IRAQ is NOT about Oil

Discussion in 'World Events' started by postoak, Jan 17, 2003.

  1. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    This fellow (and he is no friend of Bush) has it just right:

    http://yt.org/article.php?sid=987

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    It isn’t ONLY about OIL!

    The “Iraq is NOT about Oil” appears to be the type of front-page slogans that we are getting so accustomed to. John Chuckman builds a reliable and comprehensive case during the first have about the realities of Petrol from Iraq and elaborates it further to highlight the real political intricacy and repercussions.

    Having lived in Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Israel, from my point of view I find it worth reading although it contains too many assumptions that in a strategically domino effect one would have to consider each elements by merit and weight in analyzing what’s really in our leader’s heads.

    I also find interesting his biographic-statement “John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago”, but particular interesting in resonance with the “former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company”, but hey, the man is not bullshiting anyone here anyway.

    Based on my on-location knowledge and knowing that Saddam has been the only Arab leader that has confronted the US foreign policies. I have no doubt that it is about Petrol since once the sanctions are lifted, the petrol on the hands of Saddan will be a legal weapon, will be far more effective and devastating than small nuclear or biological weapons. So, it may not be ONLY because of oil, but it is certain one of the main reasons OIL.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    Is there a threat that Saddam might have a plan to burn all oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, ect...kill millions of people, before he commit suicide??

    I think that if Saddam is cornered, he will not go easy as Hitler did. He'll die in a dramatic middle eastern heroic way to represent the way he lived.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    I'd say that's a big 10-4.
     
  8. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    What's a 10-4?
     
  9. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    He or she, is in agreement! Colraqe probably forgot that his CB is turned off!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Insightful and well written. I get so tired of seeing idiots with signs saying things like 'no blood for oil,' as if the confrontation with Iraq had anything to do with oil.

    I was puzzled by his claim that Bush has been trying to 'vilify' Blix, the head UN weapon inspector in Iraq. I've never heard anyone from the Bush administration say anything uncomplimentary about Blix or any of the other inspectors. Does anyone know anything about this?

    I was also puzzled by the author's claim that there were a hundred thousand civilians killed by allied bombing during the war. The US government claims that around 4 thousand civilians were killed. Greenpeace estimates that 5-10 thousand. Baghdad it's self only claims that there were 35,000 civilians killed. Where the heck did he come up with this number?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2003
  11. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    I read all of chuckman's articles, intelligent journalism is so hard to find it seems.

    However, I wish he would reference some of the numbers he comes up with. As Nasor pointed out, many times it seems he throws stuff out there to make a point. If you are going to claim hundreds of thousands died in operation desertstorm bombing...you gotta give some credible referances or evidence.

    Anyway, good article despite obvious left-wing bush bashing.
     
  12. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    You mean like he did in Kawait back in 91? I think it just may be plausible to think he has it in him to do something of this magnitude.
     
  13. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    It's quite possible that over 100,000 Iraqis were killed in 1991 -- but almost all would have been military. I never saw a figure given -- Schwartzkoff himself just said something like "very many" were killed during the initial push. He wasn't bragging -- he looked sad.

    The one figure I would dispute is that IF 100,000 Iraqis die in the upcoming war that most would be civilians. With smart weaponry and the natural civilian tendency to get out of the way of an advancing army, I think most of the 100,000 would be military, although the percentage of civilian casualties will be greater than in 1991 simply because of the city fighting.

    And yes, I have read and heard some Blix bashing.

    Oh, and the author goes on after describing himself as "a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago" as having gone to Canada as a draft evader and protester of the Viet Nam war.
     
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    According to the US DoD, 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner.
     
  15. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Seems to me the author makes an excellent case that it is about oil.

    Translation: Bush's crowd definitely wants this future revenue stream put into their hands. Bush’s crowd comprises oil executives.

    The author’s argument that it’s not about oil pales in comparison.
     
  16. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Did you actually read the article?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Yes, every word.
     
  18. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    How did I know it would be you that would ask that?

    I'd tell ya but Microzoft would have to kill ya.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    National security and all, ya know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    Oh, it's about OIL all right...
     
  20. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Anything is possible particularly when aside from Republican Guards, Iraq doesn’t have the equipped army that was used to back in the ’80. The population in general is well armed with small weapons. The Iraq doesn’t have a chance of defense, the US have collected a completed Global Position nest of locations of all strategically locations, except of course for movable launchers.

    Since regardless how the war will be taken into Baghdad, and if or not the population will assist US or instead fight back the US. I believe that before end of February, US will begging the war against Iraq as a surprise, moving in with paratroopers to isolate the capital in a way to chock it, additional paratroopers and ground forces from the south will be tighten a belt about 200 km outside Baghdad, all heavily supported with overwhelming high altitude air power and closer support with Apaches.

    Before any government reacts, the campaign will be half way underway, and by the time citizens protest in the streets of Europe and complaints are presented to UN. It will be too late to turn back the clock. It may al be a big mistake, but Bush and his advisers know that they always have the excuse of getting reed of a devil, and any negative side effects can be dealt with it later.
    :bugeye:
     
  21. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
  22. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    I have another question on oil. I don't read too much about this topic, is I'm learning.

    If Iraq is currently under sanction, and there exist in place an oil for food program, then how could this war be about oil, if we are already getting the oil

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Under the “oil for food” program, Iraq production volume is restricted to selected customers and for selected goods. It is apparently producing approx. 8% of its actual capacity measured before Kuwait crisis.
    This means that for over 10 years, Iraq has hardly pumped much of the oil reserves, making it, with great certainty the number one in the world as far as oil reserve.

    If Iraq were to be producing at will and out of sanctions, it will be terrible to western countries and in particular to their enemy US. Already Saddam appealed to the rest Arab oil producing countries to use the OIL as a weapon against the west in support of the Palestinian cause.
    From that moment on it was clear to US, that Saddam must go, and go fast. It would be catastrophe for US’s economy, if Saddam would flood the oil market, selecting strategic countries for export, financially and military aid to Palestinians, and of course that rapid cash will aid him to militarize in all forms thinkable against retaliation to their old abusive enemy, the US
    :bugeye:
     

Share This Page