http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12568779&method=full&siteid=50143

i think we all pretty much knew.


Hurricane

Yeah, its fairly obvious.
Those who object are just kidding themselves.

Well Chuckie it's about the oil now isn't it? Well I would care if some crazy dictator wanted to burn all the citizen's oil.

Personally though, I don't think it's right for the U.S. to pump the Iraqi citizen's oil. Sure the money might go to Iraq, but the citizens should have the say of how they want their possessions handled.

Let's read carefully. The military operation is geared to keep Saddam from setting the oil rigs on fire like he did in the last war.

As usual, the totally less than honest and objective British press has distorted what what said to create "NEWS" to fit their own anti-US political agenda.

*Nox wants to puke - again*

Nox

And you actually believe that Nox?

How sweet.

The tactic of burning crops and villages during a retreat, has been a basic military tactic for thousands of years (they have a name for it that escapes me now.)

And as Nox says, the article only infers that oil is the primary motivator. I'm sure there are provisions of the plan to prevent him from dumping oil in the gulf as well, that isn't any indication of what the motivation to war is.

Personally, I think the oil is a prime motivator, but your article just doesn't prove it.

That name you are thinking of would be called scorched earth.

Only user x and nox get it.

It's not about taking the oil for the US, it's about stopping Saddam from setting them ablaze (he has plans to do so).

Who put out the oil wells in Kuwait? The Brits? The Germans? The French? No. It's was an effort by people from the US (not just military).

By protecting the oil wells, it saves the US money to put out the fires, saves the environment and helps to keep the lives of the people who would have to put out the fires.

For as much as extremists try to portray themselves as educated, they really don't think for themselves very much.

- Who's Your Daddy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who's Your Daddy?:
Only user x and nox get it.

- Who's Your Daddy?

---

OOhhh you forgot me. Maybe I didn't explain my view very well, but I got it.

I don't like Piers Morgan (the editor of the Mirror). And trust him about as far as I can throw him, and I wouldn't win gold medals at the people throwing olympics.

Go here for a less sensationalistic view of Oil and Iraq.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030124-123101-9110r

Some quotes

"Once the fields are secured, they would be handed over to "a civilian agency" for administration."

"The official insisted the oil and proceeds from its sale would go to restoring Iraq's coffers post-Saddam Hussein. Various agencies of the U.S. government are studying how best to manage restoration of the oil fields, the official said."

It looks like the US will have de facto control over the oil fields. Whether they would be usable at that point I don't know (if I were Saddam I would have them rigged to blow at a push of a button).

Thanks punkrawkerstonershit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who's Your Daddy?:

Who put out the oil wells in Kuwait? It was an effort by people from the US (not just military).

---

Companies like Red Adair, Boots and Coots, Cudd.

Texans mostly. Full of shit, but bad-asses nonetheless. It's still statistically safer than fishing for a living.

Ah yes! Classic Saddam supporters!

Look, do you really think the citizens have any say on any issue now? Are you againest the war solely on how the oil will be handled? France is more concerned about the oil than anyone else.

Saddam's gotta fucking go. His time is up. He's likely to go into exile as soon as the first tank crosses the border. He talks a bunch of shit like he can win, but knows he can't. The Iraqi people honestly believe that we didn't overthrow Saddam's government in 91 cause we couldn't. HA! They're fucking brainwashed.

"We defeated the Americans in 1991, and we will do it again."

-Saddam Hussein

It's just like in Afghanistan. We'll set up the new government, the extremists will die, and a new generation will spawn. It will take many years for people in either of these nations to heal from their previous dictators.

The Afghan people have known nothing but war for their whole lives. A new generation of liberated Afghans will rise and peace will set in. Kids will be educated and have job skills, rather than combat skills. They will enjoy many of the same rights that Americans do.

Iraq is no different. The new generation of liberated Iraqis will rise and they will see how shitty their elders had it. They will be educated to realize how terrible Saddam was. They will have job skills. They will have homes worth living in. They will also have many of the same rights as Americans.

Just face it. The reasons for war will seem insignificant after it is over. Whether it is over WMD, oil, or the fact that Saddam is a ruthless dictator, the Iraqis and the world will be much better off.

You "anti-war" creeps seriously know that you want Saddam's goons to burn the oil, because you think Bush gets off on the oil.

You liberals bitch about people driving SUVs on one hand, then support Saddam when he burns hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil. Talk about an environmental hazard.

The world will be a much more violent place if Saddam Hussein is allowed to continue with his outlaw regime.

What do you anti-war people really want? You sit over here and enjoy all the American freedoms people died for, and then you want the Iraqis to continue to suffer under Saddam because....why? You tell me.


[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 01-28-2003).]

Because it is hypocritical to go to war for freedom in Iraq when we support and foster dictators in other places, that are our allies. This suggests that this is not the reason for the war and those that try to black mail us with it are putting up a smoke screen for the real reason. Which makes them untrustworthy.

I think that Blair is running into the brick wall of the fact that the people no longer trust the government. And him in particular.

ok for a serious response before bed:

to cut a long ass answer short

War with iraqi is inevitable

all those people preaching for peace are mostly thinking that because people around them think like that, and they only see from ONE point of view,

war = bad
no war = good

now that's all very well.... in fairy land!!!

The whole god damn situation has gone beyond the point of no return, Iraq and US are NOT going to kiss and make up and say "sorry lets be friends" that's politically impossible because of the people in power.

Now let's say we don't attack Iraq and leave them alone, THEY WILL DEVELOPE WEAPONS OR BUY THEM AND PLEASE DO NOT DISPUTE THIS BECAUSE IT IS INEVITABLE!!! and when they do get the weapons they're gonna use them.

ok i heard some of yous saying "they're just defending themselves" - tell that to kuwaitians next door!!

so i conclude, for long term peace we need to fight TODAY.

No war = big NO NO

and as for the oil.... yea why not take it while we're there, American settlers killed plenty of native indians for land, Australian settlers killed plenty of Aborigionals, go bitch about that. But the Link clearly states that America had an agenda for protection the oil. all the editors did was see oil, america and agenda in the same sentence and started to bullshit.. oops i mean publish.


Hurrricane

Go here for less optimistic view of life after an Iraqi invasion.
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

For those who think Saddam is "OK", I urge you to go to Iraq and tell it to a kurd.

Yes War is inevitable.

War is however neither neccessary, justified or correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thehurricane:
THEY WILL DEVELOPE WEAPONS OR BUY THEM AND PLEASE DO NOT DISPUTE THIS BECAUSE IT IS INEVITABLE!!!

---

You can;t just go making wild accusations like that and then act on them you fucking spoon. The Americans seem to pride themselves on their democracy. So much that they try and force their vision of democracy upon other "lesser" nations. Now part of any fully functioning democracy is rights... in this case, the right to a fair trial.

You BELIEVE that Saddam Hussein owns certain weapons (which most countries own), and that is in contravention of a ridiculous treaty. Well okay then Mr. Bush, prove it.

Well in order to prove that Saddam Hussein is in contravention, he has allowed UN inspectors to investigate, which they have done. And now Bush has cited lack of proof as proof... and is proceeding with war.

War is a good thing, for the right reasons.

An action that someone committed during a war 20 years ago is not a justified reason.

A leader's attitude toward his people is also not a justified reason.

A foreign policy that puts the aggressor in danger is a justified reason - but that is not the case here.

Lets just recap... If you ask a morbid enemy what they think of you they will tell you they hate you *FACT*

If you ask Kuwait they would say they are worried about Saddam having WMDs...
*!TOUGH SHIT!*
You ask Iraq, and they will say they are worried about USA or Iran having WMDs. And if you ask Argentina, they would say they are worried about UK placing Scuds on the Falklands. Ask Morooco and they would say they are worried about Spain. Israel worries all the middle east. THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFIED REASON.

There are no justified reasons to attack Iraq. There are speculations and lies... but no real reason why the USAGB should attack Iraq.

I am not going to sit there and watch while you fuckers go and get my friends killed for FUCKING OIL!

The "protection" thing is the bullshit. This is all bullshit and if you can't see that you are either blind, stupid or dead.

quote:

---

So much that they try and force their vision of democracy upon other "lesser" nations.

---

I find this funny, because it implies that somewhere in the world people are yelling: "FUCK! DEMOCRACY IS COMING! EVERYMAN FOR HIMSELF. HEAD FOR THE HILLS, IT'S TIME TO DIG IN." The hardiest opponents of democracy in those nations are those who would lose the most by it. The leaders and their friends who derive specail privaleges.

quote:

---

You BELIEVE that Saddam Hussein owns certain weapons (which most countries own), and that is in contravention of a ridiculous treaty. Well okay then Mr. Bush, prove it.

---

Once again, since the end of the first Gulf War we have known what he has. The treaty explicitly states that he has to prove the destruction of his existing weapons. He has not proven the destruction of those weapons and he is in violation of that, regardless of whether or not he has produced any new weapons.

quote:

---

Well in order to prove that Saddam Hussein is in contravention, he has allowed UN inspectors to investigate, which they have done. And now Bush has cited lack of proof as proof... and is proceeding with war.

---

See above post to understand lack of proof as proof. Also, to claim that the inspectors are performing their jobs well is akin to saying that the DEA is winning the War on Drugs... yeah right.

Saddam has a history of lies, deciet, and brutality. To claim that diplomacy is an adequate tool is folly. To claim that he has seen the light and repented is folly. Since we can't deal with him peaceably, we have to deal with him forciably, the only way he understands or respects.

Your oil analogy is becoming trite and ridiculous. If we wanted the oil that badly, we would lift the sanctions. If we wanted oil that badly, we would drill in the arctic. And just for reference, Bush's oil buddies love the high prices. Why increase the supply from Iraq and lower the price?

I don't think I have seen chuckstone say what about Oil, he thinks it is about(i.e. geo-political control, cheap oil, dollar hegemony etc). If you have a prediction of the oil production of the world without Iraq, I would be very interested to see it, (i.e. the one where Alaska makes up for Iraq would be interesting ).

Importing it won't get you the first or the last reason. So maybe he thinks it is one of those two, a kuwati expert thinks it is about the first.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA29Ak04.html

"According to Ali Jaber al-Sabah, an independent Kuwaiti political analyst, the mood of the people has shifted from being rooted in nationalism to one supported by religion."

"Ordinary Kuwaitis are also beginning to see through the US intentions in liberating Kuwait. They now believe that the 1991 Gulf War was not fought simply to liberate Kuwait, but with a plan to establish a more permanent strategic presence in the region to tap oil wealth.

Likewise, they believe that this time, too, Washington's focus on Baghdad has little to do with weapons of mass destruction and disarmament. Overthrowing Saddam is widely seen as a mere excuse to install a US-friendly regime that will meet US oil needs, especially when its ties with Saudi Arabia appear strained like never before."

For those that think America is OK I urge you to go to Iraq and tell it to a kurd.

For those not in the know, 'no fly zones' have no backing in international law. There is not, and has never been, a Security Council resolution that authorizes any nation to patrol the skies of Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. The United States and UK are perpetrating illegal acts of aggression under international law.

Well innat interesting? but I suppose its okay because its to protect the kurds.

Think again. If we wanted to protect Kurds we wouldn't be doing it from 20 000 feet up would we?

Basically what America and Britain are doing is illegaly dropping bombs on areas inhabited predominantly by Kurds.

Tonnage/month has increased 50 fold since the same time last year, obviously Kurds need more protection now than ever.
How can you tell the difference between a Kurdish nomad and an Iraqi soldier from 20,000 feet up you ask?
Simple, because America only ever uses "smart bombs" which never miss and can actually ask directions from local people to their intended target.

Well no actually, despite what CNN may have you believe, stray bombs frequently hit kurdish settlements.

So essentially the situation runs like this.
1. You arent protecting the locals at all.
2. You are however bombing them.

Do you know the Kurds set of air-raid sirens when your planes go overhead? That to me would suggest they aren't exactly pleased to see you.


I would be pretty fucking surprised if the Kurds appreciate your attention any more than they do Saddam's (especially after you encouraged them into an uprising then pulled out leaving them to get massacred after the last Gulf war). They like the rest of Iraqis have also starved under years of UN imposed sanctions.

The whole of Iraq is to be honest united in its hatered of America and Britain. If you believe for a minute there will be dancing in the street when the first M1 Abrams rolls into Baghdad you are deluded.
Nobody likes armed missionaries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:

War is neither neccessary, justified or correct.

---

Nor is peace necessarily the highest value in a given situation.

quote:

---

The Americans ...try and force their vision of democracy upon other "lesser" nations.

---

No we don't. Sometimes we install dictators, or feudal systems. But you're right in that we think representative gov't is best, so we always encourage it in places that we think it could work.

quote:

---

part of any fully functioning democracy is rights... in this case, the right to a fair trial.

---

We'll probably extend him that right... if he's brought in alive.

quote:

---

a ridiculous treaty.

---

A treaty that exists only because the US agreed to it with Iraq's neighbors, before the war started. Not to take away from the huge success of Bush Sr's wartime diplomacy, but that was the deal for Gulf War I.

quote:

---

A leader's attitude toward his people is also not a justified reason.

---

Not "attitude", but actions are justification. And that slant is pathetic.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:

If we wanted oil that badly, we would drill in the arctic. And just for reference, Bush's oil buddies love the high prices. Why increase the supply from Iraq and lower the price?

---

Using our strategic reserves would be foolish, better to produce theirs. The main goal regarding the oil, is to get the US companies back into business with the Iraqi gov't as the producers. We can't own it, so were happy to be partners, we trade skill and technology for our half. If it does go down, I wouldn't be surprised to see a big piece of it go to the Brits.

A brief primer on the history of the oil trade.
___

Whazat, I liked that link to the wartoon, thanks. It probably didn't impart the intended message though (I actually laughed out loud when the anthrax loaded scuds started raining down in Israel...) but let me ask you this, if it does escalate to the degree that is shown in the toon, how is that different from the current situation?

I thought it was a bit over the top and exaggerated. It was supposed to be funny.

But I do think Pakistan could fall to Fundementalist Islamists if anti american sentiment is built up more (although it might take more than Iraq) and I think that an islamist government with nukes would be a very big concern of the US as far as proliferation goes.

If I was wrote it I would play up islamist attacks on oil facilities and the like.

And a far more realistic scenario is the Iranian mullahs using the opportunity to permanently crush the pro-West, pro-democracy factions in their country. That probably would happen, and it's most definitely a backward step. A harder line taken by the Iranians would be a potentially greater threat to the US than the Saddam.