- Impact
- 7
I'm just wondering what are some of yalls views on the issue in iraq?
Issue in Iraq
- Thread starter resellerlogic
- Start date
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Giving bad reps and adding to ignore list because the political views differ. Is it only me who thinks this is a _really_ bad way of carrying any discussion at all? (With risc of getting a bad rep added).
Edit: Noticed that you already took the oppurtunity to give bad rep to me as well. No response to arguments, though ... kinda sad
If the USA manages to somewhat sort out the Iraq situation, they will have much more influence over Iraqi oil than before the war (close to none before the war). A USA-friendly government does of course give the USA more influence. Thereby I don't feel it's far-fetched to think that the oil was an influence in the decision to go to war.
Edit: Noticed that you already took the oppurtunity to give bad rep to me as well. No response to arguments, though ... kinda sad
If the USA manages to somewhat sort out the Iraq situation, they will have much more influence over Iraqi oil than before the war (close to none before the war). A USA-friendly government does of course give the USA more influence. Thereby I don't feel it's far-fetched to think that the oil was an influence in the decision to go to war.
Last edited:
PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL
Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.
Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.
US VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY SHARES OUT IRAQ'S OIL
Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.[1]
"Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the
contracts could be worth as much as $900m."[2]
Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.
Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.
"The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up
to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus
rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3]
The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.[4]
Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.[1]
"Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the
contracts could be worth as much as $900m."[2]
Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.
Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.
"The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up
to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus
rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3]
The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.[4]
BRITISH NEWSPAPER SUGGESTS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL
The UK's Daily Mirror newspaper highlighted the overwhelming evidence that the US government's plans for war are motivated by oil more than anything else.[1] However, the government has not yet informed the public that oil is a motive for the "war on terrorism".
The newspaper also warned that America and her allies could face over 10 years of war. According to a Captain currently training US soldiers: "We must reckon with 30 per cent casualties in such combat". A General who served in the Gulf War has predicted that the invasion of Iraq that: "It will be a bloodbath."[2]
America is preparing to plunge the world into an extremely serious military campaign at the end of January 2003[3], but has the US government been open and honest with the public about their reasons?
Read the evidence and decide for yourself.
SOURCES
[1] Daily Mirror, "Why George Bush Jnr is hell-bent on war with Iraq", front-page, 6 January 2003.
[2] Daily Mirror, "Our 10 year war", 6 January 2003.
[3] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.
The UK's Daily Mirror newspaper highlighted the overwhelming evidence that the US government's plans for war are motivated by oil more than anything else.[1] However, the government has not yet informed the public that oil is a motive for the "war on terrorism".
The newspaper also warned that America and her allies could face over 10 years of war. According to a Captain currently training US soldiers: "We must reckon with 30 per cent casualties in such combat". A General who served in the Gulf War has predicted that the invasion of Iraq that: "It will be a bloodbath."[2]
America is preparing to plunge the world into an extremely serious military campaign at the end of January 2003[3], but has the US government been open and honest with the public about their reasons?
Read the evidence and decide for yourself.
SOURCES
[1] Daily Mirror, "Why George Bush Jnr is hell-bent on war with Iraq", front-page, 6 January 2003.
[2] Daily Mirror, "Our 10 year war", 6 January 2003.
[3] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.
TOP-SECRET AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE
The US government claimed last year they possessed intelligence against
Saddam Hussein and promised to share this with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
[ BBC News, "US agrees to share Iraq intelligence", 21 December 2002 ]
However, the UN weapons inspectors have not yet seen any of the
intelligence that the US and the UK governments claim to have.
"We need intelligence reports if they exist"
- UN weapons inspector
[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]
The US government claimed last year they possessed intelligence against
Saddam Hussein and promised to share this with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
[ BBC News, "US agrees to share Iraq intelligence", 21 December 2002 ]
However, the UN weapons inspectors have not yet seen any of the
intelligence that the US and the UK governments claim to have.
"We need intelligence reports if they exist"
- UN weapons inspector
[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]
AMERICA REMOVED 70% OF IRAQ'S WEAPONS DECLARATION!
Iraq produced a 12,500 page weapons declaration for United Nations, but the American government removed 8,500 pages of the report before the rest of the world was allowed to see it!
70 per cent of the Iraqi weapons report for the UN was:
"removed for the version given to non-permanent members,
leaving a document of about 3,500 pages."
[ BBC News, "'Little new' in Iraq declaration", 19 December 2002 ]
America's decision to withhold all but 3,500 pages of Iraq's 12,500 page weapons declaration is a serious and deliberate attempt to conceal important facts in a serious international crisis, and demonstrates the American government's contempt for the rest of the world.
America and United Nations have lied to Iraq and deceived the world. They forced Iraq to produce a weapons declaration and pretended that the report was for the UN. In reality the original report went directly to US intelligence,
who immediately distributed it among America's closest allies. More than two thirds of the report was hidden before the rest of the UN security council were allowed to see it.
Do you know the whole truth about the Bush government's motives for war with Iraq? READ THE FACTS before you support the war with Iraq; before you spend your taxes on the war, and before you or your friends and family are sent to die in the war.
U.S. MILITARY WILL CAPTURE IRAQ'S OIL FIELDS FIRST
The Council on Foreign Relations has issued advice to the American government in which a "key recommendation" is to ensure the availability of Iraq's oil after the war:
"ensuring that the U.S. military has the requisite information
to identify the assets that could, if severely damaged or destroyed
during military hostilities, substantially delay resumption of the
Iraqi oil export program"
[ CFR, Guiding Principles for Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq", December 2002. ]
Is the priority of an American invasion of Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil, the world's second largest supply?
Iraq produced a 12,500 page weapons declaration for United Nations, but the American government removed 8,500 pages of the report before the rest of the world was allowed to see it!
70 per cent of the Iraqi weapons report for the UN was:
"removed for the version given to non-permanent members,
leaving a document of about 3,500 pages."
[ BBC News, "'Little new' in Iraq declaration", 19 December 2002 ]
America's decision to withhold all but 3,500 pages of Iraq's 12,500 page weapons declaration is a serious and deliberate attempt to conceal important facts in a serious international crisis, and demonstrates the American government's contempt for the rest of the world.
America and United Nations have lied to Iraq and deceived the world. They forced Iraq to produce a weapons declaration and pretended that the report was for the UN. In reality the original report went directly to US intelligence,
who immediately distributed it among America's closest allies. More than two thirds of the report was hidden before the rest of the UN security council were allowed to see it.
Do you know the whole truth about the Bush government's motives for war with Iraq? READ THE FACTS before you support the war with Iraq; before you spend your taxes on the war, and before you or your friends and family are sent to die in the war.
U.S. MILITARY WILL CAPTURE IRAQ'S OIL FIELDS FIRST
The Council on Foreign Relations has issued advice to the American government in which a "key recommendation" is to ensure the availability of Iraq's oil after the war:
"ensuring that the U.S. military has the requisite information
to identify the assets that could, if severely damaged or destroyed
during military hostilities, substantially delay resumption of the
Iraqi oil export program"
[ CFR, Guiding Principles for Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq", December 2002. ]
Is the priority of an American invasion of Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil, the world's second largest supply?
Finally..,
WAR ON IRAQ OFFICIALLY DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war.
[ BBC News, "US and UK call for Iraq 'change'", 6 April 2002 ]
"Two of Britain's most senior legal figures have warned Prime Minister
Tony Blair that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would
breach international law..."
[ Reuters news service, 7 October 2002. ]
Sydney Morning Herald, "US may charge Saddam with war crimes", 8 October 2002.
The British Attourney General and Solicitor General have confirmed to the U.K. Government that an attack on Iraq would be illegal under international law.
"Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his attorney-general
that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach
international law.
"The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general,
places the prime minister in a potentially 'impossible position', according to
legal experts."
[ Financial Times newspaper, October 2002. ]
Will Britain and America respect international law, or is the capture of the world's second largest oil supply too tempting to resist?
========
Source:
http://thedebate.org
========
I dont need NP points
. I dont visit Namepros for NP points. The admin can remove my NP points if they wish.
WAR ON IRAQ OFFICIALLY DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war.
[ BBC News, "US and UK call for Iraq 'change'", 6 April 2002 ]
"Two of Britain's most senior legal figures have warned Prime Minister
Tony Blair that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would
breach international law..."
[ Reuters news service, 7 October 2002. ]
Sydney Morning Herald, "US may charge Saddam with war crimes", 8 October 2002.
The British Attourney General and Solicitor General have confirmed to the U.K. Government that an attack on Iraq would be illegal under international law.
"Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his attorney-general
that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach
international law.
"The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general,
places the prime minister in a potentially 'impossible position', according to
legal experts."
[ Financial Times newspaper, October 2002. ]
Will Britain and America respect international law, or is the capture of the world's second largest oil supply too tempting to resist?
========
Source:
http://thedebate.org
========
I dont need NP points
. I dont visit Namepros for NP points. The admin can remove my NP points if they wish.'The rest of the world' (read UN) were conducting weapon inspections.
When you say keep 'let him keep going' I'm unsure of what you mean. The last known use of WMD by Iraqi dicatorship is as far as I know dated more than 10 years back.
I do believe that the best way to stop/slow the urge for certain countries to get new WMD is to destroy/disable those available, of course including the US, France etc. Of course it would be of greater importance for the US to do so, since it has so very offensive foreign politics. The less that is available and the less agressive actions are being made internationally, the smaller is the need for them for smaller military powers.
When you say keep 'let him keep going' I'm unsure of what you mean. The last known use of WMD by Iraqi dicatorship is as far as I know dated more than 10 years back.
I do believe that the best way to stop/slow the urge for certain countries to get new WMD is to destroy/disable those available, of course including the US, France etc. Of course it would be of greater importance for the US to do so, since it has so very offensive foreign politics. The less that is available and the less agressive actions are being made internationally, the smaller is the need for them for smaller military powers.
Before the debate continues, let me suggest you think about investing in Iraqi domains...
http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=59842
http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=59842
ZuraX, you're not completly in a position to tell Surtha to stop double posting or spamming. Because first of all thats not spam, a post like "*yawns*" is spam (I got that from you) and you also double posted.
I hope Lee comes back soon, as this argument is pointless, your not saying anything ZuraX.
I hope Lee comes back soon, as this argument is pointless, your not saying anything ZuraX.
- Impact
- 2
NONE of those reasons rise to the threshhold of an act of war against the United States, except perhaps number three, although I believe GHW Bush was out of office then AND there was a reprisal bombing in reaction to the attempt.LeeRyder said:
The reasons to go to war against a nation are few. In 1991, it was because Iraq violated the soverignty of another nation, and we came to the aid of Kuwait.
In this case, the reasons proposed for authorization were:
* Imminent threat from WMD
* Enforcing UN resolutions
* As a last resort, failing diplomacy
Diplomacy was a farce, we enforced the UN resolution with vigilantism, and the most critical reason for going to war has turned out to be fraudulently based, and possibly intentionally so.
Therefore, we - no matter how many accompliances we cooerced into cooperation - violated the soverignty of another nation against our basic tenets and principals of civility in battle.
We had no more reason to go into Iraq than we do to go into Cuba, Russia, the Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, half of Africa, China, or Texas.
We provided the gas that killed the Kurds. It was W's daddy's CIA, in fact.
Containment was working, supporting the dissidents was working.
We did not need to invest our troops in their battle for freedom. We were NOT endangered by Iraq. It may have been a regime, but it was a predictable regime.
We should have kept our sights on Osama. Our troops - all of them - on Osama.
-
ClearMultimedia.com
- Make Offer
-
DualClothing.com
- Make Offer
-
Aflame.co
- Make Offer
-
Quantumsensibile.com
- Buy Now
- $2,599
-
DigitManagement.com
- Make Offer
-
XpressAgent.com
- Make Offer
-
sulphurunit.com
- Make Offer
-
BrattyAF.com
- Make Offer
-
junglegum.com
- Make Offer
-
EducationalPCGame.com
- Make Offer
Similar threads
New posts ➔
-
Buying Agent or Ai .com domains- 240 posters
- Tycho
Polls of interest ➔
-
What are your strengths as an investor?- 181 voters
- 26 replies
-
What's your domain portfolio size?
- 447 voters
- 134 replies
-
How do you think a potential buyer first checks if your domain is for sale?- 458 voters
- 52 replies
Hot this week ➔
-
What Separates Domain Investors Who Fade Away From Those Who Stay?- 27 comments
- 23 points
-
Why some “available” domains still don’t get picked — even when they’re cheap- 14 replies
- 5 points
-
Reflections on Palindrome Domain Names- 13 comments
- 72 points
Hot this month ➔
-
Most Domains Don't Sell Because...- 51 comments
- 64 points
-
Seeking Premium One-Word Domains ( .IO / .AI / .ORG) — Wholesale Only
- 47 replies
- 42 posters
-
WTB: LWord.com, LLWord.com, LLLWord.com, budget is $10-$3000 per domain.
- 41 replies
- 1 point
-
How do you spot domain trends BEFORE they explode? (like claw keyword did)- 40 replies
- 1 point
Blog favorites
-
Reflections on Palindrome Domain Names
- 13 comments
- Bob Hawkes
-
5 Debates Domainers Will Never Agree On
- 21 comments
- Sully
