May 9, 2002

9:53 AM

Saddam's oil scam....and other tidbits of interest about Iraq versus US. oops. I almost said "and the world," but the world seems indifferent or annoyed at the American threat to Iraq.
posted by Postroad (24 comments total)

Some sources say it all about a post.

Let's make war!
posted by samelborp at 10:13 AM on May 9, 2002

Anyone have a link to the wall street journal article this claims as a source?
posted by mathowie at 10:37 AM on May 9, 2002

Not sure what samelborp's point was (what's the problem with strategypage.com?) but I'll point him to a "real" source (oh, it's in the WSJ as well if you subscribe, but that's probably considered a extreme right-wing paper on this site).
posted by stormy at 10:50 AM on May 9, 2002

Sorry if that sounded a bit hasty, but there is a real issue here, and shooting the messenger is pretty lame when it's so easy to check the source listed in the article.
posted by stormy at 11:02 AM on May 9, 2002

stormy, I don't have a WSJ login, so I was asking for backup from someone that does. I don't trust a site that doesn't hyperlink to a source to backup their claims.

Now, I wonder why the Bush admin opposes terrorism, but not a ban on buying Iraqi oil. It would seem one would support the other.
posted by mathowie at 11:09 AM on May 9, 2002

I don't subscirbe to the WSJ--but as for its being right-wing: sure, in editorials, but in all matters relating to news reporting it is about as accurate as any paper anywhere.
As for the 2ndary source, this is what they say about their sources and their authenticity:
strategey page. About us</a?
posted by Postroad at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2002

It would seem one would support the other.

The following statement would be correct, if there was solid proof of Iraqi involvement in terrorist acts against the United States. However, to my knowlege, such a link has not been proven, although it has been hinted at.
posted by cell divide at 11:30 AM on May 9, 2002

M -

stormy, I don't have a WSJ login, so I was asking for backup from someone that does. I don't trust a site that doesn't hyperlink to a source to backup their claims.

It's on the part of the WSJ website reserved for subscribers. (I'd give you my username/password, but the WSJ folks might wonder why I had logged on to a single story 13,000 times in a single day ... MiFi is famous for flooding sites w/ hits ...). Point is, they couldn't link to it.

Now, I wonder why the Bush admin opposes terrorism, but not a ban on buying Iraqi oil. It would seem one would support the other.

There was a total ban on Iraqi oil - the UN (with US support) moderated it to permit the sales of a limited amount, which proceeds were only supposed to fund humanitarian supplies (food & medicene & etc.) for the population.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:39 AM on May 9, 2002

So what are the exact reasons why we feel the urgent pressure to oust Saddam?

Oh, sorry, forgot about standing up for Daddy.

Seriously though, I don't like the guy or condone his actions, but what has he done recently that actually makes a valid case for taking over his country. Do we really want his oil that bad? Will this help the Middle East come to a more peaceful condition? Is it really any of our business how he treats his people?
posted by password at 11:40 AM on May 9, 2002

The following statement would be correct, if there was solid proof of Iraqi involvement in terrorist acts against the United States. However, to my knowlege, such a link has not been proven, although it has been hinted at.

Speaking of which there was a very interesting editorial on this subject in the NY Times today.

Apparently, the US doesn't want there to be a connection.
posted by wsfinkel at 11:48 AM on May 9, 2002

Follow the money.

It's incredibly embarassing for our administation and it's oily (pun intended) friends to be doing business with someone who time and time again gets caught siphoning money to build up his military (among other things).
posted by mkultra at 11:51 AM on May 9, 2002

It is interesting if you add in the Haliburton connection with Cheney. While he was CEO, the company helped rebuild Iraq after the Gulf War so that Iraq could once again produce large amounts of oil for sale, which it appears may be funding terrorist bombings.

So if there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism, why is it part of the "Axis of Evil?"
posted by mathowie at 12:08 PM on May 9, 2002

If committing fraud on the American people is the standard at which we wage war and oust those who defraud, why then don't we as the people wage our own war to rid our own government of fraud?

I mean c'mon, Ken Lay & Co with his deep politician-payoff-pockets and private jets that shuttled BushII around, has been found to have defrauded the American public to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. It's time, I think, for a wholesale lookings at ourselves in the mirrors. The fraud begins and ends here in the US of A.

In the meantime, "indifferent" world that American interests have run roughshod over, be damned.
posted by crasspastor at 12:11 PM on May 9, 2002

The Strategy site is explicitly pro-war (any kind of war). And the reporting seems to urge action.

The fact that the "real" source is the WSJ or other is trivial, but not for this post. It just seems a pro-war site gathering reassuring evidence to justify their rethoric.

And being part of "the rest of the world", I would say that I am not indiferent or annoyed, but very scared.

Mother tongue not English is
posted by samelborp at 12:14 PM on May 9, 2002

Right on my MeFi brothers & sisters. We will overturn our repressive, lying government soon.

Meet in the shack behind the barber shop. The password is "butter'n bisquits."

Viva la MeFi resistance!!!

PS- don't forget your assault rifles & laptops.
posted by password at 12:17 PM on May 9, 2002

The password is "butter'n bisquits."

[homerspeak]

Mmmmm...organized resistance.

[/homerspeak]
posted by grum@work at 12:46 PM on May 9, 2002

the other oil scam i heard about in iraq was the one where us/allied planes bombed oil platforms and blamed the resultant environmental damage on the iraquis, during the gulf war.
in which 200,000 people died. not counting the ongoing toll due to sanctions.
posted by asok at 1:57 PM on May 9, 2002

Right, the sanctions which keep Saddam living like a king while his subjects starve.
posted by darukaru at 3:25 PM on May 9, 2002

Has anyone actually been able to link Saddam to terrorism? (Aside from his bullshit Palestinians-are-our-brothers posturing.) I don't believe anyone has. Even the Mohammed Atta connection evaporated upon scrutiny (the Czechs messed up -- the supposed meeting between Atta and some Iraqi attache never took place, as Atta was in US at the time).
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:38 PM on May 9, 2002

donkeyschlong read 'The New Jackels", it has some good sources concerning your question.
posted by clavdivs at 5:38 PM on May 9, 2002

Follow the money? Actually, follow the hatred for Jews, and you'll understand.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:07 PM on May 9, 2002

"Nobody credible makes the case that there's some connection between Saddam Hussein and what happened September 11th."
posted by owillis at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2002

"The problem for the Islamists, including bin laden and al qaeda, has been perfecting a system of delivering these weapons on to their target. By early 1999, however, Osama bin Laden was in the process of forging a secret alliance with Saddam Hussien, an alliance that may yet...It is a prospect that appals Western analysts and intelligence sources. 'Bin laden has money and he has followers. the worst thing would if he links up with Saddam hussein,' said Marvin Certon."

-from the 'The New Jackels', Simon Reeve.

he goes on to say one Hassan al-Turabi put OBL in contact with The Mukhabarat...and when the heat was up on OBL in Sudan, (he was gonna get whacked,) The Mukhabarat offered him sanctuary. and on.

flash back-jan 17, 1993.
a U.S. missle slams into the Al Rashid hotel in Baghdad.
the guests? Islamic fundementalists. (from reeves' book)

hmmm.

the mechanics of the 9.11 terror were most likely planned in total secrecy. probably no smoking gun linking direcetly to saddam to this. Reeve seems to have alot of evidence of OBL contact with Saddam made public before 9.11. This that assumes Reeves sources are correct.

this is not about oil.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on May 9, 2002

Paris,
so that's what it really all comes down to, huh? Who knew it could be so simple?

Could you please explain how that link is in any way relevant to this thread, aside from its indulging your now-legendary persecution complex?
posted by Ty Webb at 8:42 AM on May 10, 2002