British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil

[jimmoyer]

Being an American gives me an edge on all those who are unaquainted with their own hypocrisy and blindness.

This country is getting an education on hypocrisy that's at graduate level my friend !!!

That statement, laugh freely and so will I.

It trains us to see your own hubris very well.

Canada is not oil dependent?

If it were not, would the foundation you stand on become a quicksand of moral integrity?

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

Canada is not dependent on other states for its oil, or for energy in general. That is not the same as not being dependent on oil and I never claimed that it was.

 

[I think not]

We'll see what the Iraqi people have to say when all this is over.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

They are already saying it. Anti-American sentiment in Iraq has been on the rise since you invaded and it continues to grow.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: British lawmaker: Ira

They are already saying it. Anti-American sentiment in Iraq has been on the rise since you invaded and it continues to grow.

Of course it will. Would you like foreign soldiers on your land? I think not.
Don't jump to conclusions until the time comes.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

Yeah, because the relstives of those 100,000 dead Iraqis are going to suddenly embrace being invaded for their oil. The Iraqi famers will rejoice at not being able to save their seed. The Iraqi government will be very happy that its main source of income was taken out of their control by an unelected ideologue sent to act as viceroy during the occupation.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: British lawmaker: Ira

Yeah, because the relstives of those 100,000 dead Iraqis are going to suddenly embrace being invaded for their oil. The Iraqi famers will rejoice at not being able to save their seed. The Iraqi government will be very happy that its main source of income was taken out of their control by an unelected ideologue sent to act as viceroy during the occupation.

Inflating the casualties doesn't make a point.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
8 million Iraqis who risked their lives to vote would argue with you.

I don't recall you being an appointed delegate for the Iraqi farmers.
They have a voice, let them speak, now that they can.

Again with the oil bullshit.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

You really have nothing, don't you?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: British lawmaker: Ira

You really have nothing, don't you?

I have the casualty count http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ which you shamefully disgrace by distorting facts to fit your perception.

I have the 8 million Iraqis who risked their lives to vote who know better than you and me.

I have the right of the farmers that can choose to speak up, as you, me and everyone else on this board can.

And I also have someone putting a puzzle together trying to persuade readers this is really about oil.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

You have nothing. You are discarding any data that you find uncomfortable. You are ignoring a valid scientific and peer reviewed study. You are ignoring a world-wide debate on seed saving that has shown that when farmers cannot save seeds that they do far worse, especially in developing countries. You are putting faith in an election that has not produced a working government.

You are also ignoring that alternate solutions were being put forth but your president just had to start a war. He lied to do it. Members of his cabinet lied too.

You are choosing to ignore that the Iraqi people were doing far better under the Oil for Food program than they are under the US occupation, the ongoing stories of torture and human rights abuses by your military, and the ongoing excesses of your government in Iraq and all over the world.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Secret Downing St. Memo

Who Needs Diplomacy?

Blair Helped Plan Iraq War from Start

Doesn't really prove that Iraq was about the oil, but it does show that neither Blair, nor Bush were interested in allowing the UN to fulfill their mandate.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: British lawmaker: Ira

You have nothing. You are discarding any data that you find uncomfortable. You are ignoring a valid scientific and peer reviewed study. You are ignoring a world-wide debate on seed saving that has shown that when farmers cannot save seeds that they do far worse, especially in developing countries. You are putting faith in an election that has not produced a working government.

I'm not ignoring seed saving, I'm telling you the farmers have the right to speak up, as they have done in India. The Iraqi people put faith in the government, not I. But I suppose you know better than them.

You are also ignoring that alternate solutions were being put forth but your president just had to start a war. He lied to do it. Members of his cabinet lied too.

I know he lied, I never disputed that claim and I don't today. Thats your typical rambling

You are choosing to ignore that the Iraqi people were doing far better under the Oil for Food program than they are under the US occupation, the ongoing stories of torture and human rights abuses by your military, and the ongoing excesses of your government in Iraq and all over the world.

Tell that to the people crying over mass graves if they were doing any better. Torture? YOu mean the "gulag" in Cuba? Yes, some is excessive and unfounded, not for the reasons you constantly imply.

 

[Derry McKinney]

I'm not ignoring seed saving, I'm telling you the farmers have the right to speak up, as they have done in India. The Iraqi people put faith in the government, not I. But I suppose you know better than them.

Apparently I know better than you anyway. It wasn't the Iraqi government that made the decision, it was one of Paul Bremer's edicts. Nobody asked the Iraqis.

I know he lied, I never disputed that claim and I don't today. Thats your typical rambling

No, that's you displaying your unwillingness to tolerate any criticism of your government and to think beyond what that government tells you. Why did he lie?

 

[I think not]

I'm not ignoring seed saving, I'm telling you the farmers have the right to speak up, as they have done in India. The Iraqi people put faith in the government, not I. But I suppose you know better than them.

Apparently I know better than you anyway. It wasn't the Iraqi government that made the decision, it was one of Paul Bremer's edicts. Nobody asked the Iraqis.

And what is preventing them from speaking up now?

I know he lied, I never disputed that claim and I don't today. Thats your typical rambling

No, that's you displaying your unwillingness to tolerate any criticism of your government and to think beyond what that government tells you. Why did he lie?

Sorry Rev, I don't have to disagree with everything Bush does to fit into you perception of crticism, that's your job. He lied and played the fear card to justify overthrowing Hussein which as you have even said has been considered a threat by PNAC.

 

[Derry McKinney]

And what is preventing them from speaking up now?

Who can they complain to? Bremer's edicts makes it illegal for the Iraqi government to change his edicts...sneaky edict that one was. There is no valid Iraqi government anyway, the coalition of US approved winners can't decide what to have for lunch on any given day, never mind running a government. When they show up to protest they risk being shot by US soldiers. They can't get any help from the NGOs that usually deal with these things because the US has failed to make the country any where near secure.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Find it yourself, you have Google. The existence of PNAC documents urging an attack on Iraq aren't exactly secret.

Bullshit. None exists. Simple as that. I have found no document on PNAC site indicating the Iraq war was about oil. Only a 108 page pdf document entitled: Iraq:Setting the Record Straight

Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (September 2000)

Just because I know how much you like to read, ITN... :wink:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

 

[I think not]

I've already read that. Oil is mentioned 0 times. Try again. Congrats on becoming a mod btw.

 

[mrmom2]

I like the part were they say we need a Pearl Harbour type of event to convince the US people Then out of the blue we have the CIA trained boogeyman Osama. 8O Rather convenient for the PNAC group :x Especially Halliburton and Betchell Who used to run Halliburton ?Ohhhh it was Cheney wasn't it

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I've already read that. Oil is mentioned 0 times. Try again. Congrats on becoming a mod btw.

Thanks ITN... 8)

And as to the frequency of the word oil, I'm not sure how that is relevent to what the implications of the report are...I think that the in the drive to control Iraq, and the Middle East, control of the oil is implied...how can the US control the region, without taking control of their chief source of revenue?

Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil

In an attempt to be balanced in my views on this issue, I attempted to find evidence to refute this article, and others by Greg Palast. I found none. Not one right-wing news source, or blogger even, was able to repudiate the Newsweek article.

So, unless Google has a left wing bias, I'll have to conclude for now, that the article is based on irrefutable fact, and that the US did invade Iraq for oil.

I've made my attempt at learning the truth, the rest is up to you...

 

[mrmom2]

Fucci in Green I like it 8)