TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- it was never about oil?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

it was never about oil?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp?vts=050920031055

quote:

Under the long-awaited plan, the United States would take control of Iraq�s vast oil revenues from the United Nations and give it to the United States and Britain to finance the country�s reconstruction � with international oversight. The United Nations would have a limited, largely advisory role.

to the victor go the spoils i supppose. it makes me want to puke.

yay america
do americans actually agree with what their government body is doing??

I think some got their mouth shut with this!

quote:

Originally posted by King_Mack yay america do americans actually agree with what their government body is doing??

No I actually disagree with this policy. I think that the US should have a definite say in the money it is using to rebuild Iraq however, I feel that the UN should be the institution to manage Iraqi oil sales. Although it's not like the US is pocketing the money directly, I fear that the there will be bias in which companies are picked for reconstruction efforts. Hopefully international pressure will push for a greater UN role.

well, i'm glad you agree that the US should not just pocket the money.

However, the problem is this. The US has basically rendered the UN "irrelevant" as bush put it.

they have also proven that they don't give a rats ass about public opinion, nor international concerns.

so, how to reason with them? the answer is, you can't. the only way that the US would listen, is if a country had an army to back up their threats, or a large enough economy to hurt them (without bringing their own down to unmanageable levels). since no such country exists, or even conceivably coalition of countries such as germany, france, russia, and china...

well, the US will do whatever it pleases like any schoolyard bully.

but guess what? 10 more terrorists were born while i wrote this, due to your nations arrogance.

WEll John,

Did anyone actually think this was about "freedom for the Iraqi people?"



Wait, that's not funny sorry. At least all the people who drive ford expeditions and hummer h2s are happy.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, i'm glad you agree that the US should not just pocket the money. However, the problem is this. The US has basically rendered the UN "irrelevant" as bush put it. they have also proven that they don't give a rats ass about public opinion, nor international concerns. so, how to reason with them? the answer is, you can't. the only way that the US would listen, is if a country had an army to back up their threats, or a large enough economy to hurt them (without bringing their own down to unmanageable levels). since no such country exists, or even conceivably coalition of countries such as germany, france, russia, and china... well, the US will do whatever it pleases like any schoolyard bully. but guess what? 10 more terrorists were born while i wrote this, due to your nations arrogance.

OKay, take it easy dude.
Even if Bush thinks that the UN is irrelevant, he can't ignore it. The UN is no longer the weak League of Nations from the early 1900's. Bush's opinion, though refelctive of the populace, is the thing that is not relevant. If the UN declares that the "problem" over the oil is theirs to solve, and Bush doesn't back off, he'll get himself into a crapload of trouble. Bush is dumb, granted, but he also knows that he can't risk going totally against what the UN says, it'd just be too risky.

Additionally, sanctions MUST be lifted in order to export oil. Without an adopted resolution, no Iraqi, U.S. or U.N. entity in Baghdad has the legal authority to export oil. And if you think that wouldn't work, who would violate UN sanctions to purchase such oil ... Syria ? The UN hasn't even debated the issue yet, it's too early to arrive at conclusions.

* cough * Haliburton * cough *

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 OKay, take it easy dude. Even if Bush thinks that the UN is irrelevant, he can't ignore it.

??!? he can and did. he completely ignored the UN, and attacked iraq anyway. it is relevant, as long as it agrees with the US. if they disagree, then the UN simply gets ignored.

This bit really irked me:

quote:

The letter marks the first time the United States has referred to its role in Iraq as an �occupying power,� a status governed by the Geneva Conventions that would entail wide-ranging responsibilities to look after the Iraqi people. Until now, Washington has avoided the term, calling itself a �liberating force.�

More hypocracy, and yet another example of how the coalition have been able to use subtle shifts in language to smooth over their questionable ambitions. Here in the west we were told that the coalition were not invaders, that they were not there to "occupy" Iraq. They were freedom loving liberators there only to free Iraq from a brutal dictator and install a democracy. Oil was never an issue here of course.

So now as the Iraqi situation slowly takes a backseat to coverage of the SARS virus, the US announce "we are occupiers". Why would they do that? Because an occupying force is free (nay, obliged) to take administrative control of all a nations resources including dem dere purdy little oil-fields. "But", you may well say, "they're only doing that to help reconstruct Iraq!". But I would respond by saying, "why should the Iraqis be forced to pay for the damage caused by the coalition, or for their on going occupation of the nation when the Iraqi people don't even want them there to begin with?".

And so slowly it all falls into place:

1) US wants Saddam out.
2) Sept 11 happens.
3) Window of opportunity for invasion opens in patriotic aftermath.
4) Coalition accuses Iraq of having ties with Al Queida.
5) Coalition accuses Iraq of having WMD.
6) Coalition accuses Iraq of being a massive threat to every nation on Earth and must therefore be stopped.
7) It becomes apparent that none of the above are true, so it becomes a war of "liberation" instead.
8) War happens, statue toppled, photo-op in Baghdad square.
9) Everything looted and burnt except for Oil Ministry and oil wells.
10) Coalition claims now to be occupying force - "liberation? Where's the profitability in liberation?"
11) Control of oil wells seized. Bush's buddies get massive contracts - economy grows, oil prices come down, US dollar still in hot demand.
12) Oil revenue now siphoned into repairing the damage caused by the really, really necessary Shock and Awe tactics and 12 years of oppressive sanctions supported by the coalition.
13) "Wow, this occupation didn't cost us a cent and look at all the benefits we got from it! Can we do Syria next, please, can we?"

Call me cynical....

the secret PNAC table of contents laid out for you right here by my man renegade.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) US wants Saddam out. 2) Sept 11 happens. 3) Window of opportunity for invasion opens in patriotic aftermath. 4) Coalition accuses Iraq of having ties with Al Queida. 5) Coalition accuses Iraq of having WMD. 6) Coalition accuses Iraq of being a massive threat to every nation on Earth and must therefore be stopped. 7) It becomes apparent that none of the above are true, so it becomes a war of "liberation" instead. 8) War happens, statue toppled, photo-op in Baghdad square. 9) Everything looted and burnt except for Oil Ministry and oil wells. 10) Coalition claims now to be occupying force - "liberation? Where's the profitability in liberation?" 11) Control of oil wells seized. Bush's buddies get massive contracts - economy grows, oil prices come down, US dollar still in hot demand. 12) Oil revenue now siphoned into repairing the damage caused by the really, really necessary Shock and Awe tactics and 12 years of oppressive sanctions supported by the coalition. 13) "Wow, this occupation didn't cost us a cent and look at all the benefits we got from it! Can we do Syria next, please, can we?"

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But I would respond by saying, "why should the Iraqis be forced to pay for the damage caused by the coalition, or for their on going occupation of the nation when the Iraqi people don't even want them there to begin with?".

this is the most outrageous thing of all! attack a defensless nation, and then insist that THEY pay for reparations? the US and UK should be paying this. Remember that iraq attacked kuwait and the US subsequently went over and liberated them. after the gulf war, it was iraqs money that had to pay for the reparations to kuwait. (and big surprise most of the contracts went to the americans)

America, we know what you are doing, and we will not stand quietly by for it.

- Im talking serious here, if BUSH is re-elected..... I will die in by heart attack!!!

- I'll also be surprised if Bush supporters will still excuse him on whatever way.. though I heaven't seen some of them lately, what are they thinking and how are they standing?!?! .. I know that they will bring any kind of excuse though.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Im talking serious here, if BUSH is re-elected..... I will die in by heart attack!!! - I'll also be surprised if Bush supporters will still excuse him on whatever way.. though I heaven't seen some of them lately, what are they thinking and how are they standing?!?! .. I know that they will bring any kind of excuse though.

You've heard my stance . I've always stated that my support for the war was dependant on how the post Iraq situation was handled. With this draft agreement it's starting to turn towards anti-war ... however we shall see how negotiations are carried out and what happens.

this is a reply to liquidx's post from earlier:

bush wasn't really elected in the first place...............his brother in florida hid some of the vote s that woulda made gore president(i think this is wat happpened but i'm not sure yet)

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less this is a reply to liquidx's post from earlier: bush wasn't really elected in the first place...............his brother in florida hid some of the vote s that woulda made gore president(i think this is wat happpened but i'm not sure yet)

Tell me about it, leaving in Florida, I know about this, and you don't want to know how bad it feels!

reply to liquidx:

that must suck to have bush as governor adn bush as ur pres. but at least u don't live in cali where people have the shit taxed out of them cus of the governor's mistakes...

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less reply to liquidx: that must suck to have bush as governor adn bush as ur pres. but at least u don't live in cali where people have the shit taxed out of them cus of the governor's mistakes...

LoL man, that's also happening in Florida, so that Bush just made this news about rising the Phone Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX LoL man, that's also happening in Florida, so that Bush just made this news about rising the Phone Bill.

yea man arent polititians fucked up? im gonna get locked up this summer just
for cutting classes

?? what the heck does that have to do with politicians being fucked up?

and.. are you serious, you are being sent to jail for skipping school?

I think that this is an instance of fallacious causal reductionism. I do suspect that oil was an issue considered by the Bush administration in determining to attack Iraq, but this is far from sufficient evidence to suggest that it was the primary or determining factor in the decision.

I disagree. In the absence of other factors, such as the missing WMD, and the non existant ties with al-qaeda, i am inclined to believe that oil WAS the primary factor. I am sure that there were other factors as well, but none so important as this.

If not that then what? the liberation of the iraqis? i admit, a noble goal, and i am happy for the iraqi people, they are probably much better off (those that are not dead from the bombings that is).

But, if the US is to start freeing people from tyrants:

A) there are better places to start than iraq.
B) there are better ways to go about it than cluster bombs.

I think this laudable goal was only a coverup for an oil grab.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith If not that then what? the liberation of the iraqis? i admit, a noble goal, and i am happy for the iraqi people, they are probably much better off (those that are not dead from the bombings that is).

How about the removal of an anti-American regime in the Middle East? Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz have had their eye on Iraq for quite some time. Not for the oil, but to affect regime change.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith this is the most outrageous thing of all! attack a defensless nation, and then insist that THEY pay for reparations?

AHEM!

well, remember in the early 90's...IRAQ (the world's largest free standing ground army at the time) invaded KUWAIT? what happened there? IMO there's a difference between defenseless and lack of cohesion amongst leadership and military rank and file. IRAQ was not defenseless, their soldiers chose not to fight! who's fault is that?

LASTLY, how can you justify what saddam has done? he stole millions if not close to billions of food for oil $$$ and funneled it into marble inladen and gold faceted fixtures in how many presidential palaces?

STOP BLAMING, 'THE US'...because majority of americans never supported this war...perhaps you can start blaming baathists or perhaps saddam himself?

you know what i really hate! y do we have to start posting these damned I HATE AMERICAN posts...god damn, if they didn't intervene in a WWII (using for case and point..they didn't win the war alone...they just help push ) the pacific rim would be occupied by the empire of japan and europe by nazi germany (im sorry if you are german or japanese and find offense to this, i am not attacking you at all). if america didn't supply logistics support for england in WWII they would have ran out of spare parts!

STOP JUMPING ON THE I HATE AMERICA BANDWAGON...they have done more good than harm and IMO they have helped us out alot more than any of use realize.

dude. chill. i am not anti-american. i do not hate americans. i am friends with many, and i respect them.

please, don't even bring up WWII, that is another subject all together, open another thread if ou like.

to clarify, i never tried to justify what saddamn has done. he was an evil man, and i am glad he is now (probably) dead.

one question, the majority of americans never supported the war? well, a lot did. i have some polls that show very low support, but one gallup poll showed over 50% support. somehow, i think the results of that one were rigged (because of how out of line it was with other polls), but i have no evidence, so i will just shut my mouth about that.

In any case, we need to do MORE next time, than just get millions of people in the streets. we need to shut down the american military machine.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.