The Neocons Were Right, After All

[padisha emperor]

-=d=- :
For you, Hussein had to proove that he had not WMD.
he didn't. But it does'nt allow a country to attack.
WHEN HE DIDN'T PROOVE THAT HE HAD NOT W.M.D. , IT NOT MEAN THAT HE HAD !!

If you ask me and want that I proove to you I'm french, and if I don't want to show to you my identity card, my passport or any other ID paper...It would not mean that I am not french........
If I disagree to your demand, will you attack me too ?

USA were not allowed to attack.
Iraq had not WMD.
Hussein didn't prove he had not, but he didn't proove he had. So it was not a reason to attack Iraq.

Can you say "Regime Change". Goal's of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
#1 Remove Saddam from power as quickly as possible with as few US casualties as possible. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
#2 Capture senior members of Saddam's staff. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
#3 Seize any and all possible WMD materials and sites. 50% ACCOMPLISHED.

You did a mistake : these are not #1,#2 and #3 objectives.
The #1 is : Get the bigger quantity of oil as possible. MISSION WELL ACCOMPLISHED !

 

[fuzzykitten99]

The #1 is : Get the bigger quantity of oil as possible. MISSION WELL ACCOMPLISHED !

You really should sue your educational institution for letting you fall through the cracks.

Economically, if all that was wanted was oil, it would have been CHEAPER to just buy the oil from Iraq and Saddam than spending billions on freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. If all we wanted was oil, there were cheaper and less time consuming ways of getting it. Your argument is moot.

 

[padisha emperor]

I do it on purpose...
Because telling that US's main goal was not OIL is bad faith.... or at least #2....

The whole world think USA did this war for OIL, for main goal.
the popluation of France, of UK, of Spain, Germany, Italy, all the countries....even US.

In fact, all the opponents of Bush.

Some of you always say that if France did not the war, it was because france had interests in Iraq. And if somebody deny, everybody would say that it is bad faith...You don't want to believe that France refused because for France and French this was an unfair war, an illegal war.


Nevertheless, you still continue to say that USA's goals was Iraq freedom and Hussein's fall.
THIS is bad faith too :
for you, the french goals were vicious and hypocrite, while the US goals were praiseworthy and great.

Maybe France refused to do war because we have interests. But it was not the only reason : the unfair and illegal war was a reason too. THat was the reason of the population.

USA's main goal was OIL
At least, if you are too proud to admlit it, say that it was one of the wanted goals.....


(the YOU is not necessary you Sir Evil)

 

[padisha emperor]

Economically, if all that was wanted was oil, it would have been CHEAPER to just buy the oil from Iraq and Saddam than spending billions on freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. If all we wanted was oil, there were cheaper and less time consuming ways of getting it. Your argument is moot.

I'm not sure : buying while several decades oil, it ismore expensive than CONTROL the source of the oil.
USA now control Iraq, country with one of the bigger oil reserve in the world.
So USA control this reserve. The iraqi subsoil is the second richer in oil, I believe. Or the 4th. Nevermind, it is really rich....
It is really better than buy always oil.

 

[wade]

DUPED???!!! Tell ya what. Go to my first post in this thread and find any name that you see that is familiar. I made it easy by highlighting possible ones in different colors. So Clinton, and his liberal co-horts were DUPED as well? Hmmm.....hypocrite??

You don't make any sense.

As for Kerry's support of the war, it's based upon falsified intel provided him by the the US Intelligence community as directed by the Bush Adminstration.

Clinton took action to make sure Saddam didn't aquire WMD's, what problem do you have with that? Between the Clinton policy and the UN sanctions, it seems to have been effective as Saddam had no WMD's of significance, even according to the Bush Adminstration's recent 1500 page report.

Here's a little video on Saddam for you to consider:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Wade.

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't make any sense.

As for Kerry's support of the war, it's based upon falsified intel provided him by the the US Intelligence community as directed by the Bush Adminstration.

Clinton took action to make sure Saddam didn't aquire WMD's, what problem do you have with that? Between the Clinton policy and the UN sanctions, it seems to have been effective as Saddam had no WMD's of significance, even according to the Bush Adminstration's recent 1500 page report.

Here's a little video on Saddam for you to consider:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Wade.

Hello?! Kerry is on the intelligence committee. The Senate Intelligence committee receives the same information as the President.

Besides which Kerry made a stronger argument for war then President Bush did both in 98 and now, atleast until Dean was winning in the primary and Kerry had to flip flop to connect with the base.

But then maybe if Kerry wasnt so bent on skipping intelligence committee meetings and voting to slash the intelligence budgets we wouldnt have had any intelligence problems at all.

Face it, if you think George Bush lied, then John Kerry lied too because he had the same information. And if its just an inteligence error John Kerry is partially to blame because his votes against intelligence and his inattendence to his responsibility. I think its so funny that even if you have a point it makes your candidate look worse than the President.

 

[5stringJeff]

First, lest we all forget, Saddam had ties to terrorism (NOT 9/11 - no one in the administration claimed that), which of course makes Saddam Hussein a target in the War on TERRORISM.

Second, all the world's intellegence - to include Russia's intel and Clinton's CIA - thought that Saddam had WMD and was trying to get more. In fact, many intellegence sources believe the WMDs are in Syria now.

Third, Saddam had flaunted 14 seperate UN resolutions dealing with weapons inspections, trade sanctions, etc. Yet, the UN would not act.

-=d=- is once again absolutely right. It was up to Saddam to show that he was complying. Instead, he threw out the UN inspectors. Even in the face of the 2003 invasion, he refused to comply. So he has no on e to blame but himself.

 

[wade]

Hello?! Kerry is on the intelligence committee. The Senate Intelligence committee receives the same information as the President.

Besides which Kerry made a stronger argument for war then President Bush did both in 98 and now, atleast until Dean was winning in the primary and Kerry had to flip flop to connect with the base.

But then maybe if Kerry wasnt so bent on skipping intelligence committee meetings and voting to slash the intelligence budgets we wouldnt have had any intelligence problems at all.

Face it, if you think George Bush lied, then John Kerry lied too because he had the same information. And if its just an inteligence error John Kerry is partially to blame because his votes against intelligence and his inattendence to his responsibility. I think its so funny that even if you have a point it makes your candidate look worse than the President.

Except Bush was in the position to direct the CIA and NSA to produce information showing Saddam had WMD's. He directed what he wanted them to give him, and they produced it. Kerry was not in such a position.

I think it's so funny you will not reply to my post showing the Zionists were terrorists :scratch:

Wade.

 

[5stringJeff]

Except Bush was in the position to direct the CIA and NSA to produce information showing Saddam had WMD's. He directed what he wanted them to give him, and they produced it. Kerry was not in such a position.

As Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he could pretty much order the CIA around all he wanted to. If he had shown up.

 

[wade]

As Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he could pretty much order the CIA around all he wanted to. If he had shown up.

Are you seriously saying a Senator on the Intelligence Committee has anywhere near the influence with the CIA and NSA that the President does? You are joking right? Just who is it who appoints the Director of the CIA and the NSA? Do you think it's a Senator? LOL :baby:

Wade.

 

[onedomino]

I do it on purpose...
Because telling that US's main goal was not OIL is bad faith.... or at least #2....

The whole world think USA did this war for OIL, for main goal.
the popluation of France, of UK, of Spain, Germany, Italy, all the countries....even US.

USA's main goal was OIL

Pasisha, the war for oil argument is always used by individuals who believe that the US should not have invaded Iraq and that leaving the murderous Iraqi government in power was the correct course. The argument is false.

Consider the following:

Before the first Gulf war, Iraqi oil production peaked at 3 million barrels of oil per day. Under the UN oil for weapons and palaces program (er, correction...oil for "food" program), Iraqi oil production peaked at 2.5 million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
Let's give the benefit of the doubt and work with the higher output number. At 3 million barrels per day, the annual value of Iraqi oil production would be about $40 billion per year at today's prices. In 2002, the US purchased 40 percent of all Iraqi exports. All Iraqi exports were oil. It was a failed state that produced nothing for export except for oil.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/iz/Economy
Thus, the US was purchasing $16 billion per year worth of oil from Iraq at today's prices and pre first Gulf War production rates. Now, add to that the more than $100 billion that the US has spent to liberate Iraq so far (not to mention the deaths of our military personnel). http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040302.html
Let's estimate that during the next four years, the US will purchase $80 billion worth of Iraqi oil. Keep in mind, the US has spent $100 billion thus far on the war effort. Further, estimate that the US will spend another $100 billion on the Iraqi war and reconstruction during the next four years (probably a gross underestimate). Not counting lost lives, this means that over a five year period, for less than $96 billion worth of oil, America will have spent more than $296 billion dollars:

$16 billion: one year of oil purchases at the pre 1991 production rate.
$80 billion: four future years of oil purchases.
$100 billion: the cost of the Iraqi war so far.
$100 billion: four future years of the Iraqi war and reconstruction
$296 billion: for five years worth of oil purchases valued at $96 billion.

This equates to paying more than $123 dollars per barrel for Iraqi oil.

Do you believe that the US invaded Iraq to purchase less than 6 percent of its annual oil imports for $123 per barrel? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Do you believe that the US invaded Iraq to purchase less than 3 percent of its total annual oil consumption for $123 dollar per barrel? http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t24.xls

The financial aspect of the Iraq to US oil export situation is easy to calculate, yet anti-Iraq War voices continue to speciously use oil as the reason the US invaded Iraq.

 

[wade]

Pasisha, the war for oil argument is always used by individuals who believe that the US should not have invaded Iraq and that leaving the murderous Iraqi government in power was the correct course. The argument is false.

Consider the following:

Before the first Gulf war, Iraqi oil production peaked at 3 million barrels of oil per day. Under the UN oil for weapons and palaces program (er, correction...oil for "food" program), Iraqi oil production peaked at 2.5 million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
Let's give the benefit of the doubt and work with the higher output number. At 3 million barrels per day, the annual value of Iraqi oil production would be about $40 billion per year at today's prices. In 2002, the US purchased 40 percent of all Iraqi exports. All Iraqi exports were oil. It was a failed state that produced nothing for export except for oil.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/iz/Economy
Thus, the US was purchasing $16 billion per year worth of oil from Iraq at today's prices and pre first Gulf War production rates. Now, add to that the more than $100 billion that the US has spent to liberate Iraq so far (not to mention the deaths of our military personnel). http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040302.html
Let's estimate that during the next four years, the US will purchase $80 billion worth of Iraqi oil. Keep in mind, the US has spent $100 billion thus far on the war effort. Further, estimate that the US will spend another $100 billion on the Iraqi war and reconstruction during the next four years (probably a gross underestimate). Not counting lost lives, this means that over a five year period, for less than $96 billion worth of oil, America will have spent more than $296 billion dollars:

$16 billion: one year of oil purchases at the pre 1991 production rate.
$80 billion: four future years of oil purchases.
$100 billion: the cost of the Iraqi war so far.
$100 billion: four future years of the Iraqi war and reconstruction
$296 billion: for five years worth of oil purchases valued at $96 billion.

This equates to paying more than $123 dollars per barrel for Iraqi oil.

Do you believe that the US invaded Iraq to purchase less than 6 percent of its annual oil imports for $123 per barrel? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Do you believe that the US invaded Iraq to purchase less than 3 percent of its total annual oil consumption for $123 dollar per barrel? http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t24.xls

The financial aspect of the Iraq to US oil export situation is easy to calculate, yet anti-Iraq War voices continue to speciously use oil as the reason the US invaded Iraq.

This all assumes that oil production is expected to remain at a mere 3 million barrels per day. The expectation would be something on the order of 2 to 3 times that level, and probably outside the OPEC alliance quotas, driving down the price of oil sharply.

But really you miss the point. On the one hand you are talking about the cost of the war vs. the value of the oil, and saying "it's a bad deal". And yes, it is, for the American people. But for the oil barons who will be involved in getting that oil out of the ground and putting it on the market, it will be a bonanza - and who is that??? Halliburton and other Bush cronies. What do they care if the real costs to the American public amount to $123 per barrel as you have outlined? As long as they are going to pocket billions, it's a "good deal".

As I've said all along, the Iraq war is a huge wealth transfer from the American public to the select few.

Wade.

 

[onedomino]

This all assumes that oil production is expected to remain at a mere 3 million barrels per day. The expectation would be something on the order of 2 to 3 times that level, and probably outside the OPEC alliance quotas, driving down the price of oil sharply.

But really you miss the point. On the one hand you are talking about the cost of the war vs. the value of the oil, and saying "it's a bad deal". And yes, it is, for the American people. But for the oil barons who will be involved in getting that oil out of the ground and putting it on the market, it will be a bonanza - and who is that??? Halliburton and other Bush cronies. What do they care if the real costs to the American public amount to $123 per barrel as you have outlined? As long as they are going to pocket billions, it's a "good deal".

As I've said all along, the Iraq war is a huge wealth transfer from the American public to the select few.

Wade.

So you think the invasion of Iraq was a secret plan to make a few companies and individuals rich? That is paranoid and not supported by any facts. Iraqi oil will be sold at market prices and will make individuals and companies no more rich than oil from any other source. Of course they are not the "select few." The oil companies are owned by millions of stockholders throughout the world. Are you a member of a pension fund or 401K? If so, then you own stock in oil companies. Would you have preferred that Saddam and his murderous pals obtain the oil money to pay homicide bombers and purchase weapons?

The Iraqi oil industry is in an extreme state of disrepair and increased production will require years of construction and billions in investment. In 2003, it was estimated that it would be 2010 before Iraqi oil production could be ramped up by 6 million barrels per day. Due to terrorist attacks that date will probably extend beyond 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/luftmemo20040617.htm

 

[padisha emperor]

Halliburton get lots of contracts in Iraq, without call for offers. Halliburton, in relation with Cheney, was really helped by him.Halliburton get billions of $$$.

The war's cost for USA is : 200 billions $$, but Bush doesn't care.
Now oil belong to US. it is the main thing for him.

link



Like say wade,don't look at the cost of the war.
the control of the iraqi subsoil will be good for USA

 

[Bullypulpit]

You are as bad as the liberals. Explain to me anywhere were anyone has ever claimed that Iraq was involved in 911.

Im sorry your so full of hate and contempt for people who are different from you but it doesnt change that US and Israel have the same enemies. Its funny youd rather die at the hands of terrorists then ever join forces with Jews to fight them. Funny and sad.

<blockquote><center><h2><a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged?mode=PF>Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged</a></h2></center>

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.</blockquote>

<blockquote><center><h2><a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm>The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq</a></h2></center>


By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.</blockquote>

While never directly saying that Iraq shared responsibility for 9/11 with Al Qaeda, the Administration did everything it could to foster the impression that there was a link where none actually existed. And it worked. Many in the US actully bought the spin and believed Iraq shared responsibility for 9/11.

It was all a piece of the same fabric...Mislead America into a war of choice, not necessity.

 

[dilloduck]

oooooooo now their in trouble for what they didn't say??????? cmon bully!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

Are you seriously saying a Senator on the Intelligence Committee has anywhere near the influence with the CIA and NSA that the President does? You are joking right? Just who is it who appoints the Director of the CIA and the NSA? Do you think it's a Senator? LOL :baby:

Wade.

What I'm seriously saying is that the House and Senate Intelligence Committee have a lot of influence over the CIA, and if Senator Kerry (or any of the others, for that matter) had specific questions about al-Qaeda, OBL, Saddam, etc., they could have gotten that information out of the CIA. But Kerry was AWOL for over 3/4 of those meetings, so I'm not surprised that he failed to ask those questions.

 

[William Joyce]

William, what a ridiculous comment. Not only are you a racist (as shown in other posts), but you are anti-semitic as well.

Yes indeed. It took a lot of hard thinking and un-brainwashing for me to get to that stage. I used to be a one-worlder singing Barney songs with the rest of the ostrich GOP. Then I woke up.

Israel is one of the best allies that the US has. I am glad that America destroyed a murderous Iraqi government that was paying for homicide bombers to attack Israel. American Jews have made many great contributions to the United States and continue to do so.

Yes, Israel is quite a friend. The Mossad knew about 9/11 and didn't tell us. It steals our military secrets. And the billions in support we give it make the Muslim world hate us when we would have gone our merry way otherwise.

The only "contributions" Jews make to our nation is to push it into war for their purposes and to remove Christianity and whites from power. Skippy, that's a contribution, alright --- to themselves!

What a friend.

 

[Mr. P]

Yes indeed. It took a lot of hard thinking and un-brainwashing for me to get to that stage. I used to be a one-worlder singing Barney songs with the rest of the ostrich GOP. Then I woke up.

It's more like you fell out of bed and bumped your head.

 

[wade]

So you think the invasion of Iraq was a secret plan to make a few companies and individuals rich? That is paranoid and not supported by any facts. Iraqi oil will be sold at market prices and will make individuals and companies no more rich than oil from any other source. Of course they are not the "select few." The oil companies are owned by millions of stockholders throughout the world. Are you a member of a pension fund or 401K? If so, then you own stock in oil companies. Would you have preferred that Saddam and his murderous pals obtain the oil money to pay homicide bombers and purchase weapons?

The Iraqi oil industry is in an extreme state of disrepair and increased production will require years of construction and billions in investment. In 2003, it was estimated that it would be 2010 before Iraqi oil production could be ramped up by 6 million barrels per day. Due to terrorist attacks that date will probably extend beyond 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/luftmemo20040617.htm

And Bush cronies will be doing the construction and other no-bid jobs and pocketing billions. Read for yourself:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1210-07.htm

It's outragous. And they make the claim that part of this is because of the security costs - but the US army provides security at no cost to Halliburton. The lost cargo cost in no way justifies the gouging that is going on.

You really do not see how this war is being used to pad the pockets of the Bush cronies? Wake up!

Wade.