0
   

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

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:20 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think some would find it interesting to research Abbas' role in the PLO prior to his new kinder and gentler title and image.


Some would find it equally as productive to research Sharon before he was PM of Israel.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:22 am
How much oil were we getting from Iraq prior to the first gulf war Steve? I haven't researched it, but working from memory, I am remembering none. How much oil were we getting from the OFF program during the 12 years of sanctions? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is also none. How much oil do we hope to get from Iraq once they are up and running to capacity again? I'm pretty sure the plan is none. Nevertheless, ensuring that the world oil supply is not in the hands of a brutal, self-serving, opportunistic, expansionist minded dictator is in everybody's best interest, including ours. That is what my congresswoman said, and to infer her intentions were something else is just plain specualation with no basis in fact. And also to assume she was saying that was the only or even the most important reason for the invasion of Iraq is also putting words in her mouth that she didn't say.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 08:02 am
Revel said

"Wouldnlt that be something if Blair announced a withdrawal."

Well its interesting. There is a general election going on here. All that's necessary to win is to announce a pull out from Iraq. But no major party promises that. Even the LibDems who opposed the war, say we have to stay to sort things out. But I repeat anyone who says vote for me and I will pull the troops out of Iraq would be prime minister in Britain on 6th May...just like Zappatero in Spain.

Foxy I don't know the figures either, I'll see if I can find out. (But Iraqi crude with its low sulphur content was/is very desirable to US refineries). Of course I don't know how much emphasis your congresswoman placed on the oil aspect of the war, I wasn't there. But I found it interesting that she didn't dismiss this out of hand, because there are several people on this thread who categorically deny oil has anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. Its they who are living in a fantasy land imo.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 08:50 am
Tony Blair can utter falshoods with a perfectly straight face and he looks as though he has convinced himself of their veracity. Totally convincing. You almost want to believe him. He is an excellent politician, which means he is a reptile of a human being.

(Steve, did you hear Gordon Brown being quizzed by Eddie Mair on BBC Radio4 this week about whether he trusted Mr Blair? What a hoot.)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 09:22 am
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Dick Cheney August 2002.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 09:45 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Dick Cheney August 2002.



Given that Saddam had already started wars against both Iran and Kuwait (and thereby to more that triple his hold on the world's reserves - as Steve measures them), Cheny's statement appears modest in the extreme. This was but one of several excellent (and sufficient) reasons to take this dictator out of the picture.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 10:15 am
McTag

No didnt hear the Mair interview. But I've always thought Blair is a genius of a salesman/lawyer/politician, with the killer ingredient, as you say sincerety in large measure. (is that how you spell sincerity...not a word I'm used to Smile

Of course he's also very religious, so perhaps he doesn't find it too difficult to believe nonsense.

But I think he's too clever for that. Unless he's the sort of person who orders intelligence to be "sexed up" then believes every word of it.

I think it went something like this:

Blair...(exasperated) You know Saddam is wriggling out of every excuse we might use to justify the invasion. He's actually been co operating by and large with inspectors. If the UN dont give us the go ahead, we have to have some damning evidence on wmd, and we just dont have any.

Campbell. You want me to put something together?

Blair. Yes good idea. You do that then I'll get MI6 and the JIC to sign off on it. After all that's what they're there for isn't it?

Campbell. Not exactly. They are supposed to provide well researched and factual information..

Blair. Yes but that stuff is for ME. They are in our service. In a situation like this they will have to do their patriotic duty and put their names to a load of bull. Anyway I can always sweeten things with John Scarlett by promising him head of MI6.

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

When the argument of the 45 minute to doomsday story was raging, Blair admitted in the House of Commons (I heard him) that when he was told Saddam might have stocks of VX and Sarin, that he didn't pursue it further.

i.e. he had just been told Saddam had missiles and maybe nerve gas warheads and he just said ok, next.

One commentator said if a civil servant had told Thatcher something similar at the time of the Falklands war, she would have had him pinned to the wall and grilled to an inch of his life as to what it all meant.

But Blair knew the truth, so he didnt want to know further....
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 10:32 am
Remarkable abilities at mind reading. Do you use them often?

I believe it is more likely that Blair understands that the legalisms being thrown at him are merely the tactics of those who oppose the war for other reasons, and those who seek fodder for their general political attacks on any convenient issue. He is likely wise enough to understand that statecraft requires that one overcome such things.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 01:40 pm
Just for the record here, I do not "oppose the war for other reasons". I oppose my country's armed forces being used to invade another country, killing many thousands of innocents, for no adequate and legitimate reason. I resent being lied to. I object to my Parliament being duped.

I deplore the hypocrisy of people who are elected to uphold the law, operating outside it, and urging support in the name of some kind of perverted patriotism.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 04:23 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Ican, if you read my post properly you would understand I was being ironic.
I understood that. That's why my response was ironic too.

Foxfyre's account of the conversation with her congresswoman amounted to an admission that the war was not for American oil, but it was to curb Saddam's designs over the world's oil, which I suggest is absurd.
Go back and read Foxfyre's account again. Your interpretation of Foxfyre's account is your fantasy. Foxfyre's account mentioned one thing that was not an issue and one thing that was an issue. The item that was identified as an issue was not identified as a reason for the war.


ADDENDUM: Excerpt from Foxfyre's post:
foxfyre wrote:
Just before the November election, I had opportunity to be in a gathering with my elected Congressional representative and point blank asked the question: "Why did we invade Iraq" and received her heartfelt and plainfly spoken response, "It was the next logical step in the war on terrorism as Saddam was in the business of terrorism, he was on the record as intending to hurt us, and we had reason to believe he had the capability and the will to do that once the sanctions were lifted and the no fly zones were no longer patroled."

This is Foxfyre's Congresswoman's actual answer to Foxfyre's question, "Why did we invade Iraq."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 04:39 pm
McTag wrote:
Just for the record here, I do not "oppose the war for other reasons". I oppose my country's armed forces being used to invade another country, killing many thousands of innocents, for no adequate and legitimate reason. I resent being lied to. I object to my Parliament being duped.

I deplore the hypocrisy of people who are elected to uphold the law, operating outside it, and urging support in the name of some kind of perverted patriotism.


Any rational person who believed that which you deplore were true would also deplore that. Also deplorable is your gullible adherence to such fantasies.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 06:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Propaganda, both false and true, is often repeated endlessly.


So true. Ican. So true.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 06:56 pm
ican711nm wrote:
old europe, how's your research on Zarqawi's role in al Qaeda prior to our invasion of Iraq coming along?


Oh, frankly, I'm having such a good weekend. Barbecue with friends on Friday, big birthday party today. Not really in the mood to do any research or pointing out the fact that you would have to provide a source proving that Zarqawi was the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps.

Sorry. Just trying to follow the thread at the moment. More soon.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
How much oil were we getting from Iraq prior to the first gulf war Steve? I haven't researched it, but working from memory, I am remembering none. How much oil were we getting from the OFF program during the 12 years of sanctions? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is also none. How much oil do we hope to get from Iraq once they are up and running to capacity again? I'm pretty sure the plan is none. Nevertheless, ensuring that the world oil supply is not in the hands of a brutal, self-serving, opportunistic, expansionist minded dictator is in everybody's best interest, including ours. That is what my congresswoman said, and to infer her intentions were something else is just plain specualation with no basis in fact. And also to assume she was saying that was the only or even the most important reason for the invasion of Iraq is also putting words in her mouth that she didn't say.


none. none. none.

So why not just continue getting no oil from Saddam, Foxy? Why not just ignore him? If nobody was getting oil from Saddam, except for France, why not just ignore him?
"Everybody's best interest"? Except for the US? So why have a war over it???
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:04 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Dick Cheney August 2002.



Given that Saddam had already started wars against both Iran and Kuwait (and thereby to more that triple his hold on the world's reserves - as Steve measures them), Cheny's statement appears modest in the extreme. This was but one of several excellent (and sufficient) reasons to take this dictator out of the picture.



But then, didn't the States support Iraq in the war against Iran? Was Iraq capable of attacking the US?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:14 pm
We wanted to ensure that the world's largest oil reserves would not be under control of a viscious dictator O.E. so that Garmany et al could remain viable trading partners with the U.S. So if anybody is looking for a selfish motive in all this, there it is.

At the time the U.S. helped (not supported) Saddam against Iran, Iran had a leader even crazier than Saddam and just as capable of making major mischief given major power. The motive there was to keep the two countries busy with each other but neither able to ocnquer the other. Had we not done so, Iraq almost certainly would have fallen to the Ayatollah Khomeni's army and we would have a much larger, much more dangerous Iran on our hands today. Again, selfish motives perhaps, but no less necessary at the time.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
We wanted to ensure that the world's largest oil reserves would not be under control of a viscious dictator O.E. so that Garmany et al could remain viable trading partners with the U.S. So if anybody is looking for a selfish motive in all this, there it is.


Oh my gawd!!! I didn't know this! Thank you, US, for secruring our oil supplies!!!

P.S.: Did you know that Volkswagen has built the 3-liter-car several years ago??
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:22 pm
Seriously: why was it never mentioned before the invasion?

"Hey, we'll secure the world's largest oil reserves!!"

No. The reasons I remember were:

"We know where the WMD are".

"Do you want to see a mushroom cloud over an American city tomorrow?"

"We have to liberate the Iraqi people!"

"They are harboring al Qaeda terrorists. Al Qaeda was behind 9/11".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:29 pm
Because we didn't invade to secure the world's largest oil reserves. There were motives ahead of that; however, to say that it never crossed our mind would have been ludicrous considering that it was only about a decade before that Saddam launched a major military initative to gain control of those very reserves. Further he had never indicated he still didn't have designs on them.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:30 pm
And and re that 3-liter car? Are you the one who drives a fancy French sports car? Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 07:22:28