What's new

Turkey is opposed to new sanctions on Iran

Thomas i think that none of these countries have any direct/indirect threats to US interests in middle-east....Having said it doesn't matter if anyone like it or not...biased or unbiased Iran's best interest is in accepting IAEA conditions otherwise they are just building another case for Iraq and billions in oil profits for US companies...
I hope that your sense of irony remains intact if you had ever in the past commented on how ignorant Americans are when it comes to world affairs.

In the Congressional Research Service (CRS) June 14, 2005 report of the Oil-For-Food scandal...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL30472.pdf
Iraqi commercial relations were set back somewhat in December 2002 when Iraq overturned a presumptive contract with Russia’s Lukoil to develop the West Qurna field (see below). Iraq acted reportedly on the grounds that Lukoil had held discussions with Iraq’s opposition about Lukoil’s possible role in developing the energy sector of a post-war Iraq. Some of the presumptive contracts for oil exploration in Iraq, signed with the government of Saddam Hussein, include the following:

! Al Ahdab field — China National Oil Company (China)
! Nassiriya field — Agip (Italy) and Repsol (Spain)
! West Qurna — Lukoil (Russia)
! Majnoon — Total Fina Elf (France)
! Nahr Umar — Total Fina Elf (France)
! Tuba — ONGC (India) and Sonatrach (Algeria)
! Ratawi — Royal Dutch Shell (Britain and the Netherlands)
! Block 8 — ONGC (India)

The interim Iraqi government does not consider these contracts valid in post- Saddam Iraq. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, no decisions on contract awards for development of any of these or any other fields have been announced.

Lukoil, Statoil Win West Qurna, Prize in Iraq Bidding (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- OAO Lukoil and partner Statoil ASA won rights to develop the second phase of Iraq’s “super giant” West Qurna crude deposit, the largest offered to foreign investors in today’s second round of bidding.
So for all these years the ridiculous charge persists that the US invaded Iraq to 'steal Iraqi oil' and now it turned out that the new American 'puppet' Iraqi government is giving those billions or oil profits to countries whose interests are often contrary to US. If there is a plan for US to control the ME, them Jews running America are very devious indeed.
 
.
So for all these years the ridiculous charge persists that the US invaded Iraq to 'steal Iraqi oil' and now it turned out that the new American 'puppet' Iraqi government is giving those billions or oil profits to countries whose interests are often contrary to US. If there is a plan for US to control the ME, them Jews running America are very devious indeed.

Gambit Sir...Since i have so much respect for your POV and have followed your posts from some time that i do not even feel like arguing with you....However could not help asking as to why you think US invaded Iraq??? If not oil ...if not WMD then what???I made those statements as it is hard to believe that US intelligence agencies made a genuine mistake in finding out the truth about WMD's in Iraq...

Aslo news like these don't help either....


Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html




The 10 deals the Iraqi Oil Ministry reached with foreign oil companies suggest that China, Russia, and European oil firms are poised to play a major role in refurbishing Iraq’s oil industry, crippled by decades of war and sanctions.
Concerns over security, underscored by massive coordinated bombings Tuesday, and political instability as the US military withdraws, probably kept American oil companies from venturing more forcefully in Iraq, which has the world’s third-largest proven crude reserves, analysts said.

But the oil companies are taking significant risks. Iraqi lawmakers have failed to agree on a hydrocarbons law, and leading lawmakers have called the deals illegal. They could face legal and contractual obstacles when a new government is established next year.


Iraqi government reaches deals with 10 oil companies - The Boston Globe


Hopefully you will understand what made me make those statements....
 
.
@Thomas

It doesn't matter where the US gets it oil from. The moment ME is up in flames, oil prices will sky rocket from pressures on supply side. Canada, which is the main US oil supplier, would gladly supply the same oil to China if the later bids a higher price. The whole control the ME great game is part of US energy policy, otherwise I don't see any reason to station such large number of troops in KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

What does matter is all the people claiming that it is all about U.S. control of the oil. So far actions have proved them wrong.
 
.
huh!...they never digested pakistan as a nuclear state and they will never and now when another muslim country is reaching near to nuclear power they are at panic!...i bet u all even if iran proves that its intentions are peaceful even then they will never understand it!....US is not only country who have right for nuclear wepons duh!
 
.
Gambit Sir...Since i have so much respect for your POV and have followed your posts from some time that i do not even feel like arguing with you....However could not help asking as to why you think US invaded Iraq??? If not oil ...if not WMD then what???I made those statements as it is hard to believe that US intelligence agencies made a genuine mistake in finding out the truth about WMD's in Iraq...
Upon close examinations, the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear devices, not YET warheads. You can have a functional nuclear explosive device the size of a football stadium BEFORE the weaponization process that remove all the excess trimmings to make it a deliverable warhead. So if the initials 'WMD' is confined to functional nuclear warheads, then the entire UN/IAEA inspections, enforcement and finally sanction regimes for Iraq were morally improper from the start since Iraq never detonated a TEST device, let alone created a warhead. But then again, by the time a test device is detonated, it would have been too late. That is why India and Pakistan took the clandestine route to their own nuclear weapons programs. Both countries know what the initials 'WMD' really mean to encompass.

The US did not overthrow the Hussein regime 'for oil' and that was evident even back during the sanction regime when the US was Iraq's largest singular LEGAL buyer of Iraqi oil under OFF program. The money went into a UN (not US) administered escrow account. The ILLEGAL buyer of Iraqi oil during the sanction years were Russia, France, China and Germany. And those were non-ME countries. ME countries like Syria, Libya and others also made their own illegal deals. Now we see the new Iraqi government honoring the deals originally made by Saddam Hussein despite the fact that most of the blood spilled are American soldiers and Iraqis civilians. If that is not a gesture of independence and the proverbial 'middle-finger' to US, what is?

I do not expect the recent news to change the concreted minds of those who believe that the US invaded Iraq 'for oil'. But for every one of them, there are ten or more of those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills and will see the 'US invade Iraq for oil' rhetorical club is nothing more than a wet noodle from the start. The greatest fear for all is that if the argument 'US invaded Iraq for oil' has been so effectively nullified by the Iraqi government itself, upon close examinations of the IAEA missions and their tools, the 'no WMDs' argument could also be equally effectively nullified.
 
.
Upon close examinations, the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear devices, not YET warheads. You can have a functional nuclear explosive device the size of a football stadium BEFORE the weaponization process that remove all the excess trimmings to make it a deliverable warhead. So if the initials 'WMD' is confined to functional nuclear warheads, then the entire UN/IAEA inspections, enforcement and finally sanction regimes for Iraq were morally improper from the start since Iraq never detonated a TEST device, let alone created a warhead.

That's a perfect case to bomb the crap out of Iran..North Korea and what not...Anyways i have no problems if this is truth...Every country has the right to protect her interests and she will work as per her capacity to do that...


I do not expect the recent news to change the concreted minds of those who believe that the US invaded Iraq 'for oil'. But for every one of them, there are ten or more of those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills and will see the 'US invade Iraq for oil' rhetorical club is nothing more than a wet noodle from the start.


Well it seems a bit harsh statement...If anyone then its USA govt to be blamed apart from the media who spread the false propaganda(if it was)...I do not have insight into the military matters as you have...but if the media is full of stories about no WMD found in Iraq and there is no counter to it from USA govt. then how can you claim that people are not rationale when they claim US invaded Iraq for OIL and used WMD as excuse...Like many others i believe CIA is very powerful and still believe its a truth than a mere perception....

Here is what CIA has to say

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing

CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq


Now if the definition of what is being called/considered as WMD is different from what CIA was looking for then why the heck this was not clarified by USA...Don't you think that clarification would have put on rest about lot of conspiracy theories about OIL being the target???


Now complement the above news with this

Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17]

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even US govt. admit on multiple occasions that Iraq don't possess WMD's and implied that it was intelligence failure that lead to war...No may i very humbly ask if US invasion was not just for WMD weapons waiting to explode and to wipe out any possible capacity to build such weapons as you suggest "Upon close examinations, the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear devices, not YET warheads." why the heck USA govt was shy like a newly wed Indian Bride and did not speak???
 
.
Even US govt. admit on multiple occasions that Iraq don't possess WMD's and implied that it was intelligence failure that lead to war...No may i very humbly ask if US invasion was not just for WMD weapons waiting to explode and to wipe out any possible capacity to build such weapons as you suggest "Upon close examinations, the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear devices, not YET warheads." why the heck USA govt was shy like a newly wed Indian Bride and did not speak???

sorry but you are not making much sense in what you are trying to say. please stop using , cultural metaphors and speak clear concise English.
 
.
sorry but you are not making much sense in what you are trying to say. please stop using , cultural metaphors and speak clear concise English.

Sorry if you feel lost due to cultural metaphors...But what part you did not understand??? I think i have asked questions in clear concise English....

Let me try again....Gambit sir suggested that its Naive to think that US invaded Iraq because of OIL...and i asked if not OIL..if not WMD then what??? On that he suggested that WMD does not mean a bomb it also means capacity to make a bomb...So i replied back that it is unfair to call people naive because if this was the reason behind Iraq invasion then why the heck US govt did not sell this argument and blamed Intelligence Agencies for mis-information...In other words if what he is saying is truth(though i have doubts) then Govt of US did not do a good job in explaining their reasons for Iraq Invasion...that is where i used metaphor of US govt..acting like a newly married indian bride(know for shyness)..Is this clear concise English or you still think that language barrier is stopping us from a meaningful discussion??
 
.
Turkey is smart, why does every country near Iran have to ruin relations with Iran to make US/Israeli policies happen, India should not have voted against Iran it would have been better for them to abstain.
 
.
Sorry if you feel lost due to cultural metaphors...But what part you did not understand??? I think i have asked questions in clear concise English....

Let me try again....Gambit sir suggested that its Naive to think that US invaded Iraq because of OIL...and i asked if not OIL..if not WMD then what??? On that he suggested that WMD does not mean a bomb it also means capacity to make a bomb...So i replied back that it is unfair to call people naive because if this was the reason behind Iraq invasion then why the heck US govt did not sell this argument and blamed Intelligence Agencies for mis-information...In other words if what he is saying is truth(though i have doubts) then Govt of US did not do a good job in explaining their reasons for Iraq Invasion...that is where i used metaphor of US govt..acting like a newly married indian bride(know for shyness)..Is this clear concise English or you still think that language barrier is stopping us from a meaningful discussion??

There were multiple reasons for the U.S. to take out Saddam. The WMD aspect was only one. but it was used as the main reasons to go in. So naturally that is the main item that anti invasion people use to rail against the U.S.. The U.S. defiantly got it wrong on the nuke program and chemical weapons. Though there were a few chemical munition remnants found. nothing that was after the gulf war. One of the reasons that the U.S. got it so wrong is Saddam himself. in interviews after his capture. Saddam confided that it was becuase of Iran that he purposely led the world believe he still had WMD. He believed that Iran had it's eye on parts of Iraq. And he believed that the U.S. would not invade Iraq.

It was also believed that Saddam had ties to terrorist groups.


The Truth About Saddam and Terrorism
by Christopher Holton
03/21/2008


Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had extensive ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, according to an official report published by the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses and released through the Joint Forces Command.

That report, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, came up with some startling revelations in its 59 pages:

• Saddam’s Iraq trained terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq and in 1999 sent 10 terrorist-training graduates to London to carry out attacks throughout Europe.


• Saddam’s Iraq stockpiled munitions (including explosives, missile launchers and silencer-equipped small arms) at its embassies in the Middle East, Asia and parts of Europe.
• In September of 2001, Saddam’s Iraq sought out and compiled a list of 43 suicide-bomb volunteers in a “Martyrdom Project.”
• The report contains language from a captured Iraqi document which references an attempted assassination of Danielle Mitterand, wife of French President Francois Mitterand, by car bomb.
• The report’s authors describe Saddam’s Iraq as a “long-standing supporter of international terrorism” including several organizations designated as international terrorist organizations by the US State Department.
• Among the organizations that captured Iraqi documents indicate were supported by Saddam’s Iraq were

Fatah-Revolutionary Council (Abu Nidal Organization). (Author’s note: Abu Nidal was generally considered the world’s most dangerous terrorist in the late 1980s.)

Palestine Liberation Front (led by Abu al-Abbas). (Author’s note: Abbas was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murderer of American Leon Klinghoffer.)

Renewal and Jihad Organization, which the Iraqi documents describe as a “Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization” that “believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests.”

Islamic Ulama Group, a radical Islamist group in northern Pakistan.

The Afghani Islamic Party, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. (Author’s note: Hekmatyar is an Afghan mujahideen warlord who is worked with Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s. US intelligence agencies have lost track of Hekmatyar, but believe that he was trying to join Al Qaeda in 2002 when he released a video message calling for armed jihad against the United States. Reports from BBC-TV and CNN claim that Hekmatyar helped Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2002.

Islamic Jihad Organization (Egyptian Islamic Jihad). This is perhaps the most startling revelation in the report. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded and led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Al Qaeda’s co-leader. The group is most infamous for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Zawahiri is known to have worked in the Al Qaeda organization since its inception, while he was still leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in fact. Al Qaeda was started around 1989 and Zawahiri is said to have been a senior member from its earliest days. He was present in Afghanistan with Bin Laden at the time and later he was in Sudan with Bin Laden until being expelled in 1996 and eventually returning to Afghanistan. In 1998, Zawahiri formally merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Al Qaeda and has served as co-leader of Al Qaeda ever since. Iraq’s relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad was so close that captured documents indicate that Iraq was able to request that the group hold off on operations against the regime in Egypt in 1993.

In other words, Saddam’s Iraq had a longstanding relationship with the co-leader of Al Qaeda.

Captured documents show that Saddam’s Iraq was training non-Iraqis in Iraqi training camps a decade before Operation Desert Storm, including fighters from the following nations: Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, and Morroco.

A captured memorandum shows that Saddam’s Iraq had an agreement with an Islamist terrorist group to conduct operations against Egypt during the first Gulf War.

A detailed, captured document from 1993 “illuminated how the outwardly secular Saddam regime found common cause with terrorist groups who drew their inspiration from radical Islam.”

In January 1993, as the American military’s humanitarian mission was begun in Somalia, Saddam directed that Iraq “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia.” Interestingly, Osama Bin Laden was setting up identical operations at the same time.

Saddam’s secret intelligence service (IIS) hosted 13 conferences in 2002 for various terrorist groups.

Captured Iraqi documents say that the IIS issued passports to known members of terrorist groups.

Saddam’s Iraq had close ties and provided funding to Hamas, the Palestinian jihadist organization. Captured documents indicate that Hamas offered to carry out attacks for Saddam’s Iraq in return for his support. In fact, Hamas representatives informed the Iraqis that the organization had 35 armed cells around the world hidden among refugees, including in France, Sweden and Denmark.

Saddam’s IIS manufactured bombs in the early 1990s for terrorist Abu Abbas to conduct attacks against American and other interests. Three instances of these bombs failing are evidently the only thing that prevented terrorist attacks against these interests:

“A bomb intended to destroy the American ambassador’s residence in Jakarta, Indonesia failed.”

“Bombs designed to destroy the American Airlines office and Japanese embassy in the Philippines exploded prematurely and damaged only the front of the office, while killing one and wounding another of the terrorists transporting the explosives.”

Saddam’s Iraq carried out terrorist attacks on members of humanitarian organizations operating in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq, including Doctors Without Borders, Handicap International and UN-affiliated organizations.
The IIS was willing to reach out to jihadist terrorist groups, including those known to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. This includes the “Army of Muhammad” in Bahrain, which had threatened Kuwaiti authorities and had plans to attack American and Western interests.

There is still more reasons including coming to the defense of the Shia's that had rose up against Saddam believing the U.S. would finish Saddam off during the first gulf war. The U.S. caved in to international pressure and stopped pursuing Saddam's forces. this resulted in the Shia's being massacred. The U.S. shouldn't have allowed that to happen.
 
Last edited:
.
@Thomas
I will give credit to the US for accepting Iraqi gov decision to have open bidding on developing the oil fields. However, US still benefits by increasing the oil flow, as it will become more expensive with the fueling economies of the developing world. The OFF program could only go so far as to provide minimal a minimal oil production. Anymore than that and it would have strengthened Saddam's position.

I suppose we should all thank US for putting Iraq in a situation where more oil can be produced, albeit with a selfish motive on everyones part. The energy security calculus still remains.
 
.
That's a perfect case to bomb the crap out of Iran..North Korea and what not...Anyways i have no problems if this is truth...Every country has the right to protect her interests and she will work as per her capacity to do that...
The intention, or perceived intention, on what to do with nuclear weapons is equally important.

Well it seems a bit harsh statement...If anyone then its USA govt to be blamed apart from the media who spread the false propaganda(if it was)...I do not have insight into the military matters as you have...but if the media is full of stories about no WMD found in Iraq and there is no counter to it from USA govt. then how can you claim that people are not rationale when they claim US invaded Iraq for OIL and used WMD as excuse...Like many others i believe CIA is very powerful and still believe its a truth than a mere perception....

Here is what CIA has to say


CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq


Now if the definition of what is being called/considered as WMD is different from what CIA was looking for then why the heck this was not clarified by USA...Don't you think that clarification would have put on rest about lot of conspiracy theories about OIL being the target???


Now complement the above news with this



Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even US govt. admit on multiple occasions that Iraq don't possess WMD's and implied that it was intelligence failure that lead to war...No may i very humbly ask if US invasion was not just for WMD weapons waiting to explode and to wipe out any possible capacity to build such weapons as you suggest "Upon close examinations, the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear devices, not YET warheads." why the heck USA govt was shy like a newly wed Indian Bride and did not speak???
If I say the Earth is round but not slightly ovate, does that mean the Earth IS round and not slightly ovate? No...Failure to articulate an idea does not invalidate the idea. It could mean the person is stupid or incompetent. No matter what the media said, or even what the US government, through its many agencies, might report on 'WMD' and the failure to find functional nuclear warheads, it does not invalidate the idea that the initials 'WMD' encompasses more than just functional warheads.

For Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there were three separate UN/IAEA inspection teams. Each team leader was NOT an American. It was DELIBERATELY structured that way. Richard Butler = Australian. Rolf Ekeus and Hans Blix = Swiss. Here is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room: If, during that time, the initials 'WMD' were confined to functional nuclear warheads, then why have none of the three protest his mission? Remember...Iraq never detonated a test device. To date, the only way to assure oneself of a successful indigenous nuclear WEAPONS program is to detonate a test device.

All three men are technicians and experience at nuclear weapons disarmament. They could not be fooled, especially when they are technically supported by the leaders of the world regarding nuclear technology. Here are some: US, Germany, Britain, France, and Japan. Germany and Japan are not nuclear weapons states but they are nuclear states. So if all three men were intelligent and experience enough to know what could turn a nuclear state into a nuclear weapons state, why none protested his mission in Iraq? Remember...It is YOUR demand that we accept 'WMD' to be only functional nuclear warheads.

Then there is the matter of Saddam's chief nuclear scientist...

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind (9780471679653): Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books

Obeidi did not hide uranium in his house's garden. He buried centrifuges. Are you telling the readers that the man is stupid enough to confuse a steel cylinder with a nuclear bomb? Even the technically illiterate Saddam and his family of thugs were smart enough to know that the initials 'WMD' mean more than just functional nuclear warheads and ordered Obeidi to hide the things that would make possible nuclear warheads.

NPT members are required to account for every bit of uranium given to them in a cooperative relationship. So when Obeidi's assistant taped uranium to his leg under his trousers to sneak the material through Gatwick, Obeidi and Saddam Hussein know they are violating the agreement and such violations are necessary if the desire to possess nuclear weapons is strong enough. We do not act from an intellectual and moral vacuum and knowing what we plan to do would violate some agreement support that dictum.
 
.
^^^^^^^^^

Gambit and Thomas....Thanks for taking so much time in explaining things...I surely need to do more study in US-Iraq sector....

Regards
Rajwinder Singh
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom