US drone have murdered 1000's

[Anna B]

Why? Do you really believe that the US Forces landed in Iraq without any oil of it's own because some General told them that they'll just use the oil from the Iraqi fields and refineries as they go along and capture them. :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 22:26 ----------

 

 

As I said before if Saddam had given free access to the United Nations WMD search teams instead of denying them access which only made it appear that he actually did have MWDs he could have saved himself a lot of misery.

Who was to say at that time that Saddam if he did have WMDs would not have slipped a few to the likes of Al Qaeda or Hamas. After all Saddam hated both the US and Israel. He was at the time the most reckless and dangerous man in that part of the word. Used chemicals against his own people, fired Scuds at Israel hoping to ignite a conflagration across the whole middle east

 

Let's not forget that the 'weapons of mass destruction' dossier was 'sexed up.'

 

In other words exagerated. We were lied to. For all we know it could have been made up entirely. Hans Blix in January 2003 stated that 'access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect' and 'Iraq had co operated rather well.'

 

Of course, after the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly we'll probably never know. And the Chilcott enquiry, if it is ever published, will probably be an expensive whitewash. But you're wrong to say that it was Saddam's lack of co operation that caused the war.

 

This war was going to happen by hook or by crook.

[Tommo68]

Really? Wow, that's the same mindset as those who believe 9/11 was an inside job too!

 

Thwe term you are looking for not 'inside job' its 'false flag' like both 9/11 and 7/7.

 

There are some people who are so scared or ignorant, perhaps both, that they won't accept anything that differs from their own misconceptions.

 

Sad but true.

.

.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 02:35 ----------

 

Oh knackers ! Give it a rest! If Saddam had fully co-operated with the UN and allowed unfettered access to the search teams instead of acting all arrogant and denying them access, making out he really had something to hide (which he didn't) then he would still be alive. The man was a fool who by his own behavior brought it all upon himself

 

It would not have mattered how much hussain had co-operated with the UN he had to go...not because of his attacks on kuwait, not for his human rights violations or his ethnic cleasing of the kurds, he had to go whether he had wmds or not because like gadaffi because he had dared to sell oil not for dollars.

.

.

[Harleyman]

Let's not forget that the 'weapons of mass destruction' dossier was 'sexed up.'

 

In other words exagerated. We were lied to. For all we know it could have been made up entirely. Hans Blix in January 2003 stated that 'access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect' and 'Iraq had co operated rather well.'

 

Of course, after the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly we'll probably never know. And the Chilcott enquiry, if it is ever published, will probably be an expensive whitewash. But you're wrong to say that it was Saddam's lack of co operation that caused the war.

 

This war was going to happen by hook or by crook.

 

Prove that statement. There were satellite photos of vehicles moving in convoys, the material carried on those trucks not able to be identified. Obviously in hindsight the material was not WMDs but how was that to be known at the time? Blix statement that Iraq "had co-operated rather well" is wishy washy and far from being positively affirmative and convincing.

 

Many arguments against the invasion of Iraq are pure 20/20 hindsight which means absolutely nothing at all. Many Monday morning quarterbacks have blown off loads of opinions why the invasion should never have happened but until the CIA and M.I.6 files on this episode are released for public scrutiny the real truth will not be known. In the meantime it costs us SF members nothing to sit at our keyboards and swop out various views on the subject

[Mecky]

So in a week of joining the OP has made 117 posts at the time of this reply and none of them are in anyway helpful. That's another alias sent to iggy then

[Harleyman]

Thwe term you are looking for not 'inside job' its 'false flag' like both 9/11 and 7/7.

 

There are some people who are so scared or ignorant, perhaps both, that they won't accept anything that differs from their own misconceptions.

 

Sad but true.

.

.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 02:35 ----------

 

 

It would not have mattered how much hussain had co-operated with the UN he had to go...not because of his attacks on kuwait, not for his human rights violations or his ethnic cleasing of the kurds, he had to go whether he had wmds or not because like gadaffi because he had dared to sell oil not for dollars.

.

.

 

Oh come off it ! Another conspiracy theory about "dollahs and oil" Why is it when oil comes up for debate it's always associated with $$$$?'

 

This always comes across as some kind of fictitious comic book story plot to rule the world by Doctor Evil.

 

Saddam was a loose cannon. Bush senior decided not to finish the job after the first Gulf War but that was before 9/11 happened. Any country which had been the victim of a 9/11 attack would have had the right to go after the perpetrators. Saddam may not have been involved but with his record and reluctance to fully and 100 percent co-operate with the United Nations he was suspect in having WMDs. That was reason enaough

[loraward]

Oh come off it ! Another conspiracy theory about "dollahs and oil" Why is it when oil comes up for debate it's always associated with $$$$?'

 

This always comes across as some kind of fictitious comic book story plot to rule the world by Doctor Evil.

 

Saddam was a loose cannon. Bush senior decided not to finish the job after the first Gulf War but that was before 9/11 happened. Any country which had been the victim of a 9/11 attack would have had the right to go after the perpetrators. Saddam may not have been involved but with his record and reluctance to fully and 100 percent co-operate with the United Nations he was suspect in having WMDs. That was reason enaough

 

That was an error and I can never figure out why people are against the job being finished, a man capable of doing what he did should never have been left in power.

[Harleyman]

I think we need to let the rest of the world solve their own problems from now on. Stop foreign aid, stop foreign wars.

 

And how do you stop types like ISIS committing terrorist acts in your own back yard? They are out there. We can either get rid of them before they get to us or sit on our duffs and wait for more to come to us.

 

The world is a global village and no nation these days is an island unto itself

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 06:39 ----------

 

That was an error and I can never figure out why people are against the job being finished, a man capable of doing what he did should never have been left in power.

 

My opinion is that once the so called "Arab Spring" started to spread across the middle east Saddam would have faced the same resistance and open warfare against his regime that Mubarak, Ghadaffi and currently Assad are dealing with.

 

You have to remember when it comes to Iraq and Syria that these two countries are abortions created by Great Britain and France long ago after the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

 

Not much though was put into cobbling together nations comprised of squabbling tribes and sooner or later it was all bound to fail just like Yugoslavia was created from Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Croats which existed on borrowed time right from the day it was created

Edited April 4, 2015 by Harleyman

[loraward]

And how do you stop types like ISIS committing terrorist acts in your own back yard? They are out there. We can either get rid of them before they get to us or sit on our duffs and wait for more to come to us.

 

The world is a global village and no nation these days is an island unto itself

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 06:39 ----------

 

 

My opinion is that once the so called "Arab Spring" started to spread across the middle east Saddam would have faced the same resistance and open warfare against his regime that Mubarak, Ghadaffi and currently Assad are dealing with.

 

You have to remember when it comes to Iraq and Syria that these two countries are abortions created by Great Britain and France long ago after the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

 

Not much though was put into cobbling together nations comprised of squabbling tribes and sooner or later it was all bound to fail just like Yugoslavia was created from Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Croats which existed on borrowed time right from the day it was created

 

The Ottomans had managed Arabia through a decentralized system of provinces… Tribal, sectarian and territorial conflicts made it a constantly turbulent place, despite the hammer of Ottoman rule.

 

It sound like the tribal conflict were happening before its demise, it was after all build on violent conflict.

[buck]

That's pretty easy thicko. They import oil either by pipeline from neighbouring countries or by tanker via the oceans. The thing about tankers is they all show up on Vesseltracker. So if the USA was getting tanker loads of oil from Iraq we would all know about it.

I think you will find that most of the oil used by the US forces during the invasion of Iraq was brought with them. The planes were refuelled on the carriers where they were based. They didn't have to land in Iraq and buy fuel from the gas station. I think you will also find that the fuel usage of the US forces in Iraq would amount to around 0.01% of the fuel usage of a nation of 300,000,000 who drive around all day in gas guzzler cars and fly between major cities as a matter of course. If you bothered to check your facts you would find that the USA has cut back massively on oil imports even from Canada as it is getting most of its requirements from the shale reserves.

 

By the way the USA has 2 huge naval bases in Saudi. The King Abdulaziz Naval Base & The King Faisal Naval Base. The US navy ships were refuelled there throughout the conflict as it wasn't possible for most of them to use Iraqs only port which was both damaged and in range of Iranian missiles. Other than that you did a pretty acurate report.

All US carriers, submarines, and many of its smaller ships are nuclear, and need no petroleum fuel. My Hyundai Elantra does 35 mpg distance. Is yours any better. In any case, at $2.15 a gallon, who cares.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 08:58 ----------

 

Killing people without a trial is murder. We are no better than those we brand as the 'bad guys'.

 

If you can't see this then you are brainwashed by the 'good guys' propaganda.

 

On 911--- it couldn't be clearer---all three towers that day were brought down by controlled demolitions.

 

2300 architects and engineers have signed a petition stating this.

It gets funnier by the hour. All those planes crashing into the towers on video. It must have been Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 or 2000.:loopy:

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 09:09 ----------

 

Seriously the Iraq war was 14 years ago, do you expect me to remember where and when I read everything about it?

Excuses, excuses. You have to try harder in school. All those Ds, Mafyosi:hihi:

Edited April 4, 2015 by buck

[Anna B]

Oh come off it ! Another conspiracy theory about "dollahs and oil" Why is it when oil comes up for debate it's always associated with $$$$?'

 

This always comes across as some kind of fictitious comic book story plot to rule the world by Doctor Evil.

 

Saddam was a loose cannon. Bush senior decided not to finish the job after the first Gulf War but that was before 9/11 happened. Any country which had been the victim of a 9/11 attack would have had the right to go after the perpetrators. Saddam may not have been involved but with his record and reluctance to fully and 100 percent co-operate with the United Nations he was suspect in having WMDs. That was reason enaough

 

The difference between British and American sensibilities is that the first tends to be cynical the second unfailingly patriotic.

 

Many 'Conspiracy Theories' are actually grounded in little known facts, (little known because that's the way the powers that be want it to stay,) however if you care to look, and dig around a little, cross reference etc, you will find them and they start to add up. So I think you should do that.

 

Conspiracy theories often turn out to be well substantiated.