Obviously you didn’t see her news conference. When she got bombarded with a lot of questions and made to think quick and not go on rehearsed statements she sounded as though one reason for the protest was to get publicity. Just my view point.
Government school, I would much rather go to a private school run by the rich families that have benefited from corruption, duh.
I take great offense to this statement. I went to private school and my parents weren’t rich with money. No rich families set up the school I went to. My kids will go to private school also. They will get a far better education in my opinion.
Especially when we are setting the standard that pre-emptive war is okay, I want proof that he is really a threat. Iraq signed a peace agreement to end the war of 1991. Iraq is not living up to that agreement. It is not a preemptive strike but a continuation of the prior conflict.
You guys mis-understood my comments on schooling. First of all I was joking around. Second of all I was talking about going to college, and that got mixed up with what I have said about the ethnocentric brain washing which I was referring to public schools K-12 which I have participated in. I am still mad that I have spent 12 years of my life in the public school system, learning lies and half truths, I would have loved to have had the ability to go to a private school, I don't know if it would have been better, but I know I would have recieved a better education. And THX, I know that A LOT more money goes into public schools than private, I am assuming you are talking about government dollars here? The reason I made this comment is because someone jokingly asked "how much to you want to bet he will go to a Federal School", after I wrote that I don't support American Imperialism OR ethnocentrisism, I can understand the mis-understanding.
THX- If you don't realise what type of foreign policy the US has been enacting since the Cold War, and you look away from all of the times the US has been caught breaking international human rights laws for what in reality is the underground expansion of our corporate empire, then you have been brainwashed. All we have in Iraq is a more mainstream expansion and no one cares because they are scared. Can anyone tell me why they are scared? The Media? Really? Interesting....
The Civil War, now I not a huge Civil War buff, so correct me if I am wrong. I am thinking that slavery was one of the issues fought over in the civil war. There was a time when no one was standing up against the exteremely immoral idea of slavery. Slavery was widely accepted, especially in the south. People stood up and protested, they fought against the idea of slavery untill the problem escalated into Civil War? I think it is like that roughly, not sure, I am sorry. I know there were other issues, you have to excuse me, I am publicly educated (hehe). If those people had not stood up and said "no", slavery is wrong then this country will not be where it is at today. It took courage, and it takes courage for that girl to stand up for what SHE believes is right. Maybe not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I presume that news conferences can be stressful.
tim: Abolitionists were not a huge number of people. Lincoln would not have ended slavery he said so. His emancipation proclamation only freed those slaves that were in states that were in rebellion against the union. the offer was made to the southern states to rejoin the union prior to the effective date of the Emancipation proclamation and if they had slavery would have continued in those states apparently indefinitely.
So Saddam is contained right now. So we should just let our 200,000 troops sit there indeffinitly? That is not feasable. We have 5 aircraft carrier groups there and they will need to be rotated out for maintenance. We can not keep this build up there forever. Saddam has proven time and again that he will not do what is needed to avert war. We will go in, take him out and then leave a international peace keeping force there while the Iraq government gets set.
As to the inspections. Everyone says give inspections a chance. What everyone forgets is that the inspectors are not there to find WMD. They are there to VERIFY that Saddam has disarmed. Saddam refuses to do that. He is in material breach AGAIN . So again I ask, how many chnances do we keep giving him? When is enough enough?
Wolvie- How is this Iraq operation going to work in your mind? WE go in kill Saddam, and leave? We will have to occupy for a MINIMUM of one year, costing the tax payers BILLIONS, some experts actually think that the occupation will take upwards of 5 years. So you are arguing that it is okay if we have thousands of troups over there, as long as Saddam is dead? Even though he doesn't have any WMD's and he is under containment?
And I know THX is not ignoratnt enough to believe war with Iraq will protect us from terrorists. But I bet you could get a job as CNN or Fox news...
How is this Iraq operation going to work in your mind? WE go in kill Saddam, and leave? We will have to occupy for a MINIMUM of one year, costing the tax payers BILLIONS, some experts actually think that the occupation will take upwards of 5 years. So you are arguing that it is okay if we have thousands of troups over there, as long as Saddam is dead?
Once we go in Saddam will either run or give up. If he gives up we will be put on trial for war crimes and acts against humanity. Yes we will have to occupy Iraq. It will not be the U.S.A. alone. Once we liberate Ieaq, an international/U.N. peace keeping force will take over. Just like in Afghanistan. Countries like France and Germany will want to be involved at this point. They have billions of dollars in oil deals to look after. When Iraq is liberated the U.S.A. will have help rebuilding Iraq and keeping it stable.
Even though he doesn't have any WMD's and he is under containment?
You really have to be niave to believe he has no WMD. Of course you have the ignorance of youth.
Instead of listing several instances I think it is a good idea to just focus on Iraq.
We bomb the hell out of them 12 years ago in Desert Storm, we not only take out military targets, but also targets to crumble the Iraqi infrastructure, directly hurting the civilians. The lose their right to have clean water, electricity, and sanitation. Then we slap sanctions on the country to stop Huissain from making weapons, which makes sence because he doens't care about his people. But the people are still suffering, the infant mortality rate is doubling and the quality of life for innocent Iraqi citizens is plummeting. Everyone is being hurt by the sanctions, not just Huissain. Instead of working with Iraq to reward them for complying with the UN security councels resolutuon to disarm Iraq, by lifting key sanctions to allow humanitarian relief, we start the oil for food program which allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in order to feed its people. There is not enough food, and they are still unable to rebuild and semblance of infrastructure because only food and medicine were available for purchase. Now we are going to attack them again?
Instead of working with Iraq to reward them for complying with the UN security councels resolutuon to disarm Iraq
Please list the resolutions that Iraq has complied with.
by lifting key sanctions to allow humanitarian relief, we start the oil for food program which allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in order to feed its people.
Which Saddam used the money from to buy more military weapons and ingredients for WMD. Plus to build his palaces with.
There is not enough food, and they are still unable to rebuild and semblance of infrastructure because only food and medicine were available for purchase.
If he complies with the resolutions or leaves the country, we will start to provide what they need. You do not reward behaivor that is detrimental to the region.
Once we go in Saddam will either run or give up. If he gives up we will be put on trial for war crimes and acts against humanity. Yes we will have to occupy Iraq. It will not be the U.S.A. alone. Once we liberate Ieaq, an international/U.N. peace keeping force will take over. Just like in Afghanistan. Countries like France and Germany will want to be involved at this point. They have billions of dollars in oil deals to look after. When Iraq is liberated the U.S.A. will have help rebuilding Iraq and keeping it stable.
You know, and I know that the US will and should have the 'burden' of an occupation in post-war Iraq. You know about France and Germany having interest in oil deals? A US led regime change will moer than likely see the oil deals come our way, and if you don't think so than you are wrong. Liberate Iraq from one evil, so our evil can take over. Oil is a large reason for this war, you know that, I know that, anyone that knows anything knows that.
You really have to be niave to believe he has no WMD. Of course you have the ignorance of youth.
Attacking my age shows that you have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject. If they had WMD's they would have used them prior or during either Desert Storm, or certainly Desert Fox. I am not saying that we should leave Iraq alone and 'hope' they don't unhide all the WMD's that people are do sure that they have, I am saying that we don't need war to dissarm them.
While France and Russia wanted to encourage compliance with UNSC 687, by offering lifting of sanctions in responce to cooperation with the resolution, the plan was deflated by the US and Britain.
I agree that it would be great if Saddam complied with the resolutions voluntarily and/or left voluntarily, that hasn't happened so what are we going to do? I say instead of dragging our feet on possible diplomatic solutions, we work as hard as possible to avoid war.
I know the UN imposed the sanctions, but the US is the one that wants to go to war. So far the sanctions have "worked" to keep Saddam from increasing his WMD arsenal, that we still aren't sure if he has.
Liberate Iraq from one evil, so our evil can take over. What evil?Oil is a large reason for this war, you know that, I know that, anyone that knows anything knows that. It isn't about oil the oil is flowing.
If they had WMD's they would have used them prior or during either Desert Storm, or certainly Desert Fox. Some people believe they did. Maybe they knew the US wasn't going to Bagdad before and kneww if they used them we would. There could be a number of reasosn why they haven't used them-YET.I am not saying that we should leave Iraq alone and 'hope' they don't unhide all the WMD's that people are do sure that they have, I am saying that we don't need war to dissarm them. What is it, then, that is going to make Saddam disarm?
Where to? A country that has proven oil supplies that would make them number 2 in the world to Saudi Arabia, and possibly pass the Saudies, and the oil is flowing? Nope.
Offer listing of sanctions for Inspection Cooperation. Use US inteligence agencies to make a silent strike. Anything, anything but war.
What is your definition of "flowing", they are pumping oil at less than half of capacity and the sales are still being tightly regulated by the oil for food program.
Do some research on Iraqi oil and then start talking about how much it is flowing.
Controlled by international companies and REGULATED by the oil for food program. With a Regime change there is a good chance that US corporations will be able to control the 55 proven but un drilled oil field as opposed to the 15 that international companies are now drilling. The production could easily rise from 1.8 mil barrels a day to 5 or 6 million a day, and US dependence on Saudi Arabia will be lowered.
Seems to me the UN will keep their fingers in the pie. The French will want in and the Germans and everyone else. The US won't have full control over the oil fields due to multilateralism, you know.
Just because we may not get it all does not mean that it is not an important factor in the impending war. It is not flowing, there is a ton that hasn't been developed, and American companies stand a good chance to get it, if there is a regime change. Under the current food for oil plan, the US has been the leader consumer of Iraqi oil.
Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the opposition Iraqi National Congress told the Washington Post "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil", in September of 2002.
I have been unable to find the overall numbers of the plan, but I know that for the duration of the program the US has been the leading consumer of Iraqi oil.
Wolvie, although I agree with most of what you say, are you also saying that because we have 5 Battle Groups(and even more) and 200,000 troops over there, that we MUST therefore, Use Them?
Not at all Bill. What I am saying is the window of oppotunity to use them is closing. If we do not go soon, we will have to wait until later this year and then do the build up all over again.
By the way, when I was in the Navy, we rotated out ships and battle groups all the time, every six months in the Atlantic Fleet, and every ten months in the Pacfic Fleet.
That is nothing new.
But did we ever have this many ships in one location? If we rotate some of the battle groups out do we have another to replace it?
I won't hold my breath to see a review of French President Jacques Chirac's extensive business ties with Saddam, stretching back 26 years to his sale of two nuclear reactors to Iraq with enough weapons-grade uranium to build three or four nuclear bombs.
Chirac also spearheaded a $1.5-billion weapons deal with Saddam which included 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The man who hugged the murderer Robert Mugabe this past week has regularly referred to Hussein as his close personal friend.
More recently in July, France signed a $5.3-billion deal with Iraq for non-oil related goods and services. Last year, Chiracs France made more money out of the UNs oil for food program than any other nation, and has consistently lobbied for reduced sanctions.
When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected, saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. Since 1996, France has sold directly or indirectly $14 billion worth of French goods to Iraq.
I wont hold my breath for a march denouncing Frances huge role in selling weapons to Iraq and financing Saddams brutal regimes efforts to stay in power, but France isnt the only nation with business interests in Iraq. Russia is owed $20 billion by Saddams regime. Do you think a new government would want to honour those obligations? Maybe the Russians dont want to take a chance and find out.
Just over two weeks ago Russia signed a $200-million US contract with Iraq in the areas of transportation and communications. Several months ago it signed a $1.52-billion deal.
No nation has done more business since 1996 with Iraq in the oil-for-food program.
According to the UN, Russias scope of the business with Iraq surpassed $4.5-billion US in the past six years. The United Nations also goes on to point out that it has approved, under the oil-for-food program, 798 contracts between France and Iraq, 862 contracts for Russia and 227 contracts with China.
"If he was a real American, he would have shot him."
- Radio talk-show host Don Imus, suggesting yesterday that CBS News anchor Dan Rather missed a patriotic opportunity while conducting a rare interview this week with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
If it is about the oil why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? After all most of the hijackers of 9-11 were Saudis. Or why don't we attack Venezuela? They are having problems getting the oil due to strikes. How about Russia? They are in shambles. Don't we need to keep that oil flowing? Or why don't we just drill in ANWR? You war for oil nuts are way way out there.
France now a major trading partner of Iraq What do you have to say about this tim?
Why don't we just attack France too? Russia too.
If it is about the oil why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? After all most of the hijackers of 9-11 were Saudis. Or why don't we attack Venezuela? They are having problems getting the oil due to strikes. How about Russia? They are in shambles. Don't we need to keep that oil flowing? Or why don't we just drill in ANWR? You war for oil nuts are way way out there.
Not as many people have an irrational fear of any of those countries. They don't have a nationaly recognized "boogie man", that will scare the American public into supporting a ridiculous war.
Bill- actually Jethro was trying to prove that oil was "flowing" out of Iraq. That article did absolutely nothing to prove his point, and I found it somewhat humorous that I could post the same article to actually prove a point. American companies buy more Iraqi oil than anyone else. The reason it is in-directly, is because it is illegal for American companies to even explore Iraqi oil fields, let alone drill them.
OK, tim, let's stop buying oil. Let the power plants go silent, the cars and trucks and planes sit idle, the lights and heat go out in our homes and offices. Then we can all light candles to peace.
Why don't we just attack France too? Why not they won'tput up much, if any, fight!
Not as many people have an irrational fear of any of those countries. They don't have a nationaly recognized "boogie man", that will scare the American public into supporting a ridiculous war. You call it irrational. You "peace at any cost" folks seem irrational to me.
Obviously you didn’t see her news conference. When she got bombarded with a lot of questions and made to think quick and not go on rehearsed statements she sounded as though one reason for the protest was to get publicity. Just my view point.
Government school, I would much rather go to a private school run by the rich families that have benefited from corruption, duh.
I take great offense to this statement. I went to private school and my parents weren’t rich with money. No rich families set up the school I went to. My kids will go to private school also. They will get a far better education in my opinion.
tim wrote: "we aren't going to ever be safe again."
Rick responded: We weren't ever safe, just complacent.
For once, Rick, we are in 100% agreement.
Let the inspections work. War is not the only option left.
The inspections aren't working. Iraq has done everything it can to inhibit the inspections. War is the only option left unless Saddam goes into exile.
Especially when we are setting the standard that pre-emptive war is okay, I want proof that he is really a threat. Iraq signed a peace agreement to end the war of 1991. Iraq is not living up to that agreement. It is not a preemptive strike but a continuation of the prior conflict.
You guys mis-understood my comments on schooling. First of all I was joking around. Second of all I was talking about going to college, and that got mixed up with what I have said about the ethnocentric brain washing which I was referring to public schools K-12 which I have participated in. I am still mad that I have spent 12 years of my life in the public school system, learning lies and half truths, I would have loved to have had the ability to go to a private school, I don't know if it would have been better, but I know I would have recieved a better education. And THX, I know that A LOT more money goes into public schools than private, I am assuming you are talking about government dollars here? The reason I made this comment is because someone jokingly asked "how much to you want to bet he will go to a Federal School", after I wrote that I don't support American Imperialism OR ethnocentrisism, I can understand the mis-understanding.
Hey Timmers! Shouldn't you be in school right now?
THX- If you don't realise what type of foreign policy the US has been enacting since the Cold War, and you look away from all of the times the US has been caught breaking international human rights laws for what in reality is the underground expansion of our corporate empire, then you have been brainwashed. All we have in Iraq is a more mainstream expansion and no one cares because they are scared. Can anyone tell me why they are scared? The Media? Really? Interesting....
The Civil War, now I not a huge Civil War buff, so correct me if I am wrong. I am thinking that slavery was one of the issues fought over in the civil war. There was a time when no one was standing up against the exteremely immoral idea of slavery. Slavery was widely accepted, especially in the south. People stood up and protested, they fought against the idea of slavery untill the problem escalated into Civil War? I think it is like that roughly, not sure, I am sorry. I know there were other issues, you have to excuse me, I am publicly educated (hehe). If those people had not stood up and said "no", slavery is wrong then this country will not be where it is at today. It took courage, and it takes courage for that girl to stand up for what SHE believes is right. Maybe not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I presume that news conferences can be stressful.
and WW1 and WW2 has a little bit more evidence.
tim: Abolitionists were not a huge number of people. Lincoln would not have ended slavery he said so. His emancipation proclamation only freed those slaves that were in states that were in rebellion against the union. the offer was made to the southern states to rejoin the union prior to the effective date of the Emancipation proclamation and if they had slavery would have continued in those states apparently indefinitely.
US has been caught breaking international human rights laws
What, precisely, are you referring to?
Jethro give me a few hours to put together something.
So Saddam is contained right now. So we should just let our 200,000 troops sit there indeffinitly? That is not feasable. We have 5 aircraft carrier groups there and they will need to be rotated out for maintenance. We can not keep this build up there forever. Saddam has proven time and again that he will not do what is needed to avert war. We will go in, take him out and then leave a international peace keeping force there while the Iraq government gets set.
As to the inspections. Everyone says give inspections a chance. What everyone forgets is that the inspectors are not there to find WMD. They are there to VERIFY that Saddam has disarmed. Saddam refuses to do that. He is in material breach AGAIN . So again I ask, how many chnances do we keep giving him? When is enough enough?
Can anyone tell me why they are scared?
Wolvie- How is this Iraq operation going to work in your mind? WE go in kill Saddam, and leave? We will have to occupy for a MINIMUM of one year, costing the tax payers BILLIONS, some experts actually think that the occupation will take upwards of 5 years. So you are arguing that it is okay if we have thousands of troups over there, as long as Saddam is dead? Even though he doesn't have any WMD's and he is under containment?
And I know THX is not ignoratnt enough to believe war with Iraq will protect us from terrorists. But I bet you could get a job as CNN or Fox news...
How is this Iraq operation going to work in your mind? WE go in kill Saddam, and leave? We will have to occupy for a MINIMUM of one year, costing the tax payers BILLIONS, some experts actually think that the occupation will take upwards of 5 years. So you are arguing that it is okay if we have thousands of troups over there, as long as Saddam is dead?
Once we go in Saddam will either run or give up. If he gives up we will be put on trial for war crimes and acts against humanity. Yes we will have to occupy Iraq. It will not be the U.S.A. alone. Once we liberate Ieaq, an international/U.N. peace keeping force will take over. Just like in Afghanistan. Countries like France and Germany will want to be involved at this point. They have billions of dollars in oil deals to look after. When Iraq is liberated the U.S.A. will have help rebuilding Iraq and keeping it stable.
Even though he doesn't have any WMD's and he is under containment?
You really have to be niave to believe he has no WMD. Of course you have the ignorance of youth.
Instead of listing several instances I think it is a good idea to just focus on Iraq.
We bomb the hell out of them 12 years ago in Desert Storm, we not only take out military targets, but also targets to crumble the Iraqi infrastructure, directly hurting the civilians. The lose their right to have clean water, electricity, and sanitation. Then we slap sanctions on the country to stop Huissain from making weapons, which makes sence because he doens't care about his people. But the people are still suffering, the infant mortality rate is doubling and the quality of life for innocent Iraqi citizens is plummeting. Everyone is being hurt by the sanctions, not just Huissain. Instead of working with Iraq to reward them for complying with the UN security councels resolutuon to disarm Iraq, by lifting key sanctions to allow humanitarian relief, we start the oil for food program which allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in order to feed its people. There is not enough food, and they are still unable to rebuild and semblance of infrastructure because only food and medicine were available for purchase. Now we are going to attack them again?
If Saddam has no WMD why is everyone that opposes war with Iraq concerned he will use them?
get rid of Saddam then you can get rid of all sanctions and those problems will be taken care of.
Instead of working with Iraq to reward them for complying with the UN security councels resolutuon to disarm Iraq
Please list the resolutions that Iraq has complied with.
by lifting key sanctions to allow humanitarian relief, we start the oil for food program which allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in order to feed its people.
Which Saddam used the money from to buy more military weapons and ingredients for WMD. Plus to build his palaces with.
There is not enough food, and they are still unable to rebuild and semblance of infrastructure because only food and medicine were available for purchase.
If he complies with the resolutions or leaves the country, we will start to provide what they need. You do not reward behaivor that is detrimental to the region.
Now we are going to attack them again?
Yes
Once we go in Saddam will either run or give up. If he gives up we will be put on trial for war crimes and acts against humanity. Yes we will have to occupy Iraq. It will not be the U.S.A. alone. Once we liberate Ieaq, an international/U.N. peace keeping force will take over. Just like in Afghanistan. Countries like France and Germany will want to be involved at this point. They have billions of dollars in oil deals to look after. When Iraq is liberated the U.S.A. will have help rebuilding Iraq and keeping it stable.
You know, and I know that the US will and should have the 'burden' of an occupation in post-war Iraq. You know about France and Germany having interest in oil deals? A US led regime change will moer than likely see the oil deals come our way, and if you don't think so than you are wrong. Liberate Iraq from one evil, so our evil can take over. Oil is a large reason for this war, you know that, I know that, anyone that knows anything knows that.
You really have to be niave to believe he has no WMD. Of course you have the ignorance of youth.
Attacking my age shows that you have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject. If they had WMD's they would have used them prior or during either Desert Storm, or certainly Desert Fox. I am not saying that we should leave Iraq alone and 'hope' they don't unhide all the WMD's that people are do sure that they have, I am saying that we don't need war to dissarm them.
While France and Russia wanted to encourage compliance with UNSC 687, by offering lifting of sanctions in responce to cooperation with the resolution, the plan was deflated by the US and Britain.
I agree that it would be great if Saddam complied with the resolutions voluntarily and/or left voluntarily, that hasn't happened so what are we going to do? I say instead of dragging our feet on possible diplomatic solutions, we work as hard as possible to avoid war.
I know the UN imposed the sanctions, but the US is the one that wants to go to war. So far the sanctions have "worked" to keep Saddam from increasing his WMD arsenal, that we still aren't sure if he has.
Liberate Iraq from one evil, so our evil can take over. What evil?Oil is a large reason for this war, you know that, I know that, anyone that knows anything knows that. It isn't about oil the oil is flowing.
If they had WMD's they would have used them prior or during either Desert Storm, or certainly Desert Fox. Some people believe they did. Maybe they knew the US wasn't going to Bagdad before and kneww if they used them we would. There could be a number of reasosn why they haven't used them-YET.I am not saying that we should leave Iraq alone and 'hope' they don't unhide all the WMD's that people are do sure that they have, I am saying that we don't need war to dissarm them. What is it, then, that is going to make Saddam disarm?
It isn't about oil the oil is flowing.
Where to? A country that has proven oil supplies that would make them number 2 in the world to Saudi Arabia, and possibly pass the Saudies, and the oil is flowing? Nope.
Offer listing of sanctions for Inspection Cooperation. Use US inteligence agencies to make a silent strike. Anything, anything but war.
Anything, anything but war.
Yes please put the gun to our heads and pull the triger. Anything, anything but war.
It isn't about oil the oil is flowing.
Where to? A country that has proven oil supplies that would make them number 2 in the world to Saudi Arabia, and possibly pass the Saudies, and the oil is flowing? Nope. It was flowing in 2001. See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html
Iraq oil was flowing in 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1916755.stm
What is your definition of "flowing", they are pumping oil at less than half of capacity and the sales are still being tightly regulated by the oil for food program.
Do some research on Iraqi oil and then start talking about how much it is flowing.
Do some research on Iraqi oil and then start talking about how much it is flowing.
Maybe you should too. http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/wu030225.html
It seems to me there is plenty of control over Iraq oil without war.
Just testing the site..pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....
Students at the U bring it on home for peace, love and understanding
Controlled by international companies and REGULATED by the oil for food program. With a Regime change there is a good chance that US corporations will be able to control the 55 proven but un drilled oil field as opposed to the 15 that international companies are now drilling. The production could easily rise from 1.8 mil barrels a day to 5 or 6 million a day, and US dependence on Saudi Arabia will be lowered.
Seems to me the UN will keep their fingers in the pie. The French will want in and the Germans and everyone else. The US won't have full control over the oil fields due to multilateralism, you know.
Just because we may not get it all does not mean that it is not an important factor in the impending war. It is not flowing, there is a ton that hasn't been developed, and American companies stand a good chance to get it, if there is a regime change. Under the current food for oil plan, the US has been the leader consumer of Iraqi oil.
Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the opposition Iraqi National Congress told the Washington Post "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil", in September of 2002.
I don't think anyone here would deny that oil plays a big part in the decision to go to war.
But to look at the motive as merely one of acquring oil misses the point. It's about the movementof oil at market prices.
Really? I would like to see ANY data that supports that statement.
Complements of Jethro. Post 1106
jethro bodine 2/26/03 12:46pm
Would you like me to do some more research for you, on ANY data at all?
I have been unable to find the overall numbers of the plan, but I know that for the duration of the program the US has been the leading consumer of Iraqi oil.
Sorry, but I do not believe that at all.
Wolvie, although I agree with most of what you say, are you also saying that because we have 5 Battle Groups(and even more) and 200,000 troops over there, that we MUST therefore, Use Them?
Not at all Bill. What I am saying is the window of oppotunity to use them is closing. If we do not go soon, we will have to wait until later this year and then do the build up all over again.
By the way, when I was in the Navy, we rotated out ships and battle groups all the time, every six months in the Atlantic Fleet, and every ten months in the Pacfic Fleet.
That is nothing new.
But did we ever have this many ships in one location? If we rotate some of the battle groups out do we have another to replace it?
tim,
BTW, please name or site ANYresolutions that Saddam has complied with.
I won't hold my breath to see a review of French President Jacques Chirac's extensive business ties with Saddam, stretching back 26 years to his sale of two nuclear reactors to Iraq with enough weapons-grade uranium to build three or four nuclear bombs.
Chirac also spearheaded a $1.5-billion weapons deal with Saddam which included 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The man who hugged the murderer Robert Mugabe this past week has regularly referred to Hussein as his close personal friend.
More recently in July, France signed a $5.3-billion deal with Iraq for non-oil related goods and services. Last year, Chiracs France made more money out of the UNs oil for food program than any other nation, and has consistently lobbied for reduced sanctions.
When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected, saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. Since 1996, France has sold directly or indirectly $14 billion worth of French goods to Iraq.
I wont hold my breath for a march denouncing Frances huge role in selling weapons to Iraq and financing Saddams brutal regimes efforts to stay in power, but France isnt the only nation with business interests in Iraq. Russia is owed $20 billion by Saddams regime. Do you think a new government would want to honour those obligations? Maybe the Russians dont want to take a chance and find out.
Just over two weeks ago Russia signed a $200-million US contract with Iraq in the areas of transportation and communications. Several months ago it signed a $1.52-billion deal.
No nation has done more business since 1996 with Iraq in the oil-for-food program.
According to the UN, Russias scope of the business with Iraq surpassed $4.5-billion US in the past six years. The United Nations also goes on to point out that it has approved, under the oil-for-food program, 798 contracts between France and Iraq, 862 contracts for Russia and 227 contracts with China.
France now a major trading partner of Iraq
What do you have to say about this tim?
"If he was a real American, he would have shot him."
- Radio talk-show host Don Imus, suggesting yesterday that CBS News anchor Dan Rather missed a patriotic opportunity while conducting a rare interview this week with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Grammar Police To Aisle Three
Grammar Police To Aisle Three
If it is about the oil why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? After all most of the hijackers of 9-11 were Saudis. Or why don't we attack Venezuela? They are having problems getting the oil due to strikes. How about Russia? They are in shambles. Don't we need to keep that oil flowing? Or why don't we just drill in ANWR? You war for oil nuts are way way out there.
France now a major trading partner of Iraq What do you have to say about this tim?
Why don't we just attack France too? Russia too.
If it is about the oil why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? After all most of the hijackers of 9-11 were Saudis. Or why don't we attack Venezuela? They are having problems getting the oil due to strikes. How about Russia? They are in shambles. Don't we need to keep that oil flowing? Or why don't we just drill in ANWR? You war for oil nuts are way way out there.
Not as many people have an irrational fear of any of those countries. They don't have a nationaly recognized "boogie man", that will scare the American public into supporting a ridiculous war.
Bill- actually Jethro was trying to prove that oil was "flowing" out of Iraq. That article did absolutely nothing to prove his point, and I found it somewhat humorous that I could post the same article to actually prove a point. American companies buy more Iraqi oil than anyone else. The reason it is in-directly, is because it is illegal for American companies to even explore Iraqi oil fields, let alone drill them.
OK, tim, let's stop buying oil. Let the power plants go silent, the cars and trucks and planes sit idle, the lights and heat go out in our homes and offices. Then we can all light candles to peace.
Pointless exaggeration, Muskwa.
Is sacrifice too much to ask of the people of this country?
Are we that soft?
Why don't we just attack France too? Why not they won'tput up much, if any, fight!
Not as many people have an irrational fear of any of those countries. They don't have a nationaly recognized "boogie man", that will scare the American public into supporting a ridiculous war. You call it irrational. You "peace at any cost" folks seem irrational to me.