So, Who REALLY Stands to Gain from Blocking the US from Engaging Saddam?!

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

Link to the site with sources identified in the numbers in brackets can be found HERE.

France
According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4]
Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.[5]
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[6]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[7]



Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[12]




Russia
According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[14]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[15]
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[17]
In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[19]
Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]



China
According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[22]
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[23]
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.[24]
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[25]
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[26]

No real surprise here for anyone, right?

Have a nice day.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Pro war people are stupid.

But so are anti war people.

How much, pray tell, does the US and the UK possess?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Pro war people are stupid.

But so are anti war people.

How much, pray tell, does the US and the UK possess?

Not interested,...we aren't the ones who want to support this madman.

Even if we BOTH have lucrative deals somewhere,...at least we are willing to give them up to try and make the world safe FOR OUR EVENTUAL DOMINATION AND ENSLAVEMENT OF YOU ALL! MUWAHAHAHAHAHA.....ummmm, ...ahem, excuse me, strike that last part.

[Monkeypimp]

Don't forget all the countries around Iraq who would rather not be overthrown.


oh and every country that wants there to be SOME oil left on this planet in 100 years.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Not interested,...we aren't the ones who want to support this madman

The point being that if they are similar or greater amounts you cannot justify them blocking this on trade alone.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Monkeypimp
Don't forget all the countries around Iraq who would rather not be overthrown.


oh and every country that wants there to be SOME oil left on this planet in 100 years.

Quite frankly, we'd be much better off without having had Bill Clinton or George W Bush.

Clinton was the first president that fuel efficiency DROPPED under since Nixon, and Bush has given the motor industry billions to supposedly do research with, but hasn't actually told them what to do with it, so it basically just makes it a cash windfall.

Research into fuel cells that is.

[W]

Noone is saying this isn't about resources. (Well, some are, but not that loudly and certainly without backing)

The question is, why should the rest of the world submit to US domination? Accept their demands and move on? When we can atleast try to stop them, or blow the charade of international peace and cooperation out of the waters. If the US can pick and choose on what they need from lesser nations, the rest should be allowed too. Don't think the US is the only nation being checked bu the UN. If the US shows UN powerless, other nations will follow the US lead and grab what they can, ignoring international rules. The reason US troops do not already occupy Iraq is that the americans don't want to let others copy their tactics.

Yes, France, Germany and Russia have serious economic reasons to avoid a war. That alone is reason enough for the US to go to war; you're destroying a big market for the competitor. Yes, some of the trades they perform are questionable, but they are certainly within the moral limits that the US has set by precedence.

Long term, going to war in Iraq benefits USA. This is why they want to go to war. For the same reason, other nations want peace, since that's what they will gain on.

Personally, I do not like the domestic trends of the US, and will support any effort to limit their power outside their own borders. Even if that means isolating the country entirely, and starving it of the oil it so desperately craves.

[W]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Research into fuel cells that is.

1. Fuel cells are applicable in cars (and smaller vehicles) only. Cars are not the only vehicle that requires oil.
2. Fuel cells still require the same level of energy that the oil would put out. Unless you suggest recharging fuel cells with oil, fuel cells will not stop the requirement for other ways of gaining more and more energy.
3. Americans don't want to change their lifestyle. Even if a total switch to cars and planes with fuel cells were possible, and the country could build new nuclear plants to meet the energy needs, americans would refuse it in favour of grabbing the last of the oil around.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by W

I never said we didn't need oil. If fuel cells completely replaced the need for oil, they'd start producing plastics and the like.

The point is that we'd have much longer lasting oil reserves if we weren't close to 100% oil dependent in the aforementioned sectors.

[W]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I never said we didn't need oil. If fuel cells completely replaced the need for oil, they'd start producing plastics and the like.

The point is that we'd have much longer lasting oil reserves if we weren't close to 100% oil dependent in the aforementioned sectors.

It's energy that you need most. Oil just happens to be the cheapest most easilly transportable energy around.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by W
It's energy that you need most. Oil just happens to be the cheapest most easilly transportable energy around.

I think the lack of developement in these areas constitutes a reasonable limit as well.

And you call something that requires supertankers easily transportable?

[W]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I think the lack of developement in these areas constitutes a reasonable limit as well.

And you call something that requires supertankers easily transportable?

Everything is relative. Yes, I do.

Originally posted by W
Noone is saying this isn't about resources. (Well, some are, but not that loudly and certainly without backing)

The question is, why should the rest of the world submit to US domination? Accept their demands and move on? When we can atleast try to stop them, or blow the charade of international peace and cooperation out of the waters. If the US can pick and choose on what they need from lesser nations, the rest should be allowed too. Don't think the US is the only nation being checked bu the UN. If the US shows UN powerless, other nations will follow the US lead and grab what they can, ignoring international rules. The reason US troops do not already occupy Iraq is that the americans don't want to let others copy their tactics.

Yes, France, Germany and Russia have serious economic reasons to avoid a war. That alone is reason enough for the US to go to war; you're destroying a big market for the competitor. Yes, some of the trades they perform are questionable, but they are certainly within the moral limits that the US has set by precedence.

Long term, going to war in Iraq benefits USA. This is why they want to go to war. For the same reason, other nations want peace, since that's what they will gain on.

Personally, I do not like the domestic trends of the US, and will support any effort to limit their power outside their own borders. Even if that means isolating the country entirely, and starving it of the oil it so desperately craves.

Then stop calling for us to come to the aid of every lame-assed country that gets themselves into any measure of trouble at all. I would GLADLY stop our being the world's police force and watch all of you slowly kill each other off, because that's exactly what would happen.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I never said we didn't need oil. If fuel cells completely replaced the need for oil, they'd start producing plastics and the like.

The point is that we'd have much longer lasting oil reserves if we weren't close to 100% oil dependent in the aforementioned sectors.

Plastic is made from petroleum, Einstein.

Originally posted by W

1. Fuel cells are applicable in cars (and smaller vehicles) only. Cars are not the only vehicle that requires oil.
2. Fuel cells still require the same level of energy that the oil would put out. Unless you suggest recharging fuel cells with oil, fuel cells will not stop the requirement for other ways of gaining more and more energy.
3. Americans don't want to change their lifestyle. Even if a total switch to cars and planes with fuel cells were possible, and the country could build new nuclear plants to meet the energy needs, americans would refuse it in favour of grabbing the last of the oil around.

Hmmmm, and your qualifications for all of these suppositions is?

Until EVERY country can claim they are going to fuel cells ONLY and leaving the world of petroleum behind, NONE of you can comment on the US.

Like the saying goes,...clean the crap out of your OWN backyard befor trying to tell me to clean up mine.

[W]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Then stop calling for us to come to the aid of every lame-assed country that gets themselves into any measure of trouble at all. I would GLADLY stop our being the world's police force and watch all of you slowly kill each other off, because that's exactly what would happen.

I've not called for your country's intervention anywhere. Nor have my country, for the last 50 years atleast. I'm interested in any specific scenario you are thinking off that can lead to someone "killing us off", that is less likely with the threat of your intervention.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†

Two points.

1. The fuel economy is much better outside the us than inside.

2. Other countries are making efforts to replace petrol with a more sustainable fuel.

[W]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Hmmmm, and your qualifications for all of these suppositions is?

Until EVERY country can claim they are going to fuel cells ONLY and leaving the world of petroleum behind, NONE of you can comment on the US.

Like the saying goes,...clean the crap out of your OWN backyard befor trying to tell me to clean up mine.

Are you questioning the validity of my comments? They are mere comments, I am not telling america to do anything at all. A majority of your oil comes from abroad. If we isolate you, you die. My country is selfsufficient in energy. We could export all our oil and gas, or close it all down, and still be selfsufficient with energy.

Originally posted by W
Are you questioning the validity of my comments? They are mere comments, I am not telling america to do anything at all. A majority of your oil comes from abroad. If we isolate you, you die. My country is selfsufficient in energy. We could export all our oil and gas, or close it all down, and still be selfsufficient with energy.

If, by abroad, you mean North America, then you would be correct - we get most of our oil from our neighbors to the north and south. Don't let anyone here try and tell you different. We have also proved that we COULD survive for the next 20 years or so ON JUST OUR OWN OIL. So, that blows that theory out of the water.

Do you not realize how impossible it would be for the rest of the world to even TRY something like that?

LMAO,...naivete and ignorance about how the world works must be sexy in whatever backwater place you're from, because I can't see any other reason for it.

[W]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
If, by abroad, you mean North America, then you would be correct - we get most of our oil from our neighbors to the north and south. Don't let anyone here try and tell you different. We have also proved that we COULD survive for the next 20 years or so ON JUST OUR OWN OIL. So, that blows that theory out of the water.

Do you not realize how impossible it would be for the rest of the world to even TRY something like that?

LMAO,...naivete and ignorance about how the world works must be sexy in whatever backwater place you're from, because I can't see any other reason for it.

You are not contradicting anything I say, so I take it you agree with it. Good, cause they're all easilly verified facts.

Obviously I CAN comment on the US. Contrary to what you claimed two posts ago.

Originally posted by W
You are not contradicting anything I say, so I take it you agree with it. Good, cause they're all easilly verified facts.

Obviously I CAN comment on the US. Contrary to what you claimed two posts ago.

Bullsh*t.

Pure, unadulterated Bullsh*t.

Just the mere thought of you knowing what Americans will and will not do is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

i disagree with everyone of your statements and I challenge you to prove them all, right here, right now.

Fuel cells are applicable in cars (and smaller vehicles) only. Cars are not the only vehicle that requires oil.

Bullsh*t! We have buses that use fuel cells, some use solar adjuncts, others use methanol from corn. you're an ignorant twit.

Fuel cells still require the same level of energy that the oil would put out. Unless you suggest recharging fuel cells with oil, fuel cells will not stop the requirement for other ways of gaining more and more energy.

More BS. Fuel cells can be recharged using solar and wind power, as well as nuclear power. What a dumbass.

Americans don't want to change their lifestyle. Even if a total switch to cars and planes with fuel cells were possible, and the country could build new nuclear plants to meet the energy needs, americans would refuse it in favour of grabbing the last of the oil around.

Good Lord, you are stupid! The minute we start building nuclear power plants to end reliance on oil, Greenpeace and every international granola-crunching hairy-women-having radical liberal conservationist organization would crap their hemp underwear. I would also like to see a post with EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S VIEW ON WHETHER THEY WOULD ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES!

You're an ignorant trolling little putz without the sense God gave you to figure things out for yourself. You are just regurgitating some crap you've read somewhere, most likely in some anti-Amercan rag populated by the people I referred to above.

Welcome to Wit's Famous Ignore List, as you are obviously under the age of eighteen and suffer from a lack of oxygen at birth.

[MrL_JaKiri]

My first comment would be to stop flaming, or you will be Welcomed to PA's Famous Ban List.

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
More BS. Fuel cells can be recharged using solar and wind power, as well as nuclear power. What a dumbass.

That was his point. There isn't the existing infrastructure to supply that kind of energy. Even without relying on electricity for transport, the state of California is still in an energy crisis, to use one example.

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Good Lord, you are stupid! The minute we start building EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S VIEW ON WHETHER THEY WOULD ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES!

Alternative energy sources can generate nowhere near the amount of power required if you remove fossil fuels from the equation.

[Monkeypimp]

'Most ignorent American ever'


you DO realise all the death and destruction your country has caused right?

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
Why then did you want the oil piepline through Afghanistan


You have no idea, get back to eating your donuts

How about support for that cool statement, dude?

I'm sure we went to Afghanistan just to get hold of a pipeline! That makes absolute sense!

Sorry you are too poor and oppressed to get your own doughnuts. I't's great being an American!

That was a TERRIBLE flame, btw.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
My first comment would be to stop flaming, or you will be Welcomed to PA's Famous Ban List.



That was his point. There isn't the existing infrastructure to supply that kind of energy. Even without relying on electricity for transport, the state of California is still in an energy crisis, to use one example.



Alternative energy sources can generate nowhere near the amount of power required if you remove fossil fuels from the equation.

I forgot,...everyone knows more about what IS happening in America then any Americans,...and you guys have that cool crystal ball so you KNOW what will happen in the future.

This is why Mods should NOT be allowed to engage in any interaction with those on a forum unless they are being Mods. Your impartiality is affected, and you troll for flaming. Either that or you are just a flame magnet. I'm voting for the latter

[W]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Bullsh*t.

Pure, unadulterated Bullsh*t.

Just the mere thought of you knowing what Americans will and will not do is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yes, because god knows, you're never predictable

i disagree with everyone of your statements and I challenge you to prove them all, right here, right now.

I was more thinking along the line of rational argumentation and evidence. I will not do the work of finding references without a commitment of you to put in the same effort.

Bullsh*t! We have buses that use fuel cells, some use solar adjuncts, others use methanol from corn. you're an ignorant twit.

Buses are cars. My point was mainly about planes. Are you gonna put hydrogen cells on a Boeng 747?

More BS. Fuel cells can be recharged using solar and wind power, as well as nuclear power. What a dumbass.

They can be recharged using whatever energy is available actually. The energy still has to come from somewhere. Something still has to replace the oil as an energy source. Fuel cells just replace oil as a means of transporting the energy.

The minute we start building nuclear power plants to end reliance on oil, Greenpeace and every international granola-crunching hairy-women-having radical liberal conservationist organization would crap their hemp underwear.

Very true. Most of the people protesting would be americans tho.

I would also like to see a post with EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S VIEW ON WHETHER THEY WOULD ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES!

Well, I'd think it was obvious I wasn't talking about all americans, but rather enough americans.

You're an ignorant trolling little putz without the sense God gave you to figure things out for yourself. You are just regurgitating some crap you've read somewhere, most likely in some anti-Amercan rag populated by the people I referred to above.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Apart from the first post, which you in whole ripped from someone else, both your posts and mine have been written in whole by ourselfs. Which contains more fact, I leave to third parties to discover and point out.

Welcome to Wit's Famous Ignore List, as you are obviously under the age of eighteen and suffer from a lack of oxygen at birth.

Yeah, cause people under the age of eighteen cannot possibly read about and understand global politics.

And since you're ignoring me, you won't have to read or respond to this post, will you?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
may be on that ****hole of a board you came from, but this is high society. It's not

Forgive the poor lad for being behind the times.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Forgive the poor lad for being behind the times.

LOL! The age of enlightenment?!

Our world will surely end now with the likes of you two.

High Society?!

I can't wait for all things to be laid bare and the EU grovels at our feet for saving the globe from a madman.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
LOL! The age of enlightenment?!

Personally, I would have called it sarcasm, but I guess we're just two different people.

[Judge]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

How much, pray tell, does the US and the UK possess?

It is pretty much irrelevant how much the UK/US has in way of current trade.

After the conflict (assuming it will happen) they will have 100% of it, should they chose to do so?

The problems that the opposing camp have is that they fear the loss of current contracts, future contracts, and the reneging of unpaid bills.

Perhaps if the Coalition could give some sort of Guarantee on existing contracts even if only on a case by case basis, some of the divisions could be resolved?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

Link to the site with sources identified in the numbers in brackets can be found HERE.



No real surprise here for anyone, right?

Have a nice day.

so what exactly did you expect? that saddam does buiness with those countries who bombed the **** out of him 12 years ago? that not really likely

[Phang]

it would make interesting reading if the other side of the article wasntthis.

[wu_trax]

oh and yes, it makes perfect sence for us to risk $90 billion of bilateral trade with the us for 1 billion of trade volumne with iraq, we only do this for economical reasons !!

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
..everyone knows more about what IS happening in America then any Americans,..

How true.
The virtues of a decent, critical educational system are (or in the US's case, would be) manifold arent they?

Have a nice day.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by wu_trax
oh and yes, it makes perfect sence for us to risk $90 billion of bilateral trade with the us for 1 billion of trade volumne with iraq, we only do this for economical reasons !!

Shhhh... dont ruin their squabble.

[wakey]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†

Welcome to Wit's Famous Ignore List, as you are obviously under the age of eighteen and suffer from a lack of oxygen at birth.

Everytime you post that line I cant help think "typical yank". If people dont agree with your views you immediatly dismisses them as 'idiots' and then ignore them. You need to get rid of this "I'm Americain so am superior to you all" attitude and start to realise that the world doesnt revolve around yourself.

Every little action you take as a country in the aim to "aid the world" may make you feel good as a country and may even make the USA a safer place for you to live but it has massive reprocussions later on. The situation in Afganistan for example was simply due your governments fear of communism. If you and teh USSR hadnt been so petty and built up a hatred for the others political beliefs amongst your people September 11th would not have likly happened. The fact that you meddled in Afganistan to stop russia getting control, then aided the taliban to get power and then just left the country to get on with its own devices once youd got from them what you needed. So you hadarmed and trained them, then left them which built up anti west hate and then you wondered why you got attacked.

Due to the US being at the center of the terrorist attacks your views on the subject are clouded which is making you want to go on this revenge mission and I'm sure that we would be the same in Britain if September 11th had happened here and for that reason you should be listening to what the other nations have to say more instead of being so single minded. The other countries of the world can be more judgemental on this issue simply becuase they dont have the same baggage attached to the issue (although i'm not saying that France, Germany and Russia arent a bit biased due to their links to iraq, but then again thats balanced by the Tony blairs lapdog attitude).

One things certain in my mind if the UN pass a resolution to attack then fine lets get rid of saddam but if such a resolution isnt passed then the political way should be continued. If the US decided to attack without this they are throwing away the stability of this world that the UN helps keep. The UN may be falwed in areas but no-one can deny that by having a body where the world is answerable to helps make the world a more stable place becuase it stops a single nation going off doing their own thing. If the US does go off and do its own thing it is telling every other nation in the world it can do this also. They already seem to be getting ready with the news reports having said that holes have been cut in the fences surrounding the demilitarised zone between Iraq and Kuwait and if they do goto war with out the UN concent and do march troops through the demilitarised zone like it looks like they are planning to your giving the likes of North Korea a green light to do the same and attack people they conisder a threat. And what can we do to stop them, nothing becuase America will have done it as well.

Although whats more worrying to me is that on your previous history your actually get Saddam out of power but the person/people you put in his place will end up being twcice as bad. The taliban and General Pinochet in chile are just two cases of that in the last 50 years.

If you do want to attack you really need to produce some real evidence and not some badly produced computer graphics of what you think hes doing, although tbh if he does have these weapons I think hes going to be a greater threat when we back him into a corner through war than he is otherwise. After all whats the saying "desperate times call for desperate measures"

[SPQR]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

Link to the site with sources identified in the numbers in brackets can be found HERE.



No real surprise here for anyone, right?

Have a nice day.

Do you know what, they could make even more profit if Saddam wasn't in power in Iraq anymore. The UN sanctions would be gone and they could trade much more with the Iraq.

[acropolis]

Trouble for the Warmongers


by

Charles Coughlin

Even if Bush gets his war against Iraq, the increasing news leaks about forged evidence and underhanded tricks to get America into this war could end his political career after just one term. The shaky condition of the economy is already spelling doom for Bush's second term hopes and the increasing scandal concerning dishonest war propaganda may further seal his fate. Someone should tell Bush that being [controlled by spoecial interests] is not a way to get a second term. The foreign press has already exposed much of the Bush "evidence" against Iraq --which is the real reason Europe opposes this war. A recent BBC news article for example stated there is no evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. (Ref. 1)

The Bush administration has been belittling the people of Europe. Claiming that their resistance to the war on Iraq is due to cowardice or business relationships with Hussein. In reality, the European press is printing the truth about Iraq while our press prints [lies]. The latest individual to accuse the Bush administration of dishonesty is not from France. He is not from Russia or Germany. He is a U.S. Senator, who wants the FBI "to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein" according to an Associated Press article. (Ref. 3) Senator Jay Rockefeller said he was "uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program."


Iraq has done nothing for the last twelve years. The rest of the world sees Iraq as a nation that has changed its ways. Making war on a nation that has lived in peace for twelve years and which has allowed weapons inspectors to ransack their nation looking for weapons of mass destruction is not justifiable to the people of Europe, and it could easily be seen as a "declaration of war" against the entire Muslim world. All of the so called "evidence" against Iraq has been created by the CIA and Mossad. These two intelligence agencies could not supply the weapons inspectors with even one location, where they could find so much as one canister of poison gas in two months of searching. Given this complete failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, it is no surprise that the rest of world thinks Bush's war on Iraq is an "unjust war" --as the Pope described it.

An excellent article.

You know, I'm thinking I'll do all my reading on political topics directly from White Supremacist web sites from now on.

Think about it. They have no interest in political correctness. when they tell biased propaganda lies, it's really obvious (just assume that any of my edits replaced an anti-jew slander). And it also keeps you double-checking yourself, when you realize that 99% of your arguments are the same that are made by Grand Wizards of the KKK (except for the easy to notice 'american media is full of jewish lies' bit).

[Kurashima]

Its like watching WarFalcon after hes been watching CNN for an hour.

Although much more abusive. As opposed to debating a point, he simply attacks the poster.

Typical DF3'er.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Kurashima
Its like watching WarFalcon after hes been watching CNN for an hour.

no, that guy here is worse than WF. you could at least talk with WF, to some extend. (ofc, you couldnt convice him of anaything, but you can have everything )

[Chrism]

Saw this on another forum.

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security
council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security
council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could
well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an
undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry
lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to
Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its
biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a
partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the
tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a
partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented
a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in
Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student
paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans
Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
dectruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.
You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S.
Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were
elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a
patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still
unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an
unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we
must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the
west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to
turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the
inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and
denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way
we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on
Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the
consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a
peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with
the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott
their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

[Kurashima]

Nice stuff Chrism.

And Nod , can i just point out that the piece you posted at the beginning of this thread is one of the most amusing debunkings ive ever read.

Remember folks, if it doesnt fit with you theories , just ignore the laws of Physics , Thermodynamics , Gravity , and everything else thats "Inconvenient" so that your story holds true.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Kurashima
And Nod , can i just point out that the piece you posted at the beginning of this thread is one of the most amusing debunkings ive ever read.

Remember folks, if it doesnt fit with you theories , just ignore the laws of Physics , Thermodynamics , Gravity , and everything else thats "Inconvenient" so that your story holds true.

What the hell are you talking about? Nod hasn't posted in this thread.

[Texan]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
What the hell are you talking about? Nod hasn't posted in this thread.

He would have posted, but his computer is broken ATM.

[queball]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
What the hell are you talking about? Nod hasn't posted in this thread.

Maybe he's confused with the ace 9/11 thread!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Texan
He would have posted, but his computer is broken ATM.

Thankyou NodWatch2003.

You're also wrong.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Its nice to know that your thinking long term there.

What would happen if you did spend the next 20 years on your own oil and it ran out?

You'd be pretty screwed.

Hardly. The US has vast coal reserves (US : coal :: Saudi Arabia : oil). You can make gasoline from coal if you have to, or burn it for electricity. Then there's nuclear power, which while politically unpopular remains technically and economically viable. In 20 years (actually, I think it'd take a lot longer to use up our current and yet-to-be-found reserves, but whatever), we'd have plenty of other options.

Of course, cutting the US off from foreign oil would be an economic disaster. The billions of dollars per year that currently flow to South America, Africa and the mideast would remain inside the US. The rest of the world could not begin to pick up the slack and those areas would face huge losses in revenue. Much of this money is, in turn, spent in the US and other developed countries, and without it, a worldwide depression would be the likely result.

You have to face it, oil is going to run out (I hope your not going to dispute that fact but you never know).

Yes, it's going to run out... eventually. But I would point out one fact: most of the planet has never been explored for oil (primarily the deep oceans, but also significant areas of Asia, Africa and South America; as well as the less hospitable regions of the remaining continents). We may not yet have the technology to extract oil from all of these places, but that will almost certainly change.

The earlier scientists start research into alternative energy sources the better off we will be in the future.

Most so-called alternative energy sources suffer from the opposite problem: they're politcally popular but economically and/or technically unviable.

[Dante Hicks]

The problem is not really oil running out - that will never occur. The problem is that if Oil was cut off from the United States (or Oil/Natural Gas from Europe) then the price spikes that would occur would seriously damage our economy. The % currently spent on energy would grow dramatically and other sectors of the economy would suffer. Of course, as I've said elsewhere this wouldn't be 100% bad since it'd increase the level of investment in alternate energy supply.

As Tact says, there are numerous areas that haven't been explored yet. But the issue is not whether there is more oil after the major reserves in the Persian Guld and Latin America decline. There _WILL_ be oil in other places. The issue is whether this oil can be economically extracted. Getting oil from Saudi Arabia is cheaper than North Sea oil (for instance), and North Sea oil might be massively cheaper than (say) Chinese oil.

There will still be oil (I'd think) in three or four hundred years time. It'll be just uneconomical to get at. Therefore, the question isn't whether we'll have no oil - it's whether we'll have no cheap oil.

According to some analysis, it's to do with peak oil production. One of the reasons for the Soviet Unions decline was (allegedly) peak oil production reached in the 70's. After that, it's all decline. Russia still has masses of oil (and coal, and gas) but once decline sets in, prices rise and things start to bite. Our economy is built around oil costing a certain amount (with a bit of flexibility). If oil ever reached say, 100 dollars a barrel (or whatever) it's debatable whether things would keep running smoothly.

[W]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Hardly. The US has vast coal reserves (US : coal :: Saudi Arabia : oil). You can make gasoline from coal if you have to, or burn it for electricity. Then there's nuclear power, which while politically unpopular remains technically and economically viable. In 20 years (actually, I think it'd take a lot longer to use up our current and yet-to-be-found reserves, but whatever), we'd have plenty of other options.

I do not doubt that the US could be energy sufficient. The price, however, would be tremendous, both in economic terms of resources and manpower, social in that cars planes etc would have to drastically change and the entire economy would have to restructure, and ecological in the sheer amount of coal mines and nuclear plants that had to be constructed and operated.

Of course, cutting the US off from foreign oil would be an economic disaster. The billions of dollars per year that currently flow to South America, Africa and the mideast would remain inside the US. The rest of the world could not begin to pick up the slack and those areas would face huge losses in revenue. Much of this money is, in turn, spent in the US and other developed countries, and without it, a worldwide depression would be the likely result.

Don't be blinded by money. Money is just the symbol of wealth, the movement of money does not in itself signify much. A depression would be avoidable if people saw what the "we get money" really mean. The real goods that the US trades for oil is usually in the end either technical expertice, or weaponry. Removing the first would imo in the long run benefit any country, no matter how poor, and the advantages of removing the second is obvious.

Yes, it's going to run out... eventually. But I would point out one fact: most of the planet has never been explored for oil (primarily the deep oceans, but also significant areas of Asia, Africa and South America; as well as the less hospitable regions of the remaining continents). We may not yet have the technology to extract oil from all of these places, but that will almost certainly change.

The price of extracting oil have constantly increased. This is due to the easilly attainable oil resources already being developed, and that you do have to explore more hostile and challenging areas to find it, be it jungle, arctic or mere deep sea drilling. This trend will continue, independant of any lost dreams of science salvation.

Most so-called alternative energy sources suffer from the opposite problem: they're politcally popular but economically and/or technically unviable.

True. The most feasible alternative energy source to fossile fuels is nuclear, and it's not at all cheap. Wind, solar, thermal, bio, and wave power all fail to live up to the greenies expectations, and are all much more expensive than nuclear power. For simple reasons that any phycisist that has studied the problems can tell you.

[Pyr0 MK III]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Like the saying goes,...clean the crap out of your OWN backyard befor trying to tell me to clean up mine.

This opinion is one of the things wrong with America.