Turkey

[Cbass]

It seems strategy in the middle east now hinges on Turkey. The oil fields and Kurdish rebels are in the North, and that is where the US needs to attack from. The US needs the support of Turkey, and the Turks are willing to give it to them, for a price.

Originally the US had a $26 billion "aid package", or a term we are more familiar with, bribe, prepared for Turkey. However, the Turks realize they have Washington over a barrel. If the US wants to preserve the oil fields in the north of Iraq, they must invade from Turkey, or the fields are sure to be burned by Saddam. Now Turkey is demanding more money. The US is gearing up for it's invasion in March, and needs Turkey on board as soon as possible, in order to launch the crucial second front in the north.

What are your thoughts/opinions on this?

It seems to me, if there is no concern for oil, why would the US be so keen on invading from the north? There is no clear strategic value, and it is a given that the weakened forces of Iraq can pose no threat to a 300,000 man strong force armed with the latest weaponry.

[taranaki]

It's not about oil,he's an evil man

[Jimster]

lol.....I thought this thread was summing up George Bush......Taht'll teach me for just reading the title



LOL The Turks are well on the way to foiling Bush- oh wait that as done when he first announced the attack

[Cbass]

The Turks have already agreed to sell out, they're just bargaining for more money. Also, I think they want to delay the war until after the rally of Turkey I know I do

Turkey knows they have the US over a barrel. The US needs to invade from Turkey, to secure the oilfields quickly. The Turks are holding out for more money.

[taranaki]

The other big bribe being offered to Turkey is a part of the 'peacekeeping' process after the war....It is highly likely that Turkey will occupy a 'buffer zone' inside Northern Iraq...by pure coincidence, this buffer will coincide with Turkisk claims on Iraqi land that date back to the 1920's.included in the prize are the northern oilfields at Kirkuk and Mosul.But of course,the Turks support the U.S. because Saddam eats babies and is an evil man.

[Toksin]

Originally posted by Jimster
lol.....I thought this thread was summing up George Bush......Taht'll teach me for just reading the title

LMAO



w3rd brotha.

[Darth Cypher]

Does nobody remember the devastating impact that the last oil fires had on the environment when saddam practiced his little "scorched Earth" deal in the Gulf War? Anybody?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but this US greed for oil thing is getting a little old. Saddam does not care for anything other than his own power and he will take whatever he can with him if he should fall. And of course Iraq is going to say that we are invading for the oil. Like I said, propoganda from both sides.....

Also, it seems a little that it makes no difference what the US does or doesn't do, it's all about oil, imperialism, control, domination, a war against Muslims/Arabs, etc, etc. Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose. And no, I don't trust my politicians but there is a line to the distrust.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

26 billion ? that seems a bit much for some oil ?

is there alot?

i dunno if its worth it altogether

[jon@af]

Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
26 billion ? that seems a bit much for some oil ?

is there alot?

i dunno if its worth it altogether

Bush has yet to be accused of being smart

[Cbass]

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Does nobody remember the devastating impact that the last oil fires had on the environment when saddam practiced his little "scorched Earth" deal in the Gulf War? Anybody?

Ah so now, we're attempting to justify this with the harm that Saddam did to the enviroment? How about the harm the US does every year, because they are unwilling to set reasonable pollution caps on their industry?

Every western nation has passed or is passing the Kyoto protocol, except for the US. Why? Because it would take money out of the pockets of the exceedingly wealthy, or in Bushese, be bad for the economy.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but this US greed for oil thing is getting a little old. Saddam does not care for anything other than his own power and he will take whatever he can with him if he should fall. And of course Iraq is going to say that we are invading for the oil. Like I said, propoganda from both sides.....

I find it much more likely that I'm strongly influenced by US propaganda, considering I'm exposed to US media more than Canadian media. This media is attempting to sway me towards a war. It doesn't matter what Iraq says, their stance and opinion on this are largely irrelevant. The US wants to invade, and the rest of the world doesn't. It's every other nation, saying it's about oil. Why is it that the only people who don't believe it's about oil are some Americans? I'll tell you why, US propaganda.

I respect your view of propaganda from both sides, but considering teh other side is Iraq, I find it very hard to believe I'm being propagandized. Unless you mean I'm being propagandized by the Europeans, who have no means of reaching me with their media. I think it's a little more likely that the US wants to invade Iraq, and are trying to propagandize me into supporting it.

Honestly, your only opinions of Saddam Hussein are those founded on what you have been told by the media, who are intent on villafying him. I don't know the man, I think he's probably not the nicest guy, he's a dictator after all, but we really don't know what he cares about. He runs a socialist government, which takes care of it's citizens, not big business. I would say that shows more caring than Bush has. If you want to get into comparisons, Saddam seems like a much more amiable chap than Dubya.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

Also, it seems a little that it makes no difference what the US does or doesn't do, it's all about oil, imperialism, control, domination, a war against Muslims/Arabs, etc, etc. Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose. And no, I don't trust my politicians but there is a line to the distrust.

I think the biggest reason for that would be that the US has an absolutely attrocious track record when it comes to foreign policy, protecting US foreign interests, corporate interests and generally killing anyone who gets in their way.

It seems that the Muslim fanatics are the only ones so far who have actually fought back, in the limited ways they can. If the US wants to be the world police, they must be impartial, and the US is far from impartial when US interests are involved, and at best indifferent if they are not.

More than 3000 people died on September 11th, and it's practically treason to discuss WHY they died. What does that say about the United States?

[dolla_bill0913]

Remeber Turkey went to the UN looking for protection from Iraq, not the U.S.. When one country is afraid of another something is wrong. Not to mention that Iraq can be linked to terrorist, so wouldnt that make it like any other country, where terrorests are being found and arrested. Shouldnt Saddam be arrested for supporting terrorists, or is it O.K. for him to do it and noone else.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Remeber Turkey went to the UN looking for protection from Iraq, not the U.S.. When one country is afraid of another something is wrong. Not to mention that Iraq can be linked to terrorist, so wouldnt that make it like any other country, where terrorests are being found and arrested. Shouldnt Saddam be arrested for supporting terrorists, or is it O.K. for him to do it and noone else.

Sounds good.Perhaps you would also like to arrest ever member of Noraid, an American organisation that arranged funding and firearms shipments to the IRA?Or how about prosecuting Donald Rumsfeld for his part in the U.S. funding of Saddam Hussein when IRAN was Uncle Sam's favorite boogieman?Maybe you could also find and prosecute the persons responsible for equipping the Contras with firearms?Or even perhaps look to the U.S.arms industry forsupplying all manner of tinpot dictators,terrorists,anarchists,criminals and psychotic high school students with deadly weapons?

[Darth Cypher]

I still find it funny this is EXACTLY the same way Afganistan played out before the whole world got involved with us. It's about oil, you want to kill Muslims, you are going to kill civilians, etc, etc. It's sick.

We fought several times in the Middle East and not once did we take oil for ourselves other than what we purchase already. Afganistan was "about the oil" yet there are no more stories of oil anymore, wonder why. Oh yeah, it's because there isn't any there. "Sorry, our bad". Hmmmm, I know our intel isn't all that good at times but come on.

The only thing I am justifying is how we want to prevent oil fires from happening again. It was hell trying to put them out. I'm sure people lost thier lives doing so. So yeah, we are going to try to prevent that. So what now? We should do away with firemen/safety and such? I don't get what you are saying.

And not the entire world is against it. Several millions per gathering hardly represents the whole world composed of billions. And there are countries that are siding with us. Yet, the anti-war people still cannot grasp this. We and the world knows saddam is a threat because everyone in the UN voted to have Iraq disarmed.

That says that the whole world (at least as far as the "worldly" UN is concerned) percieves Iraq as a threat. Ok, so now they agree that he is a threat. Now what? Sit on your hands?! Come on, Iraq is not going to comply. The Resolution clearly states "FULL cooperation". Even the report that Blix gave said that they are "partially" cooperating and there is no "media influence" about this one because I watched that speech.

And Bush is not a "war-monger" who disrespects international law. Because if that was the case then he wouldn't have gone to the UN in the first place. He has made it clearly known that the US will go it alone but he is giving the UN several upon several chances to uphold the several upon several resolutions that the UN has passed on Iraq and failed EACH AND EVERY ONE utterly. Bush is like anyone else who is losing patience.

We want to talk about oil and the US "violating" sanctions or whatever. Well, let's see. The very ones that are opposing our proposed war are the very ones that are getting oil from Iraq and of course if you look at Iraq's weaponry what do you see? Primarily Russian made. What we provided were some weapons and intel in exchange for fighting a mutual enemy and to stop harboring international terrorists. Well, he certainly failed that one too (not saying he is working with al-quada.....yet).

And people who have no respect for UN sanctions? Look no further than Europe. Russia, France, and some independant people/firms (not thier actual government) in the UK broke UN sanctions and started to deal with Iraq. I know this because I stumbled upon an article years ago and did a report on it for one of my military education classes. That move right there got saddam to becoming more powerful believe it or not. So given this too, you can see how we are pushing for compliance really bad. The nations I talked about above added fuel to the fire and they aren't helping us to put it out.

And my sources are from the news yes, but about the Gulf War they are mostly from veterans of that war. My Dad being one of them. I don't think too much of the media is too far off with saddam.

Now about that Kyoto treaty b.s. If you ever go to Europe (namely the UK) you will be lucky to find an engine size not much bigger than 1.0 liter in most cases. They are restricted not to mention the high prices for "petrol" over here in the UK. Englanders, tell me if I'm wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that the Kyoto treaty would have royally screwed us over wether (in your belief) it was to save the rich or not. And we are taking our own steps (yes even Bush) to find alternate energy.

Yes, I read an actual article about how he is pushing for this research. But the anti-Bush, anti-right wing, anti-whatever won't say this. He wants to get rid of our dependancy for oil but not to the point that it will be bad for us. Think about it, a rapid change like that would be bad for us. But we do go in that direction. I mean if my Z28 back in the US can get 20 mpg in the city (yes, it really does) and is over 300 hp then what does that tell you? Granted though, we should get rid of those damn SUVs.

And a final note: I don't recall saying that you were being "propogandized" in this thread. I usually get that card played on me.

Now explain to me how it is "treason" to talk about the September 11 attacks? We talk about it very much in the states and nobody in black has abducted anyone or anything. And no, we shouldn't be impartial when are interests are at risk. Nobody with an ounce of brains would do that. We might not be the only superpower for long but we will always be a nation you do not fuck with.

Those terrorists are the brainwashed ones. You will get fucked by 70 virgins in Heaven if you become a martyr and kill as many Americans as you can. 'Nuff said. We aren't fighting the Muslims, we are fighting the extremists. And we all know that extremists are bad/evil, no propoganda and no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it. We all KNOW what extremism leads too. These terrorists have no honor, yet I find that many in the world are calling them "freedom fighters". WTF?! They BLATANTLY target non-combantants. And it is not only against the US, it's YOUR COUNTRY too. But I suppose that is the US's fault too? Hell even the French suffer from it. They are sticking up for Iraq and what did they get? A bombed oil tanker. This post has dragged on long enough so I will stop here.

Sorry, I'm going on 24 hours with no sleep and I'm "high" on Red Bull.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I still find it funny this is EXACTLY the same way Afganistan played out before the whole world got involved with us. It's about oil, you want to kill Muslims, you are going to kill civilians, etc, etc. It's sick.

We fought several times in the Middle East and not once did we take oil for ourselves other than what we purchase already. Afganistan was "about the oil" yet there are no more stories of oil anymore, wonder why. Oh yeah, it's because there isn't any there. "Sorry, our bad". Hmmmm, I know our intel isn't all that good at times but come on.

There is not much oil in Afghanistan,true.But then there's not much of ANYTHING left in Afghanistan any more.Where's Osama?You guys don't have any idea.Where is Al Queda operating from now?No answers on that one yet either.When will the persons responsible for the Sept 11 bombings be brought to justice?Don't ask,Uncle Sam doesn't know.In short,the U.S. has bombed the hell out of Afghanistan with little or no result,and is now using the mysterious 'terrorists who might be coming' as a weak excuse to go rampaging around the Middle East.Iraq will only be the start.It's based on lies,it's immoral,and every decent American soldier should be ashamed to be part of it.

[dolla_bill0913]

Originally posted by taranaki


Sounds good.Perhaps you would also like to arrest ever member of Noraid, an American organisation that arranged funding and firearms shipments to the IRA?Or how about prosecuting Donald Rumsfeld for his part in the U.S. funding of Saddam Hussein when IRAN was Uncle Sam's favorite boogieman?Maybe you could also find and prosecute the persons responsible for equipping the Contras with firearms?Or even perhaps look to the U.S.arms industry forsupplying all manner of tinpot dictators,terrorists,anarchists,criminals and psychotic high school students with deadly weapons?

Great Ideas, because that is the only way there will ever be peace. It only takes one person to start a war. So if everyone has to be put in jail so a war doesnt happen, then I guess so be it. You make up this stupid list of all these people you want to blame for terrorism and war, but you dont give any other options for us to avoid war. If you dont like the idea of putting threats to a peaceful world behind bars, what do you think we should do?