Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: i wonder if the 5000 wounded US troops

  1. #1
    Will see dime 1 of the REAL reason they HAD to go to Iraq....what a farce of a war.

    OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
    White House energy task force papers reveal Iraqi oil maps
    Judicial Watch lawsuit also uncovers list of 'foreign suitors' for contracts

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: July 18, 2003
    5:00 p.m. Eastern


    WASHINGTON The controversial White House energy task force two years ago reviewed Iraqi oil-field maps and "foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts," reveal documents turned over under court order to a government watchdog group by a member of the task force.

    Judicial Watch Inc. first requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 2001, when Vice President Dick Cheney formed the secret task force. The public-interest law firm has battled the administration in federal court for the information ever since.

    Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted the mandated release of the papers "couldn't have come at a more inconvenient time for the administration," given growing questions about the credibility of its prewar claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was tied to al-Qaida thereby posing a direct threat to America.

    "Opponents of the war will argue that Iraq oil was on the minds of at least some members of the task force long before the war," he said. "Supporters might argue they couldn't talk about the Mideast oil situation without talking about Iraq."

    Phone calls to Cheney's office were not immediately returned.

    Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of corporate and other private task force members who met with administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq.

    The unclassified map of Iraq turned over by the Commerce Department, a government member of the task force, shows the location of "supergiant" oil fields, oil pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil company before joining the administration.

    Though the papers came from Commerce, Judicial Watch says they were responsive to its request for task-force papers.

    "These are task-force documents," Fitton asserted.

    Maps of oil-fields in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also were produced.

    A separate unclassified document, dated March 5, 2001, lists the names of "foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts," including Dutch Royal Shell, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine. It notes the Russian and French energy giants signed "production-sharing contracts" in 1997.

    "This is a road map to the corporations who were in conspiracy with the regime in Baghdad," Fitton contended.

    Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, United Nations sanctions foreclosed the country's lucrative oil fields to U.S. investors. Discussions are under way now to privatize at least a portion of Iraq's state-run oil company, allowing U.S. oil companies to invest there for the first time in more than a decade, administration officials tell WorldNetDaily.

    Iraq boasts the world's second-largest proven crude reserves. Its oil fields are highly attractive to U.S. producers, because the crude is not buried as far beneath the surface as in American oil fields, making drilling and other production costs relatively cheap. Also, the crude is considered "sweet," meaning it has a low-sulfur content, which makes it cheaper to refine.

    The secret White House task force solicited input from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston.

    The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in early April 2001, recommended considering a "military" option in dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a "weapon," by turning its spigot on and off to "manipulate oil markets," WorldNetDaily has learned.

    The report advised the Bush administration to, at a minimum, bring UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq, and then, "once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq" to gain greater control over the reserves, and "inject" more stability into world oil markets.


    Related offer:

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,281
    Bman, since you failed to include a source for this lovely piece of journalism, I'll take care of it for you.

    [url]www.idontlikegeorgewbush/waaawaaawaaa/hugepussiesforpeace.org[/url]

    :lol:

  3. #3
    nice one!

    But all you guys who BELIEVE that Iraq was a war on terror and not for oil money I ask you this:
    why back in 1997 did Dick Cheney/Don Rumsfeld and Paul wolfiwitz and feith (the power in the pentagon)..belong to PNAC..where they argued for a new foreign policy..where the US would establish permanent military bases in IRAQ...and secure that luscious iraui crude oil...This war was thought of back in the 90's..
    why in the 8 months prior to 9-11 was there no talk of Iraq?
    BUT at 10:00am on 9-11 Donald Rumsfeld asked if we can tie this to SH (saddam Hussein).....WHY on 9-14-01 did rummy say we need to start bombing Bagdad? Why on 9-14 did Wolfi suggest that we skip afghanistan alltogether and go right to bagdad..WHY? b/c these morons have oil money and the protection of isreal and continued global dominance on their minds...why 1/2 way through the afghan campaign did W divert money and attention to start the the planning for Iraq?

    NOW Saddam was not a nice guy..we know that..BUT he killed the same shiiites that WE are now killing..Saddam did Not run an Islamic Party..He had a socialist baathist party that kept religion on the sidelines...all the way till 1988 the US supported Saddam is his fight with the Iranians...WE didn't care back then that he used wmd's...in fact, we gave him sateelite photos of the iranian troop locations!..He fought with Iran over an oil field...HE then fought Kuwait over an oil field..YET W makes it seem like IraQ has always been OUR enemy..HORSE****!..
    WHY also did W not allow the inspectors to do their job? B/C they were finding NOTHING..IT was time to act ...It was time to fight another oil field war..

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Sep 3 2004, 09:46 AM
    [b] nice one!

    But all you guys who BELIEVE that Iraq was a war on terror and not for oil money I ask you this:
    why back in 1997 did Dick Cheney/Don Rumsfeld and Paul wolfiwitz and feith (the power in the pentagon)..belong to PNAC..where they argued for a new foreign policy..where the US would establish permanent military bases in IRAQ...and secure that luscious iraui crude oil...This war was thought of back in the 90's..
    why in the 8 months prior to 9-11 was there no talk of Iraq?
    BUT at 10:00am on 9-11 Donald Rumsfeld asked if we can tie this to SH (saddam Hussein).....WHY on 9-14-01 did rummy say we need to start bombing Bagdad? Why on 9-14 did Wolfi suggest that we skip afghanistan alltogether and go right to bagdad..WHY? b/c these morons have oil money and the protection of isreal and continued global dominance on their minds...why 1/2 way through the afghan campaign did W divert money and attention to start the the planning for Iraq?

    NOW Saddam was not a nice guy..we know that..BUT he killed the same shiiites that WE are now killing..Saddam did Not run an Islamic Party..He had a socialist baathist party that kept religion on the sidelines...all the way till 1988 the US supported Saddam is his fight with the Iranians...WE didn't care back then that he used wmd's...in fact, we gave him sateelite photos of the iranian troop locations!..He fought with Iran over an oil field...HE then fought Kuwait over an oil field..YET W makes it seem like IraQ has always been OUR enemy..HORSE****!..
    WHY also did W not allow the inspectors to do their job? B/C they were finding NOTHING..IT was time to act ...It was time to fight another oil field war.. [/b][/quote]
    You seem to forget that both Kerry and Edwards authorized this unnecessary war. Many other Democrats weren't fooled like these two were.

    Kerry is a combat veteran from Viet Nam. He should have voted AGAINST the war. That is why he is UNFIT FOR COMMAND.



    [url]WWW.VOTENADER.ORG[/url]

  5. #5
    I agree..unfortunatly, in this country, THERE are NO suitable leaders.

  6. #6
    here's the difference between Bush and Kerry

    Kerry voted for the war... Bush IS the war. Without Bush and his cronies there would not have even been a push for this misguided war.

    the buck stops with the President, especially in this situation, since we aren't actually "at war" we are engaged in an executive police action... that means the White House went it without the entire will of the American people. 50/50 support is not justification enough for war... War takes willpower to win, and Americans could care less about what happens in Iraq. The whole thing was a mistake, based on false intel, and for that (and many other transgressions) bush deserves no further time in office.

  7. #7
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Sep 3 2004, 11:20 AM
    [b] here's the difference between Bush and Kerry

    Kerry voted for the war... Bush IS the war. Without Bush and his cronies there would not have even been a push for this misguided war.

    the buck stops with the President, especially in this situation, since we aren't actually "at war" we are engaged in an executive police action... that means the White House went it without the entire will of the American people. 50/50 support is not justification enough for war... War takes willpower to win, and Americans could care less about what happens in Iraq. The whole thing was a mistake, based on false intel, and for that (and many other transgressions) bush deserves no further time in office. [/b][/quote]
    No.

    Kerry f'd up with his vote FOR the war in Iraq. It was a political decision as much as was his vote AGAINST the $87 billion.

    Kerry is an empty suit - a hack. Incumbent pinheads like Bush always beat empty suit challengers like Kerry.



    [url]www.votenader.org[/url]

    (Come on Ralph, say something!)

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,502
    This same old topic is getting to be very boring. Bit says it was Bushes war. Afghanistan was bushes war too!!! I think some people have forgotten what happened 911 and was supported by the government of afghanistan at the time. Saddam was a supporter of Al-Queda too. During the war several Al-Queda training camps were destroyed. Some of you really need to go visit the WTC for a reminder.

    I also admit that I enjoyed watching the Bombing of Iraq, especially the Shock and Awe portion. The LIBERAL media enjoyed it too. If war gives them ratings they are all for it.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    "Boo Hoo! Don't antagonize them, Will! Just do what the terrorists tell us to do and everything will be alright!"

    [img]http://www.alternatechannels.net/images/us/Lost_in_Space2ret.jpg[/img]

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [img]http://65.216.239.9/pics/politics/oil.gif[/img]

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Moses[/i]@Sep 6 2004, 09:19 PM
    [b] "Boo Hoo! Don't antagonize them, Will! Just do what the terrorists tell us to do and everything will be alright!"

    [img]http://www.alternatechannels.net/images/us/Lost_in_Space2ret.jpg[/img] [/b][/quote]
    Laugh all you like fool. All the bombing and killing and political chess games our Govt. has played in that region hasn't exactly solved this problem either, has it. Gloat all you like, because ol' warmongering Bush IS going to win, but don't even TRY to claim that pre-emptive warfare and the War in Iraq has done a God Damned thing to stop global terrorism. All it's done is create more Anti-American feelings in a region and a religion that didn't need the friggin help. Just because we havn't had another 9/11 doesn't mean we're winning this "war". It only means we've been lucky, and no matter who you are, your luck eventually runs out.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,449
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Sep 6 2004, 10:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish &#064; Sep 6 2004, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jet Moses[/i]@Sep 6 2004, 09:19 PM
    [b] "Boo Hoo&#33; Don&#39;t antagonize them, Will&#33; Just do what the terrorists tell us to do and everything will be alright&#33;"

    [img]http://www.alternatechannels.net/images/us/Lost_in_Space2ret.jpg[/img] [/b][/quote]
    Laugh all you like fool. All the bombing and killing and political chess games our Govt. has played in that region hasn&#39;t exactly solved this problem either, has it. Gloat all you like, because ol&#39; warmongering Bush IS going to win, but don&#39;t even TRY to claim that pre-emptive warfare and the War in Iraq has done a God Damned thing to stop global terrorism. All it&#39;s done is create more Anti-American feelings in a region and a religion that didn&#39;t need the friggin help. Just because we havn&#39;t had another 9/11 doesn&#39;t mean we&#39;re winning this "war". It only means we&#39;ve been lucky, and no matter who you are, your luck eventually runs out. [/b][/quote]
    Luck is one theory. And if it makes you feel better to think that everyone love us before Afganistan and Iraq have at it.

    Another theory is that these actions have completely disrupted the terrorist networks and impaired their ability to plan and execute large scale activities.

    Enjoy the view from your ivory tower. Thank you for decalring your opinions to be facts and warning against even thinking anything else.

    P.S. The Russians decision not to participate has really kept them safe from terrorism, hasn&#39;t it.

  13. #13
    iraq never attacked anyone..they fought Iran over an oil field..invaded kuwait over an oil field...WE helped them against Iran..The only reason we went in in 91 was to protect Saudi oil..
    BUT Iraq never attacked any of our allies, or us..They were a threat to isreal..Not part of the war on terror...Yet somehow everyuone thinbks that Iraq was our number 1 enemy&#33;

  14. #14
    flushingjet
    Guest
    one of many, bjman, one of many enemies. Only a fool would deny the Arab "states" are ALL in it togther, as they have been for the last centurie(s)
    certainly over the last 50 years.

    Come Nov 3, I wouldnt want to be Iran or Syria.

  15. #15
    [quote][b]Luck is one theory. And if it makes you feel better to think that everyone love us before Afganistan and Iraq have at it.

    Another theory is that these actions have completely disrupted the terrorist networks and impaired their ability to plan and execute large scale activities.

    Enjoy the view from your ivory tower. Thank you for decalring your opinions to be facts and warning against even thinking anything else.

    P.S. The Russians decision not to participate has really kept them safe from terrorism, hasn&#39;t it. [/b][/quote]

    No one ever claimed that "everyone" loved us before Afganistan (a legit war in my view, based on the AQ attack of 9/11 and their direct ties to the Taliban and their being based in Afaganistan) and Iraq. The fact is, and you can look it up if you like, that the USA has played Chess Games and Dictator Propping in this region for well over 100 years. We play one against the other, support one, then turn on him, dominate them economically, and take their oil at every turn (propping up incredably immoral regiemes such as the one in Saudi Arabia in the bargain) because it benifited out short term interests at that moment, that second.

    How else do you defend our previous support of both Ossama Bin Ladin AND Saddam Hussain, the two men our leaders now claim are the most evil going (well, except for OBL, Bush seems to care little about him now...)

    Never has the USA thought Long Term in this region, and never has regional goodwill or peace been our goals there. That 100 years of meddling and warfare has led directly to the hate we feel from this area today. Iraq, and the failure there to date, is only the most recent brink in the great wall of hate we have helped (stress helped) create in this region.

    Yes, their religion is a key factor. Yes, the views of our society is a key factor. But neither of those two factors comes close to the hatred the U.S has created (directly or indirectly) by our leaders actions in this region over the years.

    You can deny our responsibillity all you like, becuase that fits your own adgenda, your own egocentric world view (the U.S. CAN&#39;T be wrong, we have Democracy&#33;&#33;&#33;). However, you are factually incorrect if you think U.S. actions in this region are not the major cause for the existence of terrorism and the terrorists war on the U.S. today.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Two questions to always consider:

    At what cost?

    and

    Compared to what, exactly?


    What would the cost have been of not "helping OBL" during the 80&#39;s? Perhaps the Soviet Union would have stopped with the conquest of Afghanistan, as they claimed they would. Perhaps not, and perhaps they would have continued on and controlled that region and all of it&#39;s oil wealth. Perhaps we should have used our own troops, and not "trained" the mujhadeen (and OBL) and thus nowadays we could at least know for certain that we didn&#39;t "create" OBL, or some such platitude. But that would have involved even more treasure and blood in and area of the world most Americans may not have considered vital back then, especially so soon after we lost almost 60,000 men in Vietnam, and billions of dollars, etc.


    We trade with and, to use your phrase, "prop up" immoral regimes. Okay, and what, exactly, is that compared with? Meaning, whatever regime takes hold over oil-rich ME states will find a trading partner, even if the US refuses to do so out of some principled opposition or whatever. So, they would likely remain in power, and if not, there would likely exist indefinite periods of transitions from one strongman to another, often brutal, and chaotic, with regular people caught in the cross-fire. It is hard to imagine the standard of living or personal freedoms of Saudi "citizens" improving if we had just "left them alone" forever. These people have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries, and they have also been imperialistic, and have slaughtered minorities, etc. What, exactly, would the alternative be? Should we "meddle" in their affairs if we deem Saudi Arabia to be too "immoral?" Should we have sent in troops to free the people from their oppresive rulers? Even if our intentions were to help the Saudis and crush their oppressive leaders, we would be perceived as meddling in the Holy Land, and would be accused of simply trying to grab their oil. Look what they think about our actions in Iraq, and Iraq had less oil thn Saudi Arabia, and a more belligerent leader.

    So, we do nothing. Or, we invade. Or, we trade with an imperfect regime for the sake of stability, knowing full well that perhaps the enemy you know is better than the enemy you don&#39;t know, and that stability, even oppressive stability, is at least preferrable to constant war and chaos.

    Yes, the Saudi regime is horrible in many ways, and yes, things aren&#39;t perfect. But what is the alternative? Honestly....do you have one, do you know? Does any rational, informed person truly believe that Saudi Arabia would be some tolerant, free, representative government by now if the big, bad USA didn&#39;t prop up the House of Saud by purchasing oil? I mean, c&#39;mon....

    Yes, there is no doubt our previous actions have pissed off muslims and added to terrorism. Also, their stubbron desire to kill jews and infidels has a lot to do with it too. Yes, the USA hasn&#39;t been perfect, and you could probably argue until you are blue in the face about them merits or demerits of any action we&#39;ve taken, especially since we all have the benefit of hindsight and more information than was available to others at the time. Some theoretical supposition about a different method is always going to be attractive when compared to the real and demonstrable flaws within the course of action that was actually pursued, especially since those alternatives will never have to face the harsh light of reality and remain forever in their perfect, theoretical condition. And yes, often short-term menaces, even perceived ones, have to dealth with at the cost of perhaps creating other, different problems down the road.

    One of the costs of trouncing Germany and Japan in WWII was allowing the Soviets to trample very far west and to weaken another foe of theirsthat had been fiercely fghting with the Russians on a few decades earlier, and the Soviets became a nation which had to be dealt with accordingly later on, at a GREAT cost to the USA. What goodwill did we engender from the French, who only a short while later actively work against our interests when we feel that our security is threatened?

    The issue before us today is what to do about the fact that terrorists want and are actively trying to kill us. The French have opposed us at every turn, protected Saddam and have been openly pro-Palestine and anti-Israel, yet their people are not spared kidnappings. Terrorists are killing OTHER MUSLIMS in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Russians now know the extent of the savagry of muslim terror.

  17. #17
    No offense Jets5, because I truly value your posts and agree with you an awful lot, but your post, for all it&#39;s verbosity, is simply one long excuse for what we&#39;ve done in that region. Of course we had short term reasons, but when you think short term, you get bitten long term every time. And we are reaping now what we&#39;ve sown for so long.

    My best example? Afganistan of course. Had the Soviets won, who cares. We had the best nuclear weapons force in existence. Put the line in the sand (invade the oil states and we launch, period. Isn&#39;t that one reason why we had them??

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]No offense Jets5, because I truly value your posts and agree with you an awful lot, but your post, for all it&#39;s verbosity, is simply one long excuse for what we&#39;ve done in that region. Of course we had short term reasons, but when you think short term, you get bitten long term every time. And we are reaping now what we&#39;ve sown for so long.
    [/b][/quote]

    Unfortunatly, this holds true for pretty much any policy. Short term fixes lead to bigger issues down the road. (I should know, after seeing the rediculous things the previous owners of my house did.) Pretty soon we will be faced with the social security nightmare as the baby boomers start retiring in droves. I&#39;m sure the tax cuts will have adverse effects down the road.


    [quote][b]My best example? Afganistan of course. Had the Soviets won, who cares. We had the best nuclear weapons force in existence. Put the line in the sand (invade the oil states and we launch, period. Isn&#39;t that one reason why we had them??
    [/b][/quote]

    "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*&#33; Why didn&#39;t you tell the world, EH?"

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Sep 7 2004, 10:14 AM
    [b] No offense Jets5, because I truly value your posts and agree with you an awful lot, but your post, for all it&#39;s verbosity, is simply one long excuse for what we&#39;ve done in that region. Of course we had short term reasons, but when you think short term, you get bitten long term every time. And we are reaping now what we&#39;ve sown for so long.

    My best example? Afganistan of course. Had the Soviets won, who cares. We had the best nuclear weapons force in existence. Put the line in the sand (invade the oil states and we launch, period. Isn&#39;t that one reason why we had them?? [/b][/quote]
    Who cares?


    Are you serious?


    What happens when the Soviets retaliate to our nukes by launching their nukes at us? How far are we willing to go? How mnay US lives would that have cost? How many msulim arab or Russian lives? What goodwill in the ME would we get from allowing muslims in non-oil-rich states to be slaughtered, and only defend those who live in oil-rich states?? If we don&#39;t use nukes, and instead send in our own troops, how much more difficult would that task be if we allowed the Soviets to occupy Afghanistan and establish bases there for theirarmor and supply lines and planes? To use troops, even just to protect muslims from Russia, would involve stationing infidels in ME muslim arab lands, especially if we want to compete for air power. Would that have pissed any of them off? Would we have been accused of trying to "grab oil" or "meddling?"

    All I am trying to say is that things are not as simple as you present them to be. I agree with you that our actions have created ill will and am willing to even discuss specific actions if you want to. But you are taking it to an irrational extreme, implying that it is essentially all OUR fault, or that practical, implementable alternative courses of action were readily apparent at the time that would have made all muslims love us and all of their countries peaceful, tolerant, eutopias and that terrorism wouldn&#39;t exist, only that the USA didn&#39;t choose them because of oil or whatever and now all muslims suffer from brutal oppression because of that. I am saying that that notion is absurd. How can or could the US improve the lives of ME muslim arabs without pissing any of them off? If we neglect them and let invaders kill them, especially so soon after we DIDN&#39;T neglect the white christians of Europe who were invaded, or the Koreans or Vietnamese, what would they think then? Would they applaud our sober isolationism, or would they be Angry at the fact that we seem to only care when non-muslims get invaded, or muslims who happen to be sitting on Texas Tea?

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]How can or could the US improve the lives of ME muslim arabs without pissing any of them off? [/b][/quote]

    How about taking a firm stand on Israel and denounce their attrocoties against the Palestinians. Creating a Palestinian state would go a long way toward changing perceptions.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us