Na wah ooo, so you have gradually introduced the slaughter of Kurds in the North, something that wasn't part of your statement that I objected to.

Do yourself a favour and reproduce where you referenced the saughter of Kurds in the Kurd and I will tender an unreserved apology right now.

My problem is that you tend to use other peoples post to build yours and at the end of the day you turn round to claim ownership of posts you never originated.

Reference your post on the slaughter of the Kurds in the North and lets see who is twisting issues here, don't bother modifying your post right now to include this new angle.

@Afam
Read my previous post on post 141 on the 4th paragraph were I refered to the Anfal campaign in the same paragraph with the massacre of Shias

I await ur apology

Afam:


Do yourself a favour and reproduce where you referenced the saughter of Kurds in the Kurd and I will tender an unreserved apology right now.

@Afam
This is my original quote which sparked all this

4 Play:

@Easyy


Honestly speaking,I don't know how old u are,but can u recall when Saddam's forces killled 150,000 Shias in the 90s .It barely made the news.If nairaland existed then,we wont be discussing Iraq then because there was no America to blame.What about the Anfal campaign when about 100,000-180,000 Kurds where killed?Do u recall that making news?

I await ur response

4Play,

I am really sick with the way you twist positions shamelessly.

The portions of your statements you reproduced though had references to non Shiites related incidents had absolutely nothing to do the issue of no fly zones which prompted the dates and reasons for the imposition of no fly zones.

I feel sorry for you is you are making this mistake genuinely. You can as well ask me to check out a different post where you stated something about Saddam and Kurds.

The issue at hand is simple, your reasons for imposition of no fly zones where wrong, you stated nothing about the Kurds which makes nonsense of your position that the killing of the Shias prompted the imposition of the no fly zones.

And now, you point to statements well before the issue of the no fly zone.

I believe everyone is capable of making mistakes but when one makes a mistake and is desparately trying to justify the mistake rather than make amends then such a person should be despised and treated as scum.

I cannot imagine the lenght you are going to prove what is already very clear. Honestly, I regret ever wasting my time on your posts.

Anyone that can go the lenght you are going to twist an issue according to my books is a common criminal.

4 Play:
@mochafella
I have no knowledge of Iraqi oil been siphoned by America.Where this is done,it is by corrupt Iraqi Govt officials especially at the oil Ministry -much like what happens in Nigeria-and criminal elements including Iraqi insurgents.America has not made a dime out of Iraqi oil revenues.

I feel it was down to the following factors;the desire to remove what was seen as a rogue regime who in the light 9-11 might collaborate with Islamists,the bebelf that Saddam had WMDs or at least intent to acquire them in the future,a desire to show American military prowess,a perception than a friendly democratic regime in the Middle East will help combat Islamic extremism,a desire to use National Security to help REpublicans defeat the Democrats as it was Bush's key strenghte.t.c

You give the Iraqis too much credit. You do know that the Americans were in charge from the invasion in March 2003 till June 2004 when they handed over. That's over a year of unmetered oil.
Here's a BBC documentary you should listen to that gives "reasons" why the oil was left unmetered.

Sending the troops currently in Iraq to Afghanistan, actually hunting down Osama and "staying the course" in Afghanistan will achieve more than invading Iraq ever will. Afghanistan gives you a democratic example, revives a failed state, gives you a valid National security success rather than the Iraq disaster and a chance to show military prowess in a country that has thwarted both Soviet and British invasions.

As for WMDs, I think Iraq was the least likely source for terrorists to acquire such weapons. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and the former Soviet republics were and are all more likely sources for extremists to get their WMDs. A.Q Khan in Pakistan is already on record as providing WMD-for-hire services.

Iraq was about resource/energy security, the question remains is it actually illegal for one Nation-state to declare war on another.

@Mochafella
I just listened to your link.Interesting as it is,all of what I have heard before,it did not contradict in any way my assertion that the US has not siphoned Iraqi oil.

What it is ,is a catalogue of the corruption and incompetence that has attended the reconstruction programme in Iraq .But that is a far cry from suggesting as u do that the US is perhaps milking Iraq oil through the unmetered oil .

The link even starts with the claim,that the US  has spent 30 billion dollars of its own money and 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money,much of it unaccounted for.That leaves a net surplus of 10 billion dollars of US money.How is that stealing from the Iraqis by the US.

Is the proof that the US invaded Iraq for money lie in evidence that it can't account for 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money.Having spent 30 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and a minimum of 60 billion per annum on military operations.Does the maths stack up.How can u spend 30 billion dollars in order to steal 20 billion dollars and this does not include the cost of invading Iraq

This is why I posed the question,because anytime it is asnwered,it illustrates the futility of the claim that the US invaded Iraq simply for financial benefits.

Any simple cost-benefit analysis wil find it difficult to support the claim that the US invaded to make money for itself.

Lets take the unmetered oil for 1 year claim.For the sake of argument,lets presume that the US took every single dime of Iraqi oil revenues-about 30 billion dollars .That will barely cover the cost of mitary operations.

if the US were to take every single dime of Iraqi oil revenues per anumn-about 50 billion dollars at current value-that will amount     to an increase in the US economy of about 0.4 percent per annumn-The US ECONOMY is what 11.4 trillion dollars.

All this is based on the presumption that the US is taking every single dime of Iraqi money,which clearly does not happen and not even the BBC link suggests that anything of that sort is happening.

Any claim that the US invaded Iraq for oil,will have to show that on a cost benefit analysis,the US by invading Iraq intended to make more financially from the oil than they would spend in carrying out the invasion.NOTHING I have heard or seen over the past 3 years has shown me that and this BBC link has not changed my opinion that the US did not invade Iraq because of oil

Resource/energy security could easily be acheived by a return to the status quo of the 80s,which Saddam was more than welcome to.The nations that sell oil to the US depend more on such sale than the US.Often for them, oil revenue is often their sole revenue and they will be loath to do anything that jeopardise the continued supply of their sole resource

4 Play:

@Mochafella
What it is ,is a catalogue of the corruption and incompetence that has attended the reconstruction programme in Iraq .But that is a far cry from suggesting as u do that the US is perhaps milking Iraq oil through the unmetered oil .

The link even starts with the claim,that the US has spent 30 billion dollars of its own money and 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money,much of it unaccounted for.That leaves a net surplus of 10 billion dollars of US money.How is that stealing from the Iraqis by the US.

Is the proof that the US invaded Iraq for money lie in evidence that it can't account for 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money.Having spent 30 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and a minimum of 60 billion per annum on military operations.Does the maths stack up.How can u spend 30 billion dollars in order to steal 20 billion dollars and this does not include the cost of invading Iraq

Quick question. How do you do the math on unmetered oil? You also need to avoid conflating GW's and the US's interests. The US is paying for reconstruction with tax-payers money, GW and his pallies are pumping out unmetered Iraqi oil and making fortunes. I hope you can see there is a difference.

4 Play:

Resource/energy security could easily be acheived by a return to the status quo of the 80s,which Saddam was more than welcome to.The nations that sell oil to the US depend more on such sale than the US.Often for them, oil revenue is often their sole revenue and they will be loath to do anything that jeopardise the continued supply of their sole resource

Flat wrong, the US suffered more from the Iran induced Oil shocks of the 70's than Iran ever did. Besides who needs the US as a consumer when China/Japan will gladly pay a premium to have an assured/exclusive supply. Even the suggestion of a hike in prices drives US consumers crazy not to talk of the adversity of a reduction in supply.

I repeat if the GW/US wanted democracy in the mid-east along with anti-terrorism successes, Afghanistan offered more than Iraq did.

@Mochafella
So the US did not invade Iraq for its own oil interests but For Bush's interests.Bush staked all his political capital and sent 150,000 Americans to war in Iraq just line up the pockets of his friends.Not even his own pockets but that of his friends .Do u really beleive that?

Who are these friends of Bush for whom Bush spent his poltical capital.Do they have names and how much have they actually made from Iraq?Please enlighten me

As for the resource issue,I totally disagree with your claim that the US suffered  more than the oil producers-by the way it was an Arab oil embargo not Iranian induced-What the oil shock did was to reduce dependence on oil ,hence the low oil price for 2 decades-this helped plunge many oil producers like Nigeria into debt which they just came out from.Even today oil prices in real terms have not returned to the level of the 70s

The US is by far the biggest consumner of oil-25 percent of oil production.YOU CANNOT SIDELINE UR BIGGEST CONSUMNER .You can't sideline a nation that takes one in four of every barrel of oil produced,it is impossible.There will be a collapse in the oil markets.Japan and China combined is only one-third the size of the US economy,they can't afford a premium on oil if the US can't buy it

Why did u think that nobody has tried a similar oil embargo since the 70s.They all learnt their lessons-that any disruption in the oil markets is not in the interests of oil producers

@mochafella
How do u do the maths on unmetered oil?There is only so much oil that can be produced in Iraq at the moment.So u can actually have an idea of how much oil is being produced but unaccounted for.There is only so much oil that can be sneaked out of a country.It has to be transported and stored .

The link u gave does not even in anyway support the assertion that Bush and his pallies are smuggling Iraq oil and making fortunes.U will think such a dramatic allegation will be the subject of news everywhere.That Bush had a secret slush fund where he is stacking proceeds from Iraqi oil

With all due respect this is a symptom of the Bush Derangement Syndrome I talked about earlier

4 Play:

@Mochafella
So the US did not invade Iraq for its own oil interests but For Bush's interests.Bush staked all his political capital and sent 150,000 Americans to war in Iraq just line up the pockets of his friends.Not even his own pockets but that of his friends .Do u really beleive that?

Okay I'll spell it out so you know even if you disagree.
US benefits: Political and Resource access.
GW & friends benefits: "Free" oil to sell on the international market, miltary contracts at tax payers expense.

At no point are those benefits mutually exclusive. We can argue the importance of one over the other to GW who made the final decision to invade, but they are not exclusive.

4 Play:

Who are these friends of Bush for whom Bush spent his poltical capital.Do they have names and how much have they actually made from Iraq?Please enlighten me

I think you overrate the importance of political capital when he has no higher office to aspire to. Money also has a habit of smoothing ruffled feathers.

4 Play:

What the oil shock did was to reduce dependence on oil ,hence the low oil price for 2 decades-this helped plunge many oil producers like Nigeria into debt which they just came out from.

I would really like to see your evidence of that. Especially the one that "closely" links low prices of the late 90's and the oil embargo of the early 70's.

4 Play:

YOU CANNOT SIDELINE UR BIGGEST CONSUMNER .You can't sideline a nation that takes one in four of every barrel of oil produced,it is impossible.There will be a collapse in the oil markets.Japan and China combined is only one-third the size of the US economy,they can't afford a premium on oil if the US can't buy it

Its been done once, it can be done again. You make it seem like the Arabs need to sell so much oil to survive. They don't. They can get by with supplying/selling less. Need I remind you that China has 4 times the US population and most want to live life like the Americans. I don't have recent figures but they won't remain the smaller economy for long.

4 Play:

The link u gave does not even in anyway support the assertion that Bush and his pallies are smuggling Iraq oil and making fortunes.

I hope you can give me a stronger reason than "priorities" for leaving the exports unmeasured. I await your explanation.

4 Play:

With all due respect this is a symptom of the Bush Derangement Syndrome I talked about earlier

Please do me a favour and keep your conversation with me civil. I presume you can argue positively.

@mochafella

mochafella:

Okay I'll spell it out so you know even if you disagree.
US benefits: Political and Resource access.
GW & friends benefits: "Free" oil to sell on the international market, miltary contracts at tax payers expense.

At no point are those benefits mutually exclusive. We can argue the importance of one over the other to GW who made the final decision to invade, but they are not exclusive.

Free oil to sell?Mochafella,where is the evidence of the transaction in free oil by Americans?Presumably someone is transporting,storing,buying the oil.Which American is receiving the proceeds of this free oil and how much has he or she received?The onus of proving the existence of something is on the person who alleges its existence.The link does not in anyway show that Americans are actually profiteering from unmetered oil

mochafella:

I think you overrate the importance of political capital when he has no higher office to aspire to. Money also has a habit of smoothing ruffled feathers.

He invaded Iraq in 2003,19 months before election Presidential elections in which Iraq was the dominant issue around him.So he in effect risked his chances of re-election just to enrich his friends.Wow .Still waiting for u to tell me who these friends are and how much they have actually made in Iraq.Surely such sensational allegation will be all over the news

mochafella:

.
I would really like to see your evidence of that. Especially the one that "closely" links low prices of the late 90's and the oil embargo of the early 70's.

The long term impact of the oil embargo was that it curtailed the economy's overdependence of oil.As at 1980 14 percent of GDP was energy while at 2000 it was 7 percent.Skyrocketting oil prices encourage  over-investment in oil exploration and a subsequent supply glut which is not in the longterm interests of oil producers.Check this link www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004481.html. Read the comment by the futures trader

mochafella:



Its been done once, it can be done again. You make it seem like the Arabs need to sell so much oil to survive. They don't. They can get by with supplying/selling less. Need I remind you that China has 4 times the US population and most want to live life like the Americans. I don't have recent figures but they won't remain the smaller economy for long.

The Arabs need to sell their oil more than America needs to buy it.For many of the Arab nations oil constitiutes at least 80 percent of their GDP and 90 percent of revenue.Like I noted earlier,energy constitutes 7 percent of the US economy.Any cutback in supply will amount to cutting their nose to spite their face .For these people America is their main buyer,but for America they are no longer the main supplier.If Arabs can get by with less,there won't have been one embargo since the 70s.Surely the success of an act is marked by the eagerness to replicate it.Not even Iraq engaged in an embargo before the invasion.As forChina,nothing changes except that it will be as eager as America to ensure constant supply of energy at affordable prices

mochafella link=topic=30479.msg740959#msg740959 date=1165290169:


I hope you can give me a stronger reason than "priorities" for leaving the exports unmeasured. I await your explanation.

U can't seriously claim that proof Bush and his pallies were profittering from Iraqi oil is established by the fact that America did not meter Iraqi pipeline(wonder why they had none before).Not even the BBC link alleges that.ALL it shows is American incompetence.Where is the evidence that this led to enrichment of Americans.Instead,u are asking me to explain.U have to show that this actually led to the enrichment of certain Americans







My point about BDS is not directed to your person but to the quality of your argument in this particular issue.BDS is used to refer to the phenomenon of making baseless allegations and spurious conspiracy theories about the Bush adminstration based on a dislike of the adminstration.The allegations u raised are only symptomatic of it-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

just saw this on CNN

19 out of 20 Iraqis say they had better security under Saddam Hussein
9 out of 10 iraqis say they feel less safe when around American soldiers
2/3 of iraqis feel iraq will be safer if the coalition soldiers move out


Source : Iraq Centre for Strategic Studies

texazzpete:

just saw this on CNN

19 out of 20 Iraqis say they had better security under Saddam Hussein
9 out of 10 iraqis say they feel less safe when around American soldiers
2/3 of iraqis feel iraq will be safer if the coalition soldiers move out


Source : Iraq Centre for Strategic Studies

interesting

Source : Iraq Centre for Strategic Studies

Is there an Organisation called Iraq Center for Strategic Studies?

;d

TayoD:

Is there an Organisation called Iraq Center for Strategic Studies?

Probably another invention of terrorist groups! When did they conduct the census? When their fellow citizens were evading exploding car bombs?

wassup

nilla:



wassup

I dey kampe!
How have ur exams been?

Or have you delegated them to the Iraqi center for strategic studies most likely based in a cave in pakistan?

davidylan:

I dey kampe!
How have your exams been?

Or have you delegated them to the Iraqi center for strategic studies most likely based in a cave in pakistan?

ha ha ha ha ha ha.
_{Done with my exams}

congrats! you can now spend your days on NL with ease! Lucky you, i still have 2 to go.

TayoD:

Is there an Organisation called Iraq Center for Strategic Studies?

Funny enough I wanted to ask this question earlier but I did not want to invite oppobrium from some people.

By the way did anyone see the poll done by Babangida Centre for Strategic Studies-apparently 90 percent of Nigerians want him back as President.Serious,it was on CNN,BBC,NBC,HIV

you guys are just making me laugh

4 Play:

By the way did anyone see the poll done by Babangida Centre for Strategic Studies-apparently 90 percent of Nigerians want him back as President.Serious,it was on CNN,BBC,NBC,HIV

Poll by Atiku center for strategic studies - 98.654% of Nigerians back him for presidency come 2007

Poll by Obasanjo center for strategic studies - 97.093% of Nigerians back 3rd term

Who are these aliens being polled? Do they live among us?

Strategic studies - A phantom name given to a dubious organisation involved in shady activities that have nothing to do with academic study!

@Davidylan
Don't knock Strategic Centres.The fact that u don't know they exist is just because they are STRATEGIC.They are located strategically in the imagination of people.They conduct polls on imaginary people with predetermined results.

PS.The poll by the Obasanjo Strategic Centre was wrong.He is backed by 100.5 percent of Nigerians.U should get ur facts right

@ 4play

thanks for the correction! I must have missed results from a particular state when reporting the OCSS poll.

nilla:

ha ha ha ha ha ha.
_{Done with my exams}

U guys have finished ur exams.I still have 5 months to my exams at the Booyakasha Centre for Strategic Studies.No one should make fun of my school.It is actually a world-class institute

I am studying the link btw excessive wanking and rabid anti-americanism

4 Play:

U guys have finished your exams.I still have 5 months to my exams at the Booyakasha Centre for Strategic Studies.No one should make fun of my school.It is actually a world-class institute

I am studying the link between excessive wanking and rabid anti-americanism

happy studying/schooling. I'm sure you'd get good grades _{depending on the origins of the professor}

4 Play:

U guys have finished your exams.I still have 5 months to my exams at the Booyakasha Centre for Strategic Studies.No one should make fun of my school.It is actually a world-class institute

I am studying the link between excessive wanking and rabid anti-americanism

A paper published in 2006 from the Booyakasha center for strategic studies in the Iranian journal of Terrorism Vol 3: 653- 67;
Ahmedinajad, M. Khomeini, AR. et. al

Zionism and Americanism: compounds that inhibit the growth of Radical Islam.

@Davidylan
Are u trying to link Iran with terrorism.All they are doing is the old Persian tradition of seperating human body parts by the use of explosives.Nothing wrong with that.Is it not a contribution to civilisation to be able to scatter human body parts .A head there,a leg there.Everyone has what they can contribute to mankind

Of course Iran has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism!

How can they? Is it not part of their rights to be able to arm terrorist groups with weapons of "self defence"?

Other interesting papers by Ahmedinejad A. and Khomeini AR.

Wiping a nation off the world map; blue print for islamoterrorism.

Protecting women's rights by hanging

The holocaust; myths and legends

The novel theory of theocratic democracy

Mullah Davidylan,
There is nothing like terrorism.Terrorism like the Holocaust is a myth.It is a Jewish conspiracy

What people call terrorism is just an attempt to insult the exploits of great men in furtherance of the religion of peace.

When someone lands on the moon,it is an acheivement,but when someone lands 2 passenger planes on skyscrapers it is called terrorism .Is that not double standards?