IAP Political Forum

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0854496320080310 (http://"http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0854496320080310")

White Martial Dragon

Ummm, your link failed, or was that the point???

"Finally, at long last, WMD in Iraq "

Old news but definitely worth mentioning again. The "Bush Lied" kool-aid drinkers still number in the millions. They will follow this post with failed arguments and "facts" that have been put to pasture years ago along with Joe Wilson and his wife.

We did not find viles of anthrax or VX in Saddam's sock drawer to be sure. What we did find proves beyond any doubt Saddam's WMD programs had in fact not stopped but were semi-dormant and well hidden waiting for sanctions to be lifted. Don't believe me? Read the ISG report. It's been available to anyone for years now.

Everyone keeps talking about al-Qaeda while conviently forgeting Saddam's well established ties to terrorist attacks and the funding of international terrorist organizations other than al-Qaeda. Bush talked about it often. Somehow this fact has been quietly slipped under the rug. al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization who would love to kill hundreds of thousands of American men, women and children.

We found Saddam's hidden missile programs and his hidden blueprints for a nuclear bomb after years of failed UN and IAEA inspections. It took an invasion, his death and the liberation of his country to compel Saddam to give up his desire for WMD. The ISG report stated that once UN sanctions were lifted Saddam had every intention of continuing the production of long-range missiles and developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). But why take my word for it.....

From page one of the ISG reports Key Findings:
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic
missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

BUSH LIED IRAQI'S DIED!!!

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

 ::)  ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)

Broken record of LIES,  weak evidence and Bushbot BS ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

There you go again pathetic... The slogans are correctly worded; "Bush lied AMERICANS died."
 and "No blood for oil PROFITS."

See, I told you the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't be far behind with worn out slogans.

But what are the going to do? Admit they have been fooled? Don't hold your breath.

could you post more, or a link, because I read that piece (and a couple more like it I've googled up) as saying all there was were hopes for restarting when sanctions were lifted. This in my opinion is fundamentally different from what we expected to find.

Ron from Mars; I don't drink Kool aid... I don't even like Kool aid. I much prefer Welches pure grape juice it has alot of essential vitamins and anti-oxidants. ;D

Once again, we did not find VX and anthrax in Saddam's sock drawer as everyone, including Democrats and virtually every intelligence agency on the planet, believed we would. We did not find the components for his nuclear bomb UNSCOM inspectors believed he was hiding from them. Saddam's Generals were stunned to find out they did not have chemical agents to launch against Coalition forces heading for Baghdad. General Franks was warned, by a General from Egypt if my memory hasn't failed me, that Saddam had every intention of using WMD against Coalition forces.

We did find Saddam's hidden ballistic missile programs. We did find his hidden blueprints for a nuclear bomb. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were unable to find any of his hidden programs. None of them.

Far from giving Saddam a clean bill of health, the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) report proves beyond any doubt that on the matter of Saddams WMD programs the verdict is in:

Guilty as charged!

Saddam did not give up his decades long quest for WMD and the missiles to launch them. This is a direct violation of over a dozen UN resolutions requiring him to disarm. This fact destroys the "Bush Lied" screech from the left whether they realize it or not.

From the ISG reports Key Findings:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants
understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,
but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000
km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and
only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam’s continuing
desire—up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)—for a long-range delivery capability.

ISG uncovered evidence that technicians and engineers from Russia reviewed the designs and assisted development
of the Al Samud II during its rapid evolution. ISG also found that Iraq had entered into negotiations
with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems.

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network,
skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam
clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the
nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or
Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received signifi cant pay raises in
a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that
Iraq retained technical knowledge.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003
a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for
intelligence operations.

Once again no answers. Nothing!

It was an article about Chuck Norris being in Iraq.

Not sure what Reueters did with it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/03/10/chuck-norris-the-only-wmd-in-iraq.aspx

 We get it Toaster  ;D...Ron from Mars never will... ;)

I know but I can't help but rub a puppy's nose in a pile of scat.

But Ronny boy this was an answer. You keep referring to me incorrectly as a kool-aid drinker and I never touch the stuff.  Its just another misconception that you insist on perpetuating and I wanted to set you straight on it. Its your fault for drawing your sophomoric talking point metaphors from imbeciles like BillO and Rush. ;D

Anytime you wish to discuss Saddam's WMD programs found by the ISG I'm all ears.

If you're scared just say so. You wouldn't be the first to run away from the facts uncovered in Iraq by the ISG.

Once again no answers. Nothing!

Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant so many people are.

When did so many people loose the ability to use simple logic and reason?

I mean really, even Alan greenspan told us the truth, yet there are still millions of people who are not able to recognize the truth when they see it?

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Of course Alan Greenspan was wrong. He should have said.........

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what (all thinking people) know: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

More on Greenspan's claim........

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml

Nope, oil had nothing to do with our war in Iraq. We went int here because of imaginary WMDs and to spread democracy, just like we did when we gave East Germany to Russia, just like we did when we supported scumbag regimes in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Just like we did when we helped Suharto kill 100,000 people in East Timor, just like we did when we supported Pinochet.

Jeesh.

And how exactly did the President convince the UN to pass resolution 1441 if "everyone" knew it was about oil?

More importantly, if it was all about oil why didn't we exploit Iraq's oil reserves? Why aren't we filling up tankers and bringing it to the US for refinement? Why haven't we taken over Iraq's oil exports?

Until recently Iraq's oil output remained fairly constant over the last five years. That would not have happened if we went to Iraq to "steal" their oil. We would be pumping millions of barrels to flood the market and lower world oil prices. It costs about $10 to produce one barrel of oil in Iraq and there are several reserve deposits that have not been touched. Some war for oil. Except for pressing the Iraqi Government to distribute the profits from oil sales in Iraq more quickly and fairly we have left Iraq's oil to the Iraqis.

The only way the Iraq war can be a "war for oil" is from the point of view that now Iraq can spend oil profits on their own people instead of it going to Saddam's WMD programs and gold toilets.

It has nothing to do with "Stealing oil."

It is not about getting oil for cheap, or for free, our dollar still has "some" value.

It is about securing a semi-permanent base in a vital area in which the US economy is 100% dependent.

No one can predict the future. What would happen if the oil production in the ME was significantly slowed for whatever reason?

If you look at the rise in demand and the flat prduction numbers, it doesn't take a genius to notice that in the near future something has to give.

Some of this data is a little bit older, but it is recent enough to illustrate my point........

In 2002, the world used four times as much oil as was newly found. In the first quarter of 2005, world oil use was estimated at 82.63 million barrels per day.

The United States burns a quarter of that. Of the 20 million barrels a day that fuels the American economy, 25 per cent is burned up on the roads.

World demand for oil is expected to increase by 54 per cent in the first 25 years of the 21st century, according to the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government. To meet that demand, the world's oil-producing countries will have to pump out an additional 44 million barrels of oil each and every day by 2025.

Much of the growth in demand – about 40 per cent says the EIA #150 will come from Asia. Its daily oil fix is expected to double by 2025, thanks mainly to rapidly growing economies in China and India.

In 2004, China passed Japan as the world's second-largest consumer of oil. It ate up an average of 6.63 million barrels of oil every day – about twice what it produces. Its oil imports doubled between 1999 and 2004.

China's demand for oil is expected to continue to increase by five to seven per cent a year. If that happens, China will surpass the United States as the world's largest consumer of oil by 2025.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/oil/supply_demand.html

In unusually urgent tones, the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/07cnd-energy.html

World oil resources are judged to be sufficient to meet the projected growth in demand to 2030, with output becoming more concentrated in OPEC countries – on the assumption that the necessary investment is forthcoming. Their collective output of conventional crude oil, natural gas liquids and non-conventional oil (mainly gas-to-liquids) is projected to climb from 36 mb/d in 2006 to 46 mb/d in 2015 and 61 mb/d in 2030.

    As a result OPEC’s share of world oil supply jumps from 42% now to 52% by the end of the projection period.

http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/2007/11/08/china-india-fueling-alarming-growth-in-energy-demand/

If you are the most powerful country on earth and your entire economy is built on a black goo, over half of which is controlled half way around the world by people who hate you, when demand for this substance is growing significantly every year, it just might be a good idea to try and secure part of that area in order to protect your ass.

Ron, Let me ask you..Why did we allow North Korea to obtain Nuclear weapons?  We still have bases in South Korea.  North Korea's Nuclear program was and is far more advanced the Saddams.  So, why Saddam and not n. Korea?  It doesn't make sense.  Why Saddam?  Have you been keeping track of whats happening to our Dollar lately, Ron?  Do you understand why the dollar is dropping in value World wide?  Do you know of the agreement the U.S. has with O.P.E.C. to only price oil in U.S. dollars?  Do you know what would happen if they stopped?  Once you KNOW the answers to these questions, then you will know the truth....Until then you are clueless.

Then why aren't we dong that? Why haven't we taken over Iraqi oil fields?

We didn't "allow" them. They developed them on their own. All political efforts over two Administrations failed to stop them.


Then why aren't we pumping oil from Iraq into American tankers? Why aren't we reaping the benefits of this "war for oil"?

This would have to be happening if any of this nonsense was true. It isn't.

Saddam was sponsoring Islamic terrorism all over the world. He was funding, training and supporting the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Ayman al-Zawahiri) and the Afghani Islamic Party (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar). Both of these organizations have direct links to OBL's al-Qaeda. A Pentagon study of over 600,000 documents recovered in Iraq proves this beyond any doubt.

The study will be released soon. When it does I will start yet another thread driving yet another stake into the heart of the "Bush Lied" fools on of the left. The fact that it comes from our military will be the only excuse needed by lefties to discount it's devastating findings. These two articles will give you a sense of what's to come. I seriously doubt any of you will read them however, the truth is not something the "Bush Lied" dupes are familiar with.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/881yegar.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp

North Korea does not have a national policy of sponsoring Islamic terrorists. Saddam did.

You remember Islamic terrorists don't you? They killed 3,000 US citizens on 9/11 and have been attacking the US for several decades now. Any of this ring a bell?

 Ronny We are talking about oil men here Cheney and Junior. They know enough about supply side economics to realize that there is much more to be gained by keeping Iraqi oil in the ground as opposed to simply stealing it.
 Had Saddam been allowed to sell his oil in Euros and expand his market, not only would the US 's hegemony be in jeopardy but ...Gasp ... the price of oil on the world market might go down. This would be devastating for poor Exxon Mobil who made only 40 BILLON dollars last year (more than they ever have) as a result of the war and plan on making 50 BILLON this year. The Saudis are being rewarded as well for supporting bush with  $100+ per bbl oil. The war was as Greenspan revealed "Largely about the oil"...what you assume he meant was that it was to take the oil . Nothing could be further from the truth. Control sometimes means keeping it right where it is in the ground and off the market.
 Take a little history lesson Ron from Mars:
 http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

I already answered that. We control the country, although our control is tenuous at best, we are still there and we will be there for decades.



    Iraq is ‘unwinnable’, a ‘quagmire’, a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy’.
    Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

[note: it is likely that these inflated estimates of ultimately recoverable Iraqi oil are exaggerated, but if that is true, then the remaining oil is even more critical for control of the global economy on the downslope of Peak Oil]

///////

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007

    Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
    The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
    The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.


////

 Planning for the future of Iraq's oil wealth had been under way for longer still.
In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam's ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney's now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation($$):

    … a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.


////////

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.

"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security."

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.html

///////////

DO YOU GET IT YET?

You didn't explain a thing.

Why aren't we pumping oil out of Iraq? Why aren't we controlling Iraq's oil exports?

The answer is it belongs to the Iraqis and they will decide what to do with their oil revenue. Not the US or Britian.

BTW, once Bush leaves office the war for oil plan becomes moot. Didn't think about that did you? Nice try though!

Something else you "Bush Lied" sycophants fail to realize.

If this was a war for oil then US Senators (including Democrats), Congressmen (including Democrats), the UN Security Counsel, Britian, Spain, Australia etc. would all have to be in on the lie. This would include thousands of people all over the world. Not just Bush! Didn't think this through very well did you? Oh what tangled webs we weave.....

I just love these Catch-22's. What a hoot!!

You are obviously not capable of logical thought, or reason.

I tell you what, when the US leaves Iraq, let me know and we will continue this conversation. That should be sometime after 2030.

    *  Reuters
    * , Wednesday March 19 2008


By Randy Fabi and Ahmed Rasheed
BAGHDAD, March 19 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government is expected to pay up to $2.5 billion to five top oil companies to increase the country's oil output by nearly a quarter, a government adviser told Reuters on Wednesday.
In what would be the biggest foreign involvement for decades, Baghdad is close to signing technical support contracts with BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

 Ghadhban said Iraqi representatives met with company officials last week in Amman, Jordan, to discuss final details of the initially two-year contracts, including whether payment would be by cash or by oil.
"As far as we are concerned, everything is positive and it's a matter of time for the minister of oil and oil companies to finalize and shake hands," he said.
Shell is negotiating for the northern Kirkuk oilfield and is also in talks, along with BHP Billiton, for the development of the Maysan fields.
BP also has its eyes on Iraq's southern Rumaila field, while Exxon wants the contract for the Zubair oilfield in Basra.
Finally, Chevron and Total are looking to work together to develop the West Qurna oilfield.
Ghadhban said he expected the companies to boost output by around 100,000 bpd at each of the fields.
HEAD START
The ongoing talks have also given the five major oil companies a head start in efforts to bid for future oil contracts.
"I have no doubt whatsoever those five major companies are going to be qualified," he said. "They are major oil companies and of course they will be qualified."
More than 100 companies have registered to compete for oil extraction and service contracts to help develop Iraq's oil reserves, the world's third largest.
Ghadhban said the government was expected to announce the list of qualified companies next month, a month later than initially expected.
He said the technical support contracts with the five oil majors needed to be finalized before the government could move on to other contracts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7397775

AND SO IT BEGINS.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Yes of course. Kerry and Hillary are in on the scam along with all the others right?

You can save the links PS. They mean as much to me as the thousands of links "proving" Bush lied about Saddam's WMD's.

As soon as you explain the thousands of others in on the oil scam in Iraq we can talk intelligently about this. Iraq is deciding what happens to their oil reserves and exports. Not Bush. In case you're still wondering it's called a Catch-22. It snags lots of people.

I can save the links because you care NOTHING about the TRUTH.

I would bet you have probably never spent any significant time researching a single important topic in your entire life.

You obviously are under the impression that there is a significant difference between the two major parties when that is obviously not the case.

After you do a few thousand hours research on what is truly going on in the US and who actually controls US foreign policy, thenm maybe we can talk again. Until then, I hope you enjoy living in an IMAGINARY WORLD.

WTF makes you think we are not controlling Iraq's oil. Isn't keeping the oil off the market at pre war levels or lower, control??
 I realize this is a little counter intuitive and may be a strain on your bellicose little mind Ronny boy. Perhaps this may help;http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20480