Iraq Winning Pr War - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2003, 01:37 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Peace for OIL
I guess their definition of "peace" includes "you can keep the weapons you should not have until we eventually find them and force you to destroy them even though you will not allow videotaping of the destruction of the weapons you should not have because it would be too traumatic to your people."
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 04:55 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:24 PM
They don't want a new resolution if the new resulution would legitimate a war.. the 2nd half is important from my point of view.

nbcrusader/Dreadsox: you can use the Oil argument for both sides, pro and anti war, so i don't think it's verry helpful.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 05:12 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
nbcrusader/Dreadsox: you can use the Oil argument for both sides, pro and anti war, so i don't think it's verry helpful.
The mantra "no war for oil" has been regurgitated at every peace rally, but I have yet to see any support for the argument that Bush wants to invade Iraq for its oil. Any precedent?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 07:14 PM   #34
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:24 PM
How about "Let Inspections Work" ? Blix cam e out today stating there is a significant showing that Iraq is going to disarm. So what does Powell say - too late. Who is it up to decide it's too late. Certainly not a country that approved the UN Charter that disallows a country to attack anotherwithout UN approval?
Bush would look like he has no cojones if he backs down. So full speed ahead F**K the rest of the world and those of us- 60% in the last poll that want UN approval.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 07:15 PM   #35
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:24 PM
How about "Let Inspections Work" ? Blix came out today stating there is a significant showing that Iraq is going to disarm. So what does Powell say - too late. Who is it up to decide it's too late. Certainly not a country that approved the UN Charter that disallows a country to attack another without UN approval?
Bush would look like he has no cojones if he backs down. So full speed ahead F**K the rest of the world and those of us- 60% in the last poll that want UN approval.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 07:42 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
How about "Let Inspections Work" ?
Because they produced such wonderful results over the last 12 years?

The only reason Iraq is allowing inspection is the current, active threat of military action.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 08:09 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:24 PM
In my opinion, the problems in the Middle East region result from the actions of modern governments on behalf of big business. To understand what’s going on in the Middle East today, we need to go back only a hundred years.

A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire, stretching from the Balkans to North Africa, enveloped much of the region. Powerful, industrialized European nations with empires of their own - especially Great Britain - had a keen interest in the Middle East.

Britain had already seized the southwestern tip of the Arabian peninsula from the Ottoman Empire and forced the rulers of small territories along the Persian Gulf to sign treaties placing their foreign affairs in British hands. Britain backed Ibn Saud, whose family had been the traditional leaders of a fundamentalist Islamic sect, in his bid to become the ruler of a small peninsular kingdom.

Britain’s goal was to safeguard the sea route (through the Suez Canal) to India, then a valuable part of its worldwide empire. To head off the Russian empire’s advances southward, Britain signed a treaty with Russia in 1907 that divided Iran (Persia) into three zones, one British, one Russian, one neutral - without the Iranian government’s knowledge or involvement.

Britain was already interested in oil, Iranian and otherwise. Today’s British Petroleum can be traced back to the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., founded in 1909. The British government soon acquired a controlling interest in the company.

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Germany gave Britain and other imperial powers new opportunities to help themselves to the region’s riches. Britain and Russia reached a new agreement in 1915, dividing up Iran and Turkey. Britain and France likewise made plans to divvy up much of the Middle East between them once the war was won.

At war's end, France assumed control of Syria and Lebanon. Britain took Palestine and Mesopotamia.

At the same time, Britain encouraged Arab revolts against the Ottoman Empire with the promise that victory would lead to a united Arab nation, reaching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. And in November 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote to the Zionist leader Lord Rothschild promising British government support for "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People."

The British government had promised the same country to two nations.

At the war’s end, private interests hopeful of exploiting the region’s oil urged their governments to ignore war-time promises to Arab leaders. A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deals than a large, independent Arab republic. The European powers agreed. France assumed control of Syria and Lebanon. Britain took Palestine and Mesopotamia. London granted local control to kings and sheiks favorable to British interests. These arrangements were ratified by the League of Nations; Britain’s Palestinian colony was officially a League "Mandate."

The new states needed boundaries. Five days of wrangling over the borders (at a conference in Baghdad) ended when Sir Percy Cox, British High Commissioner, arbitrarily drew the boundary lines setting off Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The Ottoman Empire’s three Mesopotamian provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra became a new nation, Iraq. What had been an adjunct of Basra became a separate political entity, Kuwait. Tiny Kuwait obtained 310 miles of coastline, Iraq just 36. Britain offered the Iraqi throne to the Bedouin leader Faysal, Kuwait to the al-Sabah family, Transjordan to the Hashemite leader Hussein and confirmed Ibn Saud as ruler of Saudi Arabia.

The postwar settlements guaranteed British access to oil in Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula.

Britain backed up its plans for the new oil-rich nations with military might. A nationalist revolt demanding the promised independence quickly spread throughout Iraq. The British army mustard-gassed Shia rebels while the Royal Air Force bombed the Kurds. (Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, recommended dropping mustard gas on the Kurds, too.)

The opening up of Palestine to Jewish settlements, meanwhile, served imperial strategy by furthering division in the region and by establishing a beachhead for British interests.

World War I made British ruling circles appreciate the importance of oil supplies. "During the war," writes Mamed Abbasov, "the United States furnished almost 80 percent of Allied oil requirements. Now Britain realized the necessity of ensuring its own permanent reserves." The postwar settlements guaranteed British access to oil in Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula; British money and military-backed diplomacy ensured British control over Iran. British dominance faced competition from U.S. capital, however.

The confirmation of oil beneath Iraqi soil led to intense wrangling among imperialist interests, resulting in the 1928 "Red Line Agreement." The Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Royal Dutch/Shell, the French oil company CFP, Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon), Mobil, Atlantic Petroleum, Gulf Oil, and Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) formed a joint venture called the Near East Development Co. The new company was required to cooperate with the Turkish Petroleum Co. — itself 50 percent-owned by Anglo-Persian. The agreement allowed for oil drilling rights in the old Ottoman Empire — with a red line drawn on the map to indicate the boundaries of the bonanza. The line ran from Turkey through Jordan, Syria and Iraq to the southern tip of Saudi Arabia, excluding Kuwait and Iran.

Thanks to backing from the U.S. government, Exxon and Mobil together gained a guarantee of one-fourth of the oil produced. The British-controlled Iraqi government received just four shillings per ton of oil. Exxon’s profits per barrel between 1934 and 1939 were more than twice the royalty paid to Iraq.

The oil rush that began in Iraq soon embroiled the Arabian peninsula. Standard Oil of California (Chevron) gained the Bahrain concession on the Persian Gulf in 1929. Four years later, Chevron outbid the Iraq (formerly Turkish) Petroleum Co. to obtain a 60-year concession for Saudi Arabia’s oil — for $250,000 in golden coins. In 1933 Gulf Oil and British Petroleum agreed on a 50-50 joint venture that controlled Kuwaiti oil. In 1936, Chevron joined with Texaco to found the Arab-American Oil Co. (Aramco) to better exploit Arabian oil reserves.

These deals began the process that would lead to the U.S. replacing Britain as the dominant power in the region.

During World War II, the U.S. government subsidized the Saudi government, because the war had severely limited Saudi production. And, writes Michael Tanzer, "After the war, the U.S. government provided huge amounts of a very scarce steel to build a thousand-mile pipeline from Saudi Arabian oil fields to the Mediterranean, thus providing a key link for shipping Saudi oil to foreign markets." The developing alliance between the Saudis and the U.S. government coincided with the U.S. emergence from the war as the world’s greatest power.

The U.S. now faced the dilemma that had bedeviled the British, as it increasingly assumed Britain’s role in the region. The crux of the problem was described in 1948 by a British labor newspaper: "There are two oil pipe lines from Iraq to the Mediterranean; one through Syria to the Coast, and the other through Transjordan to Haifa. Thus it is necessary to placate or force the ruling groups in each of these territories to favour the production and transport of oil on behalf of Western capital."

On the one hand, Israel physically divided the Arab world and provided a base that would help safeguard Western interests. On the other, the U.S. needed to build firm alliances with conservative, anti-democratic Arab kingdoms opposed to Israel. Reactionary rulers attempted to channel popular discontent over lack of democratic rights into opposition to Israel. As the U.S. moved closer to both Israel and Saudi Arabia, U.S. policy placed Washington at odds with Arab workers and peasants who accepted neither Israel nor feudal rulers.

What mattered to powerful interests in the U.S. was oil, not justice. Washington delegated foreign policy, in part, to the Arab-American Oil Co. (Aramco). Aramco could be as pro-Arab as business required, with the government’s approval, while Washington was publicly pro-Israel.

The commander of the U.S. Mediterranean Fleet told a British newspaper in late 1947, "American forces will be allocated wherever there are American interests, in closest cooperation with the British." In the case of Iran, the U.S. responded in a way contrary to American ideals.

Iran had been ruled since 1925 by a military dictator who crowned himself Shah with the blessing of the British government. A joint British-Soviet invasion ousted the Shah in 1941 when he appeared sympathetic to the Nazis and installed his 22-year-old son instead.

In January 1952, democratic elections produced a majority for a grassroots political party, the National Front. The Shah had little choice but to appoint Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, a National Front leader, as prime minister.

Mossadeq's government nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., to the horror of corporate executives and policy-makers in Britain and the U.S.

Britain took its grievance to the UN, but got no satisfaction. So Britain imposed an embargo on Iranian oil and other economic sanctions. After two years of economic hardship, Mossadeq considered selling oil to the Soviet Union. This, and his government’s cooperation with the left-wing Tudeh "Masses" Party, gave the new Eisenhower Administration an excuse for action. The Central Intelligence Agency received authorization to jointly organize a coup with British secret service to destroy the democracy movement and restore the power of the Shah.

CIA operatives disguised as Mossadeq supporters harassed and threatened religious leaders. General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War general) smuggled more than $1 million into Iran. The CIA staged riots and bribed top military and police officials. In August 1953 the Shah returned to power, backed by the military, the U.S. and Britain. The following month the U.S. granted the Iranian government $45 million.

The brief period of democracy and independence ended. Formerly a kind of British colony, Iran was now firmly in the U.S. sphere of influence.

In 1954, a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron, Gulf, Royal Dutch/Shell and CFO, negotiated an agreement with the Iranian government for oil production. Amoco signed an agreement with the Shah in 1958.

In Egypt, the military government of Abdul Nasser in 1956 nationalized the Suez Canal, owned by French and British investors owned the canal. Nationalization of the canal, and Nasser’s encouragement of Arab unity, triggered a joint Anglo-French-Israeli invasion.

In Iraq, a nationalist military uprising in 1958 removed a pro-British dictator. The U.S. government feared the consequences for the hugely profitable oil concessions in Iraq and Kuwait.

To defeat an uprising against the Sultans of Oman in the 1960s, Britain sent special forces and officers to command Omani units. In the early 1960s, British troops battled insurgents seeking to end British rule in Aden, in the western corner of the Arabian peninsula, and rebels seeking to topple a British-friendly ruler across the border in Yemen.

Kuwait declared its independence from Britain in 1961; Iraq’s General Quasim threatened to annex Kuwait, which Iraq still considered part of the province of Basra. Britain pledged to defend Kuwait.

Anticipating an attack by Arab armies, Israel launched a war on its neighbors in June 1967. Its military prevailed — and Israel seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. Large numbers of Palestinians — in cities, towns and villages, as well as refugee camps — suddenly found themselves in Israeli-controlled territory.

Israel announced that Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, would henceforth be its capital, and began to establish settlements in the newly seized West Bank and Gaza.

Given the importance of Middle Eastern oil, U.S. support for Israel would be self-defeating if the conflict were simply Israel versus the Arabs. But instead, the U.S. has brokered an uneasy alliance of Israel and conservative Arab states against radical Arab nationalism — at the expense of the millions of Arabs living in poverty despite the region’s oil wealth.

U.S. government strategy came under severe strain in the early 1970s. The Middle Eastern nations within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973 demanded a better share of oil profits from Western oil corporations and Western restraint of Israel. These demands were followed by higher prices and a boycott. As John Rose writes, "the oil-boycott was successful only because it temporarily united the most radical of the oil-producing countries with the most reactionary — including the two most decisive and pro-American, Saudi Arabia and Iran."

Later that year, Israel decisively repulsed a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack. "The United States saved Israel from collapse at the end of the first week by our arms supply," stated Henry Kissinger, then U.S. Secretary of State. "Some have claimed it was American strategy to produce a stalemate in the 1973 war. This is absolutely wrong. What we wanted was the most massive Arab defeat possible." What the U.S. government wanted, in Kissinger’s words, was "to break up the Arab united front," in order to return to the previous alliances and maintain U.S. corporate control of Middle Eastern oil. After the war, the U.S. readily agreed to sell Saudi Arabia and Iran military hardware worth billions of dollars. Kissinger’s strategy led eventually to the 1979 Camp David Accords, with an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula in exchange for Egyptian recognition of Israel. Egypt had been detached from "the Arab united front."

The big oil companies, meanwhile, had done quite well. Exxon’s profits for 1973 set an all-time record for any corporation.

A reformer with years of public service, Mossadeq was European-educated and pro-American. (He led a post-war fight to deny the Soviet Union oil concessions in northern Iran.) Mossadeq considered foreign control of his country’s oil riches as a barrier democracy and independence. His government nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., to the joy of the Iranian people and horror of corporate executives and policy-makers in Britain and the U.S.

In the late 1970s, the Israeli government began providing direct and indirect funding to the Islamic Association, the parent organization of the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas.

According to Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, "the Israelis wanted to use [Hamas] as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)." A former senior CIA official told journalist Richard Sale that Israeli support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative."

The real goal, some observers believe, was to undermine prospects for negotiations that might give concessions to the Palestinians. The financial support of the Islamic Association/Hamas took place under the government formed in 1977 by the Likud Party, organized by Menachem Begin and other veterans of 1940s Jewish terrorist organizations.

In Iraq, the government established by a 1968 coup nationalized the country’s petroleum industry and directed its wealth toward economic development. That coup consolidated the government in the hands of top Ba’ath Party leaders, among them Saddam Hussein. Hussein directed purges and assassinations aimed at eliminating opposition within and outside of the ruling party. In 1979 Ahmad al Bakr resigned as Iraq’s ruler, replaced by Hussein, who became president, commander of the military and secretary-general of the party.

In the 1970s the U.S. provided the Shah of Iran with billions of dollars in arms and advisers to train his army and secret police. But the Shah’s autocratic methods, repression, perceived corruption, and tolerance of Western domination united much of the population against him. Installed in 1953 by the U.S. and Britain, the Shah was toppled by strikes and popular protests in early 1979. A referendum led to establishment of an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, just returned from exile, and other radical clerics. The West had lost one of the supporters of its Middle Eastern policy.

Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 to expand and safeguard its access to the Persian Gulf. The eight-year conflict killed about one million people and maimed and injured a million more. The 1980s buildup of Iraq’s military machine - including biochemical weaponry - was made possible by more technically advanced nations, among them the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, alarmed by Iran’s popular religious revolution, contributed some $60 billion to Iraq’s war budget.

Michael T. Klare: "Reagan (and later Bush) authorized the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of sophisticated U.S. scientific and technical equipment — much of which has apparently been used in the development of conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons." The U.S. allowed private American companies to supply Iraq with number of biological agents, including anthrax.

European newspapers reported in December that the U.S. removed thousands of pages from Iraq’s report to the United Nations on its weapons. The UN Security Council received the edited version. Reportedly the missing pages contain a list of U.S. and European corporations, including Honeywell, Rockwell and Siemens, that supplied Iraq with sensitive nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology.

The Reagan Administration demonstrated its preference in the Iraq-Iran conflict: Iraq received strategic information from U.S. satellites and assistance in battle planning, despite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Some sources say that U.S. arms also were sold to Iran.

With the conclusion of the war in 1988, which left Iraq dectroyed in financial terms, some Members of Congress began looking closer at some of the more alarming aspects of Hussein’s regime. Iraq had a long record of human rights violations. Its repression of its Kurdish minority, who make up some 28 percent of the population, had been called genocidal. And there was ample proof that Iraq violated international law by using chemical weapons against Kurds and Iran.

Hussein had revived the complaint that Kuwait was appropriately part of Iraq. He also believed that Kuwait and other Gulf states engaged in overproduction that kept the price of oil low, hurting the Iraqi economy. In a July meeting with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, he repeatedly advocated raising the price of oil to around $25 a barrel (in June the price was around $13.50), and accused Kuwait of waging "economic aggression" against Iraq. Sources say that the U.S. Ambassador expressed sympathy for Iraq’s financial concerns and its efforts to rebuild after an eight-year war.

"We have many Americans who would like to see the price of oil go above $25, because they come from oil-producing areas," Ambassador Glaspie reportedly told the dictator. She also told Hussein the U.S. had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Two days later, on Aug. 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Some sources reveal that an American military operation in Iraq had been trained just before Iraq invaded Kuwait - Desert Storm had been planned in case of a crisis.

As the Senate considered war with Iraq, Sen. Pell remarked with grim satisfaction, "I cannot help but observe that among those who are most enthusiastic about committing United States forces to battle against Iraq now are those who were most vocally opposed to sanctions prior to August 2."

Big names in Big Oil had Kuwaiti investments — Chevron, Getty, Gulf, Mobil, Shell, Texaco. To safeguard U.S. corporate interests in Kuwait, Operation Desert Storm got underway.

Kuwait had a population of a little less than two million in 1990, of whom only 535,000 were citizens. The remainder were mostly immigrant workers - from Arab countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Philippines - who were denied civil rights. Strikes or protests were prohibited; participants faced immediate firing and deportation. All women were denied the right to vote. Political parties were banned. Of the 75 members of the Kuwaiti parliament, 25 were appointed by the Emir of Kuwait.

On the other hand, tiny Kuwait has one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

Following the U.S. and allied expulsion of Iraqi forces, Kuwait promised major human rights improvements. But according to Human Rights Watch, continuing human rights violations have outweighed minor changes over the last decade.

Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, is a monarchy without a legislature or political parties. The royal government prohibits unions and outlaws collective bargaining. Saudi Arabia announced in 2002 that workers in companies employing more than 100 citizens could form "labor committees," which can be dissolved by order of the Ministry of Labor. Foreign workers are banned from these committees, although the Saudi workforce contains millions of immigrants. One million household servants, mostly foreigners, are excluded from legal protection.

Amnesty International has documented arbitrary arrests, torture, unfair trials and harsh punishment, including flogging and beheading. "The country’s strategic position and vast oil resources have led governments and businesses around the world to subordinate human rights to economic and strategic interests," the group says. Even the U.S. State Dept., in a 2001 report, says of Saudi Arabia: "The Government’s human rights record remains poor."

Nonetheless, the U.S. has sold billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware to Saudi Arabia that allows the government to repress its citizens as well as defend its oil wealth.

Israel has served as a kind of U.S. military subcontractor in the Middle East.

The fundamental problem in the Middle East continues to be, as it has been for a century, the drive of foreign business interests to dominate and control the world’s oil supplies. The London Observer reported on Nov. 3, 2002 that Saddam’s would-be successors, the Iraqi National Congress, are already meeting with multinational oil corporations to divide Iraq’s oil wealth.

To achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, power brokers like the U.S. government would have to be convinced to put justice, and peace itself, ahead of oil company profits.

When we take a look at all this history, how can we seriously have a shadow of doubt that the upcoming war is about oil? There may be other reasons for war too, including wanted UN weakness, military action/ arms sales interests, and Bush´s personal problem with evil Arabs, but the control of the region for oil interests is the most important reason for war.

The threat of miltary action is known to that region for a century.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 08:33 PM   #38
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Great post HipHop.

Sorry for the double post -blanking dial-up.


SO WHAT? It is working now. It is cheaper to keep our troops there with no use of weaponry (that cost $$$) than to engage in a war. The reiteration of "3000 bombs in one day {"we'll show them what we've got :is just f**king mindblowing to me.

Only 7% of our bombs were smart bombs in DSI, but we only saw pictures of the ones hitting the targets. Where the hell have you all been since then. Haven't you seen the pictures of housing areas hit by those bombs. What will 3000 in one day do?
I pray for mercy for our people because in today's abilities we are breaking IMHO every commandment God put in place.
*heart broken, hearing my child crying*
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 08:34 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:24 PM
What does your post have to do with the PR War that this thread was intended to debate HIP HOP? How about starting your own thread and putting this there? Maybe "Hip Hop's HIstory of the Middle East"
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 08:36 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Scarletwine,

Hip Hop accuses the US of manufacturing the 1st Gulf War without one single reference or ounce of proof. It is junk and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 08:55 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Interesting too that the only words which are your own Hip Hop are "In my opinion".

From there on this is a cut and paste job. How about crediting the site where you copied this from or at least provide a link so we can see where it really came from.

Here is a link to the site in case you forgot:


http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html


The article actually had two other paragraphs before you inserted your words "In my opinion" which would lead us to believe the whole post was your own words.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 09:05 PM   #42
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Dreadsox,
You are right about Hiphop's post but that doesn't deny the loss I feel. It appears to me that no matter what our Congressmen think or our citizens think. the last Congress gave away our right to consider WAR.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 09:15 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:24 PM
They debated it and voted for it. I am not sure I agree with you on this "Giving it AWAY". Now it is your job to make sure you hold your representatives accountable for their vote, since you did not agree with it.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 09:30 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
What does your post have to do with the PR War that this thread was intended to debate HIP HOP? How about starting your own thread and putting this there? Maybe "Hip Hop's HIstory of the Middle East"
Because my contribution to this thread was an answer to nbcrusader.

"The mantra "no war for oil" has been regurgitated at every peace rally, but I have yet to see any support for the argument that Bush wants to invade Iraq for its oil. Any precedent?"

I do hope you allow me to quote some historical facts in your thread, Dreadsox.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 10:15 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Interesting too that the only words which are your own Hip Hop are "In my opinion".

From there on this is a cut and paste job. How about crediting the site where you copied this from or at least provide a link so we can see where it really came from.

Here is a link to the site in case you forgot:


http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html


The article actually had two other paragraphs before you inserted your words "In my opinion" which would lead us to believe the whole post was your own words.
I have read the article first and then made a part of it to my opinion. I have changed some sentences though. Therefore, it is not quoting.

I take the right of posting anything I want on FYM, of clearing out paragraphs from sources I use with which I don´t agree, of quoting sources when it seems appropriate and of leaving them out when it seems not appropriate to me. I always use the principle of "Information wants to be free". You have the right to do whatever you want with your posts, same goes for me

If I say "In my opinion, the problems in the Middle East region result from the actions of modern governments on behalf of big business", it is not a quote. If you go to the source I have used for the message, you will see the sentence is not the same, therefore its not a quote. Needless to say that many of the things posted later on, are just facts, and have nothing to do with my potential opinion.

"Interesting too that the only words which are your own Hip Hop are "In my opinion"." Thats not right. Reread the whole source, and reread my message. Basically the facts are the same, but you will see I left out many paragraphs of the source, changed some slightly in their expression, and added a few sentences. After all, I don´t think you except me to write a thesis about the whole issue. This would be a waste of time, considering that I have to do more important things.

My intention was to show nbcrusader that there were lots of interests which have to do with oil in this region in the past one hundred years.

"Hip Hop accuses the US of manufacturing the 1st Gulf War".

Where? Read my post carefully. I say "Some sources reveal that an American military operation in Iraq had been trained just before Iraq invaded Kuwait - Desert Storm had been planned in case of a crisis." There´s a difference, because military scenarios are often trained for all kinds of potential conflicts, I think. Apart from that, I am not a reporter. I don´t need to quote my sources. If you imply I make things up, so be it - I leave this to your level of intelligence...

Needless to say, you completely missed the point, Dreadsox. The whole message I wanted to bring across is that the conflicts in the Middle East have been about oil as long as we can think. So it is not totally out of the blue to say that also in the case of the upcoming war, it is about oil and a few other interests, reread my last sentences in the long post.

Now a question to you, my friend: why are you so angry with my post?
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com