George Bush nearly pelted with shoes

[CGM]

Well #1 Saddam didn't recognize the terms of the treaty of the Persian Gulf War which sad to say was a VALID reason for war but we heard the same shit the UN has been spewing since it was created "Give sanctions more time"....I think that is their fucking motto! #2 He had his eyes on Kuwait before and seeing how he still had an army well it was only a matter of time.


Kirkland we ARE the nice and innocent party, we are willing to pay them a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money for their product and they are living in the fucking stone age. OUR culture is the better culture and I say that knowing full well we do have our faults and they are big, but we are the culture of freedom and liberty. Also THANK YOU ENGLAND for being the first to stir the pot with these jackasses.

Yah, we agree on that much, at least. The oil gets paid for, even now. By some accounts, you'd think some people believe the oil is being pumped into ships and carried away free of charge.

[Kirkland Laing]

Well #1 Saddam didn't recognize the terms of the treaty of the Persian Gulf War which sad to say was a VALID reason for war but we heard the same shit the UN has been spewing since it was created "Give sanctions more time"....I think that is their fucking motto! #2 He had his eyes on Kuwait before and seeing how he still had an army well it was only a matter of time.


Kirkland we ARE the nice and innocent party, we are willing to pay them a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money for their product and they are living in the fucking stone age. OUR culture is the better culture and I say that knowing full well we do have our faults and they are big, but we are the culture of freedom and liberty. Also THANK YOU ENGLAND for being the first to stir the pot with these jackasses.

Saddam didn't break the terms of the treaty, America did. The US is bound by law to respect international law but didn't and invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world community and against the law. Which of course makes the US a rogue nation. Saddam was in no position to invade any other country. None of his neighbours wanted the US to invade Iraq apart from Iran who were delighted when the US did because it meant that the US would inevitably have to hand over control of Iraq to them. Iran achieved something they'd wanted for thirteen centuries but were unable to achieve without having to fire a shot when the idiot Bush invaded Iraq.

The US has never paid anything near fair price for Arab oil for decades. It only began to happen in the seventies when the Arabs started to regain a little control over their oilfields. Before you make ridiculous comments like that you should check whether it's true or not and as always you'll find that you're wrong. This is a long article and contains no pictures but is full of facts and evidence and shows how US oil companies robbed the Arabs of untold billions for half a century and is just a small part of the whole story :

OPEC and Crude Oil

Since the seventies there's been an ongoing US attempt to reestablish control over Arab oil, the Iraq invasion being one part of that.

For 300 million Arabs living under dictators that the US have intalled/propped up over the decades the US is the country of repression, misery, death and destruction. They'd love freedom and democracy in their own countries but their countries' regimes are propped up and maintained by the US so because of America any movement towards freedom is impossible. You may be the biggest pro-British person on the planet but if we come over to North Carolina and put our boot on your neck for forty or fifty years eventually you won't think of British people in quite the same way.

[Kirkland Laing]

Well #1 Saddam didn't recognize the terms of the treaty of the Persian Gulf War which sad to say was a VALID reason for war but we heard the same shit the UN has been spewing since it was created "Give sanctions more time"....I think that is their fucking motto! #2 He had his eyes on Kuwait before and seeing how he still had an army well it was only a matter of time.


Kirkland we ARE the nice and innocent party, we are willing to pay them a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money for their product and they are living in the fucking stone age. OUR culture is the better culture and I say that knowing full well we do have our faults and they are big, but we are the culture of freedom and liberty. Also THANK YOU ENGLAND for being the first to stir the pot with these jackasses.

Yah, we agree on that much, at least. The oil gets paid for, even now. By some accounts, you'd think some people believe the oil is being pumped into ships and carried away free of charge.

Aside from whether the oil is actually being paid for is how the oil is paid for and the economic and security relationships between the US and the oil-rich countries. The Arabian desert contains two-thirds of the world's cheaply recoverable oil reserves and since their discovery has been the greatest strategic prize in history. Dominance in the region guarantees the dominant country huge economic benefits and in the case of the US is the key to its greater-than-others economic growth over the last half century. By militarily dominating the region and suborning and co-opting the leaders of the oil-rich countries the US is able to make itself the world's economic superpower. Take the US bases out of the region and allow oil to trade in every currency and oil profits from the Arabs to be invested anywhere and the US economy would quickly founder.

[CGM]

With regards to the link

"UC Davis makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the information contained on these Web pages or of the security or privacy of any information collected by these Web pages. All views expressed in this Web site are those of the author and not UC Davis."

You look hard enough and you will find someone who shares your point of view. Dude's a geology professor. Regardless of the accuracy of the information contained in the linked article, which would take a ton of research to verify.


With regards to the present and recent past, facts and evidence fall completely by the wayside when it comes to statements like...

"Since the seventies there's been an ongoing US attempt to reestablish control over Arab oil, the Iraq invasion being one part of that.

To suggest the iraq invasion is merely an attempt to control Arab oil is a typical (make that classic) knee jerk reaction of the lazy minded, one that gets trotted out every time the US or any other western nation gets involved in a Middle East conflict.

[Kirkland Laing]

With regards to the link

"UC Davis makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the information contained on these Web pages or of the security or privacy of any information collected by these Web pages. All views expressed in this Web site are those of the author and not UC Davis."

You look hard enough and you will find someone who shares your point of view. Dude's a geology professor. Regardless of the accuracy of the information contained in the linked article, which would take a ton of research to verify.


With regards to the present and recent past, facts and evidence fall completely by the wayside when it comes to statements like...

"Since the seventies there's been an ongoing US attempt to reestablish control over Arab oil, the Iraq invasion being one part of that.

To suggest the iraq invasion is merely an attempt to control Arab oil is a typical (make that classic) knee jerk reaction of the lazy minded, one that gets trotted out every time the US or any other western nation gets involved in a Middle East conflict.

The link is just a quick version of history. Everything in it is well-documented historical fact. It's even pro-US in bias as it says things like

"Real or suspected CIA involvement in the Shah's restoration sowed some of the seeds of the violent anti-Americanism that continued during the Shah's later repressive years. "

when the fact the CIA overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah is one of those well-documented events I was talking about, the main documentation in this case being a book written by the CIA agent in charge of the coup (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit) describing the whole thing and endless other stuff by involved parties. So while it may appear like it's some weird lefty writing it if you actually research any part of it you'll find it's all in the history books. I only posted that particular piece because it's a concise comprehensive rundown of the whole thing.


The Iraq war is indeed part of the ongoing attempt to control Arabian oil, just like every other Anglo/US action in the region over the last century has been, such as the British invasion of Iraq in the early part of the century. That's another incredibly well-documented event :

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions… I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here…




There is scarcely a single newspaper… which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. … Any alternative Government that might be formed here… would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover, in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. …No progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.




I think we should now put definitely… the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the… year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner, I would actually clear out.


It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum [they]… will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain?… At present we are paying… millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.




Winston Churchill
British Minister of War (now Ministry of Defence)
Memorandum to the Prime Minister
September 1st, 1922



We need an Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.”

Lord Curzon, on installing the puppet King Faisal as King of Iraq, 1929



I doubt if the Arabs will accept the complete control of foreign relations and they will be encouraged in refusing to do so by the fact that the Americans, who have never recognized the mandate, are extremely eager to make a treaty of their own with the Iraq state by which they could make more profitable arrangements for themselves. Oil is the trouble, of course - detestable stuff!

Gertrude Bell 1930ish

Go and google Lord Curzon and read the cut and dried history of what that guy got up to around the world.


There's really no other reason to bother about the region. If two-thirds of the world's oil was under the Saharan desert instead of the Arabian desert you'd find vast US bases all over the Sahara and all the dictators down there propped up by the US. Occasionally you'd be told that one of those tinpot little guys was a clear and present threat to the national security of the US, a new Hitler and so on and so it was necessary to go to war with him. And the Arabian region would get as much US attention as sub-Saharan Africa currently does.

If you really think the Iraq war wasn'tr about controlling the oil and the region then explain what it was about. And give me one single major US/British act in the region over the last century that wasn't about the oil. You have until 2009, until then happy blah blah.

[El Kabong]

Kirkland have you ever thought that just MAYBE if the Arabs weren't such pricks that everyone would benefit from the transaction of money for oil?

We are the customers in this situation and everyone knows THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

And to think that you guys were against "drill, baby, drill"....if we already had oil then what the fuck would we care what Iraq was doing. But nooooo nobody even wants to try and search for oil.

[CGM]

With regards to the link

"UC Davis makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the information contained on these Web pages or of the security or privacy of any information collected by these Web pages. All views expressed in this Web site are those of the author and not UC Davis."

You look hard enough and you will find someone who shares your point of view. Dude's a geology professor. Regardless of the accuracy of the information contained in the linked article, which would take a ton of research to verify.


With regards to the present and recent past, facts and evidence fall completely by the wayside when it comes to statements like...

"Since the seventies there's been an ongoing US attempt to reestablish control over Arab oil, the Iraq invasion being one part of that.

To suggest the iraq invasion is merely an attempt to control Arab oil is a typical (make that classic) knee jerk reaction of the lazy minded, one that gets trotted out every time the US or any other western nation gets involved in a Middle East conflict.

The link is just a quick version of history. Everything in it is well-documented historical fact. It's even pro-US in bias as it says things like

"Real or suspected CIA involvement in the Shah's restoration sowed some of the seeds of the violent anti-Americanism that continued during the Shah's later repressive years. "

when the fact the CIA overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah is one of those well-documented events I was talking about, the main documentation in this case being a book written by the CIA agent in charge of the coup (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit) describing the whole thing and endless other stuff by involved parties. So while it may appear like it's some weird lefty writing it if you actually research any part of it you'll find it's all in the history books. I only posted that particular piece because it's a concise comprehensive rundown of the whole thing.


The Iraq war is indeed part of the ongoing attempt to control Arabian oil, just like every other Anglo/US action in the region over the last century has been, such as the British invasion of Iraq in the early part of the century. That's another incredibly well-documented event :

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions… I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here…




There is scarcely a single newspaper… which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. … Any alternative Government that might be formed here… would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover, in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. …No progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.




I think we should now put definitely… the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the… year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner, I would actually clear out.


It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum [they]… will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain?… At present we are paying… millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.




Winston Churchill
British Minister of War (now Ministry of Defence)
Memorandum to the Prime Minister
September 1st, 1922



We need an Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.”

Lord Curzon, on installing the puppet King Faisal as King of Iraq, 1929



I doubt if the Arabs will accept the complete control of foreign relations and they will be encouraged in refusing to do so by the fact that the Americans, who have never recognized the mandate, are extremely eager to make a treaty of their own with the Iraq state by which they could make more profitable arrangements for themselves. Oil is the trouble, of course - detestable stuff!

Gertrude Bell 1930ish

Go and google Lord Curzon and read the cut and dried history of what that guy got up to around the world.


There's really no other reason to bother about the region. If two-thirds of the world's oil was under the Saharan desert instead of the Arabian desert you'd find vast US bases all over the Sahara and all the dictators down there propped up by the US. Occasionally you'd be told that one of those tinpot little guys was a clear and present threat to the national security of the US, a new Hitler and so on and so it was necessary to go to war with him. And the Arabian region would get as much US attention as sub-Saharan Africa currently does.

If you really think the Iraq war wasn'tr about controlling the oil and the region then explain what it was about. And give me one single major US/British act in the region over the last century that wasn't about the oil. You have until 2009, until then happy blah blah.

You're the one who said the war in Iraq is about controlling oil. I disagreed. I said you have provided no facts or evidence to support that, you give me some quotes from political leaders of the 20s and thirties. This is now. The stakes are much higher. It's not clear what you even mean by control. Forcing the countries of the middle east to sell the stuff? If it wasn't for the industrialized nations buying the stuff, those middle east wouldn't be so bloody rich. I also say we differ on the concept of what it means to prop someone up, as opposed to support, and just who are the real dictators.

Saying "if it's not oil, then what is it"? is hardly evidence.

The whole "It's about oil" thing is one of the few claims that can get me riled.

We could debate the whole WMD issue, or whether or not the Atomice Energy commision are just dupes of the US, or any nunmber of things, but frankly I have neither the time or patience right now, maybe some other time.

me disagreeing with you on the reason doesn't mean I support the invasion. Nor do I think that the fact that WMD's were never found means that they never existed. They could very easily be stashed in Syria. To believe that Hussein was following the rules just because the UN told him to is naive to say the least. I also think there are some enemies of the west that want the US in Iraq, they really don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. I don't really think the US leaders lied to everyone just to control oil. So most of my beliefs are in this direction. If you ask me to prove them, well I probably can't, any more than you can can prove it's just about oil.

That's sorta where I'd go, but like I said, I have no patience for long drawn out debate. You'd probably think I was naive, and the reverse would most likely also be true.

Happy blah blah to you too.

[Kirkland Laing]

I knew you'd run away from the argument. You really must be French.

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirkland have you ever thought that just MAYBE if the Arabs weren't such pricks that everyone would benefit from the transaction of money for oil?

We are the customers in this situation and everyone knows THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

And to think that you guys were against "drill, baby, drill"....if we already had oil then what the fuck would we care what Iraq was doing. But nooooo nobody even wants to try and search for oil.

You really are a monumental prick.

[CGM]

No point flogging a dead horse, Kirkland.

[Kirkland Laing]

No point flogging a dead horse, Kirkland.

Tell me one single British/US foreign policy move in the Middle East in the last century which wasn't in furtherance of our control over their oil. Or name one single Arab regime other than Syria that we don't currently prop up to some extent.

[CGM]

No point flogging a dead horse, Kirkland.

Tell me one single British/US foreign policy move in the Middle East in the last century which wasn't in furtherance of our control over their oil. Or name one single Arab regime other than Syria that we don't currently prop up to some extent.

By prop up, you mean support? Alliance? Well guess what, lots of countries support other countries. But I want to stay focused on the point of my involvement in this part of the thread.

By "in furtherance of" I assume you mean "intended to"? "reason for"?

The issue is whether or not Iraq war is about control of oil. Initially you were the one who said it was. I disagreed. The old knee jerk oil thing I think I called it. You tried to provide evidence that it was the reason, I wasn't the least bit convinced by your "evidence". I even think you took a couple of tries.

But OK. What exactly does the words "control their oil" mean to you in this context?

[Kirkland Laing]

No point flogging a dead horse, Kirkland.

Tell me one single British/US foreign policy move in the Middle East in the last century which wasn't in furtherance of our control over their oil. Or name one single Arab regime other than Syria that we don't currently prop up to some extent.

By prop up, you mean support? Alliance? Well guess what, lots of countries support other countries. But I want to stay focused on the point of my involvement in this part of the thread.

By "in furtherance of" I assume you mean "intended to"? "reason for"?

The issue is whether or not Iraq war is about control of oil. Initially you were the one who said it was. I disagreed. The old knee jerk oil thing I think I called it. You tried to provide evidence that it was the reason, I wasn't the least bit convinced by your "evidence". I even think you took a couple of tries.

But OK. What exactly does the words "control their oil" mean to you in this context?

OK, let's limit this to whether the Iraq war was about oil. I'm telling you it is. There's no other reason for us to be interested in the region otherwise. We have a century of documented history of an Anglo/US effort to control the region and its oil, and at a time when oil has never been more important to the world then countries like Iraq have never been more critical for us to control. Iraq may well have the world's highest oil reserves of any country, but more importantly it's the only country in the world at a time when oil supply is struggling to keep up with demand that can significantly increase its oil output. Iraq is the world's most valuable real estate, economically and strategically speaking. Controlling who it sells its oil to and what currency it sells it in (and to a lesser extent which companies produce the oil) is absolutely critical to the US continuing to remain the world's preeminent power/economy.

It isn't "knee-jerk" at all, after a century of our invading/overthrowing/manipulating Arab governments to control their oil, you're going to have to come up with a good reason other than oil why our latest venture there happened. Iraq contains oil, sand and camels. Sand can be found all around the coastline of the continental United States and in numerous quarries therein. The amount of freight carried by camels in the United States has declined significantly over the last century to the point where the internal combustion engine has almost driven US camel hauliers out of business and camels are now a bear market. That only leaves oil.

[CGM]

Tell me one single British/US foreign policy move in the Middle East in the last century which wasn't in furtherance of our control over their oil. Or name one single Arab regime other than Syria that we don't currently prop up to some extent.

By prop up, you mean support? Alliance? Well guess what, lots of countries support other countries. But I want to stay focused on the point of my involvement in this part of the thread.

By "in furtherance of" I assume you mean "intended to"? "reason for"?

The issue is whether or not Iraq war is about control of oil. Initially you were the one who said it was. I disagreed. The old knee jerk oil thing I think I called it. You tried to provide evidence that it was the reason, I wasn't the least bit convinced by your "evidence". I even think you took a couple of tries.

But OK. What exactly does the words "control their oil" mean to you in this context?

OK, let's limit this to whether the Iraq war was about oil. I'm telling you it is. There's no other reason for us to be interested in the region otherwise. We have a century of documented history of an Anglo/US effort to control the region and its oil, and at a time when oil has never been more important to the world then countries like Iraq have never been more critical for us to control. Iraq may well have the world's highest oil reserves of any country, but more importantly it's the only country in the world at a time when oil supply is struggling to keep up with demand that can significantly increase its oil output. Iraq is the world's most valuable real estate, economically and strategically speaking. Controlling who it sells its oil to and what currency it sells it in (and to a lesser extent which companies produce the oil) is absolutely critical to the US continuing to remain the world's preeminent power/economy.

It isn't "knee-jerk" at all, after a century of our invading/overthrowing/manipulating Arab governments to control their oil, you're going to have to come up with a good reason other than oil why our latest venture there happened. Iraq contains oil, sand and camels. Sand can be found all around the coastline of the continental United States and in numerous quarries therein. The amount of freight carried by camels in the United States has declined significantly over the last century to the point where the internal combustion engine has almost driven US camel hauliers out of business and camels are now a bear market. That only leaves oil.

You've given some pretty good reasons why a country might want to control Iraq, but that don't make it so. You say maintaining it's position as the world's pre-eminent econmy is a prime motivator, but let's just call it maintaining enough oil supply to keep things running.

I find it hard to argue againt your position. And you should find it hard to argue for it. It's not like we have proof of US/Britain motives for the invasion. You have taken a bunch of facts and built a somewhat logical argument. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence or proof. I'll give you credit for at least coming up with some kind of analysis, which is better than the knee jerk crowd who cry out "oil control" without much in the way of critical thought.

As I understand it the Iraq war has cost the US a couple trillion dollars so far. That kind of negates the economic benefit gained from this supposed control or Iraq oil, wouldn't you say? And then there is the human and political costs of the war. Sorry, but I'm sure even George W. Bush can see that this war is costing him, and the US, dearly.

OK, ostensibly Iraq was about the WMD thing, and maybe there was some issues about support of terrorism. Let's not get into whether or not there is any justification for terrorism. And let's assume without arguing that if Iraq has nukes, then the US has reason to be concerned. I do not think the US lied outright to the UN, as well as it's closest allies, about Iraq developing nukes. As I recall there was evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. As it turned out, no physical evidence of this activity found. Myself, I consider it entirely possible that Hussein has stashed whatever he had in Syria. Why do you suppose Hussein put the UN and the Atomic Energy Commission off for so long? And I don't know about you, but with all due respect, to suggest as some have that Hussein would cease and desist from anything just because the UN told him to is kind of naive. I am quite sure that Hussein would try to develop or acquire wmds if it was within his power to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. I myself sided with the UN position on the issue, as did the Canadian government, against our closest ally and friend, the USA. I just think the USA deserves a little more credit than saying, they just want to control Iraq's natural resources (oil).

[El Kabong]

The Iraq war may have been about oil but it also may have been just to get a new leader in there that will at least for some time have to recognize that the US keeps him in power and therefore we both have the same goals.

Such a sensative culture though holy crap...."You just want our oil", "You just want access to the Suez Canal", "Nobody likes us"......waaaaah waaaaah waaaah. Join the rest of the world and stop suicide bombing people.