So.It wasn't about oil?

[Amazin]

Iraq oil to sail to U.S.Chevron Texaco gets contract for crude

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/25/BU264248.DTL

This is just the begining.I hope you're all satisfied backing a president who lies to you,makes up stories of WMD,and sacrifices his own military,kills innocent civilians to aide his big business buddies that fund his re-election campaign.All in the name of freedom and justice.But don't mind me.Just keep those blinkers on or you may get shocked that America isn't so American.

[Show Me the Wire]

So what. I hope the U.S. buys lots of Iraqi oil.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

I have always manitianed that all the oil is rightfully ours, as well as every drop in Kuwait. The spoils of war, ya know.
Drop the price of gas down to about 25 cents a gallon, and us evil conservatives will all be motoring to the Hamptons and leave the poor third world alone while we sup at our spas.
:rolleyes:


Little A,
If your were a conservative, you would have gotten our newsletter and known all about the oil...hehehe.

[Dave Schwartz]

Amazin',

>>>The contracts, disclosed by Iraq's state oil marketing firm, could generate around $300 million at current prices. The proceeds will go to a fund controlled by the United States and its allies and earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. <<<

So, we aren't even allowed to buy Iraqi oil?

You know, the idea is that they want to sell it to SOMEONE.

From your post you would think it was being stolen.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Lefty]

amazin, how come you libs want to completely ignore the fact that Clinton and all his aides said Iraq had WMD's. The UN said Iraq had WMD's. Bush believed them. Now he's the bad guy?
The true worry isn't whether they had them, they did, the worry should be where are they now?

[JustRalph]

Somebody has got to buy the oil.......

Lefty.....

not to mention the nuclear components buried in the rose bushes.

I saw that today. Some scientist leads us to Nuclear stuff buried in his backyard.

[Amazin]

Point is production and funds are controlled by the U.S.There is no Iraqi government presently.If anything there are some US appointed puppets.Who controls Iraq's resources is the US government.They will decide where the oil revenues goes as the article points out.Bush isn't naive enough to sacrifice his troops and his carreer just to hand back control of Iraq and it's resources to Iraqi's.The administration allready clamoured to lift sanctions so this event can come to pass.They also have announced plans to stay in Iraq at least 3-5 years.I think you can put 2 and 2 together.But don't worry,there will be many more incidences like this to come.Like I said this is just the start.It will become more prevalent and the truth will become more obvious just like those WMD's.

[Dave Schwartz]

Amazin',

So, you are complaining that we are controlling the country at this time?

And if we didn't you'd be complaining that we left those poor, disorganized Iraqis to govern themeselves.

Sorry, but you've got no credibility with me.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Amazin]

No Dave.I'm complaining that our motive for invading Iraq was to control the country and it's resources...permanently.

[Dave Schwartz]

Something we have NEVER done before.

[GameTheory]

Just like we are still controlling Kuwait, right? So when we relinquish control, what will you say?

[Lefty]

amazin, and you other libs, whose side are you guys on? Certainly doesn't sound as if you're on ours.
You're right, there's no Iraqui govt. so who should take charge of the oil? You know what, i've got this strange feeling you're gonna say France.

[Amazin]

Dave:

What I know of US involvment in Iraq(historically) is that they enjoyed the fruits of Iraqi oil fields for quite some time.Four countries owned those oil fields at that time.Iraq owed none of their own oil fields.The US government had no interest in leaving.They were kicked out of Iraqi oil paradise in 1958 during the Iraqi revolution and have been trying to regain control of Iraq and it's oil fields since then.The same is true in Iran.In 1979 the American backed Shah of Iran was overthrown in an Iranian revolution.The US has also since then been trying to regain control of Iran.Which brings me to GT's point.

GT

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are US backed monarchies.Kuwait is not deemed hostile or out of line with U.S. interests.It's backed by U.S. interests.That's what the U.S. wants in Iraq and Iran.A retro to the fifties.

Lefty:

Who should control Iraq's resources?It's a no brainer isn't it.But if Iraq controls their own resources and government,it would probably not be in U.S, interests.So ask the Bush administration who they think should control.They allready are.

[GameTheory]

So what we want is a non-hostile free Iraq that we (& others) can buy oil from (and they get rich from), returning Iraq to the place it has historically been for thousands of years -- the jewel of the Middle East.

Yeah, that sounds terrible. No wonder the Iraqi people love Saddam so much....

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Amazin
Dave:

What I know of US involvment in Iraq(historically) is that they enjoyed the fruits of Iraqi oil fields for quite some time.Four countries owned those oil fields at that time.Iraq owed none of their own oil fields.The US government had no interest in leaving.They were kicked out of Iraqi oil paradise in 1958 during the Iraqi revolution and have been trying to regain control of Iraq and it's oil fields since then.The same is true in Iran.In 1979 the American backed Shah of Iran was overthrown in an Iranian revolution.The US has also since then been trying to regain control of Iran.Which brings me to GT's point.

GT

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are US backed monarchies.Kuwait is not deemed hostile or out of line with U.S. interests.It's backed by U.S. interests.That's what the U.S. wants in Iraq and Iran.A retro to the fifties.

Lefty:

Who should control Iraq's resources?It's a no brainer isn't it.But if Iraq controls their own resources and government,it would probably not be in U.S, interests.So ask the Bush administration who they think should control.They allready are.

Amazin:

So what. When you start posting how France backed Saddam for its economic gain, how the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan for its own benefit, how England, France and Germany tried to colonize the middle-east for their own benefit, how France colonized Vietnam and etc. Then I will agee with you that it is all wrong. You do not earn any credibility by only accusing the U.S. of acting in its best interests, while giving the oldest and worst colonial powers a pass.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Amazin]

SMTW

I didn't say that the other three powers were excused from raping and plundering Iraq's resources in the past.But since today the U.S. is the major aggressor in Iraq,it's more realistic to talk about our moral responsibility since France for example is not militarily present there and we are.

[Show Me the Wire]

Amazin:

Okay what is the U.S.' and Engalnd's moral responsibility? I agree with you since the U.S. and England are the major military powers in Iraq, they are responsible. What wold you have them do?

Personally, I do not see any irresponsible actions at this time. However, if you do I will be happy to read your point of view.

Historically, after the U.S. intervened, it has relinquished its military and its governmental control. Do you see this policy changing and, if yes, why?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

amaizin, WHAT? U.S. controlling in the interim. How can Iraq control when at present there is no Govt? All my handicapping books against one of yours that as soon as a govt established in Iraq U.S. will relinquish control. And we will prob defend them for a lifetime as well.
Tell me, are you on our side or what?

[Tom]

Big talk, no back up.
Name one country that the US has done what you say is inevitable in Iraq.
Name one o****ry no better off after a war with the US.
Do you dispute that we liberated Afgahnastana dn that its peole now have more freedom than a year ago?
Where is your evidence that we are going to do it this time?
Aren't you the big mouth out there yelling for proof about WMD?
Put up or shut up.

[Amazin]

SMTW:

You ask'What is our moral responsibility in Iraq".Simple.First we have failed to materialize the WMD we based the invasion on.Second, killing over 3000 Iraqi civilians and thousands of Iraqi soldiers,causing a basic services problem like no water,electricity,sanitation,disease,lack of medical supplies,unemployment,radiation poisoning,looting,high crime,unsafe playing areas for children,loss of subsidized housing ,etc. all in the name of liberation.I think that we are quite responsible for this degenerate condition.


Lefty:

The US initially said it would be out of Iraq quickly.That soon changed to 3-5 years minimum.Ask Rumsfeld if you don't believe me.Contrary to Dave and your thought,we do not intend to leave and hand over control of Iraq to Iraqi's.If we ever leave,it will be a to a US appointed Iraqi regime that will serve our selfish interest not the interests of Iraqi's.This is the equivalent to colonization.Not a democratic process.

Tom quote:
"Aren't you a big mouth out there yelling for proof about WMD?Put up or shut up"

In other words you're telling me I should not question the fact that the reason we killed over 3000 Iraqi civilians and thousands of Iraqi soldiers has yet to materialize.Therefore these people mean less than nothing.I guess they mean nothing to an ugly American mentality.From this it should be clear why the world is disgusted with the "American way".What's the difference then between killing Jews in ovens or massacaring people on the battlefield for your own illegitamate reasons in both cases?The difference is your on the exutioner's side this time,so it looks legit. Maya.

[Lefty]

Amazin, and Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia in a yr. We're still there. I never heard one lib question that war and it served no national purpose of ours whatsoever, unlike Iraq. Yes, civilians got killed, you keep harping on that, and yet we saved vso many more and that will extend to millions over the yrs. But you don't wanna be confused by reality, i know.
Much of the electricity has been restored. It's been only a short time but you libs demand miracles of Republicans and absolutely nothing from Democrats. Disengenious to say the least.
If Bush had done nothing about Iraq and another 9-11 occurred because of it, you libs would be all over Bush. Your Manta: Clinton SAID there were WMD's, The UN said there were WMD's. Yet Bush did nothing. You demand many pieces of cake.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
SMTW:

Tom quote:
"Aren't you a big mouth out there yelling for proof about WMD?Put up or shut up"

In other words you're telling me I should not question the fact that the reason we killed over 3000 Iraqi civilians and thousands of Iraqi soldiers has yet to materialize.Therefore these people mean less than nothing.I guess they mean nothing to an ugly American mentality.From this it should be clear why the world is disgusted with the "American way".What's the difference then between killing Jews in ovens or massacaring people on the battlefield for your own illegitamate reasons in both cases?The difference is your on the exutioner's side this time,so it looks legit. Maya.

Not in other words...in my words, I did not tell you any reason for anyhting..I asked YOU where YOUR proof was that we would be plannig to do the things YOU accuse us of planning. YOU want proof that there were WMD...I want YOUR proof that we planned to do the things you are making accustations about.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF?

[Amazin]

Tom quote:

"DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF?"

Amazin says:I sure do Mr.no brain.People are dead.Is that enough proof?Geez Louize.Get real.Go back to horseracing.This is above your intellect.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Tom quote:

"DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF?"

Amazin says:I sure do Mr.no brain.People are dead.Is that enough proof?Geez Louize.Get real.Go back to horseracing.This is above your intellect.

Next to you, BagdadBob is a reliable source!
PEOPE ARE DEAD is proof that we are planning to occupy the country, steal the oil, yadaa,yadda,yadda,?

And learn something about proper English...it is Mr. No Brain...you have use a capital letter in a name. I forgive you this time because you obviously are a product of outcome based education.

But you are correct about getting back to horse RACING instead of trying to talk to a horse's *ass.
HAGD.

[Amazin]

If you want me to address you as a horses ass,I think that's appropriate.Man, you're so far removed from what's going on in Bagdad,you shouldn't talk.Rumsfeld and Bush have allready stated their intentions to stay in Bagdad indefinetly.I don't need to prove it to you.Just listen to that ass you call a president.You don't think American's are getting killed everyday in Iraq because they love Iraqi's now do you Mr. Ass.Did I spell it correctly this time?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
If you want me to address you as a horses ass,I think that's appropriate.Man, you're so far removed from what's going on in Bagdad,you shouldn't talk.Rumsfeld and Bush have allready stated their intentions to stay in Bagdad indefinetly.I don't need to prove it to you.Just listen to that ass you call a president.You don't think American's are getting killed everyday in Iraq because they love Iraqi's now do you Mr. Ass.Did I spell it correctly this time?

Spelling is better. Now, if you would work on you punctuation-there is supposed to be a space after every period before the next sentence starts. Don't worry, A, we will get you past your liberal education yet.

Here is a quiz for you, for your homework tonight:

" If a liberal whines in the forest, and no one is there to hear it,
does he still get a government cheese to go with it?"

[Lefty]

Tom, loved the quiz.