Iran the most powerful (nation) , says Ahmadinejad
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The Council on Foreign Relations has issued advice to the American government in which a "key recommendation" is to ensure the availability of Iraq's oil after the war:
"ensuring that the U.S. military has the requisite information
to identify the assets that could, if severely damaged or destroyed
during military hostilities, substantially delay resumption of the
Iraqi oil export program"
[ CFR, Guiding Principles for Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq", December 2002. ]
Is the priority of an American invasion of Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil, the world's second largest supply?
UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN WILL ATTACK IRAQ: GOOD NEWS FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY
The USA and Britain are poised to invade Iraq and replace the existing national government with a new West-controlled government. Suspicion that the true motivation for the war on terror is created by the massive arms and oil industries of the West.
Did oil influence America's decision to attack Iraq? Read the evidence below and decide for yourself. The U.S. government acknowledges that America will benefit from taking control of Iraq's oil production, but they have not yet stated whether or not oil influenced their decision to invade. When any nation declares war on another it is essential that they are open and honest about their reasons.
The U.S. Government and their Energy Information Administration know that Iraq is the second greatest source of oil on earth. Could this be an undeclared motive for a military conquest of Iraq?
"Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than
112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also
contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas."
[ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ]
"No matter what decision the president makes [on Iraq], the United States
will always be better off with a policy that provides more energy independence"
(Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman)
[ Miami Herald (from Reuters), "White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price", 6 September 2002 ]
A new war in the Middle-East will have disastrous effects throughout the world, while the only guaranteed benefits will go to oil and weapons companies and their share-holders. The oil industry is certain to raise oil prices and increase their profits as supplies become more scarce. Many countries will spend more on defence as the war destabilises regional and international peace.
The U.S. and British governments claim that the reason for making war against Iraq is to prevent them from possessing weapons of mass destruction. There are serious doubts throughout the international community, however, about whether or not an attack of Iraq would be justified. Furthermore, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would undoubtedly be illegal under international law, which clearly states that military action is not allowed except in defence.
U.S. President George W. Bush notified the United Nations on 12 September 2002, an emotive date, that America would attack Iraq unless they "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction." War therefore seems inevitable because Iraq cannot decommission weapons which it says do not exist.
In fact, America began planning the military conquest of Iraq at least as early as July 2002..
In a historic speech to the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad on 8 September 2002, a senior United Nations weapons representative in Iraq voiced serious doubts that there is any justification whatsoever for an attack against Iraq.
Scott Ritter, who resigned from the U.N. weapons inspection team in 1998, explained to Iraq's government that America's case for war against Iraq was "built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact." He pointed out that Iraq had no part in the attacks against America on September 11th, "and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterises those who attacked the United States on that horrible day." Most importantly, the former senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq authoritatively stated that Iraq does not pose the threat alleged by the U.S. and Britain, declaring that "Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction."
"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours
and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own
borders."
[ BBC News, "Scott Ritter addresses Iraqi parliament", 8 September 2002 ]
There is too much at stake for us to enter into war without good reason. Military action could make things worse for the West and not better. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has warned that an attack on Iraq will have disastrous consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and is likely to aggravate increased support for future attacks on America. It is certain that the war will damage Western economies, triggering a substantial increase in oil prices until the allies seize control of Iraq's abundant oil fields.
CIA SAY IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA
"President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action
against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the
publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses
little threat to America"
[ The Guardian newspaper (UK), "CIA in blow to Bush attack plans", 10 October 2002 ]
[ CATO Institute, "********* CIA Report Undercuts Bush's Desire to Invade Iraq", 14 October 2002.
The Central Intelligence Agency, America's national security service, has officially declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to the West. In fact, the CIA has warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq will actually cause a greater threat to American national security.
This news seriously undermines President George W. Bush's claim that a military conquest of Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil, is justified by national security interests. Why does Bush's U.S. government suddenly want to attack Iraq if the country is not a threat?
AMERICA PLANNED TO CONQUER IRAQ TO SEIZE THEIR OIL MONTHS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.
A U.S. government report from before September 11 proves that America was already planning a military conquest of Iraq. The war is now almost impossible to justify as a "war on terrorism".
"As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned
early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US
knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need
for military intervention to secure supplies."
[ Sidney Morning Herald, "Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda", 7 October 2002. ]
This new evidence adds credibility to widespread fears that oil and emperialism is the reason for the war on terror, and not national security is the
"Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force
against Iraq to secure control of its oil."
[ Sunday Herald, "The West's battle for oil", 6 October 2002. ]
Is it a conflict of interests that most people in Bush's U.S. government have substantial personal financial interests in the oil industry?
"What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy
cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry
- oil."
[ BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001. ]
"Bush has long had close links with the energy business. Not only did President
Bush work in the oil business, so did the Vice-President and two other
members of his cabinet. Energy companies contributed generously to the
Bush campaign, sometimes by unorthodox means."
[ BBC Report, "The Toxic Texan", 18 October 2001. ]
WAR ON IRAQ OFFICIALLY DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war.
[ BBC News, "US and UK call for Iraq 'change'", 6 April 2002 ]
"Two of Britain's most senior legal figures have warned Prime Minister
Tony Blair that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would
breach international law..."
[ Reuters news service, 7 October 2002. ]
Sydney Morning Herald, "US may charge Saddam with war crimes", 8 October 2002.
The British Attourney General and Solicitor General have confirmed to the U.K. Government that an attack on Iraq would be illegal under international law.
"Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his attorney-general
that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach
international law.
"The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general,
places the prime minister in a potentially 'impossible position', according to
legal experts."
[ Financial Times newspaper, October 2002. ]
Will Britain and America respect international law, or is the capture of the world's second largest oil supply too tempting to resist?
[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"][QUOTE="SmithWesson642"][QUOTE="Nwordjohn"][QUOTE="SmithWesson642"][QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]Its propaganda designed to raise American sentiment against Iran. "Iran thinks its the best? NO WAY WE ARE" is the reaction they're trying to raise in you. It really does amaze me that people don't realize that most of these articles and news stories being fed to them are just part of the psychological warfare that is propaganda.
Iran has done nothing wrong. There is no reason to invade them. If you do, you are the bad guys. Period.
whipassmt
If they tell us to invade Iran, then we have no choice.
That is exactly why I miss the 70's. When people had enough balls to stand up to their government's warmongering and protest. They're not going to stop unless people en masse show up outside the white house to protest it. Too bad you've already sacrified enough of your constitution that you would be considered terrorists and would be held without trial.
I'll be honest, Iraq isn't anything compared to Vietnam.
I'm sure if as many people were dying in IRaq as Nam, then people would stop joining the military, and civilians would be protesting ALOT more.
Are you implying that Iraqis are not people? Because the death toll for the civilians and "combatants" in Iraq is well over the million mark now. They down play it on CNN and Fox news because those are basically the neo-con mouth piece for Americans. The fact that human life isn't valued by people because of the nation they are born in is just disgusting. I'd choose an Iraqi over an American any day of the week and I'm not the only one. At least they are actually fighting the oppression thats being put over them. Enjoy your Patriot Act, Victory Act, Freedom Act, SPP and all of the other laws passed to protect you from "terrorists" while in reality they are stripping you of your Freedoms. Of course, you need to fight the terrorists.
Most of the Iraqis that have died were not killed by the U.S., they were killed by al Qaida, militias, and insurgents who directly target innocent civilians, because the U.S. troops are too much of hard targets for them.WOW you're telling me you actually believe that BS? At least tell me why al Qaeda would start killing civilians when it was the invasion of Iraq that drove them there in the first place (that or Saddam was holding them back).Its propaganda designed to raise American sentiment against Iran. "Iran thinks its the best? NO WAY WE ARE" is the reaction they're trying to raise in you. It really does amaze me that people don't realize that most of these articles and news stories being fed to them are just part of the psychological warfare that is propaganda.Hyperbole, exaggeration, and wingnut conspiracy theories are always productive. ;)
Iran has done nothing wrong. There is no reason to invade them. If you do, you are the bad guys. Period.....That is exactly why I miss the 70's. When people had enough balls to stand up to their government's warmongering and protest. They're not going to stop unless people en masse show up outside the white house to protest it. Too bad you've already sacrified enough of your constitution that you would be considered terrorists and would be held without trial.....Are you implying that Iraqis are not people? Because the death toll for the civilians and "combatants" in Iraq is well over the million mark now. They down play it on CNN and Fox news because those are basically the neo-con mouth piece for Americans. The fact that human life isn't valued by people because of the nation they are born in is just disgusting. I'd choose an Iraqi over an American any day of the week and I'm not the only one. At least they are actually fighting the oppression thats being put over them. Enjoy your Patriot Act, Victory Act, Freedom Act, SPP and all of the other laws passed to protect you from "terrorists" while in reality they are stripping you of your Freedoms. Of course, you need to fight the terrorists.Nwordjohn
ya and hitler is still alive
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment