Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Americans-Must read this!

  • Thread starter Thread starter ~HOUNDOG~
  • Start date Start date
H

~HOUNDOG~

Guest
What the US President wants us to forget
Robert Fisk

Each day now, someone says something even more incredible - even more unimaginable - about President Bush's obsession with war. Yesterday, George Bush was himself telling an audience in Cincinnati about "nuclear holy warriors". Forget for a moment that we still can't prove Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Forget that the latest Bush speech was just a re-hash of all the "ifs" and "mays" and "coulds" in Tony Blair's flimsy 16 pages of allegations in his historically dishonest "dossier". Forget that if Osama bin Laden ever acquired a nuclear weapon, he'd probably use it first on Saddam. No. We've got to fight "nuclear holy warriors". That's what we have to do to justify the whole charade through which we are being taken now by the White House, by Downing Street, by all the decaying "experts" on terrorism and, alas, far too many journalists.

Forget the 14 Palestinians, including the 12-year-old child, killed by Israel a few hours before Mr Bush spoke, forget that when his aircraft killed nine Palestinian children in July, along with one militant, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - a "man of peace" in Mr Bush's words - described the slaughter as "a great success". Israel is on our side.

Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush used it in his speech yesterday, 30 times in half an hour - that's one "terrorism" a minute.

But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians - which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him.

Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy - in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was - wait for it - Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz - which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.

We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds - when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al - President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam - as he did last night - we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 - and did nothing.

We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and - when they obeyed - did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country.

We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year - and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" - this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq.

And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity - and one of the few things which George Bush junior knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration - which is never mentioned.

In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday - pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" - there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget.
 
i could care less if this is his reasons, which i strongly believe are not. but to my point,i believe saddamn must go, he is another hitler waiting to happen, destroy his army, destroy him, destroy his seed. worry about it after this happens.
 
My question is who are these "Holy Warriors" and what kind of nuclear weapons do they have and why are they waiting to use them. Let me play devils advocate, say we go to war against Iraq, kill a couple of million people and find out that they had absolutely NO weapons of mass destruction. This pisses of a whole generation of kids against us and eventually we have suicide bombers here much like in Israel. Do I wan't this to happen? FUCK NO!! Because I don't want my future kids to be unsafe and you know what, IT"S ALL ABOUT ME! ME ME ME ME !!!!!! FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE!
 
In 1897 and 1898, Britain used assassination, intrigue, and threats to carve out a piece of Iraq and rule it through the Sheikh of Kuwait. In 1920, after World War I, Britain, France, and the U.S. seized the rights to 95% of the oil in Iraq. By 1932, Britain had expanded Kuwait from a small village on the Gulf into a colony occupying the entire coastline of the Persian Gulf from Arabia to Iran, completely shutting off Iraq from access to the Gulf. For the next half a century, British intelligence murdered almost every Iraqi leader and king, because they called for the return of Kuwait. By 1958 the U.S. was an equal partner with Britain in the coups and assassinations. Together they backed a coup against King Faisal II (who had himself been installed by the British). He was killed and replaced with Abdel Karim Qassim. But he too called for the return of Kuwait, so CIA chief Allen Dulles ordered his assassination.

After the job was botched a couple of times, the CIA gave the assignment to one of its promising young assassins, Saddam Hussein. With the help of a CIA airlift, he succeeded. By 1968, Saddam Hussein was in complete control and, under CIA direction, killing trade unionists, radicals, and Communists.

In 1977, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields. In 1982, US FBI chief William Webster met with the Emir of Kuwait and plotted the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies stole $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil.

Right up to the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, US Department of Defense training manuals sang the praises of Saddam Hussein, noting how he had vastly improved education, medical care, and the standard of living of his people. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region. This was in an official DoD document used in the education of high-ranking officers of all the military services.

But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down. The Soviet Union had collapsed. And the American people were clamoring for a peace dividend. They had to find another bad guy, fast. In May 1990, a National Security Council white paper stated that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were (and I quote) "the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact as the rationale for major military expenditures."

Two months later, on July 20, 1990, General Schwarzkopf conducted training exercises simulating exactly the contingency of an Iraqi attack on Kuwait. Five days later, April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. A week later, he did. Almost immediately, the U.S. deployed as many troops and twice as much material as was moved for the Normandy invasion. Do you think this was done without advance planning?

This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that "would make billions for the oil company owned by the president's son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf."

Saddam was suckered into our trap. And he fell for it. He crossed the undefended border of Kuwait, and in response our government dropped 300 to 400 million pounds of high explosives on Iraq. This onslaught destroyed tens of thousands of buildings and essentially every bridge, power plant, and industrial facility in the country. It killed a quarter of a million Iraqis, including at least 100,000 civilians, of which half were children.

Now here we are eight years later, and the shocking death toll from the Gulf War has been dwarfed by that from our continuing war against Iraq. Not only have we failed to rebuild what we destroyed; we have imposed economic sanctions which have prevented the Iraqis and everyone else from doing so. In the eight years since the end of Desert Storm, one and a half million Iraqis have died as a direct result of US/UN sanctions. It is now estimated that among those who have lost their lives are "three quarters of a million children under the age of five!" And the dying goes on. A million Iraqi children are ""seriously malnourished"", and 150 to 200 are "dying every day".

Among the ordnance we used on Iraq were some 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust covering the southern part of Iraq has caused birth defects and cancer rates to soar. As if that were not enough, we periodically continue to drop bombs and cruise missiles on that devastated nation...
 
2Thick said:
Good article, but it will fall on ignorant ears as usual.

I know, we Americans are sooooo concerned about them poor Kuwaitis and Kurds that we just have to stop the evil Saddam from gassing them!!! However, if it was a question of completely destroying Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Syria and Morocco I think I would be all for it. Don't be half assed. Shit or get off the fucking pot!!
 
Ffactor said:


I know, we Americans are sooooo concerned about them poor Kuwaitis and Kurds that we just have to stop the evil Saddam from gassing them!!! However, if it was a question of completely destroying Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Syria and Morocco I think I would be all for it. Don't be half assed. Shit or get off the fucking pot!!

The US would not be able to destroy any country besides Iraq, Lybia and maybe Syria. The others would wipe the floor with the US.
 
Norman Bates said:
In 1977, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields.

The decision to invade Iran pretty much screwed the US, UK the Iraqi people. Who was the genius that came up with that idea?
 
Norman Bates said:

Among the ordnance we used on Iraq were some 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust covering the southern part of Iraq has caused birth defects and cancer rates to soar. As if that were not enough, we periodically continue to drop bombs and cruise missiles on that devastated nation...

It is logical that mein freund from Deutchland would be the one to post this.
 
Good post from Norman Bates. Where does that leave us now? How can we resolve years of blundering foreign policy?
 
Lots of liberal bitching on this thread.
Quit crying.

Saddam is a threat, you'd be to be a retard not to see it. Quit bickering about the size of the risk, because even if he didnt have nuclear weapons like you liberal bitches would like to think, he still is anti-US, and that will lead to problems.

Man, the more I hear Liberals cry and bitch and argue about things, the more I wonder about how someone could be such a pussy. I mean, stand up for yourself. If 1000 innocent Iraqi civilians have to die to protect 270,000,000 people, I say go for it. Casualties are part of war.
 
BeefyBull said:
Lots of liberal bitching on this thread.
Quit crying.

Saddam is a threat, you'd be to be a retard not to see it. Quit bickering about the size of the risk, because even if he didnt have nuclear weapons like you liberal bitches would like to think, he still is anti-US, and that will lead to problems.

Man, the more I hear Liberals cry and bitch and argue about things, the more I wonder about how someone could be such a pussy. I mean, stand up for yourself. If 1000 innocent Iraqi civilians have to die to protect 270,000,000 people, I say go for it. Casualties are part of war.

Did you read any of the articles? It does not seem like it, because if you did, you would not have just had the diarrhea of the mouth you like to call a reply.
 
Saddam already has weapons of mass destruction.
Maybe not nuclear but biological and they are probably as bad.

So far he has not used them, not even during operation desert storm, probably because he thinks that if he uses them the USA will nuke his country.
But if the USA is going to invade he will not be afraid of that anymore.
Maybe invading Iraq is more dangerous than most people believe.
I don´t think after several years of blockade the Iraqi army has any chances of beating the US army or even causing a lot of casualties.
But setting free some biological agent in a city, they can certainly do that.
 
2Thick said:


The US would not be able to destroy any country besides Iraq, Lybia and maybe Syria. The others would wipe the floor with the US.


SO NOT TRUE.

Military expenditures dollar figure:

United States $276 billion
United Kingdom $35 billion
China 75
Germany 33
Russia 42
Italy 23
France 42
Saudi Arabia 22
Japan 41 South
Korea 15


United States: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
United Kingdom: males age 15-49: 14,599,199 (2001 est.)
China: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Germany: males age 15-49: 20,851,022 (2001 est.)
Russia: males age 15-49: 38,866,147 (2001 est.)

blah blah you can look it up for yourself.

http://www.bartleby.com/151/a118.html


http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/tex...col151&query=Military+expenditures+&x=12&y=16
 
big_bad_buff said:



SO NOT TRUE.

Military expenditures dollar figure:

United States $276 billion
United Kingdom $35 billion
China 75
Germany 33
Russia 42
Italy 23
France 42
Saudi Arabia 22
Japan 41 South
Korea 15


United States: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
United Kingdom: males age 15-49: 14,599,199 (2001 est.)
China: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Germany: males age 15-49: 20,851,022 (2001 est.)
Russia: males age 15-49: 38,866,147 (2001 est.)

blah blah you can look it up for yourself.

I think you underestimate the resilience of certain people. Let us not forget that Ethiopia was the only country in Africa not to be colonized (even though all of them tried). They are also Islamic.
 
BeefyBull said:
Lots of liberal bitching on this thread.
Quit crying.

Saddam is a threat, you'd be to be a retard not to see it. Quit bickering about the size of the risk, because even if he didnt have nuclear weapons like you liberal bitches would like to think, he still is anti-US, and that will lead to problems.

Man, the more I hear Liberals cry and bitch and argue about things, the more I wonder about how someone could be such a pussy. I mean, stand up for yourself. If 1000 innocent Iraqi civilians have to die to protect 270,000,000 people, I say go for it. Casualties are part of war.

??
 
I´m still waiting for some conversative with a reply like
fact 1 in the article is wrong, fact 2 is taken out of context and fact 3 maybe true but it doesn´t mention that...

But what do they replay instead?
It´s like evil liberal propaganda bullshit and stuff.
 
2Thick said:


I think you underestimate the resilience of certain people. Let us not forget that Ethiopia was the only country in Africa not to be colonized (even though all of them tried). They are also Islamic.


i guess i dont see your point bro, but the united states has the greatest army in the world, any county colonized or not, what are they going to do, chuck spears at us?

now, i'm not saying that we couldn't get are butt's whipped, i think it could, and might happend, who knows, but not by one country alone.
 
big_bad_buff said:



i guess i dont see your point bro, but the united states has the greatest army in the world, any county colonized or not, what are they going to do, chuck spears at us?

now, i'm not saying that we couldn't get are butt's whipped, i think it could, and might happend, who knows, but not by one country alone.

The US military is big but very soft compared to others.

You can only send so many missiles over.
 
2Thick said:


The US military is big but very soft compared to others.

You can only send so many missiles over.

i would have to disagree with you, but compared to what army? canada's? HE HE HEHE joking bro!

why do you say soft? because other countries have coma cozies, suicide bombers, crazy basterds that are willing to die for something, when now days in the us army people cry and try to sue if they get a scratch.....??
 
2Thick said:


The US military is big but very soft compared to others.


Depends on the unit. I'd like ya to tell that to a group of Army Rangers, Special Forces, Delta, Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon......LOL I'll agree that there are some NASTY fuckers in the military....couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 10 feet away under pressure...LOL
 
big_bad_buff said:


i would have to disagree with you, but compared to what army? canada's? HE HE HEHE joking bro!

why do you say soft? because other countries have coma cozies, suicide bombers, crazy basterds that are willing to die for something, when now days in the us army people cry and try to sue if they get a scratch.....??

Soft as in losing the will to die for a greater cause. It is a unforeseen consequence of such a fiercely individualistic country.

basically they have too much to lose when they die. Most other armies outside of the affluent west do not have that problem.

To them dying for a greater cause is the ultimate way to make a difference.
 
Big Buck said:


Depends on the unit. I'd like ya to tell that to a group of Army Rangers, Special Forces, Delta, Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon......LOL I'll agree that there are some NASTY fuckers in the military....couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 10 feet away under pressure...LOL

Of course, there are always the exceptions that are true warriors.
 
2Thick said:


I need you to write some more so I can print out your military propaganda...for teepee!

Gay%20Alarm.jpg
 
2Thick said:


Soft as in losing the will to die for a greater cause. It is a unforeseen consequence of such a fiercely individualistic country.

basically they have too much to lose when they die. Most other armies outside of the affluent west do not have that problem.

To them dying for a greater cause is the ultimate way to make a difference.


i would have to agree with you on this, it's the sad truth, but this is like saying a iraqing(spelling?)soldier that is willing to die for whatever cause, and has no fear, holding a 22. pistol, going up against scared U.S soldiers sitting in a tank....who do you think would prevail?
 
big_bad_buff said:



i would have to agree with you on this, it's the sad truth, but this is like saying a iraqing(spelling?)soldier that is willing to die for whatever cause, and has no fear, holding a 22. pistol, going up against scared U.S soldiers sitting in a tank....who do you think would prevail?

LOL...that's why during Desert Storm the Iraqis were surrendering by the THOUSANDS to us......
 
another analogy if i may.

it's like 2 guys that are going to fight, one is the bully 5"10 190 pounds. he fights a lot, and has experience under his belt, the other guy may be smaller and scared, standing at 5"3 and 110 pounds...so they start to fight, and the smaller guy pulls out a gun, and shoots the bigger kid....the smaller guy wins due to the fact he was better quipped for the job.

do you see my point. we have the best equipment for the job, no matter how small(which we aren't) and scard we may be.
 
big_bad_buff said:
another analogy if i may.

it's like 2 guys that are going to fight, one is the bully 5"10 190 pounds. he fights a lot, and has experience under his belt, the other guy may be smaller and scared, standing at 5"3 and 110 pounds...so they start to fight, and the smaller guy pulls out a gun, and shoots the bigger kid....the smaller guy wins due to the fact he was better quipped for the job.

do you see my point. we have the best equipment for the job, no matter how small(which we aren't) and scard we may be.

Okay, do not forget that there are only a certain amount of bullets in that gun. There are more crazies that are ready to fight.

Like my 9th grade history teacher used to tell us about Vietnam: "I kept shooting and they kept coming. I was just praying that I would not run out of bullets."
 
2Thick said:


Okay, do not forget that there are only a certain amount of bullets in that gun. There are more crazies that are ready to fight.

Like my 9th grade history teacher used to tell us about Vietnam: "I kept shooting and they kept coming. I was just praying that I would not run out of bullets."

refering to your other post.

The US would not be able to destroy any country besides Iraq, Lybia and maybe Syria. The others would wipe the floor with the US.

the thing is we are not using bullets now days bro, we are using missiles and bombs that take out thousands and 100 of thousands at a time...i'm just saying we have the technology that many/most cannot compare too. which is like throwing rocks at someone with a gun.
 
big_bad_buff said:


refering to your other post.

The US would not be able to destroy any country besides Iraq, Lybia and maybe Syria. The others would wipe the floor with the US.

the thing is we are not using bullets now days bro, we are using missiles and bombs that take out thousands and 100 of thousands at a time...i'm just saying we have the technology that many/most cannot compare too. which is like throwing rocks at someone with a gun.

But you need bases to launch those attacks. If those countries are forced to turn back Americans then it becomes more difficult.
 
big_bad_buff said:


The US would not be able to destroy any country besides Iraq, Lybia and maybe Syria. The others would wipe the floor with the US.



Are you fucking kidding me? You are SO misinformed if you even half way beleive that.
 
What do you mean? I was talking ground warfare. No country could even give us a challenge except maybe China because of their numbers.
 
2Thick said:


I think you underestimate the resilience of certain people. Let us not forget that Ethiopia was the only country in Africa not to be colonized (even though all of them tried). They are also Islamic.

Not all Ethiopians are Muslim (~50% of Ethiopia's population). A sizeable percentage (40% or so) of Ethiopians are Christian.
 
2Thick said:
In order to fight, you haved to get your machines over there. Without countries that will allow you to use their airspace, it is hard to attack.

True. We could TAKE the airspace if we really wanted to though.
 
2Thick said:


You are using modern stats drawn up by Europeans when they divided up Africa.

I am speaking about the original tribes that are originally Muslim.

The original tribes became Christian in the 4th century of the common era - Ethiopians were one of the first peoples in the world to adopt Christianity.

Muslims did not even exist back then.
 
Big Buck said:



Are you fucking kidding me? You are SO misinformed if you even half way beleive that.

BUCK, that is a quote from 2thick buddy...so 2thick, i guess buck is calling you misinformed, and i pretty much agree with him, this is what 2thick and i have been talking about. JEEEEEZZ!!!!!
 
what about satellite guided nuclear missiles that are launched into space, travel around the world to there target, and then guided to there destination, and simply destroy the country we choose undetected, don't think it's possible? under estimating are technology then. because i believe we have it. i don't think it would ever happen, but just a point.
 
I agree...this whole Iraq thing is bullshit. I truly believe the BUSH Admin is just an oil company corporate board that made there way into the white house.

Time for a 2nd American Revolution.

By the USA's own definition the patriots that overthrew the British during the AMERICAN REVOLUTION are "TERRORISTS".
 
2Thick said:


I am speaking of the 18th and and 19th century.

Then you cannot speak of the various Muslim ethnic groupings that might have had leverage over the indigenous Christians at that time as being "the original tribes."

I'm not underestimating the European powers and their influence on the formation of the modern Ethiopian state; I just don't understand your use of the words "original tribes."
 
Stumpy said:


Then you cannot speak of the various Muslim ethnic groupings that might have had leverage over the indigenous Christians at that time as being "the original tribes."

I'm not underestimating the European powers and their influence on the formation of the modern Ethiopian state; I just don't understand your use of the words "original tribes."

I chose the wrong words. Let me replace "original" with "ethnically similar" tribes. The regions were divided along ethnic and tribal lines and not the European ones (at least for the people who lived there)
 
i think the iraq war is bullshit also but i must say no single country could defeat amercia its weapons are just to strong
 
~HOUNDOG~ said:

In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday - pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" - there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget.

its a fact that texas MAY hold more oil than saudi. sounds dramatic dont it, especially when you use words like "fact".

i'd like to see the industry analyst or publication who has stated that fact.

as of last year, saudi had 260bil bl of proven crude oil reserves. and iraq had 112bil bl. i do remember reading somewhere that the persain gulf may hold a trillion but the rights to it is disputed.

which american oil companies stand to make billions???

i guess when we invade the oil will be free at that point? american oil companies already purchase iraqi oil.
 
Norman Bates said:
This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that "would make billions for the oil company owned by the president's son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf."


norman, where did you find this, just curious to see if there's more.

im just curious to see what oil company he "owned" during the gulf war and what offshore oil rights it had and how is iraq tide to those rights.....although we do know that they did not make billions, in fact the stock trades for pennies.
 
Re: Re: Americans-Must read this!

spongebob said:
which american oil companies stand to make billions???

i guess when we invade the oil will be free at that point? american oil companies already purchase iraqi oil.

American and British oil companies have the exclusive rights to drill and extract oil from many Mid-East countires.

That is why there is so much war.

That is why the Shah of Iran was overthrown. He refused to let the foreign companies steal the oil with very biased contracts sign in the 1950s.

That is why Saddam was allowed to rule. He gave Bush Jr's (George W. Bush's oil company) exculsive rights to drill in Iraq.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
spongebob said:


norman, where did you find this, just curious to see if there's more.

im just curious to see what oil company he "owned" during the gulf war and what offshore oil rights it had and how is iraq tide to those rights.....although we do know that they did not make billions, in fact the stock trades for pennies.

Bush JR shorted his stocks as did Cheney. A company can go bankrupt while still making Billions in profit (and for the executives). It is simple business/accounting 101.
 
Re: Re: Re: Americans-Must read this!

2Thick said:


American and British oil companies have the exclusive rights to drill and extract oil from many Mid-East countires.

That is why Saddam was allowed to rule. He gave Bush Jr's (George W. Bush's oil company) exculsive rights to drill in Iraq.

i just wanted to know which american companies stand to make billions off of iraqi oil if there is an invasion. american companies already buy iraqi oil.

wait a minute, saddam came into power in 68, bush started arbusto in 78, you mean to tell me that they actually forcasted bush founding his own energy company and decided to put saddam into power in 68? secondly arbusto never worked internationally. he never was given rights to iraqi oil. if he did bush never drilled or his company wouldnt have went from arbusto to a-bust-o. he wasnt a very good oilman by all accounts.

this is not making sense.
 
2Thick said:


Bush JR shorted his stocks as did Cheney. A company can go bankrupt while still making Billions in profit (and for the executives). It is simple business/accounting 101.

ok. it may well be possible, but money just dont fall out of the sky. even if your going to pencil-whip the books, you still have to have money there. i highly doubt that harken made billions, for that matter not even millions. also bush sold most of his interest in harken for approx. 800K in 91 i think.

but lets get back to fact finding and not assumptions. and the fact of the matter is that every oil company bush was involved in just about went belly up. oil is not an easy business. especially in texas during the eighties. so it is more likely that harken did not make billions.

this is what i was asking about.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Norman Bates
This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that "would make billions for the oil company owned by the president's son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the war that would make billions for the oil company owned by 'W'. again, what company did he own during the gulf war? and what exclusive rights in the gulf did the company have that would have been effected by a war to its advantage?

the gulf from what i know has no proven crude oil reserves so far, although highly possible. but also from what ive read the rights to it are disputable at this point.

p.s. the only exclusive rights that harken energy had that ive read about is in bahrain. harken energy did win those rights very suspiciously(they had no international or offshore experience to that point) over other companies with far more experience.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Americans-Must read this!

thebabydoc said:
What else is new in a thread which supports our enemies?

LOL, now stop it. im trying to understand this. but ive yet to see any link to back up some of the rhetoric.
 
Top Bottom