COMMENTS:
Doesn't matter what the UN said, if this were truly a war about oil, the United States would have kept the oil back then.
Jappy the U.S. military are only the pawns used in this plunder of Iraqs oil and weapons of mass destruction is only a lame cover used as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq.
President G.W.Bush is only a puppet manipulated by the members of the New World Order, the same people who want globalization which is linked to the the W.T.O.(World Trade Organization).
Even the United Nations are manipulated by the same few Greedy Rich people of the N.W.O.
Jappy gots a point, a very good point. I think that his agrument is solid and discredits the entire war for oil agrument.
back in 1991, there was a true coalition of UN soldiers. Hard to steal when others are looking.
by LCD on Fri Jun 04, 04 7:36pm
[+]
They did steal it.They turned the place into a hellhole, put on sanctions which only affected the people and continued to do business deals despite it
There are other issues like manipulating the economy and the sabotage of the oil,
At the moment US oil contractors continue to be killed.
The Iraqi resitance have done a fantastic job and would go down as one of the great resistances of history
Sabatoge of the oil like the way Saddam did it in 1991 after the war he set the oil wells on fire. And lets be honest there has been much better resitance in other times tha the Iraq's now. The french and Norweigon restiacne of World War 2. The chinese Restance of W.W. 2. and remember that the U.S. solidears are not fighting on equal ground they have there hands tied behind there backs because of politics and not wanting to go and kill and innocent person they really have to shot at before they can fire there weapon.
I think there are big differences with the french resistance and the Iraqi one.
I wont pretend to know much about it but I get the impression it was not an open war in the way the Iraqis are fighting.Iraq have not surrendered.Whereas the french seemed to be more like an underground IRA style of thing.Plus the germans didnt have the kind of technology.
But Im only going by the tv show "allo allo"
lol
they did, secounds up
Actually the military and the corporate media may present the story that the US soldiers are not trigger happy but independent sources tell a very different story.
Amnesty International reports that US-led forces have "shot Iraqis dead during demonstrations, tortured and ill-treated prisoners, arrested people arbitrarily and held them indefinitely, demolished houses in acts of revenge and collective punishment." In Fallujah, US marines, described as "tremendously precise" by their psychopathic spokesman, slaughtered up to 600 people, according to hospital directors. They did it with aircraft and heavy weapons deployed in urban areas, as revenge for the killing of four American mercenaries. Many of the dead of Fallujah were women and children and the elderly. Only the Arab television networks, notably al-Jazeera, have shown the true scale of this crime, while the Anglo-American media continue to channel and amplify the lies of the White House and Downing Street.
Is Al-Jeezra a unbiased news out let?
In terms of showing the footage only the non-western stations will show it
If anyone wants proof on endless US unprovoked atroticities they'll have to not get it from a US/AUS/British source
I still don't believe the atrociteis that American Solidears have committed. I think that there would of been a ton a screaming in American Media if there were any Atrocites, expesically from Hard Core Democrats and from the Kerry Campaign.
We weren't the only country supplying a military to that war. If we had used Iraq's invasion of Iran as an excuse to fight a war then tried to take over Iraq to exploit it's oil supply not only would a few nations have dropped out of the effort. They would probably have helped defend Iraq. Lets not forget we were all still getting great deals on that oil back then. Too bad we couldn't sell them any more WMD's for that employee discount.
Doen
What you say about Kerry and the nature of Corporate media is a subject unto itself
I assure you about the random , unprovoked atrocities and I can give you direct links if you want them.
Here in Australia the only place to get the truth about anything the Establishment does is by community channels (which was just hauled off the air) and in documentarys on the SBS channel .
Could you give me the link BigMonkeyNuts. I still think that there are no autrocities however I would like to see your news.
if it's about oil, then why is it not cheaper?
Its about taking the contracts away from Russia and France
WHEW! That was a CLOSE ONE!
Daddy Bush didn't have enough time to settle in and start crating up the oil barrels before the UN ran him out. As for NOW, think about it. The oil fields are in the extreme north and south of Iraq, and the Marines are sitting on them, as per orders. Ask anyone with an IOTA of military know-how, and they'll tell you- if you have a war and you want to WIN it, you send the MARINES to fight it! But NOOOOOOO! We've got them baby-sitting the oil fields, and the Army's stomping around, doing its best against the insurgents. Which AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH...
Because Iraq didnt have imbargo and had bigger defensive army.
It's not that they want to 'steal' oil, they just want access to it so middle-aged Americans can keep on driving their gas guzzling SUVs around. More access to oil = lower prices. Apparently this is worth the killing.
"Actually the military and the corporate media may present the story that the US soldiers are not trigger happy but independent sources tell a very different story.
Amnesty International reports that US-led forces have "shot Iraqis dead during demonstrations, tortured and ill-treated prisoners, arrested people arbitrarily and held them indefinitely, demolished houses in acts of revenge and collective punishment." In Fallujah, US marines, described as "tremendously precise" by their psychopathic spokesman, slaughtered up to 600 people, according to hospital directors. They did it with aircraft and heavy weapons deployed in urban areas, as revenge for the killing of four American mercenaries. Many of the dead of Fallujah were women and children and the elderly. Only the Arab television networks, notably al-Jazeera, have shown the true scale of this crime, while the Anglo-American media continue to channel and amplify the lies of the White House and Downing Street. "
Well said. Karma increase for you. :)
"Is Al-Jeezra a unbiased news out let? "
Oh hell yes. Have you ever bothered to read it? Not only will you read about the American point of view, you'll be able to read about the middle eastern point of view on daily events. This is something the biased American media outlets will never do.
I just heard on the news today that Russia has stockpiled 2.9 million warheads loaded with biological and chemical weapons. They also have lots of oil. When does the invasion start?
doen5167 said - I still don't believe the atrociteis that American Solidears have committed. I think that there would of been a ton a screaming in American Media if there were any Atrocites, expesically from Hard Core Democrats and from the Kerry Campaign.
My reply -
Well, the atrocities being committed by the US soldiers are occurring. They just aren't being reported much in the US media, but everywhere else...
Everywhere else they are VERY WELL REPORTED, and not only by Arab news media.
I agree with jappy though, the US is not there to steal the oil. The oil is only icing on the cake. The real reasons are long term strategic goals. If they can keep Iraq, they'll have bases right in the centre of the Middle East and their aircraft will have a reach that can be used to threaten and intimidate nations right upto the border of Russia. None of the limitations imposed by the Saudis, and not as close association with the Israelis. Besides, Israel in the long term has always been considered unstable. There will come a time, when Israel will be unaffordable. It may be decades away, but it how well do you think Israel would survive with no US support or nearby presence?
It is not for oil, stupid!
It is to pave the way for Zionist world conquest plan!
We didn't remove Saddam then because he was a balancing factor with Iran. Now that balance is gone. If the US military leaves Iraq, Iran can dominate the gulf.
Iraq was not 'finished off' in the Gulf War because they were a necessary to balance out Iran.
Because Dick Cheney wasn't running the show back then.
Cheney STILL receives deferred salary payments from Halliburton to this day.
Grapost thats what i was going to say
by seon on Fri Jul 30, 04 10:35pm
[+]
They HAD the oil last time & gave it back! So this time IT could only be about the oil (which I dont think it is) for one reason - different people in power.
Can I just point out that this war has cost the American military 125 billion dollars and that Iraq only makes 83 billion pounds per year off oil and the production of oil has been affected because of attacks by Insurgents and sabotage by iraqi soldiers before they were captured.
Even if the war was about oil and America had stolen all of it, yeah I reckon they would have been able to do it, they wouldn't have even made their money back.
So the obvious conclusion has to be the war WAS about oil.
The power of the media, all too obvious.
Someone rightly pointed out that Russia is a huge oil producer, second biggest in the world in fact, hands up if you think Russia is the next target.
One of the greatest concerns though, and all wars are about this, is even if they lose money the most important thing is to ensure that Russia doesnt get it.Thats the total focus for the US.
Germany were going to lose due to running out of black stuff.The priority above all for the various military establishments is to ensure the competing nations are thwarted for oil
By 2007 the Middle East will dominate the world in oil production. This will be the last region where oil production will peak, according to Duncan and Youngquist's model, sometime around 2011. And the oil of the Middle East lies largely in the provinces of five countries: Iran, Iraq, The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
** karma **
all they had to do was lift sanctions when saddam was in power if they wanted the oil. no one is going to steal iraqs oil, it will be bought. and don't forget oil producing countries need to sell their oil as much as consumers need to buy it, they are not giving anything away
by USMC on Fri Aug 20, 04 1:11pm
[+]
"On September 11, 1990, Bush told a joint session of Congress that "following negotiations and promises by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then I decided to act to check that aggression." However, according to Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida), the facts just weren't as Bush claimed. Satellite photographs taken by the Soviet Union on the precise day Bush addressed Congress failed to show any evidence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait or massing along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border. While the Pentagon was claiming as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops in Kuwait, it refused to provide evidence that would contradict the Soviet satellite photos. U.S. forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging areas and tracks across the desert can easily be seen. But as Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan Administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who analyzed the photographs for the St. Petersburg Times said:
We didn't find anything of that sort anywhere in Kuwait. We don't see any tent cities, we don't see congregations of tanks, we can't see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It's five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn't flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food.... But where is it?
On September 18, 1991, only a week after the Soviet photos were taken, the Pentagon was telling the American public that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks. But the photos of Kuwait do not show any tank tracks in southern Kuwait. They clearly do show tracks left by vehicles which serviced a large oil field, but no tank tracks. Heller concludes that as of January 6, 1991, the Pentagon had not provided the press or Congress with any proof at all for an early buildup of Iraqi troops in southern Kuwait that would suggest an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia. The usual Pentagon evidence was little more than "trust me." But photos from Soviet commercial satellites tell quite a convincing story. Photos taken on August 8, 1990, of southern Kuwait - six days after the initial invasion and right at the moment Bush was telling the world of an impending invasion of Saudi Arabia - show light sand drifts over patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border. The photos taken on September 11, 1990, show exactly the same sand drifts but now larger and deeper, suggesting that they had built up naturally without the disturbance of traffic for a month"
The Bush administration has never presented any evidence whatsoever for its charges that Iraq used poison gas on its own citizens. Rather it has simply repeated the charges over and over in the press. This event is analyzed in considerable detail in a study published by the Army War College called, Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East. The authors of that study conclude that the charges were false but used by the U.S. government to change public opinion toward Iraq. They even go so far as to suggest a conspiracy against Iraq: "The whole episode of seeking to impose sanctions on Iraq for something that it may not have done would be regrettable but not of great concern were this an isolated event. Unfortunately, there are other areas of friction developing between our two countries.''
If the first part of the strategy was to create hostility and economic hardships, then the war was the second phase. The massive bombardment of Iraq coupled with the continued economic sanctions after the war completes a two-part strategy designed to leave Iraq both in a weakened state and dependent on western aid and bank loans for any reconstruction effort. The U.S. will want to have a puppet government in Baghdad, and even if it is impossible to impose a Shah-type government on the Iraqi people, the Bush administration assumes that a war-ravaged country that is economically dependent on the U.S. and European capitalist powers or on UN humanitarian aid will be forced into a subservient position.
Money spent on Saudi Arabian oil, for example, once went into the accounts of Rockefeller-controlled oil corporations at the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank. Now it is deposited in the Saudi king's huge account at Chase Manhattan which reinvests it at a hefty profit to the Rockefellers. Chase Manhattan also manages the Saudi Industrial Development Fund and the Saudi Investment Bank. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, which is linked to Mobil and Texaco, has a representative on the Board of the Saudi Monetary Authority and controls another big chunk of the kingdom's income. Citicorp handles much of the Emir of Kuwait's $120 billion investment portfolio. The total amount that the Gulf's feudal lords have put at the disposal of the western bankers is conservatively estimated at $1 trillion. It is probably much more.
While the big oil companies have a going partnership with the feudal rulers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc., they are relatively locked out of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Algeria. The goal of the U.S. war is to roll back the Arab revolution and all the other revolutionary movements that have swept the region since World War II.
Yeah Jappy, it's stupid to assume that an oil-hungry country lead by oilmen would even THINK of stealing oil from a country they invaded that has the second biggest oil reserve in the world. Stupid idea. What are people thinking?
Uhm, again, why then didn't they steal it to begin with back in 1991???
They probably would've if they believed they could. But 12 years of sanctions weakened the Iraqi military enough to make it a lot easier to do this time around.
The reason that Bush Snr said in his book that they didn't go into Baghdad, beyond Basra because - as he wrote in his book - there was no viable exit strategy. He said the USA's troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.
Look what's happened now, exactly that.
The war against Iraq was simply a war for oil, Israeli security, and Bush family vendetta.
Uhm, once again, why then didn't they steal it to begin with back in 1991???
Uhm, once again, why then didn't they steal it to begin with back in 1991???
Then again, at the risk of repeating myself - but you havne't come up with a real reply to it.
They probably would've if they believed they could. But 12 years of sanctions weakened the Iraqi military enough to make it a lot easier to do this time around.
The reason that Bush Snr said in his book that they didn't go into Baghdad, beyond Basra because - as he wrote in his book - there was no viable exit strategy. He said the USA's troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.
Look what's happened now, exactly that.
The reason that Bush Snr said in his book that they didn't go into Baghdad, beyond Basra because - as he wrote in his book - there was no viable exit strategy. He said the USA's troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.
The oil is an important reason why US is there now, but it isn't the overriding reason, and thus serves as a diversion. US wasn't able to complete the operation of which Desert Storm was a part of because of what happened to the military. At the time, something came out of the desert which scared the poo out of them. This was caught on a network news camera. They had no defense against this.
|
