The Iraq / war on terror thread

[jarmo]

In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaeda and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.

Nice... 


You don't need to start a new thread for every article do you?




/jarmo

[Booker Floyd]

I was going to ignore this, and I probably should, but Ill go against my better judgement.? I wont even get into the numerous factual inaccuracies, Ill just addess one part...

Since you posted this drivel without any commentary, I assume you agree with most of it and Ill ask you to explain this:

There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

How somebody can identify with an Ann Coulter article and not feel incredibly embarassed is puzzling to me...but I guess part of identifying with Ann Coulter is being shameless. 

And since youve failed to do so, feel free to criticize the Pentagons outrageous suggestion that WP is a chemical weapon.?

[SLCPUNK]

I was going to ignore this, and I probably should.....

For me, it is the best response to something as stupid as Ann Coulter, and those who post her "articles".

[Booker Floyd]

The Phony War Against the Critics

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, November 25, 2005; A37


"One might also argue," Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, "that untruthful charges against the commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort." That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make it. After all, if untruthful charges against the president hurt the war effort (by undermining public support and soldiers' morale), then those charges will hurt the war effort even more if they happen to be true. So one would be saying in effect that any criticism of the president is essentially treason.

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, "I'm unwilling to say that" -- "that" being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling coconuts at unwanted visitors. "Dishonest." "Reprehensible." "Corrupt." "Shameless." President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into war by faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons.

Interestingly, the administration no longer claims that Hussein actually had such weapons at the time Bush led the country into war in order to eliminate them. "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight," Cheney said on Monday. So-called WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were not the only argument for the war, but the administration thought they were a crucial argument at the time. So the administration now concedes that the country went to war on a false premise. Doesn't that mean that the war was a mistake no matter where the false premise came from?

Cheney and others insist that Bush couldn't possibly have misled anyone about WMD since everybody had assumed for years, back into the Clinton administration, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's why any criticism of Bush on this point is corrupt, reprehensible, distasteful, odiferous, infectious and so on. But this indignation is belied by Cheney's own remarks in the 2000 election. In the vice presidential debate, for example, Cheney was happy to agree with Bush that Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction would be a good enough reason to "take him out." But he did not assume that Hussein already had such weapons. And he certainly did not assume that this view was the general consensus. "We'll have to see if that happens," he said. "It's unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability."

If you're looking for revisionist history, don't waste your time on the war's critics. Google up Cheney's bitter critique, in the 2000 campaign, of President Bill Clinton's military initiatives, specifically the need for more burden sharing by allies and a sharply defined "exit strategy." At the time, there were about 11,000 American troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, working alongside about 55,000 from allied countries. If only!

Until last week, the antiwar position in the debate over Iraq closely resembled the pro-war position in the ancient debate over Vietnam. That is: It was a mistake to get in, but now that we're in we can't just cut and run. That was the logic on which Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took over the Vietnam War four years after major American involvement began and kept it going for another four. American "credibility" depended on our keeping our word, however foolish that word might have been. In the end, all the United States wanted was a "decent interval" between our departure and the North Vietnamese triumph -- and we didn't even get that. Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam after America's citizens and government were in general agreement that the war was a mistake.

We are now very close to that point of general agreement in the Iraq war. Do you believe that if Bush, Cheney and company could turn back the clock, they would do this again? And now, thanks to Rep. John Murtha, it is permissible to say, or at least to ask, "Why not just get out now? Or at least soon, on a fixed schedule?" There are arguments against this -- some good, some bad -- but the worst is the one delivered by Cheney and others with their most withering scorn. It is the argument that it is wrong to tell American soldiers risking their lives in a foreign desert that they are fighting for a mistake.

One strength of this argument is that it doesn't require defending the war itself. The logic applies equally whether the war is justified or not. Another strength is that the argument is true, in a way: It is a terrible thing to tell someone he or she is risking death in a mistaken cause. But it is more terrible actually to die in that mistaken cause.

The longer the war goes on, the more Americans, "allies" and Iraqis will die. That is not a slam-dunk argument for ending this foreign entanglement. But it is worth keeping in mind while you try to decide whether American credibility or Iraqi prosperity or Middle East stability can justify the cost in blood and treasure. And don't forget to factor in the likelihood that the war will actually produce these fine things.

The last man or woman to die in any war almost surely dies in vain: The outcome has been determined, if not certified. And he or she might die happier thinking that death came in a noble cause that will not be abandoned. But if it is not a noble cause, he or she might prefer not to die at all. Stifling criticism that might shorten the war is no favor to American soldiers. They can live without that kind of "respect."

[Jamie]

That was a good article Booker, it basically shows that all the accusations of strawmen and throwing random words out to try and prove a point, is not essentially done by us liberals as has been claimed by people on this board before, it's done by a high ranking conservative more than anyone else. And I agree completely with what the author had to say about the mistake of going to war, it is more dishonourable and disrespectful to allow people to die in a false war than to tell him he is partaking in such a war. I think at the end of it all a troop would rather hear 'you are fighting in a war based on lies', and get a little pissed off than losing his life in such a war.

[SLCPUNK]

Iraq's Oil: The Spoils of War
by Philip Thornton

2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
 

Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (?116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.

Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between ?74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."

Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.

"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.

Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."

No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.

[SLCPUNK]

British Petroleum, Shell and Chevron Win Iraqi Oil Contracts
by Pratap Chatterjee and Oula Al Farawati, CorpWatch
August 8th, 2003

Corpwatch.org
 

In the hours and days before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq, a team of British Petroleum (BP) engineers in Kuwait taught combat troops from the 516 Specialist Team Royal Engineers how to run the oil fields in southern Iraq. As soon as the troops had secured southern Iraq, Robert Spears, a Scottish manager from BP, was drafted by the British government to help direct the effort to rebuild the refineries.

In mid-July BP took possession of its reward -- one of the first tankers of oil from Southern Iraq, having won 25% of the initial sale of 8 million barrels of the existing stockpiles of Iraqi oil. The previous month California-based Chevron shipped back an equal quantity of oil from southern Iraq.

Retired engineers from Royal Dutch/Shell Group also helped in training the troops in Nottingham, England. Once the oilfields had been seized by the invaders, company workers were drafted by the British army and sent into southern Iraq to help with the reconstruction.

"We leveraged the private sector," US Brigadier General Robert Crear commented to the Wall Street Journal. Crear commands the Southwestern Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which is in charge of reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

While the Bush Administration is under fire for failing to produce a single Iraqi weapon of mass destruction three months after the official close of the war, critics claim that the motive for the invasion all along was control of Iraqi oil. And if the bonanza in oil contracts won by giant oil companies is any indication, Washington is moving swiftly to secure access to Iraq's oil wealth once and for all.

To the Victors Go the Spoils

Shell along with Chevron, BP and seven other oil giants, have won contracts to buy Iraq's new oil production of Basra Light crude. The contracts cover production from the Mina Al-Bakr port in southern Iraq from August to December of this year. Under the deal, Iraq will supply 645,000 barrels per day (bpd) for export, an increase on the 450,000 bpd produced in July but still just a third of pre-war levels.

BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq to pick up their two million barrels. Among the other companies that have signed deals to buy the oil are ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon Oil, Total of France, Sinochem of China and a company from the Mitsubishi group, which is buying for Japanese refineries.

Iraq's northern export pipeline from the Kirkuk fields through Turkey has remained closed since the US occupation because of sabotage bombings and war damage.

The main job of overseeing the repair work of Iraq's oil infrastructure was discreetly awarded to Halliburton, a company formerly headed by United States Vice President Dick Cheney, just after the invasion of Iraq was completed. The company is the favorite to win the two contracts for reconstruction of the oil industry, one for the oil industry in northern Iraq and the other for the south. A total of 220 projects are planned which must be completed for Iraq's oil production to reach prewar levels. The projects are divided into three phases, with a total estimated cost of $1.14 billion.

Working in Iraq has helped bolster Halliburton's finances. The company made a profit of $26 million, in contrast to a loss of $498 million over the same time period a year earlier. The company stated that 9 percent, or $324 million, of its second-quarter revenue of $3.6 billion came from its work in Iraq.

Meanwhile the reaction to this news in the streets of the Arab world has been one of anger. Radwan Aziz, an Emirati citizen in Dubai, said: "Oil is what the US was after from all this."

Russia Left Out in the Cold?

The sales contrast sharply with contracts signed by the previous regime of Saddam Hussein with Russia and France. "Unfortunately, not a single Russian company managed to clinch a contract, as we went for the best price," says acting oil minister Thamer Ghadhban.

But Russian companies are worried that they are being shut out of new contracts and may even lose previous agreements. For example, in 1997 Russia's Lukoil signed a 23-year contract for the West Qurna field as the head of a consortium. The project is expected to produce 600,000 barrels of oil per day.

Shortly after the invasion in March Leonid Fedoun, vice president of Lukoil, told the Russian daily Kommersant that his company would sue any rival for Iraq's huge West Qurna oil field for at least $20 billion.

"Nobody can develop this field without us in the next eight years. If somebody decides to squeeze Lukoil out, we are going to appeal in the Geneva arbitration court [the International Commercial and Industrial Arbitration Court], which will immediately arrest this field," said Fedoun. The case could last up to eight years. Fedoun also threatened to have tankers of Iraqi crude halted to keep from losing the $3.7 billion investment in West Qurna.

Bush Makes Sure US Companies Go Unchallenged

But legally there is not much that the Iraqis or Russians can do to contest this in the United States because of an executive order signed by president George Bush in late May. Executive order number 13303 states "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

With this, Bush granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution. This order applies to Iraqi oil products that are "in the United States, hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." (Under US law, corporations are "persons.")

"In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US," explained Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC.

"Anything that has happened before with oil companies around the world -- a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; or lawsuits by Iraq's current creditors or the next true Iraqi government demanding compensation -- anything at all, is immune from judicial accountability," he says.

"Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of US oil corporations," Vallette added.

Pratap Chatterjee is Program Director/Managing Editor of CorpWatch. Oula Al Farawati is a reporter for Pratts News Service based in Jordan.

[SLCPUNK]

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So whats wrong with Iraq allowing foregn investment? It would get their oil industry running a lot faster in the process where it would create a better economy faster for Iraq. If it lowers gas prices for us and helps with revenue for the new Iraqi government  and at the same time doesnt screw over the Iraqi people whats the harm?

[SLCPUNK]

You didn't read it.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Besides hearsay and conspiracy arguments, do you have one ounce of proof that Iraq was invaded for the oil?  If you want to be considered a respectable and legitimate poster for your ideas, you at least need some proof SLC.  So far all you've provided us is "articles" from conspiracy theorist and pictures from these same loons.  If you're gonna attack the "right" for their articles, at least provide something factual from a legitmate source -- an no, moveon.org and those on its payroll aren't legit; at least by your own standard.

[SLCPUNK]

Besides hearsay and conspiracy arguments, do you have one ounce of proof that Iraq was invaded for the oil?  I

I've got a helluva lot more evidence (presented again and again) they were invaded for oil then you ever had (or will) for WMD. 

I have shown articles for over two years from legit news sources showing W (you and your goons) were wrong. Guess what? I stand correct, the majority of the nation now supports ME and my articles are all in my history.

Here are some of my sources you call conspiracy theorists:

Wall Street Journal
Newsweek
UK Indep.
Washington Post
NY Times
Christian Science Monitor
BBC
Judicial Watch (Conservative Watch group)
Energy Bulletin (government)
Guardian
Corporation Watch

All legit and none of my articles have ever been incorrect. All based around things that really happened. Not opinion pieces.

Please..be my guest and take apart the article from Corp Watch above. Do some research and prove it all a lie. I can bet you won't because you can not. Show everybody here how much you know your shit, by taking apart my "conspiracy theory" aritcles.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Besides hearsay and conspiracy arguments, do you have one ounce of proof that Iraq was invaded for the oil?? I

I've got a helluva lot more evidence (presented again and again) they were invaded for oil then you ever had (or will) for WMD.?

I have shown articles for over two years from legit news sources showing W (you and your goons) were wrong. Guess what? I stand correct, the majority of the nation now supports ME and my articles are all in my history.

Here are some of my sources you call conspiracy theorists:

Wall Street Journal
Newsweek
UK Indep.
Washington Post
NY Times
Christian Science Monitor
BBC
Judicial Watch (Conservative Watch group)
Energy Bulletin (government)
Guardian
Corporation Watch

All legit and none of my articles have ever been incorrect. All based around things that really happened. Not opinion pieces.

Please..be my guest and take apart the article from Corp Watch above. Do some research and prove it all a lie. I can bet you won't because you can not. Show everybody here how much you know your shit, by taking apart my "conspiracy theory" aritcles.

Hey SLC , youve got a friend in Iran:

Iran president: Charge Bush for war crimes
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ? Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

Your arguements sound a lot like his.
 

[Jamie]

Hey SLC , youve got a friend in Iran:

Iran president: Charge Bush for war crimes
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ? Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

Your arguements sound a lot like his.
 

And what's that supposed to show? That he's some sort of Middle Eastern dictator? Hey everyone it was really SLC behind 9/11! That doesn't prove anything, I could go and dig up a lot of sources from fascist dictators that sound a lot like ideals of the modern right wing, but I won't because that doesn't prove shit.

[SLCPUNK]

Hey SLC , youve got a friend in Iran:

Iran president: Charge Bush for war crimes
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ? Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

Your arguements sound a lot like his.
 

You have taken it down to the sandbox level at this point. Pretty much sums it up for you. There is nothing left, you can not longer defend your liar in the white house. So you throw out "conspiracy articles" and juvenile posts (see above) as a pathetic last resort.

Put a fork in it, you are done, just like Bush.

[jameslofton29]

There is definitely way too much propoganda coming from BOTH sides.

[Surfrider]

Besides hearsay and conspiracy arguments, do you have one ounce of proof that Iraq was invaded for the oil?? I

I've got a helluva lot more evidence (presented again and again) they were invaded for oil then you ever had (or will) for WMD.?

I have shown articles for over two years from legit news sources showing W (you and your goons) were wrong. Guess what? I stand correct, the majority of the nation now supports ME and my articles are all in my history.

Here are some of my sources you call conspiracy theorists:

Wall Street Journal
Newsweek
UK Indep.
Washington Post
NY Times
Christian Science Monitor
BBC
Judicial Watch (Conservative Watch group)
Energy Bulletin (government)
Guardian
Corporation Watch

All legit and none of my articles have ever been incorrect. All based around things that really happened. Not opinion pieces.

Please..be my guest and take apart the article from Corp Watch above. Do some research and prove it all a lie. I can bet you won't because you can not. Show everybody here how much you know your shit, by taking apart my "conspiracy theory" aritcles.

It really is nothing new.  Bush has said from the start, in my view wrongly, that contracts for rebuilding Iraq will only go to those that actually sacrificed something in freeing Iraq.  I don't think it goes very far in proving any sort of war for oil argument.

[SLCPUNK]

It really is nothing new.  Bush has said from the start, in my view wrongly, that contracts for rebuilding Iraq will only go to those that actually sacrificed something in freeing Iraq.  I don't think it goes very far in proving any sort of war for oil argument.

It is really nothing new that you would discount it in such a fashion either.

[SLCPUNK]

Besides hearsay and conspiracy arguments........

Hey SLC , youve got a friend in Iran:

 

I don't think it goes very far in proving any sort of war for oil argument.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hey SLC , youve got a friend in Iran:

Iran president: Charge Bush for war crimes
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ? Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

Your arguements sound a lot like his.
 

You have taken it down to the sandbox level at this point. Pretty much sums it up for you. There is nothing left, you can not longer defend your liar in the white house. So you throw out "conspiracy articles" and juvenile posts (see above) as a pathetic last resort.

Put a fork in it, you are done, just like Bush.

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black accusing me of coming up with conspiracy articles....

Speaking of juvenille, do you always personally attack those like Guns N Rock Music in your signiture who dont agree with you or is that something new?

All I did is draw a parallel between you and the Iranian leader , which I ment to be humerous but kinda true in the context.