What I see, regardless on this war

[Sledgehammer]

By now we have heard of Scuds, possible chemical weapon plants, they supposedly do not exist.( We still have not started looking hard). We have found that Russia has been selling military weapons to Iraq as late as last year, even though there was a UN ban on backed by Russia after the Gulf War, that no nation was to sell them any type weapon. We have found French explosives around several oil fields and oil wells. Again, things that were not supposed to be giving nor sold to Iraq. We have heard testimony from Iraqi defectors who tell of the brutality of Saddam's regime.

It leads to a few questions or thoughts.

I think I now know why France, Germany and Russia were so against a US-led coalition into Iraq, maybe it was they were afraid it would lead to the discovery of their weapons being found in Iraq. When this clearly violated the UN policys over the last 12 years, much like Saddam.

Why is it the "peace" marchers still do not understand why we are in there?

Does the UN really have any purpose after seeing that the rules are broken under the table , ie France and Russia, while several blast the US and UK for being above board on what their actions are?

[BadKarma]

UN= feel-good organization milking money out of the U.S.

[RainerG9]

France, Germany and Russia are against the war because they are allowed access to Iraqi oil. Sadam refused to give oil to the US and UK. Make your own conclusions.

[Sledgehammer]

My conclusion is since the US gets most of its oil from South America, it must not be the oil. But since they are finding French and Russian weapons in Iraq, it means that they are bed fellows with Iraq for the oil. Therefor it explains why they ( Russia, Germany and France) are against the US going in , because their dirty, undertable deals would be found out. Nothing quite like these countries sitting on the UN security council saying one thing and doing another.......

I guess if the war was really over oil, the US would have kept Kuwait and went ahead took about 6-7 other countries over too......

[RainerG9]

Obviously these countries have personal benefits..thats why they're against this war as they will lose these benefits...which the US is trying to get.

U dont need to take over 6-7 other countries...the oil Iraq has beneath its soil is literally infinite..bare in mind that the 500 oil plants currently in Iraq are extracting oil only from a very small fraction of the whole oil sources of Iraq...imagine what the US, or any1 else in that matter who could get their hands on them could do...

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by RainerG9
Obviously these countries have personal benefits..thats why they're against this war as they will lose these benefits...which the US is trying to get.

But that is not what they're saying! It must be propaganda! France, Germany and Russia contend that they just want peace and that this war is wrong because they want peace! They are keeping the truth hidden! It is all government conspiracy!

[Sledgehammer]

My point is that everyone blast the US and UK as being in an Illegal, War for Oil campagin, however facts are it is Russia France and Germany that have the Oil deals everyone is claiming the US wants. If we wanted Oil fields would we not have taken them before when we occupied Kuwait? The bottom line is it is Russia, Frabce and Germany that are operating with hidden agendas. This does not even begin to discuss the illegal weapons that they who opposed US action in Iraq, sold to Iraq against several Un resolutions that forbade selling Iraq any weapons.....

[Paul Stagg]

Originally posted by RainerG9
France, Germany and Russia are against the war because they are allowed access to Iraqi oil. Sadam refused to give oil to the US and UK. Make your own conclusions.

This is incorrect.

France owns interests in several iraqi oil companies, and both France and Germany are significant trading partners with iraq.

The US/UK have 'access' to as much oil as they want to buy. The limit on Iraqi oil sales is imposed by the UN as part of sanctions.

[Relentless]

what I see, regardless of this war is that in this case as with many other world events, most people tend to go off half-cocked without all the facts and/or repeating catchy-sounding phrases they hurt from some analyst or their favourite intellectual rather than thinking for themselves.

[Sledgehammer]

Thank You Paul, well stated.

[PowerManDL]

It also brings up an interesting point that if those three countries have sold Iraq weapons AFTER the UN sanctions were imposed, then they are all three very, very guilty of rather grievous violations of the UN mandates.

A lot worse than anything we might have done.

[PowerManDL]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81986,00.html

[RainerG9]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg


This is incorrect.

France owns interests in several iraqi oil companies, and both France and Germany are significant trading partners with iraq.

The US/UK have 'access' to as much oil as they want to buy. The limit on Iraqi oil sales is imposed by the UN as part of sanctions.

Why is what im saying incorrect? you basically rephrased what i said about these countries having access to iraqi oil...

Sledgehammer even said it:
"My point is that everyone blast the US and UK as being in an Illegal, War for Oil campagin, however facts are it is Russia France and Germany that have the Oil deals everyone is claiming the US wants."

Are you saying that the US has access to as much Iraqi oil it wants to buy, or just oil in general from any source? i didnt say the US was in shortage of oil and so needed to get the Iraqi oil...I said that they would like to control the iraqi oil for their own economic interest.

And about France, Germany and Russia engaging in illegal activities with Iraq...if they have then theyre in the sh!t too, I never said I was pro-French, pro-German or pro-Russian.

Lastly, Callahan said: "what I see, regardless of this war is that in this case as with many other world events, most people tend to go off half-cocked without all the facts and/or repeating catchy-sounding phrases they hurt from some analyst or their favourite intellectual rather than thinking for themselves"

well, all i have to say is thnx for the nice comments. even though i disagree with every1 i didnt attack any1 personally nor did i insult any1, and that wasnt my intention.
i am just stating my opinion, is that not allowed? i listen to everybody else's opinions, am i not allowed to say what i think too?

[GonePostal]

Thier oil is estimated at about 150 billion dollars not infinite.
Second Paul made the point that you clearly can't infer that the US limits it's own supply of oil from Iraq. They were in favour of limiting Iraq's output of oil. If this was just a war for oil then they would have just either lifted sanctions or just never put them in place.

[RainerG9]

or they can go in and take total control of it

[Fightin Irish]

Originally posted by BadKarma
UN= feel-good organization milking money out of the U.S. :withstupi

[Sledgehammer]

We could choose several countries to go into and take the oil, why would choose one with all these weapons? Why did we not just keep Kuwait?Why are we going into Baghdad instead of just taking the Southern oil fields and start pumping them into US cargo ships?

[RainerG9]

to free iraq and bring democracy! go on say it

[Sledgehammer]

No I am asking you why we have determined to control Iraq and their oil, instead of Kuwait when we had it........or other smaller easier targets? ie South America has plenty of oil, Saudia Arabis?

[Fightin Irish]

We're not going to control Iraq, it's called liberation. With that said, all we're doing is defeating the current regime to give power to the people who don't have access to the weapons to liberate themselves. That's why we're saving the oil, so the new government has some type of economic resource to grow from. They've made numerous attempts but Saddam has all the money and the weapons to make it impossible. That being said, we get the majority of our oil from Venezuela...

[Sledgehammer]

FI, that is my point, the anti-war keep saying its for us in the USA to control the oil and take over, but the USA has many easier "targets" if that was what was motivating them to go into Iraq......

[RainerG9]

Sledgehammer u said "We could choose several countries to go into and take the oil, why would choose one with all these weapons? Why did we not just keep Kuwait?Why are we going into Baghdad instead of just taking the Southern oil fields and start pumping them into US cargo ships?"

Maybe because all the nearby countries have pro-American regimes?

[RainerG9]

Fighting Irish, if the US will establish a democracy, where the Iraqis will vote their own leader then thats the best thing that can happen, and Ive mentioned that i support this before. But what the US will do is impose another ruler who they can control. wheres the democracy there? why not let the iraqis choose? thats all im saying.

[Sledgehammer]

Can you please tell us who these riulers are that do the US's will ? And as far as pro-american arab states, if that was the case why do they not support and help the US fight Saddam?

[DoubleGulp]

Originally posted by RainerG9
Fighting Irish, if the US will establish a democracy, where the Iraqis will vote their own leader then thats the best thing that can happen, and Ive mentioned that i support this before. But what the US will do is impose another ruler who they can control. wheres the democracy there? why not let the iraqis choose? thats all im saying.

Okay, what if they elect some guy who is anti-American and pulls the same crap Saddam did? That means all the money rebuilding their country was a waste, the lives sacraficed meant nothing, etc. I have no problem with putting someone in charge who is friendly to the U.S. like we did in Afghanistan.