 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Iraq War Lies
|
|
|
Subject: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,Axis of Oil Date: 15 Jul 03 - 11:06 AM The Iraq oil-invasion was enabled by terrorising us with the threat of imminent nuclear conflict. That threat was a lie. The real reasons now stand out clearly: OIL and ISRAEL. Attacking Iraq was achieved by terrorising the public with the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! Attacks that might be directed against the West! LIES! There was no such threat. These were ridicuclous claims, supported by forged evidence. And they knew it. Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says: Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim. The CIA says: The claim that Saddam sought to buy uranium "was based on false paperwork which American agents revealed as forgeries." (Source, BBC News): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3063515.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3060817.stm They said Iraq was a threat to the West. LIES! They said the oil would be held "in trust for the Iraqi people". LIES! Now Americans are controlling oil sales and spending the proceeds on companies with ties to the Bush regime! A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq. Now the corporations that pushed for war and funded the politicians are making money from rebuilding Iraq! The public debate is neatly avoiding the real issue. Clearly we they lied about the real reasons for attacking Iraq. So what were the real reasons? Why did they lie? Why was it so important to attack and occupy Iraq? (starting with the oilfields and then neglecting to protect schools and hospitals!) 1: Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil. But the oil comes to the surface naturally, so that extraction is cheaper and easier than anywhere else. 2: Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel. (The U.S. government funds and arms the illegal Israeli occupation, which is what started the Arab-American cycle of hatred.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm Politics has become synonymous with corruption, dishonesty and evil. Our governments are using our taxes, our national resources and the lives of our military personnel for illegal attacks robbery to make money for themselves and their freinds. The U.S. Military is now in the Iraqi Oil Business: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3056549.stm "Iraqi oil deals up for grabs ... The US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m) Aghganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead. Iraq: The oil is about to go on the market. Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required. The oil is being stolen. It is not being held in trust for Iraq as promised. Instead Americans are controlling oil sales - and spending the money on companies linked to the Bush administration! Hamid Karzai, the U.S. puppet leader of Afghanistan, used to work for the oil company Unocal. Unocal was the main oil company involved in the Centgas plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The plans were made in the 1990's - long before the September 11 attacks. The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built. The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline. Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family, who had close ties to Osama bin Laden. Bush has blocked the investigation into the intelligence failings which allowed suspects - who were under FBI surveilance - to continue with the attacks of September 11! Murder, theft, fraud, deception. Bush, Blair and their corporate puppeteers are criminals who kill. They should not be allowed to get away with it just because they kill thousands instead of one or two people. They must face trial. Oil & The Bush Cabinet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1138000/1138009.stm Bush & Big Business: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1306000/1306777.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Amergin Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:39 PM geee maybe check other threads....been discussed..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,mg Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM don't forget all that rice in North Korea was must amass. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 16 Jul 03 - 03:45 AM Guest Axis of Oil, Hi there DG, nice to see that you're still going strong - very entertaining as usual - complete and utter load of bollocks, but still entertaining - can hardly wait for the next instalment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: michaelr Date: 16 Jul 03 - 11:12 PM Hi there Teribus, nice to see you still have your head in the sand, denying the all-too-obvious truth. DG or not DG, the real "complete and utter load of bollocks" is coming from the Resident and his henchmen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:21 AM OK michaelr, Lets have a look at, "..the all-too-obvious truth", as laid out by Guest Axix of Oil: We were all terrorised into believing there was a, "..threat of imminent nuclear conflict." No we weren't. The "all-too-obvious truth" bit here was that under the auspices of the UN, Iraq was being allowed to ignore the requirements of binding obligations detailed in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN and IAEA inspection teams could not function and there had been no inspection programme in Iraq since 1998. The UN sanctions were becoming increasingly ineffective (in fact they were about as water-tight as a collander) and pressure was mounting to have them removed completely. With no inspections, no disarmament and the prospect of sanctions being lifted please explain to me why it should be completely ruled out, and considered totally out of the question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not pursue their nuclear programme. The evaluation of an unrestricted restart of that programme put Iraqi acquisition of "home grown" nuclear weapons at five years down the road at the earliest. Should they opt for buying in from abroad they could achieve this much earlier, shortest estimate was 12 months. Nothing imminent about that, highly undesireable, but nothing immenent. In any event, post-911, there was absolutely no way that ANY American administration was going to allow that to happen and rightly so, given Iraq's track record. Axis of Oil more or less owns up to that by ammending his text to down grade his immenent threat to, "the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: - Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! - Attacks that might be directed against the West!" Here Guest Axis of Oil is confusing various things and taking them totally out of context. Now where is the "all-too-obvious truth" in what Axis of Oil says here are lies. Potential nuclear attacks? Given the circumstances outlined above I repeat my question - what rules the possibility out? Those potential nuclear attacks being capable of being launched in 45 minutes? No-one has ever said that Iraq could launch a nuclear attack in 45 minutes. Here Axis of Oil is confusing the threat of a nuclear attack with the threat of a chemical/biological attack. Again given the circumstances outlined above (no inspections, no disarmament and sanctions lifted) - 45 minutes is perfectly credible. Even under the prevailing circumstances in Iraq at the time the statement was made (September 2002) 45 minutes was perfectly credible. "Attacks that might be directed against the West!" - The "all-too-obvious truth" was that what was constantly stated was attacks might be directed against the West, against western interests and our allies. I again ask the question - What causes those, who deem this to be a lie, to state categorically that this contention can be totally discounted? On the 45 minute thing Axis of Oil then quotes Dr. Hans Blix in a fairly recent interview with the BBC - "Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says: Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim." The "all-too-obvious truth" here is that it is odd that the good Dr. waited the best part of 10 months to come out with this observation. If it was considered that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken on this issue in July 2003, it must have been equally obvious that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken in September 2002. Also odd that the materials that posed this threat, which Blix seems to discount, were exactly the same as the ones the good Dr. had reported were unnaccounted for when he was in Iraq as deputy head of the UNSCOM inspection effort - another "all-too-obvious truth". With regard to the attempts to purchase uranium cake - in the UK the jury is still out on the veracity of that contention. The US intelligence agencies were supplied with one piece of evidence that was latter proved to be a forgery, the UK intelligence community say that they have further evidence that is currently being reviewed, but for the moment they still stand by their contention that Iraq did attempt to purchase this material. Now onto Oil. The "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to swallow is that the Iraqi people are not going to benefit from Iraqi oil sales and that the entire proceeds are being stolen by the Americans and given to companies with ties to the Bush regime. Utter crap! In making this contention Axis of Oil fails to point out the amount of up-front inward investment required to get Iraq's oil production flowing to pre-war levels (7 billion US$ over a period of 3 to 5 years) Another "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to believe: "A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq." What the "all-too-obvious truth" actually is, is that Saddam Hussein crippled Iraq: - Through his expenditure of the country's resources to further his aims to achieve a very well documented ambition of his - to be known throughout the arab world as the man who finally destroyed the State of Israel; - Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. I would also like to see some evidence that any corporation - "pushed for war". The companies engaged in the essential work of rebuilding Iraq will most certainly make money - it would be extremely unusual and bizarre business practice if they did not - but their profit margin is pegged at 2% - normally Halliburton take on work within the international oil-field construction sector with a profit margin of 15% The importance of oil-fields is not only an "all-too-obvious truth" it is also plain common-sense. By the By another "all-too-obvious truth" is that while work within Iraq's oil-fields is still ongoing, and they are far from full production, Iraq's schools are now open, as are Iraq's hospitals. Another "all-too-obvious truth", as told by Axis of Oil, that you apparently are more than willing to swallow: "Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil." - No it is not. In the 13 years that Iraqi oil has been off the world market it's absence has not been noticed - That is the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter. That would hardly be the case if what Axis of Oil says is true. 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work do not suggest either cheap or easy extraction. The cost/time estimate by the way is the estimate of international oil industry analysts and is fairly well documented. Not positively the "all-too-obvious truth" - but a damn good indication as to the truth of the situation. On the Iraq/Israel topic Axis of Oil is a bit selective. What Axis, and obviously yourself, contend as the "all-too-obvious truth" is that - "Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." - Whereas the whole truth is that Iraq has always been one of Israels most implacable foes, it was Saddam Hussein's aim to completely destroy the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is both recognised and guaranteed by the United Nations - has been since it's formation in 1948. As to the contention - "If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel." - The "all-too-obvious truth"? - Hardly!! ask Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. "The U.S. Military is now in the Iraqi Oil Business: Iraqi oil deals up for grabs ... The US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m)" The contracts let are limited to repair of possible war damage that is the "all-too-obvious truth". "Afhganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead." - Another "all-too-obvious truth" from Axis of Oil. Is it really? I take it Axis is referring to the TAP pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) - the pipeline that is dependent on India's participation for success? The pipeline project that is unacceptable to the Indian Government because they do want to become reliant on energy that is supplied by a pipeline that runs through Pakistan? An energy source that they (India) can dispense with due to signed memoranda of intent for alternative supplies via a subsea pipeline from Iran (planned since 1994)? The pipeline that is so desperately needed by the Afghan Government to enable that country to distribute and export it's oil and gas? The pipeline that is becoming increasingly unattractive to Turkmenistan due to cheaper transportation rates through Russian pipelines and better prices on offer from the West? The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government? "Iraq: The oil is about to go on the market." - Again not the "all-too-obvious truth". The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now. "Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it. "The oil is being stolen." Really? - where are they hiding it? who is "fencing" it for them? Utterly ludicrous - thats the "all-too-obvious truth" - My arse it is. As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, UN administered fund or no, the Iraqi people will see more benefits from the sale of this oil than ever they did under Saddam Hussein. Another "all-too-obvious truth" is that under a UN administered fund, not only would the companies undertaking essential work in Iraq be making money, so would the UN via their not insignificant administration charges. "Hamid Karzai, the U.S. puppet leader of Afghanistan, used to work for the oil company Unocal." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Or are you advocating that all heads of state should be recruited from the totally unemployed - like our Royal family - good case for a constitutional monarchy. "Unocal was the main oil company involved in the Centgas plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan." Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan. The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting. "The plans were made in the 1990's - long before the September 11 attacks." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Why omit all the pipelines that were planned and built to allow the transportation of middle-east oil to the Mediterranean - also long before the September 11 attacks - Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought. "The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built." Fairly reasonable condition really, considering the Taleban's track record with regard to Afghanistan's oil & gas industry and infrastructure. "The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline." - Oh!! so that was what it was all about - I bet they would have been down-right pissed-off if, in answer to their original request the Taleban had handed over Osama bin Laden and his boys. The pipeline, IF BUILT, and that seems more and more doubtful, benefits Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan long-term. Unical's benefit is only short-term. "Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!! Another "all-too-obvious truth" stated by Axis is that the Saudi royal family, "...had close ties to Osama bin Laden." - HAD being the operative word as the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter is that they (Saudi Royal Family) were the ones who stripped Osama bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship and who threw him into exile. My opinion has not changed one iota, michaelr - the contentions made by Axis of Oil are a complete and utter load of bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: curmudgeon Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:39 AM Try these on for size at this site. Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the threat of Hussein, and almost none of it was true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,pdc Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:19 AM Teribus is doing what all rwn's are doing these days -- using technicalities to prove that what they think is "correct." If you can fine-tune the details, it makes Bush look "correct." However, there is a big difference between being "correct" and being "right." It's called a moral component. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:21 PM Hahaha, T-Bird. Just as I would have suspected. Hmmmm? Yes, another Teribus's "War and Peace" length response which probably took several hours to write but doesn't answer the basic questions. Like, why Bush lied to the world. Oh, "Faulty intellegence". Is that your final answer, T? 1.Yes 2. No Pick *Just* *one*, please... (And no ovrarta dictum (sp)....) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:25 PM I was hoping to congratulate Teribus on a short post. But then, oh me oh my... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:48 PM Well, MCgrath. The heat's on T's hero and T is gonna do what T does best. Write reem after reem trying to narrow under T's microscope, where the big picture doesn't exist. Yeah, I remeber well the day that Condi Rice sent up that first *trial baloon* with the "mushroom cloud" remark. Thats when the "Big Lie" started and how many times was this repeated by folks who are on the payroll of the American people. 1000?, 2000? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? And then we found out that Bush was spending millions and millions of tax dollars on PR firms to sell "Bush's War"? Hmmmmm? But now that T and Co. have been caught, there is going to be a lot of attempted diversions and evasiveness to the basic questions. Hey, if I lied or supported "The Liar", I'd probably do the same... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: curmudgeon Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:58 PM This evening on NPR's All Things Considered there was an analyisis of three of the resident's excuses for excess and mayhem. The most troubling to the most people was the Hussein-al Qaeda connection. To hear the piece in full, click here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fan the flames -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Frankham Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:18 AM Hi Teribus, Your proclamations are interesting. Lets examine them. You say, " The "all-too-obvious truth" bit here was that under the auspices of the UN, Iraq was being allowed to ignore the requirements of binding obligations detailed in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN and IAEA inspection teams could not function and there had been no inspection programme in Iraq since 1998" This isn't true. It's an opinion. The team was functioning well enough to keep Sadam at bay. "The UN sanctions were becoming increasingly ineffective (in fact they were about as water-tight as a collander) and pressure was mounting to have them removed completely." This simply is not the case. They were working and the only pressure to have them removed came from the Bush Administration. why it should be completely ruled out, and considered totally out of the question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not pursue their nuclear programme. He may have tried to pursue a nuclear program but he would not be successful. The inspection teams made that clear in their statements. There were no means by which he could effectively do this. "The evaluation of an unrestricted restart of that programme put Iraqi acquisition of "home grown" nuclear weapons at five years down the road at the earliest." This sounds like Bush propaganda. It did not come from the inspecttion teams. " Should they opt for buying in from abroad they could achieve this much earlier, shortest estimate was 12 months. Nothing imminent about that, highly undesireable, but nothing immenent. In any event, post-911, there was absolutely no way that ANY American administration was going to allow that to happen and rightly so, given Iraq's track record." The "should theys" are a red herring. These "factoids" were dreamed up by propagandists for the war. "Axis of Oil more or less owns up to that by ammending his text to down grade his immenent threat to, "the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: - Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! - Attacks that might be directed against the West!" This is unreasonable to suggest considering the poverty of Iraq and the incapability of their being able to acheive any kind of nuclear threat. "Here Guest Axis of Oil is confusing various things and taking them totally out of context. Now where is the "all-too-obvious truth" in what Axis of Oil says here are lies." More propaganda by the Bush Administration. "Potential nuclear attacks? Given the circumstances outlined above I repeat my question - what rules the possibility out?" The impoverishment of the country and the strength of world opinion against this happening. It's a red herring. " 45 minutes is perfectly credible. Even under the prevailing circumstances in Iraq at the time the statement was made (September 2002) 45 minutes was perfectly credible." It might be for North Korea or the former Soviet Union (even their nuclear capabilities were overstated). But for Iraq? Not in a decade let alone 45 minutes. It's another scare tactic by this Administration to align the public with support for the war. "Attacks that might be directed against the West!" - The "all-too-obvious truth" was that what was constantly stated was attacks might be directed against the West, against western interests and our allies. I again ask the question - What causes those, who deem this to be a lie, to state categorically that this contention can be totally discounted? The threats were made as a cultural response to the proposed war. They simply didn't have the means to carry them out. On the 45 minute thing Axis of Oil then quotes Dr. Hans Blix in a fairly recent interview with the BBC - "Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says: Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim." And he was right. "The "all-too-obvious truth" here is that it is odd that the good Dr. waited the best part of 10 months to come out with this observation." What difference would it make if he had said it earlier? "If it was considered that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken on this issue in July 2003, it must have been equally obvious that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken in September 2002." I think that Dr. Blix had more information later on. His position was not to operate under assumptions. "Also odd that the materials that posed this threat, which Blix seems to discount, were exactly the same as the ones the good Dr. had reported were unnaccounted for when he was in Iraq as deputy head of the UNSCOM inspection effort - another "all-too-obvious truth"." It's not unreasonable that the more you explore the more you learn. The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over. " The US intelligence agencies were supplied with one piece of evidence that was latter proved to be a forgery, the UK intelligence community say that they have further evidence that is currently being reviewed, but for the moment they still stand by their contention that Iraq did attempt to purchase this material." And they have not successfully made their case for he availability of attaining this material. Another red-herring. "In making this contention Axis of Oil fails to point out the amount of up-front inward investment required to get Iraq's oil production flowing to pre-war levels (7 billion US$ over a period of 3 to 5 years) This will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. How do I know? Look at the US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and South America. Look at the mess left in Afghanistan. It's no wonder that many Iraqis don't see it that way and refuse to designate America as the great liberator "Another "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to believe: "A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq." What the "all-too-obvious truth" actually is, is that Saddam Hussein crippled Iraq:" And it must be stated that the preceding Bush Administration helped him do it. He was suppored by the other Bush and Reagan in demonizing Iran. "- Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait." Which aside from the occupation of Kuwait got a nod from the White House. I would also like to see some evidence that any corporation - "pushed for war". The companies engaged in the essential work of rebuilding Iraq will most certainly make money - it would be extremely unusual and bizarre business practice if they did not - but their profit margin is pegged at 2% - normally Halliburton take on work within the international oil-field construction sector with a profit margin of 15% You have just supplied the evidence. Where is the source for the accounting of 2%? Even so, if this is a normal "peg" it's an abnormal situation. They'll make their 15% all right. "The importance of oil-fields is not only an "all-too-obvious truth" it is also plain common-sense. By the By another "all-too-obvious truth" is that while work within Iraq's oil-fields is still ongoing, and they are far from full production, Iraq's schools are now open, as are Iraq's hospitals. Yes and the hospitals are full with civilian casualties (collateral damage) and many children who have cancer because the water was contaminated by the bombing of treatment plants. The schools are open to teach more propaganda by the conquerors of Iraq. "Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil." - No it is not. In the 13 years that Iraqi oil has been off the world market it's absence has not been noticed - That is the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter. That would hardly be the case if what Axis of Oil says is true." This will change when Haliburton has it's way. 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work do not suggest either cheap or easy extraction. The cost/time estimate by the way is the estimate of international oil industry analysts and is fairly well documented. Not positively the "all-too-obvious truth" - but a damn good indication as to the truth of the situation. And yet these estimates can be met and will be. The truth of the situation is that Haliburton and associates are up to the challenge and stand to make a profit margin that exceeds the so-called 2%. " yourself, contend as the "all-too-obvious truth" is that - "Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." - Whereas the whole truth is that Iraq has always been one of Israels most implacable foes, it was Saddam Hussein's aim to completely destroy the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is both recognised and guaranteed by the United Nations - has been since it's formation in 1948." This above statement still holds regardless of Iraq's emnity to Israel. "As to the contention - "If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel." - The "all-too-obvious truth"? - Hardly!! ask Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia." Iraq may have been seen as a threat to Iran. The Reagan and Bush Administration hoped for that. But this isn't what we're getting from the comments of Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Their assessment of the threat of Iraq to them is different. "The contracts let are limited to repair of possible war damage that is the "all-too-obvious truth"." And this could keep corporate business going for a long time. There's gold in them thar hills. "Afhganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead." - Another "all-too-obvious truth" from Axis of Oil. Is it really? I take it Axis is referring to the TAP pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) - the pipeline that is dependent on India's participation for success? The pipeline project that is unacceptable to the Indian Government because they do want to become reliant on energy that is supplied by a pipeline that runs through Pakistan?" It is true that the pipeline may not be successful. " The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government?" What Afghan government? At the moment it's a Bush-backed set of war lords who dominate the country. " The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now." This is possible. It's been planned for a long time. The beneficiaries however are not the Iraqi people. "Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it." There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence. "The oil is being stolen." Really? - where are they hiding it? who is "fencing" it for them? Utterly ludicrous - thats the "all-too-obvious truth" The oil is being used for the current spate of SUV's in this country by people who claim to be "patriotic" Americans. It's not hiding at all. Haliburton is kind of a "fence". " As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, UN administered fund or no, the Iraqi people will see more benefits from the sale of this oil than ever they did under Saddam Hussein." Now I see no evidence for this. This assumption is just that. " Another "all-too-obvious truth" is that under a UN administered fund, not only would the companies undertaking essential work in Iraq be making money, so would the UN via their not insignificant administration charges." Which part of the UN would be making money? The part that Bush would like to trash? " Or are you advocating that all heads of state should be recruited from the totally unemployed - like our Royal family - good case for a constitutional monarchy." The point being made here is that the employee is being recruited for political purposes. " Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan." Where is the evidence for this assertion? The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting. What Afghan government? " Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought." It's an interesting idea. It well might be true. Glad you brought it up. "The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built." Fairly reasonable condition really, considering the Taleban's track record with regard to Afghanistan's oil & gas industry and infrastructure." Yes. Agreed. "The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline." - Oh!! so that was what it was all about - I bet they would have been down-right pissed-off if, in answer to their original request the Taleban had handed over Osama bin Laden and his boys." This wasn't going to happen of course. But whether they did or not does not negate the expansionist program regarding the pipline. The pipeline, IF BUILT, and that seems more and more doubtful, benefits Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan long-term. Unical's benefit is only short-term. I suppose according to some sources. What are they by the way? "Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!" I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration. " Another "all-too-obvious truth" stated by Axis is that the Saudi royal family, "...had close ties to Osama bin Laden." - HAD being the operative word as the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter is that they (Saudi Royal Family) were the ones who stripped Osama bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship and who threw him into exile." This may not be true. Again, your source for this information would be appreciated. bin Laden has relatives in Saudi Arabia. Again, who knows what motivates the mind of members of the Saudi ruling class? Not George Bush. My opinion has not changed one iota, michaelr - the contentions made by Axis of Oil are a complete and utter load of bollocks. And yet the evidence that is proferred is equally unsupported by fact but mostly by assumptions. If we need to bring this discussion tto a conclusion we must examine the sources for this position. I feel that anger will not accomplish a rational analysis of these questions and to dismiss with pejoratives another's argument is to lessen the weight of a rebuttal. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:38 AM It's nice to be thought of when I'm not around, but this is the first time I've clicked on this thread. I'll read it manana, but I have to say GWBush looked especially stupefied on the tube tonight. I only saw a few seconds on the national non-news, but DAMN he was sputtering. He needs to get to the Grove for a little relaxation. DG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:42 AM Oh, and by the way, when Clinton's numbers fell to 32% approval, the CIA bombed the federal bldg in Oklahoma City. GW's low numbers on Sept 10 led to a record high 95% rating a week after Sept 11. And now his numbers are falling and the govt is rattling the 'nucular' cage. When it comes, remember the Pentagon bombed itself on Sept 11 to divert attention. Terrorists have seized the US govt, and they attack us when their puppets get in trouble. DG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,Lies, Murder, Oil Date: 18 Jul 03 - 07:27 AM IRAQ-LIES LEAK MAN FOUND DEAD And now the weapons expert blamed for telling the British media about Bush & Blair's Iraq weapons lies has been found dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 18 Jul 03 - 08:00 AM Hmmm ! and now the reporter concerned seems to have problems of veracity ! Click 'Ere Gareth |
|
Subject: Man Who Exposed Iraq Lies Found Dead From: GUEST,itani mulli Date: 18 Jul 03 - 09:34 AM The weapons expert blamed for telling the British media about Bush & Blair's Iraq weapons lies has been found dead. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076801.stm Dr Kelly caused acute embarassment to both the British and American governments when he allegedly leaked details of their lies to a reporter. Dr Kelly denied being the BBC's main source for a story claiming Downing Street had "sexed up" a dossier about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Police say he is an avid walker and has good local knowledge of the many footpaths surrounding his home. According to his family it was very unusual for Dr Kelly to walk alone in the area where his body was found. Even more strange is the fact that he was out in bad weather without a coat. Number 10 says "normal personal procedures" were followed after Dr Kelly volunteered that he might have been the source. There were five days between his admission about talking to Mr Gilligan and the MoD's statement about the possible source, said the spokesman. The Commons foreign affairs select committee said Dr Kelly, who has worked as a weapons inspector in Iraq, had been "poorly treated" by the government. Committee chairman Donald Anderson said of Dr Kelly that ""He came across as someone rather relaxed before the committee." "He seemed on top of it. Let us look more closely at the most disturbing issues surrounding the death of this weapons expert: 1) Suicide could reasonably be ruled out: Committee chairman Donald Anderson said of Dr Kelly that ""He came across as someone rather relaxed before the committee." "He seemed on top of it. 2) Accident and Misadventure could reasonably be ruled out: Police say he is an avid walker and has good local knowledge of the many footpaths surrounding his home. 3) It was "very unusual" for Dr Kelly to walk alone in the area where his body was found. 4) The weather was atrocious - hardly ideal walking weather! 5) Considering the cold, the wind and the rain in the area, why would he venture out without a coat? 6) This suspicious death is just the tip of a very sinister iceberg, as we have seen (See Message 1 in this thread) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 18 Jul 03 - 10:31 AM Hi Frank, 1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998 During the period stated above this effort was largely successful, but not completely successful according to those in charge of those inspection teams. Extremely effective deception and interference schemes were used against this inspection programme again that was the opinion of those in charge of those inspection teams. At no time throughout this period was Iraq ever in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions. The purpose of those resolutions was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq had disarmed, abandoned the programmes directed at acquiring and developing WMD, returned foreign nationals abducted during the occupation of Kuwait and to ensure Iraqi compliance with regard to the improvement of human rights within Iraq. The aim of the resolutions was not merely to contain Saddam Hussein, to anyone who says that that end is sufficient, I would say that that is a shamefull compromise, that rather lamely provides an excuse for UN lack of resolve. 2. UN Sanctions So the UN sanctions were working, were they? Apart from oil exports through the "Food-for-oil" programme, throughout the period 1991 to 2002 Iraq exported oil illegally through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. The Iraqi regime set up hundreds of companies in countries throughout the world whose sole purpose was to buy items proscribed under the UN sanctions and resolutions. Please show me evidence that the Bush Administration was pressing for the sanctions to be lifted while Iraq remained in non-compliance of UN Resolutions - remember that Bush came to office two years after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn, Bill Clinton was in office for the bulk of the time. 3. Iraq's Nuclear Programme I note that you do not rule out the possibility that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, with no inspection regime and with sanctions lifted, could reconstitute this programme. It is your stated opinion that he would not be successful. Sort of like living in a house with a homicidal maniac with a gun and taking the view, that he might have a gun but he will never get any amunition. You as a private citizen are free to take that view, those specifically charged with the responsibility of the safety and security of your nation are not. You honestly believe that with sanctions lifted Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, would not have the means to fund such a programme? They did before, in the face of world opinion and numerous non-proliferation treaties and controls. Evaluation of Iraq's ability to acquire nuclear weapons, "home grown" or otherwise, was by UK Joint Intelligence Committee. They provide best case and worst case, the political powers that be have to decide where in between those cases they use as their basis for formulation of foreign policy. Post 911, it would be foolish in the extreme to weigh anything other than worst case - that is being responsible. No one ever said that Iraq could mount a nuclear attack within 45 minutes. The 45 minutes referred to attack with chemical or biological weapons, taken in the light of the content of the UNSCOM Report of January 1999, the assessment that Iraq had that capability was perfectly credible - unless, of course you are saying that that report consisted of lies. That is why Dr. Hans Blix waited the 10 months to come out with his statement, had he said so in September 2002, it would have tantamount to an admission that that report, which he helped to compile, was incorrect. As Dr. Hans Blix's position was not to operate under assumptions, why should the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain operate under the assumption that a UN Report was incorrect. They, unlike Dr. Blix, have the specific responsibility for the security of their nations, and have to act on what information they have at any given time. Damn near everyone on this earth can be an expert given 20 x 20 hindsight. It is entirely your opinion that, "The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over." Our nations leaders, particularly post 911, could not, and can not afford that luxury. With regard to the current stance of the UK Intelligence services on attempts by Iraq to acquire material for their nuclear programme. All that is clear at the moment is that one piece of evidence has been discredited, they have stated that they still believe attempts were made and have evidence to support that contention. Call that a red-herring if you will, it does not alter the fact that it cannot be totally dismissed or ignored. 4. Iraq's Oil Your refernce to US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and Soiuth America, and to Afghanistan - now they are red-herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, its oil and what will happen to the income derived from the sale of that oil. The contention put forward was that America saw Iraq as a ripe plum just waiting to be plucked - of course it isn't and never was viewed as such. I merely pointed out the amount of effort that has to be put in, in terms of time and money, to restore Iraq to it's pre-1990 levels of production. Your contention that oil revenue will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people at present is totally unfounded opinion, please do not present that as a fact or basis for any arguement. Germany, under the terms of a full scale military occupation, with all the freedom of action that implies, took five years hard and concerted effort to rebuild. Why do you, and others, expect that the problems facing the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq are any less and should be capable of being accomplished overnight - such a view-point is as ridiculous as it is unrealistic. Axis of Oil stated that Iraq was the worlds second biggest source of oil - that is not true, it never has been, at full production pre-1990 levels it accounted for less that one seventeenth of the worlds oil needs. So the point Axis of Oil was wishing to make was and still remains a load of bollocks. Your reply regarding what Halliburton may or may not do - they will not make Iraq the worlds second biggest source of oil. And if, or maybe, about it Iraq today is currently exporting oil. FACT. 5. Who Crippled Iraq? Saddam Hussein - plain and simple, muddy the waters as much as you like, nothing will alter that truth. Iran was demonised in the minds of the American people long before the advent of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's war on Iraq had no dimension that related to US-Iran, or US-Iraq relations. It was a purely opportunist, offensive action on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq to gain control of the Shat-al-arab waterway and the south-western oilfields of Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein believed Iran was weak enough for such plans to succeed. 6. Oil Related Contracts Please refer me to any industry publication or company press release that shows any company or corporation pushed for war. The two contracts awarded so far relate purely to repair of oilfield infrastructure, pipelines and facilities damaged during hostilities. Such damage has fortunately been very slight, mainly due to actions by Iraqi civilian oil workers subverting the plans of the Ba'athists to destroy those facilities. So far, subsequent to the ending of hostilities Saddam's sympathisers have attacked two pipelines, the damage caused was slight and the lines returned to operational staus very quickly. If as you, and Axis of Oil, contend, that the revenue resulting from exploitation of Iraqi oil is only going to go into the pockets of US corporations, those attacks would not have taken place - to attack them would have been counter-productive to their arguement that the oil was being stolen. Saddam's sympathisers know that Iraq's oil will benefit the entire population of Iraq - that is why those pipelines were attacked - no other reason. That work is based on cost plus 2% as defined in letters between Waxman and the Army and Waxman and the GAO. 7. Iraqi Infrastructure No water treatment plant in Iraq has been bombed since the cessation of hostilities of "Desert Storm". FACT. Also fact Iraq's schools and hospitals are now open and operating. What is not being taught in Iraq's schools today is the slavish adoration of Saddam Hussein and the bountiful benefits to be enjoyed living under the wonderful Ba'ath regime. Your contention that the coalition forces in Iraq today influence and control what is taught throughout the country is ludicrous. The required up-front inward investment of 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work has nothing to do with the contracts that have been let. As previously stated they relate to a fairly specific area. The investment relates to up-grading and modernising existing infrastructure to increase current production to pre-1990 level - it has nothing to do with existing Halliburton contracts. 8. Iraq - Israel and relations with neighbouring states As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq hopes for any peaceful settlement in the middle east would be slight. That comes from a desire to successfully eliminate the state of Israel that dates back to 1948. Saddam Hussein fled Iraq to Egypt, he was an ardent supporter of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Pan-Arabism, he continued down that path on his return to Iraq and his successful coup within the Ba'ath organisation which brought him to power. You will not hear one word of complaint from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran that this man and his regime have gone. They may express concern over who or what will replace him and that is both natural and understandable - but none regret his passing. 9. Afghan Pipeline Axis of oil said this pipeline project was underway - bollocks it is not and it is highly unlikely that it will proceed. If there is no pipeline then it can hardly be regarded as expansionism on the part of anyone. 10. US Intentions "Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it." I'll stand by that, I have seen nothing that would indicate that the US has any intention whatsoever of attacking Iran, Syria or any other oil producing country. Your response - "There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence." A total red-herring and completely irrelevant - you seem all too prepared to accept very dubious and far fetched assumptions on certain things and yet decry and condemn others for doing likewise on far better grounded intelligence and evaluation of that intelligence. 11. CEO's Chief Executive Officers, of companies, corporations, etc. Responsible and accountable to their respective Boards of Directors for the running of their companies and business health of those companies. The Boards of Directors in turn are responsible and accountable to the shareholders of those comapnies - Who are the shareholders - Banks (Who have their own boards and shareholders), Insurance companies (Who have their own boards and shareholders) private investors (people like you and me). By law at least once a year they have to present themselves and account for their actions to all shareholders. FACT They are not all powerful and can, and have, been brought down by their shareholders for whom they work. 12. Osama bin Laden Has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship. FACT Was exiled by the Government (Saudi Royal family). FACT "Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!" I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration. Even in the light of your excellent post - My opinion has not changed one iota. What was written by Axis of Oil is nonsensical rubbish. |
|
Subject: Lies, Murder, Oil - It Gets Worse! From: GUEST,itani mulli Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:21 PM It gets even worse! BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan was called to a "closed" session of the committee yesterday, where he would have been under extreme pressure to name his source off the record. We will probably never know what happened in this secret meeting. But later that day Dr Kelly went missing. Now the star witness in any proper future enquiry will never talk again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 18 Jul 03 - 01:11 PM Well it seems that BBC corespondant Gilligan was less than forthright at this meeting. It might be to the benefit of the BBC and those who were content to allow Saddams regime to continue that the truth is obscured. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:07 PM Well, Frank Hamilton, good on you. Teribus loves to such folks into "Tropic of Cancer" lenght discussions on topics in the middle ot T's microscope. T feels real comfy in that comfort zone... you know with all them words around him or her like T's little army... Next thing, T will start assigning you homework assignments and try to get you to read what T wants you to read, which is mostly PR propaganda that is spun to keep the truth from inflicting any damage on his or her hero, Georage W. Blair.... Like, T-Bird, like why, if Saddam was such a bad man, did Goerge W. Blair kill off tens upon thousands of *other* Iraqis? Heck, if Dan Rather could get an interview with Saddam, do you expect us to believe that George W. Blair couldn't have had Saddam off-ed? No, make that, ahhhh, are you *really* sure? Like I've been pointing out, historians and the American people aren't going to give your guy just one more *pass* this time. He has had a life time of them but looks as if the balloon payment is comind due... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 18 Jul 03 - 06:44 PM Bobert - GWB is a nasty piece of work, but please don't let your hatred of the 'Erbert, cloud your jugement. For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 08:08 PM Interesting stuff. Axis of Oil left out a couple of things, though. GWBush maligned 62 rogue nations who were going to 'get theirs', and it just so happens the top 4 on the list are the two top opium and the two top oil producers. Afganistan, N. Korea, Iraq and Iran. And the Iraqi oil was divvied up this way...they have 5-7 trillion dollars worth in the ground. Blair announced it is 1.5 trillion, so Iraq lost 3/4 of its oil wealth to British Petroleum in one sentence. The money from the sale of the remaining quarter will be put in a U.N. trust fund (according to Blair), and the Iraqis will have access to that money only for rebuilding infrastructure according to UN guidelines (sterilization programs, communist indoctrination in schools, etc.). And the Iraqis will have to borrow the money from their own trust fund to do any rebuilding...borrow it from the World Bank at 40% interest. But I've been over this ground before. The UN is the benefactor in the 'rogue states' situation. Oil and opium. Fuel the UN army with oil and break down western society with heroin, then do the mop up. DG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 18 Jul 03 - 11:27 PM Gareth, my friend, had the US armed forces wanted to do anything that slightly resembled a goal of Amnesty International, they would have quietly snuck a few Special Forces folks into Iraq and offed Saddam in his sleep. Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension. This was not anything that Amnesty International would stand back and applaud. Quite the contrary, Gareth. Killing off innocent folks ain't in their "mission statement".... Know what I mean? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:25 PM Geee Bobert, I am glad to hear that you feel that the the Baathist regime was the only way to keep Iraq out of chaos. I am sure that the shades of the victims will really appreciate that. And I am confident that you would not be the First to criticis GWB for breaking that US law on assasination. Third or Fourth maybe ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 19 Jul 03 - 11:44 PM Hey, G, I don't give a rat's posterior about assasination when it is compared with dropping over 30,000 bombs on people that ain't Saddam! So lets look at what we have done because we feel that assasination isn't a moral way to go. Ahhhhh, this is in number of folks killed. * Saddam = Probably zero ** Non-Saddams= Possibly 100,000 or more... Hmmmmm, let me get the ol' Wes Ginny Slide Rule involved here. Okay, W.G.S.L.. here's the question. If yer engry with one guy is it best to: A. Kill him B. Don't kill him. but kill 100,000 other folks C. Don't kill no one, but bring Saddam back into the CIA fold where he hasspent most of his life and cajole him into letting the US have more say in the way Iraq is run. D. Nuke Iraq and then Iran and then North Korea and then... and then.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,Boab D Date: 20 Jul 03 - 11:54 AM This is FAO Teribus Call me old fashioned but when the US govt start accusing Syria of stealing oil from Iraq and threatening it with embargoes and the like then its obvious who the aggressors are in'it. Hovever informed you appear to be there is no way that Syria could start any form of invasion of anywhere ie Israel. However Mr bush has put them on his axis of evil hasn't he. So here we have a country who has no intention to attack anywhere but is a bad place because it's not playing the game the way the yanks want it played. Well look at the poor old saudi's eh lost all of them people in the planes on Sept the 11th. Yep planned it all and everything. 19 Saudi citizens planned the attacks as you and every one else knows. There were also bombs going off against ex pat settlements, beheadings of foreign nationals and hey surprise surprise they play the game well enough to be left alone. Why should this be allowed when poor old Iran havent done anything of the sort but hey they are number 2 on the list. No iranians were on the planes they dont have any plans that we know of to hijack planes and kill people but I'm sure if bush says that they are then some wee puppets will go on and bush will find a way to get their oil also. So who is the bad man in all of this well for me its got to be bush but blair is in the picture also Dylan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 03 - 04:45 AM Bobert Iraq War Lies - 100,000 dead Iraqi's - Provide source and verification for this figure - If you cannot provide such, please refrain from quoting it as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: ard mhacha Date: 21 Jul 03 - 06:05 AM Hi Teribus do you not realise that Bush is still reading your first post to this Site, have pity. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 21 Jul 03 - 07:13 AM Yup - he is still reading, and suffering from lip strain. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 03 - 07:41 AM Guest BoabD, Are you telling us that Syria, Iran and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein did not sponsor Palestinian Terrorist organisation? - If so you are in error, their support for those groups is well documented Are you telling us that Syria, Iran and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein did not openly admit that their ultimate objective with regard to the State of Israel was its total destruction? - If so you are in error, again all well documented, although in recent years Syria has moderated its line on this and under Assad moved very close to reaching a bi-lateral agreement with Israel along much the same lines as the agreements reached with Egypt and Jordan. Are you trying to tell us that the Saudi Arabian Government was involved with the planning and execution of the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States of America? - If so you are in error, the Saudi Government is regarded as a legitimate target by Osama bin Laden's organisation. Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei, head of IAEA has stated clearly over the last couple of months that the current nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea must be considered as serious potential threats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 21 Jul 03 - 09:18 PM Yo, T. The Washington Post did an article with a brakdown of of the number of bombs dropped on Iraq. It exceeded 30,000 bombs. Now, some of these bombs mighta killed no one and some might have killed 20 or 50 or 100? Heck, ain't real no wat to know. But, if I'm a general running the show and I'm ordering 30,000 bombs dropped on *enemy* targets, I'd be purdy danged disgusted if I was told that I was only killing 3 *enemy* per bomb. Now, with that said, I don't think that 100,000 is to far out of line. Historians will sort it out for you soon enough, T-ster, just as they are unfolding the layers and layers of lies you hero, Tony Bush, has told over the last year or two.... And until you can come up with a better number of Iraqi casulties, I'll stick with the *conservate* 100,000... for now... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,pdq Date: 21 Jul 03 - 10:08 PM "The Iraq oil-invasion was enabled by terrorising us with the threat of imminent nuclear conflict. That threat was a lie. The real reasons now stand out clearly: OIL and ISRAEL." I have listened to the political exchanges before and after the Iraqui war and never heard anyone suggest the we were in immediate danger from nuclear attack. Certainly no such statements came from President Bush. You are the liar, Axis of Oil. As for Israel, do you want to see genocide at the hands of Islamic extremists? People of your stripe used to be called anti-semitic, now they are called liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 03 - 02:45 AM Bobert, Thanks for providing your reasoning for the figure you are proferring as fact, when in reality you have just plucked it out of thin air, but haven't the guts, or integrity to admit it. Civilian casualties were put at around the 1,250 - 1,450 mark by most of the worlds press, Iraqi sources in Baghdad and by Coalition sources. That is roughly half those experienced during the build up and period of "Desert Storm". Your contention that every bomb, missile or shell fired is targeted to kill people conveys a rather simplistic notion of conduct of a modern war. As predicted from the outset, the bulk of the Iraqi Army simply abandoned their positions and returned to civilian life - even members of RG and SRG did that - so the combat casualty figures will be much lower than than during "Desert Storm". The only one I can see deliberately telling a lie is you in your post above - 100,000 Iraqi's killed in the course of the recent conflict. A lie Bobert, plain, simple and deliberate, with the express intention of misleading and inflaming people. And, having knowingly done that, you have got the gall to castigate Tony Blair for his statements to the House of Commons - At least Blairs utterances were based on far better grounded intelligence than yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:07 AM Yeah, T-ster, I'll admit that I did pluck the 100,000 deaths out of "thin air" becuase, at least for now, those who might know the answers to this, also control the media and so, yeah, it will take some sorting out. But we read accounts of road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses. No, we weren't allowed to see the pics, again becuase guess who controls the media. You don't know how many Iragi's died and more than I do, T., but if you'll come up with a *realistic* number of total *total causualties* (military and civilian), heck, I'll be glad to use that figure. It's important that we not sanitize what has occured in Iraq as a result of the invasion to the point that the discussions become some un-humanly academic. So, you pick the number, T, and, like I said, if it's "reasonable", I'llm use your number until the historians cut through the sandbagging by the Bush/Blair machine. Deal? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 03 - 11:47 AM Thanks for the admission Bobert, which you immediately follow with another classic Bobertism in the form of a traffic report, suitably emotionally charged; "..road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses." What's it like Bobs - nose-to-tail - just like the photographs of the Iraqi Armies rout from Kuwait - that the picture you're trying to sell? No Bobert, I will not pick a number, I prefer to quote from some source that can be verified and has some explanation of the composition of it's figures. But at least one thing is clear as of this moment the recent conflict in Iraq has not resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, but no doubt at some stage or other, when emotion gets the better of reason, you will quote that figure again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:05 PM I said Iraqis, T, in my original post and did not further qualify the casualties as either civilian or military.... just Iraqis. You are pulling one of your patented *Teezerisms" in trying to keep the discussion in the center of your magnifying glass. Nice try... And, of course, you aren't going to venture a guesstimate because if you did you might have to actually think in terms of human lives taken and that ain't anything you want to clutter up your neat little world. Now, I'm not trying to be disrespectfull here but I think we all understand that your 1400 and change number is laughably low, but if that's the number you choose that's the one I'm gonna use in future posts, but I'll be sure to attribute that number to you so that you won't accuse me of plagerism... Okay, folks, you all can breath a easier now. 30,000 bombs, several million rounds of ammo and who knows how many tank rounds and artillery rounds were fired and, according to a reliable source (Teribus), only about 1450 Iraqis killed. This war will be know by future generations as the "Miracle War". Whaddayathink, T? You like the plug I gave you? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,pdq Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:21 PM The 100,000 figure is the number of northern Iraqi civilians that Saddam Hussein killed with nerve gas. Genocide, again. 2003 Iraq war casualties are about 220 allies, 2200 Iraqi civilians. As far as Saddam's troops, who cares. This is the cleanest war in history by a huge margin. Saddam was killing between 100 and 400 of his countrymen each week! We stopped him. Also note that nerve gas is a weapom of mass destruction, as if there is any doubt that Saddam Had them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM "We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side" As to the 100,000 number, those who are familiar with the true human costs of the West's Iraq policies over the last 20 years, knows that figure doesn't even begin to cover the number of deaths caused by war and sanctions. Try this article Teribus, from FAIR: Human costs of war and sanctions in Iraq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jul 03 - 04:18 PM Guest/1:43: Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 22 Jul 03 - 04:20 PM IOnteresting that - A Dictator holding his entire population as hostages. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Greg F. Date: 22 Jul 03 - 05:39 PM Ihesitated to 'cut and paste' this, but its certainly no longer than the majority of Teribus' posts, so: The following letter was sent to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 21, 2003. The Honorable Dick Cheney Vice President Office of the Vice President of the United States Eisenhower Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20501 Dear Mr. Vice President: While it has been widely reported that the President made a false assertion in his State of the Union address concerning unsubstantiated intelligence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, your own role in the dissemination of that disinformation has not been explained by you or the White House. Yet, you reportedly paid direct personal visits to CIA's Iraq analysts;your request for investigation of the Niger uranium claim resulted in an investigation by a former U.S. ambassador, and you made several high-profile public assertions about Iraq's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. We hope that you will take the opportunity to provide responses to the following ten questions. I. Concerning "unusual" personal visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts. According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs." These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts. According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives." Questions: 1) How many visits did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq? 2) What was the purpose of each of these visits? 3) Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence? 4) Did you or a member of your staff at any time request or demand rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? II. Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago. This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the period of time you reportedly paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger, and your office received a briefing on the investigation. According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government." Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific answer. Questions: 5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report? 6) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense? 7) Did your office regard Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate? III. Assertions by the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The President's erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in his State of the Union address was only one example of a pattern of similar assertions by high ranking members of the administration, including yourself. The assertion was made repeatedly in the administration's campaign to win congressional approval of military action against Iraq. For instance, you said to the 103d National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, "they [the Iraqi regime] continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized... [he could] subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks before the House of Representatives voted to authorize military action against Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002: "He [Saddam]... is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he demonstrates the capability to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to project power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for multilateral action, could all be under question. And many lives could be lost." Questions: 8) Since your address to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to the CIA and State Department, what evidence did you have for the assertion that Iraq was continuing "to pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons"? 9) Since the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Department,what effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary of Defense had for his assertion to Congress? Further refutation of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003: "These documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Yet on March 16 -- nine days afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion on national television (Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16, 2003). You said: "We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," and "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Question: 10) What was the basis for this assertion made by you on national television? We hope you will take the opportunity to answer these questions about your role in the dissemination of false information about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq. We look forward to a response. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Carolyn B. Maloney, Member Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Bernie Sanders, Member Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:50 PM Greg F: Haven't you read GUEST, pdq's post? Man, like what got into yer head. We ain't 'sposed to ask no questions about lies, cover-ups, manipulations, law breaking or contrcts being awarded without competition to Bush/Cheney's buddies. No sir, we can't ask dem questions. Wanta know why? Well, according to Guest pdq, Saggam was a bad man.... Hmmmmmm.... Yo, GUEST pdq, when did Saddam begin being a bad man? Before or after he gased the Kurds? Ahhhh, exactly what was the Bush the Elder's adminsitraion's actions then? Hmmmmmm.... Seems to me that after the gassing of the Kurds, Donnie Rumsfeld took Saddam a bunch of gifts from the Bush the Elder. Could that be? Hmmmmmm.... Yet, GUEST pdq, I ain't 'spose to ask no questions of the crooks who have highjacked our democracy? Like why not? Hmmmmmm.... Waitin' on yer reply with baited breath (what ever that is...)... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,pdq Date: 22 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM Grab a beer, Bro. The world is not as bad as you think. We just greased Saddam's two thug kids. Can Saddam and Osama can't be far behind. Great day. Celebrate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 03 - 08:22 PM Yer right, pdq, the world ain't... Bush and Blair on the other hand?...... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:09 PM Another bit of good news for you, guest pdq: American military fatalities have just gone past the total for Desert Storm. Whoopee! (Cos it's the only language the administration seems to understand.) Gareth, so Bush is still reading and suffering from lip strain. What about you? If you'd managed to read the item that you yourself linked to, you'd have realised that your wittering about Gilligan's is sheer wishful thinking. None of us knows right now how much Gilligan is to blame, but my guess is that it will turn out to be not at all. Your reference to Amnesty shows ignorance beyond words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: GUEST,pdq Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:03 PM Bobert: Tenacity is an admirable trait. It will serve you well. Somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Gareth Date: 23 Jul 03 - 06:04 AM Fionn - Wishfull thinking, ignorance on Amnesty International ? I respectfully submit that your prejudices destroy any objectivity on this or any other comment that you make. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 23 Jul 03 - 08:00 AM Yes, wishful thinking Gareth. If you'd read the item you linked to. you would have seen that as well as carrying the FAC view of Gilligan it also gave Gilligan's response - and that of the opposition committee member who'd missed the meeting. You latched on to the bit you liked and put no weight on the other side of the story. THAT's prejudice, Gareth. You will have noticed no doubt that the BBC has a tape of one of the interviews with Kelly. I would still suggest, ever so gently, that you let the inquiry run its course before spreading inuendo about Gilligan. Oh, re Amnesty: did you happen to hear Bush describing British detainees at Camp Delta as "bad people" (with the the UK's supine PM raising not a murmur of protest)? Truly a wonderful soldier for human rights! Have you any idea why Peter Benenden founded Amnesty, and have you read its current mandate? Have you seen any of its campaigns for human rights in the US, among other places? Amnesty activists do sometimes win battles, but never with guns in their hands. You obviously don't know any or you would know how offensive your analogy was. |
