Oil Price (downfall of Bush Administration)

[Ara]

click on the link to the NAS documents I have in my prior post and read them. This was in the works during Clinton's presidency. Nobody is giving anyone in Bush's administration justifications on this invasion.

I don't quite understand your idea behind this. Nobody gave a thumbs up for
Bush's plans to "put the earlier plan into action" and attack Iraq?
So what you're saying is that Bush did act illegally and all the other ministers
didn't agree with him? Or that now, after the invasion, nobody is still trying
to justify it? How is it ok if you say "I was wrong when I burned your house
down, I shouldn't have done that".

Your also wrong on the oil. The oil pumped was supposed to reinburse the monies put out for this war and that never happened. The oil being pumped is basically at a stand still in Iraq. The lines and refineries are being hit too often to allow the security of the selling/pumping of the crude.

Getting reliable information from a warzone is always tricky, don't believe
everything they might say about the oil barrels sitting still. But I can believe
that most of the oil is staying in the country.

The WMD and 9/11 reasons have already been dismissed and is old news that does not have any correlation to why theinvasion happened.

What do you mean dismissed? It happened, you can't take back what has
happened, you can only say that it shouldn't have happened. Are you trying
to say that they had good enough reasons for the war and that they didn't
gain the american public's support by putting Saddam and 9/11 terrorists on
the same sentence, and scaring people with WMDs? What did have a correlation
to why the invasion happened? I don't have the time to read your links right
now, I'll do that tomorrow.

But what bothers me is that you are saying that "Nobody is giving anyone in
Bush's administration justifications on this invasion." Now or then? And on the
other hand "The WMD and 9/11 reasons have already been dismissed and is
old news that does not have any correlation to why theinvasion happened."
how is it ok that it's old news that USA invaded Iraq with an old plan with no
proven facts and with out United Nation's approval..

[Exalt]

how is it ok that it's old news that USA invaded Iraq with an old plan with no
proven facts and with out United Nation's approval..

UN approval basicly has no impact on the US government, since we basicly fund 80% of the UN

[Money]

i aint trippin gas is down to $1.78/gallon in some places on houston

[Doc Flabby]

I think the problem was the plan was dreamed up by a crackhead:

there was no plan :fear:

[DoTheFandango]

Noooo I was just getting used to $2 a gallon

As was I, but there is no way that any GOP-influenced gas company won't be like, DEMOCRATS CAN HANDLE AMERICA OR IRAQ, BLAME HIGH PRICES ON THEM.

[404 Not Found]

I don't quite understand your idea behind this. Nobody gave a thumbs up for
Bush's plans to "put the earlier plan into action" and attack Iraq?
So what you're saying is that Bush did act illegally and all the other ministers
didn't agree with him? Or that now, after the invasion, nobody is still trying
to justify it? How is it ok if you say "I was wrong when I burned your house
down, I shouldn't have done that".



Getting reliable information from a warzone is always tricky, don't believe
everything they might say about the oil barrels sitting still. But I can believe
that most of the oil is staying in the country.



What do you mean dismissed? It happened, you can't take back what has
happened, you can only say that it shouldn't have happened. Are you trying
to say that they had good enough reasons for the war and that they didn't
gain the american public's support by putting Saddam and 9/11 terrorists on
the same sentence, and scaring people with WMDs? What did have a correlation
to why the invasion happened? I don't have the time to read your links right
now, I'll do that tomorrow.

But what bothers me is that you are saying that "Nobody is giving anyone in
Bush's administration justifications on this invasion." Now or then? And on the
other hand "The WMD and 9/11 reasons have already been dismissed and is
old news that does not have any correlation to why theinvasion happened."
how is it ok that it's old news that USA invaded Iraq with an old plan with no
proven facts and with out United Nation's approval..

The justifications that had been used in gaining support on a National as well as International level had been trumped up accusations linking the 9/11 incident to Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 & if it was so important to get those who had been responsible, the finger should have been pointed at the Saudi's since most where Saudi’s that had had an active role in 9/11....when I say this has been dismissed, that is because the investigation that transpired post 9/11 - Iraq invasion, found no links to Saddam or Iraq. The WMD suspicion was all based upon false claims. Bush invaded Iraq while the U.N. was still working on the ground there doing exactly what they had been sent there to do...monitor the Iraqi military and to make sure that WMD was not being produced or hidden from them.

The actions that transpired on 9/11 only gave the Bush administration the tools they needed on creating a publicly backed invasion on Iraq. To gain the peoples support was key to what was needed in order to make this invasion happen, as well as the WMD bullshit. Once they had the Nations support, they moved forward.

This not solely an American issue, as Blair and company had their hands in this as well & just as deep! If Blair didn't get on his knees every time Bush and him got together [EDIT] Bush may have got on his knee's for Blair too...equal op work between them ], then this war probably would never have taken off.

Just keep in mind, that since Bush Sr.'s day as president through Clinton and now the Idiot. I mean the Decider and Chief, the planning and plotting for a way to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam has been on the table for a long time.

The U.S. aided Saddam back in the 60's - 70's with his connections to the CIA through Egypt.

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.

Iraq is once again a target of US regime change. Despite that, precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder, all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the first time in Iraq.

One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute regime change in Iraq.

The entire war just stinks of a back handed politically motivated power hungry group of assholes. It had very little to do with anything else. This is why it frightens me to think of what the U.S. will do next in Nicaragua now that Noriega is back in power. Will the U.S. start the Contra bullshit again?

Anyone who really thinks that the war is for giving Iraqi's democracy is nuts or has not done their history when one looks back on how America created all this in the 1st place. Just look at what the U.S. did to Iran in using the Shah...it's no wonder they had a revolution.


What's really sad is that the government pushes this so called "spreading democracy" bullshit to the armed forces. I feel bad for them in many ways, as they have to carry out orders, but it is not for spreading freedom and peace...if this was so, why does the U.S. ignore so many other countries that are worse off than Iraq was and yet they do business with others that are 100 times worse than Iraq was with Saddam?

You can think what you want, but when you really dig and find the history of these problems, as well as what created them, along with the crap they tell you in the controlled news programs, it's easy to see that there are alot of false reasons and illegal actions that have taken place.

I would not be suprised to see Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld...not to leave out that asshole Paul Bremmer, be called to the World Court for War Crimes.

[genocidal]

That almost reads like a conspiracy theory. My biggest problem is that you give the UN too much credit on the WMD monitoring. No one could honestly say that they knew Iraq didn't have WMDs; but at the same time we shouldn't have gone to war without knowing that they did or at least having a better idea that they did. I found Colin Powell's presentation to the UN pretty good and convincing, though. Nevertheless, I never was and never have been a supporter of this war.

[ZeUs!!]

The telcat guide to clawing back dignity:

Start a topic with a vague description of a subject everyone else is going to talk about

[Vykromond]

UN approval basicly has no impact on the US government, since we basicly fund 80% of the UN

Hi, stop saying dumb shit. From http://lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-US...=dosfacts&P=78 :

The UN system is financed in two ways: assessed and voluntary contributions
from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its
specialized agencies are funded by assessments. In the case of the UN, the
General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment
for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each
country to pay, as measured by national income statistics, along with other
factors.

The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly
dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, [b]there is a
"ceiling" rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the
regular budget.[b] In December 2000, the Assembly agreed to revise the scale
of assessments to make them better reflect current global circumstances.

As part of that agreement, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25 to
22 percent; this is the rate at which the U.S. is assessed. The U.S. is the
only member that pays this rate; all other members' assessment rates are
lower. Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major
contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany
(9.82%), France (6.50%), the U.K. (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%) and
Spain (2.53%).

(emphasis added)

[Ara]

Don't worry Vykromond, no one is taking Exalt seriously what ever he may say.

[Reaver]

Why do you guys buy into 30 second sound bites that the media has fed you? Sure WMD and terrorism were some of the additional justifications given for going into Iraq. But the primary justification was clear, Iraq had consistently ignored every UN resolution to comply with inspections and disarmament.
...

It's just like everything else these other guys become informed or base an opinion about. They take every spoon one at a time as it's fed to them. Whether it's news, music or just about anything else, the best of both come when you go searching not when they are fed to you.

[T3l Ca7]

Iraq is a strategic country that if allied with the U.S. would give it a lauch pad for military installations and influence overthe Iraqi government itself.

Let me get this straight: if the U.S. government wants to use Iraq as a military base and launch point, then they are also planning to get their hands dirty in the Middle East. Otherwise there was little point to conquer Iraq - assume it was not for the oil in the first place.

And why would the U.S. Government want to get their hands dirty in the Middle East? Sure, there are many reasons, such as your governmet do not like muslims. But you government also do not like Chinese, French or Mexicans.

If it is truly for world peace, then they should send their troops to some Afraican countries where civil wars and genocides take place constantly.

So why Middle East? It all comes back to my point -the main benefit you can get from controlling Middle East region is the ability to lay your dirty paw on resources such as crude oil.