THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

from http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051503_saudi_africa.html

Quote:

This is all about the fact that the consequences arising from the peak and inevitable decline of world oil production are going to be the most cataclysmic events in human history.

0 Replies

Ican I really can't be bothered if you think I am a genius or a dimwit, I am posting some comments and links to support my contention that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with wmd, nor bringing democracy to that benighted country, nor liberating the press or even getting rid of Saddam except insofar as he got in the way of the real objectives of Israel and oil. Or if you prefer oil and Israel.

What do you have to say specifically about these two aspects of the war?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Ican I really can't be bothered if you think I am a genius or a dimwit, I am posting some comments and links to support my contention that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with wmd, nor bringing democracy to that benighted country, nor liberating the press or even getting rid of Saddam except insofar as he got in the way of the real objectives of Israel and oil. Or if you prefer oil and Israel.

What do you have to say specifically about these two aspects of the war?

Oil: I apologize for repeating myself; repeating myself...

If the logic of the invasion of Iraq proclaims to you who believe that President Bush is corrupt and invaded Iraq for the purpose of enriching himself and his friends by controlling Iraqi oil, then I have a simple question for you:

Why didn't Mr. Bush and his friends either simply steal the Iraqi oil as did France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. under the UN "oil for food" (corrupt bribes) program where billions of dollars of contracts were assigned (read Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud
Or, simply lift the trade embargo, make Saddam into a new groveling ally (Iran is still our enemy), get real sweet deals on oil; on rebuilding Iraq; please the Saudis who are supposed to be Bush's corrupt partners in this fantasy scenario; and thereby enrich and empower all of Bush's "oil buddies?"

I would love to see a logical and factual answer to those questions.
Until then, your Bush oil fantasy is merely some twisted mental maunderings that serve to show ignorance and hatred on the part of those that believe such things.

Israel:
Connect the dots for me please. We went to war against Saddam Hussein to help Israel do what?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Ican I really can't be bothered if you think I am a genius or a dimwit

Fair enough! But then why villify Bush's mental equipment or state of mind? Why not focus your attention on comparing and analyzing Bush's actions with what you believe he should have done or is doing? Why refer to the opinions of those who arrogantly presume they can read Bush's mind and discern Bush's motives better than the rest of us? Why not simply grant Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume Bush thinks he's doing what needs to be done to protect Americans from Terrorists? Why not attack actions Bush is taking and their consequences rather than attack Bush's presumed motives which no one but Bush is competent to know anyway?

Hell, in the near term leaving Saddam alone to murder his own people as he will would have been a better way to protect Iraq's oil supply than waring with Saddam.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I am posting some comments and links to support my contention that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with wmd, nor bringing democracy to that benighted country, nor liberating the press or even getting rid of Saddam except insofar as he got in the way of the real objectives of Israel and oil. Or if you prefer oil and Israel. What do you have to say specifically about these two aspects of the war?

So you believe you know the motives for the war in Iraq. Believe what you will. I am not competent to descern the motives of others. I think I am competent to evaluate the probable consequences of contemplated and actual actions of others.

I am evaluating what Bush has done in terms of what is important to me and those I love. Regardless of what Bush's damn motives were or are, all I care about is whether what he has done will be effective in protecting Americans from terrorism. I recognize that it is absolutely necessary to protect others from terrorism in order to protect ourselves. So, is what Bush is doing going to work or not work? "That is the question." That is my question.

Good motives, good intentions, do not make good results. Only good actions do. Sometimes bad motives (e.g., narrow self-interest) lead to good actions that produce good results.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

If the logic of the invasion of Iraq proclaims to you who believe that President Bush is corrupt and invaded Iraq for the purpose of enriching himself and his friends by controlling Iraqi oil....

Israel:
Connect the dots for me please. We went to war against Saddam Hussein to help Israel do what?

Howdy. The main difference between this corrupt dictatorship, which we invaded, and all the other corrupt regimes where we did not, is the presence of large oil reserves. Quaddafi of Libya recognised this, even if you won't.

Moishe, your analysis left out the fact of the number of large new military bases currently being built in Iraq for the use of US forces, and the reported embassy to accommodate around 1300 staff.

That to me, and I admit being a little suspicious and distrustful of what politicians tell me, means military control of the Middle East and better protection of America's only ally in the area.

0 Replies

I didn't say Bush was corrupt, I said he isn't very bright, and has made elementary mistakes which have changed the course of the war from a potentially joyous liberation into a military occupation of Iraq among a sullen and resentful population. Bush can't escape responsibility for this fiasco. He is both Head of State and Commander in Chief.

How does Israel benefit Moishe? Well Iraq, which has been in a continuous state of war with Isreal since 1948 is suddenly no longer a threat. Thats a benefit.

And they are going to re opend the old Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline.

From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0423/p11s01-coop.html

Quote:

the authoritative Cyprus oil journal Middle East Economic Survey (MEES) reports that the Washington hawks may insist that the next Iraqi government rebuild the Kirkuk-Haifa oil line

Haifa to become the new Rotterdam of the eastern Mediterranean? Thats a benefit too.

0 Replies

As for vilifying the Shrub's mental equipment--this is a boy who can't eat pretzels without nearly choking himself to death . . . enough said . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

France, Iraq Re-Establish Diplomatic Ties

Associated Press

PARIS - France and Iraq have restored diplomatic relations that were severed 13 years ago during the Gulf War and they plan to exchange ambassadors as soon as possible, the French Foreign Ministry said Monday ...

Fairly significant development, IMHO.

0 Replies

I can't really get what you mean by your remark, timber.

(Although, I've got an idea ... :wink: )

Translated from my local paper (today's issue):

Quote:

Meanwhile, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Saturday that the country's "top priority is to re-establish Iraq's international representation," adding that he will soon announce the appointment of 43 ambassadors and ultimately plans to reopen some 77 embassies globally.

source: Der Patriot
(Well, it's not online, and besides, you have to subscribe to the print edition before being able to see all the news online.)

Fairly significant development, IMHO.

0 Replies

Yes but is France going to re establish diplomatic ties with the United States?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
If the logic of the invasion of Iraq proclaims to you who believe that President Bush is corrupt and invaded Iraq for the purpose of enriching himself and his friends by controlling Iraqi oil....

Israel:
Connect the dots for me please. We went to war against Saddam Hussein to help Israel do what?

Howdy. The main difference between this corrupt dictatorship, which we invaded, and all the other corrupt regimes where we did not, is the presence of large oil reserves. Quaddafi of Libya recognised this, even if you won't.

Moishe, your analysis left out the fact of the number of large new military bases currently being built in Iraq for the use of US forces, and the reported embassy to accommodate around 1300 staff.

That to me, and I admit being a little suspicious and distrustful of what politicians tell me, means military control of the Middle East and better protection of America's only ally in the area.

1) Being suspicious of President Bush's desire to ensure that America has access to oil does not make him a Machiavellian, moronic, conniving, idiotic, treasonous, war criminal. It makes him President of the United States.
Which makes the Moore Moonbat/Liberal Democratic accusations just plain nuts.

2) And why should the United States invade Iraq, establish new military bases, spend billions of dollars, etcetera, to protect Israel?
This helps us how?
We have a history of doing this when?
Except for more Moonbat madness, there is no substance to the idea that we are performing these massive military manuevers and expenditures for the sake of Israel.
They seem to be taking care of themselves without a hell of a lot of help from anybody.

0 Replies

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/bush1.jpg

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Yes but is France going to re establish diplomatic ties with the United States?

According to France-diplomatie and Le Monde Diplomatique, this will happen as soon as Louisiana becomes another French Département d'outre-mer/Région d'outre-mer :wink:

0 Replies

They can have Loo-zee-anna, an' welcome to it . . .

0 Replies

Front page of the San Jose Merc this morning: "Sept 11 panel seeks overhaul." In essense, it says "....a final, probably unanimous report that will stand by the conclusions of the panel's staff and largely dismiss White House theories both about a close working relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaida and about possible Iraqi involvement in Sept 11, commission officials said." Another slap in the face of Bush and company. On page 3, "Reagan son plans speech for Demos - at convention." Finally, on the Op-Ed page, "The GOP ought to go into the comedy business. It is disparaging John Edwards because he was trial lawyer. You would think that someone would remember that Abraham Lincoln was a trial lawyer. Sure beats a failed oil executive, if you ask me. Marjorie Sheldon, Los Gatos."

0 Replies

Ol' Abe was a pretty sharp trial lawyer, as well . . . he got big attention in the world of law and business when he successfully defended the railroad plans to bridge the Mississippi--against the then very powerful riverboat lobby.

That writer got a good shot off with that one, c.i.

0 Replies

"taking care of themselves ithout a hell of a lot of help from anybody", Moishe?
You couldn't be more wrong on that score.
We send tons of money to Israel. That's A LOT of help. Israel maybe couldn't exist without the USA.
I agree with Mctag's theory, although I wonder why we go to such lengths. What are we getting out of it? Great pic, Gelisgeste!
CI, thanks for those headlines. Interesting indeed.

0 Replies

WHAT WOULD THINGS BE LIKE NOW IF WE HAD INVADED AFGHANISTAN BUT NOT IRAQ?

I bet the left would be villifying Bush for not doing anything about the continuing murders of Iraqis by Iraq's own government, because Bush was trying not to interfere with the flow of Iraqi oil.

I also bet America would at this time have been victim of at least one additional terror attack worse than 911.

0 Replies

You really think so? What horrifying things had been happening in Iraq that are not currently happening in many other countries we are also not invading? There weren't any particular monstrosities occuring at that time in Iraq that were any worse than years and decades before that, were there? If so, what? What was Iraq doing at the time we attacked that stood out and demanded our being there when we were already warring in another country?

0 Replies

Suzy, You've fallen for the bait. It wasn't about the people of Iraq. It was WMDs and Saddam's relationship to al Qaida. Saddam's tyranical attack on his own people was an after thought after they couldn't justify WMDs and the al Qaida connection.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know