The Iraq Thread

Major Fubar · January 14, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm going to publish a book: The Complete Idiots Guide to Debating War Ethics (guess who I'll be mentioning in the thank you's)

Chapter 1 - When somebody accuses you or your country of something, turn it around and accuse them and their country (or the country they are defending) of doing it

Chapter 2 - Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a victim of propaganda, and probably a democracy hating communist too!

Chapter 3 - Any press source that contradicts what you say is propganda (see Chapter 2)

Chapter 4 - When someone makes a point that totally undermines your argument, pretend you don't understand what they are saying and regurgitate your previous point again

Chapter 5- Pick up on any and all grammatical errors your opponent makes to belittle their actual content

Chapter 6 - Hypocracy is your friend. There is nothing wrong with accusing a nation of something bad even if it's something your nation does regularly all the time

Chapter 7 - Above all, you must believe that you and your chosen cause are the only examples of what is right in the universe. All other opinion and views are lies, LIES, LIES!

Now, I am done. There is no point debating with a fanatic, as I have said. I leave you all to it. Personally I suspect fspilot is doing this as much to boost his post count as for what he actually believes in. Â <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where do I buy a copy?

Yes, you aren't the only one who has suspected the post count theory.

I particluarly like Chapter 4, he does that a lot. That's why I can't be bothered debating with him any more. Perhaps his father is a lawyer, they love tactics like that.

brgnorway · September 15, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,06:16)</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">Well, as bgrnorway has just revealed to me, the only reason they're not exporting oil is because they cant import the equipment. Â So if we wanted their oil, we'd simply lift the sanctions.

I think I've said this before too.

I never said that! And you are not listening to what I say!

The price of Iraqi oil is to be decided AFTER the supposedly sale has taken place. Almost no one buys iraqi oil due to that very fact. If you cared to do some research onto the matter you would know. The reason why this very "peculiar" arrangement takes place is because Saddam, until two years ago, put a tax on the oil for foodl/medicin programe and this was not tolerated. Also, the deal is not about bartering oil for food or medicine - oil is supposed to be sold on the market - and for that money Iraq is supposed to buy food and medicine from UN. Except for the embargo on medicine and medical equipment, this is one of the most important reasons why the iraqi people die of simple illness and diseases. There is no money to buy such products from UN. Unfortunately, this programme has been supervised by my own country for the last two years Â - with a little help from our friends US.

IF USA installed a "friendly" government one of the fist tasks for that government would be to grant US with the ability of controling the producing of crude - aswell as refining it into petroleum products. That is how US plans to break the OPEC's hegemony on controling the price of both crude and petroleumproducts.

The "tool-thingy" you are mentioning is also important for US oil companies because the iraqi oil instalations are run down and need modernizing. Guess whom will receive the contracts!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I'll ask you since you're the one presenting the argument.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll try to find a link!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not listening to what I'm saying. Â We don't have any plans to go in, kill Saddam, and take all their oil for only the US. Â The world simply would not stand for that. Â And again, if we wanted their oil we'd simply lift the sanctions.

Look further up in my post

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since he hadn't done anything before we gave him the vaccinations?

Yeah right!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, what's your point? Â The list is somewhere around here.<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that we never gave Saddam any vaccinations like you did.

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 03 2003,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm going to publish a book: The Complete Idiots Guide to Debating War Ethics (guess who I'll be mentioning in the thank you's)<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where do I buy a copy?<span id='postcolor'>

THIEF!

Longinius · July 3, 2001

"1. Occupation is not state sponsored terrorism"

That all depends on who you are doesnt it? I am sure the Nazis would agree, while most Jews, Norweigans and other occupied people would disagree.

Its obvious that you and your family never had to suffer through it.

"4.The WTC happened, in the first place because a man mutilated a peaceful religion to meet his own sick needs."

Wrong, it happened because a lot of people for some reason got real pissed off at the US.

"Denoir, I chalk that up as more propoganda. I don't know of anybody who would be forced from their friends and family to go suicide bomb American forces who wouldn't take the bomb off as soon as they were out of sight and surrender."

Far from all soldiers in the Iraqi military are forced in to service. Many are extremely dedicated to defending their nation. Most of them also have a burning hate towards the US and UN for what they have endured over the last 10 years.

"I understand how being bombed by someone can have an effect on their opinion. But it's irrelevant. Saddam told his people that he won the gulf war, he's lied to his people time and time again."

He told his people he won? I highly doubt that. He might have said they won some kind of victory (moral, tactical, religiois, whatever), but I doubt he claims to have won the war.

"Iraqi defectors have confessed about it"

What did you think defectors would confess to? Iraq being a swell place to live?

"Iraq? He did gas his own people you know."

I thought he gased Kurds? Kurds are not really "his people". And before pinning something on him, maybe you should check how one of your NATO lapdogs is treating Kurds aswell. If you are gonna pin it on one guy, you should make damn sure you give others the same treatment... Ah, scratch that, hypocricy is totally OK!

"Saddam has been developing WMDs since long before anybody threatened to attack him if he had them. So that logic goes out the window. If he wanted WMDs to protect himself, he would of developed them when we started to threaten him. Not before when he wanted to make landgrabs and attack civilians."

By that logic, the nukes should never have been developed at all. You know, we all know, that countries develop weapons no matter what.

"If saddam was stockpiling WMDs to defend itself, why did he start before his country was threatened?"

Because it is to late to start stockpiling once you have been attacked?

Bernadotte · July 13, 2002

OK... it's time for my next piece of bet-ya-didn't-know-this-about-the-GulfWar trivia.

Meet April Galspie.

She was the United States' ambassador to Iraq and personally told Saddam Hussein, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait." Â Many interpreted this as an American green light to aggression because 8 days later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Â Ms. Galspie, who was relieved of her post, later testified before the Senate:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...we foolishly did not realize Saddam Hussein was stupid...<span id='postcolor'>

(Sounds like something FS might say.)

Balschoiw · January 15, 2002

OK. HereÂ´s my report from Turkmenistan and Turkey stay some weeks ago. I really think you should read it.

Iraq has a total reserve of 850 Billion barrels oil in itÂ´s soil. It is the biggest oil posessing country in this world after Saudi Arabia.

In Turkey we have met a local team of "Skywatch" a civil US company that estimates IraqÂ´s oil plants and reffineries with satellite images for over one year now. Their main investors are Exxon Mobile, Texaco, British Petrol and Shell. They are checking out the plants very detailed and make already plans how to increase the production after Iraq has fallen. There is no doubt the oil companies mentioned above will own the facilities after a war. There already have been talks to US and British militarys how to hit oil plants without destroying them but hold their production. It wonÂ´t be that expensive for the companies to bring them back to business after the war.

As you may know the first strike targets for the US forces are the oil plants at Nahr Uma and Hulfayah. They dont want to destroy the locations as production and takeover through abroad oil companies are already planned.

The oil reserves in Iraq last to run the planet for 8 years alone. This is indeed a very reason for a war. I will add some others.

The OPEC is a thorn in the US eye for a long time now. In the last 10 years they rose the price per barrel from 10 to 30 Dollars. The US are planetÂ´s biggest power consumers and oil is their lifeline. No affordable oil, no economic growth, no SUVÂ´s, no low gasoline prices and so on. So the US plans are to open new OPEC independant oil sources that are not exploited within 10 years. The US oil program has changed to that objectives. You intend to drill in Alaska, you sell coastal mining rights to US companies and you try to gain control over the 2nd ranked oil country on this planet, Iraq. Noone makes a secret of that anymore. There are already numbers set up for the production rates of the companies I mentioned above after the Iraq war. The US will take the chance to free themselves of the OPEC and make the oil price on their own.

Saudi Arabian officials said they clearly see the US struggle to bust OPEC in their war on Iraq. As a sidenote REPSON from Spain is on the Skywatch list also.

Now we come to methods how the US and British control over IraqÂ´s oil can be achieved.

All may have noticed the meeting of 50 exile opposition delegations in london. The most important one is Achmed Shalabi a proven CIA man that lives in London for 35 years now. He is the one that is favoured by US for IraqÂ´s new leadership. No wonder...

So if we come to the topic title "What is expected..." you can set up this scenario:

1. US and allied strike without UN permission and against Â

Â Â international law.

2. Shalabi will receive his presidential post.

3. Exxon Mobile, Texaco, BP and Shell take over most of the

Â Â big production facilities.

4. Repson will have a little fight with Australia over the

Â Â Hulfayah oilfield.

Now this is how it is planned. But letÂ´s have a look at the problems that arise. We have 50 opposition groups and no matter how power is divided in Iraq it will never be "fair" enough to satisfy all of that 50 groups. Now if you know that violent solutions are quite common in a country like Iraq you know what the outcome will be. A major fight between this 50 groups about power, money and oil. Now my question. You will have to take position this time. You canÂ´t tell them all that they will get what they want. They are simply to many. Therefore US already has made itÂ´s decision and supports Shalabi who is US loyal but unfortunally not respected amongst Iraq people. There will be civil war in Iraq. Maybe in one year maybe after 6 months. There is no plan for open elections in Iraq by any of the 50 parties. So people in Iraq will hardly benefit at all. The kurdish leader already claimed his aim for a separate kurdish state within IraqÂ´s boundaries. The US say "maybe" and this is the biggest fault. Turkey will never allow the kurds to set up their own state even within IraqÂ´s boundaries and the US know that. So the US lie to get the Kurds on their side once more. They already have been betrayed by US badly after GW1.

Iran on the other hand is next on the list for US and they know it. By setting up the "axis of evil" Mr Bush achieved a boost in the iranian weapon programs. They prepare to defend and they potentionaly build nukes or intend to do so.

Great job, Mr Bush. If you have no enemies make some on your own. Iran will influence the Iraq case a lot. They already have said they will annex Iraq in two ways.

1. They will influence Iraq with the muslim believe

Â Â This will work. When people are at war they pray to god

Â Â much. The most dominant religion in Iraq is Islam, so they

Â Â have a good chance to liven things up in Iraq.

2. The Executive Comitee: Iran has set up a regime for Iraq

Â Â after the war. They have everything ready, a leader, the

Â Â spiritual leaders, the military and the willingness to do it.

During my stay in Turkmenistan I talked to a lot of people and asked them how they see the current situation. Most of the people I talked to said that they are afraid that Iran will take the chance of an unstable Iraq follow up regime to invade or take over the country unviolent by mobilizing IraqÂ´s people to do it. Iran has already crowded 150 000 soldiers at the borders to Iraq, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. What I have seen most of that units are for attack purposes and not for defense reasons. I was able to confirm several BTR-50-60s,

Scorpions (British, light tank), T 72Â´s, ShilkaÂ´s, HAWK missile systems, TOWÂ´s, stationary or mobile, M113Â´s, SCUD Launchers, and 12 combat helicopters , some Argentinian, some Italian. We almost spotted no real defense forces but mostly attack forces.

Ok, one sidenote that is really important now:

The US have constantly tried to link Iraq to Al Quaeda.

An often quoted report comes from the czech, the one that tells that Atta has met with Iraqi officials.

This report has been proven wrong long ago

By now there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and international terrorism. There is none. There has been heavily searched for it, but there is none. Sorry guys.

To the WMDÂ´s:

I already said that last years meeting on biological weapons in Geneva didnÂ´t end with a ban or more control on research. Why?

The US blocked it. Plain and simple.

The actual risk of Iraq possesing nukes : none.

This issue has really been investigated precise and the outcome is that Iraq does not have the possibillities to research, build or transform bought nuclear materials. This is the conclusion of the report. No room for speculations here.

I donÂ´t want want to convince you to check your info, but I hope you read this to widen your horzon. If not, I donÂ´t care but donÂ´t say you didnÂ´t know this or that in a time. We had this before. I answered issues quite precise based on actual info and some weeks after people tend to "forget" it all and start their opinion-spread all over. Try to remember things longer than 2 weeks. Like it or not, but one side of the story is that facts make it. All the opinions only make the story longer, but the facts are the things to concentrate on.

So here is the latest news:

January 25, 2003: KDP units have set up new anti-aircraft gun positions along the Iraqi-Turkish border. A subsequent report said the AAA guns were set up to protect KDP control points. One of the AAA gun sites is near a mobile bridge set up by the Turkish Army over the Hezil River. This strongly suggests close cooperation between Turkey and the KDP. Cooperation for what? Action against Iraq comes to mind, but also action to stop a wave of refugees from Iraq heading north into Turkey.

February 3, 2003:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers hinted that a small contingent of US troops are already in Kurd-controlled northern Iraq, just across the Turkish border. While it has been widely reported that US special operations teams and CIA agents were already in northern Iraq laying the groundwork for a possible invasion, this is the first time the Pentagon has confirmed (even indirectly) the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

This is what I call news Â

Anyway go to turkmenistan, they sell great tea there

Longinius · July 3, 2001

Thanks, B. A very well detailed and interesting post. Now we can all clearly see that this conflict has little to do with oil ;P

5thSFG.Hawkins · February 18, 2002

But again based on theory and speculation (just like anything at this point). I like how everyone disregards my post on 206, I think it offers many valid points that make people think. Yet, what happens people skip over and continue slandering other member's views on this subject. This is supposed to be a rational discussion on this matter, many members are bringing their views forward, and yet they face criticism. What gives?

If any country has indeed shown the greed for oil in Iraq, France and Germany take the prize right now(not to mention the other illegal transaction that are becoming evident). Which is no doubt why they are preventing any US led invasion, that and the whole EU thing (which is a topic I'll talk about another day on in another thread). Again, a US victory in Iraq, would make France lose their billions that Iraq owes them. But, we can't face those facts because the US is the only greedy one on the planet. Give me a break.

There are plenty of other sources for oil for the United States. President Bush's address clearly mentioned the situation in Iraq and the reasoning behind our actions. He has proven to be a truthful individual as compared to the previous administration. Some people may not agree with his particular courses of action on matters; however, President Bush has proven himself, time and time again, to be the right man for the job.

I give Bush a lot of credit for standing up and CONFRONTING the threats not only in the US, but the world. This is by far the largest operation, the world will ever seen. And as we have learned from the Clinton Administration, it doesn't simply go away with a few cruise missiles.

Major Fubar · January 14, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.Hawkins @ Feb. 03 2003,14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But again based on theory and speculation (just like anything at this point).<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.Hawkins @ Feb. 03 2003,14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If any country has indeed shown the greed for oil in Iraq, France and Germany take the prize right now(not to mention the other illegal transaction that are becoming evident). Â Which is no doubt why they are preventing any US led invasion, that and the whole EU thing (which is a topic I'll talk about another day on in another thread).<span id='postcolor'>

Um, isn't that theory and specualtion?

Longinius · July 3, 2001

"There are plenty of other sources for oil for the United States. Â President Bush's address clearly mentioned the situation in Iraq and the reasoning behind our actions. Â He has proven to be a truthful individual as compared to the previous administration. Â Some people may not agree with his particular courses of action on matters; however, President Bush has proven himself, time and time again, to be the right man for the job."

Truthful just because he hasnt made a "I never had sex with..." comment yet? Give him time, I think he will eventually have a hard time explaining the ties between the oil industry and the US government. And then he will probably not seem so truthful anymore.

"If any country has indeed shown the greed for oil in Iraq, France and Germany take the prize right now(not to mention the other illegal transaction that are becoming evident)."

The small difference of course being that France and Germany are not starting a war over it...

Bernadotte · July 13, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 03 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US have constantly tried to link Iraq to Al Quaeda.

An often quoted report comes from the czech, the one that tells that Atta has met with Iraqi officials.

This report has been proven wrong long ago

By now there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and international terrorism. There is none. There has been heavily searched for it, but there is none. Sorry guys.<span id='postcolor'>

Just a minute there, Balschoiw!

I read somewhere that Al Qaida's suicide pilot Mohammed Atta spent 9 years as a director with Iraq's national oil company. Â They even named an oil tanker after him. Â Isn't that enough proof for you that Al Quaida is linked to Iraq?

Umm... No... hold on... my mistake.

Actually it is Whithouse national security advisor Condoleezza Rice who was a director with Chevron for 9 years and who recently had an oil tanker named after her. Â But since there's no proof that she met any oil executives in the Czech Repulic, then I guess there can't be any oil company links to Bush's plan for Iraq.

Thanks for the interesting report.

5thSFG.Hawkins · February 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 03 2003,15:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"There are plenty of other sources for oil for the United States. President Bush's address clearly mentioned the situation in Iraq and the reasoning behind our actions. He has proven to be a truthful individual as compared to the previous administration. Some people may not agree with his particular courses of action on matters; however, President Bush has proven himself, time and time again, to be the right man for the job."

Truthful just because he hasnt made a "I never had sex with..." comment yet? Give him time, I think he will eventually have a hard time explaining the ties between the oil industry and the US government. And then he will probably not seem so truthful anymore.

"If any country has indeed shown the greed for oil in Iraq, France and Germany take the prize right now(not to mention the other illegal transaction that are becoming evident)."

The small difference of course being that France and Germany are not starting a war over it...<span id='postcolor'>

Sub par at best, where is your proof that Bush is actively linked to oil? If he was still linked with oil, why did he recently propose a billion or so to study hydrogen as a fuel source? He would have been making more proposals to assist the oil industry not make steps towards reducing our country's dependence on foreign sources and looking at alternative sources.

BTW, there was more than just unguided sexual relations with interns during the Clinton administration. It goes far beyond that. Again people outside of the US, trying to discredit the United States over any little thing possible. Well get over it.

But I disgress, back to the subject at hand. I still have yet to see anyone refute my post back on 206. It is because they are valid points, where there is little if no evidence to prove otherwise?

5thSFG.Hawkins · February 18, 2002

Also I pose this question to the community here. So the United States is taking measures to protect Iraqi oil fields. Could it be as a step towards securing the Iraqi economy after Saddam is removed from power? I am no economics expert, but the going price for exporting sand is not too high. What other profitable material, at this moment in time, do the Iraqi people have at creating a robust, self supporting economy?

That's right folks, none other than oil.

Longinius · July 3, 2001

"Sub par at best, where is your proof that Bush is actively linked to oil? Â If he was still linked with oil, why did he recently propose a billion or so to study hydrogen as a fuel source? Â He would have been making more proposals to assist the oil industry not make steps towards reducing our country's dependence on foreign sources and looking at alternative sources."

Vice President Dick Cheney: In between Bush regimes he was CEO of Jalliburton Industries, an oil service company that had deals going with Iraq and Burma as late as 2001. Dispite the fact that Cheney denied this.

Secretary of treasury Paul O'Neill: Former CEO of Alcoa, the worlds largest aluminum manufacturer (also one of the biggest polluters in Texas). Happens to think that social security and Medicare are not necessary. Could be because he recieves an annual pension of 926000 USD from Alcoa.

Secretary of Commerce: Former CEO of Tom Brown Inc, a 1.2 billion oil and gas company. Also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling.

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham: Recieved 70000 USD from the automotive industry, more than any other. Thinks drilling in Alaska is a good idea and increasing full efficiency for SUV's is a bad idea.

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton: Works in close connection with Mountain States Legal Foundation, a conservative environmental think tank funded by oilcompanies. She has declared that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional. Previously worked as a lawyer and represented Delta Petroleum.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H Card Jr: Former chief lobbyist for GM and former CEO of American Automobile Manufacturers Association.

National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice: Sat on Chevrons board of directors and had an oiltanker named after her.

Close friend of Bush Kenneth L Lay: Head of Enron. Bush and Cheney apparently rely on mr Lay for adbice and some administration appointees must first be interviewed by mr Lay before getting the job.

Interim Leader in Afghanistan, installed by the US: A former oil company consultant. Ambassador in Afghanistan: A former Unocal consultant. (It had NOTHING to do about oil!!

"BTW, there was more than just unguided sexual relations with interns during the Clinton administration. Â It goes far beyond that. Â Again people outside of the US, Â trying to discredit the United States over any little thing possible. Â Well get over it."

Yes, there was probably more to it. Thing is though, that America actually had good relations with most of the world during the old administration.

Longinius · July 3, 2001

"I want to know why, if Iraq has supposedly nothing to hide, why are there sanctions still imposed? Â If they had nothing to hide, this issue would have been resolved years ago. Â However, this Â process is still going on."

Because of the wonderful oil for food program, which gives the West access to oil really, really cheap.

"The burden of evidence is not on the United States or any other country, but Iraq alone. Â If they destroyed these WMDs, which were there prior to '98, there should be evidence of there destruction (physical remains and documentation). Â It isn't that difficult to point to an area and say we destroyed this amount of weapons, etc. Â There have been 4 plus years for them to carry out such action, if they did, well good for them. Â Show the inspectors the evidence without hesitation, and things can get back to normal for Iraq."

And if they showed pictures and documents on destroyed weapons, you think anyone would believe them? You think it would matter?

"How do people explain why the scientists choose to have a witness present? Again, if there is nothing to hide on Iraq's part, these scientists and other officials would have no problem with being interviewed secretly. Â Whatever it may be, there is clearly something being hidden here."

Why should they be interviewed in secret? I think it is perfectly OK to want a witness. I know for damn sure I would want one if I were in their shoes, guilty or not.

"Also I pose this question to the community here. So the United States is taking measures to protect Iraqi oil fields. Could it be as a step towards securing the Iraqi economy after Saddam is removed from power? I am no economics expert, but the going price for exporting sand is not too high. What other profitable material, at this moment in time, do the Iraqi people have at creating a robust, self supporting economy?"

1. If all companies have the same chance of getting to the Oil, its fine. I think however most of the Iraqi oil will belong to US companies after the war.

2. If they wanted to secure Iraqi economy, they would have changed the sanctions long ago to reflect this.

It has nothing to do with the benefit of Iraq.

Bernadotte · July 13, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 03 2003,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Vice President Dick Cheney: In between Bush regimes he was CEO of Jalliburton Industries, an oil service companu that had deals going with Iraq and Burma as late as 2001. Dispite the fact that Cheney denied this.<span id='postcolor'>

Under Cheney, Haliburton Oil held talks with the Taliban about the possibility of building a pipeline across Afghanistan. Â John Walker Lind is in prison for having made contact with the Taliban at around the same time.

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

It's not oil they're after.

DarkLight · October 31, 2001

And yet again, we discover one thing.

Everyone is extremely sure that Saddam will attack the world what actually doesn't make sense at all.

They are absolutely sure that Saddam has WMDs because he had them 12 years ago what doesn't make sense at all.

The only fucking way how people will understand what's going on here is when a large amount of men die in Iraq.

For some dumb reason, people only realize what they're doing when innocent soldiers, children, men and women die. When all the mothers start complaining that their sons are dead, then and only then will everyone think about it. "Hmmmm, perhaps we have underestimated Iraq a bit..." Yeah sure, everyone reacts when it's too fucking late!

No fucking offense but i won't be surprised when i hear that, it's clear that the US gov underestimates Iraq, just like they did with Vietnam. Never underestimate your enemy, it's like a football game where Brazil plays against Belgium. Why did Brazil almost lose the last football game? Because they underestimated our team. Sure, we suck, but underestimating someone will only make it easier for that person to win.

For some very weird reason, everyone believes that in the East, everyone wants to do it the Western way. Hoooooray, we love the West, come saaaave us.

Exfuckingcuse me? I've only heard two real reactions from the people in Iraq: "If the US wants to help us, they can but not while invading our country" or "Fuck the West, stay outta our country"

Wow, you'd think that says enough... but noooo, it's all propaganda! Of course!!! Those people that have been disliking the West for their whole lifes but they suddenly love the evil West. And suddenly they hate their leader, who is prepared to protect them against the Devils from the West!

Ah yes, it's soooo obvious!!! T

That damn propaganda, it almost made me believe that the Iraq people like Saddam and that they hate the West. What a silly idea! Hahaha...

This crap is driving me mad, if you ask me, Bush is the biggest danger on this planet. Aaaaand he has a lot of naughty naughty weapons. So, i guess i can decide to go bomb Bush, right? Of course i can, after all, i feel threatened and i'm absolutely sure that Bush will bomb my house.

This makes as much sense as the fact that Saddam would attack the US.

Remember this little statement, a man is innocent until proven guilty? So far there is no fucking evidence that Saddam has any weapons, oh wait, or is that just what the media wants me to believe? Of course it is!!!! Isn't it obvious that our media (who is neutral) seems to have a lot of doubts about this war? Of course it is, Europe love the US, we are all just scared wimps that kiss Saddam's ass. It's all propaganda baby!

Isn't it weird that a huuuge amount of Europe and the rest of the world totally disagree with the US.

I guess that's media too, or wait, even better, we are all just scared faggots who don't have the balls to attack Saddam so the real men have got to do the job that only they can handle.

For the rather dumb people on this forum, my post is full of sarcasm.

Don't ban me, i'm not calling anyone names, as far as i know, i can say my opinion on this board without being banned.

DarkLight · October 31, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 02 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not oil they're after. <span id='postcolor'>

Goddammit, i knew it all along!

PitViper · January 5, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,885771,00.html

DarkLight · October 31, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 02 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,885771,00.html<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world<span id='postcolor'>

What's wrong with the Islamic world? Why not be friends with them?

Balschoiw · January 15, 2002

As a matter of fact I understand people that have doubts on the war on oil concept.

But only to point this out:

We have been to Turkmenistan to investigate the actual threat of Iran to the surrounding countries and to check the air traffic over Turkmenistan and Iraq. When we experienced how many officials from Exxon, Texaco, BP and Shell are gathered in Turkey we set up talkings with Skywatch and the officials. The officials didnt cooperate but Skywatch did. They gave us the papers I referred to in my last post and after crosschecking with UN NY we embedded them into the report as they contribute a lot to the current developement in Iraq and how the UN will handle it.

So this is no newspaper column or a story at TV but info collected by official UN members for UN members. My german origin does not influence this as our team exits of 12 nations by now. We work objective, not single sided.

I will not talk about the No-Fly zone violations of US and British jets we tracked while we were there. Totally different subject and not public.

Only wanted to make sure.

2024-04-18T22:28:29Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 03 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK. HereÂ´s my report from Turkmenistan and Turkey stay some weeks ago. I really think you should read it.