Bush admits real motive for mid-east wars: Oil and Israel!!!

Actually it is evidence. If you think I'm surprised that you asked for evidence while waiting anxiously to reject whatever I said, I'm sorry to disappoint you. The evidence that the oil has not been taken is that the oil has not been taken. This is a simple fact. Iraqi oil is still state owned. I also pointed out a lot of inexplicable contradiction in US policies if the goal was to steal Iraqi oil.

Gardner, again, unless you are going to make an actual argument, I'm not going to respond to random links. I have no idea what you are trying to say with these links - they don't say anything about the US government stealing Iraq's oil. Tell me, in your own words, what your point is.

If your standards are "as long as its better than Fox news" then you need to raise your standards.

If you want to start a campaign to make Iraqis pay for all the weapons Saddam bought from Russia, go ahead. I don't think you'll find its very popular.

I don't know, how did it look for all the French families that lost people in the war and then saw French oil corporations doing deals? Apparently they got over it.

You mean exactly what people are saying is happening now. So what's the difference? Why fight two wars when we could have done it in one?

Everyone in the region funded Iraq to prevent Iran from winning the war, including Kuwait.

Would Saddam have invaded Kuwait if it had no oil? Would Saddam have been able to buy $43 billion of weapons and attack four neighboring countries and kill 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign if he didn't have oil money? Try looking at the whole picture.

How much oil was there in Kosovo? How much in Somalia? Try looking at HipForums - how much time do people here spend calling for action on Darfur. About 1/10,000th as much time as they do on Iraq or Israel or the Illuminati? We know why that is - until someone can find a way to blame America, Darfur doesn't matter. Its not like the left praised intervention in Sierra Leone by the British or in Somalia by the US - they created the same storm of hatred and loathing as intervention in any oil rich country.

Yeah that's a real accurate picture of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 

We've had this discussion before pepik. We aren't stealing their oil we are controlling their output, which at the moment better serves the needs of the Saudis and the multinational companies, because they can set their prices bases on their estimated output.

I prefer mine thank you they provide source material and don't try to spin the message.

What about the debts that George W. begged these three countries to forgive right after the occupation....I don't think they had anything to do with arms sales they had to do with oil that had been sold to these countries under the oil for food program and never paid.

How many French lives were lost in Desert Storm? 2

Who supplied him with arms?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920325wp.htm

Can I quote you on this?

 

Pepik

Since when is "what you say" evidence? and what we say "buzz"? NIce try neocon but you've been caught up in your own spin and as usuall, you're too stupid to admit it.

 

What sort of deals did the French do with Iraq Pepik, please supply documentation. My grandfather was French and I am tired of hearing people run them down on the one hand then bring them up as supportive information on the other. Support your claims please.

 

And please outline how the role of Christians has improved in Iraq since US occupation.

 

Funny how the US has to intercede in countries that previously it's provided arms to:

 

All this spinning has made me dizzy and marginally more susceptible to disinformation and the inability to discern holes in reasoning... something we might want to call "Pepik ulcers". The one isolated remaining shred of sense compels me to ask exactly who here claimed that the U.S. was in Iraq to "steal oil"? If I am not mistaken, the genesis of that rhetoric was from the neocon naysayer... putting words in the mouths of those who simply are arguing that the main reason we are there is because of oil. Perhaps I've identified one of the Pepik ulcers and my passing dizziness has not rendered me incapable of seeing the dim outlines of reason that is being blurred by bullshit.

Putting words in others' mouths to make them appear out of touch with reality does nothing to further your side of any debate and is a signal that you are unable to support your side with facts- other than the tidbits called facts because either you, the warmongers in charge, or neocon mouthpieces like Faux News say it's so.

 

How are we controlling their output? How does this better serve the needs of the Saudis and the multinationals? You keep skipping over the part where you back things up with facts or logic.

I don't remember him begging France for anything, perhaps you can find me a news story that says George Bush begged Chirac not to make Iraq pay its debts.

If the oil had never been paid for, then it would be France that owed Iraq money, wouldn't it. It was general sovereign debt. No payments had been made on the debt in at least a decade, so by "forgiving" it, these countries were only admitting that this debt was already worth nothing. Funny though that the left suddenly wants to see poor countries forced to pay off debt run up by dictators.

How many Americans were killed in Korea, and we do deals with China now. How many were killed in Vietnam, and we invest in Vietnam. You need to come up with a coherent argument.

About 99% were from France, the USSR, and China.

You can misquote me on it.

 

Yes we do deals now with China and Vietnam, does that make you proud? It doesn't make me proud and I don't buy their goods. I am sure you do.

You need to read your sources. You are still buying into the Rush Limbaugh statistics and facts, and we all know he's on drugs.

Bush ran France, Germany and Russia down before the Iraqi war, why because Iraq owed them money and they wanted to be paid back. Bush wanted his war and he wanted the debts expunged.

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=9094

 

And I am tired of trying to explain to how controlling the production of a product can lead to the control of the price. Read the articles and perhaps have a tutor explain them to you so you begin to understand. I am sorry you are having trouble digesting such a simple area of marketing.

 

Who supplied Iraqs weapons:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

 

My girlfriend is French. I'll provide the information gladly, although I'm surprised you don't know already. I thought you were telling me I was the one who needed to study my history.

From http://web.archive.org/web/20040920214353/projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

72 Mirage F-1C Fighter aircraft
36 Mirage F-1E FGA
31 SA-316B Alouette-3 Light helicopter
10 SA-321H Super Frelon Helicopter
6 SA-321H Super Frelon Helicopter
3 SA-330 Puma Helicopter
20 SA-330 Puma Helicopter
78 SA-342K/L Gazelle Light helicopter
5 Super Etendard FGA aircraft
85 AMX-GCT/AU-F1 Self-propelled gun
62 AML-60/90 Armoured car
25 AML-60/90 Armoured car
2 AML-60/90 Armoured car
100 AMX-10P IFV
5 AMX-30D ARV
50 ERC-90 Armoured car
150 ERC-90 Armoured car
115 M-3 VTT APC
25 M-3 VTT APC
2 Rasit Ground surv radar
13 Roland Mobile SAM system
100 Roland Mobile SAM system
1 TRS-2100 Tiger Air surv radar
5 TRS-2105/6 Tiger-G Air surv radar
6 TRS-2230/15 Air surv radar
5 Volex Air surv radar
388 AM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile
450 ARMAT Anti-radar missile
600 AS-12 ASM
64 AS-12 ASM
240 AS-30L ASM
2,050 HOT Anti-tank missile
1,000 HOT Anti-tank missile
600 HOT Anti-tank missile
3,750 MILAN Anti-tank missile
700 MILAN Anti-tank missile
534 R-550 Magic-1 SRAAM
2,260 Roland-2 SAM
1 000 SS-11/AS-11 Anti-tank missile
365 SS-11/AS-11 Anti-tank missile
300 Super-530F BVRAAM

Why? I never claimed anything about the role of Christians.

Wow, hope you didn't spend to much time thinking that one up. Anything to say on the topic while you're here? Because the pointless sneering job is already taken by higherthanhell.

 

What percentage of total arms purchased is that Pepik? You outline individual sales items but I think that amounts to a drop in the arms purchased bucket. Why shouldn't they allow their merchants of war to sell goods, everyone else in the free world was doing it. Read my previous link almost all countries were allowing sales of weapons, you stated France sold Iraq 99% of their arms. I don't think even you can verify that.

24 US companies and 50 subsidiaries were selling arms to them at the same time that only 8 French companies were.

 

I would gladly buy goods from either country. They were closed economies for decades, and they stagnated. Now they are opening up and prospering. Why would I refuse to buy their goods just to keep them poor?

Remind me where I quoted Rush Limbaugh. Or is this just a generic insult for anyone who deviates from the radical left party line?

They were never going to be paid back. As I pointed out, it had been a decade since any payments had been made on this debt. Debt has been forgiven for many countries. Perhaps one day you will forgive Bush for convincing rich countries to forgive debt to an impoverished country.

How did you get tired before you even started? And how do we control the production? You aren't backing up any aspect of this claim.

If you can't make your own argument in your own words, or at least summarise it, then you have outsourced your own opinions.

What does marketing have to do with anything?

 

Most reports credit Germany with the biggest sale of weapons to Iraq with the US coming in second.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1218-06.htm

 

Actually no, it was a spur of the moment quip, thank you for your concern. I'm honored to my core that such a right thinking cerebral fair minded debater such as yourself would pause to stoop and acknowledge my little reply. May I touch the hem of your robe?

I'm amused that you'd excise a small part of my post use it to characterize the whole post as off-topic. Now granted, I don't come armed with volumes of so-called evidence to refute your arguments point by point but was observing the manner in which you not only attack opposing viewpoints but also the intelligence of those expressing them... including the insinuation that my intelligence might be compromised... I trust you didn't linger long over your keyboard conjuring up that gem. Of course I did attack you a bit by associating your debate style with the spin style of Faux News. For that I most humbly apologize.

I guess I'm left wondering what exactly you hope to accomplish since it's more than a little doubtful that you're actually going to persuade anyone here that they are wrong. It's also clear any argument that the U.S. is in Iraq because of oil is not going to resonate with you as your mind is already made up. This leaves me wondering if your intent is to troll these boards to see what kind of entertaining responses your posts will flush out. Feel free to snip any fragment of this post to paint the entire message as off topic. I find that very entertaining.

 

Sorry I don't buy from tyrants just because it's a free market.

Germany, France and Russia did expect to receive payment, and that is one of the reasons they resisted US intervention in the area.

We control production of Iraqi oil by allowing unrest and not rebuilding the petroleum industry infrastructure as we had promised.

Marketing has everything to do with setting prices.

 

I'd still like Pepik to tell all of us why we are in Iraq. Please oh learned one enlighten us!

 

I for one will never forgive Bush or his administration for anything.

 

The religious situation, legal and otherwise, that I talked about under Hussein is 100% accurate. His government was a secular government that granted freedom of religion to its citizens. He put Chaldean Catholics in major cabinet posts, and Christian churches were granted the protection of the law. Christian girls today that go to school are attacked by Muslim thugs because they aren't wearing head scarves. Christian shop owners have their stores bombed by Muslim extremists because they sell alcohol. These things didn't happen under Saddam's government because Christians were protected by the law. The Iraqi government is now powerless to stop these things because the Muslim extremists are de facto in control of the country. They weren't under Saddam's government.

Those are facts. I didn't say Saddam Hussein was a saint. He wasn't. What he was, though, was a secular Muslim that didn't particularly care about the Muslim religion on a personal or societal level, and wasn't interested in having Sharia law in his country. This is exactly why Al-Qaeda didn't like Hussein and vice-versa.

And for your information, I happen to be a Middle Eastern Christian. I've sat in the pew next to Iraqi Chaldean Catholics and they have been my close friends for years. I understand the religious and political situation in the Middle East quite well, thank you. I don't need our wise leader Dubya Bush to enlighten me about it.