Canadians surveyed about Middle East

[caesar]

It was never the Iraqi people's oil....it was Saddam oil......now it is the Iraqi people's oil......more so once they elect their government in a couple of months.

It was the Iraqis oil; it still is; only now it is controlled by Bush.

When was it signed? Why was their a UN presence in and around Iraq until the American led war?

Just before the Americans killed all those people on Kuwait roadways. Disgusting and indications that the USA used napalm.

[caesar]

Stoker; this is for you. It shows how the USA mislead Saddam on the Kuwait situation:

http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/gulfwar/setup.html

[Stoker]

Canada isn't sitting on the fence. Here's an example of the government's position:

And whats the governments postion on the PLO?

First, Iraq didn't start with Saddam, and you may be surprised to know that Saddam actually spent billions of the oil money on Iraqi's throughout the 70s and 80s. Iraq actually had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions.

And how many billions did he spend on places? Luxruy cars? Jewlery? Did the Iraqi people get a say on what he spent the money on? Would you rather have lived in pre-war Iraq or here?

Second, if the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and I agree, please explain this:

"A House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday broadened its investigation of Iraq's oil-for-food program to include the Bush administration's handling of the country's oil money. The decision to subpoena documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marks a major shift in the Government Reform subcommittee's investigation, which until this point had focused on corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq during Saddam's regime."

"The decision means the subcommittee also will scrutinize the activities of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. A recent internal audit of the CPA by its inspector general concluded that the authority couldn't account for $8.8 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people."

Whats to expalin? The United States government is searching all avenues for missing oil money, from the UN oil for food program?

*From the same link*

In recent hearings by the subcommittee, contractors and banks involved in the oil-for-food program came under scrutiny for apparent complicity in Saddam's theft. Among them was the French bank BNP Paribas, which handled Iraqi oil revenues under the program and which Shays has criticized for an apparent lack of oversight of the Iraqi government's financial activities. David Smith, a representative of BNP Paribas, said in prepared testimony that "the bank has had no discretion over how money has been spent or invested under the (oil-for-food) program." Shays contended at a subcommittee hearing Tuesday that three U.N. Security Council members - France, Russia and China - had undermined the Iraq sanctions by limiting the policing authority of the contractors who oversaw the oil-for-food program. "The U.N. sanctions regime against Iraq was all but eviscerated, turned inside out by political manipulation and greed," he said.

As for a new government, that's going to be a problem. The Sunnis usually hold power (Saddam is Sunni) but they are a minority, and so if democracy is the goal, they'll have to give up some control, which they won't like. The Kurds have been fighting for their own state for a long time (a Kurdish state would cause serious problems with Turkey), and given the past, won't want to allow Sunni control of the north. The Shia at 60% of Iraq's population make up the majority, but share the same theology and ideology as Iran. The US government has stated that it won't allow Iraq to be like Iran. As we all know, democracy is rule by majority, and thus they basically stated that they will not allow Iraq to be a democracy. Therefore, you have three groups with conflicting interests, and a country that can't rule by majority. Something tells me that it'll either be a puppet government that Iraqis will resist, or it'll be more than a couple months.

You mean that the Americans won't allow religious leaders to turn Iraq into a theocratic republic? Those bastards

Resolution 678 authorized Desert Storm, and resolution 687 ended it. Resolution 687 was passed on April 3, 1991. You can read UN Security Council resolutions here:

Where in 687, is anything ended?

687

If you are refering to the UN weapon inspectors, they went in after Desert Storm as a condition of resolution 687 to disarm. However, the US used the inspections to spy on Saddam, and then used the information for targets in operation Desert Fox. The UN inspectors were ordered out so that they could begin operation Desert Fox -- not kicked out by Saddam -- and they weren't allowed to return. As a result, four years past without inspections. Just before the second war, inspectors were allowed to return, but weren't given enough time.

Perhaps you should read 688 and then tell which parts Saddam complied with.

It was the Iraqis oil; it still is; only now it is controlled by Bush.

Prove it! The Iraqi government can ask the American forces to leave anytime they wish, and they will comply with the Iraqi governments request. Thats right from W's mouth well on Larry King.

Just before the Americans killed all those people on Kuwait roadways. Disgusting and indications that the USA used napalm.

The hi-way of death was before the Iraqi's sued for peace and was one of the factors that lead Powell not to urge the Americans to go all the way to Baghdad, in that it was disparaging to the Arab states in the coalition.

Stoker; this is for you. It shows how the USA mislead Saddam on the Kuwait situation:

Thats it.......Caesar has found proof from a geocities site

[Guest eureka]

You may not be aware, Stoker, that it was the Amerocans who kept the sanctions going in Iraq in spite of the wish of other nations to end the cruelty.

Do you remember Madeline Albright saying that the loss of 500,000 lives of Iraqi children brought about by the sanctions was an "acceptable sacrifice?" And, that was before Dubbya.

Iraq, as Boondoggle has pointed out, was a relatively advanced nation before the Gulf War. It had the highest standards of living in the Arab world and the highest literacy rates. It was also a secular state and the danger of it turning into a theocracy is entirely the doing of Bush.

[Stoker]

You may not be aware, Stoker, that it was the Amerocans who kept the sanctions going in Iraq in spite of the wish of other nations to end the cruelty.

What nations? Did they also urge Saddam to comply with the various resoultions brought before him by the UN?

Do you remember Madeline Albright saying that the loss of 500,000 lives of Iraqi children brought about by the sanctions was an "acceptable sacrifice?" And, that was before Dubbya.

You make it sound as if it's the American's fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait.........but of course, people of your ilk probably blame the Americans for bad weather also.

Iraq, as Boondoggle has pointed out, was a relatively advanced nation before the Gulf War. It had the highest standards of living in the Arab world and the highest literacy rates. It was also a secular state and the danger of it turning into a theocracy is entirely the doing of Bush.

You sure paint a pretty picture of Saddam's Iraq......what about the torture chambers? mass graves? missing family members? Gassed Kurds? Dead and injured Kuwaits?

[Guest eureka]

Do you ever have anything to say that might promote discussion? You don't have to agree even with overwhelming evidence, but you could at least give some argument in favour of your opinions.

[Stoker]

Do you ever have anything to say that might promote discussion?

Are we not partaking in a discussion right now?

You don't have to agree even with overwhelming evidence, but you could at least give some argument in favour of your opinions.

I do, I provided a couple of links just a few posts back.

WRT "overwhelming evidence", I've yet to see any provided......are we going to start now?

[caesar]

Prove it! The Iraqi government can ask the American forces to leave anytime they wish, and they will comply with the Iraqi governments request. Thats right from W's mouth well on Larry King.

You mean the Iraqi government hand picked by the USA.

Seems to me; one of the first things the USA did in Iraq was to start handing out long term oil contracts to their "friends" and cancelling all the contracts that were in force. hmmmmm

[Stoker]

You mean the Iraqi government hand picked by the USA.

Seems to me; one of the first things the USA did in Iraq was to start handing out long term oil contracts to their "friends" and cancelling all the contracts that were in force. hmmmmm

Hey, the United Nations called the Iraqi government a "broadly representative Governing Council" and cited it's creation as an "important step towards the formation by the people of Iraq of an internationally recognized, representative government that will exercise the sovereignty of Iraq".

I guess the Americans are damned if they do and damned if they don't

Resolution 1500

[Boondoggle]

And whats the governments postion on the PLO?

I provided a link to the governments position.

And how many billions did he spend on places? Luxruy cars? Jewlery? Did the Iraqi people get a say on what he spent the money on? Would you rather have lived in pre-war Iraq or here?

More to the point, the Oil for Food flap fits into the decade-old pattern whereby Washington and London place exclusive blame for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq before the invasion -- and now for the country's hobbled economy as well -- upon the "neglect" of the former regime. While Oil for Food funds may have improperly ended up in the hands of Saddam Hussein's government, the fundamental responsibility for the humanitarian crisis was the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq by the Security Council, and then enforced in an extraordinarily harsh way at the insistence of the US and Britain. Under the sanctions, Iraq's annual gross domestic product dropped from about $60 billion to about $13 billion, according to a joint Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Program estimate released in 1997. Assume that all the accusations of corruption are true, and the government of Saddam Hussein did indeed salt away $11 billion over the six years in which Oil for Food was in effect. Even if those funds had purchased humanitarian goods, the Iraqi GDP would have risen to $15 billion annually -- not an amount that could have compensated for the loss of 75 percent of the economy or rebuilt the dilapidated infrastructure. History may record US and British evasion of their share of responsibility for the havoc wrought by sanctions in Iraq as the real Oil for Food scandal.

Scandals of Oil for Food

So let's say your economy was chopped down to 25%, would you consider the living conditions good even if the government spent every peny on the people? To compound that problem, important supplies that were needed for things such as clean water were difficult to get regardless of whether or not Saddam was willing to spend the money because they were considered "dual use" items. As a result, and there are reports on this, the death rate increased dramatically under the sanctions. That is basically a war crime because civilians should not be targeted. For this reason, Denis Halliday (Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq) resigned. In less than two years, his successor, Hans Von Sponeck, resigned for the same reason.

BTW, the article that the above link leads to explains the details about the oil-for-food program that right-wingers like to leave out.

Perhaps you feel I'm bashing the US because I'm criticizing US foreign policy. If it makes you feel better, I can point out how other countries are responsible too. For example, the Canadian defence web site states:

"The Canadian Forces have been participating in the enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq for the past 10 years. Our contribution is important in promoting our international interests and is viewed as crucial by our allies," said Minister Eggleton. "This operation is extremely beneficial in ensuring our interoperability with our allies and particularly the United States. It will further strengthen our Navy's relationship with the U.S. Navy and reaffirm our commitment to peace and stability in this region."

I disagree. I think if people in the US, Britain, Canada and in other countries that were responsible, knew more about it, they'd be shocked and ashamed.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view...ews_e.asp?id=35

Whats to expalin? The United States government is searching all avenues for missing oil money, from the UN oil for food program?

The point is, I'm sure the Iraqis could use that money. It's not pocket change that we're talking about, and it is theirs.

You mean that the Americans won't allow religious leaders to turn Iraq into a theocratic republic? Those bastards

The point is, by definition, democracy is rule by MAJORITY, and if that's what the majority wants....

Perhaps you should read 688 and then tell which parts Saddam complied with.

After the war, there was an uprising, which Washington encouraged. Given that Saddam was a control freak, it should come as no surprise that he'd do that in order to remain in power. It helps if you put things in context so perhaps you should read about it.

[Boondoggle]

Thats it.......Caesar has found proof from a geocities site

The link mentions Glaspie. Here's a link to the New York Times article covering the meeting with Saddam from which quotes were used:

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL: Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

Here are a few other links:

BBC: About Saddam Hussein

Washington Post: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup (Iran-Iraq war)

Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities

Sanctioned genocide: Was 'the price' of disarming Iraq worth it?

Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact

Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday opposes U.N.’s sanctions

Fmr. Asst. UN Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck on Iraq and Palestine

Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq

UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq

Myths About Iraq Exploited by War Hawks (by Scott Ritter)

Ex-monitor says UN tricked Saddam to prompt bombing

Washington Post: The Difference Was in the Details (how the US used UN inspections to target Saddam in operation Desert Fox)

Scott Ritter: Understanding the Roots of Terrorism: Iraq as a Case Study

Scott Ritter on C-SPAN

The Use Of Force By The United States Against Iraq: Legal Issues (a brief that was sent to all UN Security Council members)

Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq

RESOLUTION 1441 AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL (another article by Lawyers)

Good enough for now?

Also, I recommend Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, which you can download from edonkey. It has an interview with General Norman Schwarzkopf about how Bush asked him to end the war, and shows him signing the paper work with the Iraqis. It also has interviews with people like Scott Ritter, and Denis Halliday. Further, it talks about how the US wanted the war. It also talks about how Kuwait was cutting oil prices by producing more oil, which hurt Iraq's economy while it was recovering from the Iran-Iraq war.

You may also want to check out a documentary called In Shifting Sands by Scott Ritter, which covers the UN inspections in the 90s. You can find it on edonkey as well, or bit torrent if you know where to look. I'd post a direct link to the torrent, but it's probably against forum rules.

[caesar]

Hey, the United Nations called the Iraqi government a "broadly representative Governing Council" and cited it's creation as an "important step towards the formation by the people of Iraq of an internationally recognized, representative government that will exercise the sovereignty of Iraq".

"Important step" not a democratic IRAQI government; it is still heavily influenced by the USA

[caesar]

It also talks about how Kuwait was cutting oil prices by producing more oil, which hurt Iraq's economy while it was recovering from the Iran-Iraq war.

Plus that oil was from a joint pool straddling the border between Iraq and Kuwait. Kuwait was taking more than its share breaking an agreement between the two countries.

[Stoker]

So let's say your economy was chopped down to 25%, would you consider the living conditions good even if the government spent every peny on the people? To compound that problem, important supplies that were needed for things such as clean water were difficult to get regardless of whether or not Saddam was willing to spend the money because they were considered "dual use" items. As a result, and there are reports on this, the death rate increased dramatically under the sanctions. That is basically a war crime because civilians should not be targeted. For this reason, Denis Halliday (Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq) resigned. In less than two years, his successor, Hans Von Sponeck, resigned for the same reason.

Put the Horse before the cart Boondoggle........then we will talk.

The point is, I'm sure the Iraqis could use that money. It's not pocket change that we're talking about, and it is theirs.

Sure they can......but that doesn't prove that Bush is stealing their oil money now does it?

The point is, by definition, democracy is rule by MAJORITY, and if that's what the majority wants....

Does the majority of Iran wish to have their current form of government? Even if they did at one point, do they have the option to change it?

After the war, there was an uprising, which Washington encouraged. Given that Saddam was a control freak, it should come as no surprise that he'd do that in order to remain in power. It helps if you put things in context so perhaps you should read about it.

I know, there was an uprising in the South and in the North by the Kurds......it furthers my belief that the Americans should have removed Saddam in 91

So how does this excuse Saddam from resoultion 688?

WRT your links, sort through the chaff and post the ones that state the Americans encouraged Saddam into Kuwait.

Further, it talks about how the US wanted the war.

Post the link.......I won't waste my time going through a conspiracy theroy website to prove your point. Again post the link or better yet, post a link to where these nuts gotr their proof......but really, don't insult my intelligence by linking to a site thats selling a movie

[Guest eureka]

Insult your intelligence! How could he do that?

[caesar]

Post the link.......I won't waste my time going through a conspiracy theroy website to prove your point. Again post the link or better yet, post a link to where these nuts gotr their proof......but really, don't insult my intelligence by linking to a site thats selling a movie 

Right on Eureka. There is a whole page of links stoker. Just keep your head in the sand. Maybe you should change your name to "Ostrich"

[Boondoggle]

Put the Horse before the cart boondoggle........then we will talk.

Keep trying to spin it. I backed up what I said with proof. Two of the top UN officials didn't resign because of what Saddam was doing. They resigned because of the sanctions. If you take the time to read what they say, you might learn something. I posted a number of links about the sanctions, and I bet you didn't even click on one before shooting your mouth off. Of course while you keeping trying to dismiss all of this, you offer nothing to support your opinion, and you also totally dodged the question. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant.

Sure they can......but that doesn't prove that Bush is stealing their oil money now does it?

Again you're just trying to spin it. The fact is that US figures are off by almost $9 billion in less than two years, and that's at a time when Iraq can't even produce much oil. Further, it probably wouldn't have even been brought to attention if not for the oil-for-food investigation.

Did I point the finger at Bush? The example I gave talks about the Bush administration, but I think the goal is broader than that. It's about bringing American influence into Iraq like it or not. It's about setting up military bases there much like what they did in Saudi Arabia with the first war. All of this makes it easier for America to control the flow of oil -- not just for one man to get rich. This is something that's been going on for decades. Henry Kissinger once said, "oil is too important to be left to the arabs."

Here's another example from that article:

"For example, Halliburton, under its contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers, provided fuel to the military at $1.59 per gallon, while the Iraqi national oil company could buy the fuel at 98 cents per gallon. The difference came to $300 million, and the profits were funneled into the coffers of an American corporation, rather than pumped into the Iraqi economy. In October 2003, a leading British aid agency, Christian Aid, released a study showing that of the $5 billion in Iraqi oil money transferred to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA could only account for $1 billion. The accounts were still incomplete upon the CPA's dissolution, according to Christian Aid."

Does the majority of Iran wish to have their current form of government? Even if they did at one point, do they have the option to change it?

It's a question of ideology and theology, and it's better to try to understand the people of the region than to try to reshape it in our image. Remember, the Shah of Iran was pro-US and was overthrown, which also lead to Americans being held as hostages by people that were angry at the US and the Shah. The majority of Iraqis are not likely to accept a pro-US government at the expense of the ideology and theology that they share with Iran.

Of course, this also overlooks the fact that the Kurds want their own state, which would cause serious problems with Turkey. You also have to factor in the Sunnis that usually hold power.

I know, there was an uprising in the South and in the North by the Kurds......it furthers my belief that the Americans should have removed Saddam in 91

So how does this excuse Saddam from resoultion 688?

I said it puts it in context. Western propaganda likes to call Saddam the Hitler of the Middle East. However, while Saddam's ways of crushing dissent and ensuring his position in power were brutal, the record also shows that Iraq had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions. Saddam was about staying in power not genocide. He has a bad human rights record, but so do a lot of US allies.

WRT your links, sort through the chaff and post the ones that state the Americans encouraged Saddam into Kuwait.

The "chaff" supports everything I've said and helps put the last couple decades into context. It's your prerogative to ignore it if you wish, but if you plan on speaking out of ignorance and trying to spin facts, don't expect your opinion to hold much water.

Post the link.......I won't waste my time going through a conspiracy theroy website to prove your point. Again post the link or better yet, post a link to where these nuts gotr their proof......but really, don't insult my intelligence by linking to a site thats selling a movie

Nice try, but I posted almost two dozen links that include mainstream news sources not conspiracy theory sites. It wouldn't hurt you to do a little research too, and maybe even read the links provided instead of trying to dismiss them wholesale.

I don't call passing judgement on something you have not seen intelligent. I gave you that link so that you could read about it, but I also told you where you can get it for free. It may come as a shock to you, but there are other sources of information beyond websites (ie documentaries, books, etc). Considering that Hidden Wars has interviews with key people that were involved, such as General Norman Schwarzkopf, it's not something that you can easily dismiss. However, it's clear that you will dismiss anything that challenges your view. That's unfortunate because as they say, a closed mind is an empty mind.

[August1991]

Boondoggle, you seem absolutely intent on blaming the US (or the West) for the madness in Iraq.

You somehow suggest that the US provoked Saddam into invading Kuwait. Then, you suggest that US imposed sanctions crippled Iraq's economy and impoverished its people. The US then invaded Iraq because it wants to give Iraqi oil to Halliburton and establish military bases there.

According to you Boondoggle, all the US actions have been planned in advance with, I gather, the purpose of enriching Halliburton shareholders.

You're a man on a mission, Boondoggle. You are going to prove by as many weblinks as you can find that the US=evil and Saddam=innocent bystander.

Boondoggle, you are a garden variety of conspiracy theory leftist. It would help your case if you were a trifle more objective.

BTW, have you seen a chart for Halliburton share prices?

Also, provide a link for the Kissinger quote:

Henry Kissinger once said, "oil is too important to be left to the arabs."

[caesar]

Boondoggle, you seem absolutely intent on blaming the US (or the West) for the madness in Iraq.

Not the west; the USA.

It is no secret that Bush discussed invading Iraq soon after taking office. Do some research. Expand your horizons. Don't be Cleopatra; Queen of denial.

I found it hard to believe, at first; did a lot of research; came out that there are many many credible sources that show our good neighbours to the south are being lead by a government with a secret agenda. I didn't want to accept the truth but....... Facts are facts; it all falls into place.

[August1991]

Not the west; the USA.

Boondoggle's got the Liberal government as witting members of the conspiracy.

Do some research. Expand your horizons. Don't be Cleopatra; Queen of denial.

Caesar, can you say anything good about the US?

[Stoker]

Keep trying to spin it. I backed up what I said with proof. Two of the top UN officials didn't resign because of what Saddam was doing. They resigned because of the sanctions. If you take the time to read what they say, you might learn something. I posted a number of links about the sanctions, and I bet you didn't even click on one before shooting your mouth off. Of course while you keeping trying to dismiss all of this, you offer nothing to support your opinion, and you also totally dodged the question. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant.

Where's the spin? What came first:

A) Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

-Or-

UN sanctions

Again you're just trying to spin it. The fact is that US figures are off by almost $9 billion in less than two years, and that's at a time when Iraq can't even produce much oil. Further, it probably wouldn't have even been brought to attention if not for the oil-for-food investigation.

Again, what spin.....The United States government launched the probe and the first findings are that a French bank had it's fingers in the Iraqi pie.

It's a question of ideology and theology, and it's better to try to understand the people of the region than to try to reshape it in our image. Remember, the Shah of Iran was pro-US and was overthrown, which also lead to Americans being held as hostages by people that were angry at the US and the Shah. The majority of Iraqis are not likely to accept a pro-US government at the expense of the ideology and theology that they share with Iran.

Of course, this also overlooks the fact that the Kurds want their own state, which would cause serious problems with Turkey. You also have to factor in the Sunnis that usually hold power.

Do you not think Arab people can handle a democracy? In a democracy can not the will of the people decide if it will be "pro-US" country?

I said it puts it in context. Western propaganda likes to call Saddam the Hitler of the Middle East. However, while Saddam's ways of crushing dissent and ensuring his position in power were brutal, the record also shows that Iraq had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions. Saddam was about staying in power not genocide. He has a bad human rights record, but so do a lot of US allies.

And didn't Nazi Germany have a decent standard of living (pre-war)?

The "chaff" supports everything I've said and helps put the last couple decades into context. It's your prerogative to ignore it if you wish, but if you plan on speaking out of ignorance and trying to spin facts, don't expect your opinion to hold much water.

I assumed that your list of links where all to support the theory that the United States encouraged the invasion of Kuwait, based on the fact that you posted a quote of mine that was addressd to caesar in a conversation about the said subject.

To avoid confusion in the future, perhaps you should post the link that supports your point in the same paragragh.

[Guest eureka]

I have heard that quote from Kissinger many times. It should require no link to support it. I have heard others os Kissinger, too, that are revealing of his character. I also have a friend who once interviewed him and observed first hand his womanising attempts. He was a thoroughly disreputable character and completely amoral in his world view.

Beyond that, I don't know whether Boondoggle exaggerates the American involvement in Oraq. Everything he has said and linked is known and I have yet to see any contrary evidence.

The USA did have a not so secret agenda for Iraq. That, too, is well known now with the revelation of the American blueprint for the New Century. The West, in general, also had ideas for the whole of the Middle East before the Americans muscled in and tried to esrablish hegemony.

Oil is the lifeblood of America and about the only new source of supply before the taps run dry will be the vast undeveloped fields in Iraq that may, according to some estimates, rival Saudi Arabia. America wants those and needs them since it will not amend its wasteful ways.

[August1991]

"Oil is too important to be left to the Arabs" - C. David Welch, US Ambassador to Egypt; sworn in by Secretary of State Colin Powell on August 3, 2001.

Some web site

When I see things like this, I become extremely suspicious. No web site reporting the quote provided a source. Many of the sites referred to Kissinger's "famous phrase".

Kissinger is also claimed to have said "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." (This was in reference to Chile.)

Kissinger was vain but not foolish.

Kissinger did say this:

“The main point…Well, yes, I’ll tell you. What do I care? The main point arises from the fact that I’ve always acted alone. Americans like that immensely. Americans like the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse, the cowboy who rides all alone into the town, the village, with his horse and nothing else. Maybe even without a pistol, since he doesn’t shoot. He acts, that’s all, by being in the right place at the right time.”

Oriana Fallaci Interview

----

Oil is the lifeblood of America and about the only new source of supply before the taps run dry will be the vast undeveloped fields in Iraq that may, according to some estimates, rival Saudi Arabia. America wants those and needs them since it will not amend its wasteful ways.

America is much less dependent on oil now than 25 years ago. Furthermore, it depends on its own oil or Canadian oil. The tar sands represent arguably the largest reserve in the world.

It is the Japanese (and Europe) who are dependent on Middle East oil.

In any case, it is alot easier to merely buy oil rather than start a war and invade a country. Saddam never had any scheme to forbid the sale of oil. It is Saudi Arabia that is the bulwark of the OPEC cartel that withholds supply to keep prices high.

Eureka, you insist on believing the US government is evil and wants to dominate the world. I see things differently. Do you believe, Eureka, that the US government has bought and manipulates the Canadian government? We've got oil.

The American soldiers will come home and then American oil companies will pay top dollar for any crude they get. Let's hope the Iraqi government uses wisely the collected royalties.

[Stoker]

Beyond that, I don't know whether Boondoggle exaggerates the American involvement in Oraq. Everything he has said and linked is known and I have yet to see any contrary evidence.

Whats to counter? Infact, the only point that we seem to be in disagrement in is in the cause of the first gulf war, and if the Americans started it.

I don't know whats to refute???

Had not Iraq long considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq?

Was there not a dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over Kuwaiti oil fields "tapping" into Iraqi terrority?

Did Iraq not owe Kuwait large sums of money in the form of loans during the Iraq-Iran war?

Isn't this all common knowledge?

[Stoker]

I forgot to add a source........

Gulf War

Gulf War

Gulf War

Gulf War