Georg W.Bush and his legacy (Page 2)

FogofWar: ...the slant-drilling techniques you speak of have never been found or proven...it seems that they really didn't exist; but was however a ploy for Iraq to justify an invasion of the country. They also claimed Kuwait as their 19th province, and tried to justify it that way....Kuwait destroyed Iraq's oil industry, because it is bigger and worth more; and that is why Hussein wanted it in the first place. If Iraq's oil was worth so much, then why did they need Kuwait to fund them against Iran?

FogofWar: ...not to mention slant-drilling doesn't change the facts. Let's say, hypothetically, that Kuwait was slant-drilling. Why then would you want to invade Iraq, spend billions on an invasion, spend billions setting up batteries and drilling rigs to get it, when you could just use the "slant-drills" that are supposedly in Kuwait? That would really just prove even more that it isn't over oil!

Outbackjack: Where do you get off on saying that you wouldnt listen to Allan Greenspan?
He was one of the worlds most powerful men who had a personal insight into what was going on.
Maybe we could all get just refer to you for our pearls of wisdom as you seem to think you know better.
Maybe you would like to hear it from Republican Dennis Kucinich about how we went to Iraq for the oil.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/kucinich-we-went-to-iraq-for-oil/3970/
Or how about Former CIA analyst Ray Mcgovern.
http://www.rense.com/general68/oilemp.htm
Heres George Bush STATING THE MAIN REASON TO STAY IN IRAQ,Because of the oil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR*******401025.html
Heres John Mcain talking about the Middle east and oil.
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/05/02/john-mccain-admits-iraq-war-was-over-oil

Shall I continue?
Or you just obviously dont want to believe that the war is about oil.Far happy to believe the bullshit propaganda that the military force feeds you.

There is no doubt that Iraq was heavily in debt but here is some more information on slant drilling.
Heres the link.
http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm
Here is more information on slant drilling that involves the U.S
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html
I post this to show that it is entirely feasible that Kuwait was doing this.
I mean why wouldnt they if it was possible.

As for the deaths in Iraq,a lot of this relates also to a lack of infrastructure and unneccessary deaths which occurred due to the infrastructure being bombed.
It is not to say which side killed who but as there was very little violence in Iraq before 2003 there is no doubt that these deaths occurred as a result of the invasion and the perrilous state of the country in the aftermath..
There is no doubt that the living standard of the average Iraqi has declined since the invasion.
If the death toll figure is correct then there is absolutely no doubt that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in power.I doubt if even a fifth of the amount of people would have died had been left there.
You see there is a thing such as self determination which is what these countries need to do where possible..Iran is an example of this.They have a functioning democracy although there is heaps of room for improvement and the Islamists still hold large sway,the country has modernised greatly in the last decade and slowly continues offer more for its citizens.
This does not happen overnight,it took Western countries centuries to get to where they are today.
Violence begets violence.

FogofWar: "Where do you get off on saying that you wouldnt listen to Allan Greenspan?
He was one of the worlds most powerful men who had a personal insight into what was going on."

I guess the same place as the millions of others who do not listen to him. Perhaps the same place as the Nobel-Prize winning economists...you know the guys that are world renowned for doing the same thing he did...only better....funny, didn't you say that there was a problem with the US banking system just fabricating money anyways? So why then, would you listen to one of the people whom is fabricating it in the first place?


"Maybe we could all get just refer to you for our pearls of wisdom as you seem to think you know better."

...um...sure....ever heard of grammar?


"Maybe you would like to hear it from Republican Dennis Kucinich about how we went to Iraq for the oil.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/kucinich-we-went-to-iraq-for-oil/3970/"

funny thing, one Dennis John Kucinich is not a republican, he is a democrat. On your little url link, when they say REp. Dennis Kucinich, they mean Representative. On his official website, you can see he is clearly not a fan of the military: "Kucinich hits 'Virtual Army Experience' as 'deceptive'" and "Kucinich: Eliminate Deceptive Army Recruitment"...funny thing is, he has never been to the recruitment office to enlist, I have. There is nothing deceptive about it; in fact, during My interview, the first 1/3 of it was all to make sure that I damn well understood what the dangers were. The first question asked was if I understood that as a member of the Armed Forces; no matter what the trade; there may be a time in which I am called to defend My country and My fellow personell, and that may mean the use of force, ultimately ending in the loss of life, including My own. When I answered yes, I understood, the next question was whether or not I felt that I could do this if required. There is a medical that goes through family records to check for history of depression, etc. as well, to make sure that there is no higher likelyhood to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome; and that I would be able to perform under the requirements. If at any time the Captain doing My interview felt that I was not able to perform this, or did not understand any of it, the interview would have been over, and I would have been rejected. They do not decieve people into signing up, and if they do, they are breaking the law and WILL be charged for it. It is no different than you lying on your resume.
So with that, let us return focus to the website you linked about Mr. Kucinich:

"Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war."

hmm...apparently this man not only does not understand the oil industry, but the law as well. There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq; I know, I have studied into the laws of the United Nations to see if there was; nope! Nothing illegal done at all. The invasion of Iraq was 100% within the laws of the UN for an invasion. Seems like Dennis Kucinich should learn the law before accusing people of breaking it.


"“In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was USD 23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq,” the Ohio Democrat said during a speech on the House floor.

“Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP.”"

...yah, again, he should learn about the oil industry.

FogofWar: Or how about Former CIA analyst Ray Mcgovern.
http://www.rense.com/general68/oilemp.htm

"We went to Iraq for oil, empire and Israel, in no particular order. Not incidentally, we also went there so a select few, influential friends of those in power, could make a whole lot of money. And of course, we went there to wreck things so American taxpayers and Iraqi citizens could be doubly billed: once for wrecking them and once again for repairing them."


I'll let you try and make sense of that, since I cannot.


Funny that Ray McGovern says the US went there for oil, cuz according to McGovern, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian militant Islamist who ran a militant training camp in Afghanistan. He became known after going to Iraq and being responsible for a series of bombings, beheadings and attacks during the Iraq War.

He formed al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, in the 1990s, and led it until his death in June 2006. Zarqawi took responsibility, on several audio- and videotapes, for numerous acts of violence in Iraq including suicide bombings and hostage executions. Zarqawi opposed the presence of U.S. and Western military forces in the Islamic world as well as the West's support for and the existence of Israel. In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. After this al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and al-Zarqawi was given the Al-Qaeda title, "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers".

...seems like McGovern is claiming that Al-queda really was in Iraq after all....sooo


"Heres George Bush STATING THE MAIN REASON TO STAY IN IRAQ,Because of the oil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR*******401025.html"

Funny, I cannot for the life of Me remember hearing him say that...in fact, the link won't even work, so I guess so much for that being support for you.

FogofWar: ...you are aware that John McCain also compared Canada's health care to communism right? McCain is an even bigger idiot than Bush was, come on; seriously...not to mention I am sure that a website called "crooksandliers" isn't going to be biast, hey? Seriously, you say that I am the one believing what I am "force fed"? Why not take a look at both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions?

"Shall I continue?
Or you just obviously dont want to believe that the war is about oil.Far happy to believe the bullshit propaganda that the military force feeds you."

No you shant. Yet again, this is the first sign of somebody who has absolutely no comprehension of how the military works, or what they do, or why. It is lines like that which are the reason everybody dismisses your claims as conspiracy theories, and nothing more than a joke. Did you know that the average grade twelve marks of Canada's fighter pilots is over 95%? Most of which went on to Ivy League Universities, or the Royal Military College, and many graduated there with top honours. In fact, anyone who has ever met anyone in the military can tell you that the average serviceman or woman is of rather high intelligence, and is not the kind of person that believes what they are "told" to believe. There is a difference between having the discipline to follow commands and to let someone else think for you. Unlike you, I know that I do not know everything, and that there are situations in which My intellect will not be of use on the matter, as I cannot possibly see the whole picture; and therefore am willing to follow commands from those with whom have proven their combat effectiveness, and know more about the whole situation than I. I do not follow My orders because I cannot think unless someone tells Me to. I follow My orders because while I can see the current scenario, I cannot see the situation in the neigbouring village, nor can I see the advancements coming from the North or the East, etc. and therefore cannot know all the possibilities to overcome the situation; and unlike you, I also understand that some things are greater than I, and I am willing to give My life for the greater good if need be. There is a huge difference between following one's orders, and not thinking for one's self. If you cannot understand that, then it is clear that you cannot comprehend the truth of this matter.

FogofWar: "There is no doubt that Iraq was heavily in debt but here is some more information on slant drilling."


No where did I ever state that it was not possible for Kuwait to have used slant-drilling. I live in one of the most oil rich places on Earth, I have seen more slant-rigs than you could ever imagine. I am saying that it never happened....possible or not, it was all allegations by Hussein to justify an invasion of their "19th province".

"As for the deaths in Iraq,a lot of this relates also to a lack of infrastructure and unneccessary deaths which occurred due to the infrastructure being bombed."

...funny thing is, the US has bombs capable of penetrating walls and pressure-delayed fuses to detonate directly in the centre of the room, damaging only the contents of that building, and not even knocking the outer walls down. The Iraqi insurgents on the other hand, do not have said technological weapons...soo, I ask you, what evidence do you have that all of those were US bombs? Ever heard of an RPG? Insurgents are armed with a very large abundance of them, and they do more damage to buildings than you could imagine.


"It is not to say which side killed who but as there was very little violence in Iraq before 2003 there is no doubt that these deaths occurred as a result of the invasion and the perrilous state of the country in the aftermath.."

You wanna check your facts? So that 17 year old girl I saw get stoned to death by her father and uncles and brothers in the middle of Baghdad is not violence to you? Do you have any idea how many millions of people died as a direct result of the Saddam Hussein regime?

"If the death toll figure is correct then there is absolutely no doubt that we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in power.I doubt if even a fifth of the amount of people would have died had been left there."

I'll let you research that one on your own.



"There is no doubt that the living standard of the average Iraqi has declined since the invasion."

So having electricity, hospitals and schools is not a better standard of living?


"You see there is a thing such as self determination which is what these countries need to do where possible..Iran is an example of this.They have a functioning democracy although there is heaps of room for improvement and the Islamists still hold large sway,the country has modernised greatly in the last decade and slowly continues offer more for its citizens."

...and Iraq is well underway of this now also.


"This does not happen overnight,it took Western countries centuries to get to where they are today."

...so why do you not understand then why this cannot happen overnight in Iraq and Afghanistan? You claimed that Afghanistan has not seen improvement; yet it has only been 6 years...and yes, they surely have seen improvement.

"Violence begets violence."
...and that is why it must be stopped.
He who wishes for peace, let him first prepare for war.
-Vegetius

Outbackjack: Yet again you seek to ignore my link on Allan Greenspan saying what everbody but you knows about the war in Iraq just as you seek to ignore my other so called "Conspiracy theories" as you like to call them.
Wake up!!!
Of course the Iraq war was about oil.
Funny how the link on George Bush seems to not work.I just tried it and had no problem.
As for checking my grammar.Grow up.
You continue to falsely state that the invasion was sanctioned by the U.N.It wasnt.The U.N only came on board afterwards.There is no doubt that the invasion was illegal as it wasnt sanctioned by the U.N.
There is no doubt history will judge it as that.
Iraq did have very good infrastructure before it was blown to bits by the Americans.
Iraqis today complain about how they have less hours of power than they did uder Saddam.
You also state that pilots are in the top 5 percent in terms of grades.I should think so.But I am sure not everyone else in the military is.
As for slant drilling you know as well as I that it would take a long time to take it from kuwait and you still wouldnt be able to get it all,far better to invade.An invasion also enriches a lot of corporations through increased military spending and rebuilding bombed out infrastructure.
But anyway you live in your happy little land and keep thinking your happy little thoughts and believe everything is alright.

franklin1950: the united nations is a useless corrupted piece of work .

FogofWar: I am ignoring nothing on your information about Greenspan, you however, seem to be ignoring the fact that there are millions who think he was a moron, and knows nothing about the current state of Iraq, let alone the reasons for being there. I ask you again, why would anyone want to invade Iraq for oil, when Iraq invaded Kuwait for the oil that US investors already have? ...you know, the oil that loaned $40 billion to Iraq to fight a common enemy being Iran during the 1980s...Think about it.

"Of course the Iraq war was about oil."

You gonna provide proof to that claim, or just tell Me to listen to Alan Greenspan again?

"Funny how the link on George Bush seems to not work.I just tried it and had no problem."

...still won't work for Me. Bush never claimed anything of the sort. He did state that we cannot allow the oil production to fall into the hands of the enemy, and that is far from being there for it ourselves, and far from saying we are there for it. He meant that any additional funding to the enemy is a problem...would you disagree with that one?

"You continue to falsely state that the invasion was sanctioned by the U.N.It wasnt.The U.N only came on board afterwards.There is no doubt that the invasion was illegal as it wasnt sanctioned by the U.N.
There is no doubt history will judge it as that."

First off, I never said that the UN sanctioned the invasion, actually, I said the exact opposite. The UN never "came onboard afterward"; they never had any part of it. It was a US led Coalition Force that went in, and not the UN, the UN has had, and continues to have, NO PART in the Iraqi conflict; but this does not make it illegal. Again, I suggest that you read up on the laws of the UN. The UN states that no member of the UN is to invade a country, without first being attacked, or without legitimate threat from the country, then a pre-emptive attack may be made in order to prevent a war from breaking out....here's the problem, I think that Australia has the military capabilities of invading Canada, so therefore I want to invade them and halt any chance of them invading Me....now, prove to Me that Australia does NOT have the capability to invade Canada. Australia has a Navy, yes? They also have an airforce right? Therefore, yes, the are capable of such an invasion; so I can invade Australia, and the UN cannot stop Me. The UN is powerless to stop Me from invading you, because there is a possibility that you could; and so I have the legal rights to do so.

Saddam Hussein used chemical warfare (poison gases) to kill 100,000 of his OWN people during the Iran-Iraq war. Chemical warfare is classified illegal in accordance to the Geneva Protocol of 1928, and therefore considered a WMD (in large enough quantities, and I would say that 100,000 dead is LARGE). He built nuclear reactors, and very possibly for nuclear arms. He invaded Kuwait (and after surrendering, he gave the UN clearance to post weapons inspectors in his country), he hid weapons from the UN inspectors, and just prior to the US led invasion, small quantities of the very same poison gases were found (Too small to be a WMD, but still 100% illegal to purchase/own/use), intelligence gathered from multiple countries (including Germany and Russia) concluded the likelihood of WMDs as well as links to Al-queda; and therefore, there was more than a legitimate reason (legally speaking) for the US to invade. The UN was powerless to stop, and NOTHING Bush did was illegal.

FogofWar: "Iraq did have very good infrastructure before it was blown to bits by the Americans.
Iraqis today complain about how they have less hours of power than they did uder Saddam.
You also state that pilots are in the top 5 percent in terms of grades.I should think so.But I am sure not everyone else in the military is."

...so you have been to Iraq to ask the people of this then? Didn't think so. Again, stop listening to polls taken by media networks of the 0.0045% of the populations talked to.
Yes, pilots are within those grades, as they have to be to process all of the information and mathematical equations done for such a task. No not everyone in the military is; My marks were far from high (but that is another reason, and another story)...but I am not tasked with operating a $50 million bird at twice the speed of sound, when 1000 feet can be lost in an eighth of a second...actually, you only need grade 10 to qualify for the Infantry; but you still have to pass the aptitude test (a couple hours long at that), and prove that you are more than fast at thinking and processing information...and that is just to qualify. After that, you now have to survive the training, and prove that you are capable of rapid life or death decisions while under the heat of fire. The term military precision is something very, very, very, very few truly understand.


"As for slant drilling you know as well as I that it would take a long time to take it from kuwait and you still wouldnt be able to get it all,far better to invade.An invasion also enriches a lot of corporations through increased military spending and rebuilding bombed out infrastructure."

...again, you are assuming that Iraq had enough oil near the borders to slant-drill for, the fact is they do not. The slant-drills never existed, yet you seem to think they did, and now are turning your own story around about how they would not be as effective; despite previous claims of it causing Iraq to invade. I ask you which one is it?
Yes, war does boost the economy, but not from rebuilding infastructure. Do you not remember learning about the Great Depression, or what is known as the "Dirty Thirties"? Sure, it produces construction, but where do you get this money from? It is not as simple as just spending it like you think.


"But anyway you live in your happy little land and keep thinking your happy little thoughts and believe everything is alright."

...if I believed everything is alright, then why did I sign up to go over to Afghanistan? ...think about that one.


The United Nations is not flawed because of corruption, it is flawed because it takes far too much of a Liberal approach at World Affairs and war. The League of Nations was extremely strict; and it wasn't until people began ignoring it in the depression, that it failed. The UN is far too leniant, in the name of "freedom"...allowing for people to interperate what they see as just causes....The idea of allowing others to "live as they want, and not as we want" allows others to live while murdering 800,000 Rwandans, or allows people to continue "Ethnic-cleansing", because, hey, they should have the right to shouldn't they? Isn't that the idea of freedom? Freedom can only exist when there are laws to keep it in place....take a look through history to find the origins of democracy, and see how many laws the societies viewed as the most "free" in history really were. Take a look at Sparta and you will see the laws required to maintain freedom. Until the UN steps up and forces nations to abide by it's laws, then they are powerless to stop any war from happening....by the way, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars...nor are they "Phoney Wars". There must be a declaration of war in order for it to be a war, and there isn't for either. The term "Phoney War" is the term that was used to describe WWII from *******42...sorry man, already taken.

Outbackjack: Its not just Greenspan but the other links I provided that you also conveniently chose to ignore.
Heres another one.


As for your assertion that it is legal to invade if you think the other side is about to attack.Iraq was never going to invade the U.S.Just like they didnt have weapons of mass destruction.Probalbly just as you are uncomfortable with me calling these two wars exactly what they are.Phoney wars.

So Iraqs infrastructure didnt get blown to pieces?
I didnt need a poll from the media to tell me that it has been blown to pieces.
The television footage was damning enough.


As for slant drilling we could go back and forth on this as you cant prove that Kuwait wasnt.

If you actually volunteered for the war in Afgahnistan then you are more stupid than I actually thought.I assume you come under the zealot category of being a brainwashed true believer.Take off the blinkers.

So with that in my mind I suggest you take a history lesson about oil and the middle east and you may be surprised to discover that it is the most precious resource on this planet.

FogofWar: ...funny, I have ignored none of your supposed facts: in fact, that little video was rather cute in My opinion.
It's funny though, I was under the impression that this was about George W. Bush's legacy, and how he didn't go there for oil, not Australia. If, first off, Australia did go there for oil, then it really wasn't a bright move on their part.
Another thing I found amusing was that the Prime Minister never once mentioned that they went thier for oil; but actually said the exact opposite in this video. He did however state, according to the news anchor; and I quote:
"enegery security is something Australians need to think about when considering the consequences of a premature withdrawal."

First off, it should be noted that this was not directly said by the Prime Minister, but rather the news anchor who stated that the PM said it. Secondly, you will see that it says oil security is something that should be considered when thinking about a withdrawal. This is true, and yes, even George W. Bush stated it. What would happen if the insurgents were allowed to take control of this oil? Sure it is not as much as what the US has elsewhere, but any funding to an enemy is bad. Even if the moneys obtained by insurgents from Iraq's oil was only sufficient to purchase a few RPGs, that is a few RPGs that could be used against civilians to regain power after such a withdrawal. This is far from claims that we are there for oil, but is rather claims that we cannot allow our common enemy to grow in strength...and that does not take a genious to figure out why that would be bad.

FogofWar: In fact, Brendan Nelson, Defense Minister of Australia even said in this video: "Obviously the Middle East it's self, not only Iraq, but the entire reqion is an important supply of energy, oil in particular."

...seems like Iraq isn't the only source of oil, and no claims have been made from those in power yet to suggest that it would be a motive.

WMD, terrorism, oil, power, etc. etc. converge in the Middle East. PM said.

He also said that Oil was not a reason for such an invasion when asked by the reporter. Seems like this video supports no such claims.

Of course, then Kevin Rudd, Opposition leader goes on to say: "The Prime Minister is making it up as he goes"

...and we all know that the oppostion would never, um...what's the word...OPPOSE the Prime Minister. Here in Canada, we too are a Constitutional Monarchy, like you are in Australia. Here too our Liberal party (The Opposition) continually makes claims that Harper, our Prime Minister, is going to make the deficit worse, and they need to fix it (despite the fact that Harper has lowered taxes, increased military budgets, and still to top it off, decreased government spending)...kind of a funny claim coming from the party that "missplaced" or lost over $8 Billion their last couple years in power. They also made claims about how we shouldn't be fighting in Afghanistan (despite the fact that they are the ones who sent us there in the first place), and make rediculous claims agains the PM all the time. To hear the opposition leader say such things about your PM means nothing other than that your opposition is very similar to ours. Politicians slandering other politicians...who ever thought they'd see the day, huh?

FogofWar: Something else that I must ask. This news clip is from ABC news. I would guess that this stands for the "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" right? Here in Canada, we too have a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). So My question to you is: Is the ABC funded by a government party as well? If so, is it the opposition? Our CBC was funded by the Liberal party (Now the opposition) when they were in power. Guess which party they favour? Last year, since the Conservatives are now in office, CBC reported a decline in government funding of over $100 million...last year alone! Hmm....makes you wonder why every news segment on CBC trashes our Government and tells of all these "horrible" things they are doing....even though they are not....this is exactly why I have been repeatedly telling you not to take all of your sources from the media....and My friend, the news, is a big part of the media; and is always errored. Every news station in the world cares about one thing only: ratings! If they have to cut out a part of a story to make it more interesting, then they will....if they have to add something to the story, then they will.


"As for your assertion that it is legal to invade if you think the other side is about to attack.Iraq was never going to invade the U.S."


...and you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no chance, not even a slight thought, that Iraq was going to invade the US, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, or any other nation in the world? How about the poison gas caches found in Iraq by weapons inspectors?
See, the thing is, it does not have to be proven that the other side will attack, for that would mean subjecting your nation, or allies to an imenent attack, and that could result in a war that could have been avoided had there been an attempt to halt the actions. If there is even the slightest possibility that they may even be thinking about attacking, then you can invade them without reprocussions from the UN. What about your former CIA agent McGovern stating that members of Al-queda were in Iraq? That alone is sufficient enough for the UN to allow an attack. I'm sorry My friend, but there was nothing illegal about the invasion. Perhaps you would like to research this directly from the United Nations; I have...there was no UN laws broken by the US led Coalition Invasion; and that is the reason that the United Kingdom participated in it. You really think the UK cared about Bush's reasons? No, all they cared about was a way to stop Hussien and any possible threat spreading, and since Bush was going in, and found a way to do so legally, they joined in.

FogofWar: "So Iraqs infrastructure didnt get blown to pieces?
I didnt need a poll from the media to tell me that it has been blown to pieces.
The television footage was damning enough."

...soo the video footage you saw on TV is not biast at all right? The footage shows who was responsible for all the attacks? Does the footage show the bodies of the people inside, and provide identification as to who they were? Once again, I am going to tell you about how the media works to play on people like you, by providing half truths. The CBC news just did a segment last week on the H1N1 (Swine flu) virus. They talked to a "trusted source" (Kinda like Greenspan, etc.) who said it is very possible to contract the virus through the consumption of pork products. He said that if a pig slaughtered had the virus, then the meat could transmit it to the person who ate it, definately. They had a reply from a biology professor from the University of Toronto medical division. This woman deals with the study of such biological health concerns as viruses, etc. She even holds a Ph.D in this field (unlike the news' "reliable" source), who said that the virus does not live in meat, and that there is no chance of it being found there...even if, by some scientifically impossible manner, it did manage to home in the meat, it would not survive long enough on the product, as it is dead, to make it to the shelves. There is, as she said., absolutely NO chance of getting H1N1 from pork consumption. When they asked her about what their sources claimed, she said she had no idea where he would have came up with this, so she contacted him directly to ask, then aired his video recorded response, in which he said he had no basis in fact, or any evidence to back up his claim; it was just his opinion. Seems like the news channel neglected to mention vital information from him on how this was an "opinion" and not a fact. When a reporter captures footage of a building getting blown up, they will not tell the whole story, because then people will not be interested. How many of the buildings you saw blow up had civilians in there? How many of the casualties in those buildings were insurgents and not innocent civilians? How many buildings werre not the ones targetted?

FogofWar: Here's a little piece of vital information for you that your news channels do not tell you: The military uses loudspeakers to give civilians in these areas warning that firefights and bombings will occur. They encourage them to meet the soldiers on the streets, who will, yes, search them, take their information, etc. If the insurgents were to attempt to leave, they would be found through these searches, or they will pass through, unarmed, and therefore are not even a threat anyways. The military is not a group of bloodthirsty brauns who have no concern for human life; the military has always aimed to target ONLY enemy combatants (hence the declaration of the Geneva Convention My friend), and not civilians. Of course, military personell are realists, and understand that there will always be civilian casualties; that is why one must not aim to achieve the impossible and kill NO civilian casualties, but rather find a means to limit the number to as few as possible. Sun Tzu said: "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."

His point here is to show people that, whether you like it or not, war happens; and all the wishfull thinking in the world will not stop this from occurring. So rather than spend your life preaching about how perfect the world would be "if only" there was no war, and chasing a fairy tale that can never happen, and instead; investing that time into studying war, and how it occurs; and as such, finding ways to stop resolve it with as little conflict as possible. Is that not the better choice? Consider this: Had someone shot and killed Adolf Hitler in 1936, then WWII would not have happened, and the whole world would have been spared 45 million deaths. Of course, it would have taken armed combat to take Hitler out, even in this time; but lets say, in a worst case cenario, the entire city of Berlin was bombed. Berlin in that time would have consisted of at most a couple million. Worst case scenario, 2 million lives would have been lost; tragic, yes; but far better than the 45 million lost as a result of the war that would have been avoided. Same principle applies to Iraq. I am not saying that I am, or ever was in favour of Bush, and his reasons for entering Iraq; but the statistics of deaths resulted from him, is far greater than those of the invasion; and given how many more years, or decades the Hussein family may have reigned, we are talking about millions more lives. Is it not better to have him gone then? Like it or not, the US led a coalition into Iraq. Right or wrong, they are there now, and no amount of hating Bush, and "exposing his lies" will change that; so should we not then, devote our time and effort to finding ways to end this, and send the troops home?

FogofWar: Should the US pull out all forces now, what would happen to Iraq? Look at the chaos it is still in, and how fast the Hussein regeme would reclaim the nation...and how little resistence there would be from the people who saw the US come in, tear their country in two, and leave it in ruin. Hate Bush all you want; but you need to understand that EVERY soldier that is over there, is over there to bring an end to this, and is doing far more for the nation of Iraq than you are.


"As for slant drilling we could go back and forth on this as you cant prove that Kuwait wasnt."

...actually, yes I can. The technologies of slant-drilling in 1990, although they did exist, limitted how far one could drill. In fact, in 1990, it wasn't really possible to drill more than a mile from the surface location. The only way that Kuwait could have "stole" Iraqi oil with slant-drills would have been to tap oil wells within one mile of their border, meaning there would have had to have been oil rigs set up directly on the Kuwait side of the border; none were found there. Even doing so would have involved drilling sites close to the border and the use of sophisticated and easily identifiable equipment and personnel for extreme distances. It never occurred. On top of that, it doesn't really matter. The world knows that Saddam Hussein had WMD and used said weapons, yet the UN wanted Bush to prove that he did have them before they would allow him to invade. You are against Bush because he did not provide said prove, yet side with Hussein, despite the fact that he had no proof. Until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Kuwait WAS infact stealing their oil with these slant-drills, then Iraq was not justified in invading Kuwait, were they?



"If you actually volunteered for the war in Afgahnistan then you are more stupid than I actually thought.I assume you come under the zealot category of being a brainwashed true believer.Take off the blinkers."

...it truly is a sing of defeat when you attempt to slander the person with which you are debating. First thing taught in debates is not to resort to such pathetic insults, as it will guaruntee your defeat. I am not the one who is brainwashed; nor are any of the soldiers who volunteered to bring peace to the Middle East. Once again, whether you like it or not, we ARE in Afghanistan, and no amount of wishful thinking or disagreeing with it will stop that...only volunteering to go there and bring an end to it will. The only thing that can end it is just that, ending it! Agree with the war or not, you still can only either side with us or them. When the nations go to war, there are only two sides: Yours and the enemies...there is no in between. Which side are you on?

"So with that in my mind I suggest you take a history lesson about oil and the middle east and you may be surprised to discover that it is the most precious resource on this planet."

...and 1/5th of that oil on this planet is in Kuwait, not Iraq.

Outbackjack: For starters Kuwait sits on one tenth of the oil,not one fifth as you state or 10% as opposed to 20%.
Again you rant on about the media when what is being said does not fit in with your way of thinking.
I am not even going to bother with that rant.

I am sure that the footage of Iraq being bombed out by allied planes must have been doctored by the media as well.
As for the military being all warm and fuzzy compassionate types who warn the citizens,then the massacre at Fallujah must have been doctored by the media as well.

As for slant drilling can you provide details that this technology was in its infancy in 1990.

"I am not saying that I am or ever was in favour of Bush or his reasons for entering Iraq"
I am glad you acknowledge that.

As for you stating all this mumbo jumbo about about how someone who attacks his opponent is losing the argument.
Dream on.
Anyone who believes that we went into Afgahnistan for freedom is stupid enough,but someone who actually volunteers to go there has zero common sense at all.
I stand by what I said.

But anyway you carry on being a true believer.I have given you examples but you conveniently chose to ignore them.Far easier to say the whole media is a giant conspiracy.

FogofWar: Actually, it is somewhere about 10% of US oil that comes from Kuwait; meaning Kuqwait produces much more than that. You must also consider that the US has it's main supplies from Saudi Arabia, and Canada, as well as Texas in the US its self. This only helps to show just how much oil there really is in Kuwait.



"Again you rant on about the media when what is being said does not fit in with your way of thinking.
I am not even going to bother with that rant."

...seems I am the one saying that the media is not always accurate. Of course it will not support everything either of us say. The media is the most biast form of information on the planet.



"I am sure that the footage of Iraq being bombed out by allied planes must have been doctored by the media as well."

...and when did I say that they were "doctoring" any footage. I never said that the US wasn't dropping bombs in Iraq, but can you tell Me beyond a shadow of a doubt the number of innocent civilian casualties from each of those attacks; or if there even were any in the first place.
Modern bombings are not like those of WWII. When Germany dropped bombs on London, they did not have the sophisticated equipment that we have now. When the Allies bombed Berlin, they too did not have the use of F-117 Nighthawks, or A-10 Thunderbolts, or F-15E Strike Eagles, or F/A-18 Hornets and F/A-18E Super Hornets.
Modern aircraft have the ability to target such a building from miles away, from 20,000 feet up, and still hit a target less than one square meter (about the size of a small person). they also have the technology to detonate within a room, using time-delayed, and newer pressure-delayed fuses (meaning that they can read the barometric pressure of the air and find DEAD CENTER of a room before detonating).
Have you ever seen how these weapons work? Laser-guided presicion bombing uses not only radar navigation and satellite tracking to locate it's target; but also uses a laser from either the aircraft or from a ground support. The bomb will hit the center of the laser everytime. This is not an accuracy of less than a square meter; we are talking about an accuracy of less than 5mm square. I am not saying that these bombing missions will result in NO civilian casualties; but you must understand the technologies and how capable they are of avoiding such casualties. Now, did the media show footage of the US soldiers in the areas prior to the bombings and what they were doing? Like I have said time and time again, the media is biast, and as such, only gives parts of a story. The other part of the story that you have never seen is the US soldiers informing the citizens that the bombings will be commensing, and asking for their cooperation in clearing out ALL civilians from these areas. Did you see the US soldiers walking hand in hand with Iraqi citizens, carrying children out of these areas before they even bombed them? No, because that is not as interesting of a story then. Even with all the laser presicion technology used to target only remote areas within population dense areas, they still clear out the civilians from these areas before they do this. Seems like they are taking EVERY precautionary step in avoiding civilian casualties.


"As for the military being all warm and fuzzy compassionate types who warn the citizens,then the massacre at Fallujah must have been doctored by the media as well."

So you know the whole story of what went on there then do you?

FogofWar: "On Monday at least 13 were killed and an unknown number wounded when US soldiers opened fire on a crowd of unarmed demonstrators who were protesting against the occupation of a local school by the US army. Despite the claims of the Americans that they were fired upon by the demonstrators there is not a shred of evidence to support this."

...and herein lies a problem that I spoke of earlier. If there is no evidence of them being fired upon, then it is instantly classifies that they are targetting "unarmed civilians"...even if they were being attacked...if someone were to come along and hide the weapons, guess what, they are getting charged. Another key point is just that, they ARE GETTING CHARGED. The military does not support people engaging civilians. They will be prosecuted in a military court (meaing that they are guilty until proven innocent) and charged if found guilty. You cannot judge the military based off of a few individuals poor decisions or acts of atrocities. That is no different than judging all police officers since one where I live was charged with drinking and driving. That is no different than saying that ALL muslims are terrorists!



"Last night BBC television carried harrowing pictures of the scene of the massacre in Fallujah, a dust-blown Sunni Muslim trucking town 35 miles west of Baghdad."

....Sunni? ...as in the tribe that Saddam Hussein belonged to? As in the tribe with whom most of the fighting is coming from? So then, perhaps there really is more to the story than what you have read or seen on the news hey?

"Angry Iraqi neighbours and wailing relatives, recounting a tale of the random killing of young men whose only crime was to demand that their new, heavily armed masters leave the neighbourhood.""

....demanded they leave hey? And how, I wonder, did they "demand" this? Seems there is far more to this story than meets the eye.

"The Americans say they were fired on and acted in self-defence against a crowd in which 25 people had guns"

...so the soldiers say that they thought they were under attack....and put into that same situation, when confronted with over 200 people who have been known to be hostile towards you, you would have reacted differently?

"The Independent report quotes the words of Ahmed al-Essawi, aged 15, who was shot in his arm and leg, who says he did not see any guns:

"All of us were trying to run away. They shot at us directly. The soldiers were very scared...and I heard no announcements on the loudspeakers."

hmm...seems like the soldiers reacted out of that old human emotion fear...the very one that is responsoble for many poor decisions this human race has made. So I guess these soldiers are just humans after all hey? Note how he also said that there was no announcement over the loudspeaker. This is the words of a 15 year old boy from Fallujah; and it seems that the civilians of Iraq are used to hearing the soldiers give them warnings over loudspeakers before engaging in combat....isn't that what I said?? True, these soldiers panicked, and made a terrible mistake...one that they will have to pay for for the rest of their lives. You don't think people make mistakes in war? What about the prisoners that Canadian troops shot in WWII? Does that mean the the entire Allied effort was corrupt and wrong, and should have let Hitler do "what he wanted in his own country"? So you can tell Me that you have never once in your life made a mistake?


"Ahmed Karim, a 21-year-old blacksmith who was shot in the thigh, did not see any guns either. "We were shouting 'there's no god but Allah'"
....just thought I'd give you some insight to the mindframe of some of the people in this area.

FogofWar: ""It was terrible," he said. "I think the Americans were so scared of us Iraqis that they were willing to do anything. There were injured people crying out for help outside the house. When I tried to go out to help them, they told me to get back inside or they'd shoot.""

...yet more Iraqi citizen's claims that they were sure the US soldiers were terrified...

so what does this Iraqi citizen of Fallujah say: Hassan, a student aged 19 who refused to reveal his full name: "We had one picture of Saddam, only one. There were quite a lot of us - about 200. We were not armed and nothing was thrown. There had been some shooting in the air in the vicinity, but that was a long way off. I don't know why the Americans started shooting. When they began to fire, we just ran."

...so they obviously support Saddam. They severely outnumbered the US troops, and there was gunfire in the background....hmm....everything seems to be falling into place hey?

"The Americans troops were from the 84th Airborne Division, deployed late last week to stop looting and the trade in arms."

...so these were just regular innocent Iraqi citizens hey? Yup, regular innocent people that were trading weapons for the use against US soldiers.

"Lt-Col Nantz said that the Iraqi fire had gone over the soldiers' heads. We were taken to see two bullet holes in an upper window and some marks on a wall, but they were on another side of the school building"

...so there still were a couple bullet holes aimed at the US location...well this, when coupled with the 21 year old protestors claims that there was gunfire in the background suggests that maybe the troops had a reason to feel under fire.

""There are other troubling questions. Lt-Col Nantz said that the troops had been fired on from a house across the road. Several light machineguns were produced, which the Americans said were found at the scene."


...and here is what is even funnier...this information was taken from a communist, anit-US, anti-Iraq war website: http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast-old/fallujah_massacre.html


...so the reality of this story is that Fallujah is a Sunni village that, in support of Saddam Hussein, has been a major port for the shipping of weapons and arms for use against the US soldiers. The people of Fallujah do not support the US troopsm, and were rioting in protest to them, and in support of Hussein. Perhaps the US troops did fire wrongfully out of fear; but seems to Me, had the people of Fallujah not been staging attacks against the US in the first place, perhaps the US troops would not have been so scared in that area...perhaps they would not have been so ready to open fire. This is far from evidence of a lack of support for the Coalition either, as this Sunni village cares about no other Iraqi citizens but themselves.

FogofWar: "As for slant drilling can you provide details that this technology was in its infancy in 1990."

...yah, talk to any drilling rig outfit. Precision Drilling is one of the worlds best at slant-drilling, they are based out of where I live. I see their crews at work everyday.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_*******535007_ITM

You can see that many of the breakthroughs in Slant Drilling occurred here in Canada in 1990. The Kuwait oil industry would not have had said tecnologies at the time in question. It also states that many of the advancements have come around since this time.



"As for you stating all this mumbo jumbo about about how someone who attacks his opponent is losing the argument.
Dream on.
Anyone who believes that we went into Afgahnistan for freedom is stupid enough,but someone who actually volunteers to go there has zero common sense at all.
I stand by what I said."

...I'm sure you do, and thank you for providing more evidence of this claim....and with that, until you decide to actually focus on the debate at hand and not such petty slanders and childish insults, I bid you farewell. Since this is no longer a debate, but an arguement from you, resluting in such childish namecalling, I will not even waste My time replying anymore. An ancient Chinese proverb once said: "Never argue with a fool, for he may be doing the same."

Outbackjack: So I can safely assume you pulled that figure of 20% of the worlds oil being in Kuwait out of thin air?
You obviously didnt check the link I provided or conveniently chose to ignore it.

If U.S weapons were so accurate,then how was it that they managed to accidently drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy in the former Yugoslavia,I think it was?

Heres some info on Fallujah from your favourite folks at project censored.
PART 1: Fallujah-War Crimes Go Unreported

Sources: Peacework, December 2004-January 2005, Title: “The Invasion of Fallujah: A Study in the Subversion of Truth,” Authors: Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell; World Socialist Web Site, November 17, 2004, Title: “U.S. Media Applauds Destruction of Fallujah,” Author: David Walsh; The NewStandard, December 3, 2004, Title: “Fallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zone,” Author: Dahr Jamail

Faculty Evaluators: Bill Crowley, Ph. D., Sherril Jaffe, Ph. D.
Student Researcher: Brian K. Lanphear

Over the past two years, the United States has conducted two major sieges against Fallujah, a city in Iraq. The first attempted siege of Fallujah (a city of 300,000 people) resulted in a defeat for Coalition forces. As a result, the United States gave the citizens of Fallujah two choices prior to the second siege: leave the city or risk dying as enemy insurgents. Faced with this ultimatum, approximately 250,000 citizens, or 83 percent of the population of Fallujah, fled the city. The people had nowhere to flee and ended up as refugees. Many families were forced to survive in fields, vacant lots, and abandoned buildings without access to shelter, water, electricity, food or medical care. The 50,000 citizens who either chose to remain in the city or who were unable to leave were trapped by Coalition forces and were cut off from food, water and medical supplies. The United States military claimed that there were a few thousand enemy insurgents remaining among those who stayed in the city and conducted the invasion as if all the people remaining were enemy combatants.

Burhan Fasa’a, an Iraqi journalist, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English. “Americans did not have interpreters with them, so they entered houses and killed people because they didn’t speak English. They entered the house where I was with 26 people, and shot people because [the people] didn’t obey [the soldiers’] orders, even just because the people couldn’t understand a word of English.” Abu Hammad, a resident of Fallujah, told the Inter Press Service that he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. “The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore. Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their head to show they are not fighters, they were all shot.” Furthermore, “even the wound[ed] people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed.” Former residents of Fallujah recall other tragic methods of killing the wounded. “I watched them [U.S. Forces] roll over wounded people in the street with tanks… …This happened so many times.”

Outbackjack: Preliminary estimates as of December of 2004 revealed that at least 6,000 Iraqi citizens in Fallujah had been killed, and one-third of the city had been destroyed.

Journalists Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell assert that the continuous slaughter in Fallujah is greatly contributing to escalating violence in other regions of the country such as Mosul, Baquba, Hilla, and Baghdad. The violence prompted by the U.S. invasion has resulted in the assassinations of at least 338 Iraqi’s who were associated with Iraq’s “new” government.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq, and more specifically Fallujah, is causing an incredible humanitarian disaster among those who have no specific involvement with the war. The International Committee for the Red Cross reported on December 23, 2004 that three of the city’s water purification plants had been destroyed and the fourth badly damaged. Civilians are running short on food and are unable to receive help from those who are willing to make a positive difference. Aid organizations have been repeatedly denied access to the city, hospitals, and refugee populations in the surrounding areas.

Abdel Hamid Salim, spokesman for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Baghdad, told Inter Press Service that none of their relief teams had been allowed into Fallujah three weeks after the invasion. Salim declared that “there is still heavy fighting in Fallujah. And the Americans won’t let us in so we can help people.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour voiced a deep concern for the civilians caught up in the fighting. Louise Arbour emphasized that all those guilty of violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws must be brought to justice. Arbour claimed that all violations of these laws should be investigated, including “the deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons and the use of human shields.”

Marjorie Cohn, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists, has noted that the U.S. invasion of Fallujah is a violation of international law that the U.S. had specifically ratified: “They [U.S. Forces] stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, and have not agreed to allow doctors and ambulances to go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.”

According to David Walsh, the American media also seems to contribute to the subversion of truth in Fallujah. Although, in many cases, journalists are prevented from entering the city and are denied access to the wounded, corporate media showed little concern regarding their denied access. There has been little or no mention of the immorality or legality of the attacks the United States has waged against Iraq. With few independent journalists reporting on the carnage, the international humanitarian community in exile, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent prevented from entering the besieged city, the world is forced to rely on reporting from journalists embedded with U.S. forces. In the U.S. press, we see casualties reported for Fallujah as follows: number of U.S. soldiers dead, number of Iraqi soldiers dead, number of “guerillas” or “insurgents” dead. Nowhere were the civilian casualties reported in the first weeks of the invasion. An accurate count of civilian casualties to date has yet to be published in the mainstream media.