Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?

[gopher]

"George Bush invaded Iraq because he believed that they posessed weapons of mass destruction."


No he didn't. He knew fully well that Saddam did NOT have WMD. All the more reason to impeach, remove from office, and convict for high crimes. Thereafter, a Nuremburg Tribunal.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Should George Bush be

And a rope. Capital punishment for capitalist pigs.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Should George Bush be

I read it.

Long dated contracts are often structured so that the investor gets a return. So what? That's common in long-dated capital projects across many industries. Your Manitoba Hydro also tries to protect itself by making a specific return on equity.

such acumen. :roll:

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Should George Bush be

thanks for the link, beav. not sure what it means, really, but I'm sure its a step in the right direction.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Should George Bush be

such acumen. :roll:

PSAs are eeeeeeeeeeeeevil! Eeeeeeeeeevil I tell you!

 

[BitWhys]

All PSAs are contracts, but not all contracts are PSAs.

Guaranteed first cut of all profits applied to costs prior to any royalty payments according to schedule irrespective of market conditions or the degree of efficieny incurring costs. sweet.

 

[pastafarian]

As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.

The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same Institute. <2> This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans. <3>

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."

The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies.

Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq

US delays planned meeting on exploiting Iraq's oil and gas reserves
30-10-02 The US State Department has pushed back its planned meeting with Iraqi opposition leaders on exploiting Iraq's oil and gas reserves after a US military offensive removes Saddam Hussein from power to early December. According to a source at the State Department, all the desired participants are not yet available.

The Bush administration wants to have a working group of 12 to 20 people focused on Iraqi oil and gas to be able to recommend to an interim government ways of restoring the petroleum sector following a military attack in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible US military occupation government -- further fuelling the view that controlling Iraqi oil is at the heart of the Bush campaign to replace Hussein with a more compliant regime.
The State Department wants to include not only Iraqi opposition leaders such as Ahmed Chalabi and Sharif Ali Bin al Hussein of the Iraqi National Congress, but recently defected personnel from Iraq's Ministry of Petroleum, and representatives of the US Energy Department. It had originally scheduled the meeting for the end of this month, but was unable to pull together everyone on its list.

According to the source, the working group will not only prepare recommendations for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi petroleum sector post-Hussein, but will address questions regarding the country's continued membership in OPEC and whether it should be allowed to produce as much as possible or be limited by an OPEC quota, and it will consider whether to honour contracts made between the Hussein government and foreign oil companies, including the $ 3.5 bn project to be carried out by Russian interests to redevelop Iraq's oilfields, which, along with numerous other development projects, has been thwarted by United Nations sanctions.



Source: OGI

Interesting article.

 

[Toro]

All PSAs are contracts, but not all contracts are PSAs.

Guaranteed first cut of all profits applied to costs prior to any royalty payments according to schedule irrespective of market conditions or the degree of efficieny incurring costs. sweet.

But there are other types of contracts the author didn't mention. These are contracts where the oil company is gauranteed a certain amount of revenue based on the capacity of the field at a specific price. If the field generates revenue above that amount, revenues accrue to the host government in a manner such that the propotion of revenues generated per barrell of oil in the field falls for the oil company. This means that the oil company has booked too many barrels of oil on its balance sheet based on the too-low price, and thus, because of accounting convention, must reduce its booked probable reserves. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the CEOs of some of the large super-majors have been saying the normalized price of oil is around $40, and that prices are too high. Its in their interests to do so, otherwise they will eventually have to adjust their booked reserves downward. That's a PSA, my man, and I didn't read that in the link. So it cuts both ways.

 

[I think not]

And what about the Iranian Oil Bourse? Anybody know if it has gone into effect?

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Should George Bush be

What's the Iranian Oil Bourse?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Should George Bush be

What's the Iranian Oil Bourse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Should George Bush be

Thanks for the link, ITN.

 

[Toro]

And what about the Iranian Oil Bourse? Anybody know if it has gone into effect?

No. It was delayed until next week. But I haven't heard if it will be up and running by then.

 

[BitWhys]

But there are other types of contracts the author didn't mention...

Why should they? It was a report on what was going on in Ir aq, not a world survey. You think the Iraqis are getting a square deal? good for you and duly noted.

The Bourse won't be until summer or even later even though these days the market looks in a lot of ways like it opened anyways. :lol:

 

[BitWhys]

re DU:

I guess the answer is less. Here's something to know though...

Uranium’s Effect On DNA Established

Her research may shed light on the possible connection between exposure to depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, or to increased cancers and birth defects in the Middle East and Balkans. And closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in Arizona at more than 1,100.

that would be Saskatchewan in our neck of the woods, wouldn't it?

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Should George Bush be

Are you done with the silly conspiracy theories?

I know it is hard to answer, but i asked you a very simple question, what are the reason for the war in iraq??


no WMD
no Immenent threat
no liberation


so what is left??



OIL AND ONLY OIL.

 

[Toro]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such linear thinking aeon

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq by the US were multifold

1.) For the US itself into the middle Middle East and crush al-Qaeda by asserting pressure on the governments in the region that tolerated al-Qaeda to operate, particularly Syria, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Iran in the future, but also to establish bases that the US could use to strike within the region to places as far away as Yemen and Sudan. There was little crackdown on al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia until after the US invaded. By geography, Iraq is the most strategically located country in the Middle East since it borders Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and the Gulf, and is within a few hours flying distance of pretty much anywhere important.

2.) To prevent a rotten state from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. Iraq was perceived as a country that could have descended into civil war after Saddam died (the Americans were right, eh?), leaving a vacuum, and possibly allowing al-Qaeda to seize control on the country. It is intolerable for the US to have al-Qaeda controlling the apparatus of state power.

3.) To get rid of a dictator whom the neoconservatives believed should have been taken out in 1991, since he was considered by the administration to be a threat, either immediately or in the future. The US - and every other major intelligence agency in the world - believed Saddam had WMD of some kind. And considering his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the US believed that he had incentive to supply al-Qaeda with WMD. The US administration believed that there was a high threat of a nuclear dirty bomb going off in the US during the Spring and Summer of 2002. They wanted no chance at all of this happening, and they believed the most likely place for WMD to be released was through Iraq, whether that threat was imminent or not.

4.) To rid the perception in the region that the US is a soft power. Bin Laden has made several statements that the West is soft - inflict a little blood and they will leave. The Saudis didn't crack down on al-Qaeda following 9/11 because they didn't see much upside to doing so, because what was the US going to do, invade a country in the region?

5.) To establish a democracy and wait for another Eastern European scenario to ensue. Now, this was a distant goal. And the US certainly didn't invade Iraq to establish a democracy. However, the US believes it is in their long run benefit to establish democracy in the region.

You can't use any of those reasons for a pre-text to an invasion. You can't say, we're going to invade to occupy a country to crush a terrorist group. You can't say we're going to rid the region of a rotten regime because it could fall into the hands of terrorists. You can't say we're going to finish business we should have finished a decade ago. You can't say we're invading to pressure other countries in the region. You can't say that they're going to invade to show that America is not afraid to spill blood. You can't say we're invading a country to establish democracy.

But you can say that Saddam has WMD, is in league with terrorists, and had defied the UN for a decade. That's a reason to invade.

However, Bush was wrong, and hung himself on WMD, and is now enduring the consequences.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Aeon still on his conspiracy theory rants? 8O
Dude call it a day pick up your toys and trying something new. :wink:

 

[aeon]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such linear thinking aeon

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq by the US were multifold

1.) For the US itself into the middle Middle East and crush al-Qaeda by asserting pressure on the governments in the region that tolerated al-Qaeda to operate, particularly Syria, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Iran in the future, but also to establish bases that the US could use to strike within the region to places as far away as Yemen and Sudan. There was little crackdown on al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia until after the US invaded. By geography, Iraq is the most strategically located country in the Middle East since it borders Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and the Gulf, and is within a few hours flying distance of pretty much anywhere important.

Wrong, alquada and saddam hussein, werent friends, nice try, in fact alquada and oussama bin laden sees sadddam hussein, the same way he sees the americans and the whole west, which is ""infidels""

What you are saying, 1 of the reason to invade was a geo political strategic reason, which i agree, and i strongly not support.

There was no crackdown on alquada after the us invaded by saudi arabia, in your dream maybe, actually saudi arabia are the greatest alquada supporter.

2.) To prevent a rotten state from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. Iraq was perceived as a country that could have descended into civil war after Saddam died (the Americans were right, eh?), leaving a vacuum, and possibly allowing al-Qaeda to seize control on the country. It is intolerable for the US to have al-Qaeda controlling the apparatus of state power.

This argument worth abostly nothing,only speculation at his best.

3.) To get rid of a dictator whom the neoconservatives believed should have been taken out in 1991, since he was considered by the administration to be a threat, either immediately or in the future. The US - and every other major intelligence agency in the world - believed Saddam had WMD of some kind. And considering his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the US believed that he had incentive to supply al-Qaeda with WMD. The US administration believed that there was a high threat of a nuclear dirty bomb going off in the US during the Spring and Summer of 2002. They wanted no chance at all of this happening, and they believed the most likely place for WMD to be released was through Iraq, whether that threat was imminent or not.

This worth nothing again, since it was proved saddam wasnt a threat at all, for anyone in the world.

4.) To rid the perception in the region that the US is a soft power. Bin Laden has made several statements that the West is soft - inflict a little blood and they will leave. The Saudis didn't crack down on al-Qaeda following 9/11 because they didn't see much upside to doing so, because what was the US going to do, invade a country in the region?

What the hell is this?? the whole administration doesnt even care about oussama bin laden, saddam hussein was even more important, even after he was arrested, still we hear more about saddam hussein than oussama bin laden.The saudis didnt cracked down on alquada after 9-11, cause the saudi are their main source of money and interest to alquada, actually the fbi was denied acces to 9-11 terrorist family by the saudis.

5.) To establish a democracy and wait for another Eastern European scenario to ensue. Now, this was a distant goal. And the US certainly didn't invade Iraq to establish a democracy. However, the US believes it is in their long run benefit to establish democracy in the region.

You can't use any of those reasons for a pre-text to an invasion. You can't say, we're going to invade to occupy a country to crush a terrorist group. You can't say we're going to rid the region of a rotten regime because it could fall into the hands of terrorists. You can't say we're going to finish business we should have finished a decade ago. You can't say we're invading to pressure other countries in the region. You can't say that they're going to invade to show that America is not afraid to spill blood. You can't say we're invading a country to establish democracy.

But you can say that Saddam has WMD, is in league with terrorists, and had defied the UN for a decade. That's a reason to invade.

However, Bush was wrong, and hung himself on WMD, and is now enduring the consequences.

Democracy for who exactly?? for us coorporation or for the iraqi peoples?? according to iraqies, the invasion is more of an humiliation than anything else.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm



do you remember pinochet coup during the 70s?? the cia helped to get rid of an elected leader to replace it with a dictator which was pinochet, so the democracy reason, is just to get support from people like you, who arent able to dig for the truth.

Defying UN resolution isnt a reason to invade,
saddam has violated 14 resolution out of 17 , when israel has violated 72 resolution out of 72 in the last 50 years,so should we invade israel??

 

[pastafarian]

aeon, just wanted to say that I admire your perserverance!!!! :beer:

Cheers!