Oil wells ablaze

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.oil.wells/index.html

Pentagon has received reports that Iraqi forces have set "as many as three or four" oil wells ablaze in southern Iraq, near the Kuwaiti border.


Note this bit about the oil spills last time, It is quite amazing how bad it was. 20 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill!!

Before the fires, Iraq was responsible for intentionally releasing some 11 million barrels of oil into the Arabian Gulf from January to May 1991, oiling more than 800 miles of Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian coastline. The amount of oil released was categorized as 20 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and twice as large as the previous world record oil spill. The cost of cleanup was estimated at more than $700 million.

That will give the US something to do once the war is over. Good on the iraqis considering oil is a motivation for the US.
Would be interesting if OPEC banded together and refused to sell oil to the US although I understand that Venezuela chairs OPEC.

Oil the motivation?, are you still maintaining that theory, how many times does that need to be disproved?

Disproved?

Shit, I must have missed something..

How can anyone prove any of the Bush Admistrations motivations?? Disprove or Approve.. how did you reach your conclusion.

Reference?

It seems we can only speculate, by looking at all the facts...

if this war is about oil,why arent they invading Saudi Arabia,or any other country with an oil field?

'don't fire over there, theres some wells!'

'sorry sarge, what shall we do?'

'just blame it on those dune coons!'

'the pentagon has received reports that iraqis are setting fire to oil wells'

maybe it was the massive bombardment by US/UK forces that set them on fire? as dpt said blame it on those coons

dpt, you are a fucking classic.

Hey will you admit that it is likely Saddam has scuds yet? or are you still sticking to your position in spite of the fact that he has now fired a few off.

Trapper:

In a message a couple of days ago, you replied to one of my messages, saying:

"With 2 trillion dollars worth oil it's very hard to imagine Iraq will be in serious debt any time soon. Kind of shoots your theory in the foot huh... "

Well maybe my "thoery" was not all that ludicrous after all.

It looks as if Iraq are thinking "if we cant have oil, neither will you"

To repeat myself:

I believe the IMF have no monetery control within Iraq - So fuck them up with war, then lend/rebuild Iraq so they can be "repaired" into the western monetry way = Iraq forever in debt and under control.

An old saying that rings oh so true:

"Victor pays vanquished"

What!? Last time I checked they didn't know what type of missles they where

link please?

one stating that it is a fact that they where scuds

Huck, setting the oil wells on fire will not have any impact on Iraq's oil reserves, all it does dammage the well, create a massive environmental mess and a pain in the arse for whoever has to put it out.


neil here a link for ya, it would be easier if you made at least some effort to keep up with the news before trying to discuss it here.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3251177&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

richy - no-one said it was the only motivation for the war. It is fairly obvious that the oil is a factor, just how much is anyones guess.

Reportedly a scud...

I'm sorry trapper that isn't really proof is it

Yes Reportedly a scud. ie, it was reported to be a scud. What is your point?

just cause somebody heard it was a scud, its really proof it was it scub,

rumours spread easily....

some psychical evidence maybe would be good, some indepent reports from different sources...

just cause somebody said "hey fuck look its a scud" doesn't make it scud

amen to that neil.

but if its on CNN its true though isn't it???

iraq fired empty missiles - which means they're saving the really harmful stuff for when they need it or it could mean that they actually don't have anytning to fire in the missiles....

If you want 'physical' evidence about the only way your going to get it is fly over to kuwait and stand under the fucking things!

Do you want someone to send you a piece in the post before you accept it!

FFS

I can see how the next few weeks are going to pan out. The same few fools denouncing everything on the news that they don't agree with as lies while at the same time demanding that their own completely baseless theories be given credibility.

We know a lot of what we will see on the news over the next few weeks will be speculative and much of it could well turn out wrong but how about using a bit of critical reasoning guys? It's not that hard, lets give it a try...

As an example.

"just cause somebody said 'hey fuck look its a scud' doesn't make it scud"

True but we have to accept that somebody in Kuwait who actually saw the thing is a lot more likely to know whether or not it was a scud than Neil from biggie who doesn’t even bother keeping up with the news. Think about it...

I didn't say it wasn't a scud either...

I don't know what kind of missiles they where

all i'm saying is I haven't seen any proof that is was a scud..

and all you've said is that some dude in kuwait said it was

at this point in the conflict I doubt one can trust any news source

Its about propaganda currently - Iraq says we shot down your plane, the US denies it, Iraq says you killed 'x' number of troops/civilians, the US says no we didn't and so it goes on...

As for trusting eye witness's I doubt there's much credibility in what most say - I wouldn't know a scud if I fell over one and most people wouldn't - so why put your faith in what some person in Kuwait may or may not have seen.

and I am keeping up with the news trapper...

check this link
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/275256.html

bad_seed I said that oil is a motivating factor I never stated that it is the only reason they are going to war but merely it comes into the equation now and back in the 91 Gulf war. The US never acted when Iraq invaded Iran.

styln - the us DID act when iraq invaded iran. they encouraged saddam to invade, as saddam was their friend and ally against the 'greater evil' of iran. when the war started going badly for iraq, the yanks helped them crucial satellite imagery, and looked the other way when us companies sold dual-use biochemical equipment to the regime. the us had full knowledge that iraq was using chemical weapons and tried to blame it on iran.

sorry, that should have been "helped THEM with crucial satellite imagery"

gah! fuggit.

The US,UK,France backed iraq to attack iran, to stop Islam from spreading across the arab countries... As Islam is all about Equality and Anti Hegomony. basically it's anarchy - sort of.

This would be dangerous for the major super powers of the worlds Oil Supply, if hegomony was to be eliminated. It's always been about Oil for the worlds powers.. Or stopping each other from controling it at least.

This is why the Ottman Empire was devided in the first place, as it was too dangerous if the whole thing was to ally with one superpower country - like Germany for instance..

France took control of Syria and Lebanon. Britan carved up Kuwait and had mandates in control of Iraq.. etc.. etc..

Thanks for the link Neil
...latest report states that the missiles fired were not Scuds as first reported but were FROG's (Free Rocket Over Ground)so I guess there is no proof as yet that Saddam has Scuds?

Trapper:

Yeh agreed, a few burning oil wells wont destory their reseverve's - But as we know thats what its all about, oil - So they threaten the USA with a few fires

oil = money = control

I've raise the the bigger picture and mentioned the IMF and monetery control - No one has made any comments on that, which leads me to ponder on two things:

1. No one undertands or has much knowledge of it
2. Thinks its irrelevant or a load of bollocks

Here we all are discussing whats actually happening within the war - Really we should be disucssing the bigger picture.

How did we get to this point? - We're all monetery puppets, and who is yanking the strings?

The monetery control is not governed by the US nor the UK or any other Government - The government is governed by the monetery owners.

I've found this link, check it out

I've actually send then video #1 about 4 years ago.

http://www.themoneymasters.com

A crock of shit? I'd be interested in reading your point of view.

This is why we are having this war

Remove monetry control from privatisation.

Target the source of the problem!!!!

yeah and plus the marines reported seeing the missiles fly past fast and level - not really likely with a longer range weapon like the scud which would pretty much just drop out of the sky.

2. Thinks its irrelevant or a load of bollocks

2.

3. I cannot prove or disprove it, but will not rule out the possibility because as a pluralist - I believe there is an element of 'truth' in all the different perspectives.

trapper 3 hours ago

"True but we have to accept that somebody in Kuwait who actually saw the thing is a lot more likely to know whether or not it was a scud than Neil from biggie who doesn’t even bother keeping up with the news. Think about it..."

Thats is one of the funniest fuckin things I have ever read on here

DDDDDDD

I AM WILLING TO BET 50 DOLLARS IT WAS NOT A SCUD



Now, why would I be so confident? *grins*, it's all in the details kiddies!

The answer: Saddam doesn't have Scuds. He has copies, with different nomenclature

And if tehy were really FROGs, then teh drivers have nuts of steel to get within the 70-odd km they can fly

So do you think they were Desert Eagles?

I thought their aim was ture and the never miss.

Or was that just for Taki?

wwhhhoooopps - tequila

Trapper, you choose otion #2, i/ a load of bollocks and irrelevant, somehow that didnt surprise me!

Me thinks your very closed minded about it, and if you answered honestly, you should of choose #1

Here's some interesting reading on the good ole "OPAL FILE"

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/opal.html

Check out the names that are referenced

Waahooooooo

Enjoy all, for those that have never read it.

Fuck,I hope I dont get assinated for this one

*bump*

good read

Well I'm not surprised it didn't suprise you, as you know as well as me that 'its irrelevant or a load of bollocks'

It's not close-minded for me to disagree with you.

Correct, but closed minded too ignore the driving factors!

I'm not ignoring them; your theory is irreverent and a total load of bullocks as it relies on Iraq being poor with no way to pay off debts when clearly this is not the case.

Trapper are you anti or pro war?

So your saying you disagree with the following?

The control of money means the control of resources, and the power to make decisions without input from those that are most affected by them.

Oil is the primary factor that the US are attacking Iraq - The Bush administration are assholes for doing this.

I am pro-removal of Saddam which makes me grudgingly pro-war.

I’m not sure what the next comment means, you’re not really making sense, as I said above Iraq is not going to end up trapped in some kind of debt with crippling interest charges. Iraq is not a poor country.

Oil is not the primary factor behind this war, if the US wanted nothing but Iraqi oil then they would just buy it off them. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than having a very expensive war first and then buying it off them anyway.

"trapper

I can see how the next few weeks are going to pan out. The same few fools denouncing everything on the news that they don't agree with as lies while at the same time demanding that their own completely baseless theories be given credibility.

We know a lot of what we will see on the news over the next few weeks will be speculative and much of it could well turn out wrong but how about using a bit of critical reasoning guys? It's not that hard, lets give it a try...
3 days ago"

Are these "fools" the pro or the anti war groups?

hehe

Just 'buy' it off them?
With an 'unstable dictator' running the show?
Don't make me laugh.

The US wants these field safe from loonies like Saddam.
So now they are getting them.

Where did I see somewhere that Donald Rumsfeld is on
the board of directors of a company that will be rebuilding
shit in Iraq?

hmmmmm.

Also, can you count how many folks in the Whitehouse
have worked for or are involved in the oil industry?
Quite a fucking few - why even good old 'dubbya!

Probably got nothing to do with it though eh?

For months during the build up all we have heard from the peacniks is that it's a war about oil, i guess now that the war is not far off completion all the conjecture will be either confirmed or denied, i'm betting on the latter.

"war not far off completion" - jeez dude we havent even got to the shitfight that will be the siege of baghdad yet.

Hey bad-seed,

I ain't no ''peacnik' (you mean peacenik)

Patronising.

So when DOES the war 'finish' then?
I am laughing at you....

Because I feel sorry for you.

I wasn't refering to you or anyone on the boards, it was a general statement about an opinion that dominates some journalist writings, and like i rightly said it can't be proved or disproved until the war is finished.

Laugh all you like, the fact is the war is going to end sooner rather than later, i would be willing to bet my week or two against your obvious months? or years?

Trapper, ok I'll put it this way then:

Removal of Saddam does not change a damn thing about the driving forces behind this war.

The USA do not want to BUY their oil, they want to CONTROL it.

The current US oil supplies are estimated to run out in about 5 years if they purely use their own oil.

The esitmate for the entire world at current consumption rates I believe is around 30 odd years

Bascially oil wil run out - I mean we've only been using the shit for about a 100 odd years anyway, how long is it supposed to last for?

The political spin about weapons of mass destruction, is purely just that.

Its all about oil dude, power and control!

In other words, sometime before another 30 years is over, every car, every truck, every bulldozer, every tank, every airplane, every helicopter, lawn mower, weed whacker, etc - you name it - in the entire world, must be replaced or converted over to the something else (whatever that is) and be running smoothly in the transition without a drama.

And although that's a mean task, the only chance the USA will have is if they can control the world's oil flow.

And remember, it's not only the USA. It's England, France, Germany, Russia, China, and all the rest too.

Yeh, I could be pro-war too, for the right reasons, but not these bullshit reasons for going to war based on half-truths and deception to cover up a muddle of cross-purposes and conflicts of interest.

No wonder everyone is pissed off about this war!

Hopefully this also might give enough "food for thought" to explain my earlier comments about why monetery control should not be in the hands on a few men - ie/ IMF. Rothschilds Rockerfeller etc etc etc.

Monetery control should never have fallen into privatisation!!!

Bad-Seed - tough call on the dates bud.

I did predict the cricket score last night though....

Huck - well said.

Pretty easy to see.

Yeah good call huck but no doubt Trapper will come up with some show of intellectual brilliance by saying something like 'that's a load of bullshit'.

Well styln I wasn't going to reply as Huck seems to insist on changing his argument every time I do, which makes the whole process somewhat futile.

But since you appear to want my guidance we can start with this: "The esitmate for the entire world at current consumption rates I believe is around 30 odd years" - this is a load of bullshit. So in a way I guess your statement is correct.

Trapper, You might think I have been changing my arguement, when in fact I simply changed tack.

Getting back to the original arguement:

"...It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than having a very expensive war first and then buying it off them anyway"

Yes it would be cheaper to buy it off Iraq than have a war, but an actual fact it is the US tax-payers that are funding this war and it is private corporations ie/ individuals, rich wankers who are going to profit from the aftermath, not the tax-payers that just payed for the war.

There is also the undeniable fact that the only growing part of the US economy is the arms industry, everything else is in recession.

ie/ rich fuckers are profiting from the sales of arms to the US government, and will also profit afterwards from the control of resources when they have installed their "puppet" government within Iraq.

You see, its all about oil.

Any doubts about who bush is looking after were dispelled when he backdated corporate tax cuts meaning he gave $500 million (from memory) back to his corporate backers. This war is doing the same but 10-100 times better.

Huck, your original theory was that the Iraqis would be trapped in some kind of IMF engineered debt for the rest of time. It’s pretty obvious that this will not happen, and I have no intention of chasing your argument through the next 100 conspiracies you dream up.

Classic that you spin some theory about arms sale profits and various other things which are unrelated to oil, but somehow you still come to the conclusion that 'its all about the oil'.

Of course its all related to oil - They would'nt be in there if there was no oil.

Do you think the US/IMF would give a shit if their was no money to be made out of this?

Do you think their sole reasoning for being there is to save the Iraqi people?

Trapper, whats your understanding of why the US are in Iraq?

Let's see it....

It ain't about democracy ~ bombing a country virtually (note virtually) into the Stone Age and then installing a military commander is hardly democratic. And besides what does GW actually know about the democratic process? Not much if his "election" is anything to go by. Surely if he wanted to introduce "democracy" into the Middle East he should have started with one of those few countries that are actually "friendly" to the US.

It ain't about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD ~ fuck I hate that media buzzphrase) because the country in the Middle East with the most of these (chemical, biological and nuclear) is Israel ~ or as some call it America's puppet state.

It ain't about violation of UN resolutions as the country in the Middle East that is in direct violation of a large number of these is (you guessed it!) Israel.

It ain't about terrorist attacks as the country in the Middle East that is responsible for most of these is (go on, have a guess) Israel (there is no other thing to call their illegal activities against the Palestinian people) & also the only country in the world to actually be convicted of terrorism in the World Court is the good old US of A.

It certainly is not about "defence of the homeland" as some pundits would have us believe.

So if we unravel the convoluted litany of lies, deceptions and half-truths that have been given to us as the reasons for this war, we come back to the an ever-repeating theme ~ money.

Follow the money and the real reason for this war becomes all to obvious.... OIL

I blame cheesy trance