Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Converted Lurker

Did Bush Really Say This?

Recommended Posts

Bush told veterans on Thursday: "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies.

"They would have a new sanctuary ... with huge oil riches." :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush told veterans on Thursday: "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies.

"They would have a new sanctuary ... with huge oil riches." :o

Maybe Iraq was about oil?

30 seconds on Google yields:

BUSH: Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror.

That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the third world war is raging in Iraq. It would come as news to the number-two man of Al Qaida, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, "the place for the greatest battle."

It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and other countries who have come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy.

It's hard to believe that these terrorists have made long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad for a so-called diversion.

Some Americans didn't support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein. Many are frustrated with the level of violence.

But we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century, so we will defeat them in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

Still, there's some in our country that insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic. But they could be -- they could not be more wrong.

If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous.

We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies: Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran and Al Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban. They would have a new sanctuary to recruit and train terrorists at the heart of the Middle East, which use oil riches to fund their ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wrongmove

Maybe Iraq was about oil?

What ! Never ! :o:P

Now Bush has realised that the old Iraq could better defend the oil from the real religious nutters than the US can ! What an irony. Not many good things you can say about Saddam, but he was no religious fundamentalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush told veterans on Thursday: "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies.

"They would have a new sanctuary ... with huge oil riches." :o

eh?

What, exactly, is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant see the Americans ever leaving Iraq.

I can. While not wanting to make sweeping generalisations, Vietnam proved that the US public doesnt have the guts to stick it out. For the record I think they should stay, they made the mess, they should clean it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can. While not wanting to make sweeping generalisations, Vietnam proved that the US public doesnt have the guts to stick it out. For the record I think they should stay, they made the mess, they should clean it up.

But in Vietnam they had far greater casualties. The majority in Iraq are the poor civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They would have a new sanctuary ... with huge oil riches." :o

The Global Policy Forum, consultants to the UN, (Their board is full of charity/educational establishment peeps), says on this page:

Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972.

During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed and the companies have been scrambling to grab their share of the spoils. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.

The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon, whose 21 billion barrels are worth $1.5 trillion at today's prices. But no contracts could be signed until after elections and the formation of a new government, so that the Iraqi side would appear legally legitimate.

Mmmmm Majnoon, so much light, sweet crude. It appears to be about getting the Production Sharing Agreements signed.

This carbonweb.org paper: Production sharing agreements: oil privatisation by another name? argues that Production Sharing Agreements are very bad for Iraq:

It is a question for the people of Iraq as to whether they want foreign investment in their If Iraq were to rush in to signing lots of contracts, and especially if it were to do so without public debate or transparency as to what were on the table, negative outcomes could be expected. The wrong contract – whether as a result of the political context or of mistakes in drafting (such as lack of clarity about implications of certain clauses) – would impact Iraq’s economy for the next 40 years.

It was, of course, our tax money that secured Iraq for long enough for the Production Sharing Agreements to hand over control of Iraqi oil to western oil companies. Bush is worried that a revolution in Iraq would mean the Production Sharing Agreements will be ripped up, and new contracts signed with China, Russia et al. Not sure how the Production Sharing Agreements would stand up in an international court of law when Iraq was probably invaded illegally?

The Iraq Coalition Causalty count currently stands at 2,871 coalition soldiers. Think approx 50,000 died in vietnam over 10 years. Bush can probably allow the coalition body count to get a fair bit higher before problems with the US public may force withdrawal. No-one really cares about the approx. 100 civilians killed daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in Vietnam they had far greater casualties. The majority in Iraq are the poor civilians.

True, but Abu Ghraib, the levelling of Fallujah, the mass slaughter of civilians in Haditha, the case of the 14 year old girl who was raped and along with her family killed by US troops.

On top over over 2000 US deaths and over 10,000 wounded and counting. The tide has turned in US public opinion. The troops will be out within a few years, regardless whether the situation improves or not. Ultimately though it wasnt about oil or WMD or AQ/Saddam connections. It was about the petrodollar, and as far as that is concerned its mission accomplied. Iran is the question now and I think the US will find it a lot harder to stop them adopting the Euro (or Yen or Rouble).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but Abu Ghraib, the levelling of Fallujah, the mass slaughter of civilians in Haditha, the case of the 14 year old girl who was raped and along with her family killed by US troops.

On top over over 2000 US deaths and over 10,000 wounded and counting. The tide has turned in US public opinion. The troops will be out within a few years, regardless whether the situation improves or not. Ultimately though it wasnt about oil or WMD or AQ/Saddam connections. It was about the petrodollar, and as far as that is concerned its mission accomplied. Iran is the question now and I think the US will find it a lot harder to stop them adopting the Euro (or Yen or Rouble).

Sorry I cannot see Iraq without Americans in it for a long long time even if they only have US bases located there as Empires do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I cannot see Iraq without Americans in it for a long long time even if they only have US bases located there as Empires do.

Perhaps. Who can really tell once Bush is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Bush Really Say This?

He said a lot of things, all of them showing a complete ignorance of the status quo.

He said the Taliban were defeated. Try telling our boys that, who are dying faster in Afghanistan that at any time in Iraq.

He said the battle for Iraq had reached a decisve moment. Try telling the parents of service men and women who believed him when he first said "Mission Accomplished" back in 2003.

He said democracy had come to Iraq. Try telling that to parents who no longer let their kids play in the street, or the 10s and 20s who die every day for following a belief system at odds with their attackers or, for that matter, anyone outside the green zone where parliament resides.

He said the world demanded action against Iraq pre the War. Try telling that to the protestors around the world who gathered in their millions to stop the war.

He said they were succeeding, yet the serviceman death rate stays resolutely stuck at around its long-term average of ~2.4 US servicemen per day.

USfatalities.gif

US fatalities in Iraq

He said this, he said that. He says things. It is just rhetoric. The words mean nothing.

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant see the Americans ever leaving Iraq.

I can, although it may take as long as Vietnam (helecopters fly out in 2012).

Other people have said that the difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that it's Iraqi civilians dying, but I think in Vietnam 4 million civilians died, and 1.1 Vietnam milatary. 58,226 US soldiers were killed. Added to that the destablisation of Cambodia caused by the carpet bombing of Cambodia means this some of the "killing fields" that happened immediately after the war should really be added to the toll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Casualties

Edited by Della

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand that it is the West V Islam with the main issue being Oil.

I for one 'aint serving. I'd prefer to pay for oil than kill someone to make money for the oil companies to save a couple of pennies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the oil riches Iraq would not be what it is today. Its all about oil as the sand has no intrinsic value to the world.

The strategic value of oil is hard to overestimate. Without it, the Chinese economy among others collapses. The US is slightly less dependent on Arab oil than most of Asia but neverthelss is still dependent. The UK is fast becoming dependent as NS oil runs down.

Those who buy oil from the Middle East are hardly exploiting the Sheiks and Mullahs who are raking in vast fortunes. Take a look at Dubai and Kuwait to see the world's tallest buildings, golf course in the desert etc. etc. Most of the world's top brands get sold to the Middle East including Turbo-Bentleys, Chpard Jewellry and so forth. It takes a lot of oil money to build those palaces and to buy those cars hence the Arab's ongoing willingness to profit from oil.

Many like to think Bush is the evil emperor out to buy oil from the Arabs so that he makes the oil companies rich and while I seriously doubt the evil emperor bit it is clear that the west in general is out to make profits from their oil trading, not the least of which includes a few UK and EU companies: BP (world's number 2) Shell and Total. I suppose it just old fashioned trading the sort of which has been going on for a few thousand years. The names change but not much else does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in Vietnam they had far greater casualties. The majority in Iraq are the poor civilians.

This is because of the way they are doing things at the moment. I understand that a large number of the troops are holed up in compounds, only ever venturing out on patrol. There is a quote, which I can't find or attribute that goes something along the lines of

"You can fly over it with planes, you can roam across the land on patrol, but until you have soldiers there permanently with their feet on the ground, you don't control it"

I think this is very true of what is happening in not just Iraq, but Afghanistan in particular. There is fierce opposition to the UK forces in Southern Afghanistan, with the some of the fiercest fighting taking place that the UK has been in since WWII in Helmand province. I think you have to give credit to the Para's, probably backed up with special forces, that we haven't seen considerably more casualties. UK commanders have admitted that pacifying this area will be a far more difficult task than they anticipated, requiring considerably larger number of troops and logistics. Sadly for our armed forces, this means considerably more casualties.

This is exactly what happened in Vietnam in the early sixties. The differenct today though (because of Vietnam) is that large numbers of casualties are unacceptable to electorates and hence political suicide. There is also the fact that trauma and field medicine is considerably ahead of where it was back in the 60's. Many more soldiers are surviving than would have done 30 or 40 years ago, but are doing so with horrific injuries. I think eventually this will become more of an issue too. I honestly cannot see Iraq or Afghanistan succeeding to be honest, even if they deployed on a Vietnam scale, and in the same manner, directly into the field. The Russians were never succesful in Afghanistan, and they lost 15000 soldiers with a further 1/2 a million injured before they pulled out.

The problem now boils down to two fundamentals;

1) How many more of our young men and women are going to die out there?

2) If you abandon the area the consequences are global, and not just economic. How can we fix this, if at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq is not an excursion.

The US is there with good reason. You don't get the go ahead to spend ~$1 Trillion dollars, just because your a megalomaniac.

The day people protested against the war was the day the circle of power knew they were doing the right thing.

US servicemen are taught a code of priority in training it goes; your god, your country, your family, your friends.

The US wants one thing, a bigger market, that means more consumers, more resources, more goods, more services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the oil riches Iraq would not be what it is today. Its all about oil as the sand has no intrinsic value to the world.

The strategic value of oil is hard to overestimate. Without it, the Chinese economy among others collapses. The US is slightly less dependent on Arab oil than most of Asia but neverthelss is still dependent. The UK is fast becoming dependent as NS oil runs down.

All the Arab countries are not going to stop selling oil to all countries for no reason. The Iraq war has been highly disruptive to the Iraqi oil supply and has lead to the highest nominal oil prices ever, oil has gone up by 600% since 2000, if you look at a graph of the oil price you see that the rise in the oil price is directly associated with the Iraq war.

Those who buy oil from the Middle East are hardly exploiting the Sheiks and Mullahs who are raking in vast fortunes. Take a look at Dubai and Kuwait to see the world's tallest buildings, golf course in the desert etc. etc. Most of the world's top brands get sold to the Middle East including Turbo-Bentleys, Chpard Jewellry and so forth. It takes a lot of oil money to build those palaces and to buy those cars hence the Arab's ongoing willingness to profit from oil.

So what if these Arabs have money, I don't care. Lots of foreign countries have money, and if they buy British products like Turbo Bentleys then it's all the better for us. Dubai doesn't have oil BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubai doesn't have oil BTW.

Dubai is a city in the UAE.

The UAE has oil fields such as Bab, Bu Hasa, Asab, Shah, Rumaitha, Mender, Sajaa.

Offshore they have giant fields like Zakum.

See Here

area4map_sm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly what happened in Vietnam in the early sixties. The differenct today though (because of Vietnam) is that large numbers of casualties are unacceptable to electorates and hence political suicide.

Another difference is that in the Vietnam era casualties would have been much higher as a large number of the seriously wounded would have died. Instead, today they're permanently hospitalised.

Either way, the US government can't support the occupation of Iraq for much longer without a draft and a much higher military budget. They've been burning through volunteers and equipment at an incredible rate: they need more soldiers and a whole host of new or overhauled gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the oil riches Iraq would not be what it is today. Its all about oil as the sand has no intrinsic value to the world.

The strategic value of oil is hard to overestimate. Without it, the Chinese economy among others collapses. The US is slightly less dependent on Arab oil than most of Asia but neverthelss is still dependent. The UK is fast becoming dependent as NS oil runs down.

Those who buy oil from the Middle East are hardly exploiting the Sheiks and Mullahs who are raking in vast fortunes. Take a look at Dubai and Kuwait to see the world's tallest buildings, golf course in the desert etc. etc. Most of the world's top brands get sold to the Middle East including Turbo-Bentleys, Chpard Jewellry and so forth. It takes a lot of oil money to build those palaces and to buy those cars hence the Arab's ongoing willingness to profit from oil.

Many like to think Bush is the evil emperor out to buy oil from the Arabs so that he makes the oil companies rich and while I seriously doubt the evil emperor bit it is clear that the west in general is out to make profits from their oil trading, not the least of which includes a few UK and EU companies: BP (world's number 2) Shell and Total. I suppose it just old fashioned trading the sort of which has been going on for a few thousand years. The names change but not much else does.

Why shouldn't the Arabs profit from the oil? It's called capitalism. Bush doesn't need to buy oil. As part of the Haliburton Hierarchy, he's got plenty already which gets more valuable as the price rises. Bush & Blair are the evil emporers who use our tax money to invade contries to steal their oil through Production Sharing Agreements, not pay for it. It's difficult to outbid the Chinese, because they've got that trillion dollars (we gave them for tat) to spend on long term contracts.

Della, agree with your points; although Bentley is now a German company, owned by Volkswagen. At least they currently retain some employees in the UK for assembly.

The day people protested against the war was the day the circle of power knew they were doing the right thing.

Why/how did they know they were doing the right thing? These were some of the biggest demonstrations in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubai is a city in the UAE.

The UAE has oil fields such as Bab, Bu Hasa, Asab, Shah, Rumaitha, Mender, Sajaa.

Offshore they have giant fields like Zakum.

See Here

area4map_sm.jpg

OK I was thinking of Bahrain, Dubai the Emerate does have a bit of oil after all, 6% of GDP, about the same as Norway. You can see Dubai doesn't have most of the UAE fields.

Uae_division.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

Edited by Della

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the oil riches Iraq would not be what it is today. Its all about oil as the sand has no intrinsic value to the world.

The strategic value of oil is hard to overestimate. Without it, the Chinese economy among others collapses. The US is slightly less dependent on Arab oil than most of Asia but neverthelss is still dependent. The UK is fast becoming dependent as NS oil runs down.

Those who buy oil from the Middle East are hardly exploiting the Sheiks and Mullahs who are raking in vast fortunes. Take a look at Dubai and Kuwait to see the world's tallest buildings, golf course in the desert etc. etc. Most of the world's top brands get sold to the Middle East including Turbo-Bentleys, Chpard Jewellry and so forth. It takes a lot of oil money to build those palaces and to buy those cars hence the Arab's ongoing willingness to profit from oil.

Many like to think Bush is the evil emperor out to buy oil from the Arabs so that he makes the oil companies rich and while I seriously doubt the evil emperor bit it is clear that the west in general is out to make profits from their oil trading, not the least of which includes a few UK and EU companies: BP (world's number 2) Shell and Total. I suppose it just old fashioned trading the sort of which has been going on for a few thousand years. The names change but not much else does.

this war is as much about poverty....you don't see prince al-waleed trying to bring the US to it's knees while the 9/11 hijackers were almost to a man,his countrymen.

....too few people have too much wealth and influence,and some that realise the game are fighting back.

the west is the object of aggression at the moment,but the western workers are blind to it...they will happily fall for the "terrorist" stuff.

...in time the western workers will feel just as hard done by.....this is capitalism at it's most brutal....winner takes all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the real american agenda was to despose of despots and had nothing to do with oil, resources, and expanding their emipire by getting a foothold into the middle east then what the ****** are bush and blair doing about zimbabwai? Sweet FA and I bet there are more than 100 displaced starving civilians dying there each and every day. Inflationa at 1000% speaks volumes yet they stand back. Green zones, bases, and patrols included, America is there for the long term. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.