If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote:
Don't think I support Iraq, I don't. Bush got into power on the contributions of the oil industry towards his election expenses, it's now pay-back time. He has to wrest control of the Iraqi oil fields from Iraq and put control into the hands of US oil industry stooges. It's tough that thousands will be have to die to boost the oil company profits. I actually don't buy that. For one thing, by and large, the business community is against a war. Just look at how the markets are reacting. Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. I am still not convinced there actually will be a war. I guess I have been indulging in wishful thinking when I theoretized the noise would subside after the mid-term elections. Anyway, which rationales are we left with, besides the assumption that this administration is living in a parallel universe, fightinmg windmills out of their own imagination? One would be simply an exercise of killing Arabs. For the sake of the US collective psyche, which needs revenge after the loss of face we all know of. Which US right wing, now out of the closet en masse, is really craving for. Another one, somewhat less cynical if also more stupid is that this administration may have decided they can't live any longer with our friend Saddam making them look like fools time and again. Except, of course, if, after the war is over, no weapon of mass destruction is found and their dishonesty/stupidity becomes clear. Which would be the man's last irony... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do. It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:00:23 +0000, Simon Elliott wrote:
devil writes Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. Right. If you don't let them buy, of course one has to look at plan B... Seriously though, this was a much more critical situation, and they didn't do it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Simon Elliott" wrote in message ... The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force .... Just a small difference. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Tosser writes
The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force .... Just a small difference. Nope. The US Defence Secretary told the British Ambassador that the US was considering using force. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Simon Elliott wrote in message ...
devil writes Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. So? Did they do it? No. A lot of things get "considered". Nixon and Johnson both "considered" using nukes in Vietnam. Part of every analysis is to look at all the options and decide what is best. The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in the world to believe such a lie. Sjoerd |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Tchiowa" wrote in message om... The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...114586,00.html If we are to belive this article, the US did at least consider going to war over oil. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:19:30 +0100, the renowned "Trent Stensnes"
wrote: "Tchiowa" wrote in message . com... The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...114586,00.html If we are to belive this article, the US did at least consider going to war over oil. Even when the Soviet Union was still around. It was a no-brainer in 2003, by comparison. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal | devil | Asia | 117 | January 29th, 2004 01:03 PM |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal | devil | Asia | 0 | December 31st, 2003 10:22 PM |