5thSFG.Hawkins

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.

</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?

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.

I want to know why, if Iraq has supposedly nothing to hide, why are there sanctions still imposed? If they had nothing to hide, this issue would have been resolved years ago. However, this process is still going on. There should be no reason for the numerous articles, resolutions released by the UN. http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html#sc The burden of evidence is not on the United States or any other country, but Iraq alone. If they destroyed these WMDs, which were there prior to '98, there should be evidence of there destruction (physical remains and documentation). It isn't that difficult to point to an area and say we destroyed this amount of weapons, etc. There have been 4 plus years for them to carry out such action, if they did, well good for them. Show the inspectors the evidence without hesitation, and things can get back to normal for Iraq. However, given Saddam's previous track record, any rational individual will not trust Hussein and his regime without this appropriate evidence. The world has taken his word on issues before and look where we are today. 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. Whatever it may be, there is clearly something being hidden here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 02 2003,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would he be hiding things if he didn't have WMD or was trying to make WMD? We will have to see what Powell says.....<span id='postcolor'> Be careful what you say, there still is no proof at all that he's hiding something...<span id='postcolor'> What do you mean there is no proof? There has been more than enough proof over the past 12 years. The proof is growing by the day. All I say to you, is wait until February 5. Then look at the evidence that Powell discloses to the UN. The proof has been there all along. Appeasment of Saddam Hussein only provides a false sense of security, we are only deceiving ourselves. It is only until Saddam is removed from power, that we (the whole world) can be assured an increased feeling of safety in the world. Anyone who believes otherwise, should evaluate all the relevant information again. If one thinks a gas attack or a mushroom cloud would provide the evidence needed to change his/her opinion, there is something seriously wrong. edit: spelling

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,218)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Face it, Bush is not cut out for leadership. Maybe only dictatorship.<span id='postcolor'> Right thinking, wrong person.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 05 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to all 5th members that feel eager to promote their funny ideas about US domination in the world: Why dont you discuss like grown ups do ? Show facts, proof, act polite, stay on topic and dont start to flame. It is you that intends to flame, other topic contributors show facts and use their brains before they post.<span id='postcolor'> Am I not aware of some double standard here? I or none of the other 5th members are trying to flame. We are just disgusted by the total lack of respect shown to leaders of countries (President Bush imparticular). (On a side note, where's the evidence/facts that President Bush's policy is bad?) We have posted to many of these threads before, not specifically on OFP but others, with numerous facts, from REPUTABLE sources. However, we have been getting tired of people criticizing their validity(sources by far more reputable than news agencies) and just out right saying our opinions were ludicrous. I have far more knowledge in these matters than most would have twice my age( and I am only 19), which is pretty sad. I know for sure that my viewpoints are not unintelligent in the slightest. I would appreciate not getting criticized by people who say that we have to value their opinions, while ours are walked over repeatedly. This is my first and last off topic post on this thread. I have expressed my views on Iraqi post government plans many times before. Good day.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 05 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 05 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> OK - maybe some posts are best left ignored due to lack of maturity!<span id='postcolor'> Honestly, what is that comment for? We have been on these threads, but have faced little support for issues that you should be concerned with. Navyeel's comments were well in align, because he along with many others of us have seen the conduct displayed towards both the United States and imparticular President Bush. Everyone is quick to criticize Bush's actions and policy, and yet no one offers any EFFECTIVE alternative solutions. Why is the US and President Bush always the focus of criticism among many of the members on here? If I wanted to, I could easily start picking apart policy of any country. Honestly, it would not be that hard for me to do. So before you go out and start nit picking the policy and decisions of other countries' leaders, take a look locally. Back to the topic at hand: Contrary to popular belief, President Bush does NOT want to go to war with Iraq. Why you may ask, because we actually value the lives of the men and women who have dedicated their lives to uphold the values of the United States and those of the free world. However, there comes a point where one must face the grim reality that diplomatic efforts are of little help to achieve peace. One can cover up this fact and say they are working....but in the end you are only cheating yourself. A leader must make the difficult decision of sending in a military force with a clear intent on objectives. At that particular time, a leader has weighed the advantages and disadvantages making the best possible judgement. If such action is deemed necessary in Iraq, any post government setup, whatever it may be, will by far be better than one currently in power. Despite what some of you may think, Saddam cannot only be contained. He must be physically removed from power. Sooner or later, he will want to get out of the "containment" (economic, military, etc). We have a pretty clear idea of what weapons he has at his disposal to get out of this grasp. It is only a matter of time. Saddam has used brutal tactics in the past, and what makes you think he has changed. The US is trying to prevent such actions from ever taking place. I'm sure there may be problems in a new Iraqi government, however, those issues can without a doubt be resolved through diplomatic channels.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 04 2003,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, i can't believe you guys find it weird that Iraq is angry and that you aren't allowed to visit every damn place in Iraq. You have absolutely no fucking bussiness there, none at all...<span id='postcolor'> No business there? That's an effective point. So we are supposed to sit back and watch a rogue nation gain power and continue what happened in the early 90s? I still don't see how you all believe Saddam has changed. We are talking about a person who had(has) numerous WMD projects in operation. This same individual gassed his own people, suppresses his people to follow his way or they are executed, etc. It is not like all of a sudden his view is going to do a total flip and actually be receptive of new penalties, restrictions, etc. The only way to be sure that the country is safe and secure is by removing Saddam and what few faithful cohorts he has from power. Do you think that if a reporter asked a Iraqi citizen about the conditions in Iraq that they would give a truthful answer? I would highly doubt it because they have lived in fear for years, experiencing firsthand the tactics that Saddam employs to get his way. So, we have every right to help and aid the people of Iraq to give them a better chance in life to experience freedom and not be the tool of an evil tyrant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Jan. 03 2003,17:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No offense to any americans, only to President Bush`s foreign policy If I was Saddam Hussein (I`m not! ), I`d go into exile. So I would spare my people a war. Then I`d start laughing until I fall down dead, because Mr. Bush would get a hell of problems to attack iraq, because he would have to invent a new reason to attack. Wonder what he would come up with, because he has only two years left, before the new elections take place! No oil, what a pity... <span id='postcolor'> Well, no offense to your leaders, at least I can say my President is actually doing something to confront the problems at hand. It is sad to choose to deny the fact that the issues, which are a concern to rational thinking people, exist.

http://www.specwarnet.net

He may have talked about it, but it wasn't an official mandate. Had it been one at the time, we wouldn't be preparing for an invasion of Iraq now.

Eel, that sums it up quite nicely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 12 2002,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm. What part about "no politics in this thread" was unclear?<span id='postcolor'> It was crystal clear to me, Denoir.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Nov. 11 2002,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(apart from removing Saddam from power part lol)<span id='postcolor'> What does that mean? Â If you would happen to read the events that occured prior to the Gulf War, you would understand. Â The UN Security Council resolution did not provide the authority to remove Saddam from power. Â It was simply to remove Iraqi presence from Kuwait. The objectives that were created at the time were met.