set up a dictatorship (yes I know many UN member states are dictatorships but the US would never stand for anything other than a democratic government). Although I don't want to touch off a "corperations and conspiracy theory" arguement, I must confess that the only reason I can see for Bush wanting to keep the UN out is so that the US can control the reconstruction process just the way they want. Currently it's being done all by US companies. The UN would probably allow other corperations to come in and help. It sounds crazy and it probably is, but I think it bears mentioning.
Aaahhhh, another helpless foreigner baffled by Texans (which is unto itself unlike any other American state, and would be considered a huge country in most parts of the world). <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> He's stubborn because Texans are stubborn. The same way the Swiss are stubborn. They just are - it's ingrained. It's part of the ridiculous fallacy that somehow Americans are all the same, a myth perpetrated by people that have never been there... Like in that silly UK Telegraph piece where yet another brainless reporter visits a couple towns and Washington DC and decides he's followed the scientific method and seen all there is to see. Nevermind that his report doesn't explain why the Bush government is about to get voted out, how organized religious attendance is at its lowest state in US history, and how it's possible for a country to have more than one political ideology at once.
Heheh, I never expected that response <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Interesting stuff. I wonder if Texans being so differant has something to do with them technically being a seperate country from around the 1930's up to the American-Mexican war. (darnit I've forgotten the date when Texas broke away from Mexico. *rumages around US history textbooks*).
In any case that's an interesting take. It may be that Bush is being stubborn because that's his nature. Truth be told I never considered an answer as simple as that. Quite intriguing...
On the whole Bush getting re-elected do you truely think he's not coming back? The guy had approval ratings in the 90's post September 11 now they're under 50%? I thought the Iraq war had popular support amongst Americans. How the heck did Bush screw up so badly?
On the whole Bush getting re-elected do you truely think he's not coming back? The guy had approval ratings in the 90's post September 11 now they're under 50%? I thought the Iraq war had popular support amongst Americans. How the heck did Bush screw up so badly? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 October 1835 - Texas revolts against the Mexicans
21 April 1836 - Texans win independence at Battle of San Jacinto.
29 December 1845 - US President James Polk annexes texas and makes it the 28th state.
So yes, you can see that they are a pretty stubborn people bent on doing things there own way, and were a separate country unto themselves for almost 10 years. During those 10 years most modern texans ancestors were settling there, leading to that sort of western frontier 'don't tread on me' attitude you see in born Texans today.
To your second point, George Bush Senior lead America to perhaps the most decisive military victory in human history in February 1991 against Iraq, and had approval ratings that were higher than Franklin Roosevelt during WW2. 18 months later he was out on the street after his only term, replaced by Bill Clinton.
Because in America, as in most of the world, presidents may win wars, but <i>economics</i> wins presidencies. All Wesley Clark has to do is talk smart about how he plans on fixing the US economy and he might as well start having his wife pick out the new drapes for the oval office come 2004...
I mean where does it say reconstruction has to be done by the military, plenty of people would ignore the danger if it paid 75 bucks an hour.
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I stood tough on the issues too "I will solve National Debt by stealing from weaker countries"
Education? "I will make cloning legal and breed super intelligent humans that will do all the hard jobs for us, so no need for education, it'll save millions!"
I was looking at it more from a consumer economy basis, if say 10,000 US civilians got jobs as "reconstructors" that paid say 20,000 a month thats 10,000 people making 250 thousand a year, since it is their own personal money and they are free to spend it invest it whatever, might make a difference, but who knows.
I can even take it a step further and say make it an industry, where being an international peacekeeper would become a more desirable career than being a very successful attorney, doctor, professional athlete.
Like you said 10 million people without jobs, that's 10 million people who would have an opprotunity to have a high paying job that requires no form of higher education, and usually consists of mostly manual labor, and some negotiating skills, which despite what anyone might tell you, every single person is capable of.
But, as is usually pointed out, that only stands if the same people <i>paying</i> for the war (taxpayers) are the same ones <i>profiting</i> from the reconstruction and oil contracts.
Apples and Oranges, Msr. . . you're pulling numbers from two entirely different ledgers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I shall respond to everything in this post now, whether or not it's on topic.
Monse:
I wouldn't say Bush will be voted out. He's at 50% approval rating right now, but if the economy keeps improving at the rate it is now, then we will see another Bush term....
UN:
They should help. <---Notice the period. However, I think the UN should be given a bigger overall role in rebuilding Iraq to compensate.
Next, to whoever thinks that the 'UN' feels insulted at being downtrodden by the USA, that's complete crap. The UN has <b>always</b> been like this, where one country veto's out the other. If you didn't know, the only times the UN succesfully voted on anything was for the Korean War, and the Gulf War. ... o_0
The UN has always been vetoing itself to death. The country with the most use of the veto power was either the USSR or USA, I can't say which one for sure, but during the cold war you can imagine how much was accomplished. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The guerilla tactics being used by Iraqis wanting to remove their occupiers will only continue to get worse and worse. They want us out of there. You may claim they're all brainwashed. If so, what do you propose we do about it? Kill them all? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Iraq does not and has never posed a threat to the security of the U.S. It was a huge mistake to go in there at all. They lied to us and the U.N. and have thus far not revealed anything that they claimed they would find.
History will condemn America for this war more than any of our other past mistakes, including Vietnam. You do not have the right to attack another country merely because they pose a threat. We never attacked the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. We are not going to war with China or North Korea. The only reason Bush invaded Iraq is for the oil and because he knows no one is going to oppose him. That is the true injustice here... he can bring his "war on terror" to any country he deems necessary, and no one is going to do anything about it.
What you said may be true... I'm not sure...
but,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The U.S. dropped more bombs on Iraq than in all other wars combined. Thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the last dozen years not from bombs but the leftover depleted uranium from the shells. The cancer rate within Iraq has risen some 1000% over that timeframe. Our sanctions throughout the 90s completely devastated that country. We have done nothing but repress them, kill them, invade them, and steal their oil. Far more so than Saddam ever did. You think what we've done to Iraq is honorable or justified? The Bush administration should be tried for war crimes. The U.N. should help in restoring Iraq, but the Bush clan should be kicked out. The reconstruction contracts already awarded to companies like Halliburton should be voided. The U.N. should demand complete U.S. withdrawal. After that, they should just kick us out of the U.N. completely.
The guerilla tactics being used by Iraqis wanting to remove their occupiers will only continue to get worse and worse. They want us out of there. You may claim they're all brainwashed. If so, what do you propose we do about it? Kill them all? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Iraq does not and has never posed a threat to the security of the U.S. It was a huge mistake to go in there at all. They lied to us and the U.N. and have thus far not revealed anything that they claimed they would find.
History will condemn America for this war more than any of our other past mistakes, including Vietnam. You do not have the right to attack another country merely because they pose a threat. We never attacked the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. We are not going to war with China or North Korea. The only reason Bush invaded Iraq is for the oil and because he knows no one is going to oppose him. That is the true injustice here... he can bring his "war on terror" to any country he deems necessary, and no one is going to do anything about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure as hell that everything said this was wrong. Good lord kid, I wanna see where you got this load of crap. I'll put it on my banned adress's list.
<a href='http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html</a>
&
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2828985.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2828985.stm</a>
And Eviserator not even I'm that rabid. You gotta back those claims up mate or no-one's going to take you seriously.
US and Britain acted - well knowing - on FALSE claims about WMDs.
Occupation Forces are responsible for security and safety in the occupied country.
Seeking UN help on a continuing crime is pathetic, but only UN can really reconstruct the country.
The problem is, the US want to get help, while THEY maintain command.
Thats quite expected, the war was wagged for geostrategical interests after all.
You dont unfold a huge military machine to just give your gained influence and power to some UN...
With this attitude, UN should never help the occupational forces. But this will result in endless conflict between occupation forces and Iraqi resistance.
The US have to put their interests aside, and TOGETHER with the UN help restore Iraq.
Once Iraqis see that things are getting better, rather than worse as today, peace will follow.
But most probably US will want to have the upper hand on Iraq matters, so kiss that goodbye...
Sorry, I apologize. Just responding to a flame in kind, and I got carried away because this is very important to me. I have a lot of useful information in here, so here goes attempt #2. These are some sources of information in backing up my past posts.
"During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II." - <a href='http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst112497.htm' target='_blank'>Texas Straight Talk</a>
"In addition, As UNICEF and other United Nations bodies and officials have reported, the sanctions (which the U.S. and U.K., primarily, refused to have lifted), added to the death toll since 1991 and was estimated to be close to 1 million deaths up to 1998 with mass starvations and disease (while Saddam Hussein had remained unaffected, and he himself sometimes used that for political advantage)." - <a href='http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp' target='_blank'>Effects of Sanctions against Iraq</a>
"A sharp increase was reported in the incidence of most of these types of cancer diseases: lung (five-fold), lymphoma (four-fold), breast (six-fold), larynx (four-fold), skin (eleven-fold). Among less prevalent cancer diseases, the increase is even sharper: uterus (nearly ten-fold), colon (six-fold), hyper-nephroma (seven-fold), malignant myeloma (sixteen-fold), liver (eleven-fold), ovaries (sixteen-fold), peri-anal (twenty-fold)." - <a href='http://www.isra.cix.co.uk/newsite/iraq/IrqaqDU.htm' target='_blank'>Impact of Depleted Uranium on Man and Environment in Iraq</a>
"In the 11 years since sanctions have been imposed on Iraq, the incidence of war-related health issues has skyrocketed. Depleted uranium from the bombs dropped into water supplies and residential areas has created a cancer epidemic. The incidence of malignancies in children and infants has increased by more than 10 fold, and a similar rise of congenital anomalies has been observed in Southern Iraq, the hardest hit area by missiles." - <a href='http://www.doctorsworldwide.org/projects/iraq.htm' target='_blank'>Doctors Worldwide - Iraq</a>
"Such weapons and munitions can cause unjustifiable pain and suffering to both the civilian population and the belligerents. In fact, they are an expression of hatred and of a desire to engage in random destruction and slaughter bordering on genocide, which the international community regards as a prohibited act, the perpetrators of which must be punished. Their use also constitutes a flagrant and gross violation of human rights." - <a href='http://www.isra.cix.co.uk/newsite/iraq/INA-Depleted%20Uranium.pdf' target='_blank'>Depleted Uranium - Facts for All the World to See</a>
"During the war, US and British forces shot ammo made from Depleted Uranium (DU), a radioactive and toxic waste that is suspected as a cause of some illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War." - <a href='http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/stand/du.html' target='_blank'>Depleted Uranium (www.bringthemhomenow.org)</a>
"Neither were the neocons deterred by intelligence summaries that told them there was no threat from Iraq. They just made sh1t up, repeated it five million times to a credulous, tele-hypnotic American majority, and we swallowed it whole... sugar provided by the ersatz journalism of America's entertainment media. Hearing only what we want is a generalized cultural characteristic shared by leaders and followers alike." - <a href='http://www.counterpunch.com/goff09152003.html' target='_blank'>The Occupation Runs Out of Gas. It Was the Oil and It Is Like Vietnam</a>
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
"Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight." - <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html' target='_blank'>Reason for War?</a>
"President Bush has finally gone on the record admitting that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks..." - <a href='http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=3956' target='_blank'>morons.org</a>
"Bush lied to Congress to get us into a war, and he now admits it." - <a href='http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html' target='_blank'>Bush Backtrack on Saddam/9-11 Link Creates Legal Problem</a>
"What is concerning about your speech is that in your attempt to legitimize the cause for war with Iraq, you cited intelligence listed in the National Intelligence Estimate that had already been refuted before you spoke. Even more disturbing is that it was your office, the Office of the Vice President, that learned of the false uranium story seven months before the NIE was written and issued in October 2002." - <a href='http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8923' target='_blank'>More Questions For Cheney</a>
"Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence." - <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1045361,00.html' target='_blank'>We are facing death in Iraq for no reason (letter from an active U.S. soldier</a>
"But according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and other critics, the Iraq war and occupation have provided a handful of companies with good political connections, particularly Halliburton, with unprecedented money-making opportunities. 'The amount of money [earned by Halliburton] is quite staggering, far more than we were originally led to believe,' Waxman said." - <a href='http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/28irhalliburton.html?urac=n&urvf=10639950422380.6407404785349302' target='_blank'>Halliburton's Iraq earnings rise</a>
Do you know what the <a href='http://www.howstuffworks.com/question478.htm' target='_blank'>Strategic Petroleum Reserve</a> is? It's an area in Louisiana that stores some 600 million barrels of crude oil for emergency purposes. Emergencies would be where the U.S. is unable to import enough oil. You see, oil runs this country. Bush and the oil cartel are a HUGE part of that. They've made their billions from oil. Unfortunately, the U.S. is running out of oil. Oil is a non-renewable source of energy. It's considered a fossil fuel, because, well, it's made from organic material... plants and animals that died millions of years ago. Once you tap and fully extract an oil reserve, there is no more.
When the U.S. oil companies extract the last gallon of oil from our reserves, what do you suppose they're going to do? Just give up and move on to something else? Never. Far too much money is at stake here. So what are the options? Well, it's simple: you acquire (read: steal) oil from those countries that are loaded with it.
"The major complicating factor is that the US is running out of oil. Unfortunately, our proven reserves are only 22 b barrels. That is a 7 year supply of oil, with obvious diminishing returns the closer we get to the limits of the fields. In effect, we are close to becomming nearly totally dependent on oil production from the Middle East." - <a href='http://jrobb.mindplex.org/stories/2002/12/16/2003OilAndWar.html' target='_blank'>2003: Oil and War</a>
"The Persian Gulf contains around 679 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, representing approximately 66% of total world oil reserves, and 1,918 Tcf of natural gas reserves (35% of the world total)." - <a href='http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/7_08/vs.html' target='_blank'>VITAL STATISTICS: Energy Overview: Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Iraq</a>
"Some geologists assert that proven reserve numbers for Central Asia and the Caucasus, commonly referred to as the Caspian Basin, are misleadingly low because huge areas of the region have not been explored. More than half of the Caspian region's proven oil reserves and 80 percent of its possible oil reserves lie in one country -- Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan holds large reserves of natural gas, but its distance from key consumer markets may mean those reserves will be commercially difficult to develop." - <a href='http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/studies/bipp_study_6/study_1998_04_01.html' target='_blank'>Baker Institute Study on proven oil reserves</a>
The Persian Gulf represents the largest proven oil reserve in the world. Everyone knows that. There's nothing else redeeming about the area. Saudi Arabia has the largest proven reserve in the world. Iraq is number two. Kuwait is number 3 or 4, depending on what year you compare and output totals. Iran is in the top 10. Looking at these countries and the last 30 years of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East it is incredibly easy to make connections.
The next big high-potential but unproven area is the Caspian area in Central Asia. All you need to do is find a way to get the oil from the Caspian Sea area to a country you can export from. Iran won't help. Russia is in turmoil and led by the mafia. China is communist and not particularly interested. Pakistan, however, is our friend. You can get to Pakistan from the Caspian Sea through one country. One guess as to what that country is. It's Afghanistan! [sarcasm]I'm sure it's just coincidence, though. Our bombings there, Russia's attempt at occupying... probably nothing to do with oil. Russia was after a bunch of caves. We're after terrorists... yeah, that's it![/sarcasm]
Well, there was a problem in Afghanistan. The Taliban. They're not very nice, they are hard to deal with, and we don't really understand them. We do know, however, they want a big piece of the action and they essentially rule Afghanistan. A pipeline through Afghanistan is going to have to go through them.
<a href='http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm' target='_blank'>Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
<a href='http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html' target='_blank'>Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team</a>
<a href='http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html' target='_blank'>Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?</a>
<a href='http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html' target='_blank'>Afghanistan, Turkmenistan Oil and Gas, and the Projected Pipeline</a>
The easiest solution is just to wipe the Taliban out. So the commander in chief sent our soldiers over there. Under the auspices of a war on terrorism. Convenient. 9/11 gave Bush all the power in the world to do as he wanted. Bomb Afghanistan. Invade Iraq. Fabricate any kind of link between a country and terrorism, and you have a "get out of jail free" card to do whatever you want. And that's exactly what Bush is doing. People think that we're fighting terrorism. Truth is, our soldiers are fighting and dying to preserve the U.S. oil companies, and their dominance of world oil production. The oil cartel and the defense contractors are making an absolute fortune off of the entire ordeal. Iran will likely be next, you just watch. Meanwhile we won't even touch Israel and Palestine. Diplomacy there, bombs for Iraq.
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo-->