U.S invasion on iraq

[Mr Grimes]

Stop flying planes into buildings and shooting your mouths of about how bad the west is, and you might live to shit in a pot another day.

www.garyalves.com/turban.htm

[ABCMan]

Originally posted by Mr Grimes
Stop flying planes into buildings and shooting your mouths of about how bad the west is, and you might live to shit in a pot another day.

www.garyalves.com/turban.htm

well said that man

[2old4this]

Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region


Thursday September 5, 2002
<http://www.guardian.co.uk> The Guardian

I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack. The response of the British government seems equally confused, but I just hope that the determination to ultimately attack Iraq does not form the bedrock of their policy. It is hard now to see how George Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world.

What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American
Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.

The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He
knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality.

But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing
more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.

Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love
affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable.

The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.

This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect
the west's supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it?

[beekae]

After September 11th.,I believe it.!!!
So your point is that we leave these countries to their own devices-they can hardly feed their own people,but its ok for them to spend millions on weapon development.
Oil is essential to the "civilised" worlds economy,and Im glad the UK and USA are,and have looked over our interests BUT to use this as a distraction and "smokescreen" is shameful and naive.
"Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot."-funny he thought he could before the Gulf War.
After the HORROR of Sept.11th,excuses and sickening rhetoric by liberals makes me puke.
They are becoming,and will ultimately be the END of our country.

[beekae]

Incidentally,why do you "fear for the Middle-East" ?
I personally couldnt give 2 fks for them,they certainly dont fear for us....we are the pig-dogs of the west,who should embrace the koran,or die(by an act of cowardly terrorism).
Scum..!!!

[2old4this]

Why are so many PMs and people in the uk agaist war what have they got to loose

[ABCMan]

i have no idea, why were so many people against starting a war with hitler in the 1930's?

they were proved wrong then, just as if they win at the moment they will be proved wrong when parts of isreal or the west choke under a cloud of chemicals or fry under a mushroom cloud, is it something that you want to wait for? or shall we take the lesson from history and deal with the problem before thousand/millions die or shall we listen to the liberals again and wait untill its too late?

[canardo]

whilst I am all for wiping out arab extremists I dont feel that currently we have due cause other than bush feels like it to invade Iraq

no look at the other side of the coin for a second we moan about saddam dictating what exactly is bush doing !!!!!

the arab threat is a very real one as abcman points out and I fully agree many muslims leaders (the one with a hook for a hand that lives in the uk for example)use doctrine to influence their parishners(what ever you call mosque goers) to do crazy things

I dont fully agree though that all muslims are evil just think that any religion if you want can be turned in a way to cause war(most wars are over religion) and so its these ppl that need to be removed and whats a finer job for the SAS than that and also means we could get one over the yanks lol as cruise missles no good for single target hits


as for all the people calling for the arab stats to be nuked read between the lines

OIL = US,UK Western economy
ARABSTATES = OIL
NUKE = NO OIL

also dont you find it strange that most al queda supporters are based in Saudi Arabia you guessed it what do they export OIL

we also unfortunately are only being fed half a story or "turn speak"

[Aware]

QUOTE
"Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oil fields in neighbouring countries the full might of the west will be waged against him.

There are plenty of suspicous motives as to why the U.S wants a war with Iraq, manipulation of oil might be one i agree, but to believe Saddam can be left to his own devices is lunacy.

So why would Saddam wish to use weapons of mass destruction, when the full might of the west will be waged against him?

Well it didn't stop him slaughtering thousands of his own people, killing inocent kurds and Iranians, it didn't stop him invading Kuwait for oil.
Saddam has a weakened military, half it's might,pre gulf war.
Nuclear,chemical and biological weapons are much more efficient killers than a whole army.Why use million dollar machinery when a single warhead on a skud will do the job.A cheap war.The evidence that he has these weapons or at least chemical and biological was proven with weapons inspectors in the 90's.Why do people still doubt he posses them, he's used them for christ sake.

Ok, so the U.S 'COULD' stand to gain a little influence over oil, although i doubt it given the anti-american antics that seems to be gaining momentum in the middle east, even so when the war begins.I can't grasp directly how a war is going to win them favours particularly with the souring saudi's. The only real way i understand, correct me if i'm wrong, would be to literally gain influence over Iraqs oil to compensate for loss of control over the saudis, can you imagine the tension it would cause.

Another point, the gulf war cost the U.S around $71 billion, today the same war would probably cost somewhere in the region of $100 billion maybe more.Seems alot of money, just in the hope of gaining some influence.

Personally, i can believe much of what's being said, although i don't necessarily trust the people saying it, if you know what i mean.I'd be much more comfortable having Clinton at the reins than a plonker like Bush.

Someone please set me straight if i'm wrong about any points or if you think otherwise.

Thanks.

[Zydig0]

Originally posted by Aware
QUOTE


Ok, so the U.S 'COULD' stand to gain a little influence over oil,.....

Another point, the gulf war cost the U.S around $71 billion, today the same war would probably cost somewhere in the region of $100 billion maybe more.Seems alot of money, just in the hope of gaining some influence.


Someone please set me straight if i'm wrong about any points or if you think otherwise.

Thanks.

With proven reserves of 112-billion barrels Iraq has the second largest crude reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia.11% of the world total. And probable reserves of 214-billion barrels,making it the biggest.

In terms of oil, Iraq is potentialy BIG (just needs some corporate financing e.g Exon ,Chevron etc to replace and renew the infastructure)

Disregarding all the talk of the "evil regime" the US was still importing 1 million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day earlier on this year,but has only recently cut back.

With potential control over the Iraqi oil fields after a sucssesfull invasion even @ $25 a barrel makes a good return

[2old4this]

By C. Bryan Lavigne


There is something seriously wrong with Americans. Something that was inherent in the Europeans who first came and were able to live and breed here. Those first colonists had to be made of steel, they had to be hard and emotionless or they wouldn't have made it through the first winter. Hell, the ones that weren't solid didn't make it past the first winter.

Americans love war. No, it goes beyond that; we love violence and explosions and big ****ing guns, and we love to watch other people suffer in pain and misery. Deprived of our own struggle for survival, we find comfort in watching the desperation of others. Anywhere you look in our culture you see it: violent lyrics in music, action movies and TV shows with explosions and gun fights every five minutes, the ever present war dramas and documentaries, video games, professional wrestling and sports, kidnapped children and murdered parents and a thousand desperate faces vying for time on the network news.

We don't get any happier than when there is a real war to gawk at. Who isn't glued to the TV in this country any time our military machine goes to work (when the corporate media deems it worthy to show) against some impoverished country? We can't get enough of smart bombs and carpet bombs and cluster bombs and bunker buster bombs. I bet your pulse is up just reading this. We love it so much that in our oafish gape we don't even bother to ask ourselves important questions. Questions like: "Why are we really bombing these people?" and "Isn't there a better way to settle disputes than this?" or how about "When will we go too far, if we have not already?" Not only do we fail to ask these important questions, but we also make up the most absurd arguments to justify killing people.

Take the conversation I had today with my brother-in-law in which he gave me these zingers: "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, Saddam is trying to build weapons of mass destruction, Saddam won't let weapons inspectors in, and Saddam is a danger to the United States." I won't go into my responses; I'm sure you've all heard the arguments before. I argued with him for half an hour on this subject, and when I proved all his arguments to be faulty, he still maintained that we needed to bomb Saddam. The same thing happened over and over again when we were bombing Afghanistan, no matter how well I argue, no matter what I say, people just will not open their eyes and see the truth that is slapping them in the face. They just don't want to admit that the only reason they support any war is because they just like to watch people getting bombed for no good reason.

I think the real problem here may be that Americans don't have the proper faculties to distinguish between fiction and reality anymore. We don't understand that those are real people being torn to pieces by our daisy cutters. Those are real people suffering under the wheel of our military machine. We've been conditioned to disassociate ourselves. Programmed not to care.

Movies and television have brainwashed us into believing that our government's intentions in the world are utterly and irrefutably noble; that we're the good guys and they're the bad guys and that everything is black and white, good and evil, us and them. The world does not work like this. Our government's intentions are anything but noble; they fight (or rather, they make us fight) for power, money and influence, nothing more, nothing less.

History proves this. But we don't believe it. Not our government! Not my elected officials! We can't accept that our government is the terrorist force in the world because then we wouldn't have any reason to cheer on the troops. We'd have no reason to hoop and holler when we see the smart bombs fall on the evening news. We'd have no reason to enjoy other people's misery. We will not face that reality. Well, maybe some of us do. After all, you can never get the whole population to agree on any one thing, so maybe some of us can get past this ingrained inability to believe our government incapable of foul play.

Maybe some of us won't look at other people's hardship as entertainment. Maybe some of us can feel. Maybe…

[ABCMan]

how can anyone in your country feel even a hint of pity for these people, yes they have oil, but these people who will be on the recieving end of your bombs if they aren't terrorists themselves they are supporters of the terrorists who killed so many on that murderous day last year, these are people who are brought up to hate you with every fiber of their existence, to give up their lives just for the chance to murder you or your countrymen, when it all kicks off the bleeding heart liberals will be complaining about children being killed, SO FCUKING WHAT, was it not children who grew up to fly those planes that killed so many innocents? kill them now where they stand and they wont have the chance.

on september 11th 2002 the moslem world has two choices
1) keep their heads down and try to avoid contact with the real world
2) be out on the streets celebrating (or worse still carrying out another attack)

either way if the usa gets rid of a few in iraq its a few less to try something in the future, and if the surrounding moslem states want to join in then you should kick their fcuking arses too, yes, some of your own people will go home in bodybags, that is sad, but how many bodybags did you fill on sept 11th? and how many more will be filled in the west and isreal if something isnt done, just because the moslems in palestine chose to kill a few innocents with their suicide murder how many such attacks have to take place before we allow isreal to deal properly with the problem without forcing them to pussyfoot around for the benefit of liberal western media when those who are carefully not killed will be happy to appear on western tv screens telling how the nasty israelis slaughtered thousands, when in fact all they did was kill a few terrorists and their supporters.

its time to take a stand and stop this threat to world peace.

ABCMan

[transa]

they really should have choose #1.

I read in todays telegraph london is to host these extremists while they 'celebrate' the attacks on 9/11.

its a joke insnt one of these nuts came to the uk in the 80's claimed asylum which failed, but he is still here.

[Aware]

Originally posted by Zydig0


With proven reserves of 112-billion barrels Iraq has the second largest crude reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia.11% of the world total. And probable reserves of 214-billion barrels,making it the biggest.

In terms of oil, Iraq is potentialy BIG (just needs some corporate financing e.g Exon ,Chevron etc to replace and renew the infastructure)

Disregarding all the talk of the "evil regime" the US was still importing 1 million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day earlier on this year,but has only recently cut back.

With potential control over the Iraqi oil fields after a sucssesfull invasion even @ $25 a barrel makes a good return

Thanks for pointing that out, so i take it you beleive the real and only motive is oil.

There was an Iraqi representitive speaking on the news this morning making your exact point.He also believed that the iraqi people where suffering directly and only as a result of sanctions, and that the whole nation supported Saddam Husseins regime. He also believed that the demonstrations against the Iraqi government in London for the last 10 years where funded by the CIA.He then pointed out that Iraq didn't have a weapons program, denied their brutal genocidal ways and couldn't understand why America wanted to harm his peolple.

Now Scott Ritter has decided to build himself a platform given his smudged career as a weapons inspector.It seems he's decided to put the boot on the other foot.Now why would he take it upon himself to dismiss any evidence of a weapons program without actually seeing any evidence for himself.

[4me2]

Imagine how the gulf war would have ended if this hadnt happened !

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5s0

[ABCMan]

but those who say that we shouldnt "remove" sadam would surely have been rejoiceing as both isreal and most likely kewait and parts of saudi were turned to glass.

good for the israelis, they try to take no shit when their country is threatened, just a pity we dont do the same.

its been asked before, but i've seen isreali peace protestors, where are the arab ones? all i hear is if you bomb iraq we will defend our fellow moslems, we should say "STAND WITH THEM, DIE WITH THEM" then see what the murdering cowards do.

[Zydig0]

Originally posted by Aware




Thanks for pointing that out, so i take it you beleive the real and only motive is oil.

No Aware I don't , but I think it is a very important factor to take into concideration.Take the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for instance how many people truly believe such a massive US / coalition force came to it's aid on purely moral grounds ?

The wests dependance on oil for it's economy is as great today as it ever has been and the thirst for it is not likely to be substituted by any other energy source in the near future.

With the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism in the oil producing states of the gulf the US knows that it could be "held to ransome"
for monetery or political reasons if too many kingdoms now ruled by powerfull families are overthrown by fundamentalist groups.

The US has tried in the past to try and prop up kingdoms in the gulf before (Shah of Pershia/Iran) with no success, so a more substancial foothold would seem to make sense.

As I pointed out the US is still buying oil from Iraq and earlier this year was importing 1 million barrels a day,at the same time it was calling it an evil empire or whatever.

I am not pro Saddam or anti war , I just like to dig a bit deeper than headlines and sound bites.

As for the question of weapons programmes, what country hasn't got one ? In an ideal world no countries would have stockpiles of chemical/bio/nuclear weapons not just the ones the west doesn't like.

Just trying to keep off the "nuke them or they will nuke us" bandwagon.

Zydig0

[2old4this]

Zydig0

Well done m8 nice post

[ABCMan]

i'd have to agree with Zydig0

oil is the biggest deciding factor and probably has a lot to do with the other local arab states refusing to help this time, everyone knows that saudi has a lot to do with the terrorists and if the us sorts out iraq and gets itself a friendly regime in power then saudi is standing on very shaky ground

[Aware]

Killing 2 or 3 birds with one stone then, taking out Saddam hence a large proportion of funds to al-Qaeda and picking up a shed load of oil to boot.

an oil war or not,I'd rather we had control of it than islamic killers.