�The Americans are treating us like animals."

Yeah, notice there are no american affiliations with this scandal.

Originally posted by SoldierMedic
And by the way, who ever said that that the US forces over here are stealing the oil...
"Oh gee guys, load all your tanks with as many of these yellow drums as we can to get back on the boat, ok???" Any petroleum that is found here, any profit that is made off it by its sale, goes to the rebuilding of Iraq. That is where all the profits from any oil sales here go.

ahaha....and who told you that? "ANY PETROLEUM THAT IS FOUND HERE"???? IRAQ ONLY CONTROLS 10% OF PETROLEUM IN THE WORLD. I think this is just a little bit more than what would be needed to "rebuild" Iraq. Not that we will really do that anyway.

And by the way, who ever said that that the US forces over here are stealing the oil...

Not the soldiers. The corporations.

If you say the invasion was about the oil does that not imply that someone is stealing it?

Oil is a commodity. We buy it from wherever we can. If Iraq quit selling us oil we would simply buy it from somewhere else. Supply, and demand of a commodity in a global market cannot be effected by refusing to sell to specific nations.

If the same amount of oil is produced what has changed?

Originally posted by SoldierMedic
Yeah, notice there are no american affiliations with this scandal.

...and why would there be? The whole point is saying that other countries took bribes before war with US, of course there wouldnt be anyone from the US on there..and if there were then it wouldnt be the useful pro-war propaganda that it is. The whole list is "under investigation", just like the weapons of mass destructions programs that were "under investigation". What do you think the results will be?

Hey soldiermedic, no one is accusing US soldiers of anything. I support our country and I support our soldiers, I don't support the Bush administration and our country's leaders.

When our country was created, leaders such as Thomas Jefferson said that government's leaders need to be questioned to keep them in check, prevent a tyranny etc. Now, somehow, the message has been changed to "you are with us or with the terrorists".

Many soldiers died in vietnam and the ones who survived came back to realize they had been fighting for nothing due to govt.'s lies. But this doesn't dishonor those who were fighting. Our soldiers are only doing their jobs, no one is criticizing them, or saying they are the ones stealing oil.

First, lets go the sovereignty route. The chief duty of government is to protect its citizens, as established by our Founding Fathers. Our 'invasion' of Iraq was first and formost a preemptive movement to protect American citizens. Saddam was CLEARLY a threat. He showed ample hostility toward citizens as well as intent to harm citizens. Saddam HAD WMD's, we know this, he used them to eradicate 5,000 Kurdish men, women, and children. He used them against Iranians during border skirmishes in the early 80's. Saddam also had many pro-Terrorist idealogies and links. His flaming rhetoric was lockstep with many of todays 'muslim extremist' Terrorist groups. We HAVE found links to the training of Al-Qaeda as well as myriad other minor organizations within Iraq. Saddam was clearly bent on harming U.S. (and Israeli) citizens by whatever means possible.

Now, lets go the 'international' route. Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who was a threat to the 'international' community. 14 pieces of U.N. 'legislation' gave us the right to go in and clean him out if he didn't do it himself. By eliminating Saddam we have stabilized a region which most of the world relies on for energy supply, thereby benifiting the international community.

Lastly, lets go the domestic route. Saddam killed thousands if not millions of his own country men and muslim arabs. We have uncovered myriad numbers of mass graves. Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds, Iraqi citizens. The brutal escapades of his 2 now dead sons are also well documented. He embezzeled and squandered money, using it to built numerous lavish palaces while thousands of Iraqi's starved. Saddam also showed unfounded aggression toward neighbors, both Jewish (Israel) and Arab (Iran, Kuwait). This man was a menace to his own people and those surrounding him.

Need I say more?

Saddam was no threat to us. "Saddam HAD WMD's we know this" key word there, HAD. All the weapons were dismantled in the early 90's, now even BUSH the liar himself is starting to say that there are no weapons. That makes your first two reasons worthless, as Iraq posed no international threat.

As for domestically, yes he was a terrible guy and it is good that he is gone (although we could just leave it at that instead of occupying Iraq, setting up our own little "democracy" etc) But the reason we went to war wasn't to protect the Iraqis, it was to defend our country against nonexistant weapons. And this also doesn't warrant declaring war on someone just because the leader is bad.

First, lets go the sovereignty route. The chief duty of government is to protect its citizens, as established by our Founding Fathers. Our 'invasion' of Iraq was first and formost a preemptive movement to protect American citizens. Saddam was CLEARLY a threat.

Where were the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers waiting to cross the border into America and invade?

Where are the long range bombers?

Where are the ICBM's?

Saddam had no military way of threatening America.

He showed ample hostility toward citizens as well as intent to harm citizens. Saddam HAD WMD's, we know this, he used them to eradicate 5,000 Kurdish men, women, and children.

Iran gassed the kurds, not Saddam. Even the US Army War College says so. Even if it was Saddam it happened durring the course of a battle. The target was Invading Iranian soldiers, not civilians.

He used them against Iranians during border skirmishes in the early 80's.

Iran also used chemical weapons.

Saddam also had many pro-Terrorist idealogies and links.

There have been no verified reports, or any evidence that he had anything to do with any terrorist groups. Their goals were to overthow Saddam, and other leaders in the Mid-east. Saddam was the greatest obsticle to their goals.


His flaming rhetoric was lockstep with many of todays 'muslim extremist' Terrorist groups. We HAVE found links to the training of Al-Qaeda as well as myriad other minor organizations within Iraq.

Link please. I believe all the instances you refer to have been proven since to be bogus.

Saddam was clearly bent on harming U.S. (and Israeli) citizens by whatever means possible.

How many more years was he going to wait? "Clearly" is not evidenced by his actions. Words mean nothing, and should have been expected in response to our own provocations.

Now, lets go the 'international' route. Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who was a threat to the 'international' community. 14 pieces of U.N. 'legislation' gave us the right to go in and clean him out if he didn't do it himself.

Quite the opposite. None of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Not even 1441. International law was violated by us when we invaded Iraq.

By eliminating Saddam we have stabilized a region which most of the world relies on for energy supply, thereby benifiting the international community.


Stabilized? Inflamed is more accurate.

Lastly, lets go the domestic route. Saddam killed thousands if not millions of his own country men and muslim arabs. We have uncovered myriad numbers of mass graves. Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds, Iraqi citizens. The brutal escapades of his 2 now dead sons are also well documented. He embezzeled and squandered money, using it to built numerous lavish palaces while thousands of Iraqi's starved.

The numbers are not nearly as high as you suggest. America has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam has.

Saddam also showed unfounded aggression toward neighbors, both Jewish (Israel) and Arab (Iran, Kuwait). This man was a menace to his own people and those surrounding him.


Who did he attack in the last 12 years? You are talking about old history. What happened over a decade ago is not justification for invading other nations today. The current threat was slim-to-none.

Need I say more?


Why not just one thing that makes sense, were it possible regarding this war.

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

archangel, you're obviouslly pro-saddam.
dont say ur not because that would be utter bull#

Originally posted by GeniusSage
archangel, you're obviouslly pro-saddam.
dont say ur not because that would be utter bull#

Your comments are so idiotic its not even worth responding to (but I will anyway). Everything that he has posted is based on fact, how are you going to just say he is "pro saddam" and WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? Why don't you post something worthwhile instead of this moronic crap. All of your posts seriously make you sound like a middle school student, or someone who is very uneducated and illiterate.

archangel, you're obviouslly pro-saddam.


I could care less about him.

My point is that the claims about 'millions' of dead Iraqi's, and ties to terrorists are just that: Claims

No matter what he did it is not justification for what we have done.


Why not liberate the Palestinians from the oppressive occupation?

If we are going into the liberation biz lets start with the ones who need it the most, and where it will benifit us the most.

Unless you have double standards....

Originally posted by ArchAngel
archangel, you're obviouslly pro-saddam.
Why not liberate the Palestinians from the oppressive occupation?

If we are going into the liberation biz lets start with the ones who need it the most, and where it will benifit us the most.

Unless you have double standards....

Ah yes there are so many people in the world to help and yet we choose Iraq...the only thing that sets it apart from everyone else is its vast quantity of oil!!!!!

Also AA, you say America has killed more Iraqis than Saddam...you have bumped your phucking head.

I was told by a Prominent Iraqi bussinessman, "Most families have lost 20-30 members to SAD-DAM (you could feel the loathing as he pronounced it that way)
not even considering the many more raped and tortured"

I am SURE he knows more about saddam than you.

Originally posted by cyberpilot
Also AA, you say America has killed more Iraqis than Saddam...you have bumped your phucking head.

In the first gulf war we killed far more than 100,000 Iraqi's. More than 30,000 in the recent war. More than a million through the sanctions.


Where is the evidence Saddam killed anywhere near this many?

If he had killed 20-30 people in every familly then Saddam would be the only one left!

I don't think we know the actual numbers of people killed by saddam or by the united states, but there has been lots of carelessness on our part that ended up with dead Iraqi civilians. Not to defend any of saddams killings in any way, but there are casaulties from both sides.

While I have no idea how old you are, what level of education you have acheived or what your experience in supply side economics is, I have to say that the tired argument that we invaded Iraq for oil holds no water (pun INTENDED)...

Assuming that were true we would benefit by the theft of the oil corrcet? If not then why steal it?

I drive a Suburban 4 wheel drive that holds 48 gallons of gas and filled it up yesterday at $1.53 a gallon. THAT is NO benefit. Gas has gone UP not down.

Assuming the big war for oil theory were correct, the BEST thing Shrub could do to assure reelection is to drop the bottom out of the price of oil/gas so all of us SUV driving Americans would keep more of our hard earned money.

The REALITY is Iraq's oil industry's infrastructure is TOTALLY disintegrated due to an utter lack of maintenance by the former regime. US companies are rebuilding this infrastructure so that when we HAND THE COUNTRY BACK to its citizens, the Iraqi people, they will have a viable means of self support.

This is the ONLY statement thathas been made relative to Iraq's oil reserves which at present are WORTHLESS because they can't get the black gold to market.

The TRUTH of this argument will be known the very day the last pump is turned ON and the flow begins anew. IF, which I beleive WILL be the case, we step back and hand the "keys" to the newly elected representitive Iraqi government everything you have said here will be proven FALSE.

Conversly, if we stall around and set up cartels and other "hidden" entities to "deal" with the oil you will potentially be proven RIGHT.

Time will tell...

PEACE...
m...

C'mon man get some facts.

I suppose the first gulf war was unjustified as well.
Saddam hussien WAS admittedly bent on the destruction of Isreal and America..

someone said "he had no way of harming us militarily".
Was the 9/11 stike a military action?
my point being a man in power with his intent is a clear and present danger... period.

also I believe that there will be found substantial WMD's
Gerald Bull believed he (saddam) was not a menace too...at first.

The REALITY is Iraq's oil industry's infrastructure is TOTALLY disintegrated due to an utter lack of maintenance by the former regime. US companies are rebuilding this infrastructure so that when we HAND THE COUNTRY BACK to its citizens, the Iraqi people, they will have a viable means of self support.

It was the sanctions that destroyed the oil infastructure. Were it not for that comanies from around the world would have been in Iraq maintaining, and improving it.

America is not the only nation in the world who can do this work. China, Russia, and France were all waiting to go in and develop the oil fields, and build pipelines.

The blame for the state of the industry today is on the sanctions, not Saddam.

The rebuilding is basicly robbery. We stole the contracts from other nations, and gave the work to American companies with deals that Iraqi's would NEVER have agreed to.

now that we have basically unrestricted access to iraq we can begin to reconstruct the oil processing in Iraq (and no, I dont claim to be an expert on how this works, I just say what I see and that is that Oil seems the most logical "true" reason for this war)
Once we go into Iraq and start exploration for more petroleum, it has been estimated that we could find up to 300,000,000,000 barrels of oil, which when coupled with new deals for US and UK oil firms would give us a great profit. Again, whos to say that we will even see a difference in prices, as we have already been paying higher oil prices for a long time and the govt. could pocket the extra money we make.

Tell me one other reason that we would have to attack Iraq that is profitable for the United States other than the oil...I say wait a few years and we will know.

Originally posted by cyberpilot
C'mon man get some facts.

someone said "he had no way of harming us militarily".
Was the 9/11 stike a military action?
my point being a man in power with his intent is a clear and present danger... period.

What the hell does 9/11 have to do with anything, it WASN'T SADDAM if that is what you are trying to say.