Activity Stream
227,828 MEMBERS
11012 ONLINE
greengrassforums On YouTube Subscribe to our Newsletter greengrassforums On Twitter greengrassforums On Facebook greengrassforums On Google+
banner1

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
  1.     
    #41
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
    I take it your talking about Iraq.......

    After Iraq invaded Kuwait they managed to be put on U.N. sanctions, had no fly zones, etc..........more less being punished by the international community. Now after breaking 16 U.N. resolutions, funding families of martyrs, etc....we finally had enough and decided to take action but there were "issues". WHY won't our so called allies back this? Well, AFTER we took the bull by the horns guess what.......FOOD FOR OIL! Seems our "so called" allies along with some fine folk from the U.N. were lining their pocket in illegal trade with Saddam and Sons.

    Next reason............:yippee:

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

    Took the bull by the horns? You still believe that crap?

    We don't give a shit about Iraq we wanted an excuse to invade. Period. Bush Sr. LET Saddam invade kuwait they wanted him to. They even went as far as to give one of the Suad princess acting lessons so she could lie and say babies were being torn from incubators, to inflame the public. The Bushites know that if we lose the oil over there the balance of power in OPEC changes and they can choose to trade oil in Euros instead of the US dollar. We stand to lose a lot becuase our leadership has kept us so dependent on oil.



    Let me remind you of this little exchange.

    1990 American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Saddam Hussein America's go-ahead to invade Kuwait, and Hussein smiled.

    The exchange was reported in the New York Times of September 23, 1990.

    US Ambassador Glaspie: I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (Pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (Pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship ?? not confrontation ?? regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait??s borders?

    Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (Pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

    Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?

    Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab ?? our strategic goal in our war with Iran ?? we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam's view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (Pause) What is the United States?? opinion on this?

    Glaspie: We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles.)

  2.     
    #42
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Blue cat, where did you dig up this info about the Iraqi embassador, thats chilling. That means we set up the whole thing. I guess thats what you get with an ex-CIA for president (Bush one). I'm at a point in my observance of our government where I can almost believe any evil deeds apportioned to them. It seems that evil and deceit are commonplace in everyday governance of our country and our foriegn policy. I'm sure this country is not alone in this activity, but if we're supposed to have the high moral ground, we're certainly showing dismal leadership qualitys! Whatever happened to "MY" america, land of the free, home of the brave!
    [SIZE=\"4\"]Amendment IV [/SIZE] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  3.     
    #43
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCat
    Let me remind you of this little exchange.

    1990 American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Saddam Hussein America's go-ahead to invade Kuwait, and Hussein smiled.
    OOPS! I forgot that the conspiracy theory ALWAYS takes precedence.:spam4:

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

  4.     
    #44
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Excuse me Psycho what exactly are you calling conspiracy theory? The "conspiracy theory" crap just isn't going to work anymore. We have a government of liars and the gig is up.
    It IS about oil and its control in the middle east always has been. Prove me wrong.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist I fact check and cross reference everything I read.

    That article came from the New York times
    http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

    and if that is too "liberal" for you try reading the entire PDF from the Archives of the (Bush Library):
    Gulf War: US Embassy Bagdhad to Washington (Saddam's message of friendship to George Bush) [declassified 1998]

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/arch...p?docid=110705

    Oh and then there is the matter of Nurse Nayirah...that was suppose to be conspiracy too.

    "Nurse Nayirah" was a creation of public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for promoting the 1991 Gulf War.

    Fifteen-year-old "Nayirah" (Nijirah al-Sabah) testified before the United States Congress in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the occupation by Iraq she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators "on[to] the cold floor to die," and then leaving with the machines. The testimony came at a crucial time for the Bush administration, which was pressing for military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Nayirah's story was widely reported by the media and Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks. The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen would say Nayirah's testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52-47 vote.

    In reality, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, had hired Hill & Knowlton to gain support for the US counterstrike. Hill & Knowlton was paid $14 million by the US government for its help in promoting the Gulf War. It was not revealed until later that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward, later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.

    Lauri Fitz-Pegado, later Assistant Commerce Secretary, invented Nayirah's story and coached the girl. She also prepared Iraq-invasion testimony for the UN which was later discredited...

    Home Box Office (HBO) presented Nayirah's story as truth in their 2002 Live From Baghdad. HBO eventually added, after the final credits, that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated."

  5.   Advertisements

  6.     
    #45
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCat
    Excuse me Psycho what exactly are you calling conspiracy theory? The "conspiracy theory" crap just isn't going to work anymore. We have a government of liars and the gig is up.
    It IS about oil and its control in the middle east always has been. Prove me wrong.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist I fact check and cross reference everything I read.
    LMAO! I've come to realize that with some it don't matter what actually happened it just depends on how it's written up. Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait because of oil disputes in the southern Iraq/Northern Kuwait region? Wasn't Saddam stating that Kuwait feels that Iraq is a nation of dogs? Wasn't Saddams/ Iraqs actions condemned by all the U.N. and also the Arab league?

    I believe you do cross check info you see and I also believe that there is more than one journalist/paper that is completely anti-U.S.

    By the way.....how many U.S. oil companies have contracts in Iraq for drilling or future drilling as opposed to lets say Canada, Norway, England, etc.......

    Nice to have ya back, if a bird only has a right wing without the left he will never fly!

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

  7.     
    #46
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    But Psycho the source I posted was from Bush's own library so I don't get your point not one of the links I posted were from anti US sources. Maybe you need to read the history of oil in the region. You tell me who do YOU believe controls and who profits from the oil reserves in Iraq?
    Remember my youngest is majoring in Middle Eastern Politics! I hear this stuff all year long.

    All producer companies want to gain control of lucrative profits, by fair means or foul. Company rivalry typically leads beyond ordinary market-based competition.

    As many studies show, companies and their sponsor governments do not shrink from backing dictatorial governments, using bribery and corruption, promoting civil violence and even resorting to war, to meet their commercial goals and best their competitors.

    The modern history of the Middle East bears witness to this process. In one notorious example, US intelligence services recruited in 1959 a young Iraqi thug named Saddam Hussein to take part in the assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister Abd el-Karim Qasim. Washington feared that the nationalist Qasim might act independently and alter the favorable terms under which their oil companies operated. A few years earlier, in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installing the autocratic Shah, in order to gain control over Iranian oil and redistribute British production shares to US companies.

    A recent court case in France, involving high officials of the national oil company Elf Aquitaine, provides a glimpse of more recent operations in this world of oil intrigue and covert competition between the giant companies. The case revealed bribes, espionage, sexual favors, arms smuggling, civil strife and plots to overthrow governments, all with the complicity of French military and intelligence services as well as politicians at the highest levels. These actions had a terrible effect on a number of oil-producing countries, mostly in Africa. They spread malfeasance, corruption and anti-democratic practices in France as well.

    Those who deny oil company complicity in the Iraq War always insist that the companies have little political influence, that they are ??out of the loop? in Washington, that they are just one industry group among many others. These arguments are utterly false. The oil companies have always enjoyed ??insider? privileges with the US and UK governments, resulting in many unique favors in the name of ??national security.?

    The United States government offers the companies extremely favorable tax treatment, including the ??oil depletion allowance? and ??intangible drilling costs? ?? far more than the ordinary capital depreciation available to other companies. In 1960, at the behest of the National Security Council, the international companies obtained the lucrative ??foreign tax credit,? enabling deductions for taxes or royalties paid to foreign governments. In 1974, while the US corporate tax rate was 48%, the nineteen largest oil companies paid a tax rate of only 7.6%.16

    The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws. Though the US government knew for decades about the international oil cartel, federal authorities took no enforcement action until 1952, when President Harry Truman ordered a criminal anti-trust suit. The companies mobilized all their legal and political muscle to quash the case. General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly approached the President and successfully urged that the ??national security? required a softening of the government??s legal stance. Shortly afterwards, the National Security Council decided on various limitations to the suit that further weakened the government??s case. Though the judicial process lumbered on for fifteen years, the oil companies had nothing to fear and remained safely protected by the national security umbrella. Today, after a decade of mega-mergers, the companies still escape anti-trust scrutiny.

    US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines all asserted Washington??s special concerns in the Gulf and arrogated to the United States special rights to ??protect? or ??defend? the area. Recently-released secret papers show that during the oil crisis and Arab oil embargo of 1973, Washington seriously considered sending a military strike force to seize some of the region??s richest fields ?? in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

    In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a ??vital interest? of ??long standing,? he said, and the United States ??must have free access to the region??s resources.?

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...niesiniraq.htm

    Come on Psycho post some facts that back up what you are saying or at least state your point a little more clearly.

    Ahhhhh yep its good to be back I'm gonna give you a run for your money!

  8.     
    #47
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    "US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. "

    This should come as no suprise to anyone that knows anything at all regarding history and common logic. How do you run industy.......oil. What is needed during war....a heavy industrial center for manufacturing munitions, etc....

    This area is VITAL to not only the U.S. but also Europe, China, etc..... Our government is doing a little give and take with the oil industries for being there........NO suprise at all. WE have supported governments in that region that weren't the most popular with the people in that area.......NO suprise. Fact is we HAVE to have a foothold of some sort in that oil rich area for national security reasons.

    What happened when Iran stated that they would shut off the pumps if there were sanctions? Chirac made it possible to use nuclear weapons in the case of not only acts of direct terrorism on France but also Economic terrorism like a country shutting off oil supplies (Iran is it's largest supplier). It's not ONLY the U.S., just that the big dog always gets the bad rap.

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

  9.     
    #48
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    By the way........if you can show me where Kuwait was acting aggressively against U.S. interests I MIGHT consider the Saddam permission to invade theory. Fact is though, Kuwait actually backed Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war because they to were afraid of Iran marching on the entire middle east. Saddam received backing from the U.S., Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to mention a few........where you see an Iraqi debt that needed to be forgiven you'll find his backers.

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

  10.     
    #49
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
    "US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. "

    This should come as no suprise to anyone that knows anything at all regarding history and common logic. How do you run industy.......oil. What is needed during war....a heavy industrial center for manufacturing munitions, etc....

    This area is VITAL to not only the U.S. but also Europe, China, etc..... Our government is doing a little give and take with the oil industries for being there........NO suprise at all. WE have supported governments in that region that weren't the most popular with the people in that area.......NO suprise. Fact is we HAVE to have a foothold of some sort in that oil rich area for national security reasons.

    What happened when Iran stated that they would shut off the pumps if there were sanctions? Chirac made it possible to use nuclear weapons in the case of not only acts of direct terrorism on France but also Economic terrorism like a country shutting off oil supplies (Iran is it's largest supplier). It's not ONLY the U.S., just that the big dog always gets the bad rap.

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:
    Oh damn, I'm so confused. You're just too tough to keep up with Psycho. First you say this was about WMD's, then it was about "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions" and "funding families of martyrs", then you tell me it really was about WMD's. But now you're saying that all along it's really been about oil. I can't wait to hear what comes next????

  11.     
    #50
    Senior Member

    What about impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Fengzi
    Oh damn, I'm so confused. You're just too tough to keep up with Psycho. First you say this was about WMD's, then it was about "breaking 16 U.N. resolutions" and "funding families of martyrs", then you tell me it really was about WMD's. But now you're saying that all along it's really been about oil. I can't wait to hear what comes next????
    No doubt Saddam pissed us off and no doubt we were looking for a GOOD reason.........found one, did that.........

    I notice you NEVER mention anything regarding Food For Oil and WHO was envolved in that.......hmmmm, must be an oversight I'm sure. LOL

    Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Widening Chasm on Impeachment
    By fishman3811 in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 07:23 AM
  2. The Democrats and the Impeachment Clause
    By fishman3811 in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 07:09 PM
  3. Iranian Impeachment?
    By Zimzum in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-16-2007, 12:28 AM
  4. Last Hope For Impeachment
    By pisshead in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 03:29 AM
  5. Here's something for you impeachment moonbats
    By amsterdam in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2006, 05:39 PM
Amount:

Enter a message for the receiver:
BE SOCIAL
GreenGrassForums On Facebook