SOG
06-14-2004, 08:08 AM
1st off i did this as fairly and as non biased as i could. i witch hunted all and made a list. in making that list i have witch hunted those reponsible in the US, but i am too tired to find who and what in the other countries. if you would like to find those in other countries who personally had a hand in this, do so. basically, i kept finding clues and contradictions to current day affairs, which finally led me here.
why gulf war?
i had to keep going back to a certain point so i could find a base of begingings. this involves iraq, bush senior and supposed cia meddling.
one problem of MANY was kuwait was sideways drilling into iraqs oil:
Another Kuwaiti field - Ratqa - has been the subject of controversy. Once thought to be an independent reservoir, Ratqa is actually a southern extension of Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. During the weeks preceding Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had accused Kuwait of stealing billions of dollars worth of Rumaila oil, and had refused to negotiate a sharing or joint development arrangement for Ratqa and southern Rumaila. After the Gulf War of 1991, a United Nations survey team made a demarcation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait, and this demarcation put all 11 of the existing wells at Ratqa within Kuwaiti territory. Despite this, in September 2000, Iraq renewed accusations it has made previously that Kuwait was "stealing" its oil. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was doing this through horizontal drilling on fields straddling the border between the two countries, and that Iraq was losing $3 billion per year worth of oil. Kuwait denied the charges. Kuwait produces around 40,000 bbl/d from Ratqa.
saddam accused kuwait of not only stealing billions, but also considered kuwait to be part of iraq since he considered kuwaits status to only be so because kuwait was a british protectorate from 1899-1961. besides many border disputes the oil dispute was icing on the cake. i believe saddam was threatning the arab immarites/opec/kuwait oil deals and basically that was a driving point for gw1.
now to this point saddam was still a allie of the US and had been for many years. the interesting thing is, we suddenly demonized saddam for the same things he was simply doing before. now saddam says bush and the cia were fine with him attacking kuwait. i have no hard evidence of this so i have discarded it. but the fact that we suddenly turned on saddam, tells me he was being used when the accusations leveled at him were nothing new and our oil was at stake in kuwait. after all, if we were friends with saddam to this point, and he had so much oil, why spoil that relationship? thats a damn fine deal in a very secular country in the mid east concerning the suppression of radical religion and tolerance of others. this almost leads me to believe saddam was misled somewhat, but hes such a asshole, i dont want to think he has ever done anything good or is telling the truth.
starting the gulf war:
In 1990 Iraq revived a long-standing territorial dispute with Kuwait, its ally during the war with Iran, claiming that overproduction of petroleum by Kuwait was injuring Iraq’s economy by depressing the price of crude oil.
after this the UN imposed sanctions right away against iraq and gave them a deadline to leave kuwait. we all know what happened after. gw1.
post gulf war sanctions:
The Security Council laid out strict demands on Iraq for lifting the sanctions, including destruction of its chemical and biological weapons, cessation of nuclear weapons programs, and acceptance of international inspections to ensure that these conditions were met.
now thats odd that the UN wanted destruction of wmd, post gulf war, not much was found nor did iraq comply, and countries in the UN highly doubted the US reports of wmd in iraq in gw2.
now my question is, if the UN listed it as a DEMAND for iraq to meet to lift sanctions earlier, and there was none or hardly any wmd, then the sanctions would remain in place due to the wmd sanction being non fulfilled.
this i believe leads to evidence claims that the UN sanctions imposed in 1990 and the ones made horribly stricter in 1996 with the food for oil program, were totally unfair for iraq to meet?
now heres the ****ter. ALL the countries in the security council that pushed the wmd sanction were also the same countries INCLUDING the US that attacked bush junior for starting a war on such a lie. so what i see, is many countries including the US from 1990 till gw2 supporting untrue and unfair sanctions against iraq, and then accusing bush jr for going in to look for the very sanctions that were raping iraq under, with the authority of the UN.
what i am begining to see, is a lot of crooks in the UN from ALL countries not wanting bush jr to uncover the truth? in a multi media blitz from ALL countries, we then witnessed them harp on bush jr for looking for wmd which the UN unfairly used to subject iraq under, and, steal its oil?
gulf war one ended in march 91 i believe? a simple fact i was trying to verify.
Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States in 1992 and reelected in 1996. another fact i needed to verify in conjunction with bush senior. the interesting thing i found in this, is that bush pushed for these so far "retarded sanctions" in 1990-91 in the UN and clinton followed them through and pushed for the food for oil program through the UN. i basically was simply looking for who was involved and was surprised to find both republicans and democrats were involved in what appears to be impossible to meet sanctions enforced through the UN with other countries agreeing right along side of us. Deuterium awhile ago posted one hell of a list detailing democrats supporting the war, iraq as a threat, and that iraq was still needing to be dealt with. i didnt judge this biasly, i just couldnt believe both sides made similar comments. they were in agreeance, until bush, decided to push.
in this line of thinking i came to believe that there is a general consensus in politics of most matters with deviance on simple "campaign social issues" followed by pointing fingers at eachother which is the political thiing to do. in this case, alot of democrats and republicans seemed to think the same thing about iraq, but party time squabbling convulted the US citizens sight of what thier politicians believed. i am also convinced that the heavy and unfair sanctions imposed by both ruling parties in the US and countries world wide via the UN have all seemingly villianized bush for uncovering or rather undoing what they imposed.
i believe sanctions in iraq were wrong based on quite alot of premises including what i outlined above about wmd. The US stance in oil for food:
1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq,
We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
To which Ambassador Albright responded, I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
The following January Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clinton’s secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said, We will insist on maintaining tough U.N. sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.
i will add that a non biased report of sanctions effects placed mortality at:
In 1999 Richard Garfield, a professor of clinical international nursing at Columbia University, put the likely mortality figure at 227,000 for children under 5 from August 1991 to 1998, most of them directly or indirectly attributable to the sanctions. but, the fact remains.
so the interviewer was a bit biased with stats, but albrieght did not balk, even though later she states what she said was horribly wrong, after the fact when everything crumbled......
Sanctions did not effect saddam?:
Denis Halliday. He was co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the top most officials. He resigned in 1998, after 34 years with the UN. As John Pilger comments, "His was the first public expression of an unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning, [as Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations]" he [Denis Halliday] wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that ... Five thousand children are dying every month ... I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these."
When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible."
oil for food:
Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York…. Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north.
so the iraqis with the food for oil program in 96 are now selling oil to relieve them and strengthen thier economy? no.:
With the remaining limited amount of money the Iraqi government could order “food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation” and other things. But — and here’s the rub — the U.S. government could veto or delay any items ordered.
As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harper’s,
The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country…. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers.
remember the 1st thing US troops did in restoration projects? clearing canals, sewers, setting up clean water? of course not, it was minutely reported.
From the Commanding Officer at MWSS-171 to his Marines:
1. ... pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700
tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
2. ... the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to
Iraq's children.
3. ... a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000
kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of
farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and
women.
4. ... we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and
over two-thirds of the potable water production.
among a great list of other things, some fullfilled, some not exact.
bush after the invasion in 2003 called for sanctions to be lifted. france soon agreed a week later and asked also they be lifted
now the interesting thing i see is pre gw2, all the countries voicing thier opinion against the war were the heaviest "oil for food" in iraq, the three who the media declared opposed us, france, germany russia, and the one the media covered at home, the US ourselves, and heavy shots at britain and blair. what is interesting is that these were the heaviest oil for food countries, all accused bush of going in for what they themselves imposed on iraq, including his own father, and all our medias did a hell of a job whipping up everyone in a frenzy against each other to miss simple pre war facts.
end results i see:
1. iraq is no longer under this murderous sanction imposed by the power houses of the UN including the lead power, the US itself.
2. bush jr, blair and allies, were attacked harshly, mostly from within the "oil for food" leaders, outside critiscm was minor compared to the heavies.
3. after investigating the US's personal hand in this, not only is the clinton administration guilty but, bush senior is, and it is now my contention, he purposefully let saddam hole himself up so they could further sanctions imposed just before gw1 by the security council. both parties knew full well some of the sanctions were impossible to meet and thus wouldnt be lifted as detailed above. and they alone carry the majority of power and influence in imposing further sanctions, which they did later.
4. bush jr pissed off the part of america who had put this into action, and the allies who supported it.
5. the public was duped into mockery of bush and allies by the media in all countries, hiding simple facts that in turn condemned all countries.
6. im not saying bush jr is a sweetheart, in fact as witnessed in other threads, i used to believed this was done for more oil for america for future stability and, freedom as a side quest for iraq. simple facts have made me see otherwise. i think he is still pimping contracts and somewhat of a ass politician, but now, seeing what i see, things arent so "conspiratal" or anti bush. i still do not see why he pined wmd so much, the only thing i can think of was to have a base of support within the US because from the looks of it, the opposition was tremendous and he needed something to at least get in the door with and from 911, it got him the power.
7. i do not know why bush jr did this, why he disrupted his fathers work so, i cannot fathom intentions as to why he disrupted something so criminal enforced by the power houses of the UN including the US, which in turn benefited the countries. i am now in near fear, he may be a decent guy, and i am no longer labeling him as just another politician id shoot in the face, but have elevated him to "questionable". of course hes going to give his buddies money, spoils of war etc, but dare i say...... it was a just cause over the researched deadly and unfair UN sanctions? that is my current stance.
8. i am reeling in saying, bush may have just actually liberated iraq pending the future. i still do not know what for, i daresay for good reasons, but i just cant say that yet, as i am wary of future events which may form elsewhere. i am also thoroughly confused as to how he upset his dads work so greatly. prodgical son?
09. i used to here people bitch non stop about sanctions and how bad they are, now that the santions are lifted, i just here how bad the person is who lifted them. again, i do not blame any one country, i blame officials in all power UN countries in the past for making this happen including the saudis which actually koined the gw1 coalition, and of course the US, who is the biggest on the block to do so and the biggest problem of all, the media, which incited everyone to go ballistic on eachother with a simply amaizing disinformation campaign. i have been warned by people in the past aboutthe media, i did not think they were anything like this.
10. i would like to thank Deuterium for making the comment that this war was "TO FREE IRAQ PERIOD" quite a while ago! that statement confused me greatly as to how one in the know, could make a statement which i thought was okay, but was not the main reason for the war. Deuterium's statement has been cause for thought since then, and i have thought about it until finding answers.
11. and during the course of research i found maggy thatcher was a stand up gal, and she stated the 1st gulf war should have lasted longer, as to remove saddam. some brits, some french, some russians, some germans and some americans had good opinions and were on the right track, all of them drowned by our media.
what i have have found surprises me on many levels, and has only left me with questions i cannot answer except through time. the old corruption and subduing of iraq made sense in a corrupt way, i can make no sense of current day intentions as they seem good, and i do not associate good with poltics. thank you for your time.
why gulf war?
i had to keep going back to a certain point so i could find a base of begingings. this involves iraq, bush senior and supposed cia meddling.
one problem of MANY was kuwait was sideways drilling into iraqs oil:
Another Kuwaiti field - Ratqa - has been the subject of controversy. Once thought to be an independent reservoir, Ratqa is actually a southern extension of Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. During the weeks preceding Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had accused Kuwait of stealing billions of dollars worth of Rumaila oil, and had refused to negotiate a sharing or joint development arrangement for Ratqa and southern Rumaila. After the Gulf War of 1991, a United Nations survey team made a demarcation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait, and this demarcation put all 11 of the existing wells at Ratqa within Kuwaiti territory. Despite this, in September 2000, Iraq renewed accusations it has made previously that Kuwait was "stealing" its oil. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was doing this through horizontal drilling on fields straddling the border between the two countries, and that Iraq was losing $3 billion per year worth of oil. Kuwait denied the charges. Kuwait produces around 40,000 bbl/d from Ratqa.
saddam accused kuwait of not only stealing billions, but also considered kuwait to be part of iraq since he considered kuwaits status to only be so because kuwait was a british protectorate from 1899-1961. besides many border disputes the oil dispute was icing on the cake. i believe saddam was threatning the arab immarites/opec/kuwait oil deals and basically that was a driving point for gw1.
now to this point saddam was still a allie of the US and had been for many years. the interesting thing is, we suddenly demonized saddam for the same things he was simply doing before. now saddam says bush and the cia were fine with him attacking kuwait. i have no hard evidence of this so i have discarded it. but the fact that we suddenly turned on saddam, tells me he was being used when the accusations leveled at him were nothing new and our oil was at stake in kuwait. after all, if we were friends with saddam to this point, and he had so much oil, why spoil that relationship? thats a damn fine deal in a very secular country in the mid east concerning the suppression of radical religion and tolerance of others. this almost leads me to believe saddam was misled somewhat, but hes such a asshole, i dont want to think he has ever done anything good or is telling the truth.
starting the gulf war:
In 1990 Iraq revived a long-standing territorial dispute with Kuwait, its ally during the war with Iran, claiming that overproduction of petroleum by Kuwait was injuring Iraq’s economy by depressing the price of crude oil.
after this the UN imposed sanctions right away against iraq and gave them a deadline to leave kuwait. we all know what happened after. gw1.
post gulf war sanctions:
The Security Council laid out strict demands on Iraq for lifting the sanctions, including destruction of its chemical and biological weapons, cessation of nuclear weapons programs, and acceptance of international inspections to ensure that these conditions were met.
now thats odd that the UN wanted destruction of wmd, post gulf war, not much was found nor did iraq comply, and countries in the UN highly doubted the US reports of wmd in iraq in gw2.
now my question is, if the UN listed it as a DEMAND for iraq to meet to lift sanctions earlier, and there was none or hardly any wmd, then the sanctions would remain in place due to the wmd sanction being non fulfilled.
this i believe leads to evidence claims that the UN sanctions imposed in 1990 and the ones made horribly stricter in 1996 with the food for oil program, were totally unfair for iraq to meet?
now heres the ****ter. ALL the countries in the security council that pushed the wmd sanction were also the same countries INCLUDING the US that attacked bush junior for starting a war on such a lie. so what i see, is many countries including the US from 1990 till gw2 supporting untrue and unfair sanctions against iraq, and then accusing bush jr for going in to look for the very sanctions that were raping iraq under, with the authority of the UN.
what i am begining to see, is a lot of crooks in the UN from ALL countries not wanting bush jr to uncover the truth? in a multi media blitz from ALL countries, we then witnessed them harp on bush jr for looking for wmd which the UN unfairly used to subject iraq under, and, steal its oil?
gulf war one ended in march 91 i believe? a simple fact i was trying to verify.
Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States in 1992 and reelected in 1996. another fact i needed to verify in conjunction with bush senior. the interesting thing i found in this, is that bush pushed for these so far "retarded sanctions" in 1990-91 in the UN and clinton followed them through and pushed for the food for oil program through the UN. i basically was simply looking for who was involved and was surprised to find both republicans and democrats were involved in what appears to be impossible to meet sanctions enforced through the UN with other countries agreeing right along side of us. Deuterium awhile ago posted one hell of a list detailing democrats supporting the war, iraq as a threat, and that iraq was still needing to be dealt with. i didnt judge this biasly, i just couldnt believe both sides made similar comments. they were in agreeance, until bush, decided to push.
in this line of thinking i came to believe that there is a general consensus in politics of most matters with deviance on simple "campaign social issues" followed by pointing fingers at eachother which is the political thiing to do. in this case, alot of democrats and republicans seemed to think the same thing about iraq, but party time squabbling convulted the US citizens sight of what thier politicians believed. i am also convinced that the heavy and unfair sanctions imposed by both ruling parties in the US and countries world wide via the UN have all seemingly villianized bush for uncovering or rather undoing what they imposed.
i believe sanctions in iraq were wrong based on quite alot of premises including what i outlined above about wmd. The US stance in oil for food:
1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq,
We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
To which Ambassador Albright responded, I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
The following January Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clinton’s secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said, We will insist on maintaining tough U.N. sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.
i will add that a non biased report of sanctions effects placed mortality at:
In 1999 Richard Garfield, a professor of clinical international nursing at Columbia University, put the likely mortality figure at 227,000 for children under 5 from August 1991 to 1998, most of them directly or indirectly attributable to the sanctions. but, the fact remains.
so the interviewer was a bit biased with stats, but albrieght did not balk, even though later she states what she said was horribly wrong, after the fact when everything crumbled......
Sanctions did not effect saddam?:
Denis Halliday. He was co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the top most officials. He resigned in 1998, after 34 years with the UN. As John Pilger comments, "His was the first public expression of an unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning, [as Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations]" he [Denis Halliday] wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that ... Five thousand children are dying every month ... I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these."
When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible."
oil for food:
Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York…. Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north.
so the iraqis with the food for oil program in 96 are now selling oil to relieve them and strengthen thier economy? no.:
With the remaining limited amount of money the Iraqi government could order “food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation” and other things. But — and here’s the rub — the U.S. government could veto or delay any items ordered.
As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harper’s,
The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country…. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers.
remember the 1st thing US troops did in restoration projects? clearing canals, sewers, setting up clean water? of course not, it was minutely reported.
From the Commanding Officer at MWSS-171 to his Marines:
1. ... pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700
tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
2. ... the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to
Iraq's children.
3. ... a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000
kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of
farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and
women.
4. ... we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and
over two-thirds of the potable water production.
among a great list of other things, some fullfilled, some not exact.
bush after the invasion in 2003 called for sanctions to be lifted. france soon agreed a week later and asked also they be lifted
now the interesting thing i see is pre gw2, all the countries voicing thier opinion against the war were the heaviest "oil for food" in iraq, the three who the media declared opposed us, france, germany russia, and the one the media covered at home, the US ourselves, and heavy shots at britain and blair. what is interesting is that these were the heaviest oil for food countries, all accused bush of going in for what they themselves imposed on iraq, including his own father, and all our medias did a hell of a job whipping up everyone in a frenzy against each other to miss simple pre war facts.
end results i see:
1. iraq is no longer under this murderous sanction imposed by the power houses of the UN including the lead power, the US itself.
2. bush jr, blair and allies, were attacked harshly, mostly from within the "oil for food" leaders, outside critiscm was minor compared to the heavies.
3. after investigating the US's personal hand in this, not only is the clinton administration guilty but, bush senior is, and it is now my contention, he purposefully let saddam hole himself up so they could further sanctions imposed just before gw1 by the security council. both parties knew full well some of the sanctions were impossible to meet and thus wouldnt be lifted as detailed above. and they alone carry the majority of power and influence in imposing further sanctions, which they did later.
4. bush jr pissed off the part of america who had put this into action, and the allies who supported it.
5. the public was duped into mockery of bush and allies by the media in all countries, hiding simple facts that in turn condemned all countries.
6. im not saying bush jr is a sweetheart, in fact as witnessed in other threads, i used to believed this was done for more oil for america for future stability and, freedom as a side quest for iraq. simple facts have made me see otherwise. i think he is still pimping contracts and somewhat of a ass politician, but now, seeing what i see, things arent so "conspiratal" or anti bush. i still do not see why he pined wmd so much, the only thing i can think of was to have a base of support within the US because from the looks of it, the opposition was tremendous and he needed something to at least get in the door with and from 911, it got him the power.
7. i do not know why bush jr did this, why he disrupted his fathers work so, i cannot fathom intentions as to why he disrupted something so criminal enforced by the power houses of the UN including the US, which in turn benefited the countries. i am now in near fear, he may be a decent guy, and i am no longer labeling him as just another politician id shoot in the face, but have elevated him to "questionable". of course hes going to give his buddies money, spoils of war etc, but dare i say...... it was a just cause over the researched deadly and unfair UN sanctions? that is my current stance.
8. i am reeling in saying, bush may have just actually liberated iraq pending the future. i still do not know what for, i daresay for good reasons, but i just cant say that yet, as i am wary of future events which may form elsewhere. i am also thoroughly confused as to how he upset his dads work so greatly. prodgical son?
09. i used to here people bitch non stop about sanctions and how bad they are, now that the santions are lifted, i just here how bad the person is who lifted them. again, i do not blame any one country, i blame officials in all power UN countries in the past for making this happen including the saudis which actually koined the gw1 coalition, and of course the US, who is the biggest on the block to do so and the biggest problem of all, the media, which incited everyone to go ballistic on eachother with a simply amaizing disinformation campaign. i have been warned by people in the past aboutthe media, i did not think they were anything like this.
10. i would like to thank Deuterium for making the comment that this war was "TO FREE IRAQ PERIOD" quite a while ago! that statement confused me greatly as to how one in the know, could make a statement which i thought was okay, but was not the main reason for the war. Deuterium's statement has been cause for thought since then, and i have thought about it until finding answers.
11. and during the course of research i found maggy thatcher was a stand up gal, and she stated the 1st gulf war should have lasted longer, as to remove saddam. some brits, some french, some russians, some germans and some americans had good opinions and were on the right track, all of them drowned by our media.
what i have have found surprises me on many levels, and has only left me with questions i cannot answer except through time. the old corruption and subduing of iraq made sense in a corrupt way, i can make no sense of current day intentions as they seem good, and i do not associate good with poltics. thank you for your time.