Author: matt605

Saddam's trial prosecutors say he killed 148, not 148,000. Just 148. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-4 07:19:52 |Display all floors
Now back on the subject, is it 148  or 148,000?

Does it matter?

Then, the Americans helped Saddam (the Americans were stupid, thought Saddam)

Now, the Americans help Saddam (the Americans are stupid, thinks Saddam)

If I were the Americans, I won't even dare doubt the lower figure.

It is simply too embarrassing.



---
Whampoa

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-4 17:34:13 |Display all floors

A VICTOR'S SPEECH??

I said Tony Blair collaborated with Bush to go to war in Iraq.

Both LIED to the World to invade Iraq.  You should watch the interview Tony Blair gave to BBC.  It almost made me choked with laughter.

Yes, that DISGRACED British PM said it was HIS God's call that he went to war in Iraq!  WOW, you think that comes from a pychopath?  

In this millennium, leaders go war (to KILL AND MURDER) because of God's calling (?) ... implicitly suggesting there was simply no concrete justification for the war.  Of course, the 45-minute threat (which cost the life of an eminent scientist) was NONSENSE and so was the WMD (which never existed).  

Oh, that cute sheepish Blair whose face and evasive eyes during the interview made him look like he was punched (and deserving it absolutely) a hundred times.


Here is an abstract from the interview from the BBC:

The prime minister told ITV1's Parkinson chat show that he believed God would judge him over his decision.

Reg Keys, whose son was killed in Iraq, said Mr Blair was "using God as a get-out for total strategic failure" and his comments were "abhorrent".

But Labour MP Stephen Pound praised Mr Blair for being "painfully honest".

Mr Blair told Michael Parkinson, in an interview being screened on Saturday, how he had struggled with his conscience when making decisions about a potential war in Iraq.

"When you're faced with a decision like that, some of those decisions have been very, very difficult, most of all because you know these are people's lives and, in some case, their deaths," he said.

"The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience."

He added: "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people."

Asked to explain what he meant, Mr Blair replied: "If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."




---
Whampoa

[ Last edited by whampoa at 2006-3-4 05:50 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-3-4 20:04:18 |Display all floors

Reply #16 whampoa's post

[quote]Yes, that DISGRACED British PM said it was HIS God's call that he went to war in Iraq!  WOW, you think that comes from a pychopath?[/quote]


Blair is disgraced, I regret voting for him but never again;
I will never again vote for any candidate who supported Blair's
attack on Iraq.He allowed the army of liars in the White House
to con the UK into a war.

[ Last edited by christopher_104 at 2006-3-4 08:07 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-3-4 23:18:34 |Display all floors
I don't think the USA and its allies went into Iraq with noble intentions as Bush and Blair so often claim.

But - I also don't think the USA went in for a simple 'oil grab' as many people seem to believe. As someone in this thread has already stated, the American people are paying more for their oil than EVER before. In addition, the Iraq war has cost the Americans nearly 250 billion dollars so far and continues to cost them roughly 10 billion dollars more every month - not to mention the cost in lives and political strife at home.

At the moment, the US is only importing some 400 thousand barrels of oil per day from Iraq (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_g ... urrent/import.html) which, even at todays outrageous oil prices (approx 60$ US per barrel), only works out to about 250 million dollars worth of oil coming from Iraq every day. In other words, 7.5 billion dollars per month.

So that means, even if the Americans were getting all that Iraqi oil for free (and they aren't - they have to PAY for it just like everyone else does), it would still make more sense from a financial standpoint to keep your troops at home and pay full price for the oil.

And simply, that's why I believe stating the Americans invaded Iraq 'just for the oil' is a gross over-simplification. It doesn't make fiscal sense. Oh, and before you call me a 'Bush sympathizer'  - I'm not. I don't think the Americans went in with good intentions at all, nor do I think the current government is particularly concerned with the wellbeing of the Iraqi people. I'm merely saying, 'they went in for the Iraqi oil' is only a partial explanation at best.

And Chris - as usual you are a joke. This thread has nothing to do with Israel, yet once again you can't resist bringing it up. I looked at the map you posted (don't bother removing it now, I have it saved and will simply re-post it) and something didn't seem quite right about it. I looked a bit closer and what do you know? Jordan is still known as 'trans-Jordan' and Israel is still known as 'Palestine'. In other words, this map is at least 55 years out of date

As I have stated before, you have shown no evidence to prove the Iraq war - either of them - had anything to do with Israel. I seriously doubt many Israeli's shed any tears when Saddam was ousted, but the notion that the Americans went in primarily for Israel-related reasons is ridiculous. As I often say to you: PROVE IT - and this doesn't mean posting some source saying the Israelis WANTED the Americans to take out Saddam. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis, apart from being long term allies of the Bush family, had FAR more to fear from Iraq than Israel ever did.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-5 00:59:35 |Display all floors

Reply #18 jonathan85's post

But - I also don't think the USA went in for a simple 'oil grab' as many people seem to believe. As someone in this thread has already stated, the American people are paying more for their oil than EVER before. In addition, the Iraq war has cost the Americans nearly 250 billion dollars so far and continues to cost them roughly 10 billion dollars more every month - not to mention the cost in lives and political strife at home.


Briefly, let me answer the portion relevant to me.

Oil is certainly the reason or an important reason.  If you read the article that I posted in the previous page carefully you will understand what OIL means, the kind of BIG MONEY that we are talking about.

The first thing that the American army guarded when they first invaded Iraq was to guard the OIL mines and factories in Iraq.  Panic spread (among the American military and, of course, at the White House) when Osama's men targeted at those oil mines.  You should not have so quickly forgotten the PANIC and ANXIETY among the invaders at the time when black smoke billowed from those OIL mines and factories in Iraq.

NOT OIL?  I think you're the Joke and the real joker here to deny this.

As to the price of OIL, it will NEVER be any cheap even if the Americans had won the war.  It should not be too difficult to guess where the excess goes to or whose pockets it will fill.  Will it be distributed back to everyone?  WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF?

WHAT IS YOUR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT ?

As to the cost of billions of dollars to America, let's say

THEY HAVE LOST THE WAR WITH COST.

But, let me tell you even this "COST" is not paid by the Americans alone.


You are paying the COST and so am I right here.

The Americans are alright no matter what, they simply drag us all in.

STUPID FOOL!



---
Whampoa

[ Last edited by whampoa at 2006-3-5 01:09 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-3-5 03:26:40 |Display all floors
Still an oil grab, but may be more also.

I see the price of gasoline as a part of the invasion effort.  By allowing gas prices to spike, it awakens regular citizens to how vulnerable the USA is to disruptions -- therefore we must control all Middle East oil resources, directly or indirectly.  LIkewise anything that makes Muslims look like crazy fanatics helps the war effort.  When American have the price of gas double and then see Muslims rioting in the streets, it touches a very raw emotion.

The oil America seized is still in the ground.  Iraq is a huge oil field, second only to Saudi Arabia.  Saddam signed a bunch of deals with the Germans and French to allow them to develop Iraq's fields after sanctions were lifted.  So we grabbed the oil from Iraq, France, and Germany.


So that means, even if the Americans were getting all that Iraqi oil for free (and they aren't - they have to PAY for it just like everyone else does), it would still make more sense from a financial standpoint to keep your troops at home and pay full price for the oil.

And simply, that's why I believe stating the Americans invaded Iraq 'just for the oil' is a gross over-simplification. It doesn't make fiscal sense. Oh, and before you call me a 'Bush sympathizer'  - I'm not. I don't think the Americans went in with good intentions at all, nor do I think the current government is particularly concerned with the wellbeing of the Iraqi people. I'm merely saying, 'they went in for the Iraqi oil' is only a partial explanation at best.


The reasons we invaded Iraq have changed numerous times since March 2003.  First, we invaded because Saddam wouldn't disarm his bio/chem weapson and because he was trying to build nuclear weapons.  Colin Powell made his point at the United Nations about Saddam purchasing uranium from Niger while CIA Director George Tenet sat behind him.  At one point, George W. Bush said we toppled Saddam because of an assassination attempt on George H W Bush when he visited Kuwait in 1993.  Dick Cheney said we invaded Iraq because Saddam and al Qaeda were connected.  Later he denied having said it.  Condi Rice said "we don't the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."  So we were invading to prevent a nuclear attack on America.  Often, it has been said that we were in Iraq because Saddam was a mass-murderer who gassed his own people.  Now it turns out he simply ordered trials that resulted in the deaths of 148 people following an assassination attempt on him in the early 1980s.  So when people ask, "Where do you get this stuff?" then the answer is that I get it from the White House in Washington.

I believed we would invade Iraq in August 2002.  Bush was hammering Iraq because Saddam would not allow UN Inspectors in.  Saddam capitulated.  Then Bush began insisting that Saddam had to disarm.  When capitulation was greeted with a new demand, then I knew that invasion was the only objective.

The USA has done itself great harm through the invasion of Iraq.  America is a radicalizing influence in the MIddle East, and we aren't leaving ever.  Babies born today will likely see military service in Iraq and some other Middle East countries as well.  

I know it is an injustice to detain the prisoners in Gitmo further.  Maybe I'm not willing to risk the potential harm that could result from releasing people that my country's government has tortured and mistreated.  I guess I don't see a greater terrorism risk from keeping them locked up.  We should probably turn loose those who are wrongly held and deal with the consequences instead of holding them forever.

Now that America is safely settled into its conquest of the Middle East, maybe we can get some new oil refineries built and the prices at the pump will drop below $2 per gallon again.


[ Last edited by matt605 at 2006-3-5 01:56 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-3-5 11:35:21 |Display all floors
NOT OIL?  I think you're the Joke and the real joker here to deny this.

Whampoa, either you haven't a proper grasp of the English language or you simply didn't bother to read my post. I never said it wasn't about Iraqi oil, I never denied anything. I simply said that in my opinion this was only a partial reason behind the Americans actions. Who is the real fool here?

Matt: I dont buy any of the 'official' reasons why the Americans went in. Obviously neither do you. I think the Iraq war has more to do with the Saudis than meets the eye. Iraq shares a border with Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait and Iran. Having bases in Iraq is a great way for the Americans to keep their 'allies' in line.

I think the 'appropriation' of Iraqi oil was only a secondary objective.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.