A Conversation for The Iraq Conflict Discussion Forum
Oilpinions on war with Iraq
Apparition™ (Mourning Empty the best uncle anyone could wish for) Posted Feb 7, 2003
"Was Saddam specifically threatening to invade Kuwait again, or just following the example of China and having wargames that just happen to be in an area they want to threaten (Taiwan)?"
Or Florence in the 1800s "performing military exercises" along the border with Austria (having just made aliances at the time). So long as were citing history and tactics
The American "Evidence"
Dryopithecus Posted Feb 7, 2003
Most importantly, we have to take this on trust, as we have no means of verifying it. Furthermore, the more one thinks about it, the less credible it seems.
Clearly, tapes can be edited. There is no way of checking even whether the voices on the tapes are genuine.
The aerial photos may show what Colin Powell claims, but how old are they?
If the Iraqis have recently buried some evidence, why have the weapons inspectors not found the disturbed soil?
The above are my own thoughts. For a more sophisticated analysis, take a look at http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1140.shtml
Dry.
The American "Evidence"
hasselfree Posted Feb 7, 2003
Clearly all evidence can be tampered with.
So what kind of evidence would be conclusive?
As for looking for a plot of disturbed sand in the whole of Iraq....
The American "Evidence"
Dryopithecus Posted Feb 7, 2003
One would expect the inspectors to have been informed of the exact location.
I would need to see some independent verification. For instance, if (e.g.) the French intelligence service had downloaded the same images at the same time, or if the weapons inspectors had found some corroborative evidence on the ground.
Have you looked at the reference I gave? Do you assume it's just propaganda? How do you distinguish propaganda from truth?
Dry.
The American "Evidence"
hasselfree Posted Feb 7, 2003
I'm not assuming anything. I'm being cautious of everybody
It doesn't make much sense to me for someone to bury something (thus hiding it) and then showing inspectors the burial site.
Rumors...
Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) Posted Feb 7, 2003
This is long, so get set and pop some ... have a
I've just read a whole bunch of stuff, some of which may be fiction, some fact. It's hard to tell on the Net - you have to be able to recognize the signs. I was reading an article on Gulf War illness the other day, and was doing just swimmingly until it got to the 'alien artifacts found in Iraq' part... I had to bail. So I refuse to vouch for the complete truthfulness of all these statements, but they're consistent across several sources, which makes me think there's a grain of truth in them.
What I've gotten so far is that...
• Bush Sr. was on the Carlyle board, which is an international consulting firm, working for the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. He was forced to resign while his son was in office because of conflict of interest. He's still acting as an ambassador for the firm, and traveled just recently to South Korea. The bin Laden family owns defense contracts, which with the increase in the U.S. defense budget after 9/11 has just made them 'a whole bunch of money.' The proposed war with Iraq will net them quite a bit more.
• Bush Jr., while heading Arbusto Energy, received money from James R. Bath, the investment counselor for the bin Laden family. This was so the bin Laden family could have a 5% stake in the company. Bath, an old family friend, was also connected to the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, who have funded Osama bin Laden. BCCI also laundered money for clandestine CIA activities, including the Afghan mujahedin and paying off intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.
• Bush Jr.'s Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Armitage, had to resign after scandals linked with the CIA; this may be bull, but he's supposedly linked with CIA drug smuggling operations. I only mention this because the Taliban was against opium/heroin production.
• Another rumor links Bush Sr. with the bin Laden family through his first job with Dresser Industries, which now owns Bredero Shaw. Part of the pipeline construction through the new war zone is funded by the bin Laden family, working with Bredero Shaw, which back then was known as H.C. Price. Dick Cheney just finished a directorship with Halliburton, who owns Dresser Industries, and with Enron has been accused of 'aggressive accounting.' He netted a cool $36 mil. The White House has just had to admit that its national energy plan was based upon increased production without regard to the environment or conservation, and they failed to consult with anybody other than their friends among the producers themselves, namely Enron. Bush received $1.5 mil from Enron for his campaign. (From an Guardian Observer article - URL at bottom.)
If I had to go and try to put all these facts/rumors together...
• While Britain was making Kuwait a country of its own, Bush Sr. was sending $1.5 million to Baghdad and making sure that Saddam was placed in power. Why was Saddam put in power? Because he's a braggart, power-grubbing, and jealous of any shared responsibility. This has made Iraq weak - look at it now; isolated by sanctions, it has very little influence over the world. (For anybody who doubts this, look at why George McGovern was encouraged to run for office against Richard Nixon.)
• Then there's the funding of Afghans in the Middle East against the Russian occupation, their drug smuggling, and the CIA connection with Richard Armitage. What's the deal with that? Especially with the Taliban being against opium/heroin production, and harboring Osama bin Laden... this is the stuff of which conspiracy theories are made. We may never find out the truth, but it's one more to add to the pile.
• The U.S. desire for war *is* all about the oil. Not whether the U.S. and Britain will run out of oil, because they won't. The connections of the Bush family to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family, and the friendship with Britain and Kuwait means that there's not a problem getting oil. What is upsetting Britain and the U.S. is that Iraq has some power of its own, and quite a lot of influence. We've talked about Iraq owning WMD, and this being a problem only because they're not allies with the U.S. This is exactly right. They refuse to play by the rules - UN rules, that is. So why is the U.S. getting into this? Unless they come out and admit that it's about the oil, it doesn't make any sense. Or... here's a thought - what if Bush Jr. wants to send a little more money in the bin Laden family's direction? In hopes of getting more oil interests from Saudi Arabia? It's not inconceivable...
If it's not about the oil, then it's just another country with potentially nasty toys that we need to keep an eye on. And it's not our responsibility to take care of it! Why doesn't the U.S. have more faith in the UN? Can anybody give me a good reason?
Oh... And does anybody know who manufactured the incriminating aluminum tubes found in Iraq? It's not Alcoa, is it? If so, Alcoa's another buddy of the Bush family... funny, isn't it?
http://www.observer.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html
This is a very good article - it's more about Texas and the havoc pollution has wreaked upon the population, but worth a read.
http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm
I wouldn't believe all of it, if I were you - but it puts an interesting spin on some already existing facts.
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
This site seems a little more reliable than the previous. It's got many of the same facts, but more detail.
The American "Evidence"
Dryopithecus Posted Feb 7, 2003
I should remember what good friend once told me: "If you can be misunderstood, you will be."
If the US satellite image indicates some suspicious activity has occurred, one would expect *the US* to inform the weapons inspectors of the exact location, so they (the weapons inspectors) can see what can be found on the ground.
Being cautious of everybody is a good starting point. However, if someone is on trial, it is up to the prosecution to prove their case. This is the much trumpeted principle of the presumption of innocence, that our "free" nations claim to uphold.
Dry.
Rumors...
Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) Posted Feb 7, 2003
I'm sorry - just reading through my post, and saw a contradictory statement. Saddam is the one with all the power. He's made Iraq weak.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Oilpinions on war with Iraq
Deidzoeb Posted Feb 7, 2003
Can anyone explain why the US would withhold information from UNMOVIC until this big revelation by Colin Powell, ignoring the part of UN Resolution 1441 that asks all member nations to give relevant info to the weapons inspectors?
Rumors...
Dryopithecus Posted Feb 7, 2003
Thanks for your catalogue, Lentilla. It all sounds very plausible. No-one could make it all up, therefore it must be true. How close is Osama to the bin Laden family you mention? Can the US be funding Al Qa'eda through their dealings with the bin Ladens?
Perhaps Bush et al realise this situation cannot continue for ever, that they may at some time have to turn against Saudi Arabia, and they will then need another country (Iraq) to base their forces in the Middle East?
There is no good reason why the US should withold information that may assist the weapons inspectors, assuming they have any such information, that is.
Dry.
Rumors...
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Feb 7, 2003
Sorry, I know we've moved on a bit, but I just wanted to comment on something of Zagreb's from a little while ago - 'How do you remove a dictator through diplomatic means?'
Hows about asking the boys who persuaded Noriega to get out of Panama? Was that Pappa Bush? I *think* it might have been. But of course, he was one of 'our' monsters, wasn't he, and Saddam has shown an alarming tendency to be his own monster...
The American "Evidence"
Mycroft Posted Feb 7, 2003
Dryopithecus, the presumption of innocence principle doesn't apply in this case, as Saddam's guilt was established by the UN before the war in 1991. The onus is on him to demonstrate he's a reformed character, just as it would be for anyone else seeking parole.
While I agree that the evidence presented by Powell must have some sort of independent verification, the idea that the US could have no good reason for withholding information about Saddam's activities from others is not a valid one, and the reason why should be obvious: if you found out your phone was tapped, wouldn't you switch to another phone or, at the very least, not mention anything you didn't want overheard on that line? In short, the more information the US hands over now, the less they'll be able to gather in the future, and not merely from Iraq, but from anyone else who gets a better idea of what the CIA and NSA are capable of.
The American "Evidence"
Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump Posted Feb 7, 2003
Hi Subcom,
"...This is kind of an amusing idea. The nations with the most weapons of mass destruction and worst records of distributing and using them have judged that Saddam is not fit to have them, so they give thumbs up to war ... Iraq is an exception to the rule, not very different from other nations, but requiring special attention as decided by the unquestionable authorities..."
I haven’t been able to find out which countries were on the Security Council (aside from the Permanent 5) when Resolution 687 was passed banning Iraq from having WMD, but I doubt that many of them were nuclear powers. It required a majority of these to vote in favour and a lack of veto from the Big 5 for the resolution to pass. The amusing idea is not quite as you stated.
Again you miss the item that singles out North Korea for attention; they welched on a deal. Mr Clinton brokered a deal whereby North Korea would dump its weapons programs for a ton of cold hard cash. The cash was delivered (US or UN, I don’t know), and the Koreans have said "Thanks... start up the reactors again."
Apologies if this seems simplistic or if I’m missing the point, but in general you seem to be saying that we’re all as bad as each other; that the UN has been bastardised by the Americans; and that consequently nobody and no-one has the moral authority to act against this particular nutter in Baghdad, whether or not he has these WMD and the intent to use them. So, should we just kick back, open a beer and enjoy the show when he does get them?
According to Mr Blair last evening, diplomatic activities are ongoing with Pakistan & India about their nukes and the dangers of proliferation. Mr Blair argued that different countries require different tactics, and (now I’m paraphrasing quite freely) while diplomacy was still a realistic option for places like Pakistan & N Korea and must be explored for a long time yet, 12 years of diplomacy had failed to solve the problems of Saddam.
"...Why should diplomacy be quick and easy? Does your committment to peace have a time limit or deadline, after which war is just so much easier and quicker that it becomes worthwhile?..." – admittedly not addressed to me, but I’ll have a go at batting this ball:- diplomacy need not be quick or easy, but surely there comes a point when a value judgement is required as to whether it is working at all. South Africa’s disarmament program with inspectors was achieved in weeks; Iraq’s has taken 12 years and counting, and that’s diplomacy with a heavy dose of sabre rattling thrown in.
As regards sanctions… I don’t know a huge amount, but I do know that Iraq has been allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. These oil sales were originally capped at $1bn dollars every 90 days, but that limit was later removed. Have these funds been insufficient to help the Iraqi people? Or have they been misappropriated by the regime? I don’t know; I’m asking... Also, when considering blame for the deaths, please consider that, as I said above, a disarmament process via inspections has been proved to take only a few weeks; it is Iraq’s own intransigence that has helped keep sanctions in place for over a decade.
"Was Iraq threatening Kuwait again in 1994?" It was thought so because the UN ordered Iraq to stop doing precisely that. I gave the relevant resolution number in an earlier post (forgotten it now)
Dryopithecus mentioned that in a trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case. I would argue that the disarmament of Iraq is the sentence after a guilty verdict over its 1991 crimes, and so the analogy doesn’t fly.
Apologies to Lentilla, for I have not read your links. So many pacifists, so little time...
The American "Evidence"
Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump Posted Feb 7, 2003
I wrote that last post in MS Word, then cut and pasted it. It doesn't appear to have handled apostrophes very well.
1) Sorry if it makes things difficult to read.
2) How do I stop it happening again?
Geoff
The American "Evidence"
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Feb 7, 2003
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It appears that it is not just American intelligence that is being a little less than economical with the truth;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html
I swear to god this government are a disgrace and make John major look like a saint...
Geoff, sorry to be a pain, btw, but it's *really* difficult to read posts that are cut and pasted from Word...
Oh, and as we seem to be back to bandying the word 'pacicfist' about as an insult - what is the logical opposite viewpoint?
The American "Evidence"
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Feb 7, 2003
I'm afarid you need to cut and paste and then once you are in the text box go and replace all of the apostrophes...it's a pain and a bore, but I shouldn't worry too much - I think we've all done it from time to time...
The American "Evidence"
Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump Posted Feb 7, 2003
"...Oh, and as we seem to be back to bandying the word 'pacicfist' about as an insult - what is the logical opposite viewpoint?..."
Obviously I'm a bloodthirsty warmonger
Geoff the Barbarian
The American "Evidence"
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Feb 7, 2003
The American "Evidence"
Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump Posted Feb 7, 2003
In fairness, the only way the Government is being economical with the truth is by not paying for it!
The American "Evidence"
IctoanAWEWawi Posted Feb 7, 2003
Geoff, you got a source for the US - N Korea deal? I was under the impression from the various articles I had read in the press that the actual deal was US fossil fuels in return for them switching of the Reactor. Which they did and then the promised fossil fuels kinda never turned up so N Korea turned the reactor back on?
Of course if I have been misled I would like to find out so any articles you could point me at?
Cheers
Key: Complain about this post
Oilpinions on war with Iraq
- 3921: Apparition™ (Mourning Empty the best uncle anyone could wish for) (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3922: Dryopithecus (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3923: hasselfree (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3924: Dryopithecus (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3925: hasselfree (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3926: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3927: Dryopithecus (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3928: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3929: Deidzoeb (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3930: Dryopithecus (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3931: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3932: Mycroft (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3933: Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3934: Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3935: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3936: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3937: Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3938: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3939: Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump (Feb 7, 2003)
- 3940: IctoanAWEWawi (Feb 7, 2003)
More Conversations for The Iraq Conflict Discussion Forum
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."