REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Andy Mcnab and the war on terror

POSTED BY: CITIZEN
UPDATED: Saturday, July 30, 2005 21:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2198
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:55 PM

CITIZEN


Just read a few choice quotes from Andy McNab (ex-SAS, served in the 1st gulf war in the legendary Bravo Two Zero) :

Why are we really in Iraq?
Quote:


For the oil, thats it. The first attacks in the war weren't on the mainland - they were on oil rigs. Saddam wasn't a threat. You can moan about it from a moral point of view, but if you were paying £8 a gallon, there'd be riots in the streets. Iran's got a lot of gas, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.



Rendition:
Quote:


This is where you sieze a suspect for interrogation. Western goverments want to keep to their civil liberties laws, so you lift a suspect from the streets and fly them to a friendly country - often Pakistan or a north African country. Western goverments can then say, "We don't torture anyone." You just get someone in another country to do it for you.



When will our troops come home?
Quote:


Britain and America will want it to look like we've come home. But there's no exit plan. The US will be enclosed in their military cities, and we'll have our little bit down south. We'll say we've handed over to the Iraqi military, but we'll still have a huge military presence, because the troops who are no longer in Saudi will be stationed in Iraq instead.



A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:04 PM

SERGEANTX


Why do you hate America?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:07 PM

CITIZEN


Who said I hate America, exactly?

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:08 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


"I'm Andy McNab, I'm Andy McNab, I'm Andy McNab, I'm Andie MacDowell. . .*worried groan*"

(I couldn't resist.)

------------------
"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:12 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Just read a few choice quotes from Andy McNab (ex-SAS, served in the 1st gulf war in the legendary Bravo Two Zero) :

Why are we really in Iraq?
Quote:


For the oil, thats it. The first attacks in the war weren't on the mainland - they were on oil rigs.





I was involved on the "attacks" on the oil rigs. Our purpose wasn't to take them over so that America could have more oil. It was to prevent Hussein from causing mass ecological disaster as he did setting the Kuwaiti oilfields on fire during the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. We had figures in hand concerning how much oil would spill into the gulf if those things were destroyed, and so we acted to prevent that catastrophe from taking place.

Don't take Andy McNab's word for it. He's acting on supposition without first hand knowledge. I was there. I was involved. It wasn't a hostile take over for oil that motivated us to grab those GOPLATS. It was to prevent ecological disaster.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:15 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Just read a few choice quotes from Andy McNab (ex-SAS, served in the 1st gulf war in the legendary Bravo Two Zero) :

Why are we really in Iraq?
Quote:


For the oil, thats it. The first attacks in the war weren't on the mainland - they were on oil rigs.





I was involved on the "attacks" on the oil rigs. Our purpose wasn't to take them over so that America could have more oil. It was to prevent Hussein from causing mass ecological disaster as he did setting the Kuwaiti oilfields on fire during the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. We had figures in hand concerning how much oil would spill into the gulf if those things were destroyed, and so we acted to prevent that catastrophe from taking place.

Don't take Andy McNab's word for it. He's acting on supposition without first hand knowledge. I was there. I was involved. It wasn't a hostile take over for oil that motivated us to grab those GOPLATS. It was to prevent ecological disaster.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.



I can accept that, its not without presedent, I suppose...
But, come on, Oil is at least one of the motivations for the war.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:05 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Who said I hate America, exactly?



I was just trying to beat AJ to the punch.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Let me fill in for the Bushies:

Why do you hate America? We invaded because of the massive stockpiles of WMD, which were ready to be deployed, buried under a rosebush in Syria. If we hadn't, Saddam would have used his oil to create the WMD he already had.

You're just appeasing them, ALL of them. They should all be slagged into glass because of the atrocities they commit. We really don't hate Muslims, it's their religion. So support our troops!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:26 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Just read a few choice quotes from Andy McNab (ex-SAS, served in the 1st gulf war in the legendary Bravo Two Zero) :

Why are we really in Iraq?
Quote:


For the oil, thats it. The first attacks in the war weren't on the mainland - they were on oil rigs.





I was involved on the "attacks" on the oil rigs. Our purpose wasn't to take them over so that America could have more oil. It was to prevent Hussein from causing mass ecological disaster as he did setting the Kuwaiti oilfields on fire during the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. We had figures in hand concerning how much oil would spill into the gulf if those things were destroyed, and so we acted to prevent that catastrophe from taking place.

Don't take Andy McNab's word for it. He's acting on supposition without first hand knowledge. I was there. I was involved. It wasn't a hostile take over for oil that motivated us to grab those GOPLATS. It was to prevent ecological disaster.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.



I can accept that, its not without presedent, I suppose...
But, come on, Oil is at least one of the motivations for the war.



You very well could be right. But I wasn't in on the decision making process for going to war. Just for grabbing the GOPLATs.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:27 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
We really don't hate Muslims, it's their religion.



Signy, that's funny! May I quote you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But, come on, Oil is at least one of the motivations for the war.

Why?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2005 8:13 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Just read a few choice quotes from Andy McNab (ex-SAS, served in the 1st gulf war in the legendary Bravo Two Zero) :

Why are we really in Iraq?
Quote:


For the oil, thats it. The first attacks in the war weren't on the mainland - they were on oil rigs. Saddam wasn't a threat. You can moan about it from a moral point of view, but if you were paying £8 a gallon, there'd be riots in the streets. Iran's got a lot of gas, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.



Rendition:
Quote:


This is where you sieze a suspect for interrogation. Western goverments want to keep to their civil liberties laws, so you lift a suspect from the streets and fly them to a friendly country - often Pakistan or a north African country. Western goverments can then say, "We don't torture anyone." You just get someone in another country to do it for you.



When will our troops come home?
Quote:


Britain and America will want it to look like we've come home. But there's no exit plan. The US will be enclosed in their military cities, and we'll have our little bit down south. We'll say we've handed over to the Iraqi military, but we'll still have a huge military presence, because the troops who are no longer in Saudi will be stationed in Iraq instead.



A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields



I always think, looking at past actions normally helps you figure out where things are going... and sometimes why.

That said, I would also like to throw in no matter what we think, or why we think it.... the opinion of the people who live in the places which have been invaded are going to be just a little more important to the outcome of this mess...

I think that is just a minor reason I found this article so interesting :

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/45CDB208-0432-426A-A7D5-B415DAB
01173.htm




When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:05 AM

CITIZEN


http://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.html

erm, if you gave my a reason as to why you were asking why I might be able to tell you...

rather than just throwing my sentence away with a one word answer...

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Whats so criminal about not wanting a tyrannical dictator holding the Western world hostage with high oil prices ? Or him using the $$ from oil sales to build up his army (again)??

We're still in Bosnia, aren't we? Clinton said we'd be out of there by Christmas ( never said what year, though) Some exit strategy we've got there too.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:00 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We're still in Bosnia, aren't we? Clinton said we'd be out of there by Christmas ( never said what year, though) Some exit strategy we've got there too.



Exactly. All you have to do is read Bush's foreign policy papers, or those of his cabinet, and it becomes overwhelmingly clear. They're just getting started.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
erm, if you gave my a reason as to why you were asking why I might be able to tell you...

Why do I need to give you a reason? Is the answer you give going to be dependent on why I’m asking, and if so, why?

In any event, however, the site you linked told me what I wanted to know so I’m content with your response, if that site is indeed representative of what you believe.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:38 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:


Whats so criminal about not wanting a tyrannical dictator holding the Western world hostage with high oil prices ? Or him using the $$ from oil sales to build up his army (again)??



You mean like how America held Japan hostage for its oil supplies before Perl Harbour?
Or how Bush is using the situation in Iraq and Iraqi oil to line his pockets and those of his friends?
No I'm sure theres absolutly nothing wrong with it.

Finn:
Quote:


Why do I need to give you a reason? Is the answer you give going to be dependent on my I’m asking, and if so, why?


Yep, because I wasn't sure why you were asking why...
why?
because, just because...
theres way too many whys in that sentence and I've confused myself...
It's just it seemed a very short question, that to fully answer would have required a very long answer, is all...
Besides, from what little I know about your personallity, I saw it as a possibillity that you might just keep asking me Why? to every answer, a prospect that pained me...
...deep inside...

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:51 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Whats so criminal about not wanting a tyrannical dictator holding the Western world hostage with high oil prices ? Or him using the $$ from oil sales to build up his army (again)??

We're still in Bosnia, aren't we? Clinton said we'd be out of there by Christmas ( never said what year, though) Some exit strategy we've got there too.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "



Didn't you defend capitalism in the other thread ?

Have oil prices dropped at all lately?

is the US the only one allowed to have a military now ?

If invasion for economic reasons is ethical.... then what was the problem with Iraq taking Kuwait in the first place ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 8:05 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Whats so criminal about not wanting a tyrannical dictator holding the Western world hostage with high oil prices?



I know others have commented on this here, but it's worth a little more. The oil is on their land. It is in effect theirs. We don't like that, we better suck it up and work on those hydrogen cars. Or maybe we should just get our oil someplace else...um...hey! Wait a minute!

What's wrong with it? I'd say using the term "hostage" in this context is in poor taste considering the actual hostages being taken, tortured and beheaded by our enemies. Oh, and human lives really should be more important than cheap oil. "Sorry, Mrs. America, your son is dead, but gas prices are down 50 cents a gallon!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:29 AM

HKCAVALIER


AURaptor's post illustrates how easy it is to forget what's really at stake here: human lives, a good number of them innocent. Before 9/11 no one here would have conscienced it. Now our friends and neighbors discuss the relative merits of genocide at cocktail parties and everyone is supposed to have a stance on the effectiveness of torture. Just as violent television numbs viewers, our violence-soaked discourse coopts atrocity and turns the unthinkable into an online battle for coolness points. I'm not saying I don't participate in the coolness point race, but that's what online chat boards have always been about. They haven't always been about glass parkinglots and what constitutes torture or not (well, not most boards anyway).

We have a lot of soldiers and ex-soldiers on this board. Some support the war in Iraq, some do not. Many folks who thought the war was just and righteous to begin with, have since changed their tune. Enough sons and daughters die and Americans at home turn against the war. Are we all just that selfish? Let the war do its thing as long as it doesn't directly affect ourselves, our neighbors or loved ones?

I personally have too much empathy for that. Sometimes I wish I didn't; I'd feel a little more, you know, comfortable in the world. I've been accused of being disingenuous, being a hypocrite, soft-headed, having "fits," being unrealistic to the point of madness or absurdity because I don't believe the stakes are high enough to justify the systematic destruction of a people and their way of life no matter how barbaric, backward or inhumane that way of life may be. Their way of life is theirs and it works for them somehow. I'm not saying we can never do anything about injustice in the world, but we missed our opportunity in Iraq when we stood by while Hussein quietly kill off all the folks that wanted revolution after the first Gulf War.

This war-- which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over there--is not about how Iraq didn't work for the Iraqis, it's about how Iraq no longer served our purposes.



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:45 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Of all the motivations for this war in Iraq, oil is one of the least credible. If Oil was what we wanted then we should have been on the side of the French and the Russians, because the Iraqi oil was a lot cheaper under Saddam Hussein and the Oil-for-Food program then ever will be again. The Iraqi people will not be as quick to sell their oil at below market value as Hussein was, and you have the US and the UK to thank for that.

And then there is the cost of the war - billions per month, which basically means that the price of any oil we purchase from Iraq is doubled as a result of that overhead. Furthermore, one wonders why the US fails to attack Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, if the oil is what the US is after. And for those who insist that there was never any reason to attack Iraq but oil, why hasn’t the US invaded the UAE, a nation with considerable oil supply, yet virtually no military or allies capable of fielding a defense against the US? A perfect target for a country with such amoral priorities as is suggested by some on the Left.

Finally, there has never been any evidence of a policy to go to war for oil or any endemic or secret corruption within the Bush or Blair administrations. Although accusations are thrown around recklessly by people with little or no knowledge of what they are talking about or obvious bias, there is scant evidence, just speculation. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that corruption for oil did exist on the side of the countries who adamantly opposed the war and the UN bureaucracy going all the way to the top of the United Nations leadership.

The principle arguments that are often used to justify the “war for oil” speculation are that Iraq has considerable oil deposits, and that no other motivations exist. Indeed Iraq does have considerable oil deposits but so do many other countries which the US has not invaded, many of which are much easier targets then Iraq. Finally, the assertions that no other motivations exists is pure fantasy.

The best evidence anyone has been able to provide for such accusations is simply the existence of Iraqi oil, and that’s pretty weak. On the other hand, there are many other motivations for which there is considerable evidence. There was a legitimate interest in the disarmament of Iraq by the international community, and Hussein refused to disarm or demonstrate any evidence of such disarmament despite a decade of pressure by the UN and other counties including 17 Resolutions. Iraq was one of, if not the largest, threat to stability in the Middle East, prompting two majors wars, one involving 34 nations and a UN mandate. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and had made at least one assassination attempt against a former US president. The US and the UK were in constant conflict with Iraqi troops over the no-fly zones. And without a doubt one of the concerns for the US and the UK was that Hussein was a Cold War ally and a beneficiary of US aid who may have become too belligerent to control, and many in the administrations felt responsible for removing Hussein. There are other motivations that I didn’t mention, but of all except the most ridiculous, oil is among the least likely.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:03 AM

HKCAVALIER


I really think a lot of Finn's points here are valid. The War for Oil argument has always seemed to me be too simple and too simply a slam against the Administration. It really doesn't belong in the discussion any more than the statement "The Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt mothers!" The War for Oil argument really undermines any discussion. There is no evidence other than a kind of look-at-the-big-picture gestalt. Am I wrong about this?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:56 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


I am wondering why people are still pointing at the French and the Russians to blame for the Food for Oil fiasco....

If the UN security council wasn't chained by the veto, I think it would have lifted the sanctions more or less completely at an early date...

I have read of the opposition to these policys of France, Russia, Germany and others.... As well as the fact that two seperate UN high commisioners overseeing the project had resigned saying that the sanctions were equal to genocide.

In addition, the US did and still does control the gulf.... as well as the primary overland exports out of Turkey, and for a large part it was American companys moving the oil.

So HK... if not for oil, then why ? could you explain US policys in the region for the past fifty years ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:28 AM

HKCAVALIER


Sorry for generalizing, Gino. When I said "a lot of Finn's points here are valid," I didn't mean the Food for Oil argument (frankly, I didn't really want to read his post again to itemize my response; the guy bugs me). I was merely speaking to what I saw as a fruitless discussion. That some arguments are weaker than others, doesn't mean they're less true. If that were how things worked, our legal system would be foolproof. The war for oil argument is like a lot of marxist arguments, it comes down to questions of interpretation, philosophy and most importantly motives which are very hard to argue about unless they're you're own.

Why do we care about the Middle East at all? Oil has a lot to do with it, certainly. But I think a major reason for our willingness to kill over there is their difference and their military inferiority. It's very similar to how we say we "settled" America, instead of saying we commited a genocide against the original inhabitants. The arabic peoples are different enough from us to make it less like killing a person and more like seccuring rights to a bit of oil rich land. If the Iraqis were english speaking white people, I think we'd handle them a little differently. I think our utter lack of respect for difference and our confidence that we can kick their butts in a fight, have as much to do with why we are at war as the greed that makes us want what is theirs. But how am I gonna argue these points with the likes of Finn and Hero and AJ?



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:42 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I really think a lot of Finn's points here are valid. The War for Oil argument has always seemed to me be too simple and too simply a slam against the Administration. It really doesn't belong in the discussion any more than the statement "The Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt mothers!" The War for Oil argument really undermines any discussion. There is no evidence other than a kind of look-at-the-big-picture gestalt. Am I wrong about this?



I agree. But here's a bizarre irony related to this argument. I've run into a fair number of Bush supporters (not all or even most, but a significant number) who do see this as a war to secure our access to oil. And they'll argue that that is a fair justification for going to war.

I'm not say Bush supports this POV, but I'm curious if many of you have seen the same kind of attitude?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:56 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Thats is an interesting arguement.....

kinda leads to questions like if atomic weapons were available before the defeat of Germany, would they have been used... or is that sort of thing reserved to the yellow, black, or brown of this world.

I have heard an arguement that the control of oil is what is at question, not actually the use of it... deny the developing economys of China, India, etc access to making deals for cheaper oil and gas( like India did with Chavez ) so that the US economy isn't as threatened by competition.... Sort of getting everyone to jump on the free trade bandwagon, but making sure that the other guys up front cost are going to be more.


When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:15 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Thats is an interesting arguement.....

kinda leads to questions like if atomic weapons were available before the defeat of Germany, would they have been used... or is that sort of thing reserved to the yellow, black, or brown of this world.


I think it's important to understand that consciousness has been raised in the world since 1939. Yes, genuine progress has been made in the fight for human rights. As the world gets smaller, it actually does get harder for bigotry to find footing. I think that's the central reason for this campaign against Islam and the Koran; to promote and sustain the idea that Muslims are fundamentally different from us. Turning off their human, makes it that much easier to turn off our own.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:19 PM

CITIZEN


Those would be the nuclear weapons hidden under that bush in Syria, right.

Can anyone name for me the ONLY country to deploy nuclear weapons in war?
By that I mean, what country is the only nation with a proven track record of using nuclear weapons?

Quote:

original post by lynchaj:
If cheap oil was all the US wanted we would have just white washed the UN weapons inspection program and lifted the sanctions at any time. Presto, cheap Iraqi oil floods the market...


Oh I forgot, America being the only country in the world means they are the only country to have any say on UN policy.

Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world, and some we havent even explored yet to add to that.

I thought the North Sea oil supplies had been exhausted, but even if they're not they are severly depleted, Britain can't supply her own need from the North Sea, let alone any one elses.

Likewise Venezuela's supplies are running out, and Russia has less Oil left than north America.

Quote:


"I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil," news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.
"They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard."



Quote:


Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. 112 billion barrels lie below the country's desert sands, together with another probable 220 billion barrels of unproven reserves. What's more, the US Department of Energy says, "Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions."
This, plus the fact that "Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world, makes it a highly attractive oil prospect," says the department's latest country analysis. No wonder many critics believe that the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein is really a battle for Iraq's oil.



Theres also the fact that we were getting Oil from Iraq, but lets just ignore that, eh.

I don't think anyone has to accept the false premise that George Bush Jnr and the people who helped put him in power have nothing to gain from war with Iraq.


A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:22 PM

CITIZEN


I don't really want to argue about the situation at the end of WW2, but you seem to be saying that the US was justified for commiting genocide by leveling japanese cities with nuclear weapons because it meant they didn't have to commit a bigger attrocity...

Without Britain and France there's no UN.
In fact all UN nations have an equal say, it doesnt matter who started the organisation.

Using your argument there would be no USA without Britain, therefore there would be no UN with Britain, therefore Britain is more important than the US, or anyone else for that matter, to the UN.

Maybe your talking about financing, and yes, the US has the highest percentage of this, well on paper. The US is millions of dollars in arrears.
And financing issues do not effect who has a bigger say.

As far as I know North Korea has never been under as close a watch and control as Iraq.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 7:56 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Lynch was part right, Operations Coronet, and Olympic did calculate a huge butchers bill...

But the thing he doesn't say it that there was a peace movement in the Japanese high command. From the loss of the Phillipines on the Japanese high command were looking for any reasonable terms, the American government of course does not negotiate, and was only looking for total surrender and occupation...

Options did exist, and were ignored

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:29 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Ok, I'm tired and may (probably) have missed some of what I read/miss read/etc. But here it goes.

I think that it is ludicrous to push aside oil for one of the reasons for the invasion based on that it is an expensive one. Rummy himself said (pre-invasion) that they'd be in Bagdahd in days and the admin thought that there'd be not really any resistance afterward.

So, in essence, they thought it would take little time and money; comparitively speaking. Control over those oil reserves is worth a lot.

So, to say now that it is rediculous to say oil is a not a reason b/c look at how much money this invasion is costing really spits in the face of history.

And now, bed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL