| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2003 : 13:30:37
|
Oops!
Idiots. |
 |
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 13:57:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Keep in mind this is the same dossier Colin Powell used as the basis for a war on Iraq.
Powell made sound arguments from a range of sources. To say this dossier was "used as the basis for a war" is a complete lie. You discredit your position and yourself. Knock off the propaganda. |
|
|
|
steveplymouthuk
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
639 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 18:04:14
|
"Used as a basis for war" is a lie. There is no chance of Bush backing out of war now. It is inevitable.
And government is dumbass. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 22:15:21
|
Erebus, the quote was from the article:
- - - - -
Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin of the opposition Conservative party:
"This document has been cited by the prime minister and Colin Powell as the basis for a possible war."
- - - - -
Regardless, can we knock off the personal attacks? |
|
|
|
steveplymouthuk
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
639 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 03:47:20
|
| Government Intelligence- a load of oxy-morons |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 10:01:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Erebus, the quote was from the article:
- - - - -
Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin of the opposition Conservative party:
"This document has been cited by the prime minister and Colin Powell as the basis for a possible war."
- - - - -
Regardless, can we knock off the personal attacks?
You didn't identify it as a quote so it appeared as an assertion of fact. If quoting "fromthewilderness", even with full attribution, passes muster here, all of us could easily drown the forum with dubious opinions that confirm our own biases. As for "personal attacks", you personally made the assertion so you earned the response. If you persist in spewing the propaganda, you're going to be called on it. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 11:10:32
|
If you'd read the article, you would have seen the quote. I apologize for not making it clear, i was in a hurry.
As for personal attacks, please tell me how "You discredit your position and yourself." was in any way necessary to complete your point?
You're welcome to 'call' me on my points, i think that's great.
There is no need to insult me on my points. There is a difference. |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 12:49:16
|
Go Dave.... Its true that even the Brit government (nowhere near as moronic as the US Government) are capable of fabricating shite. I remember on Sept 11th, the Brit media were showing Palestinians celebrating the atrtack on thw twin towers... those pics that we saw happened to be pics taken 10 years previosuly... I agree its a fucking disgrace!
one thing is certain though.... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.... are a bunch of C*nts.... look at the pussy stance they are taking on North Korea.... they are facing a tougher opposition and they haven't a fucking clue what to do... Iraq is the softer option so why not ignore the real problem and go for something more manageable!!
2002 World Air Guitar Champion |
|
|
|
steveplymouthuk
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
639 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 14:04:55
|
| no oil in korea then? |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 23:42:46
|
I think Iraq can do more 'damage' to the US than Korean..a couple plutonium bombs would be bad, but nowhere as bad as losing control of the oil resources in Iraq.
I can't get over the fact that the main country attacking Iraq is lead by an oil man.
I did find the article describing how the US would finance their takeover afterwards with the oil quite amusing. I think they offered to throw a few bucks towards a charity or two as well, wow!
Oh well..just me and my little theories..heh.. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 08:25:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I think Iraq can do more 'damage' to the US than Korean..a couple plutonium bombs would be bad, but nowhere as bad as losing control of the oil resources in Iraq.
I can't get over the fact that the main country attacking Iraq is lead by an oil man.
I did find the article describing how the US would finance their takeover afterwards with the oil quite amusing. I think they offered to throw a few bucks towards a charity or two as well, wow!
Oh well..just me and my little theories..heh..
February 13, 2003 New York Times
A War for Oil? Not This Time
By MAX BOOT
MUNICH — When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited "Old Europe" last week, the placards and protesters lining his path were a visceral reminder of what the Bush administration already knew: Solid majorities in key European countries think that greed is our motive for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. In fact, in a recent Pew Research Center poll 75 percent of respondents in France, 54 percent in Germany and 76 percent in Russia said that America wants to invade Iraq because "the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil."
Although Americans are divided on the wisdom of an invasion, only 22 percent of us subscribe to the cynical view that it's just about oil. Even Jimmy Carter, hardly a hawk, rebutted the accusation at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony: "I know my country, I know my people, and I can assure you that's not the policy of my government."
What accounts for this trans-Atlantic disconnect? To answer that question, start by considering the accusation on the merits: Is America going into Iraq in search of "black gold"?
The charge has a surface plausibility because Iraq does have the second-largest known reserves in the world. But we certainly don't need to send 250,000 soldiers to get at it. Saddam Hussein would gladly sell us all the oil we wanted. The only thing preventing unlimited sales are the United States-enforced sanctions, which Baghdad (and the big oil companies) would love to see lifted. Washington has refused to go along because Saddam Hussein flouts United Nations resolutions. This suggests that our primary focus is the threat he poses, not the oil he possesses.
It's true that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a possible increase in oil exports. But it would take a lot of time and money to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, even if the regime didn't torch everything on the way out. A study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University estimated that it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production just to its pre-1990 level of 3.5 million barrels a day. That would increase total world production by only 1.3 percent, and might not reduce prices at all if other countries cut output or banded together to keep prices stable.
Some optimists think a postwar Iraq would stiff OPEC and slash prices radically. This seems unlikely, if the experience of Kuwait is anything to go by. While oil prices spiked before the Persian Gulf war and plummeted afterward, the long-term impact has been close to nil. Kuwait hasn't exactly been offering to fill up American sport utility vehicles free out of gratitude for being liberated. It hasn't even carried out its pledge to allow direct foreign investment in state-owned oil fields.
As with Kuwait, a liberated Iraq would likely remain an enthusiastic member of OPEC because it would need to establish its nationalist credentials and maintain amicable relations with its oil-cartel neighbors.
For that matter, would our government really want a steep drop in prices? The domestic oil patch — including President Bush's home state, Texas — was devastated in the 1980's when prices fell as low as $10 a barrel. Washington is generally happy with a range of $18 to $25 a barrel, about where oil was before the strikes in Venezuela and jitters about Iraq helped push prices over $34 a barrel. If we were really concerned about cheap oil above all, we'd be sending troops to Caracas, not Baghdad.
The other possible economic advantage in Iraq would be for American companies to win contracts to put out fires, repair refineries and help operate the oil industry, as they did in Kuwait. What's the total value of such work? It's impossible to say, but last year Iraq signed a deal with Russian companies (since canceled by Saddam Hussein) to rebuild oil and other industries, valued at $40 billion over five years.
Yet the White House estimates the military operation alone would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. (Others suggest the figure would be far higher.) And rebuilding of the country's cities, roads and public facilities would cost $20 billion to $100 billion more, with much of that money in the initial years coming from the "international community" (read: Uncle Sam).
Thus, if a capitalist cabal were running the war, it would have to conclude it wasn't a paying proposition.
This doesn't mean that oil is entirely irrelevant to the subject of Iraq. It does matter in one very important way: Oil revenues make Saddam Hussein much more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill dictator, because they give him the ability to build not only palaces but also top-of-the-line weapons of mass destruction.
Americans recognize this. Europeans don't. Why not? Here's my theory: Europeans are projecting their own behavior onto us. They know that their own foreign policies have in the past often been driven by avarice — all those imperialists after East Indian spices or African diamonds. (This tradition is going strong today in Russia and France, whose Iraq policies seem driven at least in part by oil companies that were granted lucrative concessions by Saddam Hussein.)
Nobody would claim that America's global intentions have always been entirely pure. Still, our foreign policy — from the Barbary war to Kosovo — has usually had a strain of idealism at which the cynical Europeans have scoffed. In the case of Iraq, they just can't seem to accept that we might be acting for, say, the general safety and security of the world. After more than 200 years, Europe still hasn't figured out what makes America tick.
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power."
|
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 12:06:35
|
Sesame Street Version:
February 13, 2003 New York Times
A War for Oil? Not This Time [excerpted]
By MAX BOOT
But we certainly don't need to send 250,000 soldiers to get at it. Saddam Hussein would gladly sell us all the oil we wanted. The only thing preventing unlimited sales are the United States-enforced sanctions, which Baghdad (and the big oil companies) would love to see lifted.
A study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University estimated that it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production just to its pre-1990 level of 3.5 million barrels a day. That would increase total world production by only 1.3 percent, and might not reduce prices at all if other countries cut output or banded together to keep prices stable.
For that matter, would our government really want a steep drop in prices? The domestic oil patch — including President Bush's home state, Texas — was devastated in the 1980's when prices fell as low as $10 a barrel.
The other possible economic advantage in Iraq would be for American companies to win contracts to put out fires, repair refineries and help operate the oil industry, as they did in Kuwait. What's the total value of such work? It's impossible to say, but last year Iraq signed a deal with Russian companies (since canceled by Saddam Hussein) to rebuild oil and other industries, valued at $40 billion over five years.
Yet the White House estimates the military operation alone would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. (Others suggest the figure would be far higher.) And rebuilding of the country's cities, roads and public facilities would cost $20 billion to $100 billion more, with much of that money in the initial years coming from the "international community" (read: Uncle Sam).
Thus, if a capitalist cabal were running the war, it would have to conclude it wasn't a paying proposition.
This doesn't mean that oil is entirely irrelevant to the subject of Iraq. It does matter in one very important way: Oil revenues make Saddam Hussein much more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill dictator
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power."
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 17:55:13
|
Um..i don't know what to say. These articles are anything but 'convincing', and don't really seem to say anything significant in any other light.
Lotsa talk about different ideas, but he seems to miss mentioning how the US would profit if they simply 'took over' the oil production there (i thought that was pretty obvious). We've seen reports on how the US is planning on taking the oil and selling it to pay for their invasion..it isn't a stretch they might use the same process to subsidize other things.
Erebus - i'd like you to answer this question: Why are they spending countless billions of dollars on Iraq? Do you honestly think they're doing it for all the 'little people' in Iraq?
- Dave |
|
|
|
misterwoe
= Cult of Ray =
Greece
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 10:33:02
|
I've posted this before. 90% of the Bush family wealth comes from oil. For every barrel of oil that is sold they get a little percantage. That's not so hard to believe. Now they have put themselves in position to try and take complete control of the oil industry. Bush Sr. sent people over there to die for oil and his evil son is doing the same thing...or at least acting as a puppet in the same scheme.
Doesn't anybody just find it a little peculiar that George W. Bush has the exact same people in his cabinet that his Dad had...they just have different offices now.
Oh yeah, how does that saying go? If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Right...
|
Edited by - misterwoe on 02/14/2003 10:34:32 |
|
|
|
velvety
= Cult of Ray =
Portugal
536 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 12:15:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Erebus - i'd like you to answer this question: Why are they spending countless billions of dollars on Iraq? Do you honestly think they're doing it for all the 'little people' in Iraq?
- Dave
the US didn´t help europe rebuild after WW2, just because of the little people either.
i think it´s naive to think the US is going to start this with only humanitarian interests on it´s mind. but that shouldn´t hide the fact that Iraq´s regime is one of the most violent ever, i don´t think there is much doubt about that.
still, i don´t know what dave noisy suggests the US should do, once in Iraq? Simply forget that there is oil in the country? destroy the oil wells? maybe let russia and france keep their agreements with Iraq regarding oil (i wonder how fast would the position of both these countrys change in all of this)?
and US oficials have stated that they will use oil production to help the iraqui people, something the "oil for food" program has not been able to do (Saddam has 50 new, really nice palaces, though, all covered in gold, with luxurious torture chambers ), or the disastrous UN sanctions, wich incredibly (and cynically), seem to be an acceptable counter solution for war...
there is no escaping this, really. a situation where the islamic world -already showing popular outrage against the war and the US- observe the US profiting from iraq´s oil, while the situation of the population continues to be the same is not something the US is interested in. They will have to rebuild Iraq. and iraq´s oil will have a part in that.
that leaves the question of why go in Iraq in the first place.
i´m not sure what your thoughts are on this, dave? do you think it´s just about oil? |
Edited by - velvety on 02/14/2003 12:31:01 |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 14:01:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Erebus - i'd like you to answer this question: Why are they spending countless billions of dollars on Iraq? Do you honestly think they're doing it for all the 'little people' in Iraq?
Multiple reasons, ranging from the pragmatic to the ideological. Regardless of what you think of the US and its past behavior, Iraq is a primary player in a movement that genuinely threatens the US and its citizens, and that threat will only grow over time, even if "contained". Containment is not enough. The present situation is simply unacceptable. If a nation feels threatened and it has the power to reduce that threat, then its course is clear. To do nothing sends the wrong message to those who would behave similarly. Saddam and his partners must be severely punished as an example that the US is not worth messing with.
Yes, there will be consequences if the US attacks. Civilians will die, Saddam may deploy biochemical agents against the troops of the US and its true allies, and the US may suffer severe domestic attacks. But to do nothing will only mean that stronger action will be required later, a lesson one might think even the French could learn. Of course we should also be concerned that others will take advantage of the conflict by acting up themselves, much as the North Koreans have done. We must be ready for China to attempt to swallow Taiwan. With the passive assistance of the good Europeans perhaps?
Unfortunately, one reason Bush is moved to act is his Christian conviction that Israel must be protected. It is Israel that is most threatened by the current situation, and the US is disproportionately influenced by both Christianity and the Jewish lobby, thus distorting US policy toward the region.
If the primary motivation were to save the Iraqis then the US would undoubtably have done something for Rwanda. But "liberating" the Iraqi people would be a step toward a less threatening Iraq, thus serving US interests. In the long run, spending billons of dollars on Iraq is a good investment. It sends the message to Al Qaida and China that we will act, so factor that into your risk analyses. I'd like to think that forcing total change in Iraq is being done for the selfish good of the US, and aside from pandering to Israel I think it would be. This should be seen as an early step in a decades long struggle to clear the world of direct threats to the US and similarly minded nations. Fundamentalist Islam must be turned or, in lieu of that, neutralized. Castro will be allowed to die. In the short run North Korea will be bought off, but we may have to fight them later. We can't deal as directly with them as we'd like because of the proximity of Seoul and Pyongyang. If the North Koreans get nasty it would be too easy to attack Seoul. Bejing will go the way of Moscow.
At least that's the way it should play out. Unfortunately the US is at the mercy of its shortsighted, weak-willed "allies"; the UN; and its own increasingly feminized electorate. If the US does not get its way, the rest of you will be speaking another language within the next fifty years. Fifty years is a long time.
I guess I've pissed off enough people for today. If anyone wants to respond, please try to provide something other than the standard Chomsky/Michael Moore rebuttal. To paraphrase Nietzsche, of all the things to escape from Pandora's Box, it is hope that has become the affliction, for without naive hope, and its cousin delusion about human nature, all the rest would be bearable. |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 16:12:29
|
'The present situation is simply unacceptable. If a nation feels threatened and it has the power to reduce that threat, then its course is clear.'
The US always feels threatened, and by the way it throws its weight around then I am not surprised.... you mention in 50 years time we might be speaking a different language, well my friend that other language will probably be American English. No-one likes the US, thats pretty much 90% true. Don't you right wingers ever think about looking into the reasons why the US is probably as unpopular as Iraq... No, you just rely on arrogance and power, like bullies in a school playground. The Bush administration are missing major points. This short sighted pathetic behaviour means that the US is heading for another September 11th, and unfortunately against the will of the British people so is Britain. The US are much more likely to make things worse than better.
You also mention that 'Saddam and his partners must be severely punished as an example that the US is not worth messing with.' But don't you think that the U.S. (famed for fuck ups like Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Belgrade, Somalia, and the Nazi style communist witch hunts of the 50's and 60's) should maybe grow up a little and realise that even though they have all this power and technology they can still be dealt a good kicking.... history has certainly proves this.
As for China, their economy is on the up, although by no means will they be a developed country even within the next 20 years. Why attack Taiwan, this would just send them back to the state they were in before with hostilities from the international community. China and the US are now closer than ever, China needs US and worldwide investment for continued economic growth.... why would they jeopardise that, and risk war with the US for Taiwan. It just wouldn't make sense.
2002 World Air Guitar Champion |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 19:55:03
|
Oh well, just read that Adolf Rumsfeld has informed the US that troops are ready to go when Bush gives the order..... looks like this is going past the point of no return. Just goes to show that all those millions of demonstrators last weekend were ignored by the supposed 'democratic leaders.' How can we call western society a democracy when the majority of the western population (who don't even want a war) don't even get a chance to prevent this war, as the decisions are made by the war mongerers at the top.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future Bush makes a Jackson-esque speech claiming that 'the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi.' He really is that much of an idiot.
2002 World Air Guitar Champion |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 23:22:53
|
Got this from a friend today:
For those of you who missed the following Commentary on CBC Radio regarding
US companies selling materials (like missiles and chemicals) to Iraq, I've
pasted it below. The direct link to the information on the CBC website is:
http://cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/2/20.html
20/2/03
Transcript:
Introduction:
It's not a story that's received a lot of play in western media. But last
December, a German paper published a list of dozens of European and American
companies reported to have supplied Saddam Hussein with materials for
weapons of mass destruction. The paper claimed the list was included in
Iraq's massive document on its weapons programs that it turned over to the
United Nations. Jim Trautman is a freelance journalist in Ontario. On
Commentary, he focuses on some of those American companies.
Jim Trautman:
As another war in Iraq gets closer, U.S. administrations have become
masterful at covering up their past and present dealings with Saddam
Hussein. Historically, when things go badly the U.S. rewrites history to
portray itself as the victim.
In the 12-thousand page declaration that was provided to the U.N. by Iraq in
December, there was a list of the 24-American companies and 30 of their
subsidiaries that provided material to Iraq.
But, in a deal with Hans Blix this information was never released. In fact,
the Bush administration received the only copy and carefully edited out the
incriminating evidence before presenting it to the other Security Council
members. The list was leaked by a European publication and it makes for some
very interesting reading. Besides naming the companies it is coded to show
what each provided to the regime.
Companies on the list include: Dupont, Honeywell, Bechtel, Unisys, American
Type Culture Collection, and the Los Almos and Lawrence Livermore Nuclear
Facilities.
The U.S. companies provided rocket engines, nuclear material, biological and
chemical material for weapons of mass destruction. This included cultures to
manufacture biological weapons.
Little mentioned is the 1994 U.S. Senate report that focused on the U.S.
material and technology that assisted the Iraqi government to make mustard
gas, VX nerve gas, anthrax and bubonic plague.
Looking at that list one realizes that the cast that provided the deadly
material is the same cast preparing for war today. Donald Rumsfeld opened
the door to Iraq - U.S. relations in his meeting with Saddam in 1983.
Rumsfeld was Reagan's envoy to the Middle East. He ok'd the transfer of
satellite images to Iraq of where the Iranian troop deployments were
concentrated during the Iran - Iraq war.
The 54 companies did the selling all with the authority of the Reagan and
Bush administrations. They saw Iraq as a bulwark against militant Muslim
extremism. The U.S. provided Saddam with deadly outlawed "cluster bombs"
through a phony cover company in Chile. Of course at the same time the U.S.
was supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan.
And for anyone that believes this commerce stopped, Halliburton Oil was
doing over $100 million in business with Saddam in 2000. Who was the CEO of
Halliburton - why Vice President Dick Cheney.
This is a war about covering up the deal made with the devil, and oil -
always oil.
For CBC Commentary, I am Jim Trautman in Guelph, Ontario. |
|
|
|
J Mascis
- FB Fan -
USA
205 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 01:03:14
|
| Guelph, Ontario huh? Hmmm... |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 06:51:05
|
That doesn't surprise me.... how do they know that Saddam has weapons... because they supplied him with various components that went some way towards their manufacture. I think its more scary that nations like the US have weapons of mass destruction.... even scarier that there is some evidence to show that they are supplying dictatorships like Iraq!
A classic song by the Manics (when they were good) springs to mind...
Ifamericatoldthetruthforonedayitsworldwouldfallapart.
2002 World Air Guitar Champion |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 14:37:55
|
Wow, that article makes me fucking sick to my stomach. I'm speechless...pissed to high hell, and speechless.
The thing I think is hilarious is that I remember reading around the time the declaration came out, the US insisted on having the copy first before anyone else, then they handed it off to everyone from there. Why the fuck would they need to do that? Probably to change something....and they did. Fucking disgusting. Fucking disgusting. |
Edited by - El Barto on 02/21/2003 14:39:56 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
