All for the Oil?

R

rohan

Guppy
I was watching Jack Straw's speech last yesterday and how he was stressing on the fact that the US and the UK would use Iraq's oil only for reconstruction purposes. Well, it doesn't look that hard for them to steel one barrel out of every three they use for reconstruction. What do you people think?
 
Its always for the oil. USA only gets involved in a war if it can economically gain. Bush is just trying to drive away the focus from the recession and other problems his country is facing and work up the public on this magical threat of rogue states. Nor has any country seen any proof of any nuclear, bio or chemical weapons and nor does any country think Iraq is a threat besides the US and its 52nd state - Great Britain. Infact the US has more WMD than probably all the other countries in the world combined. The hippocracy is sickening.

Glad France and Russia put their foot down. But don't be mistaken, they have done so because their private sector has invested in Iraqi fields. So yes, its all for the oil.
 
I've seen alot of Jack Straw speeches. The only thing he talks about is starving Iraqis. He probably has never looked at all the problems his country is facing. Blair is truly the lap dog of Bush. Monkey see, monkey do. 500,000 people came out on the streets of London and still there is no public reaction by the Blair administration. He is just intent on doing what bush dear says.
 
That is a microscopic view you people have on the Iraq war. Was has begun and I support my country because:

a) Whether you like it or not, Saddam is an evil dictator oppressing his own people

b) Saddam has biological as well as chemical weapons

c) Saddam has shown aggression to his neighbors numerous of times
 
Saddam can kiss his sorry ass goodbye. I rather see a democratic Iraq then one ruled by Saddam
 
Dont know why you are still favouring your country inspite of the fact that America is doing wrong..Yah this is true ....yah this is true that Saddam has done evils and possess biological and chemical weapons but who has helped him out in having all of them..you better know the answer i think......and one more thing i would like to say here that ...getting saddam erradicated of his power in iraq is not a right of bush..bush cant do anything in that respect as its a matter of Iraq..which governement should rule in a country should be decided by that country itself not outer one.........Bush and Blair both have gone blind and duff..as they both cant see and listen the cries of millions people..Both of them just want to show that they are the only supreme power in the world but evereyone knows hu big fool they are.....
 
...getting saddam erradicated of his power in iraq is not a right of bush..bush cant do anything in that respect as its a matter of Iraq..which governement should rule in a country should be decided by that country itself not outer one.........Bush and Blair both have gone blind and duff..as they both cant see and listen the cries of millions people..Both of them just want to show that they are the only supreme power in the world but evereyone knows hu big fool they are.....
Click to expand...

Then who's right is it? Its the right of the people have I heard alot. Well, then the people have been excersing this right as it has shown in numerous uprisings. Unfortunately, Saddam has put them down by mass executions and murder. However speaks against Saddam has their head chopped off.

Iraq undeniably posses chemical and bio weapons and is in the path of developing nuclear weapons. Do you think we'd live in a safer world with a savage dicator having access to the world's most deadliest weapons or without him? If the US had minded its own business, Iraq could have been developing nuclear weapons and distributing it among terrorists in the years to come.

Therefore, It is a must for the US to take an active role in making sure that rogue nations don't get access to deadly weapons. No one gives the US this "moral' right but we must all recognize that what our government is doing doesn't only benefit the whole world but also the Iraqi people. Saddam has been given 12 years to disarm. And all these 12 years, he has been playing a game of hide & seek. Numerous times during the recent weapons inspections, banned weapons were found. And what was fired at Kuwait in the recent days, are they legal?
 
OK then just tell me one thing...........like if iraquis people are not satisfied with its suddam governement then America is trying to remove him from power..then in america also ..a large number of people are...not satisfied with ..bush government then who has the right to remove his government.??..........do you think america will get success this time unlike Afganistan where he could not catch ..Laden.....this time also he is trying to weaken the economy of iraq and.........why he is not targetting ..Saddam only??why other inncoent people are being..targetting.......anywyays i think America is your country so you are saying in its favour..but i am neither from america nor from..Iraq..so i think we peole can justify which of the two countries are right............just remove from your mind that you are an american and then think about the whole issue again..May be my thinking is wrong.....May be Bush is right but we people only want that if saddam has done something wrong then only he should be finished and innocent people should not die..isn't it..............................
 
Well Rita,

The difference is that if the american people don't like Bush, they can change him by voting in the elections for someone else. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people can't

The Iraqi people aren't being targetted. Military planners have taken great pains in that. Eventually, when the war is over, the Iraqi people will live in a new democratic country
 
Lets hope so...This time i agree with you that americans can opt for new elections if they dont like the present government but iraquis cant..May they become democratic country very soon.
 
8o

bill to US taxpayers, iraq so far... $80 billion

annual net oil output(iraq)........ $20 billion


(not counting the blood)

plus the many billions owed: to france (for a deluxe nuclear facility), germany (chemical goodies), russia (tanks, mines, aircraft etc.), red china (arms, missiles, torture goodies etc.), USA (pre-1991) all of the above.

phil
 
So what do you want to prove giving all this data.....?......You must have heard
."As you sow so will you reap.." [
 
rita;

heard it, but cannot find the quote in 7 different translations. how is this ?


Matt 6:24-26
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
(KJV)

to answer your why ?

just adding some figures to show how "profitable" our (anglo-american) investment of treasure and blood is in relation to worldly standards of profit.

phil :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top