oil :)

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by linkdomain




i'm saying your thinking about 1940 something about a internal nuke test, when terrorist would love to kill you right now.

see?

i agree. And terrorists have been trying to kill brits for a very long time....they are called the IRA, which actually recieved alot of money from within the US.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by DomainNameFactory
It amazing that the US does not get more support...do you have any idea on the BILLIONS the US GIVES to other countries to help with food, medical and infrastructure needs.

France would be a German speaking country if it wasnt for us...

Kuwait women were being raped by Iraqies and Kuwait was being burned to the ground until we stepped in...

However, I am not so foolish to say I understand all the currents that flow in the world. Leaders have access to info we can never see and it's foolish for us to say "we know"...we may have an opinion, but we DONT know...

If Iraq invaded Kuwait again today and the US did not get involved...who would help them?

You speak alot of truth. But that doesn't mean people should support someone whenthey think they are wrong.

Let me ask you this...why do you think the US stepped in during WW2?

And one more point....are you aware that Kuwait was part of Iraq, until the west stepped in and carved it off.....oh, and that Kuwait repeatedly broke an agreement between Iraq and themselves? (hense the invation)

(and before anyone gets the wrong idea, i am not anti-US...my fiancee is an American, and i will be moving out there next year. I am just trying to educate some of you guys, like i have been educated.....hopefully some of you will have a better understanding of world events reading this thread).

 

[linkdomain]

We can go back and forth for a long time about Iraq.



So I will lastly say I never have or would send a dime to the IRA.

back to domains for me....

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues

Settlements? Can you prove the judgements were awarded because the US intentionally placed people in the harms way of nuclear weapons to investigate the effects they had? Or was it because of carelessness.

It was deliberate...they wanted to see the effects. If you research it, i am sure u can find something on the net.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues
The US motive for action is not Kurds. It was pushed because after the attacks, a more urgent need to get rid of threats was felt. Saddam is a belligerent who in the past has shown a willingness to kill and invade using chemical weapons. He also hates the US. The movtive for the US to get rid of such a threat.

The whole Middle east hates the US (and the west come to that). Should we kill all the muslims? As it has been proved, it only has to take a handful of determined people to cause a disaster. You don't need a nuke to be a threat.

All you guys who are for the attacks...........do you think the US should jump in, or wait for a united front? If the UN are not acting, don't you think their is a good reason. Do you not think there is a reason?

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by DomainNameFactory
It amazing that the US does not get more support...do you have any idea on the BILLIONS the US GIVES to other countries to help with food, medical and infrastructure needs.

Do you know how many military contracts the US gets from these countries? Its a scam

 

[Addictive]

how can you say that the IRA are determined to kill the british??
they want to kill everyone ! but ask yourself this ..
would an IRA gunman turn his gun on a fellow catholic instead of a prodestant ??
i think not !

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues


You firmly believe in your argument. Why? Can't you recall the evidence?

I have read many sources over the years. Surely you can't expect me to remember where i read everything.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by Addictive
how can you say that the IRA are determined to kill the british??
they want to kill everyone ! but ask yourself this ..
would an IRA gunman turn his gun on a fellow catholic instead of a prodestant ??
i think not !

Sorry addictive, i don't see what you are getting at.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues
"And one more point....are you aware that Kuwait was part of Iraq, until the west stepped in and carved it off.....oh, and that Kuwait repeatedly broke an agreement between Iraq and themselves? (hense the invation)"

You go further in justifying Saddam's actions now. Kuwait no matter what its origins were is a soverign country. Saddam was the one who invaded for oil. He invaded Kuwait and intended to invade Saudi Arabia in order to seize a large portion of the oil reserves. Kuwait certainly did not invite an invasion. Interesting to observe you try to find "broken agreements" for Saddam's cause.

I am not sure if he intended on invading Saudi Arabia. I know the Saudias were scared, but there is nothing to back up this claim.

Now, are you aware of the reasons why Saddam Invaded Kuwait? I believe he actually had a legitimate claim to invade. Now, as you know Kuwait is next to Iraq, and both have oil under them. Now, the oil under the ground isn't going to be exactly under the countries.....pockets of oil will be under both of them (hope that makes sense). Now what Kuwait had agreed with Iraq was that there would be a exclusion zone around the boarder that they could not dig for oil. But Kuwait broke this agreement, and put up many pumps near the boarder and tried to take as much oil as possible. THey also used a drilling technique where they drill diagnally, so that they actually pump from iraqs side. Kuwait, was effectively stealing iraqi oil. But they ar a US allie, so that ok huh.

Also, as mentioned before Kuwait was part of Iraq. After World War 1, england, and some other western countries went to the middle east and carved it up to the states you see today. They then put in heads of state that were Western friendly as they realised during the war how important oil was. This is one of the main reasons why the middle east hates the West so much. Then, the people of these states were not happy, and several of them overthrew the soverigns inplace....and one of these countries was Iraq.

I'm going to try and dig up some of my info. Remember, i am not attacking, i am trying to educate.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues


Of course Saddam is different. He is a government. Not only does he just hate the US but he has weapons and a dangerous history with them.

You dont need a nuke to be a threat. That doesn't change my view on Saddam because he still is a threat.

So you think the US should also attack Lybia, Iran, Syria.Lebanon....and the rest huh. Ask yourself why they are a threat.

 

[President Gringo]

Heres a few interesting reads for you

"The Bush administration has persistently suggested links exist between Iraq and al-Qa'ida but provided no evidence. Tony Blair's dossier made clear there was no evidence to prove links.

US officials often cite reports that Mohamed Atta, alleged ringleader of the 11 September hijackers, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague before the attacks. But those reports are widely disputed.

The administration also says there is evidence of Islamic extremists with links to al-Qa'ida in the north of Iraq, though they fail to say this part is outside Saddam Hussein's control and the CIA has operatives there. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=336690 (very reputable source).



“It’s really not a number I’m terribly interested in.” General Colin Powell, when asked about the number of Iraqi people who were killed by Americans in the 1991 Desert Storm campaign (200,000 people, incidentally)

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news372.htm (not sure about the vadility of this info, but i have read simlar from other sources)



I can't seem to find something i read about the histrory of the middle east....it was an interesting read.

 

[President Gringo]

Iraq is the second biggest producer of oil in the world....yes it is about oil.

No legitimate claim? So if Canada started logging on american soil, and everytime amerca told them to stop they would say yeah, sure, ok........ the US would not use military force?

And you are aware that the US is on the verge of a energy crisis? You are aware thats why they are going to go to the wildlife reserves in Alaska to dig up the oil?

If they want to invade Iraq, i say show the people the proof. Thats the only problem here, no one can show any proof what so ever...its all speculation. If they had proof, the invasion would already have taken place. This is why so many US and UK citizens (the US's closest allie) are against this.

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues

That is even more absurd. If Canadian loggers went into US soil to log. There would be complaints and local authorities would have to resolve it. The assertion that the US would mobilize 100 divisions (500,000 men) to invade and occupy the entire country of Canada is ridiculous! And then off course the US would see an oppurtunity and try to invade Mexcio.

The logging is a bad example, coz its above ground and ca be stopped easier.

But lets use the example of oil. Lets say there is a huge oil pocket under the ground in north america, and lets say 80% of that oil pocket was under the USA, and 20% under canada. If canada threw up as many oil pumps on its land on that field, and pump the living shit out of it, would america be happy?

Lets say canada took the piss further, and put pumps up along the boarder, but dug diagonlly under the ground, so that it was reaching pockets of oil that were not under its soil but under the US, effectively stealing the oil from America. Would america be happy with that? Lets say Canada kept on saying, sorry, we won't do it again, and will will reduce the pumps on our join oil field, we will only pump x amount out each year as agreed between us, but then just carry on for years...what would america do? (lets say the oil is worth a fortune).

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by lotsofissues

No I have not heard of a impending energy crisis, which would not exclusivily be US. Why don't you tell me more.

"Is There an Energy Crisis? White House Says Yes"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/energycrisis_010423.html


Useful chart showing production and consumption:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/energyd051701.htm


http://power.about.com/cs/usenergycrisis/


"After eight years without an energy strategy, America faces an energy crisis."
http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/editorials/2001/20010530.html


That should keep you busy for a while, if you would like more, let me know.

 

[Larry]

PG,

Interesting articles but they really are nothing more than political spin to push an agenda (i say that as a republican mind you). i wouldnt focus on the california issue to much. california has long been it's own worst enemy when it comes to these issues.

However, I do tend to agree with you concerning American interests in the oil in Iraq. On the surface there only seems to be four potential reasons why we would be so intent on this Iraq issue:

1) Oil - there appears to me to be some growing discontent in saudi arabia and if we lost our current arrangement with the saudis an energy crisis would become a reality overnight.

2) Israel - our stance on the arab/israeli situation. no doubt hussein would like nothing better than to be in a position to not only wipe out israel but to draw the US into a conflict where we have to side (militarily) with Israel.

3) History - Reluctance to act has cost countless lives over the last century in many different ways...world war 1-2, somolia, et al. Maybe we wont act and 5 years from now hussein starts lobbing some pretty bad stuff around the middle east and we can tell the russians and french that we told you so now you go clean up the mess....maybe not. countries against the current resolutions clearly have their own agenda also.

4) Hussein - The guy is dangerous (opinion)...but apart from the reasons above why is that any of our business? we (the world, not just the US) have failed to act many times when there was nothing to be gained and ruthless dictators have existed (and been propped up by us and other countries at times if it server the agenda) throughout time with.

I have not seen any actual proof that says we need to do this...but I'm not in the know. I'm not going to protest but I;m not going to follow blindly because our govt. says so either.

Sometimes I just wish we could/would return to our semi-isolationist stance that "enjoyed" in the early days and focus on internal national issues that could use some attention....i guess it;s easier to have an enemy to focus on.


as for the "hating americans" issue. over the history of the world, the west has, to a certain degree, supressed people by not sharing the wealth (you can define what wealth is). i liken this to the church member that takes a basket of food to a poor family once a year and then comes back to church, tells everybody, and thanks god that they are not that family.

but, karl marx wrote the book on sharing and it didnt pan out. why should it be of consequence to this country if rich governments (ALL including Arab) do not provide the same opportunities for their people that exist in the US? my point being that jealousy does play a roll in the hate "feelings" of many people around the world towrds the US.

i think that many people would be surprised to know that very few americans dislike anybody anywhere. i like the arabs and the israelis. i wish we had no conflict but when there are people who exist that would rather see me dead than alive because of what country i live in..well, we are going to have some conflict. welcome to the human condition.

this country is far from perfect. but i am happy to be here and in the end would lay down my life to allow my teenage children the opportunity to enjoy the same freedoms that I have enjoyed.



just my thoughts and ramblings...no intent to offend anyone.



larry

 

[President Gringo]

at last, someone who knows how the real world operates. You have pretty much summed up what i have been saying very nicely, thank you.

As for the energy crisis thing, i cannot comment too much. I can only go by what i have been reading. What is certain is that the US (and the rest of the western world come to that) do not produce enough oil to sustain their needs. Our economies are dependant on oil.....if the price goes up, it could push us into a recession and hurt us badly. Who needs bombs and missles when you can cripple a country economically. As mentioned earlier, Iraq is the second biggest producer of oil in the world, with an estimated $5trillion of oil. What better to bring stability to a US economy than to have a friendly reigeme in place in Iraq so we can start trading oil.

 

[TurNIC.com]

Gringo wrote:

You think this is about the kurds? Well where is the help in Zimbabe? Where is the help in Northern Cyprus when the Turks invaded? What about helping the Kurds being killed by the Turks? What about a handful of African countries where genocide has been raging for years and millions killed?

Oh, and as for there being no proof against the U government for nuking its own people, i believe the admitted it and paid a multi-million dollar settlement to people who got cancer from these tests.

Gringo,

I would start like "is Lawrence the son of a bitch yur grandpa?" but I would not do that.

You are just a cluless moron spitting shit to Americans and Turks. You claim that Turks invaded cypruss. That is not true since that island belongs to us since 1541. Greek applied planned assimilation and killing Turkish cypriots with the help of british. We stopped that and saved our people. I see that this really hurts you so that means we did a good thing. For the northern iraq issue, all arab peninsula was ruled by us till 1916. You seeded war and provacated arabs against Turks and created non-natural countries like syria, iraq. These countries have no basis, no ethnic, physical, economical basis to be a country. For the issue that we killed kurds in north: what the **** title yourself to speak about this issue. More than 30000 Turks died in north to solve that problem and we have known clues that kurds got help from you.

This claim is proved to be true again and agian and again: you seed war and problem and hatred everywhere you go. Kashmir, cypruss, hong kong, falklan islands, gibraltar.

Oh Gringo, even you boasted your gay ass we are gonna get our lands back: Kerkuk and Musul. We are gonna get in to EU. We are gonna get the majority vote in Council. We are more charming than you. We are better educated than you. Your stinky polytechnics sucks no body go there to master education. American girls are more sexy and hotter than your frigid english girls.

 

[President Gringo]

First of all, may i remind you that personal attacks are against the forum rules, and if you continue i will push for your ban. There is also no need to be homophobic or racist.

This is a discussion. If you think i am wrong, state so, and back it up.

As for Cyprus, it was an indepenant country, and Turkey invaded. And to this day, the international community does not recognise turkeys claims to Northern Cyprus, hense the criminals flee to there.

With regards to the rest of your post, i really can't make any sense of it or try and work out what you are getting at.

Oh, and with regards to your comment "American girls are more sexy and hotter than your frigid english girls".........if you actually read this thread, you would know my fiancee is American, so thank you for the complement.....and for the record, i might live in the UK, but my ethnic origin is Portuguese. Care to show me where the Portuguese have caused problems? We colonized alot of countries, but freely gave them independence when they wanted it.........although alot of those countries will tell you that things were alot better under the Portuguese coz coruption is bad now we are gone.

Ah, and if you are so anti-english, why is your ID a English Football manager or an English football club?

 

[TurNIC.com]

Gringo wrote:
First of all, may i remind you that personal attacks are against the forum rules, and if you continue i will push for your ban. There is also no need to be homophobic or racist.

I did not attack you I replied your claims (read the first part of my first post)

Gringo wrote:
As for Cyprus, it was an indepenant country, and Turkey invaded. And to this day, the international community does not recognise turkeys claims to Northern Cyprus, hense the criminals flee to there.

The reason they did not recognize Northern Cypruss is the same reason Spain do not recognize gibraltar as a british colony.

Gringo wrote:
Care to show me where the Portuguese have caused problems? We colonized alot of countries, but freely gave them independence when they wanted it.

When I was in Cali I had a brazilian friend. I asked him whether they talk any native language at home or portuguese he said he does not know any native language and his son will not know too. Just for the sake of giving example Would you like to be sucked till your bones got dry by a Colonist country so that you even CAN not talk your native language?

Gringo wrote:
Ah, and if you are so anti-english, why is your ID a English Football manager or an English football club?

I was using my real id: serothehero but ex-management banned it (safea$$ the british). Now I use this one since I like manchester united and its coach as a professional. See the difference?! Even I do not like english general does not mean I got better things from you. BTW we are gonna transfer Sir Alex to Turkey soon