Operation Iraqi Liberation...

“a.k.a.

O.I.L”

“PEOPLE! I agree that the only reason we are over there is because of the oil. Africa is a perfect example of this. Men, women, and children have been slaugtered there for years and we have yet to step in and help them because leaders like our president, (i.e. monkey bush), have found it short in the money range. Oil spells $$$$'s. But to play devils advocate... We really do need to be there although I disagree with the timing and reason they're feeding the public. I am more behind this since the chem and bio weapons were found. Our soldiers are number one though, and I hope no one forgets that.”

“All
liberals
are
stupid
kindergarten
a$$holes”

“Bush Sr. sent U.S. troops into Somalia for oil.

Klinton did not send U.S. troops into Rwanda because they had oil.”

“awww thats so cute. pecker discovered anagrams........

im sick of hearing its about oil. ITS NOT ABOUT OIL! GOD! grow up.

however

it does sicken me to see the term "operation iraqi freedom". freeing iraq citizens is just a side benefit. if we werent worried about iraq acquiring wmd's, AND if we werent pissed off about 9/11, saddam could still be kicking his people about with impunity. once bushie gets this out of his system, he can feel better about himself.”

“The Genevia Conventions clearly state that a countries resources can only be used for rebuilding the country and off setting NOMINAL administration costs. Plundering Iraq as many of you would suggest, is against the law and I'm sure that the likes of France and Russia will make sure to point that out. Will our companies benifit? I think that goes with out saying, as well as the Asian countries selling technology, Russia, military items and infrastructure, France will benifit greatly and others countries will too. For the record, Haliburton will not be involved, they pulled out because of ties to Chaney. France has the most to gain from oil, IMHO, They bought most of there oil from Iraq, if memory serves.

Fire away...”

“Flame away.”

“Let's take as a given that every cent of profit from Iraqi oil is evenly distributed to the citizens of that country. Let's also postulate that no western oil companies profit unfairly in any way.

When that oil hits the world market, won't the price drop for us all? Increased supply, relatively steady demand? What do you think the price of unleaded will be once Iraq's oilfields get back up to speed?

The industrialised countries don't need to 'steal' anything to reap these benefits. The oilfields need only go back into full production.”

“The slaughter in parts of Africa is related to control of profits from the export of strategic materials.

The Congo area(Rwanda, Burundi etc) exports materials such as tantulum(its in your wireless communication device).

These strategic materials are much smaller in bulk and quantity than petroleum.

If the supply of those materials were to be threatened or interrupted, there may well be military intervention.

Diamonds are another strategic item from Africa.
Without diamonds there would be NO machine shop work......precision grinding of hard steel for engines and firearms, etc.”

“Tilt, your logic is real weak. If lots Iraqi oil hits the market, and drives the price down, you are right, you will get cheaper gas at the pump. But BIG OIL (I know that is a vulgar phrase, will it be censored?) will not benefit. I know that you and several others think that the reason for this war is to make Bush's BIG OIL (there I go again) buddys can get rich(er). Maybe you can work out another scheme to blame it on BIG OIL.”

“It's not a scheme vc2 - big oil does benefit from being able to gain some access in time to the Iraqi oil reserves in partnership deals with any new Iraqi government.”

“Tom, it's not Tantulum, it's Tantalum and it is used to make capacitors having high capacitance values in a small size with low ESR. That being said, Tantalum is not the only material that capacitors can be made from.”

“I believe 'vc' needs to read more deliberately.”

“I heard that the Russians intend to enforce their oil contract with Iraq. It could take some time to settle.

Iraq would have to negotiate with OPEC to produce more. They used to be allowed as much as Iran but were cut back after they invaded Kuwait. They could elect to leave OPEC which would seriously undermine OPEC’s power.”

“Wouldn't it be a surprise if that happened ;o)”

“Yeah. I'm sure nobody thought of that beforehand.”

“VON - My guess would be that the Russians would be SOL, because those contacts were made with a government no longer in power, therefore null and void. Might be one of the hot hairs up Russia's ass right now. It was my understanding that old Iraq could only produce and sell enough oil for food and meds for it's people. I know about that black market oil that hits the market.”

“Thank you Savage.

There are indeed other materials with which to make capacitors.

Tantalum is however one of the reasons for the fighting in the Congo region of Katanga.
It is only one example of the Western world's demands on that area's resources and the violence inspired by that demand.

Western/colonial powers have been playing the natives off against each other for decades.

Granted, the natives do have a taste for violence and are not above massacre.”

“From what I heard laqtis, the Russian deal is likely to go to international court and could take a long time to resolve.”

“Doesn't anybody pay attention?

When we kicked Sad Sack out of Kuwait, they said it was because of oil.

The Kuwaitis, who cowered in London while our people died fighting for their country, paid us back by voting to raise oil prices.”

“Right on with what Tom T said!!...I'm with him.”

“It's oil and anyone who says different is a stain in 'Bubya's' shorts.”

“I personally feel the Russians should get the oil they had an agreement for. I also agree that we are there to liberate the oil for the Iraqis, not us. It'll be their oil and they should be able to sell it for their own good and prosperity. There will be plenty of the black stuff to go round.”

“All blanket statements are imbecilic!”

“Terrorism will only increase

Michael Loughlin

In the wake of 9/11, Americans were in shock, and most wondered why anyone would attack us. President Bush (news - web sites) was praised for rallying the nation. What Bush failed to address and what Americans still do not realize is that 9/11, however unjustified, horrible and provocative, was, nevertheless, a comprehensible response to U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Our rhetoric about democracy appeared hypocritical compared to the despotic Arab sheikdoms we supported, the regional military bases we maintained and the unwavering support for Israel we gave despite its continued disregard of U.N. resolutions dealing with its occupation of Palestinian territories. Now Bush's war on Iraq (news - web sites), rather than ending terrorism, promises to cause more. Instead of analyzing the efficacy of U.S. policy, Bush expanded the war on terrorism to include any state labeled ''rogue,'' meaning states that will not do our bidding or that seek weapons comparable to ours. Although most experts believe Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda, a majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was somehow responsible for 9/11. Why has our government misled us?

Stopping al-Qaeda was necessary. However, it blinded us to a possible American role in generating terrorist anger. Waging wars against ''rogue states'' such as Iraq under the guise of human rights, democracy, anti-terrorism or nuclear non-proliferation cannot conceal the purpose of such military interventionism: American domination of the Middle East and the control of its oil. By controlling the Middle East, the United States can maintain the flow of oil, cut off oil to potential adversaries, protect Israel and enhance our regional superiority. But empire has its costs. Our efforts to dominate the Middle East undoubtedly will generate the terrorism we are supposed to be fighting.

For decades, we Americans have seldom been able to question our own morality because we have assumed that we are an exceptional and God-fearing nation whose actions are always just. Such a view has allowed us self-righteously to bomb more than 25 countries since World War II, overthrow and even assassinate leaders who thwart our control and go our own way on issues in which our leadership is crucial. America's actions increasingly look arrogant, bullying, unilateralist and hypocritical.

The Iraqis are on the verge of collapse, and some are cheering us as liberators -- Saddam truly is a wicked thug. What will happen in the aftermath is hard to predict. Few will lament the end of Saddam, but most of the world believes it should have been done under international auspices.

Ironically, to get rid of a ''rogue'' such as Saddam, we violated international opinion and law. Despite our idealistic self-perception, for most of the world, America now stands unmasked as the first ''rogue superpower'' and a threat to world peace. Today, terrorism, rather than peace and democracy, is more likely in Iraq and the region.


Michael Loughlin is a professor of history at Ohio Northern University.”

“Two French authors quoted in Salon. Wow it must be accurate and unbiased.”

“valid point, vc2.

i, for one, would rather listen to them, then our lieing government.”

“i think that it is funny that anyone who is not an American is automatically discredited.”

“Punk... Ok with me. I don't care who you listen to.”

“They need to send Bono and Mr. T into all these places to clear out the thugs. SUCKA BLOODY SUCKA!”

“good call, Tarp Rat”

“Do ya think Bono dyes his hair?”

“It should have been done under international auspices? When would that have happened? Never. The stated reasons for invading Iraq are irrelevant. Who cares about the real reasons v the stated reasons! The "reasons" are mere speculations. The actual results, however, will be:

1. ending a Hitler-esque regime that had unlimited resources and a strong desire to own weapons of mass destruction, with the possibility of supplying them to terrorists for use against the US and Israel.
2. freeing civilians from #1, which involves the end of political imprisonment and executions, the end of living in fear, the end of rule by death squads and enforcers, the end of economic strangulation, possibly the end of poverty and joblessness in Iraq.
3. ending a number of terrorist training camps
4. ending funding for Palastinian suicide bombers (paid to their survivors)
5. a chance for the Iraqi people to benefit from sale of their oil
6. a chance for an Arab/Moslem people to establish a democratic or republic state
7. a chance for the US to show Arabs that it can act selflessly in a noble cause, by exiting Iraq after stability has been assured.
8. a chance for the US to change the whole middle east equation by the establishment of a second democracy (Turkey being the other)
9. The chance for Arabs to show that they can govern themselves in a democracy.

Whatever the reasons, stated, perceived or imagined, that looks like a good list of reasons for the regime change. Waiting on the UN was a joke. Such a committe is not capable of being decisive.

If this makes the US a rogue superpower, it the most benevolent rogue superpower the world has ever seen.”

“So it's ok for the administration to be not wholly honest about the reasons for taking the country to war then Idaho Bob, the ends justify the means? We were told it was about WMDs, not it's about regime change?”

“now it's about regime change”

“I think it was always about WMD, and it was always about regime change. It was always about changing the middle east equation, and establishing a democracy and freeing the Iraqi people are a part of that.

It was never about oil, because we aren't going to get the oil except by paying for it (as far as I can tell).”

“I heard Sen. John McCain say that all the contracts the Iraqi's had with France, Russia, etc. should be void.

He also said it would be a good gesture if the Russians forgave the Iraqi's the billions they owed Russia. A lot of that money was for banned weaponry.

Good Luck!”

“It's a shell game.”

“Bono doesn't dye his hair... sheesh... He is, after all, THE Master Vocal!”

“It was never about oil, because we aren't going to get the oil except by paying for it (as far as I can tell)."
Idaho Bob
12:39:55 PM
04/09/03

If course they are going to pay for it. They were never going to just steal the oil - but America needs a good supply of resonably cheap oil on the world market for the economy to flourish - Operation Iraqi freedom secures that and could even break the dominance of the Saudis in the world oil markets.”

“His hair is still as black as Elvis's.......come on, he's gotta be really old......like 50 maybe.”

“I think he is in his mid-40s, must be by now”

“damn. That's old as #&%!$!”

“Irish people age well...”

“The sky ripped open
And hair dye poured through the gaping wound
Pelting the women and children
Who run...
Into the Arms Of AMERICA!”

“I see Rumsfeld's turning the spotlight onto Syria now - maybe I was wrong, it may not be about oil - it may be religiouis imperialism ;o)”

“Rumsfield doesn't like Syria sending weapons into Iraq to be used against our soldiers. What do you expect him to say about that? He has to protest it and warn them, just like Syria has to complain about American imperialism and ignore Rumsfield's warnings.”

“but there's a reason these things are said in public rather than sending the US ambassador to protest - I think he needs to stop talk like this now.”

“He's also now accused them of aiding the escape of top Iraqi regime members.”