So why did Saddam get removed from Iraq?

[sickbeatz]

For running a country where several people got beat up and treated poorly by guards in some Iraqi prisons he knew nothing about? Or the 100 or so people that were killed while America was trying to rob Iraq for their oil?


Hmm. Have you ever wondered how long it takes for an oil field to be profitable again after being burnt to shit? What did Saddam do months prior to America leaving Iraq during the first gulf war? He burnt them oil fields.

How come one of the first objectives was to remove Saddam from Iraq during America's latest campaign against Iraq? Maybe they didn't want him destroying those beautiful oil resources again before they got a chance to steal it all?

[biftek]

[sarcasm]oh c'mon bush told us it was the weapons of mass destructions , and the mobile bio-warfar labs [/sarcasm]

[Violetta]

Saddam was a loonie!

[casinoguy]

no matter what I thing it was good that saddam was removed, he is a very sick man.

[TheMaster]

MONEY MONEY MONEY

not for the US as a country

but for some US business people, you know them, they call themselves friends of W

btw the longer the US troops stay in Iraq, the more some earn money, so the only downside to staying is political capital and support from the population, but hey guess they figure it couldn't last forever

so after running the US into the ground financially (how is your debt to China doing ???), they'll leave it to the democrats and after 4 years they'll blame the democrats for the bismal state the country is in

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

btw have nothing against McCain, he got screwed so painfully

[ronbotx]

This is supposed to be an adult webmaster board and the Bush bashing with repetetive, bogus, and leftist propaganda is boring.

Why not post this crap on "democraticunderground" or "dailykos". The wackos there will appreciate it and call you a genius for spewing the same misinformation they do....

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by ronbotx

This is supposed to be an adult webmaster board and the Bush bashing with repetetive, bogus, and leftist propaganda is boring.

so FOX, please at least say what is wrong and why?

[smack]

because he is a hitler. er no.

he has weapons of mass destruction. er, naw....

shut up, look, a fetus. let's go invade. whatever you need to hear.

[Donny]

Well, he tried to kill George Sr. He had ta go, ya know? Thousands of our troops are happy to die so that our President can take revenge on the dude that plotted to kill daddy. They're honored.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by Donny

Well, he tried to kill George Sr. He had ta go, ya know? Thousands of our troops are happy to die so that our President can take revenge on the dude that plotted to kill daddy. They're honored.

Busg sr. ? Who was that again ?
Oh was that the guy who

1. under Reagan sold bio, chemical & nuclear supplies to Saddam, so Saddam could attack Iran

2. the guy, who as head of the CIA, funded Osama Bin Laden

3. who embezzled the American peope by stealing 1 billion out of Social Security

but why wasn't he put in jail for all this ???

he became President of the USA

Funny how someone can face impeachment for lying about a blowjob, but you can steal and betray your country and still get secret service protection

[ronbotx]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

so FOX, please at least say what is wrong and why?

His very first statement is so ridiculous, the rest is not even worthy of discussion... Did you even graduate from high school?

"For running a country where several people got beat up and treated poorly by guards in some Iraqi prisons he knew nothing about?"






http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilit...3889&R=C495A28

Just a preview:

"The Iran-Iraq war put large strains on Iraq's economy, military, and regime. Saddam dealt with the resulting problems in characteristic fashion. Just as with Stalin during World War II, large amounts of blood were shed not only on the military front, but also behind it. Shias were not the only targets. In a single episode in the mid-1980s, the regime rounded up and killed around 10,000 Kurds. Even before the war ended, the regime launched a much more ambitious program to wipe out entire Kurdish communities. It was in this military campaign--named Operation Anfal--that the regime used chemical weapons against several Kurdish towns, killing thousands. Human Rights Watch estimated that Anfal killed "more than 100,000" Kurds, and that Kurdish victims of the regime's campaigns between 1983 and 1993 reached "well into six figures."

or this:

"In the 1990s, Saddam's regime continued to commit individual political murder. Victims included people suspected of anti-Saddam activity, others who were friends and relatives of the suspected subversives, as well as people caught up in the mafia-like violence of Uday Hussein and other regime figures. Throughout these years, Amnesty International catalogued credible reports of hundreds of killings every year, and quite possibly thousands in several years.

From 1997 to 1999, the regime "cleansed" its prisons, executing up to 2,500 people. Around the same time, the regime began a new campaign against selected Shia. Prominent Shia clerics were assassinated, prompting public demonstrations, which were savagely suppressed with an unknown number of victims. And a new military offensive was launched against groups in the southern marshes in 1998. In the decade leading up to the Coalition invasion, political murder also extended deeper into the regime's ranks than ever before. Thousands in the military died in periodic purges, and killing extended even into Sunni tribes and Saddam's own family.

Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by ronbotx

His very first statement is so ridiculous, the rest is not even worthy of discussion... Did you even graduate from high school?

I'm not contesting that he was evil or that he shouldn't be removed

the question only is: WHY did they react now?

They could have done it in 1990? Bush Sr told the Kurds and Shias that they should revolt and that they would be liberated. Kurds and Shias rebelled, but the help never came and as a consequence even more Kurds and Shias got killed, the retribution was huge. Also one of the reasons why Iraqis didn't shower the Americans with flowers, is that they haven't forgotten this treason from the 90s.

So, why not have gone to Baghdad then? Because everyone in the Western World wanted to keep Saddam there, because although he didn't pose a threat to us, he still could keep Iran under control.

Now Bush Jr's reason, well not really his, but his friends:

let's make some money of the Iraqis, but also of the American people
in 2003 Bush and co told the war would cost no more than 1.3 billion in tax payers money, it's what now almost 200 billion?

[MikeVega]

Originally Posted by Donny

Well, he tried to kill George Sr. He had ta go, ya know? Thousands of our troops are happy to die so that our President can take revenge on the dude that plotted to kill daddy. They're honored.

NIGGA TRIED TO KILL MY FATHER !!!!

[u-Bob]

I hope saddam brings back "quick reply"

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by ronbotx

This is supposed to be an adult webmaster board and the Bush bashing with repetetive, bogus, and leftist propaganda is boring.

Why not post this crap on "democraticunderground" or "dailykos". The wackos there will appreciate it and call you a genius for spewing the same misinformation they do....

You cant fight it. Strange political parties use these ignorant kids to spread messages that they cant spread themselves. Dont kill these messengers, they actually believe the stuff they are being told to repeat. They are just not experienced enough in worldly matters to understand how they are being used.

A very good example of how these kids are being used is the michael moore movie. Most of these kids think michael moore is democrat. If they actually knew what he wanted for the country, they would be running the other way.

They just havn't been told the real issues, and they dont know enough to seek them out. It not a coincidence, a new crop of kids show up every year and join the fight.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

You cant fight it. Strange political parties use these ignorant kids to spread messages that they cant spread themselves. Dont kill these messengers, they actually believe the stuff they are being told to repeat. They are just not experienced enough in worldly matters to understand how they are being used.

A very good example of how these kids are being used is the michael moore movie. Most of these kids think michael moore is democrat. If they actually knew what he wanted for the country, they would be running the other way.

They just havn't been told the real issues, and they dont know enough to seek them out. It not a coincidence, a new crop of kids show up every year and join the fight.

right back at you, you've probably fot FOX right?

btw my sources: NOT Michael Moore, but news outlets like BBC, AP, ...
you know news, not those shows masquerading as news you have in the US (on TV anyway)

[AmateurFlix]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

You cant fight it. Strange political parties use these ignorant kids to spread messages that they cant spread themselves. Dont kill these messengers, they actually believe the stuff they are being told to repeat. They are just not experienced enough in worldly matters to understand how they are being used.

A very good example of how these kids are being used is the michael moore movie. Most of these kids think michael moore is democrat. If they actually knew what he wanted for the country, they would be running the other way.

They just havn't been told the real issues, and they dont know enough to seek them out. It not a coincidence, a new crop of kids show up every year and join the fight.

yeah

anyone that disagrees with you is an ignorant kid

you're someone whose comments are worth taking seriously

[RayBonga]

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'


enough said.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by RayBonga

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'

enough said.

indeed, kind of painful coming from the 'Leader of the Free World'

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

yeah

anyone that disagrees with you is an ignorant kid

you're someone whose comments are worth taking seriously

I think you are mistaken. I was not trying to make a political point. I was only explaining to one poster why people spam all internet message boards, (not just political boards), with political threads over and over with the same messages.

I really dont care which way they think or vote, I was just explaining the reason for the spam.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I think you are mistaken. I was not trying to make a political point. I was only explaining to one poster why people spam all internet message boards, (not just political boards), with political threads over and over with the same messages.

I really dont care which way they think or vote, I was just explaining the reason for the spam.

could be, but I know my reason and I guess this is for most people the reason (especially non americans): we watch the news and it infuriates us.

We've come to a point where, if their mistakes/crimes/treason is discovered, they don't even get punished for those things, they just make up new lies or just (and this is the worst) laugh with it.

[TheMaster]

It's not that they lie, it's that they don't even try to hide the lies, because the consequences are almost not existant anymore.

anyway: a recount of ballots was made illegal, doesn't that tell you enough, nowhere in the world, would that be considered democratic.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

could be, but I know my reason and I guess this is for most people the reason (especially non americans): we watch the news and it infuriates us.

We've come to a point where, if their mistakes/crimes/treason is discovered, they don't even get punished for those things, they just make up new lies or just (and this is the worst) laugh with it.

I understand that for sure. Americans have long stopped waiting for corrupt european and UN leaders to be punished. Its just not going to happen. The only thing we can do is not vote in the American citizens that will aid and assist those corrupt leaders.

[SmokeyTheBear]

who cares WHY he got removed.. he is removed.. its a moot point.. Lets discuss what we do now.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

It's not that they lie, it's that they don't even try to hide the lies, because the consequences are almost not existant anymore.

anyway: a recount of ballots was made illegal, doesn't that tell you enough, nowhere in the world, would that be considered democratic.

Thats a very good example.

Most foreign people are under the assumption that the main official recount of the election was stopped. The fact is that many recounts were completed. The SC decion was only to stop future recounts which may not have been "Independent."

Unfortunatly, that detail was not widely reported.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Thats a very good example.

Most foreign people are under the assumption that the main official recount of the election was stopped. The fact is that many recounts were completed. The SC decion was only to stop future recounts which may not have been "Independent."

Unfortunatly, that detail was not widely reported.

euh, some recounts were still being done !!!!!!!!!!!!!
followed that election for 11 months, every day

and what do you say about those 50.000 people in Florida, who were restricted from voting in Florida

did that ever get solved, no

and everything probably wouldn't have gone away, if it wasn't for 9/11

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by sickbeatz

Maybe they didn't want him destroying those beautiful oil
resources again before they got a chance to steal it all?

While control of Iraqi oil is a good argument, saying the US is simply stealing it is absolutely absurd. Don't believe me? Here's some facts Michael Moore won't tell you:

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...681119,00.html

Iraq has tumbled a long way since the heady days of 1990, when it pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day, its peak production year. Since then, wars, sanctions and neglect have left the industry in tatters.

Nobody has definitive numbers on Iraq's oil production, but analysts say daily production this year will average about 1.8 million barrels per day, about 10 percent less than 2004 levels of about 2 million barrels -- and just over half 1990 levels
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005..._3912_8_05.txt

Current price of crude oil per barrel: 68.48
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Using the the LOW estimate of the war costing 1 Trillion Dollars we have the following: $1,000,000,000,000 / $68.48 = ~$14,602,803,738

So using the low projected cost of the Iraqi War, the same spending dollars wise could buy more than 14.5 billion barrels of oil at today's prices on the open market.

How long would it take for Iraq to produce 14.5 billion barrels of oil at it's maxium pre gulf war 1 rate? Well, 14,602,803,738 / 3,500,000 = ~4172 days. That's more than 11 years.

Conclusion: Under ideal conditions, it would take Iraq more than 11 years to produce enough oil to offset the overall cost of the war. Assuming that the US just took the oil and didn't buy it.

Maybe your deffinition of stealing is different than mine?

[xcitecash]

Originally Posted by Rockatansky

Saddam was a loonie!

compared to the Bush family i thought he was quite sane and certainly more intelligent

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I understand that for sure. Americans have long stopped waiting for corrupt european and UN leaders to be punished. Its just not going to happen. The only thing we can do is not vote in the American citizens that will aid and assist those corrupt leaders.

like Bush who supports the royal family in Saudi Arabia ???

like Bush Sr, who before his presidency, supported Bin Laden and Saddam ???

are you now saying that your current leader isn't corrupt?

[xcitecash]

Originally Posted by ronbotx

This is supposed to be an adult webmaster board and the Bush bashing with repetetive, bogus, and leftist propaganda is boring.

Why not post this crap on "democraticunderground" or "dailykos". The wackos there will appreciate it and call you a genius for spewing the same misinformation they do....

when did being left of centre mean "wacko""

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by WarChild

While control of Iraqi oil is a good argument, saying the US is simply stealing it is absolutely absurd.

it is, but then again, I never said the US was getting rich of it
some people in the US are getting rich of it, with all those exploitation contracts and deliveries to the US army

this is the first war, where the US army (I think any army) has outsourced the kitchen detail, wonder why ???

[xcitecash]

Prescott Bush was head of a bank that funded Hitler FACT

George Bush Senior funded Saddam and supplied technology and weapons

We know the Bin Laden family funded Baby George..

So all you need to do is find out who Bush is funding now and Hey Presto they are you future enemies

[AmateurFlix]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I think you are mistaken. I was not trying to make a political point. I was only explaining to one poster why people spam all internet message boards, (not just political boards), with political threads over and over with the same messages.

I really dont care which way they think or vote, I was just explaining the reason for the spam.

point taken, but I disagree with your reasoning; merely expressing a viewpoint on a message board does not make a person sheeplike, though sheep may certainly post on message boards

on a side note, I wonder how many political consultants have jobs which consist mostly of posting on message boards to get the ball rolling

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by WarChild

While control of Iraqi oil is a good argument, saying the US is simply stealing it is absolutely absurd. Don't believe me? Here's some facts Michael Moore won't tell you:





Current price of crude oil per barrel: 68.48
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Using the the LOW estimate of the war costing 1 Trillion Dollars we have the following: $1,000,000,000,000 / $68.48 = ~$14,602,803,738

So using the low projected cost of the Iraqi War, the same spending dollars wise could buy more than 14.5 billion barrels of oil at today's prices on the open market.

How long would it take for Iraq to produce 14.5 billion barrels of oil at it's maxium pre gulf war 1 rate? Well, 14,602,803,738 / 3,500,000 = ~4172 days. That's more than 11 years.

Conclusion: Under ideal conditions, it would take Iraq more than 11 years to produce enough oil to offset the overall cost of the war. Assuming that the US just took the oil and didn't buy it.

Maybe your deffinition of stealing is different than mine?

Seeesh... you put a lot of time in that reply...

One thing it does put in perspective:

BUSH CAN'T RUN A GOV , no more than a company....

Just another FAILURE!

[JamesK2]

[JamesK2]

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Current price of crude oil per barrel: 68.48
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Using the the LOW estimate of the war costing 1 Trillion Dollars we have the following: $1,000,000,000,000 / $68.48 = ~$14,602,803,738

So using the low projected cost of the Iraqi War, the same spending dollars wise could buy more than 14.5 billion barrels of oil at today's prices on the open market.

How long would it take for Iraq to produce 14.5 billion barrels of oil at it's maxium pre gulf war 1 rate? Well, 14,602,803,738 / 3,500,000 = ~4172 days. That's more than 11 years.

Conclusion: Under ideal conditions, it would take Iraq more than 11 years to produce enough oil to offset the overall cost of the war. Assuming that the US just took the oil and didn't buy it.

Maybe your deffinition of stealing is different than mine?

You don't seriously expect this sickbeatz guy to understand any of that,

do you?

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Seeesh... you put a lot of time in that reply...

One thing it does put in perspective:

BUSH CAN'T RUN A GOV , no more than a company....

Just another FAILURE!

All I'm saying is that it's as ridiculous to boil down the war in Iraq to "stealing oil" as it is to attribute it to "spreading democracy". They're both naive, ill conceived positions that people repeat because it's spoon fed to them.

Is it fair to say oil and more specifically control of the currency it's sold in was a part of the reason to war? Absolutely. That's not what was originally posted though.

[directfiesta]

to combat outsourcing of torture jobs ....

Americans can do it as well if not better ....

A jury of six Army officers convicted Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. in charges resulting from the suffocation death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush.

The general was placed head-first in a sleeping bag as Welshofer covered his mouth and sat on his chest during a fatal interrogation in November 2003. Prosecutors accused Welshofer of using harsh techniques to try to get information from Mowhoush, describing them as "torture."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3548323a12,00.html

These are good paying jobs !!!!