Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
yota691

Iraq invasion was about oil

Recommended Posts

Iraq invasion was about oil
Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy
Tony-Blair-leaves-the-Ira-007.jpg
Tony Blair leaves the Iraq war inquiry. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President **** Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:

The Iraq War was only partly, however, about big profits for Anglo-American oil conglomerates - that would be a bonus (one which in the end has failed to materialise to the degree hoped for - not for want of trying though).

"Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."

The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fireciting declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal:

To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said:

"The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world's largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to 'British and global energy supplies.' British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow."

A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is:



"The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest."

The documents added that "foreign companies' involvement seems to be the only possible solution" to make Iraq a reliable oil exporter. This, however, would be "politically sensitive", and would "require careful handling to avoid the impression that we are trying to push the Iraqis down one particular path."

"... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields."

Media analyses claiming lazily that there was no planning for the aftermath of the Iraq War should look closer at the public record. The reality is that extensive plans for postwar reconstruction were pursued, but they did not consider humanitarian and societal issues of any significance, focusing instead on maintaining the authoritarian structures of Saddam's brutal regime after his removal, while upgrading Iraq's oil infrastructure to benefit foreign investors.

A series of news reports, for instance, confirmed how the State Department had set up 17 separate working groups to work out this post-war plan. Iraq would be "governed by a senior US military officer... with a civilian administrator", which would "initially impose martial law", while Iraqis would be relegated to the sidelines as "advisers" to the US administration. The US envisaged "a broad and protracted American role in managing the reconstruction of the country... with a continued role for thousands of US troops there for years to come", in "defence of the country's oil fields", which would eventually be "privatised" along with "other supporting industries."

The centrality of concerns about energy to Iraq War planning was most candidly confirmed eight years ago by a former senior British Army official in Iraq, James Ellery, currently director of British security firm and US defence contractor, Aegis.

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office's Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, had confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in alleviating a "world shortage" of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Ellery described as "the tide of Easternisation" – a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes "two thirds of the Middle East's oil." His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22nd April 2008:

He went on to emphasise the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world:

"The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week was less to do with security of supply… than World shortage."

Whether Iraq began "favouring East or West" could therefore be "de-stabilising" not only "within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest."

"Russia's production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies – from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq."

"Iraq holds the key to stability in the region", Ellery continued, due to its "relatively large, consuming population," its being home to "the second largest reserve of oil – under exploited", and finally its geostrategic location "on the routes between Asia, Europe, Arabia and North Africa - hence the Silk Road."

Despite escalating instability and internal terrorism, Iraq is now swiftlyreclaiming its rank as one of the world's fastest-growing exporters, cushioning the impact of supply outages elsewhere and thus welcomed by OPEC. Back in 2008, Ellery had confirmed Allied ambitions to "raise Iraqi's oil production from 2.5 million bpd today to 3 million by next year and maybe ultimately 6 million barrels per day."

Thus, the primary motive of the war - mobilising Iraqi oil production tosustain global oil flows and moderate global oil prices - has, so far, been fairly successful according to the International Energy Agency.

Eleven years on, there should be no doubt that the 2003 Iraq War was among the first major resource wars of the 21st century. It is unlikely to be the last.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter@nafeezahmed

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok didn't bother to read the whole article (boring) but, of course it was about the oil.

Let me try to explain from my perspective.

Sad dam was telling the world I have WMD's and he was in control and he would do with his oil as he wanted.

Well, the world was saying no you can't.

If someone told you he had a gun in his pocket and his hand was in his pocket and you can't see it but he says it is pointing at you and there is nothing you can do. He tells you that I am going to shoot you, but you pull out your gun and tell him to raise your hands and show me the gun. Yet he still says I'm going to shoot you in 5 seconds well you shoot him in 4 seconds then you realize he only had a knife. This man was evil and ruled over his people with fear.

If the control of iraq soil fell into the wrong hands that would have destroyed the American economy.

Yet our president a fine leader until the democrats took control of both the house and senate in his last 2 years.(another story)

99.9% of all U.S. Congress and Senators voted for this invasion after 9/11. Barry Sanders (I) was the only person to vote against the invasion. It was a. Toe that all understood the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would die, yet they all voted YES to the invasion. The invasion killed a fraction of the est total of deaths of our young soldiers. Yet, it all became only George Bush vault. To this day everything in this world that is wrong is still blamed on George Bush.

Obama is a very weak man fearful of all thT surrounds him and the only excuse he gives is I inherited this. He ran for office to fix it not to point blame.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the excellent article Yota...(+1) and 5 Stars...LOL..!  :shrug: 

Thanks for your comment Kid4Dinar...(+1)  :confused2: 

:salute: RON

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy it

Saddam invaded Kuwait because of oil he said they were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields from Kuwait border

That started the whole thing

Edited by dontlop
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Yota...There were multiple variables that went into the invasion of Iraq...I care not to indulge in this discussion on the different aspect that concern this matter for the response it will cause...There are extreme leftist on this site that can't openly view decision that had to be made before the facts were ever disclosed(some of the most defining will never be known). I'lI bring the subject of chemical warfare up and leave it at that. Yea, Saddam Hussein was a 'very' evil man and he raised even eviler sons. The scientist Hussein had working on projects that were never aloud to develop into there massive final stages are a subject that might come to light one day. This world is guarded by individuals that have to react with or without public approval. Because of the response on this site alone is the very reason for this. Saddem Hussein got what he deserved just a decade to late.     

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

this war was about oil and lining the pockets of a few by raping our nation of all of our money and the money of our future generations for the war effort and weapons to blow them up, and raping a country of innocent people being ruled by a dictator we put into power with a culture is different than ours and then spitting in their face a few times

And we used 911 to leverage the support of the American people around nonexistent weapons of mass destruction

We should be ashamed - I know I am and have been.

Sadam was evil and we are responsible for it all

Freedom? Right...We are the slaves - and we can't blame Obamma for this one.

Don't let me get started. This is one reason I will not invest in oil

Edited by Dinarian64
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sandfly what is it about?

I would love to have not been out of greed.

Politics in the region?

If so what business we have muddying into their politics aside from putting a dictator and power? Cause he went to far and gases and people? Because his developing nuclear arms or bacteria to kill everybody? Those might be good reasons.

Edited by Dinarian64
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about OIL at all imho. Saddam wanted to switch to Euros for their oil and wasnt going to accept the U.S dollar when you go against the mighty petro dollar you get bombed and the U.s couldnt afford to let that happen.

Edited by easyrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok didn't bother to read the whole article (boring) but, of course it was about the oil.

Let me try to explain from my perspective.

Sad dam was telling the world I have WMD's and he was in control and he would do with his oil as he wanted.

Well, the world was saying no you can't.

If someone told you he had a gun in his pocket and his hand was in his pocket and you can't see it but he says it is pointing at you and there is nothing you can do. He tells you that I am going to shoot you, but you pull out your gun and tell him to raise your hands and show me the gun. Yet he still says I'm going to shoot you in 5 seconds well you shoot him in 4 seconds then you realize he only had a knife. This man was evil and ruled over his people with fear.

If the control of iraq soil fell into the wrong hands that would have destroyed the American economy.

Yet our president a fine leader until the democrats took control of both the house and senate in his last 2 years.(another story)

99.9% of all U.S. Congress and Senators voted for this invasion after 9/11. Barry Sanders (I) was the only person to vote against the invasion. It was a. Toe that all understood the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would die, yet they all voted YES to the invasion. The invasion killed a fraction of the est total of deaths of our young soldiers. Yet, it all became only George Bush vault. To this day everything in this world that is wrong is still blamed on George Bush.

Obama is a very weak man fearful of all thT surrounds him and the only excuse he gives is I inherited this. He ran for office to fix it not to point blame

Nailed it. :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something somewhere, YEARS AGO,

can't remember where it was, but it was one

of my conspiracy sites that I frequent.

 

Originally, the "name" for the operation was:

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

 

But then someone, like a mid-level mucky-muck

in planning, said, "Hey guys. Wanna think about

changing the name?".

 

They asked why.

 

He said, "Look at it again.".

 

Operation

Iraq

Liberation

 

Oops...

 

The name was promptly change

to Operation Iraq Freedom...

 

Don't know it it's a true story, or if someone

was just being funny.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was about the Iraq women it was the only way to divorce there husbands. After the men were dead and gone the ladies had it going on!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something somewhere, YEARS AGO,

can't remember where it was, but it was one

of my conspiracy sites that I frequent.

Originally, the "name" for the operation was:

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

But then someone, like a mid-level mucky-muck

in planning, said, "Hey guys. Wanna think about

changing the name?".

They asked why.

He said, "Look at it again.".

Operation

Iraq

Liberation

Oops...

The name was promptly change

to Operation Iraq Freedom...

Don't know it it's a true story, or if someone

was just being funny.

It started after saddam signed the cease fire agreement after desert storm

I never fulfilled his obligations

Clinton tried with sanctions but hundreds of thousands of children were dying while saddam still lived high on the hog

Clinton made his move in 1998 signing the Iraqi liberaration act

Two months later he bombed Iraq for 4 days with the British in operation desert fox in December 1998

But in October 1998 he signed this into law

Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

October 31, 1998

William J. Clinton

1998: Book II

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, October 31, 1998.

NOTE: H.R. 4655, approved October 31, was assigned Public Law No. 105-338. H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, was assigned Public Law No. 105-277.

Citation: William J. Clinton: "Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," October 31, 1998. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=55205.

Then after that came joint resolution 114 that congress sent to bush

Joint resolution 114 says those in the organization who comittee the acts on 911 were known to be in Iraq

Along with the many other reasons

Just google joint resolution 114 to read why we went into Iraq

That is only part of the reasons

Bush warned all those country's not to give al Kieda safe haven when they tried to escape their demise in Afghanistan

But saddam thumbed his nose and gave bush the finger

Well at that point saddam made the choice to support our enemy

Bush told all of us he was t worried about Iraq attacking us he said he was worried about one vial , one small canister that could get in to the hands of terrorists and could be smuggled into our country and detonated in the form of a suit case bomb

He then said he will not wait for a mushroom cloud before he reacts

End of story

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

RIGHT below>>>>>\/

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.

SEC. 2. support FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(B) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(B) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(B) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Oil my ash

END WAR: Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It; UN Sanction Genocide

ByVexZeez12,665 views

Utube

30 seconds

Don't get me started either unless you can back up your claims with more than opinionated story's

Another 2 minute utube about 500,000 children dead because of sanctions

I guess if bush stopped that it means he just wanted to line his pockets and steal the oil

Freaking liberals aught to be run out of our country for saying such crap with absolutly nothing to back them up besides some lunatic political hacks bs

George bush is a great America Hero

George bush has a spine of tempered steel and is the same man on Saturday night as he is Sunday morning at church

He's no phony

You want phony look in the White House now and or the two terms before GW

Edited by dontlop
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Again Yota...Thanks for the post dontlop...the senseless deaths of entire villages is hard to describe and never should it have to be witnessed again... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Documental Center for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

this war was about oil and lining the pockets of a few by raping our nation of all of our money and the money of our future generations for the war effort and weapons to blow them up, and raping a country of innocent people being ruled by a dictator we put into power with a culture is different than ours and then spitting in their face a few times

And we used 911 to leverage the support of the American people around nonexistent weapons of mass destruction

We should be ashamed - I know I am and have been.

Sadam was evil and we are responsible for it all

Freedom? Right...We are the slaves - and we can't blame Obamma for this one.

Don't let me get started. This is one reason I will not invest in oil

&*)&^*^&*% :rulez:

Edited by Markinsa
Name Calling
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok didn't bother to read the whole article (boring) but, of course it was about the oil.

Let me try to explain from my perspective.

Sad dam was telling the world I have WMD's and he was in control and he would do with his oil as he wanted.

Well, the world was saying no you can't.

If someone told you he had a gun in his pocket and his hand was in his pocket and you can't see it but he says it is pointing at you and there is nothing you can do. He tells you that I am going to shoot you, but you pull out your gun and tell him to raise your hands and show me the gun. Yet he still says I'm going to shoot you in 5 seconds well you shoot him in 4 seconds then you realize he only had a knife. This man was evil and ruled over his people with fear.

If the control of iraq soil fell into the wrong hands that would have destroyed the American economy.

Yet our president a fine leader until the democrats took control of both the house and senate in his last 2 years.(another story)

99.9% of all U.S. Congress and Senators voted for this invasion after 9/11. Barry Sanders (I) was the only person to vote against the invasion. It was a. Toe that all understood the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would die, yet they all voted YES to the invasion. The invasion killed a fraction of the est total of deaths of our young soldiers. Yet, it all became only George Bush vault. To this day everything in this world that is wrong is still blamed on George Bush.

Obama is a very weak man fearful of all thT surrounds him and the only excuse he gives is I inherited this. He ran for office to fix it not to point blame.

you bought the story...and truly, I cannot see how the killing of 5000 of our boys, and the wounding of around 20,000 was worth "saving our (oil) economy"

 

When we make that argument it exposes a truly strange and horrific emotional undercurrent in our society.

 

Sure there were many lying, tricked and scared democrats who voted for the war - 911 Twin Towers was a setup IMO and a great motivator for the oil grab in Iraq...

 

But let's not make foul excuses...the GOP led us into a false war for the wrong reasons and the wrong ends.

&*)&^*^&*% :rulez:

"You're" is a contraction. 

I don't buy it

Saddam invaded Kuwait because of oil he said they were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields from Kuwait border

That started the whole thing

You have got to be kidding...

Edited by Markinsa
Edited Quote for Name Calling | Please don't provoke report!
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dontlop....

Great rebuttal.

Just like I said in my post above.( maybe not just like but close)

He is a Great American.
Hated by all liberals period, because MSNBS say hate him and if you drink the cool aid then you do what they say. Weak minded sheep being led astray.

you bought the story...and truly, I cannot see how the killing of 5000 of our boys, and the wounding of around 20,000 was worth "saving our (oil) economy"
 
When we make that argument it exposes a truly strange and horrific emotional undercurrent in our society.
 
Sure there were many lying, tricked and scared democrats who voted for the war - 911 Twin Towers was a setup IMO and a great motivator for the oil grab in Iraq...
 
But let's not make foul excuses...the GOP led us into a false war for the wrong reasons and the wrong ends.
"You're" is a contraction. 
You have got to be kidding...



I'm sorry! Thank you for the correction.

 

&*)&^*^&*% :rulez:

Twin towers, oh so you are one of those conspiracy people.

&*)&^*^&*% :rulez:
You should change your name and take America out of it and leave at "Inc"

Edited by Markinsa
Name Calling | See Forum Rules
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One real reason there is for war is that need countries to spend massive money on defense so they can keep being indebted to Central bankers. Another reason for war is that the last remaining countries that don't have a central bank that is controlled by the BIS need to be invaded/overthrown/assimilated etc...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dontlop....

Great rebuttal.

Just like I said in my post above.( maybe not just like but close)

He is a Great American.

Hated by all liberals period, because MSNBS say hate him and if you drink the cool aid then you do what they say. Weak minded sheep being led astray.

I'm sorry! Thank you for the correction.

&*)&^*^&*% :rulez:

Twin towers, oh so you are one of those conspiracy people.&

*)&^*^&*% :rulez:

You should change your name and take America out of it and leave at "Inc"

You're welcome.

Edited by Markinsa
Again, do not provoke report!
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.