The real reasons for Iraq 2

Most of you already believe what I am about to post here, but I have yet to see the amount of proof that I am going to offer you. I have been filing away links for quite awhile now, and after some serious research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that Iraq 2 happened for 2 reasons. The thing is, both reasons are intertwined. Keep reading, you'll see.

Reason number one is oil.

Reason number two is Cheney

In order to understand the first reason,(Oil) we must understand the second, Cheney/Halibourton.

Ill lay out the facts.

While Director, Cheney personally signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries.

www.newsmax.com...

To this day, Cheney still recieves 1,000,000 us dollars a year.Can you say conflict of intrest?

www.thetip.org...

Halibourton has overcharged up to $61 million for gasoline to the US military.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
talkleft.com...

Halliburton overcharged the British military for Millions of dollars.

forums.alternet.org...

With this information, we start to see a picture of Cheney/Halibourton emerging. We see that there is evidence that supports the theory that Cheney left Halibourton to take his VP position in order to further the money gieser that seemingly couldnt be capped. So now we have some one, who I am presuming could not have made the decisions he made without some type of staff, of advisory group. So we have the beginnings, a group of greedy business men. The fact is, corprate sector thinks with thier pocketbooks, and not thier heads.

Now, we can go into the second reason, the Oil.

Oil prices have been on a steady rise for the last five years. The rise has accelerated over the last 3 years. Im not going to post a link for this, because you can see this for yourself every time you go to the pump.

To the victor goes the spoils. From the dawn of time, every time one civilization is conquered by another, the spoils of war hav gone to the winner of the conflict. USA got germany's scientist after WW II, and so many other examples, that I dont have time to get into.

I am going to provide you with links to 6 different news articles. after reading these, you will see the connection with the first reason.

abcnews.go.com...

www.bayphase.com...

msnbc.msn.com...

www.commondreams.org...

www.apfn.org...

www.inthesetimes.com...

After reading these links, think about all I have presented to you and make your own opinion. After all, this is all just my Opinion.

I have many more links to give out, but I want everybody to digest everything I have listed so far.

I guess the use of MWD and Genocide doesn't matter? And if it is so great in the middle east then why is it that when the US Forces arrived in Bagdad did the Iraqi people begin destroying all of Sadam's "Prize Posessions". And if you think that I am just taking information from the news I am not I have very close friends that were in the initial assault on Bagdad with the Calvary from Ft Carson. So no I do not agree with this

ILDAD, At least read the links before you come out and post in an opposite position. I welcome a good discussion on this, but please read what I have read first, then we can sling the grass across the fence all you want.

OK I apologize and will do that tomorrow morning so I am sorry if I stepped anywhere I shouldn't have
I am new here and still feeling my way around

No problem man, I havent been here that long myself. you better get some sleep, once you log on, you never log off! I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow.

well sorry to burst the bubble on this but oil soon enough cant be a factor as there building a pipeline to ship oil out of georgia which the pipeline runs across through to turkey which pass's by the old iraq pipeline at the same terminal which is beeing modernised because of bomb attacks on the pipeline all iraqi oil is still in iraq and i would also piont out thats yes it might be a possibilitie but western world dosnt want to depend on iraqi oil at this moment until the region is stabilised

type in google georgia pipeline and u'll find out all u wanna know

i will add this bout petrol price's in the uk 89p a litre are almost in Us terms $1.42 a litre and whatever it is for a gallon i dont know

those sinister money grubbing politicians are stealing are money!!!

they over charge the military, and who pays for the military? we do! it is so frekin obvious what their motives are too its sickening. lets fight a war which is easily attainable militarly, hold control to the 2 largest oil reserve on the planet, then use our buisness ties to profit off of all reconstruction and expansion. whats sad is that they are getting away with it. the american public is none the wiser, what with being hooked on the laci peterson suspense mystery thriller.

Rugoolian, Yes, the Georgian pipeline will be a great benifit, but to whom? The US? I think not. Russia will reap most of the benifits from that one. The US still needs to find a more reliable source of oil than the monopoly of Saudi Arabia. The US Gov. Knows this and they are forced to look for another source of oil that they have more controle over.

I am paying $1.93 a gallon right now. OUCH!

i dont drive so im not worried


[edit on 21-9-2004 by sturod84]

Geez, will this crap ever stop? Yeah its about oil, its about Saddam, its about terrorism. The war was not just Cheney's way to fatten his bank account. When you are already a millionare, a few extra doesnt mean squat.

Suggestion, do some research on life in Iraq under saddam, do some research about abu nidal for starts......

Originally posted by Kidfinger Most of you already believe what I am about to post here, but I have yet to see the amount of proof that I am going to offer you.

First, please don't speak for me, there is no way you know what "most" of us here believe.

Second, I read all your links but fail to see any "proof" anywhere.

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
First, please don't speak for me, there is no way you know what "most" of us here believe.

Second, I read all your links but fail to see any "proof" anywhere.

If you dont believe this, then I am not speaking for you now am I?

Did you read this?
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

How about this?
Contributing to the war-profiteering mess, Cheney's still getting $1,000,000 / year from Haliburton who was awarded a non-competetive multi-billion dollar contract for reconstructing Iraq.

What about this?
Similar worries about the world's oil supply figured heavily in the 1991 Gulf War, and before that, concerns Iran might capture critical oil fields led the United States to support Iraq in the war between those two countries.

And now, oil is a consideration in the continuing drama at the United Nations. France and Russia, both with veto power in the Security Council, have extensive oil interests in Iraq.

Man, I could go on and on. Go back, make notes of all the pertinant information, then take a look at what you have. That is how you will find your proof. Dont just skim through it. Take your time and read it all.

I agree with you!
It's so funny, USA destroyed the infrasructrues of iraq with smart bombs. now they spend dollars to rebuild it.
original infrastructure-----destroyed----- rebuild infrastructure
In the first process the unitedstates spend dollars on smartbombs and munitioners get their interest.
In the second pocess the unitedstates spend dollars on reconstrucion of Iraq. some company of american and its allies were charged.
Should we doubt the motivation of the war?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Did you read this?
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Yeah I read that. So what?

From your own story:

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.

Take particular note of this part: "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them." What did you say? "Personally signed"? Yeah, right.

How about this?
Contributing to the war-profiteering mess, Cheney's still getting $1,000,000 / year from Haliburton who was awarded a non-competetive multi-billion dollar contract for reconstructing Iraq.

Again from the same story:

When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.

Part of his severance package. Surely you have heard of this practice before? By the way, If it were me, I also would have elected for periodic payments, what with the ridiculous Clintonian tax structure we had in 2000.

What about this?
Similar worries about the world's oil supply figured heavily in the 1991 Gulf War, and before that, concerns Iran might capture critical oil fields led the United States to support Iraq in the war between those two countries.

Absolutely true. Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to take Kuwait's oil fields and port. We pushed Saddam back and he agreed to certain conditions to maintain his sovreignty over Iraq. His failure to abide by these conditions is why we are there now.

And now, oil is a consideration in the continuing drama at the United Nations. France and Russia, both with veto power in the Security Council, have extensive oil interests in Iraq.

I have no doubt that these interests are the sole reason these countries failed to support the U.S. in this war. Human rights violations, U.N. sanction violations be damned, they were against it because Saddam had promised them cheap oil.

Man, I could go on and on. Go back, make notes of all the pertinant information, then take a look at what you have. That is how you will find your proof. Dont just skim through it. Take your time and read it all.

Perhhaps you should read it all again, with no skimming. And please, don't give too much creedence to the few rabid left-wing sites you included. Their information is questionable at best.

Seth Bullock,

Do you really believe that Cheney does not influence The decisions that amounted to Halibourton recieving all those Gov. contracts? Its kind of interesting that the bids from other companies that were bidding on the Iraq contracts were nevre released. Lets see, Cheney gets 1 million dollars a year, and Halibourton is the top gov contractor. Sounds like a kick back to me.

Also, legality is relative when you are the VP. He is seprate from the governing body of Halibourton. He can STILL influence those multimillion dollar contracts.
And YES, he DID personally sign for the 73 Million dollars through 2 subsidiaries. He may not have put the pen to the paper, but with the position he held with Halibourton at the time, He WAS in a position to say "do it", or "dont do it". With his position, I would say that he had to approve this somewhere along the lines. At that time, there was only 1 governing body within Halibourton, and he was part of it.

Now we get to the severance pay, if thats what you want to call it. What is this, Enron all over agian? so your telling me that Cheney got 5 million dollars in severance pay? Yeah right. Pay off, Kick back, those are some of the terms I would use for that. If you are the VP, you CAN NOT have this kind of conflict of intrest. If I were going to recieve 5 mil for helping a company out, I would have labled it as a severance package as well.

As far as Left Wing Media is concerned, ALL NEWS MEDIA are full of it. You have to take MANY different stories from all over, pick out the relivant pieces, and look at what you have. Dont believe everything you read, sometimes its whats not in the story that is the truth. (MSNBC is left?)

I dont believe that Iraq EVER had WMD. I think our gov knew this all along. Yes Saddam was an A55. Yes, Iraq is better off without him. These are just some good after effects. Thats all. When you get the kickbacks that Cheney gets, your rich enough to change the information released about yourself.

One more thing, what about the Wolfowitz incident?

Of course Iraq had WMD, we know because we kept the receipts! But, it appears he did manage to get rid of them, or hide them well, before the invasion...(God knows he had plenty of time and warning). We're still finding buried jet fighters in the sand,

Here's some of the main reasons I think we did Iraq 2.

1. We were losing our foothold in the ME, due to worsening relations with Saudi Arabia, post 911, so we needed to establish another foothold, by instilling a US friendly government in the region (one that wasn't a flyspeck on the map, like Qatar).

2. Saddam was looking to convert his reserves into Euro-based, rather than Dollar-based currency. He was also actively trying to convince OPEC to do likewise, and they were listening. This could have severely weakened the dollar, possibly even causing a major Depression.

3. A lesser reason, but Saddam is a lesser-known sponsor of terrorism. While not linked directly to Al-Queda, he CAN easily be linked to this. From 10K donations to suicide bomber families, and allowing such groups to train in Iraq (as detailed by ex-Iraqi military officers), to the influx of such groups into Iraq as foreign combatants, in response to the US occupation, it is easy to see this connection.

Other reasons were pretty much secondary goals or benefits, all attempted under the guise of legitimacy, by citing Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions over the past dozen years...I will concur that Chaney had a LOT to do with directing this, as Shrub couldn't find his way out of a paper bag with a flashlight....

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Gazrok]

I don't believe it was just oil. I do believe that vested interest of companies like Haliburton and huge contracts they anticipated to be awarded, played a role.

But the point Gazrok made above is most important: the US needed a base in the Middle East. Since it couldn't get it legally, it got it illegally.

You cannot argue in the UN or in the American press (at least yet) "we need a military base in country XYZ, therefore we first are going to bomb it hard, then invade and stay there forever while the place goes to hell and we don't care what the locals think"

You can't conduct a "War on Terror" without such a foothold, and Afghanistan wasn't centrally located....and the lease was up (so to speak) in Saudi....

I do agree that we need a better foothold in the middle east, but I think that was one of those secondary effects that turned out to be a good thing for us. Also, our foot hold in Iraq is more like a toehold at the moment.

The way I see it is these guys sat down and said "Money and Oil. If we get these things, what will the after effects be? Strong foot hold? Good. Elimination of a dictator? Good." Its corprate America calling the shots in this war. They think with thier wallet, and hope they can fit all the small change in thier pocket.

Gazrok, on a different note, my programming teacher worked on the first shrek film. I showed him your avatar, and he got mad! He said that you pic looked better than any of the draft pics he drew for the movie!