Bush admits real motive for mid-east wars: Oil and Israel!!!

You asked me "What sort of deals did the French do with Iraq Pepik, please supply documentation", I thought that meant individual weapon systems. You can calculate the percentages with this data: http://web.archive.org/web/20040601181327/projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf And no, I never claimed that France sold 99%. I said the USSR (actually the Warsaw Pact countries), China and France sold 99%.

Your common dreams reporter seems to be a bit confused. I provided a list of arms suppliers. She seems to be confusing weapons sales with "dual use" technologies. Nobody sold Iraq wmd's, it developed its own. But some countries sold Iraq technologies that could have been used to develop WMDs - these can be anything from medical equipment to computers. Germany is generally seen and the biggest provider of technologies used for Iraq's WMD programmes, but as I said since this stuff has alternative legitimate uses, it is much harder to pin the blame than it is for conventional weapons systems, which are more easily measured. In my opinion the reason there is so much concern about dual use technologies is because when people look at who sold Iraq all its arms, they are disappointed to find it wasn't the US so they have to go looking for another way to blame USA. When they find the US wasn't the biggest supplier there either, they stop looking at total sales and focus exlusively on the US, so that people will be tricked into thinking that the US was the major supplier. It works quite well, and at most anti war forums most people think the US armed Saddam, not the USSR, China, and France.

 

WMD, where, who? Did we find any?

What happened to Germany's role in this? Oops they probably sold the goods for the non existent WMD, so they shouldn't be counted.

China received the technology to share with Iraq through arms sales made with Israel, but who supplied Israel with the original technology?

What about the arms deliveries to Iraq after occupation that went missing because no one was held accountable. Where are they whose hands are they in?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061030/news_1n30weapons.html

 

Dude, do you have anything to say about the topic yet?

I'm going to try. Are you saying that you can't understand why people with different views would be in the same forum?

No, I'm here to listen to other viewpoints too.

Trolling doesn't mean having an opinion different than the majority.

Then you must be starved for entertainment.

I think the concept of "the law" under Saddam to be a bit of a joke. Were the Kurds gassed because there was no law against massacring them? The law meant whatever Saddam wanted it to mean.

Maybe you could concede a little more than "not a saint".

I never said you needed enlightenment from Bush.

 

Actually we are way off topic and you were blaming France, China and Russia for arming Iraq, but if you trace the technology back, most originated with US firms trying to make a buck and manipulate the world.

Back to oil....if not why are we in Iraq?

 

Okay cupcake... read and refute. This covers the sub-plot of whether we armed Iraq. While I don't doubt there are other countries involved, I'm fairly sure we played a pretty central role in providing the evil Saddam his fire power.

Now on to the central theme of this thread... since we aren't likely to see any such confession of motivation from our President we must rely on outside sources and yes, some conjecture from folks with presumably better access to pertinent information:
Read this and comment....
Submitted for your review...
Here's a discussion touching on the real motivations behind our erroneous policy.

Here's some resource from the horse's mouth about what the war is not about... and here's more reason to doubt the tidbits that the administration spoon feeds us.

Here's a discussion about what the war may well be about, and I may just as well provide the URL to the site where I found many of these links.

Essentially MY point is that it's fairly obvious (at least to me) that the real reasons behind our actions in Iraq are not what we have been told. By engaging in its policy of deceit, the Bush administration has effectively stripped anything coming from the White House of its credibility so to use the words of our executive evolutionary step backward to justify what has gone on; not only in the name of the American people, but also funded by their tax revenue is not going to lend any credibility in the minds of many- so from my standpoint mere conjecture that were are in Iraq for oil and Israel are no less reliable than the tidbits delivered from the official Washington spinmill.

 

You really need to do a lot more reading if you think Iraq never had any WMDs. Saddam admitted he had WMDs. The issue you are getting confused about is whether Saddam got rid of them after 1991 as he was required to; the US claimed he didnt. Either that or you're playing silly word games about whether chemical weapons are WMDs.

Non existant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm

Hilarious. So after all those requests for documentation, you're just going to wave it away with some bizarre unsubstantiated claim. I guess the reality of who armed Iraq is just too much for you to handle.

Read and refute what? I never said the US had no role. I said 99% was from France, China and the USSR and I provided year by year, country by country, and weapon system by weapon system breakdowns of what Iraq bought. I showed who armed Iraq, when, and how. Your articles look only at US guilt. As I pointed out, that's what people do... Ignoring the other 99%, they focus on US guilt. Anything else they just can't handle.

Also, as a rule, I don't read and comment on/refute links. You can't refute a link, it is someone else's views. A link is a link, it is not your opinion. If you can't formulate an opinion in your own words (go ahead and back it up with links), don't expect me to read thousands of words written by other people across multiple links all so I can try to guess what you are trying to say and then respond to whatever argument I am supposed to assume you are making. Your ability to cut and paste links far exceeds my capacity for responding to them, so its not really something I want to get in to.

I am not Bush's spokesperson. I never said Bush was honest or right about anything. I only speak for myself. Please keep that in mind.

 

These guys couldn't afford to withhold oil. They need the money.

 

Pepkid

Nice deversion..the question was "WMD, where, who? Did we find any? "..not if we think Iraq "ever had any". Of course they had them in the 80s, the U.S sold them chemical weapons, ect.
Bush used "the mushroom cloud" metaphore, insinuating that Iraq had a nuclear weapon..Connie Rice said the had a drone capable of delivering it to New York. They both said the threat was "immenent" All outright lies period...now that's fact jack.
Why is it you're intentionally lying and blur and distracting, knowing that innocent people are dying over a pack of lies? Do you think it's funny? Or are you just enjoying the carneige because you're too coward to serve? Come on..tell us silverspoon.

 

Dude, you are clueless. Gardener said "What happened to Germany's role in this? Oops they probably sold the goods for the non existent WMD". I pointed out that they did at one time have chemical weapons, he implied they never did. Please try to follow the debate.

And the US never sold them chemical weapons. Nobody sold Saddam chemical weapons. He developed his own chemical weapons, and its not that hard, all you need is a few commonly available chemicals.

Care to back that up with a documented quote?

Yes, and Paris is in France. However, none of this has much to do with anything I have said here. Go play with straw men somewhere else.

Prove I lied about something before making that accusation.

 

I just did...you're so delusional, I won't even take what you say serious. Typical Bush supporter..you people sound worse than Bagdad Bob, except he was more truthfull and made more sense

 

I'm sorry to have fed this Bush apologist troll (Pepik). There's no argument that is going to be treated with respect- provide a link and he won't respond to its contents; bring on an argument and be called delusional. Anyone who bothers to differ with you is greeted with a barrage of insults and half truths. Tell you what, we'll all go play with straw men elsewhere if you do hand springs in heavy traffic... fair enough? You claim to be willing to listen to differing arguments like Faux News claims to be fair and balanced.

 

Pepik says we never provided them with chemical weapons?

Don't buy it!

 

What did I lie about then, exactly? And where is the backup for your claim about Condie Rice?

Get a grip. I haven't said a word about Bush. What you need to do is calm down and realise that saying the war isn't about oil doesn't make the war justified or right or make Bush a good president. It means the war wasn't about oil. If you can't handle it when someone can back up their argument, why do you go to debating forums?

I expect people to make their own arguments. I could respond to a link that says the war was about oil with a link that says it wasn't. What would we be accomplishing? Eventually nobody would say anything, it would just be link, counter link, counter counter link... I'm here to hear peoples actual opinions.

Ha ha, yeah a real barrage.

No, why don't you try debating by expressing your own views in your own words? It that really such a crazy idea?

I'm here aren't I? You're the one who seems horrified to come across people with different views in a debating forum.

 

Dude, read you own quotes. Where does it say the US sold chemical weapons? It doesn't! Chlorine is not a chemical weapon, it is a chemical. Pesticide is not a chemical weapon, it is something sprayed on crops. Both are common chemicals, legally traded, and widely available on the world market. They have important, legitimate civilian uses. The US never sold Iraq a chemical weapon.

And about two posts ago, you were saying that these weapons never existed. Your argument is changing on an hourly basis.

 

Read this stupid.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29

 

What does Scott Ritter and John Kerry have in common?

 

It's also a question of what the U.S. didn't do during the 80s. No uproar in the U.S. over Saddam's use of chemical weapons; the U.S. not bothering to check what he was doing with the dual-use chemicals and other materials being sold to him; not questioning what would happen to the anthrax that was given to him cleared through the CDC; etc.

Yet post 911, we're suppose to fear the giant mushroom cloud rising over the U.S. because he tried to buy some aluminum tubes from China.

.

 

I don't see the Condie Rice quote in there. So I guess that makes you a liar.

Not much, no, but given that the threat of invasion didn't change Saddam's behaviour, I doubt that uproar in congress would have either.

That's all true, but many of these materials were just commondly traded agricultural or industrial products, commodities which had legitimate uses and were widely available. Saddam could easily have produced most of it himself had he desired to.

Lets get back to the topic. Gardener asked who armed Saddam, and I proved it was 99% China, Russia, and France. But we were talking about the war for oil.

Does anyone want to prove that this was a war for oil?

 

Pepik what are the motives for starting the war? And why are we staying there at the moment?

 

Could have but did he? Any proof Pepik?

And I never proved your erroneous assumption that Russia, China and France were responsible for supplying the majority of arms to Sadaam. You republicans just love to make boogeymen out of your enemies. And you feel if you keep restating your lies eventually we will believe them.

In many cases the arms and chemicals sold to Iraq went through intermediaries, but the actual arms and chemicals traced back to manufacture is something else that should be taken in to account.

For your information many pesticides are based on active chemical agents that affect the nervous system of all living organisms. We proved their efficacy in Vietnam with Agent Orange. And we knew the risk of allowing their sale to Iraq. That's why they could only be shipped under confirmed licenses. Many pesticides require a permit and inspection before use and are only allowed to be used when all safety precautions and weather conditions permit. In order to protect surrounding communities and other plant and animal life in the area.