Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i present to you, jimsween, example A: a surpirsing fact that was strangely not publicized all that well....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/05/07/sprj.nitop.haliburton/index.html

Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."
-CNN.com

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people.
- Mr. President ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/ )

awww....the irony....

At 5/18/03 04:43 PM, jimsween wrote: I dont remember Bush saying that Saddams WMD were a threat to the US, I do however remember him saying he was a threat to the security of America. Which he was. So how wasnt he a threat in the means we went to war over. Through most of Bush's speeches I never heard much about WMD, just stuff about him being a tyrannical dictator and him being a threat to our security. And yes the US has financed terrorism, and that does mean we are a threat to the countries that we financed the terrorism on, just like Saddam is a theat to us by Financing and Endorsing terrorism against us. So I really dont see what you were geetting at there unless you were just trying to make the US look bad. ;-)

1) The WMD was the core on the national security reasonings with Iraq. Sure Bush kept talking about Saddam's tyrancy. His other so-called noble reasons had no backbone so he needed something to look good. Enter the liberal stratagy. Playing to people's emotions. Proving that even conservatives are full of bleeding hearts.

First, the oil isnt anybody's besides Iraq's at the moment. However the US and Britan have control over where it goes for now. And as for them getting paid well, who do you think is paying them. Thats right, the US, so why would we want to pay a French company to pump the oil when they didnt even spend any money on this war. And that last part really doesnt make sense, I'm not sure how people objecting to it gives us the green light to take the oil.

You honestly think Bush and Co are gonna tell the truth on what is to be done with the oil? Of course, they're gonna say the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. The green light was given by the UN objecting to it. You have noticed that because the UN objected, Bush conveniently demanded that the UN have no part in the reconstruction of Iraq. The UK convinced the US to give the UN some role. The green light being Bush feeling the right to tell UN they should stay out of Iraq since they didn't want to help in the war. With the UN out of the way, Bush would have full access to Iraq's oil. Make sense now? I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand.

Oh yeah you just solved eeeeverything there, it was all just to make the protesters look like bad guys. When in the end the US looks like bad guys more than anyone else. You definately should take a job as a conspiracy theorist because even the hardcore people wont belive that one.

It wasn't all just to make the protester's look bad (they partly did it to themselves by blocking traffic, but that's another area and I'm not focusing on that). Making those who object look bad was not a goal, but a step to the goal which is getting the oil while looking saintly doing so.

At 5/18/03 04:48 PM, Jiperly wrote: i present to you, jimsween, example A: a surpirsing fact that was strangely not publicized all that well....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/05/07/sprj.nitop.haliburton/index.html

Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."
-CNN.com

It also says he did not elaborate on what he meant by operation and distribution, distribution doesnt neccesarily mean selling it, it also means sending it to where you want it. This could mean oil pipelines and tankers. I seriously doubt that we would give up control of the oil to haliburton.

You may have wanted to look up distribution before you wrote this. ;-)

At 5/19/03 01:25 AM, OSC wrote:

At 5/18/03 04:43 PM, jimsween wrote: I dont remember Bush saying that Saddams WMD were a threat to the US, I do however remember him saying he was a threat to the security of America. Which he was. So how wasnt he a threat in the means we went to war over. Through most of Bush's speeches I never heard much about WMD, just stuff about him being a tyrannical dictator and him being a threat to our security. And yes the US has financed terrorism, and that does mean we are a threat to the countries that we financed the terrorism on, just like Saddam is a theat to us by Financing and Endorsing terrorism against us. So I really dont see what you were geetting at there unless you were just trying to make the US look bad. ;-)

1) The WMD was the core on the national security reasonings with Iraq. Sure Bush kept talking about Saddam's tyrancy. His other so-called noble reasons had no backbone so he needed something to look good. Enter the liberal stratagy. Playing to people's emotions. Proving that even conservatives are full of bleeding hearts.

WMD wasnt the core national security reason, it was the reason we brought to the UN. Why you might ask? The UN has a horrible history of taking out dictators but has sent inspectors to Iraq thrice. Which would you go for if you had to choose?

First, the oil isnt anybody's besides Iraq's at the moment. However the US and Britan have control over where it goes for now. And as for them getting paid well, who do you think is paying them. Thats right, the US, so why would we want to pay a French company to pump the oil when they didnt even spend any money on this war. And that last part really doesnt make sense, I'm not sure how people objecting to it gives us the green light to take the oil.

You honestly think Bush and Co are gonna tell the truth on what is to be done with the oil? Of course, they're gonna say the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. The green light was given by the UN objecting to it. You have noticed that because the UN objected, Bush conveniently demanded that the UN have no part in the reconstruction of Iraq. The UK convinced the US to give the UN some role. The green light being Bush feeling the right to tell UN they should stay out of Iraq since they didn't want to help in the war. With the UN out of the way, Bush would have full access to Iraq's oil. Make sense now? I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand.

It doesnt make sense, it doesnt give us the green light because US said REBUILDING Iraq, which does not include selling the oil unless of course the oil money actually goes to the Iraqi people. And dont you think people would notice a large quantity of money not being spent on Iraq if they were going to just outright not use the oil money for Iraq. And wouldnt you also think people would notice an awfull large amount of money in the US budget that came from nowhere? Unless of course you think Bush would find something else to do with that oil money, god only knows what though.

Oh yeah you just solved eeeeverything there, it was all just to make the protesters look like bad guys. When in the end the US looks like bad guys more than anyone else. You definately should take a job as a conspiracy theorist because even the hardcore people wont belive that one.

It wasn't all just to make the protester's look bad (they partly did it to themselves by blocking traffic, but that's another area and I'm not focusing on that). Making those who object look bad was not a goal, but a step to the goal which is getting the oil while looking saintly doing so.

But whos to say what we did wasn't "saintly"?