Moderators lazarus Posted December 23, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 23, 2011 Originally Posted By: lazarus Why is the US so interested in the Middle East anyway? Oil. No oil in Israel. There goes that conspiracy theory. LOL, do you really think the US is interested in the Mid-East simply because of Israel? Wow! You have really bought the spin hook line and sinker. Oh, by the way, there is oil in Israel!!! from Wikipedia..... The United States’ relationship with the Middle East prior to the Second World War was minimal. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonise almost all of the Middle East region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the Middle East’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’.[2] American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Middle East. Moreover, the US had provided the Middle East with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[3] Thus, there were some connections, which were made between the United States and the Middle East before the Second World War. Other examples of corporations between the US and the Middle East are the Red Line Agreement signed in 1928 and the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement signed in 1944. Both of these agreements were legally binding and reflected an American interest in control of Middle Eastern energy resources, namely oil, and moreover reflected an American ‘security imperative to prevent the (re)emergence of a powerful regional rival’.[4] The Red Line Agreement had been ‘part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies…could control oil prices on world markets’.[5] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944: Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Here's Colin Powell Feb 2001: Cairo... Condi Rice CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, July 29, 2001 Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 LOL, do you really think the US is interested in the Mid-East simply because of Israel? No. I have never stated that. You are the one that stated the US is only interested in the Middle East because of oil. I was simply pointing out that Israel has no oil and yet we are interested in it. And it is in the Middle East. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted December 23, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 23, 2011 Watch your dates. Don't buy into all those conspiracy theories. ??? Are you saying it's a conspiracy theory that they said those things? I don't understand what you mean about the dates. Quote: The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan This was never mentioned as reason for going into Iraq. The article says as much. Are you saying that was the reason? Whats your point? Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 ??? Are you saying it's a conspiracy theory that they said those things? I don't understand what you mean about the dates. Those that peddle conspiracy theories are using those pre-9/11 stories to get us to buy a bill of goods. I am not that gullible. Of course Colin Powell and Condi held positions pre-9/11 that were vastly different than positions they later held after gaining more information. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 This was never mentioned as reason for going into Iraq. Wrong. Saddam's support of terrorism was a reason given for invading Iraq. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted December 23, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 23, 2011 Those that peddle conspiracy theories are using those pre-9/11 stories to get us to buy a bill of goods. I am not that gullible. Of course Colin Powell and Condi held positions pre-9/11 that were vastly different than positions they later held after gaining more information. Their pre-911 position turned out to be the right position. The information they received was wrong, even they admit that. I don't understand how you can't. Why on earth would you call the truth a conspiracy theory? Thats just odd. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted December 23, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 23, 2011 Wrong. Saddam's support of terrorism was a reason given for invading Iraq. This, i.e. the Russian intelligence. From the article you posted.......The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Their pre-911 position turned out to be the right position. No, it wasn't. What we found out after we invaded Iraq is that Saddam had put his WMD program on hold until he could get sanctions lifted. We discovered he was bribing UN Security Council members to get those sanctions lifted. He maintained the capacity to produce WMDs. If the US had not led a coalition to take down the Saddam regime, it is highly likely he would have succeeded in bribing the UN Security Council members to lift sanctions and thus resumed his WMD programs. Russia was correct that he had planned to attack the US with terrorists and WMDs. Had Saddam remained in power, it was only a matter of time until that happened. I am just not gullible enough to buy into conspiracy theories. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war. Of course they didn't. It was given in confidence. Typically a friend doesn't stab a friend in the back. The information didn't become public until Russia made it public. Revealing the information may have jeopardized the lives of informants or Russian spies. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted December 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 26, 2011 Well it seems like you have bought into the spin that the Bush admin and their cronies have laid down since the Iraq debacle. They were duped by Chalabi and squandered billions of dollars and cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It was a big mess up. It's not a virtue to accept the mainstream explanation of events in the face of the obvious. Government's lie all the time. They always have done and always will. The American government is no different. Colin Powell now concedes that it was wrong to go into Iraq. He's hardly a conspiacy theorist. MI6 produced bogus Iraq war evidence under pressure from Downing Street Who forged the Niger Yellow Cake document? Remember Curveball? Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 It's not a virtue to accept the mainstream explanation of events in the face of the obvious. This is the way conspiracy theorists talk. The news media sensationalizes the news. There is little doubt about that. But with so many different sources of news today, it is unlikely that the news is falsified on a grand scale. We should be able to feel comfortable believing the news reported from multiple and reputable sources. After invading Iraq we discovered the invasion wasn't urgent. We did not discover it wasn't necessary. Saddam was still a bad guy. Saddam did have a limited number of WMDs and had the capacity to build more. Colin Powell and others like him look back with hindsight and think that if we had known then what we know now that sanctions would have worked. But there was no way for us to know then what we know now. How could have we learned that Saddam was bribing UN Security Council members to get sanctions lifted? It is highly likely that had we not invaded, Saddam would have been successful in getting sanctions lifted and then would have resumed his WMD programs with continued ties to terrorists. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted December 27, 2011 Members Share Posted December 27, 2011 After invading Iraq we discovered the invasion wasn't urgent. We did not discover it wasn't necessary. Saddam was still a bad guy. Saddam did have a limited number of WMDs and had the capacity to build more. Colin Powell and others like him look back with hindsight and think that if we had known then what we know now that sanctions would have worked. But there was no way for us to know then what we know now. How could have we learned that Saddam was bribing UN Security Council members to get sanctions lifted? It is highly likely that had we not invaded, Saddam would have been successful in getting sanctions lifted and then would have resumed his WMD programs with continued ties to terrorists. Colin Powell had recommended sanctions, but was over ruled by Rumsfeld, if I'm not mistaken. Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Originally Posted By: Shane After invading Iraq we discovered the invasion wasn't urgent. We did not discover it wasn't necessary. Saddam was still a bad guy. Saddam did have a limited number of WMDs and had the capacity to build more. Colin Powell and others like him look back with hindsight and think that if we had known then what we know now that sanctions would have worked. But there was no way for us to know then what we know now. How could have we learned that Saddam was bribing UN Security Council members to get sanctions lifted? It is highly likely that had we not invaded, Saddam would have been successful in getting sanctions lifted and then would have resumed his WMD programs with continued ties to terrorists. Colin Powell had recommended sanctions, but was over ruled by Rumsfeld, if I'm not mistaken. What a shame we never tried any sanctions. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Did iraq ever attack, or do anything to provoke an all out war with the US? Or England? Or Canada prior the 1995 invasion? Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Which reminds me of another country. My best suits are made in Viet Nam, some of my best shirts are made there, contracting graphic designers? Go to Viet Nam.. Now what was the reason to cost so many American lives, wasted so many minds that are still damaged? Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Did Iraq ever attack, or do anything to provoke an all out war with the US? Yes. Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush in April of 1993. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 why did he want to do that? Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I remember the words, what Saddam had contacted Bush via the embassy before the invasion of Kuwait "The borders in the muslim countries are not of concern to the American People" or something similar. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 why did he want to do that? I haven't seen that question answered (or even asked) any where. Perhaps because President Bush led a United Nations force to push Saddam out of Kuwait. If the Salvadoran Army assassinates former Mexican President Fox, would that give Mexico justification to attack El Salvador? I think most people would say it does. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I remember the words, what Saddam had contacted Bush via the embassy before the invasion of Kuwait "The borders in the muslim countries are not of concern to the American People" or something similar. I don't know what the news source of this is or how factual it is. However assuming it is true, I doubt this was Bush giving Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait. I believe there was a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq that centered around sideways drilling. Kuwait was able to access Iraqi oil from the Kuwait side of the border. Perhaps Iraq was looking for the US to do something to stop Kuwait and the Bush Administration took a hands-off approaching by saying borders in Muslim countries are not our concern. Whatever the context was, if Saddam thought it was a green light to invade Kuwait, he was obviously mistaken. Instead of invading them, he should have taken the issue to the UN or World Court. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Context Context Context Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted December 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2011 After invading Iraq we discovered the invasion wasn't urgent. Urgent! This was not a case of appendicitis. That's not a perspective I've heard of before. This case of mistaken urgency cost thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. I guess if we had realized it was not so urgent than those thousands of Iraqis could have enjoyed another few month or years of life. I wonder how many other invasions were urgent. We now realize that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not as urgent a matter was it was first thought. I guess the US has to do all it can to maintain its empire. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 This case of mistaken urgency cost thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Of course it did but let's keep it in perspective. The mistake was due to Saddam. There were over 30 intelligence agencies that believed he had WMDs. It was not just the US. Why did all these nations believe Saddam had WMDs? Because he led us to believe it. He sent out people that claimed to be defecting from his government and claiming he had WMDs. Publicly he claimed not to have them but then he sent out defectors claiming he did. In addition to that he kicked out the weapons inspectors and when they returned was not forthcoming. He behaved suspiciously. He was shooting down our drone planes patrolling the no-fly zones. He was playing a game of high-stakes poker and he brought war and death unto his countrymen as a result. We cannot blame the coalition of nations that invaded Iraq for being suspicious and concerned. Saddam bares the blame. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted December 29, 2011 Author Share Posted December 29, 2011 I suspect the Iraqis know best and they found Saddam guilty and executed him. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.