I really would like to understand what you all mean when you say the war was "all about oil." I've heard that line so many times. I think it makes no sense whatsover, but I do want to understand what you guys actually think. I have several libs as close friends, and when I asked what they meant, they just said....it's obvious, it's all about the oil...blah, blah, blah. I couldn't disagree more, but I am interested in a mature, respectful discussion on the topic.
I can't speak for all of 'em but to me it goes like this:
Back in mid-90s, Wolfowitz and neocons including many in current admin formed think tank that talked about Pax Americana - US being world's policeman, with first point of presence being in Middle East because strategically we would be able to protect oil fields of various countries and ensure steady supply to US economy.
They advocated invading Iraq, deposing Saddam and establishing military presence there.
Also, Bush and Bush senior have extensive business ties in oil industry and with Saudis. They even call the Saudi Ambassador "Bindahar Bush" cause they are such close friends. I don't think there is anything conspiratorial about it, but their world view is shaped by "what's good for Saudi Arabia and the oil industry is good for us" mentality.
Finally, ask yourself out of all the dreaded ruthless dictators out there, why Iraq? Why not invade North Korea - they actually have WMDs. North Korea doesn't have oil.
Back in mid-90s, Wolfowitz and neocons including many in current admin formed think tank that talked about Pax Americana - US being world's policeman, with first point of presence being in Middle East because strategically we would be able to protect oil fields of various countries and ensure steady supply to US economy.
They advocated invading Iraq, deposing Saddam and establishing military presence there.
Also, Bush and Bush senior have extensive business ties in oil industry and with Saudis. They even call the Saudi Ambassador "Bindahar Bush" cause they are such close friends. I don't think there is anything conspiratorial about it, but their world view is shaped by "what's good for Saudi Arabia and the oil industry is good for us" mentality.
Finally, ask yourself out of all the dreaded ruthless dictators out there, why Iraq? Why not invade North Korea - they actually have WMDs. North Korea doesn't have oil.
I would never say its "all about oil" but it certainly plays a huge factor, i believe. Another big factor is Israel's security in the region which is not talked about very often. The least important factor is probably bringing 'freedom to iraqis', like Bush would care about that if the country was in the middle of the Himalayas.
This war is about a problem in the Middle East that no other president was willing to face, militant islamic fundamentalists, many who are members of terror groups, whose goal is for us to see the world like they do, i.e. women should have a secondary role in society, Islam should be the only religion practiced, rule by barbarianism, etc. These people's ultimate goal is to have this type of life practiced throughout the world. Bush is trying to install some semblance of freedom in part of the Middle East, hoping that once it is established in Iraq, citizens in other nearby Arab countries will see the positive effects of capitalism and systematically overthrow dictatorships in their own countries, thereby defeating these militant Islamic fundamentalists. Don't believe these people that believe this is about oil. It has nothing to do with oil.
The Project for the New American Century ... have a read:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Specifically, and to see who endorses this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Specifically, and to see who endorses this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.
While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.
Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.
The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.
While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.
Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.
The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.
I am not a liberal, and I do not think that the war in Iraq is "all about oil." But to try to pretend that it is "not at all about oil" is to ignore some very basic history and the actions of our own leaders, such as Executive Order 13303, which was signed into effect by President Bush 22 May 2003 and effectively lays claim to Iraq's oil reserves and infrastructure in the name of the "national emergency" which Iraq represents (and it didn't at the time imho, but boy is Iraq a national emergency now.)
Phaedrus
[This message was edited by Phaedrus on May 20, 2004 at 04:38 PM.]
Phaedrus
[This message was edited by Phaedrus on May 20, 2004 at 04:38 PM.]
XP,
Thanks for the link.
Redneckman, Iraq is a secular state that tolerates Christianity. If they wanted to go after fundamentalist states, Saudi Arabia might be a good place to start - where 9 of the hijackers and OBL were from and that has a strong Wahabbi fundamentalist sect.
Also, in Iraq, women were free to work and dress as they please in accordance with their own religious beliefs.
Thanks for the link.
Redneckman, Iraq is a secular state that tolerates Christianity. If they wanted to go after fundamentalist states, Saudi Arabia might be a good place to start - where 9 of the hijackers and OBL were from and that has a strong Wahabbi fundamentalist sect.
Also, in Iraq, women were free to work and dress as they please in accordance with their own religious beliefs.
What country we choose to start with doesn't change my overall premise. After Afganistan, we chose to start with Iraq because Saudi Arabia was not in violation of umpteen U.N. Resolutions. All you guys seem to be big U.N. backers, so I would think you would have supported a country taking a stand against somebody continuously ignoring U.N. demands.
The first was the one that was all about oil. What happened was that due to the the giant national debt that Reagan incurred (seems strange to call it giant after what bush2 has done) the Japanese basically bailed us out by buying up government bonds. Now when Saddam attacked Kuwait while we were getting a very minimal percentage of our oil from Kuwait, Japan was getting most of theirs from Kuwait. Basically Japan, having us by the balls economically, called in the politcal favor and Bush1 had to get involved.
This second conflict of course has the under lying oil interests, taking over one of the world's largest oil reserves has obvious benifits, especially as someone here mentioned with the bush family having ties to the oil industry and the fruits cheney's company is reaping from this, but it does go deeper. There's the personal vendetta aspect of finishing what daddy started. Another motive is re-election, Saddam was an easier target Bin Ladden so it was a nothch on the belt to boast for re-election, of course until everything blew up in bush2's face with the falsified proof to go there, the WMD that weren't there and lastest the torturing of prisoners by our military. Finally you have to consider the Joan of Arc complex, bush2 would appear to be disturbed, he's so rightous that he honestly believes that he's on a mission from God and that he knows over all other nation's leaders, the U.N. and public opinion what is right and wrong in the world.
I think it's important to remember to always look for alterior motives just to keep tabs on the government be it repub or conserv. For example we can be pretty sure that Clinton's motivation for being involved in resolving the Northern/Southern Ireland conflict was mostly about personal fame and recognition. Similarily are we really to believe that bush2 is suddenly concerned with the welfare of Cubans. Florida is an important state for the election and tightening the screws on Castro's government now is just juice to get more Florida-Cuban votes.
This second conflict of course has the under lying oil interests, taking over one of the world's largest oil reserves has obvious benifits, especially as someone here mentioned with the bush family having ties to the oil industry and the fruits cheney's company is reaping from this, but it does go deeper. There's the personal vendetta aspect of finishing what daddy started. Another motive is re-election, Saddam was an easier target Bin Ladden so it was a nothch on the belt to boast for re-election, of course until everything blew up in bush2's face with the falsified proof to go there, the WMD that weren't there and lastest the torturing of prisoners by our military. Finally you have to consider the Joan of Arc complex, bush2 would appear to be disturbed, he's so rightous that he honestly believes that he's on a mission from God and that he knows over all other nation's leaders, the U.N. and public opinion what is right and wrong in the world.
I think it's important to remember to always look for alterior motives just to keep tabs on the government be it repub or conserv. For example we can be pretty sure that Clinton's motivation for being involved in resolving the Northern/Southern Ireland conflict was mostly about personal fame and recognition. Similarily are we really to believe that bush2 is suddenly concerned with the welfare of Cubans. Florida is an important state for the election and tightening the screws on Castro's government now is just juice to get more Florida-Cuban votes.
Illini,
Let me give you my take...I'm a Darwinist who holds pure liberal values yet recognizes that conservatives have the better angle on the practical way forward...
The price of oil is not driven primarily by market forces. It is driven by nuclear forces. Saudi Arabia is the most important oil producer in the world. Their government is basically a puppet regime who makes laws first and foremost according to the USA's wishes, and only secondly according the will of its people. The USA has troops permanently stationed there to ensure that it remains this way. The people don't complain, though, because they do quite well financially under this arrangement.
If the Arab states ran their countries with no US influence, Osama and his boys would be in charge, Isreal would not exist and oil prices would be upwards of $200 a barrel. Today they are talking about catastrophic economic effects of $45-$50 oil. Imagine the effect of a $200 price!? The economy is highly leveraged, so any change in the price of a fundamental resource gets magnified several times.
Don't forget that oil is not just used for heating and gasoline. It is used at every phase of the manufacturing process. Pretty much everything you own required oil to make and deliver to you.
Saddam also likes oil. He was threatening to take over the region and sieze the oil. If he'd have been successful, the world economy would have simply imploded because oil would have shot up to $200 a barrel or more. It's true that the US overestimated the threat Saddam poses, but that doesn't change the fact that this war is about oil.
The reason politicians downplay this is because 1) They don't want to set off alarm bells -- if people became more conscious of our dependency on oil, the economy could suffer just from the fear element alone, 2) They know liberals would demonstrate in droves with their typical slogans "I can live without oil, kill me instead". It would be too complicated to explain how much our current lifestyle depends on oil, and 3) It's easier to rally support if it's seen as a good vs. evil situation.
That's my take anyway.
Let me give you my take...I'm a Darwinist who holds pure liberal values yet recognizes that conservatives have the better angle on the practical way forward...
The price of oil is not driven primarily by market forces. It is driven by nuclear forces. Saudi Arabia is the most important oil producer in the world. Their government is basically a puppet regime who makes laws first and foremost according to the USA's wishes, and only secondly according the will of its people. The USA has troops permanently stationed there to ensure that it remains this way. The people don't complain, though, because they do quite well financially under this arrangement.
If the Arab states ran their countries with no US influence, Osama and his boys would be in charge, Isreal would not exist and oil prices would be upwards of $200 a barrel. Today they are talking about catastrophic economic effects of $45-$50 oil. Imagine the effect of a $200 price!? The economy is highly leveraged, so any change in the price of a fundamental resource gets magnified several times.
Don't forget that oil is not just used for heating and gasoline. It is used at every phase of the manufacturing process. Pretty much everything you own required oil to make and deliver to you.
Saddam also likes oil. He was threatening to take over the region and sieze the oil. If he'd have been successful, the world economy would have simply imploded because oil would have shot up to $200 a barrel or more. It's true that the US overestimated the threat Saddam poses, but that doesn't change the fact that this war is about oil.
The reason politicians downplay this is because 1) They don't want to set off alarm bells -- if people became more conscious of our dependency on oil, the economy could suffer just from the fear element alone, 2) They know liberals would demonstrate in droves with their typical slogans "I can live without oil, kill me instead". It would be too complicated to explain how much our current lifestyle depends on oil, and 3) It's easier to rally support if it's seen as a good vs. evil situation.
That's my take anyway.
Thanks, guys, for your input. I have a lot better understanding listening to you guys. Darryl, I'm not that informed about our relations with Saudi Arabia, so I definitely need to investigate. I have wondered why they have been (semi) allies for so long, and have known that oil had something to do with it.
Daryl, I concur with your synopsis. Our economy is leveraged. And besides the prospect of gas at $5-$10 a gallon, the single biggest threat is our Trade Defecit.
We have indeed leveraged our real property to the likes of Japan and others to fund this foolish policy.
Soon American will be owned by non-Americans if this isn't reversed
Illini, they did have them, and they used them. No question about it. And they were actively seeking nuclear capability, this is fact.
So, Saddam with nukes? What a comforting scenario. I'm glad he's gone, and so should the world.
You'all sure are glad Hitler is gone, yes?
And the Imperial Soviet Politburo too?, yes?
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
We have indeed leveraged our real property to the likes of Japan and others to fund this foolish policy.
Soon American will be owned by non-Americans if this isn't reversed
Illini, they did have them, and they used them. No question about it. And they were actively seeking nuclear capability, this is fact.
So, Saddam with nukes? What a comforting scenario. I'm glad he's gone, and so should the world.
You'all sure are glad Hitler is gone, yes?
And the Imperial Soviet Politburo too?, yes?
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
