The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 08 May 2003,08:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm nota arguing that this is "favoritism" but what does this have to do with "raping a country"? <span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry. The US government does not rape Iraq. It only holds it down while corporate America rapes it.

Let me introduce you to how corporations work. To survive a company has to make profit which means that the services they provide cost less than the money they recieve.

Where does that money come from? From the Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people will all pay for the reconstruction with their oil. Not only that but they will pay the bill for the military costs.

This is how the wonderful cooperation works:

US Government: Bombs Iraq and seize its oil.

US Corporations: Get contracts to rebuild Iraq, making a nice profit, all financed by Iraqi oil seized by the US Gov.

= Bush gets a political bonus plus it's good for the US economy.

US Government: Grants only contracts to US corporations

US Corporations: Gets contracts at non-market prices. Who cares, the Iraqi's are paying for it anyway.

= The danger of competition forcing reasonable prices for rebuilding is eliminated.

US Government: Forbids export from Iraq without a US license.

US Corporations: Gets a monopoly on the goods (i.e oil) exported from Iraq.

= Prevents the Iraqis from getting their own country back on the feet should they heaven forbid have such ambitions.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US Government: Bombs Iraq and seize its oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Seizes its oil? Really? That's it? We should just assume you know all and accept your "facts"?

Like your various predictions of the war should still have been going on now and that the US has thousands of casualties.

Nice dice. When you present facts, tell us about it.

[theavonlady 2]

This is raping a country.

[theavonlady 2]

This is raping a country.

[theavonlady 2]

A realistic analysis of Iraq's current and future oil industry status.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 08 May 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US Government: Bombs Iraq and seize its oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Seizes its oil? Really? That's it? We should just assume you know all and accept your "facts"?<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about? Who is in control of the Iraqi oil today? Did you miss when they captured the oil fields, or is it early senility coming on?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like your various predictions of the war should still have been going on now and that the US has thousands of casualties.<span id='postcolor'>

I made very few or no predictions at all and I dare you to prove otherwise. The furtherest I've gone is to say that the casualty numbers reported are BS and that the real number is in the range of 500-1000. I have not seen any evidence that would indicate that I was wrong on that point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Nice dice. When you present facts, tell us about it.<span id='postcolor'>

What's the matter avon? Did you run out of arguments? Has your fanatically pro-Bush brain come to a halt when presented with the situation as it is?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Nice dice. When you present facts, tell us about it.<span id='postcolor'>

What's the matter avon? Did you run out of arguments? Has your fanatically pro-Bush brain come to a halt when presented with the situation as it is?<span id='postcolor'>

No. Just tired of your anti-US tirades, rants and gibberish.

[Balschoiw 0]

Isn´t it funny that Iraqi people have to cue up for gas ?

There was a report lately that showed angry Iraqi oil workers who are not allowed to work anymore. The oil facility is under british eyes but the non-governmental inspectors of a halliburton clone (US) do not allow the Iraqi people to run THEIR OWN facility. So you tell me the difference of conquering a country for money reasons and freeing a country from a dictator.

[foxer 0]

Hey don't act like it's just US Corporations.The french were trying screw them and USCorporations(uk Corporations,russia Corporations).Heck anyone that has an big time oil company is going do the samething.

Before you start pumping out billions dollars in oil,you have to fix them.I seen a report that it's going take like 5-10 years to get them to start making a profit.Why ? Because saddam didn't take care of them.So they going have to fix them,then down the road their make the profit.

[Guest]

I think it's funny how people are living in denial. It is so obvious what is happening now in Iraq. It's not like they are trying to hide it!

It's very educational to see how completely blind people are because the obvious truth is not compatible with their wishful thinking.

Iraq is getting exploited in a big way and yet some people refuse to believe it. It's not like it's something sensational: spoils of war - old as war itself.

[Longinius 1]

"Fine. Play your semantics game. Very childish. Did it ever occur to you that Iraq's financial infrastructure can use some outside help? Obviously it did, since you yourself suggest the UN."

Outside help and having all decisions made for you is not the same thing.

"Obviously some of you rabid anti-Americans have selective vision. "

Not at all. I have never denied that several countries have an interest in Iraqi oil. And the US is one of them.

[Guest]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ 08 May 2003,107)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey don't act like it's just US Corporations.The french were trying screw them and USCorporations(uk Corporations,russia Corporations).Heck anyone that has an big time oil company is going do the samething.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed, but right now US tanks are parked in front of the oil fields! Not Russian, not French. If the French were occupying Iraq then I would be objecting against their exploatation.

The exploatation is a normal thing but what really apalls me is the false pretense of good intent. And that a war that killed plenty of innocent people and destroyed a country was started with the main purpose being the post-war exploatation.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ 08 May 2003,10<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey don't act like it's just US Corporations.The french were trying screw them and USCorporations(uk Corporations,russia Corporations).Heck anyone that has an big time oil company is going do the samething.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed, but right now US tanks are parked in front of the oil fields! Not Russian, not French. If the French were occupying Iraq then I would be objecting against their exploatation.

The exploatation is a normal thing but what really apalls me is the false pretense of good intent. And that a war that killed plenty of innocent people and destroyed a country was started with the main purpose being the post-war exploatation.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you delete my other post,i thought you was talking to me.The one with the NM.

Anyways,Of course it's about oil.If the middle-east didn't have oil we wouldn't give an ratass about them.Only because we deal with the middle-east is because of oil.

Russia was selling their weapons in secert to iraq,to help their companies.The french(gov't?) companies were setting up sweetheart deals for(oil companies) themself.I'm not bitching about them.It's just were not the only the one in the world that tries to make a buck off corrupt and murdering leaders in the world.The world does it.I think 60% of this war was part on oil,the other 40% is about the other stuff.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 60% of this war was part on oil,the other 40% is about the other stuff. <span id='postcolor'>

So the 40 percent missing are the WMD´s and links to AQ ?

So basically 60 for oil and 40 for lies. Lies fit with the US administration very well these days.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ 08 May 2003,10:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 60% of this war was part on oil,the other 40% is about the other stuff. <span id='postcolor'>

So the 40 percent missing are the WMD´s and links to AQ ?

So basically 60 for oil and 40 for lies. Lies fit with the US administration very well these days.<span id='postcolor'>

No ,the 40% is about saddam trying kill bush sr,wmd,torture people,a corrupt man(saddam),etc etc etc.

Also because bush said their links between iraq and AQ doesn't mean i believe it.Don't stereo type me,please.

--edit

After reading your post again,i see a question mark.

Don't stereo type me,please.

So don't listen to that.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No ,the 40% is about saddam trying kill bush sr,wmd,torture people,a corrupt man(saddam),etc etc etc.

<span id='postcolor'>

So following your definition the US have fulfilled 40 percent legitimation to start a war against them already too.

The reasons to go to the Iraq war were:

1. WMD´s (none have been found or used)

2. AQ links (none have been found)

3. Freedom for Iraq (well we all see TV news and read newspapers)

None of these reasons have shown to be true. In fact the WMD story was a big lie also confirmed by UN inspectors who broke their silence after US "evidence" really became ridiculouse.

This war was about oil. This war was not about the people or

WMD´s or AQ. These were just justifications for the US public. The same US public that doesn´t really care about it anymore. Why don´t you ask questions to your honourable government about that ? Why don´t you ask questions on WMD´s, AQ or the wonderfull relation between US forces and the Iraqi people ? Why don´t you listen to british forces guarding major oil wells around Basra. They are pissed off. They have to guard facilities, keep the Iraqi CITIZENS from their goods and have to obey to Halliburton´s inspectors who reside in Kuwait and visit the plants once a week. You think there is anything done to make the facilities run again ?

An Iraqi oil worker summked it up best.

He said: "We know how to maintain and run our oil wells. We don´t need US companies to do that. We can do it on our own. But it looks like the US companies think they own our oil now."

Only to make it clear, the Brit troops are under the orders of Halliburton. Now this is weird isn´t it ?

[Longinius 1]

Bal, you forgot the attempted murder of Bush Sr. Thats a key issue obviously which warrants the death of hundreds of militaries and civilians.

[foxer 0]

I never said their was an link to AQ and iraq.Stop stereo typing americans,dicks.

Once again i'll try to explain what i mean by 40%....

When saddam try to kill bush sr,that falls into the 40%.Everything else that has nothing to do with oil falls in that 40%.

60% is about the oil.

60% + 40% = 100%

Atleast give them a few months before you say their isn't any WMDs.

[Guest]

On the bright side they did get rid of Saddam. The final solution for Iraq might not be good at all but it will still be better than Saddams rule.

That is assuming that things work out as planned, something that's far from sure.

On the other hand it is a bit of a circular argument considering that the Iraqis were most miserable from the sanctions that we, the west imposed on them...

[Longinius 1]

To those saying AQ had no links to Iraq, you are clearly lying:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,302606,00.html

Saddam and the Iraqi government together with Osama have been sentenced by an American court to pay reperations to the victims of 9/11.

So, there you see, Saddam was in on it all along!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, FSPilot, now read my quote again. They did not fire those shots at the looters but at the people protecting the place from looting.<span id='postcolor'>

No, we're both wrong.  They shot at a wall near the looters.

Either way, how does shooting a machine gun at someone (or a wall near someone) mean "go ahead"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So much for the freedom of the Iraqi people. The country isn't allowed to export any goods unless approved by USA. Only US contractors have been given contracts etc...

Observe carefully what is happening since you are witnessing  the brutal rape of a country.   <span id='postcolor'>

Well it's not like we're going to hire French countries to rebuild Iraq.  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ 08 May 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Atleast give them a few months before you say their isn't any WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Why a few months. I mean the Bush-administration had tons of satelite photos with millions of proofs of weapons of mass-destruction and production facilities. What do they need monhts for? Surprising enough that the first satelite photos have guided you to a trailer park with empty caravans. Since one of them had a chemical toilet the US-inspectors assumed that is was once a chemical-lab and that the chlorine was being used to get rid of any proofs.

Yes, sure! Before Saddam had to leave Iraq he was very eager cleaning up evidence. He was in a hurry to steal money from the banks but he thought: "may the people know that I steal money but we gotta clean that lab, I dont want anyone to know that I had WMDs.

[Longinius 1]

"Well it's not like we're going to hire French countries to rebuild Iraq."

Of course not. And since there are only French and American companies in the whole world its a limited choice. We understand FS, it wasnt an easy call.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh may I just mention that there are arab companies that indeed are world-leaders in terms of logistics. I had a two months course in negotiation skills with a french guy who worked for SHELL, and he said that. Jawohl! (oh..ust ignore me...I am being bored)

[PitViper 0]

if you want to talk about corrupt oil companies, TotaFinaElf definitely fits the bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,950761,00.html