investors, capitalists, supreme eilite individuals of the U.S. united long ago and decided to take over Iraq for profit. evidence is right here:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=69

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2000/corpnws_020100.jsp

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/kbrnws_032403.jsp


note in that first article how the Wall Street Journal called the capitalists' efforts ""the largest government reconstruction effort since Americans helped to rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II." and then note the date of the article: March 12th, 2003. the war hadn't even begun yet!

Yeah right and the coming war with North Korea is all about rice.

Here we go again.

obviously neither of you read the articles i posted.

of course it is about oil.....and WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT.

Currently, Iraq has one third of the world oil reserve, while the Iraqi people are the poorest souls in the world....IS THAT FAIR. They are plighted with a tyrant dictator who has been humilating them and making them live in fear for 30 years.

The US is going to benefit itself and benefit the Iraqi people by tapping in their great resource that noone else knows how to utilize properly. Iraq is lucky that they have oil, because if they didn't, noone would have cared about their corrupt regime, and they would have continued to live under the sons of Hussein.

Nicely said, Heflores. :)

do you realize that as we speak right now people are dying? would you go over there and die for this oil? no, i don't think you would.

What does it matter? Everybody knows it is about oil. Precisely for this reason:


Originally posted by Heflores
Iraq is lucky that they have oil, because if they didn't, noone would have cared about their corrupt regime, and they would have continued to live under the sons of Hussein.

And no one would have cried over the dying this very minute at that particular part of the world.

Do you realize saddam has been killing people left and right for the last decade? (and he wasnt very nice before then) Would you rather pay $100 now or pay $10 every month for a year?

I think I was too vague. I mean, in any way, there will be people dying in that part of the world. Without this war, it would happen too.

Would you be crying for the dying this loud in other circumstances too?

If so, would it be in exactly the same way as you are doing now?

fair enough.. do you actually think that the americans are gonna give the oil resources to the iraqi ppl/post war iraqi govt? if they are gonna hand over the reins to the iraqi ppl, fine.. if not, they have no business in that country.. and dont wanna hear human rights blahh blahh blahh.. since when is the US so altruistic? sure ppl died while saddam was in power.. but what about all the ppl that died due to the sanctions imposed on iraq in the past 12 years... surely they didnt invite such a response based on the behaviour of their dictator...

That is exactly my point Sycoindian. Because of this invasion in Iraq, people know all of sudden precisely all kind of facts on the inhumane circumstances the Iraqi peoples lived under during the sanctions. Miraculously...

I never saw any of you standing up for these peoples so strongly as many of you did right after this whole issue, pre-war talk and all, began. Like as though y'all really cared before all this happened.

As a side note I feel need to be said, I do not support this war.

Syco, yes. We gave kuait back with all its oil. Why no Iraq?

Actually the EU stands to gain more from the opening/improvement of a free Iraqi oil industry. America only gets about 11.5% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, and 2.3% from Iraq as it is. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, get most of their oil from the gulf, and Iraq.

Increasing Iraq's oil production will benefit the EU nations and Asia much, much more than the United States.

In military jargon:

Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa

Originally posted by Banshee
That is exactly my point Sycoindian. Because of this invasion in Iraq, people know all of sudden precisely all kind of facts on the inhumane circumstances the Iraqi peoples lived under during the sanctions. Miraculously...

I never saw any of you standing up for these peoples so strongly as many of you did right after this whole issue, pre-war talk and all, began. Like as though y'all really cared before all this happened.

As a side note I feel need to be said, I do not support this war.

ok, that is just some crappy snobby rhetoric based on pure circumstance and bad logic.

first of all, just because you didn't see me protesting for the past decade doesn't mean i wasn't, DUH. second of all, as far as my protesting this war and UN sanctions on Iraqi food and water supplies for the past 12 years, i had to work real hard to find out these kinds of facts. which just shows how readily available our gov't and media here in the states makes them.

i mean, DUH, you're fuckin right dude, just because this war is happening people are waking up to the truth. so what is your point?

Originally posted by Clockwood
Do you realize saddam has been killing people left and right for the last decade? (and he wasnt very nice before then) Would you rather pay $100 now or pay $10 every month for a year?

do you realize more people in Iraq have died from UN sanctions blocking aid and supplies to the country? did you know that even as late as last July, $5.4billion worth of humanitarian supplies, approved by the UN and paid for by the Iraqi government, were blocked by Washington, with British PM Blair's approval?

and why can't Iraq get rid of Saddam at this point in time when they've successfully overthrown the gov't in the past (1932, British colonial rulers; 1958, Hashemite monarchy)? why do they need our help now?

BECAUSE THIS TIME WE CREATED THE RULE OF IRAQ:
The U.S. helped Saddam's political campaign in 1979 and ever since then we've been doing big business with him (Cheney, Halliburton for starters) and arming him with the weapons we are now going to war over.

not to mention the fact that the U.S. is using nuclear weapons called Depleted Uranium over there right now, in order to supposedly stop Saddam from using them. how much sense does THAT make??

and last but not least, BUsh wasn't even elected president in the first place!

heflores says;
''Currently, Iraq has one third of the world oil reserve, while the Iraqi people are the poorest souls in the world.''

dear friend, american and british jets who are using turkish-incirlik airbase are bombing Iraq's gas companies and other oil related areas nonstop for 12 years.. and they are using ONLY %15 of their oil capacities.. thats why iraqi people are that poor today..and another info, maybe you do not know, Iraqi people CAN NOT BUY BASIC MEDICINE LIKE ANTIBIOTICS for 12 years since america is not giving permission to that..

these are some facts that your fox, CNN and NY times never talks about...

I've said this before and i'll say it again.
To say Iraqi has wealth potential and is in squalor because of Saddam is BS.
Before Gulf war 1 under Saddam Iraqi WAS wealthy and much more open than most of its neighbours.
More freedom for women and study and no religious fanatacism, more pHD's per 1000 population than most countries in the world etc.
After Gulf war 1 the destruction and sanctions imposed on Iraq threw it back decades and made sure it stayed there killing countless people and causing more suffering than you can imagine.
To blame this only on Saddam is ignorant and hypocritical.

Originally posted by zechaeriah
and last but not least, BUsh wasn't even elected president in the first place!

Whilst I agree your point on a technicality - this really has nothing to do with the point in question. Bush is ACCOUNTABLE to the people of America whereas Saddam is NOT.

Whether Bush was elected by the majority or not is irrelevant to the current situation.

Originally posted by sycoindian
fair enough.. do you actually think that the americans are gonna give the oil resources to the iraqi ppl/post war iraqi govt? if they are gonna hand over the reins to the iraqi ppl, fine.. if not, they have no business in that country.. and dont wanna hear human rights blahh blahh blahh.. since when is the US so altruistic? sure ppl died while saddam was in power.. but what about all the ppl that died due to the sanctions imposed on iraq in the past 12 years... surely they didnt invite such a response based on the behaviour of their dictator...

syc, I said it before and I say it again. For some strange reason, the arabs don't know how to handle themselves, their resources, their elections, their wellfare, ect.... I have no idea why?, maybe 2000 years under occupation they suffered post occupation always surrendering always treated as second class syndrome. We are only in second generation after occupations of Britain for the region, and the arab mentalities, are idiotic like the Helen crap.....highly emotional without an ounze of reason. The arabs don't think for themselves. They either hire Americans to do their work or try to copy America, but they don't have the basics, so end up screwing up.

It is quite a shame syc for a country so rich to live in squander. some hold Hussein harmless, but i really can't find it in myself to not blame that mule. Yes, the US will benefit, but so will the Iraqis, even if they get the unfair side of the pie, they'll still be rich. I guarantee you...and just stay tune and you'll see how well the Iraqis will be doing. In time, when they wisen up and get educated, they'll fight for all their rights, but hopefully by then, they'll remember that US liberated them from Saddam and set them up for success by showing them the ropes to utilize their country properly, and I'm all hopefull that the relationship will be civil and beneficial in the future between US and Iraq.

This may sound empirical but it is not intended as such.

The Arab situation is difficult and can not be understood by the Arabs let alone anyone else. When Britain had the "Empire" all was governed, rightly or wrongly, by the British. When the Empire fell apart and most got self rule - thats when it all started to go haywire. Many of the people's given self rule could not handle it, in spite of millions in aid and their politicians being given "lessons".

Palestine was being adminstered by Britain until '48 from after WW1 when the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, gave it to GB to administer. Britain looked after the people irrespective of race, religion or anything else. Then the USA butted in and demanded a land for the Jews and ever since then we have had nothing but trouble. It was not well thought out at all.

Britain had it fair share of problems looking after Palestine, much the same as the Romans did 2000 years ago; hotheads and "terrorists" took on the "establishment" seeking autonomy. This was the wrong way to go and if they had entered into a dialogue with GB, and through GB, to the UN, it might have ended peacefully and we might not be seeing the troubles we have today. Who knows?

The point is that it is apparent that many of these people(s) cannot govern themselves. We have Zimbabwe now, ex Rhodesia; they won their so called independence and look at it now. Congo, the same. Uganda went the same way. Algeria had a bloody rebirth. Even the USA had to use subtefuge and "terrorism" to win its freedom from GB. I speak the latter figuratively not literally.

Many other ethnic groups do not recognise national borders as they have, for centuries, been nomadic. Countries try to "pen them in" with the result being bloodshed.

I dream of one borderless planet where we are all the same, but it will never happen as human greed is the predominant force not human need.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Whilst I agree your point on a technicality - this really has nothing to do with the point in question. Bush is ACCOUNTABLE to the people of America whereas Saddam is NOT.

Whether Bush was elected by the majority or not is irrelevant to the current situation.

i totally disagree. we're talking about the president here! if Bush were impeached, things would be extremely different. hell, if Gore had been president, things would be extremely different. the way Bush goes about things is not in our interest! which is most people's angst against him..

the fact that Bush's administration hijacked the whitehouse and is now going to be making billions of dollars by being the world's leading oil provider doesn't strike you as being relevent to this?

and anyways, this is my thread, be-otch!

Originally posted by heflores
syc, I said it before and I say it again. For some strange reason, the arabs don't know how to handle themselves, their resources, their elections, their wellfare, ect.... I have no idea why?, maybe 2000 years under occupation they suffered post occupation always surrendering always treated as second class syndrome. We are only in second generation after occupations of Britain for the region, and the arab mentalities, are idiotic like the Helen crap.....highly emotional without an ounze of reason. The arabs don't think for themselves. They either hire Americans to do their work or try to copy America, but they don't have the basics, so end up screwing up.

It is quite a shame syc for a country so rich to live in squander. some hold Hussein harmless, but i really can't find it in myself to not blame that mule. Yes, the US will benefit, but so will the Iraqis, even if they get the unfair side of the pie, they'll still be rich. I guarantee you...and just stay tune and you'll see how well the Iraqis will be doing. In time, when they wisen up and get educated, they'll fight for all their rights, but hopefully by then, they'll remember that US liberated them from Saddam and set them up for success by showing them the ropes to utilize their country properly, and I'm all hopefull that the relationship will be civil and beneficial in the future between US and Iraq.

did you even read my last few responses? this IS my thread, after all..

Saddam did not come to power on his own! the U.S. helped to fund his campaign in 1979, and has been helping arm and prop him ever since. poeople have made good points on this thread about this very fact that somehow has been lost among all the BS in the news. we created saddam... say it with me...

WE CREATED SADDAM.

Zechariah,
Thats garbage, I can't believe people actually think that bush "decided" to attack iraq. This is about 13 years old, granted bush got rigged into the election by the government FOR this war but even if gore was somehow in their the us government would have told him to shut his effeminate mouth and do what they say. The president is a face, a spokesman.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Thats garbage, I can't believe people actually think that bush "decided" to attack iraq. This is about 13 years old, granted bush got rigged into the election by the government FOR this war but even if gore was somehow in their the us government would have told him to shut his effeminate mouth and do what they say. The president is a face, a spokesman.

a-fuckin-men.

Originally posted by zechaeriah
investors, capitalists, supreme eilite individuals of the U.S. united long ago and decided to take over Iraq for profit. evidence is right here:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=69

This articles supports the theory that the war is about construction contracts... NOT oil.

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2000/corpnws_020100.jsp

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/kbrnws_032403.jsp


Okay, Cheney was involved with the Oil Industry. True, no problem. Okay, now how is the war about oil? That's just really really retarded. We won't claim "spoils of war", just can't nowadays.. it's "politically incorrect". So, your argument is pointless. Let it go.

Originally posted by zechaeriah
did you even read my last few responses? this IS my thread, after all..

Saddam did not come to power on his own! the U.S. helped to fund his campaign in 1979, and has been helping arm and prop him ever since. poeople have made good points on this thread about this very fact that somehow has been lost among all the BS in the news. we created saddam... say it with me...

WE CREATED SADDAM.

SO you arabs keep BOOhing over this US made Saddam. Stop blaming, if US put him and he is inadequate and he sure is more than that....then remove him. US didn't make Saddam bad or influence him for 30 years, it was the Iraqi people kissing ass to him and putting up with him that kept him in power. The arab leaders following his footstep and making him a hero.

If I came to your house and offered you a dog that I discovered later that he is rabid, do you think that it's bad of me to come back to your house and kill the dog. Or better, someone delivered to you a furnace that does not work, then they offered to fix it, and you don't want to let them in, because you still blame them for the last 30 years for bringing the furnace in.

Originally posted by Red Devil
In military jargon:

Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa

Red Devil, you da man.. that's beautiful. LMAO

Originally posted by wesmorris
We won't claim "spoils of war", just can't nowadays..
Well put, so true, they just can't and won't take their oil, I don't know what the people who started that theory were thinking, its absurd and they are going to look , somehow, even dumber when the coalition flagrantly leaves the oil alone.

what are you talking about?? there's no possible way we will leave the oil there after we leave. if we "win" this war, we've been talking about setting up a U.S. official to run the place, and if you haven't noticed already, the links in my first post clearly show U.S. plans to controll the flow of oil from there.

I'd like to add that our oil isn't recovered and distrubuted by our Government (like it was in Iraq I think), this is all done by private firms. Those firms could buy land and mineral rights from the new Iraqi government and produce oil off that land and sell it to whomever they like. So there would be no reason that the US goverment would take control over those oil fields, except to keep them out of the hands of a murderous dictator who uses oil profits to fund weapons of mass destruction or whatever other shit he did.

Sure Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. It would be nice to have those, I admit. The US still has tons of oil reserves left in Alaska, Texas, California, tons of places. This war is not about oil. I too thought that oil was our only motive for war, but now that I've come to realize that the coalition isn't planning on taking over Iraq and making it another territory of a few nations, but rather they plan on rebuilding Iraq with a new independent government.

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/kbrnws_032403.jsp

This article is from a company that puts out oil well fires... Whoa shit we're gonna put out the fires so that must mean we're gonna steal the oil too. Stop making erroneous assumptions about the US.

Originally posted by orbie
I'd like to add that our oil isn't recovered and distrubuted by our Government (like it was in Iraq I think), this is all done by private firms. Those firms could buy land and mineral rights from the new Iraqi government and produce oil off that land and sell it to whomever they like. So there would be no reason that the US goverment would take control over those oil fields, except to keep them out of the hands of a murderous dictator who uses oil profits to fund weapons of mass destruction or whatever other shit he did.

Sure Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. It would be nice to have those, I admit. The US still has tons of oil reserves left in Alaska, Texas, California, tons of places. This war is not about oil. I too thought that oil was our only motive for war, but now that I've come to realize that the coalition isn't planning on taking over Iraq and making it another territory of a few nations, but rather they plan on rebuilding Iraq with a new independent government.



This article is from a company that puts out oil well fires... Whoa shit we're gonna put out the fires so that must mean we're gonna steal the oil too. Stop making erroneous assumptions about the US.


well, first of all, i was using that article in conjunction with the other two, and there are kazillions of other articles about this whole issue, so if you really wanted to get to the bottom of it, you'd do the research yourself.

second of all, i'm in total agreement with you about every other thing you said EXCEPT the part about oil. i think owning the oil reserves is a huge part of being there. i also think setting up a political rule is just as important. so maybe i shouldn't have said it was all about oil. i should have said it's about oil and politics.

i also disagree with your implication that the U.S. is going to completely step out of the picture and let this new government reign. it certainly won't be completely independent, especially if we're setting it up. i mean, it'll be an immediate ally of ours and the coalitions, for starters. not to mention all sorts of other projects on the agenda.

I’ve been reading the posts above and you guys make it sound like American individuals are going to go into iraq and fill their empty buckets with oil. The war is about the control of oil. America will have control of the oil but that control will be hidden deeply by political illusions (installing puppet regimes, paying cheaply for it, claiming iraq has been freed, etc. etc.)

I can't believe I'm saying this, I agree with dsdsds, and there is nothing to be ashamed of you guys to say that this is about oil. Nothing is for free....Does anyone know how much does it cost for our troops to be out there or for one patriot missle....come on now, even for US..money does not grow on trees and cars do not run on orange juice.

Originally posted by heflores
I can't believe I'm saying this, I agree with dsdsds, and there is nothing to be ashamed of you guys to say that this is about oil. Nothing is for free....Does anyone know how much does it cost for our troops to be out there or for one patriot missle....come on now, even for US..money does not grow on trees and cars do not run on orange juice.

ok, i'm confused. are you saying you now agree that it is about oil?


btw, i am not arabian, like you seem to think, and your analogies to a dog and a furnace simply don't compare to the magnitude of which the whole Iraq issue has grown. we're talking about mass brain washing, political struggles, puppet gov'ts and shadow gov'ts here. it's no wonder the general public doesn't understand the whole thing, they're trying to compare it to their daily american lives which AREN'T relevent to people dying over land and profits.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay, Cheney was involved with the Oil Industry. True, no problem. Okay, now how is the war about oil? That's just really really retarded. We won't claim "spoils of war", just can't nowadays.. it's "politically incorrect". So, your argument is pointless. Let it go.

when was the last time you looked at who was running the white house? cheney is not the only one with long-running oil interests.

Originally posted by zechaeriah
ok, i'm confused. are you saying you now agree that it is about oil?


btw, i am not arabian, like you seem to think, and your analogies to a dog and a furnace simply don't compare to the magnitude of which the whole Iraq issue has grown. we're talking about mass brain washing, political struggles, puppet gov'ts and shadow gov'ts here. it's no wonder the general public doesn't understand the whole thing, they're trying to compare it to their daily american lives which AREN'T relevent to people dying over land and profits.

Of course it's about oil. I think you have not been reading my posts above.....and I ask....SO WHAT? American puppets in that region are a million times better than a Saddam or a non educated Iraqi politician. Those people need to learn how to manage their great resource, so they can live better. The Frensh prefer to steal straight from Saddam, US doesn't want to deal with Saddam, because they know that in the long run, he's problematic.

i thought you were wesmorris for some reason.

but i still disagree with you. american politicians are just the face the military shows you to throw you off-course, meanwhile the military invades other countries and sets up camp to watch over them, killing people in the process. i don't like the idea of the U.S. acquiring more land. i don't think it's fair to the natives of the land or to the people in the U.S. who don't want this kind of action. it leans towards a one-sided mindset of the world: U.S. supremecy. it's just not cool at all. i know you can't please everybody at once, but you don't need to go to war over it.

so i especially don't like killing people over things. i'm against this war primarily for that, but the oil issue and the political dominance issue are what drive the whole machine of violence, axis of evil in my opinion.

RUMSFELD IGNORED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
IN PURSUIT OF OIL PIPELINE
http://ips-dc.org/crudevision/index.htm

check out the pdf of the study from IPS at:
http://ips-dc.org/crudevision/crude_vision.pdf

Originally posted by zechaeriah
i totally disagree. we're talking about the president here! if Bush were impeached, things would be extremely different. hell, if Gore had been president, things would be extremely different. the way Bush goes about things is not in our interest! which is most people's angst against him..

the fact that Bush's administration hijacked the whitehouse and is now going to be making billions of dollars by being the world's leading oil provider doesn't strike you as being relevent to this?

and anyways, this is my thread, be-otch!

Ultimately Bush can be deposed by the ballot box - the Iraqis do not have that luxury

Originally posted by zechaeriah
RUMSFELD IGNORED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
IN PURSUIT OF OIL PIPELINE
http://ips-dc.org/crudevision/index.htm

check out the pdf of the study from IPS at:
http://ips-dc.org/crudevision/crude_vision.pdf

Surely its just propaganda? How come all thse urls come out now?

yeah sure you could argue that hef... im not gonna quote your entire post here, but im replyin ur post directed to my previous post...

yeahh you could say that the arabs might not be able to manage the resources if they were liberated and all that... still, its no one's business to go and tell em how to do it... we have to respect the sovereignity of a nation..

im sorry.. i just can't be bothered to talk about this over and over again... im sick of the liberating iraqis propaganda... its too lame... just do me a favour and go liberate the palestinians, kashmirirs, tibetans, chechens etc etc etc...

abt the oil.. as another poster stated, its abt the control of the revenue generated from the resource... wat if sanctions were lifted and saddam gave the US the finger and told em to sod off when it came to supplyin oil...

im done.. :cool:

The soveirnty of a nation? what a beautifull concept. Too bad it does not work in reality. Assume, we go camping, and you I have all the entertainment and you have all the food, and we're in the middle of the desert, and all of a sudden, you decide that you're keeping all the food to yourself, or trading some to you at some extravagant price. We are in a jungle syc, and all the oil is in the middle east, but they can't eat it or use it as medecine, so we have to play ball. Saddam is not only not playing ball, but killing his own because he is sick minded.....I say, USA is doing the world a favor cleaning Iraq from Saddam and his family.

okk.. lemme ask you this

what if bushie decided to gas citizens of US... now wud anyone say, 'hey.. ur killin ur own ppl, so we're gonna come in and take you out'... i dont think so... that is exactly ur argument for the united states to go in iraq..

again ur borderlinin on the 'save the people' strategy.. as i said... if the US was so keen on doin that, go free the palestinians, kashmiris, chechens, east timor etc etc etc.. but its not about that...

only a brainwashed american can tell that SADDAM IS NOT CREATED BY USA..

thats really soo american..

heflores, i am sure you grow up listening CNN and other national media; and never spend some time outside of US..

world is not the way you are thinking..

this war is not that simple and moral as you think.. forget about, Iraq's oil reserves - Bush's all team members are the owners of oil related companies (exxon for ex) ; Iraq is the first OPEC country which leads other countries to use EURO instead of DOLLAR.. US budgetary deficit is 2500 billion $-today.. this is just the beginning..asian countries (which satisfy all the US market needs) are planning to use EURO.. american ecenomy is DYING....

wake up.. money is everything for US.. and today i learned that senator Chuck Grassley said they will pay the cost of this war from Iraqi's pockets- using their oil..

I have read numerous threads debating , oil vs liberation, for Iraq, in reply I can only repeat this same old question:

If the only natural resource in Iraq was bananas, would our troops be there?????????????????????

probably not. Saddam would have had a hella hard time making money off bananas to build his regime.

But he could have had an oppressive banana republic.

this just saddens me further..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,924973,00.html

and just the beginning.
I read an article today that said Rumsfeld started planning the invasion of Iraq PRE 911.

I feel sad for my children and grandchildren, who will be paying for this blood for oil war, for the rest of their lives.

Originally posted by justiceusa
But he could have had an oppressive banana republic.

The attack of the killer bananas :D

Regarding newspaper articles, we all know how accurate they are, now don't we?

or a fashionable clothing chain.

Originally posted by pillowtalk
only a brainwashed american can tell that SADDAM IS NOT CREATED BY USA..He wasn't.

The United States supported the Ba'ath party's rise to power because of their opposition to Ayatollah Khomeini. In 1978, Saddam threatened a coup that illicited his precursor's vacation from office.

In 1980-1983 the United States offered limited economic support to Saddam's Ba'ath regime as he was fighting Iran, a greater evil at the time as far as the US was concerned. At the same time France, Germany, and Great Britain also gave him assistance. France even built him a nuclear reactor.

The US contributed dual use precursor chemicals to Iraq's chemical weapons program. So did Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Belgium, etc. These chemicals are used in insecticide, medicine, as well as chemical warfare agents.

The Iraqi military is entirely Russian and French in origin. There isn't a single US military piece of equipment in their arsenal. All of their chemical weapons were produced indigenously, or imported from the Soviet Union. Their air force flies Russian MiGs and French Mirages. Their army drives Russian T-72s and fires Russian AK-47s.

The United States did not create Saddam Hussein.

Moron.

In 1983 the US government provided 4.98 billion in garanteed loans to Iraq. This was done covertly through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Iraq was supposed to use this credit to buy agricultural equipment. They mostly bought heavy equipment and long bed grain dump trucks that were later converted in to mobile scud launchers. They also bought thousand of gallons of chemicals.

Shortly before the first gulf, war Iraq defaulted on the loans and the USA's, Commodity Credit Corporation was orderd to pay the Creditors over 2 billion dollars by the US DOJ

Since some people here do not trust links to newspaper articles, please feel free to use the folling link to the United States Department of Justice, which mandates a 400 million dollar payment to just one of the banks involved.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/February95/94.txt.html


Here is another link from an online journal but I am sure some will not trust its veracity.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Burns090502/burns090502.html

America did in fact, and at taxpayer expense, help create the monster we are trying to kill.

I remember seeing a segment of "60"minutes describng what you just posted. I especailly remember the part about the supposed grain trucks being used as scud launchers. The Dump beds on the trucks were elevated to lift the missiles into launch position. The Commodity Credit corporation had been instructed by the Regan white house to cooperate. We reap what we sow

Frist off,

Saddam is a monarch, he was crowned king by the former king of Iraq, who observed Saddam through out his king ship and is the reason for saddams rise to power, which was gained by saddams loyatly to his king, at a time when various groups in the miltia were seeking to kill the king of iraq, including members of his own family, saddam with another leuitent like saddam, where the two main defenders of the king of iraq, latter the king of iraq was growing old and his son was asummed traitorous, and seen as unaccptable to to rule the contry of iraq,by his father the king, this left the king with two people two chose from in the intreset of the iraq people, the of the two young leutients the king chose saddam and crowned saddam king of iraq, in which saddam was supervised by the former king, which took on the reliogus aspects of iraq.
latter there where various milta groups that attempted to kill saddam, this was prevented by various leutents that remaine loyal to saddam, as saddam is the rightful king of iraq. it is here that you find these various records of abuse that are so commonly refered to by western goverments, and out siders ect.. the events of saddams leuitenits protecting the the king as saddam him self had done. as there are various groups that have been conspiring since before saddam became king, there where serious events of organization to assinate saddam, this grew more intently as saddam was not the blood relative of the king of iraq, and therefore other leiutenets even with in saddams close rank assumed they had the right to kill the king saddam, in contrast sddam was rightfull crowned king, as the son of the king had made several attempts on his fathers life organized with generals in the miltia, from here it is easy to see why the king gave the crown to saddam and supervised him. it is without that the grand children and relatives of the former king are well taken care of in iraq. plainly sddam was the favorite of the king of iraq. it would not surprise me if saddam was not married to one of his daughters. going on the reason that you here of these event as abuses is because the leutintes of saddam are aware of the various groups that look to or have tryied to assinate saddam, such as the kurds, many of the people that you see killed are those that are in one of these various groups that are under some branch of the iraq miltary, that plot to kill saddam and take over, this is normall called a milaitry coup, which allways have been bloodly, just imagine if you have 6 different groups that want to take over, each have 500 people, with access to goverment weapons information ect.... thing get to be a mess!, take the kurds they have been attmpting to make a take on saddam, event though they have a group of only 1,500 members loking to organize a assination on saddam, there for you end up with attacks on them where they are hiding out in certain villages, certainly saddams leuitents do not plan to kill every kurd.
if you understand these event you see why saddam has 25 dubbles, and 40 mansions and moves around constantly in the midst of his dubbles.

if you think saddam is weird with this kind of protect, try the secret service, who at one time investigated voodoo because treats where made to preform voodoo on the president. in the united states it is illeagl to say you are going to kill the preseident, you can be jailed up to five years just for saying it, moving on imgaine if a group of people some 200 where plotting to kill the presedent of the US, there would be few real trials, consider the goverment is specualted to have assinated JFKennedy, several senators in air plane chrashes ect.... if thats not enough lok at all the assination attempts on bill clinton who now holds the record for president with the most assination attempts of any preseident.
plainly it is not saddam against the people of iraq it is saddam aginst various miltia groups. and it is rediculous that the news would stoop so low as to try and use that to say that saddam is murdering the people of iraq, and it is ablosute disgace of the white house to try to fool the public by propaganda. its the same as purgy which clinton was tryied on and almost impeached for.


DWAYNE D.L.RABON

That's the problem. The Iraqi's can't decide how to rule themselves. Saddam Hussein decides that for them. Anyone who speaks out against him gets executed, either shot or decapitated, and probably has his wife raped by a dozen Iraqi military and his family killed. His regime is based on fear, keeping the Iraqi people so afraid of him they dare not rise up. Getting rid of Hussein will make way for a government where they can actually rule themselves.

Any civilian forced to fight for the Iraqi army who tries to surrender to the Coalition forces is killed and has his family killed.

Any citizen who tries to flee Baghdad or any other city is shot.

Iraqi military pretend to surrender and then fire on Coalition troops.

Late last year, the big opponents of the war, France, Russia, and China, all signed billion dollar oil deals with Iraq, which stand to fall through with this war.

French companies have been supplying airplane parts and many other equipment for weapons and chemical production, something that is outlawed by the UN due to the resolutions against Iraq.

Russian companies have been supplying Iraq with illegal equipment - GPS scrambling devices to go against Coalition missiles (they even had people in Iraq the first week of the war training Iraqi's how to use them); night vision goggles, etc. All of this goes against UN resolutions they signed. And if Iraq use the GPS scramblers to throw off our missiles, they just blame the civilian casualties on the US.

Iraq just fired what appears to be a Chinese Silkworm missile into Kuwait, hitting a mall. Luckily it was 2 in the morning and there weren't any casualties. This being a missile Iraq isn't allowed to have and a missile they claimed they didn't have.

If this were really just about oil, America could just buy it from Iraq. This war is going to cost the US at least 80 billion dollars. It would be much cheaper to just buy the oil from them, if that's all we were after. France, Russia and China signed billion dollar oil deals with Iraq last year, so if anything, their stance is more about the oil than the US's.

Iraqi military dress in civilian clothes and hide in the towns to attack the Coalition troops.

Saddam Hussein places military facilities and equipment near civilians, bunkers under civilian buildings, and uses places like hospitals (we just found one yesterday) as military outposts. Then they cry "America is killing civilians" -- they kill more civilians on their own than we ever will, because they execute anyone who speaks out against Hussein, tries to surrender, or tries to leave the country as a refugee.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, which was the reason of the first war. We called off the war and Saddam Hussein promised to disarm, get rid of all his WMD. There have been approximately 15 UN resolutions in the last 12 years, and Iraq has ignored all of them. As he left Kuwait, he set around 1000 (IIRC) oil wells on fire, creating a huge ecological problem. He also flooded the Gulf with millions of gallons of oil, creating another huge ecological disaster.

The most recent resolution, 1441, which was signed by everyone, including France, and agreed upon by Iraq, said that there would be serious consequences if Iraq does not disarm.

Iraq has not disarmed. They have already fired missiles they claimed they did not have because they agreed not to possess any.

Coalition forces have found a military facility with __3000__ Bio/Chem suits for Iraqi soldiers, along with a bunch of Nerve Gas antidote. America does not use Nerve Gas or any other chemical weapons, and Coalition Forces have already heard reports that Iraqi soldiers have been authorized to use chemical weapons, weapons they aren't allowed to have and claim they do not have.

Iraq has violated the Geneva Convention on war with their treatment - parading on TV and executing - of Coalition POW's, making them war criminals already.

The Iraqi soldiers who actually do survive surrendering are better off as our POW's -- they get food, water, shoes, shelter, and respect.

There are mass amounts of humanitarian aid and medical help waiting to pour into Iraq. Where it has already been distributed, people fought over it because they were so desperate. Hussein has brought economic sanctions on himself by refusing to comply with UN resolutions, ignoring them these last 12 years. More Iraqi's have died due to the conditions caused by the sanctions than America has troops in the Gulf - I think it's about 50 Iraqi's a day that die due to the conditions there, not to mention all the people Hussein and his army kills on their own.


****

Although I don't agree with everything Bush says or does or believes (although I'm neither democrat nor republican, liberal nor conservative -- my views are closer to dem/liberal than not), and although I don't think he sold this war to the world very clearly, I do support our troops and I do support this war to liberate Iraq from the Hussein regime. I think N. Korea is a bigger threat, but it's a much more complex problem, with China and Russia and Japan and S. Korea right there. Besides, N. Korea has a million man army, one 4-5 times as strong as Iraq's (the soldiers are about the only people eating anything in N. Korea). Iraq's still really weak from the first Gulf War. Unfortunately pressure from Powell and others to pull out before we got Hussein has led to the mistakes and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq due to Hussein not complying with resolutions and incurring sanctions on his country (building 18 palaces, give or take, while his people starve).

That's all from me. It's late and I just felt like blowing off some steam. I have noticed that most of the people against the war don't really know enough about what's going on to make any judgement on it.

It's a fact that it's Iraq that has been ignoring and messing with the UN for 12 years. It's a fact that the UN passed resolutions and everyone signed them, but the UN and other countries that signed refuse to enforce them on their own. It is a fact that the UN is powerless when it comes to things like this. And it is a fact that Saddam Hussein's regime does not allow dissenters.

During the last Gulf War, people were rising up against Saddam Hussein. However when the US pulled out due to international pressure, the uprising lost its support and Saddam Hussein crushed them.

People who have been freed from oppressive regimes like Hussein's agree with the war. They know what it's like to be under a regime like that and don't take their freedom for granted, unlike many people in the "free world." This is a war to liberate Iraq and get rid of the Iraqi regime and all of the WMD they illegally have and have already used. The Coalition Forces are going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties where humanly possible. It is Hussein and his army that kill more civilians, executing anyone that says anything against him or his regime, or surrenders, or attempts to flee to other countries as refugees. He has the country in such __fear__ that they dare not do anything. The only ones who are acting out are the Kurds in the North, out of his reach anyway (and this is a big issue with Turkey, as Turkey would like to put down any Kurd uprising as they have a large number of Kurds in their own country as well and don't want to lose any land to a new independent Kurd nation). And it is the sanctions that Hussein has brought on his country for the last 12 years for ignoring UN resolutions and not disarming. He has used bio/chem on his own people and on other countries. We know he has the weapons because he has used them before. He claims he doesn't and yet won't give proof of how these weapons were destroyed. It is Iraq that is defying the UN, and the UN that refuses to enforce its own resolutions

You guys used a lot of words to say things that have already been discussed in previous posts. Maybe you should read a few of them. Proof reading your posts is also highly recomemded.

btw the USA gave Iraq 1.5 billion in military aid despite the fact that Iraq had already used WMD on Iran. Saddam used the money to buy Russian tanks :mad:(

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Saddam is a monarch, he was crowned king by the former king of Iraq, DWAYNE D.L.RABON

A monarch cannot be made, a monarch is born into it. And, if he is allegedly a monarch - why does he call himself President of a REPUBLIC?

Originally posted by Red Devil
A monarch cannot be made, a monarch is born into it. And, if he is allegedly a monarch - why does he call himself President of a REPUBLIC? Yeah, he's no monarch. That's a bunch of shit.

In 1968 he helped lead the revolt that finally brought the Baath party to power under Gen. Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In the process, he landed the vice president’s post, from which he built an elaborate network of secret police to root out dissidents. Eleven years later he deposed Bakr and plastered the streets with 20-foot-high portraits of himself.
http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/shussein.html

Something I randomly googled up.

What i hear is a lot of self justifaction for what some of you want rather than facts.

Consider the fact that the united states does not obey UN laws, and russia and china have there own violation as well as the US.
So then who then is to judge the iraqs or north korea for possesion of WMD, the US has them AS well AS many others. example the US and britain lost the UN vote on milatry action. why did the US not Follow those instructions.
The US action open the door for serious war out breaks all over the world.

Is the united states going to attack china now, make a war over chinas territory such as tiwain. attack to free the people of china from the goverment of china, after all there was the teimena square event.
Is the united states and britain going to enslave all the arab counrties with arabs screaming in the streets.

The events of the propaganda i have hears so far are just that propaganda.

It is because of what the US and Briatn have done here that will result in the possession of nuclear weapons by other developing countries, of this have no doubt. certainly so in the south pacific, indonesia ect... central africa, and south america. does the united states plan to make war woth each of those groups to prevent there development.

The reality is that nuclear weapons and biocemical weapons are aspects of such science development as nuclear chemistry, space travel, satilite communication, immunization, cures and treatment and vaccines. to try to say that such countries can not develope in those areas is to say that they are to be for ever the slave and in poverty. nuclear and chemical biochemical weapons are just one step away from many normal and helpful practices of science.
No person in ther right mind would accept such organization of laws to prevent the devolpment of a nation of people. in development other groups could claim what every they want as biological and chemical and nuclear weapons leaving th counrty facing the same situation as iraq is today.
simply the UN inspectors have been there twice returning with out evidence.
What about another country what would they do, mabe the rubber trees in vietnam is the real reason for the war.
What about Japan being attacked by the US for Herion profits starting the pacific war of WW2.

what i see is the event stage of might makes right, and for that reason nuclear weapons and chemical weapons have just increased in marked prices and the profits will turn.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
red herringsWait, I thought you were pushing the case that Saddam was America's fault? Or do you now concede that he is not?

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Saddam is a monarch
You're kidding, right?

Dwayne D.L.Rabon - "to try to say that such countries can not develope in those areas is to say that they are to be for ever the slave and in poverty. nuclear and chemical biochemical weapons are just one step away from many normal and helpful practices of science.
No person in ther right mind would accept such organization of laws to prevent the devolpment of a nation of people."

Unfortunatly thats exactly what they are saying.
Their goal is to make sure no challenges appear for America in the field of Millitary or Economic strength and they will back up this goal with as many bombs and young American lives as the chicken hawks feel like throwing at you from their luxury homes.
Your right though, no one will expect such an organisation of World Order but that will not stop America trying and thats whats worrying a lot of people re: WWIII.