War in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SlyHunter, Apr 19, 2004.

  1. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    People said Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq for oil. If that were true we wouldn't of allowed them back into OPEC, but we didn't have a say in the matter. However I believe that those who opposed us for going to war in Iraq didn't oppose us for any other reason than their own pocket books. France Germany, China, and Russia had secret oil deal with Saddam that were ruined when we removed Saddam from power. France even had the gall to demand that we the US insure that Saddam honored the illegal agreements he made prior to his removal.

    Their is a probe going on into this stuff and they are trying to block it to stop us from finding out the truth.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004976
     
  2. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #2
    Though the US didn't go in directly for the oil, the US is making loads of money rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Why do you think that Haliburton got all the contracts (at least almost all). **hint hint** Dick Cheeney ex-CEO of Haliburton **Hint Hint**. The way it works is that Iraq keeps its oil, but the money it makes/will make exporting the oil will largely go into US companies (service companies and operators). :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    As for France's 'illegal' contracts, I hope you not naive enough to believe that all oil agreements are made legally? :eek:
     
  3. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #3
    France and Russia were earning money from Saddam's regime, and the USA was left out. The US set out to put things right for itself, and did so relatively easily using its might, so now the equation is reversed.

    If this had been just a business scenario, nobody would bother. But if you count the lives lost on all hands for what has turned out to be a purely commercial venture, history will view the past year as a tragic period in mankind's journey to civilized times.

    Funny that all these countries have laws within their society against what they have done in Iraq : buying from or selling to a thief makes you an accomplice (even if inadvertant), and Saddam was nothing but a thief and murderer when dealing with France, Russia and even the USA (before the 1st Gulf war). Now, the US has forced 'rebuilding contracts' down the throat of Iraq when Iraq is in no position to make decisions for itself. [Pretty much like you being forced to sign for repairing your car even before you are extricated from the burning wreck or have any idea what's best for you!] Talk of mercenary :mad:

    There never was any altruism in Iraq, make no mistake. But when I see how well the American people have been taken in, the movie 'Wag the Dog' seems so much more credible now!
     
  4. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #4
    From the Seattle Times:

    Caption: Flag-draped coffins are secured inside a cargo plane on April 7 at Kuwait International Airport. Military and civilian crews take great care with the remains of U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. Soldiers form an honor guard and say a prayer as, almost nightly, coffins are loaded for the trip home.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  6. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    How about because they had so much experience cleaning up countries under previous presidents they could go in and get jump on the work much faster and cheaper than any other company who would have to go thru the learning curve all over again.

    As for France and others, no, but it explains their veto.
     
  7. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #7
    Denmark thought they had WMD's too.

    Ok now I've provide a link to a new story from the UK :D
     
  8. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #8
    You left out the most important paragraphs:

    But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction". . .

    "I don't think we get a complete picture of what the government knew," he said.

    He called for more details following the release of the documents and for an independent investigation into whether Mr Fogh Rasmussen deliberately misled MPs. . .​
     
  9. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    And no "certain information" will be obtained unless we caught them red handed which I believe is the criteria for calling it "certain information." And then they would just say that Bush planted the evidence.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Wake me up when you're done....
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    So the only convictions that stand are those of people caught red-handed? No wonder OJ got off! Thanks for explaining that for me.
     
  12. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #12
    http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Nobody has claimed they ARE handing over weapons yet.
    If you call terrorising a city by killing hundreds of civilians a victory, I'm afraid I don't agree. Sending an AC130 to strafe a place full of civilians is not in accord with the "Rules of War". I suppose that doesn't matter to you because they're only A-rabs.
     
  14. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #14
    Mubarkek was just in the U.S. but I don't remember him saying anything. From Bush's Texas ranch he flew to Paris to meet with Chirac. (I wonder what he liked better, Crawford or Paris?)

    Here's what he said when he got to Paris:

    'Unprecedented Hatred' for Americans in Arab World, Mubarak Says
    The Associated Press
    Published: Apr 20, 2004

    PARIS (AP) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq.

    Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.

    "At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."

    "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."

    Mubarak, whose country is among the biggest beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid, said U.S. missteps in Iraq had made the situation worse.

    "In Iraq, they said: 'We are not going to allow the creation of an Islamic state.' Result: people are attached even more to the idea of religion," Mubarak said.

    Many Arabs feel a sense of "injustice" in the way the United States has offered strong backing for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mubarak said.

    "What's more - they see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything," Mubarak said.

    The Egyptian leader met with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on Monday, on his way home from a trip to the United States to meet with President Bush at his Texas ranch. . .

    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAUEHR5ATD.html
     
  15. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #15
    Well Haliburton arn't the only company out there with suffiicient expertise to deal with the mess. For eg., the largest oilfield service provided (Schlumberger) has the necessary knowledge, but was left out of the deal because they were French. And I don't think Haliburton can be the cheapest because the contracts wern't awarded on a competitive basis.

    You are howeverc ompletely right about France's veto, and Chirac clearvely used for political reasons.
     
  16. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    France was against the war. 87 Billion part of which is going to help rebuild the war should not go to those who actively was against us going in, in the first place. No whether the Iraq government thinks the same way about other money they receive from other sources is up to them but I hope they remember who helped them and who was prepared to leave them under Saddam.
     
  17. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #17
    Or maybe, in ten years time, they will still be remembering who it was who killed their innocent loved ones.
     
  18. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #18
    I think this is amazing. It is from Talking Points Memo. Joshua Marshall is probably the most thoughtful of the "liberal" bloggers, and has a very good reputation for accuracy.

    Following up on our post of two weeks ago, Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem has now been appointed "general director" of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal which will try, among others, Saddam Hussein.

    Salem, you'll remember, earlier went into the war contracting and lobbying business with the law partner of Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, a prime architect of the war, and the Pentagon official in charge of the contracting process.

    And, no, I'm not making any of this up.

    From this article, it seems that the spokesman of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Entefadh Qanbar, is also acting as the spokesman for the Tribunal. Perhaps he already is the spokesman for it. It's just not clear.

    In any case, the operation -- holding the malefactors of the old regime accountable for their acts -- does seem to be becoming a family affair.

    Along similar lines, we should still be asking why the CPA, the sovereign authority in Iraq, allowed Chalabi to confiscate the files of the former regime's secret police to use to blackmail his political enemies. Given these most recent developments, perhaps it will be argued that this was part of some rather broadly construed discovery proceeding pursuant to the Chalabi family's prosecution of Saddam Hussein. But I would find that rationale less than convincing.

    -- Josh Marshall​
     
  19. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    I wonder a year after the trial if Saddam is found guilty how many of those judges will be left alive?
     
  20. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #20
    Maybe, but you seem to be forgetting whose country it is. It's the Iraqi people's country, not yours (I'm supposing you're an American). It should be the Iraqi people who decide who rebuilds *their* country for *their* best interest, not the US who will rebuild it for their own best interest. Invading and country and interfering with their politics without being asked to, does NOT give you the right to decide on their future.

    Though I'm very sad to see many US troops injured and killed in Iraq, I think the Iraqi response and reaction to US interference is interesting and well deserved. Saddam may have been ousted, but what makes you think that the Iraqi people wanted the US do deal with him? It's so blantly obvious that the US did not go into Iraq for the well-being of the Iraqi but for purely economical and political reasons.
     
  21. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #21
    With their money yes, with my money ie the money we were over taxed so our government could afford to give away to other countries no. We should have a say on who our money is spent on.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    What ARE you on about?
     
  23. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #23
    I edited the post 2 above this one so as to make it easier for you to read.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Hey, some of that is MY money! Should I get a say?
     
  25. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #25
    Heads up. Don't be surprised if you start reading or hearing from a guy named John O'Neill. His story will be that John Kerry really isn't any kind of a war hero, and that he is in fact unfit to be president.

    O'Neill, it turns out, never served with Kerry, but was in Kerry's unit after Kerry had left that unit. Richard Nixon used O'Neill to go after Kerry when Kerry was effectively testifiying to Congress back in the early 70's. He is about to come out of the closet again, this time on the payroll of the Bush administration. I've already seen one story about this turkey already this morning -- expect more.
     

Share This Page