Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Artwork for stamp by Latuff2 Artwork for stamp by Latuff2
Artwork for anti-war stamp I will produce.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontripping:
tripping Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2006
awesome!
:salute:
i love the visual and the sentiment. although there will always be those who will come and and post crap here. but im glad ~AbdulHafiz fought it out for you with facts over here.
great work!
Reply
:iconwheaman:
wheaman Featured By Owner May 15, 2006  Hobbyist Digital Artist
lovely :clap:
Reply
:icongiacomocasanova:
GiacomoCasanova Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2005
:w00t: Sou um fan português do teu trabalho e da tua defesa da paz e de mundo melhor. Um grande abraço e continua com o bom trabalho!

Este vai direitinho para os meus favoritos.
Reply
:iconrekklez:
rekklez Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2005
I like how liberals accuse people of not seeing both sides when they are so very good at seing both sides... of the same side. You can't accuse the leader of our army for the deaths of soldiers. It is a volunteer army, they're fighting because they want to be. Furthermore, yes people die, that's a fact or war. Why doesn't anybody bring up the fact that Saddam had huge holes filled with thosands of bodies... and we call Bush the Hitler. Let's also remember that our beloved Bill Clinton signed a document making it US policy to liberate Iraq. Why didn't the pussy do it when he bombed it to take the pressure off himself!

Praise be to God for George W. Bush!
Reply
:iconloro-mi-dicevano:
loro-mi-dicevano Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2005   Interface Designer
I've just gotta :+fav:. Very nice, and, sadly, very true.
Reply
:iconadedos:
adedos Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2005  Professional Traditional Artist
muito bom
cores matadoras ;)
Reply
:iconmoxy:
moxy Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2005   Writer
This is a war about oil, though, the United States is not at the crux of the problem. No, that would have to be Europe who was giving saddam billions of dollars for cheap oil. we have the United States who will probably be taking oil, but who also is in the process of setting up a free and democratic government. On the other side we have European countries contributing to the inhumanitarian policies of a tyrant just for cheaper oil.

Before you argue, tell me that letting Saddam's sons rape women on their wedding night is alright.

As Albert Einstein said "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who dont do anything about it." Europe did nothing to curb Saddam's policies, and indeed, by giving him money they encouraged him.
Reply
:iconabdulhafiz:
AbdulHafiz Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
Keep up the good work!!!

Le-Christoph - I hope you got my "post" mate :) It answers all your questions
Reply
:iconarienmaia:
arienMaia Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
can't believe that guy always posts... anyway, I also love the colors, and art, and, everything! You always do cool stuff latuff.
Reply
:iconle-christoph:
Le-Christoph Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
A very ignorant statement. I ask you people, please prove that this war was for oil.

Its a fact that we haven't taken any oil so far. So if we're so desperate for oil, why haven't we signed up to get any post war oil? THe only countries that have are Canada and Turkey.

If we wanted oil so bad, why not lift sanctions against Iran and or Lybia? Doing so wouldn't cost a dime, and sure as hell won't cost over 150 billion dallors and thousands of US soldier's lives. Now of course I'd get the responce, "cause Bush wanted to take over Iraq!". Now to that I ask...why set up a goverment at all? Why not just run the country the way we want to with no laws and just take their oil?

Also, why would we risk getting kicked out of the country and having Iraq refuse to give us oil by setting up a democratic goverment? Why not just take it and not have to listen to any Iraqi goverment to stop? Also, why have Iraqi elections and risk anything at all? Why not keep our puppet goverment for as long as we want? It could be years before Iraq's oil program is back up and running.

This war for oil is just a scapegoat for niave idiots who just need to make up an evil agenda for Bush's invasion. They can't stand that he just wants to remove Saddam, help the Iraqis, and create a democratic Iraq.
Reply
:iconkingnot:
KingNot Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2005
" A very ignorant statement. I ask you people, please prove that this war was for oil."

Simple, if you are connected to big oil by owning stock or a hundred other ways (family connections, partners) and the price of gas goes up faster than inflation, you make a profit. If it rises exceptionally, you are sitting on piles of wealth.

And, there are the no-bid contracts that allow companies to ship empty trucks back and forth so they can charge the government, who cares if a few drivers get killed. Soldiers being fed at the cost of $135 a meal for standard army food...

It's not a war for oil for AMERICA. It is a war for oil and profits for Bush and co.

I'd bet for every dollar this country has spent (on future generations credit) he and his partners have collectively profitied a dime.
Reply
:iconabdulhafiz:
AbdulHafiz Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
"A very ignorant statement. I ask you people, please prove that this war was for oil."

OK mate you are on:

"Its a fact that we haven't taken any oil so far. So if we're so desperate for oil, why haven't we signed up to get any post war oil? THe only countries that have are Canada and Turkey."

Who are you kidding? Only yourself. You must have forgotten that in the first round of contracts all the contracts were given out to US firms (only, even the Brits got only sub-contracts) and the payment on those contracts was secured against the future sales of Iraqi oil on international market - i.e. to US albeit indirectly. So yes, you have already taken oil, the first bite and the hugest.

"If we wanted oil so bad, why not lift sanctions against Iran and or Lybia?"

Cuz you could not control what the Lybians and Iranians use the money for. Since they might make their life inside the country better thereby strengthening the regime or use it to develop a better protection system from US & Israel.

In any case this applies only to Iran since Lybia is no longer under sanctions.

"Doing so wouldn't cost a dime, and sure as hell won't cost over 150 billion dallors"

Wake up! What Bush did was to take $150bn from poorest taxpayer (since he gave the wealthiest ones a taxcut) and gave it away to defense-contractors and other corporations - i.e. his best friends. So it not about cost - it is about making rich -richer and poor - poorer.

"and thousands of US soldier's lives."

In a professional army soldiers are paid to die. You got noone to blame but your leader. Surely not those Iraqies who are defending their homeland from occupyer.

"why set up a goverment at all? Why not just run the country the way we want to with no laws and just take their oil?"

Cuz you could not handle a shia rebellion unless you nuke the place. Cuz we are no longer in 19th - early 20th century where others would stand for it. And cuz your country cannot take the cost in dollars and blood such a decision would require. Not because of your noble motives.

"Also, why would we risk getting kicked out of the country and having Iraq refuse to give us oil by setting up a democratic goverment? Why not just take it and not have to listen to any Iraqi goverment to stop? Also, why have Iraqi elections and risk anything at all?"

Let me remind you that US has set 3 pre-conditions for any candidate to stand in elections.
1 - No candidate to call for withdrawal of US troops after elections
2 - No candidate to be alligned with Iran
3 - No candidate to call for an Islamic State

As you can see US does not "risk" anything.

"Why not keep our puppet goverment for as long as we want?"

All the government people so far have been CIA sponsored exiles... Still puppets as far as I can see. Give it time and let's see what happens

"It could be years before Iraq's oil program is back up and running."

Thank God for that. The more of it left for Iraqis the better.

"They can't stand that he just wants to remove Saddam, help the Iraqis, and create a democratic Iraq."

We know the US attitide to democracy. Let me give you some examples: Chile (in fact most of South America), Iran (before Shah), Algeria, Israel. Learn you own history - ignorance is not bliss, it's a crime!
Reply
:iconle-christoph:
Le-Christoph Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
"Who are you kidding? Only yourself. You must have forgotten that in the first round of contracts all the contracts were given out to US firms (only, even the Brits got only sub-contracts) and the payment on those contracts was secured against the future sales of Iraqi oil on international market - i.e. to US albeit indirectly. So yes, you have already taken oil, the first bite and the hugest."

I need proof of this. Now if we took oil, how did we? Theres no reports of the US stealing oil, and don't say we weren't caught because taking oil all the way to America ain't easy. Also, how come our gas prices are so damn high if we took oil?

"In a professional army soldiers are paid to die. You got noone to blame but your leader. Surely not those Iraqies who are defending their homeland from occupyer."

The majority of the insurgency is non-Iraqis.

"Cuz you could not handle a shia rebellion unless you nuke the place."

Oh yes we can. And we did. Remember Al-Sadr's uprising with his 2,000 man militia? First day he went up against the Americans, he lost 700 of his guys.

"And cuz your country cannot take the cost in dollars and blood such a decision would require. Not because of your noble motives."

Well why don't we just sell the oil you say we took to pay for it?

"Let me remind you that US has set 3 pre-conditions for any candidate to stand in elections.
1 - No candidate to call for withdrawal of US troops after elections
2 - No candidate to be alligned with Iran
3 - No candidate to call for an Islamic State
"

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The United Iraqi Alliance, which has VERY close ties to Iran, won the election. Their canidate for Prime Minister is Dr. Al-Jaafari, head of the Dawa Party, a Shi'ite religious Iraqi party which has strong ties in Iran. He is calling that Islam be the official religion of Iraq, and that it play a part in Iraq's goverment. Many belive, he might turn Iraq into an Islamic state. The only thing that can stop that is the Kurds, Sunnis, and Allawi.

"As you can see US does not "risk" anything."

Yes we have, cause now we might have let the Shi'ites create an Iran Jr.

"Thank God for that. The more of it left for Iraqis the better."

You don't understand. There barely any oil comming out because insurgents keep hitting the piplines, we can't watch over the oil cause we're busy watching over the people.

"We know the US attitide to democracy. Let me give you some examples: Chile (in fact most of South America), Iran (before Shah), Algeria, Israel. Learn you own history - ignorance is not bliss, it's a crime! "

I don't get what your trying to prove here. Iran was never a democracy.
Reply
:iconabdulhafiz:
AbdulHafiz Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2005
"I need proof of this. Now if we took oil, how did we? Theres no reports of the US stealing oil, and don't say we weren't caught because taking oil all the way to America ain't easy. Also, how come our gas prices are so damn high if we took oil?"

BBC Reports: 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.

And where do you think Iraqis got their "funds"? If you read my comment carefully you will see that I say "secured against the future sales of Iraqi oil on international market". No need to "take" anything anywhere.

Oil prices are high because the market buys ahead based on current information. Current information states that:
1. Current production is at its peak
2. Demand is growing faster than predicted
3. Iraq is not selling oil in the quantities expected
4. US was buying up oil to stock up national reserve
5. etc....
This is not a place for me to explain the international markets theory to you in greater detail.


"The majority of the insurgency is non-Iraqis."

This is simply not true. Yes, Bush may say it and the so-called experts in American (US) media may say this but its just bull. Here is some info for you: "insurgency itself is made up of 60 different, mostly autonomous, groups, and that Mr. Zarqawi - with just 200 loyalists, who have claimed some of the worst atrocities in Iraq in the past year - is a "fringe player." ( link). Also have a look here<a/>. And here regarding the insurgency numbers. Foreign mujaheedin are a minority.

"Remember Al-Sadr's uprising with his 2,000 man militia?"

If Mr Sistani (the head Shia Cleric) calls for a defensive jihad all over Iraq - 60% of the population (ie Shia) will rise up and wipe the floor with American troops. Al-Sadr is a fly - 2000 man militia is nothing. A few million people, on the other hand.... You do the math.

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The United Iraqi Alliance, which has VERY close ties to Iran, won the election. Their canidate for Prime Minister is Dr. Al-Jaafari, head of the Dawa Party, a Shi'ite religious Iraqi party which has strong ties in Iran. He is calling that Islam be the official religion of Iraq, and that it play a part in Iraq's goverment. Many belive, he might turn Iraq into an Islamic state. The only thing that can stop that is the Kurds, Sunnis, and Allawi."

Well that is actually not correct. Dr. Al-Jafaari is an exile who owes his position to the US and has done so for a very long time. While his party have links with Iran, they are veruntly nationalistic and are the supporters of "iraq for iraqi's" policy in this respect. You just have to see a couple of interviews with the imams and other elected officials - so they are not alligned with Iran. Islam being an official religion of Iraq is not the same as having an Islamic state - which Sistani already rejected. Many countries, like Italy, UK, Spain and others, have Christianity as official religion while not being religious Christian States. And no, Kurds, Sunnis or Allawi could not stop civil war if Shia wanted it. Of course they dont want it since the debaucle of elections (less than 1/5th of the population voting is now apparently called success) places them at the heart of power.

"Yes we have, cause now we might have let the Shi'ites create an Iran Jr"

Fat chance in hell of this happening. Just listen to Al-Sistani and his aides. They don't want a clerical state.

"You don't understand. There barely any oil comming out because insurgents keep hitting the piplines, we can't watch over the oil cause we're busy watching over the people."

I do understand. The more oil remains in Iraq now the more can be dealt with later when a trully representative Iraqi governent is elected and takes control. The less of it sold to International market at knock-down price the worse off the Iraqi people in the long run.
Reply
:iconabdulhafiz:
AbdulHafiz Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2005
I have obviously messed up my tags and the links do not work.... such a pitty there is not way to edit the posts....
Reply
:iconabdulhafiz:
AbdulHafiz Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2005
I ahve obviously messed up my tags and the links do not work.... such a pitty there is not way to edit the posts....
Reply
:iconjohnbrown:
johnbrown Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2005
"I don't get what your trying to prove here. Iran was never a democracy."

Wrong, Iran was very much a parliamentary democracy.

In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After over a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote.

from:
[link]

also see:

[link]

Operation Ajax (1953) (officially TP-AJAX) was an Anglo-American covert operation to overthrow the then-government of Iran and Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restore the exiled Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to the throne.

Rationale for the intervention included Mossadegh's socialist rhetoric and his nationalization, without compensation, of the oil industry which was previously operated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Reply
:iconle-christoph:
Le-Christoph Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2005
Okay. I didn't know that. But I'd like you to prove me wrong on the other statements I made.
Reply
:iconevan138:
Evan138 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
Evil! Great colors.
Reply
:iconfonzu:
Fonzu Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2005
Right on.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 24, 2005
Image Size
88.7 KB
Resolution
522×700
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,569
Favourites
24 (who?)
Comments
20
Downloads
151
×