argue with this:

[Tessellation]

Originally posted by Cherub Sock


I see the words 'Red Wine Cage' and I stop reading.

"No fighting is allowed in the War Room."

-Dr. Strangelove,or, how...

[Samsa]

i feel like throwing the term 'democratic deficit' into this forum for no reason except i want to

[Orchestra]

Originally posted by DeviousJ
.

[img] http://www.imagestation.com/picture/...1/fce0c62c.jpg[/img]

[Blank]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


so it's more adult to be uninformed about reality, and blindly follow your country, because hey, making money is what really counts?

I just prefer not to make blanket, uninformed statements like...There are No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know that you heard that off of some cable news site, but I am hesitant to believe that statement. Why did Iraq not allow inspectors in immediately? Do you honestly believe anything could have been hidden?

As far as us making money. C'mon. Think about what you say. First off, looking back at the past, do you think that if the U.S. invades Iraq that Sadam will let us obtain all of the reserves? Do you remember seeing the images of burning oil in Kuwait?

The economy is not performing poorly because of oil prices right now. That is not the leading economic indicator that anlysts use to form their expectations of what is to come. To think that Bush would go to war just to obtain their reserves is a little far fetched. OPEC has a history of being able to control oil prices for a period of time, and then someone breaks away, or other non-OPEC countries step up production. It is the ebb and flow of the market. Due to all of the rate increases, and the "strong" market from the late nineties, it was bound to happen. To tie that to Bush's presidency is typical. Oh and undertaking a war that will cost our country a lot of money really will make us a lot right off of the bat. But I am sure that will George's experience in Texas he will man the drilling equipment himself the day after it is over. Please.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Blank

I just prefer not to make blanket, uninformed statements like...There are No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know that you heard that off of some cable news site, but I am hesitant to believe that statement. Why did Iraq not allow inspectors in immediately? Do you honestly believe anything could have been hidden?

As far as us making money. C'mon. Think about what you say. First off, looking back at the past, do you think that if the U.S. invades Iraq that Sadam will let us obtain all of the reserves? Do you remember seeing the images of burning oil in Kuwait?

The economy is not performing poorly because of oil prices right now. That is not the leading economic indicator that anlysts use to form their expectations of what is to come. To think that Bush would go to war just to obtain their reserves is a little far fetched. OPEC has a history of being able to control oil prices for a period of time, and then someone breaks away, or other non-OPEC countries step up production. It is the ebb and flow of the market. Due to all of the rate increases, and the "strong" market from the late nineties, it was bound to happen. To tie that to Bush's presidency is typical. Oh and undertaking a war that will cost our country a lot of money really will make us a lot right off of the bat. But I am sure that will George's experience in Texas he will man the drilling equipment himself the day after it is over. Please.

US plans to destroy Opec cartel: Post-Saddam blueprint

uploaded 04 Nov 2002


By Peter Beaumont & Faisal Islam

LONDON: The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.

Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.

Confirming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: "The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them."

Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham, UK, to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and City financiers. Topics for discussion ******* the country's oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."

Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Co uncil over a new resolution on Iraq.

If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multi-billion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.

Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.

Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.

French interest is also intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field.

Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-c onservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests.

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels (per day) of production to world supply," he said in September. "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

Russian concern over a fut ure INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on August 29 the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.

A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.

In The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatization of Iraq's nationalized oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.

Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another f or the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.-

Source: Dawn/The Guardian News Service

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Orchestra

[img] http://www.imagestation.com/picture/...1/fce0c62c.jpg[/img]

gg!

[Blank]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

That sounds like a lot of skepticism about what may happen. In addition, as all media does...the article tries to directly implicate or place Bush in those discussions (which I have not heard anything about those follow-up meeting which should have take place by now).

But, as one would expect, companies within American (and the rest of the world) are holding preliminary discussions about how to get in on the oil. Whether or not those prices are passed on to the consumer to "aide" our economy is another story. Good article though. I would be pessimistic about the amounts of reserves left after a war, but it does not surprise me that oil companies around the world are vying for a position in this.

I do believe that it has to be proven (either by inspectors or other means) that Iraq has the debated weapon's of mass destruction. I am also against the US setting up a government within Iraq. If this occurs there must be a plan for what will exist within Iraq after the fact (i.e., how will the people decide what government will be in operation).

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Blank

I just prefer not to make blanket, uninformed statements like...There are No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know that you heard that off of some cable news site, but I am hesitant to believe that statement. Why did Iraq not allow inspectors in immediately? Do you honestly believe anything could have been hidden?

i never said there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. there may be chemical weapons and probably plenty of missiles, but i would doubt they've managed to build a nuclear arsenal. what i said was that Iraq doesn't present a threat to the United States. even if they have the weapons, they cannot attack us with them directly. and even if they could, i'm pretty sure they wouldn't, though it's possible. and though the postponement of the inspectors may be in part to hide what weapons they do have, why wouldn't they postpone such an action anyway? would you want to be investigated as a criminal nation for no particular reason other than someone is making it their mission to destroy you, this after spending years being bombed nightly and not having the same economic rights as other nations?

[Orchestra]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


gg!

kthxgg

[DeviousJ]

But you're missing the point. The fact is countries are already vying for control of this oil, which will become available after a war which we are constantly told is still avoidable. Iraq are complying with the inspections (they've obviously realized just how much danger they're now in) and yet the mobilization of troops and hardware to the region is speeding ahead. You have to ask yourself, how much does this have to do with weapons inspections? And you can say it sounds skeptical, but the precedent is there - look at Afghanistan. With the Taliban gone, the way is clear for a nice pipeline from the Caspian basin. Nevermind that the country is still massively unstable, people can listen to music now - job's done, everyone out.

Of course it has to be proven that Iraq has these weapons. Even then, it's a case of dealing with the problem rationally - it's not like they would have been covertly developed or anything. We simply do not have the right to control other countries' internal affairs - and we certainly don't have any moral high ground considering how much shit that country has been put through.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Orchestra

kthxgg

hmg+jp plz comm, tf at triad rp + pg k?

[Mr_sister]

Centrifuges are only used to separate uranium isotopes? You can make fucking cheese with them.

gee. i bet iraq paid millions of dollars for a really expensive cheese producer. You should really stop wasting your vast talents on this board and start writing for some big newspaper.
The last thing you wrote about skepticism was really smart too!

[Mr_sister]

But you're missing the point. The fact is countries are already vying for control of this oil, which will become available after a war which we are constantly told is still avoidable. Iraq are complying with the inspections (they've obviously realized just how much danger they're now in) and yet the mobilization of troops and hardware to the region is speeding ahead. You have to ask yourself, how much does this have to do with weapons inspections? And you can say it sounds skeptical, but the precedent is there - look at Afghanistan. With the Taliban gone, the way is clear for a nice pipeline from the Caspian basin. Nevermind that the country is still massively unstable, people can listen to music now - job's done, everyone out.

Yes, everyone out, except for the big number of peacekeeping UN soldiers and money that's been pumped into the country after the war ended. But hey, thanks for sharing some of your imense knowledge!It was really better when the talibans oppressed women and fucked goats for fun.
Actually, that stuff about oil is so apparent that it's embarrassing to even point it out, the US is primarily there for the oil, no big deal.

[Mr_sister]

Of course it has to be proven that Iraq has these weapons. Even then, it's a case of dealing with the problem rationally - it's not like they would have been covertly developed or anything. We simply do not have the right to control other countries' internal affairs - and we certainly don't have any moral high ground considering how much shit that country has been put through.

No, that's true, we just simply have no right to control other countries internal affairs. Like in Rwanda, where over 2 million people was slaughtered because no one did anything, was actually a good thing! WE HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO CONTROL OTHER COUNTRIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS!!! H AHA HAA YOU'RE SO STUPID!

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


gee. i bet iraq paid millions of dollars for a really expensive cheese producer. You should really stop wasting your vast talents on this board and start writing for some big newspaper.
The last thing you wrote about skepticism was really smart too!

Hey genius, you have no idea what you're talking about. Centrifuges (not centrifugamatrons or whatever you called them) are used to separate substances and elements of different densities - this has thousands of possible applications, especially in the medical field. In fact, I think we had a small one at high school. No wait, they were probably making bombs in the supply closet!!

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


Yes, everyone out, except for the big number of peacekeeping UN soldiers and money that's been pumped into the country after the war ended. But hey, thanks for sharing some of your imense knowledge!It was really better when the talibans oppressed women and fucked goats for fun.
Actually, that stuff about oil is so apparent that it's embarrassing to even point it out, the US is primarily there for the oil, no big deal.

So you're agreeing that the main focus of the war was to get a more pliant government established in the country, and not for the benefit of the people of that country? That worked great in Iran.

As far as the stability goes - there is still fighting in the north, people are still unable to return home, and vast areas are covered in cluster bombs. The economy and infrastructure are worse than ever, and the money that is being 'pumped' in just isn't enough. In fact, planned contributions have been scrapped in some cases. UN peacekeeping takes place all over the world, and it's the least that can be done when you've just finished a war with a country.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


No, that's true, we just simply have no right to control other countries internal affairs. Like in Rwanda, where over 2 million people was slaughtered because no one did anything, was actually a good thing! WE HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO CONTROL OTHER COUNTRIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS!!! H AHA HAA YOU'RE SO STUPID!

Oh I'm sorry, did I need to qualify that statement with 'without a VERY FUCKING GOOD REASON'? Funny you should mention these massacres in other countries, where friendly governments were allowed to kill thousands of people, whereas hostile governments (such as Iraq) are pronounced as evil and are in the process of being removed. You see, internal affairs only need to be actively controlled if they're not already working to the benefit of the outside power. Thanks for bolstering my point, though

[Mr_sister]

Hey genius, you have no idea what you're talking about. Centrifuges (not centrifugamatrons or whatever you called them) are used to separate substances and elements of different densities - this has thousands of possible applications, especially in the medical field. In fact, I think we had a small one at high school. No wait, they were probably making bombs in the supply closet

A : why would a government that doesn't give a shit about its own population start to do research within the medical field or start producing medical supplies? The Centrifuges were bought during a time when almost all resources were spent on military equipment and second to none was spent on cheap medications or other things that greatly could have changed the health condition in Iraq.

B : Actually, the technology behind this centrifuge was classified, and sold by a spy called Schaab. Not something that would turn up on a high school in the US.

[Mr_sister]

Oh I'm sorry, did I need to qualify that statement with 'without a VERY FUCKING GOOD REASON'? Funny you should mention these massacres in other countries, where friendly governments were allowed to kill thousands of people, whereas hostile governments (such as Iraq) are pronounced as evil and are in the process of being removed. You see, internal affairs only need to be actively controlled if they're not already working to the benefit of the outside power. Thanks for bolstering my point, though

Well, at least it sounds a lot cooler when you write it without that clarification.


WAIT; are you saying that the US is attacking Iraq for their own gain?!! Ha ha, if that's the point you're trying to make, i find you mildly pathetic, since it's really obvious (which i've written once already).

[Mr_sister]

So you're agreeing that the main focus of the war was to get a more pliant government established in the country, and not for the benefit of the people of that country? That worked great in Iran.

yes i do. But you have to ask yourself if that is a problem. And if so, is it a big enough probem to make it morally unaceptable (jn utilitarian terms)that the Us attacks and gets rid of the talibans.

[Mr_sister]

As far as the stability goes - there is still fighting in the north, people are still unable to return home, and vast areas are covered in cluster bombs. The economy and infrastructure are worse than ever, and the money that is being 'pumped' in just isn't enough. In fact, planned contributions have been scrapped in some cases. UN peacekeeping takes place all over the world, and it's the least that can be done when you've just finished a war with a country.

The economy and infrastructure have much bigger chances of improving after the talibans being removed. Having a realtively reliable regime (thus not a bunch of religios wankers who will practicly do anything) means that the number of investments will rise, and that the lands resources can start to be exploited.
Also, one could expect that a regime that is not an enemy of western culture and technical advancement like the talibans, will be much more willing and able to do the necessary reforms that the economy needs.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


A : why would a government that doesn't give a shit about its own population start to do research within the medical field or start producing medical supplies? The Centrifuges were bought during a time when almost all resources were spent on military equipment and second to none was spent on cheap medications or other things that greatly could have changed the health condition in Iraq.

B : Actually, the technology behind this centrifuge was classified, and sold by a spy called Schaab. Not something that would turn up on a high school in the US.

A: Let's see shall we - Iraq has had sanctions imposed on the importing of medical supplies. Your idea that the government 'doesn't give a shit about its population' shows how totally closed minded you are about foreign countries. Did Fox News bring you this insight? Funny how they have hospitals, and doctors and so on. If nothing else, you should be able to work out that those Iraqis who are fairly privileged have access to medical care. But again, you're taking things too literally - the centrifuges may have been for industrial use, as they commonly are. The design lends itself to producing enriched uranium - this does not mean they were used to make bombs. Enriched uranium can also be used as reactor fuel.

B: Mr Schaab seems to think Iraq were unable to produce the kind of setup required for a uranium enrichment program - in fact they were missing some components found in any college physics lab. How ironic.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


Well, at least it sounds a lot cooler when you write it without that clarification.


WAIT; are you saying that the US is attacking Iraq for their own gain?!! Ha ha, if that's the point you're trying to make, i find you mildly pathetic, since it's really obvious (which i've written once already).

It's obvious? According to Bush, it's for the good of the world and the people of Iraq! If you think that the motives are obvious, and are still a good enough reason to go to war with an already decimated country, then I think I'll have to find you 'mildly pathetic'

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister


The economy and infrastructure have much bigger chances of improving after the talibans being removed. Having a realtively reliable regime (thus not a bunch of religios wankers who will practicly do anything) means that the number of investments will rise, and that the lands resources can start to be exploited.
Also, one could expect that a regime that is not an enemy of western culture and technical advancement like the talibans, will be much more willing and able to do the necessary reforms that the economy needs.

They don't have a relatively reliable regime. The government is under huge strain, warlord factions are still fighting all over the country, and the place has to rebuild before they can even consider any 'reforms'. Obviously the removal of the Taliban was in the interests of the majority of the country, but once it was done they were almost left to fend for themselves. The way the war was conducted, and the apparent lack of interest once the new government was in place are the things that bother me the most. So much for the promise of a democratic state

[tweedyburd]

It's funny to hear all this 'they're complying with the UN,' buiness-as-usual attitude, and yet casually omit the fact that Iraq recently gave the U.S. a 15,000 page document that was a cut and paste job from the last time they submitted one. Needless to say, there was a laundry list of weaponry that wasn't accounted for and was not mentioned in the 'report,' such as something like 300 tons of anthrax, hundreds of missiles, etc etc.

These UN inspections are just Saddam buying himself some time--it's a puppet show--a cat and mouse chase, and little else. It's been proven that Saddam funds Hammas to kill Jewish civilians, and he's more concerned about maintaining the power he has than putting all his weapons on the table. And though he may not have weapons that reach us, he does have plenty of range on Israel, who is one of our primary allies.

[Mr_sister]

aah, forget it, you win about the centrifugator thing, since i don't have any scources in english to back up my previous statements .

[NeverTonightA]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
It's funny to hear all this 'they're complying with the UN,' buiness-as-usual attitude, and yet casually omit the fact that Iraq recently gave the U.S. a 15,000 page document that was a cut and paste job from the last time they submitted one. Needless to say, there was a laundry list of weaponry that wasn't accounted for and was not mentioned in the 'report,' such as something like 300 tons of anthrax, hundreds of missiles, etc etc.

These UN inspections are just Saddam buying himself some time--it's a puppet show--a cat and mouse chase, and little else. It's been proven that Saddam funds Hammas to kill Jewish civilians, and he's more concerned about maintaining the power he has than putting all his weapons on the table. And though he may not have weapons that reach us, he does have plenty of range on Israel, who is one of our primary allies.

If Israel were attacked, you couldn't make a case that they have never done anything wrong to deserve such a thing. From displacing an entire people to killing innocents, Israelis hands are just as dirty as anyone elses. Same goes for the U.S., there no angels here either (I don't think you need examples here because there are so many). Yeah Saddam is a horrible person, has weapons, uses horrific tactics to get his way, but is he that much worse then the U.S. or Israel, or is he just worse at hiding it?

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by NeverTonightA


If Israel were attacked, you couldn't make a case that they have never done anything wrong to deserve such a thing. From displacing an entire people to killing innocents, Israelis hands are just as dirty as anyone elses. Same goes for the U.S., there no angels here either (I don't think you need examples here because there are so many). Yeah Saddam is a horrible person, has weapons, uses horrific tactics to get his way, but is he that much worse then the U.S. or Israel, or is he just worse at hiding it?

tweedyburd, is this a spin?

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by NeverTonightA


If Israel were attacked, you couldn't make a case that they have never done anything wrong to deserve such a thing.

So you're justifying the deaths of thousands of Israeli civilians because their government hasn't been the hallmark of statesmanship? That makes a lot of sense. If we go by that logic, not only should we have the right to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, but also to completely decimate the entire country into a black hole.

Does Israel fund terrorist networks like Hammas to kill people all over the world?

[Samsa]

Originally posted by tweedyburd


So you're justifying the deaths of thousands of Israeli civilians because their government hasn't been the hallmark of statesmanship? That makes a lot of sense. If we go by that logic, not only should we have the right to invade Iraq, but also to completely decimate the entire country into a black hole.

i guess you could point out that israel elects those people and iraq doesn't. not that i'm making a case for an argument or even agree with what i'm saying (i don't agree with half of what i say) i just thought it would be awesome to point it out uhh nevermind.