Blair's bombs

**Azi Tohak** · 07-28-2005, 18:58

Great post _Martyr_. You did well. Very articulate. Do I agree with all of it? I don't have to.

I do have a question about this though:

The Taliban were harbouring those that had so brutally attacked the heart of America.

I'm from the Bible belt and I think the heart of America is a few hundred miles west

But you are right in many respects.

Azi

**PyrrhusofEpirus** · 07-28-2005, 19:01

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Its called a market.

One nation has resources and one nation has money.. the two are exchanged and everyone is happy.

Robbery implies that we get the resources for nothing, which is not the truth.

Source from wikipedia:
British invasion in Iraq. At the end of the war, ownership of and access to Iraq's petroleum was split five ways: 23.75% each to the UK, France, The Netherlands and the USA, with the remaining 5% going to a private oil corporation. The Iraqi government got none of the nation's oil. This remained the situation until the revolution of 1958.

I don't call it market. I call it looting. It fits better if you say, one nation has resources and one nation has guns.

**_Martyr_** · 07-28-2005, 19:01

Well, you know I was refering to the real Manhattan...

**PanzerJaeger** · 07-28-2005, 19:08

I don't call it market. I call it looting. It fits better if you say, one nation has resources and one nation has guns.

And I call your information 50 years old.

**PyrrhusofEpirus** · 07-28-2005, 19:33

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

And I call your information 50 years old.

Yes ofcourse you are right, it's quite old.

What about modern US looting?

Originally Posted by BBC

Wednesday, 15 December, 2004, 15:04 GMT

US 'failed to control' Iraq oil
By Mark Gregory
BBC World Service business correspondent

The panel said US-led authorities failed to deal with widespread oil smuggling
A United Nations panel has found that the US-led occupation authority failed to exercise proper controls over Iraq's oil industry and could not say how much oil had gone missing since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The International Advisory and Monitoring Board report also said there were "important weaknesses" in the management by occupation officials of up to $20bn in Iraqi funds, mostly from oil sales.

US politicians have often accused the UN of incompetence and, perhaps, corruption in its handling of the oil-for-food programme, a scheme to alleviate Iraqi suffering under sanctions before the war. Now the boot is on the other foot.

Revenue 'lost'

The panel, which also includes representatives from the IMF and the World Bank, expressed particular concern about how large contracts paid out of Iraqi funds were given to US firms, such as the oil services group Halliburton, without competitive bidding.

Do you have an idea of Halliburton?

**Tribesman** · 07-29-2005, 09:28

Damn liberals trying to link Iraq with extremist terrorism in the UK

"Though they have a range of aspirations and 'causes', Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe."

oh bugger , that is from the damn liberal MI5 .

**Efrem** · 07-29-2005, 09:48

They were gonna blow themselves up anyway iraq or no iraq so whats your point?

**Tribesman** · 07-29-2005, 11:34

They were gonna blow themselves up anyway iraq or no iraq so whats your point?
Were they ? the MI5 statement deals with increases in activity and recruitment , if it is new recruits due to the Iraq situation then these are not people who were going to blow themselves up anyway , these are new people . If it is new people funding and supporting terrorism because of Iraq then these a new people .
So the point is , how can Blair have said that Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorism when his countries police and military intelligence services are contradicting him .