Nice to meet you too. ;)

melodyc:

Way to push the paranoia forward, friend. Your mentality is analogous to those whom you so wish to protect your comrades from. All you & those like you have succeeded in doing is making our people more fearful of some amorphous threat. While our government is placating your kind with this crusade to bring democracy to Iraq, the true enemy is only getting stronger & growing in numbers as our defense is sapped dry in this futile conflict. I pity us all, for if you & yours ever find enlightenment in this life, it will be too little & too late; same as it ever was. Your psychopathic hunger for the illusion of security is killing those around you & the lack of "backbone" would seem to be on your end.

Quote: Sure, you all supported President Bush then, but when we move to eliminate another enemy and terrorist sympathizer, you throw little hissy fits.

I think you're a bit off there. I've never supported Bush and 9/11 didn't change that. I'm sure i'm not alone, either.

No need for a draft, Rumsfeld just keeps them enlisted even past their due date of separation. There's only one way these dudes get to go home... in a box. Bush has got to go. Dump the Dope in 2004.

liked beatles better but this one different but good

"While bombing Iraq would not in itself cause the oil price to rise sharply, an attack by Saddam on Saudi or Kuwaiti oil fields or an uprising in Riyadh would. The loss of, say, 5m barrels a day of oil production cannot be made up quickly or easily. A big crude producer paralysed by revolution can see production fall precipitously because its workforce is out on the streets rather than manning the taps in the terminal. This is what happened in Iran during the 1979 revolution. Iranian oil production fell from 6m barrels a day to 3m and never recovered. If the same happened in Saudi Arabia, the world would see oil prices spurt upwards."
Guardian Unlimited - Thursday October 17, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,813965,00.html

"Humanity's way of life is on a collision course with geology—with the stark fact that the Earth holds a finite supply of oil. The flood of crude from fields around the world will ultimately top out, then dwindle. It could be 5 years from now or 30: No one knows for sure, and geologists and economists are embroiled in debate about just when the "oil peak" will be upon us. But few doubt that it is coming. "In our lifetime," says economist Robert K. Kaufmann of Boston University, who is 46, "we will have to deal with a peak in the supply of cheap oil.""
National Geographic - June 2004
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/index.html

"The Middle East—and specifically the Persian Gulf region—accounts for about 30 percent of global oil production. But it has about 65 percent of the planet’s known reserves, and is therefore the only region able to satisfy any substantial rise in world oil demand—an increase that the administration’s energy policy documents say is inevitable. Saudi Arabia, with 262 billion barrels, has a quarter of the world’s total reserves and is the single largest producer. But Iraq, despite its pariah status for the past 12 years, remains a key prize. At 112 billion barrels, its known reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. And, given that substantial portions of Iraqi territory have never been fully explored, there is a good chance that actual reserves are far larger."

"Washington's Pro-Iraqi Tilt

The year 1979 turned out to be a watershed, as the Shah of Iran was swept aside by an Islamic revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. One of Washington’s main geopolitical pillars had crumbled, and the new regime in Teheran was seen as a mortal threat by the conservative Persian Gulf monarchies. The Carter administration responded by pumping rising quantities of weapons into Saudi Arabia, and began a quest for new military bases in the region (Bahrain eventually became the permanent home base for the U.S. Fifth Fleet). But there was no escaping the fact that neither Saudi Arabia nor any of the smaller Gulf states were strong enough to replace Iran as a proxy.

Instead, Iraq became a surrogate of sorts. Iran and Iraq had long been at loggerheads. Seeing a rival in revolutionary disarray, and sensing an opportunity for an easy victory that would propel him to leadership of the Arab world, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in September 1980. Eager to see Teheran’s revolutionary regime reined in, the United States turned a blind eye to the aggression, opposing U.N. Security Council action on the matter.

But instead of speeding the Iranian regime toward collapse, the attack consolidated Khomeini’s power. And marshalling revolutionary fervor, Iran was soon turning the tide of battle. With the specter of an Iraqi defeat looming, the United States went much farther in its support of Saddam:

* To facilitate closer cooperation, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from a list of nations that it regarded as supporters of terrorism. Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense, met with Saddam in Baghdad in December 1983. His visit paved the way to the restoration of formal diplomatic relations the following year, after a 17-year hiatus.
* The United States made available several billion dollars worth of commodity credits to Iraq to buy U.S. food, alleviating severe financial pressures that had threatened Baghdad with bankruptcy. The food purchases were a critical element in the regime’s attempts to shield the population as much as possible from the war’s repercussions—and hence limiting the likelihood of any challenges to its rule. The U.S. government also provided loan guarantees for an oil export pipeline through Jordan (replacing other export routes that had been blocked because of the war).
* Though not selling weapons directly to Iraq, Reagan administration officials allowed private U.S. arms dealers to sell Soviet-made weapons purchased in Eastern Europe to Iraq. U.S. leaders permitted Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan to transfer U.S.-made weapons to Baghdad. And they abandoned earlier opposition to the delivery of French fighter jets and Exocet missiles (which were subsequently used against tankers transporting Iranian oil).
* From the spring of 1982 on, the Reagan administration secretly transmitted highly classified military intelligence—battlefront satellite images, intercepts of Iranian military communications, information on Iranian troop deployments—to Saddam Hussein’s regime, staving off its defeat.
* As the war went on, the United States took an increasingly active military role. It tilted toward Iraq in the “war on tankers” by protecting oil tankers in the southern Gulf against Iranian attacks, but did not provide security from Iraqi attacks for ships docking at Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal. Later, the United States even launched attacks on Iran’s navy and Iranian offshore oil rigs.


Washington’s immediate objective was to prevent an Iranian victory. In a larger sense, though, U.S. policymakers were intent on keeping both Iraq and Iran bogged down in war, no matter how horrendous the human cost on both sides—hundreds of thousands were killed. (The Reagan administration secretly allowed Israel to ship several billion dollars worth of U.S. arms and spare parts to Iran.) Preoccupied with fighting one another, Baghdad and Teheran would be unable to challenge U.S. domination of the Gulf region. Reflecting administration sentiments, Henry Kissinger said in 1984 that “the ultimate American interest in the war [is] that both should lose.”


Oil and geopolitical interests translated into U.S. support for Saddam Hussein when he was at his most dangerous and murderous—not only committing an act of international aggression by invading Iran, but also by using chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds. U.S. assistance to Baghdad was provided although top officials in Washington knew at the time that Iraq was using poison gas.

Undoubtedly, U.S. support emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990. But he miscalculated badly: the United States would never consent to a single, potentially hostile, power gaining sway over the Gulf region’s massive oil resources. When its regional strongman crossed that line, U.S. policy shifted to direct military intervention. "

Worldwatch Institute - November 26, 2002
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/11/26/

First, the money we pay for extra gas goes in Bush/Cheney's pockets. Big Oil, remember.

We put Saddam in power. We trained Osama. Look it up - This is American History. We funded both Iraq and Iran at the same time. It was on t.v. for months, but nobody remembers it. He used gas in the early eighties and we said you can't do that, and then sold him 600 more helicopters.

I even read that Hussein called up Washington and said he wanted Kuwait. We gave him the go, and then we lit him up anyway.

Whatever, I'm quoting really alternative press here, like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc.

http://www.fair.org/

It's definately a half assed approach. But I liked it cause it had that cut and paste kind of kitchy fanimutation thing that I have an affinity for. There were a *few* interesting images, specifically Rumsfield flipping us all off. ;)

And I realized I never knew all the lyrics of the song.

Finally, OZZY RULEZ!!!

BTW, welcome to the community! Have a slice of pie and think of us fondly. ;)

That's a Cold War era weapon of mass junk. It was probably up on blocks before they got embarrassed and just buried it. hehe ;)