OIL

It's all about oil. As an independently thinking Englishman living in the UK this is my argument:

1. Saddam Hussein first invaded Kuwait 12 years ago after Kuwait were drilling into Iraqi oilfields.

2. He discussed an invasion with the US who said they would turn a blind eye to any action he took. (Which they didn't)

3. All his chemical weapons were supplied by the US during the Iranian war. Much of the technology for nuclear and conventional weaponry comes form Europe and the USA

4. He has no airforce left and his missiles would not reach the western hemisphere, he is only a threat to his neighbours. I might be wrong but I don't think we've found any Iraqi terrorists yet.

5. The weapons inspectors have found nothing of any consequence yet, yeah there is some minor stuff but it seems the weapons inspectors are clutching at straws.

6. As for the war on terror, Osama Bin Laden's family and the Bush family both have shares in the same oilfields.

7. In 1998 (before he was president) Bush had talks with the Bin Ladens about the possibility of an oil pipeline accross Afghanistan to transport oil from the Caspian sea

8. No terrorist organisation has yet claimed responsibility for September the 11th (After having dealt with IRA terrorists for many years we in the UK know that this is very unusual)

9. The USA have more weapons of mass destruction than all of the middle east put together and have also used them in conflict.

10. Why are the US shying away from North Korea? They have just announced a nuclear weapons program.

11. Most of the Arab world see Saddam Hussein as a nuisance but they tolerate him. They also feel that the US just want a military presence and that is the reason they let him stay in power for so long.

12. Israel too has weapons of mass destrution.

That's enough for now but I could go on.

Quit smoking crack.

Originally posted by MT69
Quit smoking crack.

nothing constructive to say?

Moonclamp *did* bring up a point I hadn't considered before:

Isn't it "normal" for a terrorist group to actually claim "credit" for a particular attack?...After all, it's how they bring their "message" to public attention.

So why *hasn't* any terrorist group claimed "credit" for the 911 attack yet? Perhaps because the *real* perpetrators are trying to use terroism as an cover to prevent its own discovery?

I've seen various reports from independant *civilian contractors* that have seen parts of the evidence of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal Building. The US government continues to keep all collected evidence out of public view & maintains that the only bomb involved was in the van parked outside the Building: Yet on-the-scene witnesses claimed that there was more than one explosion & those reports are backed by a nearby college that were recording seismographic readings at the time...There *was* more than one explosion. Also, local authorities had found at least *two* unexploded bombs but those were carted away by *federal agents* (FEMA, specifically) & never heard of again. An independant contractor that engineers the destruction of buildings with explosives has been willing to testify that there's no way to gut a building with only one explosive from the outside as the Federal Building had been, but he was never called on for any testimony.

There's a lot more & it's scattered all over the web...I wish I'd written down those weblinks now.

At any rate, it seems that certain elements of the US government actually *tries* to perpetrate attacks on its own citizens for the purpose of erroding our Constitutional Rights, one step at a time.

It's been done by Napolean to gain political power in France & it's happened in Germany for Hitler's reasons...Why not in America too? The US government has to be a bit more subtle about covering up the evidence than *they* were because of world-wide media coverage & the current levels of technology that exist to allow such evidence to reach public attention. Hitler & Napolean never had to contend with this level of information-awareness but modern western governments do.

This is merely a small fraction of why I've been so "anti-politician" for more than two decades...

i don't think it's oil. though, oil is a factor and i'm sure there is some major pressure on the bushies to forefill the promises they made to secure the middle east for the future...not only to oil companies but to Israel.

i think this thing is much bigger than oil folks. when you have dual citizens within your government advising your leader oil should be the last think on your mind. but, of course i'm just anti-semitic...not anti-treason. so just ignore me.

moonclamp - Ok, I'll waste my time teaching you but it's probably a lost cause with you.

1. Saddam Hussein first invaded Kuwait 12 years ago after Kuwait were drilling into Iraqi oilfields.

- What proof do you have?

2. He discussed an invasion with the US who said they would turn a blind eye to any action he took. (Which they didn't)

- Where's your proof?

3. All his chemical weapons were supplied by the US during the Iranian war. Much of the technology for nuclear and conventional weaponry comes form Europe and the USA

- The US supplied him military supplies to counter Iranian wackos BEFORE he turned on the world. Europeans are still giving him aid illegally, unlike the US.

4. He has no airforce left and his missiles would not reach the western hemisphere, he is only a threat to his neighbours. I might be wrong but I don't think we've found any Iraqi terrorists yet.

- Oh, so it's ok that he can launch SCUDS with chemical/bio warheads at Israel and not the UK? So he won't sell the chemical/bio weapons to terrorists who hate the West like him?

5. The weapons inspectors have found nothing of any consequence yet, yeah there is some minor stuff but it seems the weapons inspectors are clutching at straws.

- Buried chemical warheads in pristine condition and now nuclear weapons documents are NOTHING?

6. As for the war on terror, Osama Bin Laden's family and the Bush family both have shares in the same oilfields.

- Give me a freakin break. Quit believing every conspiracy you find on the internet.

7. In 1998 (before he was president) Bush had talks with the Bin Ladens about the possibility of an oil pipeline accross Afghanistan to transport oil from the Caspian sea

- What does this have to do with anything? Bin Laden's family doesn't like their renegade son anymore.

8. No terrorist organisation has yet claimed responsibility for September the 11th (After having dealt with IRA terrorists for many years we in the UK know that this is very unusual)

- Uh, ever heard of al Qaeda? Maybe you need to leave your little island and see the real world.

9. The USA have more weapons of mass destruction than all of the middle east put together and have also used them in conflict.

- The US used 2 nukes against Japan to end WWII in a timely matter that saved lives on both sides in the long run. Have we used them since then???

10. Why are the US shying away from North Korea? They have just announced a nuclear weapons program.

- The US will deal with North Korea AFTER Iraq. Iraq has caused more trouble than North Korea since 1991 if you haven't noticed.

11. Most of the Arab world see Saddam Hussein as a nuisance but they tolerate him. They also feel that the US just want a military presence and that is the reason they let him stay in power for so long.

- The Arabs don't mind Saddam's antics as long as he stays within his borders. They don't care that he kills, tortures and enslaves his own people like they do too. They don't care if he sells bio/chemical weapons to terrorists for use against the WEST.

12. Israel too has weapons of mass destrution.

- Big deal. Israel hasn't stated it will wipe the Arabs off the face of the Earth unlike the Arab's views on Israel.

Someday you'll get a clue...but I doubt it.

I distinctly remember bin Laden telling people that there was more to come after the first plane struck, and you might remember a bunch of "Praise Allah"'s going around in the video tape as he said that, huh? Why bother anouncing the known? A little redundant.

Naturally this is all about oil! That is a no-brainer. If it weren't for the oil nobody would care about the mid-east. People would be as concerned with the plight of the Kurds in Iraq as they are concerned about the Christians being enslaved, raped a, tortured and killed in places like Sudan. That is to say, nobody would care.
If it weren't for the oil that was discovered by the stupid white folk in the mid-east, the Arabs wouldn't have leverage against the world, against the Jews and against the Western nations who they see as a threat to their blanketing the world with Islam.
Of course its all about oil. No body has denied that, have they?

Why is it peachy that Israel has nuclear weapons and everything is done to stop Hussein from getting so much as a single backpack? Let's see, what is the difference between the two states at this time? Could it be one is a nation of laws and the other is a nation run by a homicidal tyrant that kills and maims for sport. The fact that anyone would actually ask for the difference between Israel and Iraq does nothing but wonder what other important points of fact may be missed. Must the differences between North Korea and Israel also be explained?

The points that are listed numerically, are these supposed to be listed in importance or are they just listed as they were discovered by the collector of the points. They are obviously not all tightly related, so why are they listed as they are? Why, for example, is it noted in the compilation that the U.S. has weapons of mass destruction and even used to atomic bombs against the Japanese in order to stop an horrible war brought upon us by the Japanese? Is the point that the U.S. has nuclear capability that everyone else should, too, no matter what their intentions are?

It's been written here numerous times by me alone, but it seems it is necessary to write it again.
What difference does it make that Saddam has no conventional means of delivery for any of the NBC weapons? How did the attacks occur 9-11-01? Gee, that wasn't a conventional type of attack, was it? Unconventional ideas work pretty well, it seems. Now, lets take into consideration a couple other things. First, our borders are as porous as a screen door, and secondly, their are already organizations in place that hate America and would see to it that a weapon was placed and detonated in downtown St. Louis shortly after an homicidal tyrant like Hussein supplied it.
BTW, have you already forgotten the training areas in Iraq, complete with passenger planes? Or did we misunderstand that training camp? Is it really a flight attendants' school?

As a military man you might like to research your own evidence rather than just believing the propaganda that your commanding officers feed you. As a rule military people eat, #, think and sleep when they are told to and are conditioned to obey orders.

You say "Where is your proof?" but you say it about things that are well documented, all you need to do is check out a few feeds from the worlds 2 biggest news agencies The BBC and CNN.

When I said no Iraqi terrorist, I meant threatening the US directly

Weapons inspectors have found no weapoons and it seems the tings we are being told are just the Governments looking for an excuse to attack.

Why do you feel the need to condemn everything you can't answer as a conspiracy theory?

Of course I've heard of Al Quiada, it was a compiled list of terrorist dissidents from all walks of life, it was never really an organised group

No other country has used nukes either EVER

Someday you may learn to think for yourself

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I distinctly remember bin Laden telling people that there was more to come after the first plane struck, and you might remember a bunch of "Praise Allah"'s going around in the video tape as he said that, huh? Why bother anouncing the known? A little redundant.

Bin LAden also gave an interview to arab press catagorically denying it, this was featured on the BBC. He did say that the people who did it were brave but he didnt name any of his own people.

Why critisise me for using a numbering system? It's much easier for people to read than some stuff that isn't even paragraphed properly

[Edited on 19-1-2003 by moonclamp]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why is it peachy that Israel has nuclear weapons and everything is done to stop Hussein from getting so much as a single backpack? Let's see, what is the difference between the two states at this time? Could it be one is a nation of laws and the other is a nation run by a homicidal tyrant that kills and maims for sport. The fact that anyone would actually ask for the difference between Israel and Iraq does nothing but wonder what other important points of fact may be missed.

Erm ... what about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians?

And the US didn't go into WW2 until it was almost over, so quit talking that it was won by you guys, you didn't end the war in Europe and you were the only country that wasn't financially affected by it at the end

[Edited on 19-1-2003 by moonclamp]

Just as this is no direct concern of yours at this time, neither was the potential invasion of the Japanese mainland. Neither then or now, you see no threat to your nation and our problems are no big deal to you. It's easy for you to sit back and list of crap, including the fact that we used two weapons (but forget to mention it was a righteous cause).

Let's see how well you sing if and when a few thousand of your countrymen are slaughtered by planes you own are flown into your cities. Remember, Iraqi officials and Al Qua'ada members met before the attacks. If you want to throw in a bunch of indirect evidence and heresay, throw it all in.

Hussein has made it clear thatthere are three goals he'd like carried out: To be the main player in the region, to destroy Israel and to destroy the U.S.
I see why you have no problem with that. Neither of the three places is England, therefore you can afford us to not attack.

moonclamp - Where do you get this BS about people in the military??? Nobody has ever told me what to think about world politics at my work. You act as if people in the military are stupid, yet you're the one that believes Saddam is innocent. You are the one looking more and more idiotic with every leak out of Iraq about stuff they find there, not me.

Oh...I graduated from a Top 25 US university, a liberal one in fact. I'm willing to bet I'm more educated and more diversified than you, but of course you call me a blind sheep for being in the military. Care to compare our resumes???

I'm also sure I get a more balanced view of the world than you with my media outlets from the BBC, CBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, etc. The British media is known more for tabloids than REAL news, but of course you're the one here trying to preach to us about being misled and backwards.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne


Let's see how well you sing if and when a few thousand of your countrymen are slaughtered by planes you own are flown into your cities.

We have actually suffered at the hands of terrorists for many years. Where were you lot when we needed help with the IRA? Oh yeah you were helping the IRA.

Oh and read the history of WW2 before you comment on it

Originally posted by MT69
The British media is known more for tabloids than REAL news, but of course you're the one here trying to preach to us about being misled and backwards.

Oh really ?? lol

And the US didn't go into WW2 until it was almost over, so quit talking that it was won by you guys, you didn't end the war in Europe and you were the only country that wasn't financially affected by it at the end

So the WWII only lasted a few days once we entered the war??? Oh, we're good but not that good.

We didn't end the war??? Oh ok, you were losing the war until we joined it...but of course we had nothing to do with winning the war. Nevermind our Army Air Force daytime raids that destroyed the Nazi war machine. Nevermind our ground forces leading the way at Normandy. The Brits had everything under control and we were just there as cheerleaders, eh?

Oh, you say the war didn't financially affect us??? So who paid for all those weapons we supplied to Russia before we entered the war and for our own weapons that we later used as cheerleaders???

Don't try and get smart with me. I know WWII history, apparently better than you. Your suggestion that I learn history before commenting is nothing more than an attempted ducking of an issue.

We Amercians do not support the IRA as a nation, and the number of stupid people that financially support it is so miniscule that it can't be measured in fractions easily. What is it you'd like the U.S. to do? Go to war with Ireland for you? What logistical support do you need? If you can project yourself to the Faulklands you shouldn't have any trouble in your own backyard. Cop outs and ducks seem to be your forte.

Let me make this perfectly clear, so that even a slow-witted person can get it. I've not only read it, but have studied the history of WWII, and I nor anyone that I know, donated as much as a cent to the IRA, nor would we know where to go about doing it if we ever did want to. So point your little finger elsewhere, friend, as it doesn't belong this way.

TC - There's this weird idea out there among our WWII allies that we take too much credit for winning the war and in fact didn't win the war. I never knew this until a Canadien friend one time blew up over this subject. I think it has something to do with Tom Hanks and Hollywood not making movies about them winning battles in WWII.

moonclamp, MT69 is quite right our newspapers are best known for the tabloids, its a sad fact that the majority of people who read a newspaper read the sun or the mirror(tabloids or even better gutter press), their readership runs in to the millions whereas serious papers such as the telegraph, guardian, times have readerships in the hundred of thousands. I`d also suggest you sort your own knowledge of history out before accusing people of not knowing there own.

(people over here definitely have issues with Hollywood, can`t say I care myself, there to make money are n`t they? most people go to history books if they are serious about learning history properly and I`ve not seen many that don`t put the truth across)





[Edited on 19-1-2003 by cassini]

Originally posted by moonclamp
And the US didn't go into WW2 until it was almost over, so quit talking that it was won by you guys, you didn't end the war in Europe and you were the only country that wasn't financially affected by it at the end

[Edited on 19-1-2003 by moonclamp]

didn't get into ww2 until it was almost over? when did it start? 1939? and when did it end? 1944/45? when did the us get in? 1941? looks like we were in for more than the last bit of it right? and if we didn't help how come the europeans were'nt anywhere close to winning till we got in? you europeans just amaze me with your selective memories. just remeber if it weren't for the US you'd all be speaking german right now. and if you're jewish you'd be dead.