And Iraq wasn't about Oil??

[46zilzal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

You should watch the great documentary Crude Awakening.

[46zilzal]

Crude Awakening review: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/
http://yourmovies.com.au/movies/?action=movie_info&title_id=29691

[Tom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

You got that out this article? What paragraph?

[o0xst!]

Iraq was about freedome!!!

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_mar2004/WhatYouEat.jpg

[46zilzal]

The documentary points out the failing of governments to even mention the reality of this finite resource and not planning for alternatives.

[NoDayJob]

Oil, mebee--- most likely to protect the 1976 agreement to pay for oil in dollars. Couldn't let Iraq get away with payment in Euros. Iran will be next, I'm afraid. Save your Confederate money boys, "Da Souff will rise again!" :jump:

[46zilzal]

When I took population genetics we learned a chilling fact: EVERY population studied that has growth unchecked, goes into exponential expansion right before it crashes.

So many idiots think that human kind is somehow immune to the laws of nature

[Tom]

The documentary points out the failing of governments to even mention the reality of this finite resource and not planning for alternatives. And that relates to the war being for oil how?

[46zilzal]

And that relates to the war being for oil how?
The experts called it resource war.

[Tom]

Expert's opinions are not evidence. Is there nothing to back up the premise?

[46zilzal]

Expert's opinions are not evidence.
in a nutshell that seems to be YOUR mantra in every point made.

When rational people want to know about a subject, they usually heed the opinions of those IN the field.

[JustRalph]

When rational people want to know about a subject, they usually heed the opinions of those IN the field.

Unless of course they flaming democrats who would say anything to grab power................who the hell wound you up today?

[Tom]

in a nutshell that seems to be YOUR mantra in every point made.

When rational people want to know about a subject, they usually heed the opinions of those IN the field.

And those "in the filed" need more than opinioin. PROOF is not too much to ask. Unless there is none.

And WHAT fild is that rabble rousers?
It is rather presumptuous to call people liars and then offer nothing to back up your opinion.

Some newspaper hack makes a statement that he KNEWW the content of private phone calls - classified phone call, yet offers not one shred of proof?

and you expect me to swallow it becasue he is a professional hack?
Come on 46, that is so stupid it is beneath even you.

[Tom]

That post actually is about the other thread - I get confused with all the spinning going on here!

My reply here is similar - experts int he filed can now interpret military actions? Zilly - you just keep hurling shit hoping something will stick.
You have once again failed to make a point, expcept the ususal that you don't know what you are talking about.

[46zilzal]

The group of experts gleaned for their knowledge presented in the documentary A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash know a lot more than someone who never listened to a word they presented.

You are the personifcation of Norris Pannel, a clown I had to suffer through as he was a friend of the family. Change was not a part of his life and NOTHING presented that did not fit his preconceived idea of the universe had a snowball's chance in hell of breaking through his mantle of stupidity.

[kenwoodallpromos]

When I took population genetics we learned a chilling fact: EVERY population studied that has growth unchecked, goes into exponential expansion right before it crashes.

So many idiots think that human kind is somehow immune to the laws of nature
You are talking about Sudan. And the libs always beg the USA for help when other countries implode, like South Africa and Haiti, Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan soon. They have unchecked growth and get so screwed up they start letting terrorista and other tyrants take over, like Iraq did. Then they beg the USA to bail them out. As soon as we do, they turn again and try to grab wealth and power and want us out.
If countries grew a backbone and stopped the bad guys soon enough there would be no need/excuse for us to go in.

[46zilzal]

http://www.crudeawakening.org/InformationSharing.htm
The Long Emergency: » By James Howard Kunstler. 2005.
Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World » By Richard Heinberg. 2004.
· The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World » Paul Roberts, 2004.
· The Party's Over: Oil, war, and the fate of industrial societies » By Richard Heinberg. 2003. Humanistic perspective, from the view of an ecologist.
· Hubbert's Peak: The impending world oil shortage » Kenneth S. Deffeyes, 2003. From an oil industry geologist.
· Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy » By Matthew R. Simmons. 2005. A very technical analysis of the Saudi oil situation, predicting Saudi oil peak is at hand.
· The Coming Oil Crisis » Colin Campbell, 2004. A respected oil industry geologist.
· Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak » By Kenneth S. Deffeyes. 2004.
· Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency » By Michael T. Klare. 2004.
· Crude : The Story of Oil » By Sonia Shah. 2004.
· Oil: Anatomy of an Industry » By Matthew Yeomans. 2004.
· Out of Gas: The end of the age of oil » David Goodstein, 2004. Scientific slant, from a thermodynamicist.
· High Noon for Natural Gas » Julian Darley, 2004.
· Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis of the 1970s: The "Crisis of Confidence" Speech of July 15, 1979 » Daniel Horowitz, 2004.
· The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: The Fate of the World and What We Can Do Before It's Too Late » By Thom Hartmann. 2004/2000.

[46zilzal]

You are talking about Sudan.
No, the entire world has unchecked population growth that interacts to cascade effect to all the rest. Just because an agreed upon theoretical border exists does not mean the human pressures do not effect the ecological balances that we all need to survive.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Under the late Saddam Hussein, Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War had developed an extensive research and development capability, but the thousands of Iraqi scientists and engineers working for the Hussein regime were employed in weapons research, not in developing products that could substitute for Iraq's oil revenues. Present day Iran is also working hard to develop a large, independent R&D capability, but once again, like Iraq, that capability is devoted to making weapons, and not to anything that can reduce Tehran's overwhelming dependence on oil exports."
So which oil producers in a climate of 100+ degree heat are working on alternative energy?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Barely a start:
"http://www.middleeastelectricity.com/Renewable/NewandRenewableEnergyRegionalNews.html"
I live in Alameda, and my electricity is 100% thermal sources.
I drive less than 50 miles per month.

[46zilzal]

"Under the late Saddam Hussein, Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War had developed an extensive research and development capability, but the thousands of Iraqi scientists and engineers working for the Hussein regime were employed in weapons research, not in developing products that could substitute for Iraq's oil revenues. Present day Iran is also working hard to develop a large, independent R&D capability, but once again, like Iraq, that capability is devoted to making weapons, and not to anything that can reduce Tehran's overwhelming dependence on oil exports."

and how many of these threatened North America? zero

[chickenhead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

You should watch the great documentary Crude Awakening.

Your theory is that Iraq was going to stop producing oil? But now, thanks to the invasion, the wells will stay open?

All the oil in the world gets put into a big pool, and everyone buys out of the same pool. Are we going to get a special price break or something? A discount? That would be good news! Otherwise, since we didn't make Iraq the 51st state, I'm not seeing the connection. We don't have any more oil than when we started. That would be pretty lame if you are right...Go to war for oil...and forget to take the oil! D'oh! :bang:

[JustRalph]

Don't forget the Oil for Food Corruption that Benefited Putin and the French behind the backs of other countries. Providing a surreptious benefit to Russia and France and others........causing a serious imbalance in the economic factors surrounding the oil trade.

[Secretariat]

We don't know what the latest reason why we are in Iraq. It seems to change often and has morphed into so many reasons it is now simply a mess.

I think without question there were strong oil reasons for going into Iraq if one looks at what leaked from Cheney's Energy meetigns before the invasion carving up Iraq. One also has to look at the priorities after the invasion which were immediately protecting the oil wells over the search for WMD's and quickly developing basci infrastructure needs, or preserving the heritage of Iraq. Plus the quick granting of oil contracts to US business interests.

But oil was not the only reason. There was also a strong lobbying for protection of Israel from a nation Israel defined as a threat to them. THe attempt to link 911 to Hussein was fomented by Cheney with the suppsoed Atta meeting which has never been supported as true by the CIA. Cheney wanted it to be and simply said it over and over even thoguh he knew the CIA refuted it.

GW had his own personal revenge aganst Saddam for the attempt on his dad.

But Iraq had aboslutely nothing to do with 911. There were reasons but not the crap we get now. Wolfowitz even said the reasons we should go to war with Iraq are valid, but they won't sell unless we emphasize planting democracy and freedom. Add in scaring people with a "grave' WMD threat and they pulled off the bigggest bamboozle on the American public since the Iran-Contra scandal and we're still paying.

If we were truly there on a humanitarian effort we'd have been in Darfur or Zimbabwe ages ago full blown. We're not. Anyone who thinks oil had nothing to do with this is simply hoping it had nothing to do with it.

[delayjf]

I think without question there were strong oil reasons for going into Iraq if one looks at what leaked from Cheney's Energy meetigns before the invasion carving up Iraq. One also has to look at the priorities after the invasion which were immediately protecting the oil wells over the search for WMD's and quickly developing basci infrastructure needs, or preserving the heritage of Iraq. Plus the quick granting of oil contracts to US business interests.

Would you feel better if the "oil contracts" had gone to Germany, Russia, or France?

No doubt the US has lots of interests in the Mid-East, what happens there affects the US economy. Like it or not this nation runs on oil, and if that supply was ever cut off our economy would tank. There is also the issue of our Allies like Israel. Couple that with the issue of global terrorism and the threat of Iran. Not to mention the WMD programs of terrorist supporting governments like Libya or Iran.

Like you, I lament the fact that our economy does not run on air - but it is what it is.

[Tom]

The group of experts gleaned for their knowledge presented in the documentary A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash know a lot more than someone who never listened to a word they presented.

You are the personifcation of Norris Pannel, a clown I had to suffer through as he was a friend of the family. Change was not a part of his life and NOTHING presented that did not fit his preconceived idea of the universe had a snowball's chance in hell of breaking through his mantle of stupidity.


So explain to me how this group of experts transfer that expertise to national security decisions to go to war? they are NOT experts in that field. Talk about a mantel of stupidity - this is the stupidest thread you have ever pulled. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Tom]

We don't know what the latest reason why we are in Iraq. It seems to change often and has morphed into so many reasons it is now simply a mess.



Many of us do. You just can't keep up. You libs keep changing your game plan to avoid looking like miserable losers, quitters, and traitors everytime something good happens over there. The old bait and switcheroo.

Did you catch Jack Cafferty tonight - BLASTING Pelsosi for being a do nothing coward and a liar? It was great. I love it when your guys eat thier own. He was 100% correct. You guys keep harping on lied to get into Iraq, but fact is, YOUR guys lied to keep us there. :lol:

[chickenhead]

Is Mantle of Stupidity the same as a stupid mantle? Mantle is one of those weird words...

[Tom]

Not exactly....

[o0xst!]

what is old bolde freedome usa people's fascination with emoticons?

[Gibbon]

Zilzal,

Your beloved country has deep deposits of oil shale. Since you hate us, I propose annexing Canada. A nation of 33 million should fall within a commercial break on Fox. Certainly you wouldn't mind? Most of your horse play is south of your border.






_______________________
Oil is like a wild animal. Whoever captures it has it. ~ Jean Paul Getty

[PaceAdvantage]

what is old bolde freedome usa people's fascination with emoticons?You're becoming increasingly annoying. I suspect that's your point. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

[46zilzal]

Zilzal,

Your beloved country has deep deposits of oil shale. Since you hate us, I propose annexing Canada. A nation of 33 million should fall within a commercial break on Fox. Certainly you wouldn't mind? Most of your horse play is south of your border.






Un-informed, amateur psychologists abound around here. It would be refreshing if someone actually read a few posts before responding with vomitus.

[Tom]

You still haven't told me how being an oil expert makes them experts on war strategies. And I even stuck up for you last night! ;):D

[delayjf]

Un-informed, amateur psychologists

Is there any other kind???

This peak oil theory has been around for so long... I got into a discussion with a liberal friend of mine who went on and on about how some attorney with nothing better to do with his life studied this for one year....yadda yadda yadda. How an attorney suddenly becomes an authority on geology is beyond me.

Has anyone considered that "the peak oil theory" has been perpitrated by the oil companies to drive up prices??

[46zilzal]

Has anyone considered that "the peak oil theory" has been perpitrated by the oil companies to drive up prices??

Things that are true have a habit of sticking around.

[46zilzal]

seen another way

[Tom]

Things that are true have a habit of sticking around.

Like Bush.:)

[46zilzal]

Like Bush.:)
Imbecility never goes out of style, but it's effect is harmful to all.

[NoDayJob]

You're becoming increasingly annoying. I suspect that's your point. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

Bring back LCapper--- He'll fix 'em! ;)

[Tom]

Uh, LCI, LCII, or LCIII ????

:lol::lol::lol:

[NoDayJob]

Zilzal,

[font=Verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Your beloved country has deep deposits of oil shale.
_______________________
Oil is like a wild animal. Whoever captures it has it. ~ Jean Paul Getty


I believe, Canada has been extracting a few hundred thousand barrels of oil a day, from tar sands, for a number of years. The biggest oil shale deposits in North America are in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Estimates run as high as 2 trillion barrels. If true, that's more oil than most of the proven oil reserves in the world today. Plus, that could supply the world with oil for at least the next 55 years, then we could liquify our coal reserves and get another 200 years of energy. Trial leases have been given to one or two companies by our gummint to extract the oil in the Green River area in Colorado. All it takes is the will of the voters to force Congress to act in the best interests of our country, not in the interests of rest of the world. It's called survival! Think what would happen to our deficits too! :bang:

[NoDayJob]

Uh, LCI, LCII, or LCIII ????

:lol::lol::lol:

I liked LCIII. Seemed to be less emotional. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

They were all equally uninspiring, if I remember correctly.

[Tom]

Between Lousycapper and Derek, we could revive Horseplayers United!
Calling Montey Banks........:lol:

[hcap]

Short Quiz....

Oil. Short Answers to Foolish Questions:

1. What kind of company gave the most to GWB's election?
2. What industry did Bush & Cheney spend their life in?
3. What is the principle product of Iraq?
4. Of Iran? Saudi Arabia? Hell, the whole middle east?
5. During war, which prices always go up, up, up?
6. In which industry does Cheney have his "blind trust" invested?
7. Which industry has had the biggest (record) profits since Iraq?
8. What prices would hit $150-300 a barrel if we invade Iran?
9. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest supply of ____?
10. Poor people die fighting each other over ____,
making rich people much richer who control all the ____.

Bonus: The Bush Administration denies its war is about what?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14

Back in 2002.

"In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool

By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

.................................................. ..........................

Ok maybe there were other concerns back then. Just not quite as big a deal even tho' the brouhaha made it look as tho' those factors were the raison d'etre.

[46zilzal]

Hdcp...big surprise, but well stated.

[Tom]

11. Sadamm Hussein was allowed to murder his own people, violate the embargo, and continue to ignore the terms of his surrender at the first gulf war because he was illegally selling ___________ to UN.

12. If the war was all about ___________, where is all the ___________?

[46zilzal]

Could just as easily put any of these clowns on the list as well except they don't fit the brain stem's vision that GOD told him.

1. Omar al-Bashir Sudan
2. Kim Jong Il North Korea
3. Than Shwe Myanmar
4. Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe
5. Islam Karimov Uzbekistan
6. Hu Jintao China
7. King Abdullah Saudi Arabia
8. Saparmurat Niyazov Turkmenistan
9. Seyed Ali Khamane’i Iran
10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Equatorial Guinea

[chickenhead]

excerpted from the book, "Proof For Dummies", or, "An Idiots Guide to Drinking Kool-Aid from a Tin Foil Lined Sippy Cup".

It might be possible to get some confirmation when Iraq gets around to actually passing the hydrocarbon bill, then we might have something other than circle jerk conjecture.

You'll know when it's passed, of course, because Iraq has to give each of us 10 50 gallon drums or light sweet crude, delivered to our doorsteps. So keep an eye out.

[hcap]

Has oil been a factor historically?

Gulf War I.
As US President George Bush summed up the oil-centered threat posed by Saddam Hussein at the time: “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”

Back before then..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

1. Colonial Conquest (1914-18). The first conflict took place during World War I, when the British captured the area from the Ottoman Empire during a bloody four-year campaign. Lord Curzon, a member of the War cabinet who became Foreign Minister immediately after the war, famously stated that the influence of oil over British policy in Iraq was “nil.” “Oil,” said Curzon, “had not the remotest connection with my attitude over Mosul,” the major city in Iraq’s northern oil-bearing region.27 Studies by a number of historians have shown that Curzon was lying and that oil was indeed the major factor shaping British policy towards Iraq.28 Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the War Cabinet, even insisted enthusiastically in a private cabinet letter that oil was a “first class war aim.”29 London had ordered its forces to continue fighting after the Mudros Armistice was signed, so as to gain control of Iraq’s main oil-producing region. Fifteen days later, the British army seized Mosul, capital of the oil region, blocking the aspirations of the French, to whom the area had been promised earlier in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement.30

2. War of Pacification (1918-1930). To defend its oil interests, Britain fought a long war of pacification in Iraq, lasting from 1918 throughout the next decade. The British crushed a country-wide insurrection in 1920 and continued to strike at insurgents with poison gas, airplanes, incendiary bombs, and mobile armored cars, using an occupation force drawn largely from the Indian Army. This carnage killed or wounded thousands of Iraqis, burning villages and extracting colonial taxes by brutal means. Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, saw the defense of Iraq’s lucrative oil deposits as a test of modern weaponry and military-colonial use of force, enabling Britain to hold the oil fields at the lowest possible cost.31

3. Re-Occupation (1941). Though Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq in 1932, it maintained a sizeable military force and a large air base in the country and continued to rule “indirectly.” In 1941, fearful that Iraq might fall into the hands of the Axis, London again decided to seize direct control of the country through military force. Broad geo-strategic wartime goals drove this campaign, but not least was British concern to protect the Iraqi oil fields and keep them in British hands, free not only from German but also from US challenge.32

4. Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). In 1980, Iraq attacked its neighbor, Iran. A long war ensued through 1988, a savage conflict causing hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, costing tens of billions of dollars and destroying much of both countries’ oilfields and vital infrastructure. Foreign governments, interested in gaining geo-strategic advantage over both nations’ oil resources, promoted, encouraged and sustained the war, some arming both sides. The US and the UK supplied Iraq with arms, chemical and biological weapon precursors, military training, satellite targeting and naval support. Other powers participated as well, notably France, Germany and Russia.33 The big oil companies profited mightily, as war conditions kept Iraqi and Iranian oil off the market, driving worldwide prices substantially higher. By bankrupting the two governments and ruining their oil infrastructure, the war also potentially opened the way for the return of the companies through privatization in the not-too-distant future. But after the war, when Iraq and Iran turned to Japanese oil companies for new private investments, including a Japanese role in Iraq’s super-giant Majnoun field, the stage was set for yet another conflict.


Also see....
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm

And from..
Daniel Yergin's The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power

"Yergin's book shows that governments have long been willing not only to distort markets for petroleum, but to go to war for it. World War I demonstrated the supremacy of oil-powered ships, trucks, planes, and even, in the defense of Paris, taxis. World War II began with Japan heading for the oilfields of the East Indies and Germany heading for Baku and Ploesti. The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, the Suez crisis of 1956, and nearly all the jockeying of the Cold War have been oriented around crucial centers of oil production and transport."

[hcap]

The US has admitted the strategic importance of oil. No surprise.
Just that bush et all really thought it strategic,yesiree with all dat straterdagizing bush has been known to do.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/19/1053196528488.html

Oil wars Pentagon's policy since 1999

By Ritt Goldstein
May 20 2003

A top-level United States policy document has emerged that explicitly confirms the Defence Department's readiness to fight an oil war.

According to the report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defence, "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security".

Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged.

Although the policy does not forecast imminent US military conflict, it vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.

Strategic Assessment also forecasts that if an oil "problem" arises, "US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies".

[chickenhead]

This would be the first and most notable resource war where the land being invaded was left sovereign. No?

[46zilzal]

This would be the first and most notable resource war where the land being invaded was left sovereign.
Puppets on a string are sovereign?

[chickenhead]

Puppets on a string are sovereign?

They hold elections in Iraq...who is in power is up to them, not us. Al Sadr holds 30 seats...he may be a puppet, but he's not ours. Rather than your myopic focus on the 10 seconds right in front of you, look out over the next 10 years.

The Iraqis will do whatever they feel is in their best interests. Not ours. I don't think thats a problem, as they line up pretty well.

[hcap]

This would be the first and most notable resource war where the land being invaded was left sovereign. No?So far Iraq is an American territory. A permanent giant embassy is in the works as well as permanent bases. Yeah at some point the plan was to not have the same footprint, but indeed a footprint.

Most imperialists/colonialists usually point to their benign influence, and even grant independence at some point.The Brits during their expansionist phase used the concept of "white mans' burden" to justify their deeds of conquest.

To be fair, I assume bush and palls always believed it would be in the Iraqis best interest to dispose Saddam and embrace democracy. Their "white mans' burden" 21st century style. This gave moral cover to all sorts of humanitarian abuses, and blinded them to what could go wrong and what did go wrong.

I think the bushees intention was to set up a regime in their own image. And eventually support any form of government as long as that regime saw the value in Oil profits. Our history in the Mid East shows support for mostly any kind of "sovereign" despot-as long as he was our despot.

Mostly we have used more subtle means of directing who is in charge. We have overthrown democratically elected leaders. Clandestinely finance tyrants. Sovereign is in the eye of the beholder.

[Greyfox]

I got one right.

9. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest supply of ____?
Answer: Sand
That was easy.

[chickenhead]

if the goal was oil profits..the same could have been achieved by just removing sanctions. Saddam didn't bar us from Iraq, we put them under sanctions. We are the ones that didn't allow our oil companies to go there, not Saddam. My point is that if oil profits are to this degree the prime motivator, we would never have quit doing business with Iraq in the first place. Obviously oil profits are secondary to other national motivations. They just happen to align in this case.

[Secretariat]

if the goal was oil profits..the same could have been achieved by just removing sanctions. Saddam didn't bar us from Iraq, we put them under sanctions. We are the ones that didn't allow our oil companies to go there, not Saddam. My point is that if oil profits are to this degree the prime motivator, we would never have quit doing business with Iraq in the first place. Obviously oil profits are secondary to other national motivations. They just happen to align in this case.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/14/1866/

"Bush Pushes Iraq Oil Law for ExxonMobil
by Matthew Rothschild
June 14, 2007

With Iraq going to hell, and the al-Maliki government failing to meet one benchmark after another, Bush is getting desperate.

On Sunday, he sent Admiral Fallon, the chief U.S. commander in the Mideast, to lean on Prime Minister al-Maliki.

On Tuesday, John Negroponte, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the UN, flew to Baghdad to lean on al-Maliki.

And what were they leaning on him for, above all?

Passage of the new oil bill, which would turn over Iraqi’s liquid treasure to foreign corporations like ExxonMobil.

This is the paramount concern of the Bush Administration.

It is being sold to the American people as a way to equalize revenues to various segments of Iraqi society.

But the true reason for it is to line the pockets of U.S. oil executives.

“The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies,” Antonia Juhasz, author of “The Bush Agenda,” wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on March 13."

And now.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?hp

Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: September 13, 2007

BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 — A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.

[Maji]

I hope the Iraqis don't give into the bullying tactics and sell off their mineral rights to the scumbags.

[46zilzal]

I hope the Iraqis don't give into the bullying tactics and sell off their mineral rights to the scumbags.
Too late, the scum bags are waiting in the wings.

[chickenhead]

BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 — A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.

But I thought the Iraqis were puppets? I thought this was in the bag?

[hcap]

if the goal was oil profits..the same could have been achieved by just removing sanctions. Saddam didn't bar us from Iraq, we put them under sanctions. We are the ones that didn't allow our oil companies to go there, not Saddam. My point is that if oil profits are to this degree the prime motivator, we would never have quit doing business with Iraq in the first place. Obviously oil profits are secondary to other national motivations. They just happen to align in this case.
I see your echoing that great purveyor of unbiased truth...

Ari Fleischer Press Briefing of February 6, 2003:

Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him, can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil -- is it about oil?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people....

Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already, divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that true?....

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide up the oil fields.

.................................................. .................................................. ....

I seem to recall that Saddam was pretty pissed about sanctions, there were many indications that if they were lifted, contracts would go to our competitors in Russia, France, Brazil and Germany. He had already had offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia.

Not only that but Saddam also had the gall to and was one of the first OPEC countries, in 2000, to convert its reserves from dollars to euros.

Too many complications if sanctions were lifted.
Even tho' on humanitarian grounds I was against them

[hcap]

Oh yeah Darth Cheney
.....The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.

Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."

[Greyfox]

Ari Fleischer Press Briefing of February 6, 2003:

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people....



Was Happy Helen ever allowed to ask another question again?

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/helen_thomas.jpg

.

[chickenhead]

I
Too many complications if sanctions were lifted.
Even tho' on humanitarian grounds I was against them

Too many complications? more than this? more than THIS? Hand me that tin foil chalice of yers..I need some kool aid, my throat is parched.

[delayjf]

Can't wait till Hillary's President - she'll slap the big bad oil companies down and let those contracts go to to Russian, Chinese, or Venezuelan oil companies.

How dare President Bush look after US interests - that is certainly not why the American people elect him.

Our history in the Mid East shows support for mostly any kind of "sovereign" despot-as long as he was our despot.
Do we support Syria, Libya, Iran? I'm not sure of your point here - What countries would you have the US stop "supporting".

Mostly we have used more subtle means of directing who is in charge. We have overthrown democratically elected leaders. Clandestinely finance tyrants. Sovereign is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes we did in Iran in the 50's - other than Iran what mideast Government was installed by the US?

[JustRalph]

yep, when Hill is prez.........we will pay 5 dollars a gallon.................


BTw, I would happy as hell if the war was for oil............. I think we should go to war for oil.............screw the nation building bullshit

[hcap]

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html

"As for the supposed weapons of mass destruction, these had already played a crucial role. The United Nations sanctions imposed in the early 1990s included provisions that Saddam could not sign over development of the big Iraqi oilfields to foreign companies. On one hand, this gave the French, Russians, and Chinese an incentive to get Iraq out from under the sanctions. But on another, the key allegations that enabled the U.S. and Britain to keep sanctions in place were—what else?—Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Without WMD, the sanctions would have fallen away, and the rivals of the U.S. and Britain would have gotten the “biggie” oilfields."

"There is no room in this article to document that prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003, everything about Iraq (and neighboring Kuwait) generally boiled down to oil. Suffice it to say that Iraq’s new boundaries were drawn around oil after World War I; Axis forces invaded from Syria in 1941 in pursuit of petroleum; important Persian Gulf surveys generally concentrated on oilfields; the maps Cheney looked at in 2001 were about oil; and on entering Baghdad in 2003, the first government building U.S. troops occupied was the Oil Ministry, with its seismic maps of the rich Iraqi oilfields."

"The administration’s hope that a quick and overwhelming victory in Iraq would unleash enough new oil production to flood the markets and undercut OPEC, however absurd in retrospect, tantalized traders during the invasion weeks. On March 21, 2003, the Financial Times noted, “futures prices suggest that when it is over, OPEC will shower the world with crude and the price will fall out of its $22-28 band late next year.”

"Had a U.S. triumph in Iraq enabled Washington to control and open the oil spigots in Iraq, OPEC would have been obliged to desist from talking about dropping the dollar to price oil in euros or a so-called basket of currencies. But as the various dimensions of U.S. failure became clear in 2003 and 2004, other nations—Indonesia, Malaysia, and Russia (not an OPEC member)—began to show their currency claws. Six months after the U.S. invasion, as Iraqi oil output shrank in the face of relentless sabotage of pipelines and other facilities by insurgents, even Saudi Arabia displayed its disdain, not by currency actions but by giving a big gas-development contract to French Total instead of ExxonMobil."

"Still another oil cost-burden that the Iraqi failure imposes on the American people involves the huge and finally starting to be noticed portion of U.S. defense outlays that are undertaken to protect foreign oil supplies from disruption. Michael Klare, a leading U.S. scholar on resource wars and oil geopolitics, has tabulated oil-related tasks being assumed by the military from South America and West Africa to the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and the Straits of Malacca. His conclusion: the military “is being used more and more for the protection of overseas oil fields and the supply routes that connect them. … Such endeavors, once largely confined to the Gulf area, are now being extended to unstable oil regions in other parts of the world. Slowly but surely, the U.S. military is being converted into a global oil-protection service.”

[Secretariat]

But I thought the Iraqis were puppets? I thought this was in the bag?

Obviously so did GW. Hence, until the freedom loving chosen Iraqis abide by GW's wishes the troops will remain. Nothing like freedom in your own country.

[Secretariat]

Can't wait till Hillary's President - she'll slap the big bad oil companies down and let those contracts go to to Russian, Chinese, or Venezuelan oil companies.


No she won't. That is why she must not be elected. We don't need another Bush clone.

[Tom]

Or a clown like Barry O

[chickenhead]

Obviously so did GW. Hence, until the freedom loving chosen Iraqis abide by GW's wishes the troops will remain. Nothing like freedom in your own country.


Actually you are 180 degrees off course. What Bush is threatening the Iraqis with is withdrawal unless he gets his wishes. Since the reality of that pretty much dismantles most of the arguments you want to make, it gets ignored.

[hcap]

Too many complications? more than this? more than THIS? Hand me that tin foil chalice of yers..I need some kool aid, my throat is parched.Why don't you ask Greenspan for his....
From our buddy Drudge no less

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

.....However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

[hcap]

Yes we did in Iran in the 50's - other than Iran what mideast Government was installed by the US?How'bout the " Mr.Hitler" himself, our used-to-be buddy, ya know that guy we just invaded?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north170.html

....He was our man in Baghdad from day one. He was a CIA asset.

Saddam Hussein came under CIA influence after he had attempted to assassinate Iraq’s leftist military leader, Kassem, in 1958, the same year that Kassem ousted the ruling monarch. Kassem used Nasser as his model. Hussein put together a hit team to take out Kassem. Their attempt failed. Hussein was slightly wounded. He escaped, fled to Cairo, and began a series of contacts with the CIA in Cairo. The CIA was opposed to Kassem, who they regarded as too much like Nasser and too close to Moscow.

...In 1963, the Ba’ath Party engineered a coup against Kassem. They had CIA approval. They assassinated him. Hussein returned to Baghdad. Almost immediately, the new regime was recognized by the United States government. But the Ba’athists were tossed out almost immediately by a revolt of army officers. With CIA assistance, the Ba’ath Party regained power in 1968. Much of this background information is covered in a March 14 New York Times article by Roger Morris.

Yep the CIA in Iran in the 50's

.... it is worth noting that in 1953, the CIA and the British M16 had engineered a coup against the leftist who ran Iran, Mossadegh. The New York Times (April 16, 2000) ran several primary source documents written immediately after the coup by the CIA. Mossadegh had threatened to nationalize the oil, owned mainly by the British. The British then stopped pumping oil in Iran, pushing the country into economic crisis. The coup followed.
.................................................. ......................................
Ok maybe we didn't put the royal family in, but we sure do like their oil, regardless of despotism

Saudi Arabia...

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/BushSaudiKing.jpg

[Secretariat]

Can it get any clearer?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

September 16, 2007

"Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says."

.....................

One more conservative wises up.

[hcap]

.. we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being."

....Gen. John Abizaid to a House Subcommittee in mid-March 2006

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

....the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [later renamed as BP]. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup... The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah... The author of All the Shah's Men, New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, argues that the coup planted the seeds of resentment against the US in the Middle East, ultimately leading to the events of September 11.... The coup and the culture of covert interference it created forever changed how the world viewed the US, especially in poor, oppressive countries. For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth."

......The spectre of Operation Ajax
Guardian, 20 August 2003


PS.....
"Q: And what are the stakes here? The diplomatic effort has been going on for a long time and it has not worked. In fact, Iran has gone in the other direction. So what are the stakes here?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, remember where Iran sits. It's important to backup I think for a minute and set aside the nuclear question, just look at what Iran represents in terms of their physical location. They occupy one whole side of the Persian Gulf, clearly have the capacity to influence the world's supply of oil, about 20 percent of the daily production comes out through the Straits of Hormuz."
Interview of US Vice President Dick Cheney
ABC News (Australia), 23 February 2007

[Tom]

Can it get any clearer? Duh? Yes.


September 16, 2007

"Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says." Key words - HIS VIEW.

.....................

One more conservative wises up.

Or, a guy with a new book looking to boost sales. His integrity is already suspiscuous.

I hate to tell you sec, but at this piont, wh we went is not important. It is just your sie's way of ignoring the fact the we arae there and they are guttles to do anyting about it.

[hcap]

As Tom becomes more and more incoherent, his spelling follows suit.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001224

"They’ve come as a steady trickle since the first years of the Bush Administration: insiders leave and publish accounts telling us that deep inside the White House there’s a frightening show. The principal themes to emerge are cynical manipulation of national security for partisan political reasons, infidelity to traditional conservative values, insatiable thirst for power, mendacity and a general and far-reaching incompetence. The first of these was Richard Clarke, he was quickly followed by Paul O’Neill and a raft of others.

Now as the release date of his memoirs approaches, it appears that Alan Greenspan, the conservative icon who ran the Federal Reserve system during the nation’s glory days of economic success—the nineties and into the first years of Bush—will have a harsher judgment to pass than his predecessors.


...In fact, Greenspan is clear: of the six presidents under whom he served, he ranks George W. Bush dead last.

...This immediately brings to mind Paul O’Neill’s similar suspicions—including his reminder of Dick Cheney’s dismissal of admonitions of the need for fiscal prudence during cabinet meetings, and his discovery one day of Cheney amid maps of the Iraq oilfields, which he appeared to be dividing up for foreign development.

[PaceAdvantage]

Saying that it's about oil means nothing. How is it about oil? Did we go in just to make oil prices go higher due to Mid-East turmoil? Was that it?

Create unrest in the middle east so that oil prices would go up?

Or is it about taking Iraq's oil? Four+ years in, and still no evidence of the US taking Iraqi oil.

So, which one is it? How is it "all about" oil?

All these anecdotes and meaningless opinions amount to a hill of beans.

[hcap]

One picture etc.....

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/BushSaudiKing.jpg



And

.. we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being."

....Gen. John Abizaid to a House Subcommittee in mid-March 2006

[46zilzal]

..In fact, Greenspan is clear: of the six presidents under whom he served, he ranks George W. Bush dead last.


Now Greenspan will get attacked as if his worthy opinion is somehow irrelevant.

[Tom]

Greenspan's opinion is just that - an opinion. He also thought Nixon was one of the smartest - I think nixon was a cheap crook, a liar, and a the worst president up unitl that time.
So who cares what Greenie thinks about Bush?

[46zilzal]

Surround yourself with the military people who's job it is to assess and advise, then once you get their opinions, dismiss them and keep looking for the opinion you like.


The WAR in Iraq in a nutshell: "Incestuous amplification" = "A condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation"

[Tom]

You have less credibiltiy to comment than Greenie does.:lol:

Btw, he is listening to his general now.....you got a problem with that?

[delayjf]

we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being."

So I take it your solutions is to cut our ties with the Mid-East, let the region fall into chaos and watch our economy tank....good idea.

Seriously, what's your solution?

[Tom]

That was it!

[hcap]

. we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being."

....Gen. John Abizaid to a House Subcommittee in mid-March 2006

So I take it your solutions is to cut our ties with the Mid-East, let the region fall into chaos and watch our economy tank....good idea.

Seriously, what's your solution?To be honest, I don't know. Things are so screwed up, there may not be a "good" solution. Just a lesser of all evils.

Remember the quote above was from Abizaid. I don't think anyone denies the importance of oil in our geo/strategic/political position. Just that history shows the ends don't always justify the means-even from a purely self-interest point of view.

If I could rewind the clock, I would take the 1-2 trillion that it will cost us when all is said and done, and put it into energy independence with an extremely strong emphasis on renewables.

But I don't and never did, buy invading Iraq as useful in preventing more 911s.

[hcap]

I said to your question "Seriously, what's your solution?"
To be honest, I don't know. Things are so screwed up, there may not be a "good" solution. Just a lesser of all evils.However I did say this a while agoAs the rear passengers in a car driven by a madman and his pals wildly careens towards an abyss shout and

plead for the loonies to look further than 10 feet ahead, they madly scribble a new "anti-bush" foreign policy

doctrine.... FIRST CHANGE THE DRIVER and his buddies
http://static.firedoglake.com/2007/09/staythecorpse.thumbnail.jpg

[DanG]

To be honest, I don't know. Things are so screwed up, there may not be a "good" solution. Just a lesser of all evils.
.
Hcap;

With all due respect, that’s just not good enough.

You’re a well read person and follow events and issues very closely. I too was against this policy initially, but that doesn’t exclude us from making decisions based on our current status. I do understand your statement completely however. There is no “good” solution at the moment imo.

It’s been infuriating to follow the Democrats response throughout this ordeal. 1st aligning because it was politically prudent, and then saying we must get out without elaborating. Now they offer a splintered policy of a combination of strategies.

Both parties have been disgusting in either their blind allegiance and / or their incompetence imo.

We, as informed citizens don’t have the “luxury” of saying…”well, I don’t know”. The luxury we do have is we are not running for office and therefore have only ourselves and our countrymen to answer to. No lobbyist, no contributors etc…

My stance from how I perceive the current situation and taking to someone who is fighting it.

Re-deploy to the perimeter and conduct covert operations in hot spots with extreme prejudice. Keep the “war” off the Arabic front pages where a very young / impressionable population is waiting their turn to fight the west in a 1,000+ year battle of civilizations that can be avoided with superior leadership.

This of course is from a military perspective. The political front (the key!) would take 9,000 pages to type out and is incredibly complex. The simplistic approach we had initially boggles my mind, but that horse has already left the barn.

Your turn… :)

[chickenhead]

I too was against this policy initially, but that doesn’t exclude us from making decisions based on our current status.

It’s been infuriating to follow the Democrats response throughout this ordeal. 1st aligning because it was politically prudent, and then saying we must get out without elaborating. Now they offer a splintered policy of a combination of strategies.

Both parties have been disgusting in either their blind allegiance and / or their incompetence imo.

THANK YOU :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Hcap;


Re-deploy to the perimeter and conduct covert operations in hot spots with extreme prejudice. :)

A very good point.
It's somewhat similar to a point that I've been advocating for some time now that one solution would be to seal the borders. That would also mean standing as a national defense for Iraq to prevent predators like Iran from filling the power vacuum.
To leave Iraq as it is, would leave the country in an impossible position to defend themselves as a nation against outside interests.
In the meanwhile, the civil war in Iraq would likely erupt even more. So be it. That would be between the local Shiites, Sunni's, Kurds, Baths etc. Somehow I think that civil war is inevitable although there are some who are saying that a considerable amount of "cleansing" has already occurred. The outcomes of the civil war, would lead to the political solutions. Who knows? The political solutions might resolve into 3 states.

[ddog]

A very good point.
It's somewhat similar to a point that I've been advocating for some time now that one solution would be to seal the borders. That would also mean standing as a national defense for Iraq to prevent predators like Iran from filling the power vacuum.
To leave Iraq as it is, would leave the country in an impossible position to defend themselves as a nation against outside interests.
In the meanwhile, the civil war in Iraq would likely erupt even more. So be it. That would be between the local Shiites, Sunni's, Kurds, Baths etc. Somehow I think that civil war is inevitable although there are some who are saying that a considerable amount of "cleansing" has already occurred. The outcomes of the civil war, would lead to the political solutions. Who knows? The political solutions might resolve into 3 states.

I don't think this will get it done.

Seal the borders

against whom?
We don't know who is who without someone pointing them out to us.
Then we don't know the pointers motivations.

National defense

As I understood it from Gen. Petraues testimony , the one good area in the Iraqi force structure is their national defense forces.
It's the internal/police type forces that are no good.

Use the Iraqi forces for the national defense.
They must be/become that force and feel it in their bones or we can't stay long enough to do any good.

It seems obvious to me that the Iran thing is overblown hype where the filling the vacumn is concerned.
The one thing that could unite Iraqi's that I can think of is an Iranian force "filling" anything in Iraq.
I am sure that Iran is sending things/people to meddle there or at least not trying hard to discourage those who want to meddle in Iraq.

We are stuck there for a long time. The so called leaders here need to face that fact and stop offering easy outs to pander to voters.

The most important things we can do IMO are

1. get the logistical pipeline wide open so that the Iraqi funding can provide the equipment and payroll,etc. to build and maintain the defense force.
Lot of that is on us, the funds are on deposit we need to help make that happen.

2. Keep looking for any chance to assist the local groups in various areas to step up if they ask us to help.

3. Get the UN and any other NGO and/or NATO members to step up and surge resources and people into Iraq NOW.
Kill them with kindness, you know.

4. disband the national police force and start over on that.

5.Stop with the benchmark b.s. , stop lecturing and threatening the Iraqi gvt.
Tone that down it doesn't help.

6. Figure out some way to get the enormous amount of Iraqi's of talent and means to come back in the country and contribute.
I don't know how to do this one but it's got to happen somehow.

7.We can't sit on bases or behind a wall while a slaughter is going on(?) so if it comes to that we will be back in it anyway so we may as well try to avoid that to the extent we can.

Build up our military through increased revenue and a draft.
We are going to need it, we have jumped in now the bills will come due.

8. try to learn for next time that our own b.s. can get us into a world of hurt even if done for a few (possibly) good intentions.
We never seem to learn this one though.

[PaceAdvantage]

Seal the borders

against whom?That's an easy one. Against ALL!

[hcap]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1315

"The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement."

....."Indeed, Kurdistan's PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter form of "victory." As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

.................................................. ..........................................

So before the war Saddam had contracts with non US and Brit oil companies.
Unable to act upon mostly due to west backed sanctions program.

After we invade guess what companies are sitting pretty?
Too many coincidences involving oil interests, to be ignored.

[Greyfox]

As I understood it from Gen. Petraues testimony , the one good area in the Iraqi force structure is their national defense forces.
It's the internal/police type forces that are no good.

.

1. As PA replied. Seal the borders against everyone!


2. Having an army doesn't mean that you have a defense.
Perhaps I should have said International Defense. The Iraqi army as it is now would be absolutely vulnerable against any foreign invader. While it fought a war against Iran for 8 years or so a long time ago, it is not in that position to do so now. And won't be for a long long time.
That is why the U.S. is going to have to maintain a "presence" in the region,
akin to Korea.

[Tom]

Bush doesn't know what "seal" means.

[Greyfox]

Bush doesn't know what "seal" means.

Does too.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/eeobtour/images/seal-presidential-color.jpg.

[Tom]

He knows less about that seal than seal the border!:rolleyes:
Didn't anyone ever give a copy of his job description?

[46zilzal]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1315

"The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back.

Hardly a surprise

[Secretariat]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1315

"The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement."

....."Indeed, Kurdistan's PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter form of "victory." As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

.................................................. ..........................................

So before the war Saddam had contracts with non US and Brit oil companies.
Unable to act upon mostly due to west backed sanctions program.

After we invade guess what companies are sitting pretty?
Too many coincidences involving oil interests, to be ignored.

More cronyism with Hunt Oil. The greed is beyond beleif. Is it any wonder the Iraqi Congress rejected the US proposal?

[Tom]

Spoils of war. You would prefer the CHINNESE get the oil?
I say job well done! :jump:

Listen if you guys hate oil so much, stop buying it. Stick your ears of corn in your tanks and pour your old EVOO down there.

[delayjf]

Exactly guys...its called "looking after America's best interest".

See... if he were the President of China or France for example, he would try to get those oil contracts for Chinese or French companies, depending upon which country he was representing.

BUT, he's the President of the "UNITED STATES"...so he's attempting to get those contracts for US companies. The good news is that the US oil companies are willing to share their profits with all of us - all we have to do to collect is buy their stock. Now, I ask you, isn't that generous of them.

[46zilzal]

So they "negotiate" by storming the country and killing thousands on both sides. More akin to "stealing."

[chickenhead]

rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments.

I'm going to have to do some research into this. I thought that death was the only certainty, followed by taxes. I wasn't aware that contracts had entered the realm of immutable physical law. I think that is a very interesting statement.

[46zilzal]

but it's not about the oil, it is FREEDOM...Yes, freedom for the oil companies to steal resources.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14krugman.html

Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.”

[hcap]

Well at least we before the war doubters are making some headway in our case that the war WAS about oil.

Both Tom and delayjf are now crowing about a president who is looking out for our interests-even if those interests were oil. And not only that fellas, meanwhile by judicious investing, we all can prosper in the Exxon-Mobil misadventure to remake the MID East.

I wonder what woulda' happened if the prez went before the American people back on that night just before we invaded and said

"My fellow Oil Men...... :D

Ya think we would have had the Congress agreeing?

.................................................. .............................................

http://www.alternet.org/story/62436/
Why Liberals Are Smarter than Conservatives

This is why it takes forevever to recognize the " Oil" word
It appears youse guys have been stuck in the M for moron mode. Any other letter is not recognized. Particularly O for oil.

Neuroscientists at NYU and UCLA conducted a simple test on college students all along the political spectrum.They were seated in front of computers and given the simple task of pressing a key every time the letter "M" flashed on the screen. Here's the hitch: every once in a while the letter "W" would flash and the subjects were told to not push a key when they saw "W."

Both groups recognized the letter "M" accurately. But when that pesky "W" popped up the conservatives just couldn't help themselves and -- DOH! -- they pushed the key! They simply could not recognize any letter not being "M." They continued to dogmatically stab away at the keyboard not seeing the letter so plainly in front of them. Everyone, of course, was hooked up to electroencephalograms, and liberals EEG's lit up like pinball machines while apprehending and considering all the subtle differences between "M" and "W." They made fewer mistakes and demonstrated a greater subtlety of mind. Conservatives, ever the partisans, just declared "W" was "M" and called it a day.

[delayjf]

What it's about is ....somebody is going to have to help the Iraqi's develop their oil infrastructure, it will either be the US or some foreign oil companies. Whoever it is will be paying the Iraqi's for the oil. If not a US oil company, then which oil company would you prefer...one from Canada I presume.

[hcap]

I'm going to have to do some research into this. I thought that death was the only certainty, followed by taxes. I wasn't aware that contracts had entered the realm of immutable physical law. I think that is a very interesting statement.Well eventually Empire gets bogged down in the affairs of those "little brown or black men" they are empiring over. The Brits and the French had to leave their minions they were so busy saving for oh so long.

Those little folks have a way of complaining too loudly.

Like India
Like those few colonies in the NEW WORLD.
Yeah the Tea Contracts were boken

[delayjf]

Hcap,

So the President is supposed to stop looking after the best interests of the US just so the liberals can "feel" good about the reasons behind the war??

The President is much smarter than that. :cool:

[46zilzal]

It is an enormous difference between being invited and attacking and just appropriating the oil fields. Any "thug" can do the latter which is qualitatively no different than the Monguls hordes did in Europe.

[46zilzal]

H

The President is much smarter than that.

The prez is not as smart as a thumb tack.....a bent one!

[hcap]

Hcap,

So the President is supposed to stop looking after the best interests of the US just so the liberals can "feel" good about the reasons behind the war??

The President is much smarter than that. :cool:The debate so far has been EXACTLY HOW IMPORTANT WAS OIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. Not now.


So no matter WHAT EVERY BODY BELIEVED, if the war was about WMDs, it came up empty. Curiously the oil connections have 100x the strength of truth than the WMDs or They hate us for our freedoms

If you remember, the inspectors were on the ground, doing their job.
They were not looking for oil.

.................................................. ............................................

August 1 2002 Iraq invites UN chief weapons inspector to Baghdad.

September 12 2002 President Bush addresses UN to put the case for war against Iraq.

September 16 2002 Iraq accepts 'unconditional' return of UN inspectors.

November 8 2002 UN security council votes unanimously to back a US-British resolution requiring Iraq to reinstate weapons inspectors after a four year absence.

November 13 2002 Saddam sends a letter to the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, accepting the UN resolution.

November 18 2002 United Nations weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction.

November 27 2002 The weapons inspectors start inspections, visiting two sites, and thank the Iraqis for their cooperation but do not comment on findings.

December 7 2002 Iraqi officials in Baghdad present the UN with a 12,000 page dossier disclosing Iraq's programmes for weapons of mass destruction, as demanded by UN resolution 1441.

General Hasam Amin of Iraq's national monitoring directorate says the dossier shows 'that Iraq is empty of weapons of mass destruction. I reiterate Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. This declaration has some activities that are dual-use'.

The contents of the Iraqi dossier are met with widespread skepticism in Washington and London, prompting fears that Iraq is now set on a collision course with the US, which claims to have intelligence that Iraq retains banned weapons and is expected to hotly dispute Iraq's declaration.

In a surprise move, Saddam Hussein uses a televised address to apologise to the people of Kuwait for invading their country in 1990.

December 17 2002 Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, hints that the White House will reject the Iraqi weapons declaration, saying there were problems with the 12,000-page document.

December 22 2002 Baghdad invites the CIA to enter the country and track down its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

December 31 2002 A UN inspection team member in Iraq admits to finding "zilch" evidence of weapons of mass destruction and says that the teams have been provided with little guidance from western intelligence agencies.

January 9 2003 Hans Blix says UN weapons inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but acknowledges that Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration was incomplete.

February 5 2003 Colin Powell uses satellite photographs, tapes of intercepted conversations and newly opened CIA files to make the United States case against Iraq in a determined attempt to win over international opinion.

February 14 2003 Hans Blix gives his latest report on Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441 to the UN security council, surprising the members with a more upbeat assessment of the pace of Iraq's disarmament than had been expected. The report, which lists examples of Iraqi compliance with the inspectors, thus failing to provide any clear casus belli, throws into confusion British and American plans to draft a new resolution mandating military action. It severely embarrasses Colin Powell by questioning the US intelligence on Iraqi munitions that he presented to the council earlier in the month.

March 6 2003 In a nationwide television address, the US president, George Bush, indicates that war is very close.

March 18 2003 In a televised address at 0100GMT, Mr. Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face invasion.

March 20 2003 War begins.

[hcap]

The debate so far has been EXACTLY HOW IMPORTANT WAS OIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. Not now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

....With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and UK abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law. .[33] This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[34]

Just think about how the world, the American people, and congress would have reacted if the prez said....
"Ma Fella Oil men" Then not now

[Tom]

It is an enormous difference between being invited and attacking and just appropriating the oil fields. Any "thug" can do the latter which is qualitatively no different than the Monguls hordes did in Europe.

It is not stealing if we pay for it. Which we are. The deal is good for them, too. Do you think if we pulled out today. like you want us to, that the Iraqi's would ahve any oil left tomorrow? It would be taken from them by real thugs.
And you should re-read you history......we did not act anything like Monguls, despite your delusions. The Monguls pillared and plundered, then left. They never stayed behind, long after thier own interests were served, to protect the innocent like we are doing. In fact, I do not know of anyone other than US that ever does that. That is because we are the good guys. That is because the 4 horseman do not represent this country in any fashion. We even allow them to spread thier vile lies. We are REALLY good guys. If the 4 horsemen tried thier schtick in Russia, or Cuba, or many other places they seem to bow to 5 times a day, ala Mecca, they would be the 4 cans of horsemeat. Because, unlike thier misguided thinking, not many other countries give a crap about people like we do.

[46zilzal]

JUST like the guy who breaks into your house, without your okay then somehow "pays" for all he steals. No goddamn difference. Destroying the infrastructure of a country is a lot like pillaging.

Are you having a difficult time understanding a conditional phrase like "qualitatively?"

PROTECT THE INNOCENT? now there is a hoot, that is unless their is an oil field called Innocent Acres there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[46zilzal]

Get in the way of the profit grab, blow up the country and things like this happen to those who have the bad luck just to live there.

[46zilzal]

"and things get better every day there. " Cheney

Numbers don't count when you are stealing them blind.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[delayjf]

So no matter WHAT EVERY BODY BELIEVED, if the war was about WMDs, it came up empty. Curiously the oil connections have 100x the strength of truth than the WMDs or They hate us for our freedoms

So, had we found stockpiles of WMD - THEN it would be ok to sign the oil contracts?

46,

Curious, those children in the pictures, what are the chances they lost their legs in a suicide car bombing attack? Another question, how many legs would be lost if we suddenly turned tail and ran?

JUST like the guy who breaks into your house, without your okay then somehow "pays" for all he steals. No goddamn difference. Destroying the infrastructure of a country is a lot like pillaging.
If a serial killer was holding my family hostage killing and torturing my family members one by one and a swat team broke it and Killed the SOB and in the process accidentially killed one of my family members, I would still be thankful that they intervened - despite the tragic loss of my family member. If they also rebuilt my house which was not covered by insurance - again I would be grateful.

[46zilzal]

If a serial killer was holding my family hostage killing and torturing my family members one by one and a swat team broke it and Killed the SOB and in the process accidentially killed one of my family members, I would still be thankful that they intervened - despite the tragic loss of my family member. If they also rebuilt my house which was not covered by insurance - again I would be grateful.
Correlation not even close. NO American was in danger before these idiots invaded. Only those poor kids sent over there to the slaughter were put in danger so the fat cats could rob them blind.

You are describing a completely domestic situation NOT EVEN CLOSE to this mess.

Remind me. Just how many suicide bombers were extant before that country was invaded?

[hcap]

That is because the 4 horseman do not represent this country in any fashion. We even allow them to spread thier vile lies. We are REALLY good guys. If the 4 horsemen tried thier schtick in Russia, or Cuba, or many other places they seem to bow to 5 times a day, ala Mecca, they would be the 4 cans of horsemeat. Because, unlike thier misguided thinking, not many other countries give a crap about people like we do.Love it or leave it eh ?

Almost 70% of your fellow Americans agree with us.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %

25 70 5


"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
Right Thing Stayed Out Unsure
% % %
39 53 8


"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"
Less ThanAYear* OnetoTwoYears* TwotoFiveYears* Longer Than Five Years
49 23 12 5 11

[Tom]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]JUST like the guy who breaks into your house, without your okay then somehow "pays" for all he steals. No goddamn difference. [\quote]

No, not the same thing. You have no clue as to how thinkg relate to each other. Sorry 46, but your example is not relevant at all. We did not just pick Iraq and go for it.

[46zilzal]

Right here. The rest of the people know it was a mistake.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[46zilzal]

We did not just pick Iraq and go for it.
No YOU didn't but the Oil boys have had a hard on for stealing their resource for years now. They were going to go after it on any excuse. I just pity all the poor guys who think they are fighting for some MORAL ideal like "freedom" as they lose life and limb for the Dow Jones average.

[Tom]

No, I am sure you are wrong. Again. Still.

[Gibbon]

Get in the way of the profit grab.... Sure, it's always greedy western capitalist are to blame? How is it the enormously wealthy Sheiks, Sultans and Iatolas get a free pass. Those very same Sheiks who maintain a fleet of Bentleys and Rolls in every conceivable color. Sheiks who own lavish yachts manufactured by the West. The very same Sheiks who use their torrents of Western capital to abducted Eastern European woman as personal sex slaves documented by many left wing websites you undoubtedly read. The religion of peace has much to answer for.

Over the past 80 years, Western nations have transfered massive amounts of capital to oil rich nations. Capital used to satisfy egos of wealthy men in power. Capital if used wisely could have contributed to improving life for all Muslims not just the elite few. But no, Westerns are to blame.

If zilly, hcap and suff had their way we would join the Luddites within radical leftists movements and return to humanities peasant roots.

6.4 billion humans on our Earth feed by modern technological advances primarily developed by Western capitalist nations. What has Islam contributed to the evolution of human society recently? Death and destruction that's all.

We have solutions now to ween ourselves off of foreign oil. France and Japan use clean modern nuclear reactors for electricity. If America had a sensible energy policy we could be self sufficient in oil within 7 years. This would go a long way in alleviating our problems with our Arab neighbors. Not to mention solving environmental concerns over the hysteria of Globe Warming.

Not to worry, leftist will always find something to decry Western values.

BTW zilly, I noticed your beloved Canada has a thriving nuclear energy program. here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada) and here (http://www.uic.com.au/opinion6.html).







____________________________
The discovery of nuclear reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than the discovery of matches (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_discovery_of_nuclear_reactions_need_not_bring/173244.html) http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif Albert Einstein (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_einstein/)

[delayjf]

Correlation not even close

The family members are the Iraqi citizens.

The serial killer is / was Saddam Hussein.

The Swat team is US Military.

The families house is Iraq.

Does this make more sence?

[delayjf]

The prez is not as smart as a thumb tack.....a bent one!

Given the above...the course of action you would follow would be the opposite of President Bush, therefore:

A) you would pull out of Iraq immediately without regard for the blood shed that would probably ensue - Similar to what happened in Cambodia.

B) you would immediately order all US Oil companies to stop importing oil form the Mid-East and withdraw all assets from the region or turn them over to the countries in which they reside, regardless of the economic impact on the US.

Do I have it about right?

BTW zilly, I noticed your beloved Canada has a thriving nuclear energy program. here and here

Not to mention they are the No 1 importer of Oil to the US.

[46zilzal]

Clowns open a can of worms, create impossible situations along with giving local opportunists the chance to grab power and then think there is honorable and "just" way out it. There never is. Who profits? Just the group that Ike mentioned when he left office: the Insider cronies who always do when live are wasted in some sham war.

The last several "wars" had the same scenario: Get in there on a bunch of lies, lies keep people getting killed as the real reasons are never "fessed up" to, the situation never resolves the way the crazy "theorists" calculate except making the West hated all the more then they hand us the same tired lines "We have to fight 'em there so we won't fight 'em here," and people actually believe that line of b.s.

All of these bull shit wars created more problems than they ever solved. 58,000 dead in one, many of whom were my friends and neighbors and now almost 4,000 of the same poor fellows who are out there in a grab bag for the corporate biggies.

You would think the population would wise up, see the pattern and yell at the top of their lungs that the King has no clothes.

[Tom]

As a doctor, do you recommed negotiating with cancer?
Or do you agressively attack it and erradicate it?

[ddog]

1. As PA replied. Seal the borders against everyone!


2. Having an army doesn't mean that you have a defense.
Perhaps I should have said International Defense. The Iraqi army as it is now would be absolutely vulnerable against any foreign invader. While it fought a war against Iran for 8 years or so a long time ago, it is not in that position to do so now. And won't be for a long long time.
That is why the U.S. is going to have to maintain a "presence" in the region,
akin to Korea.


I must have rambled on too long in that previous post....

If you look down toward the end you will see where I said we are there for the long term and also called for the appropriate measures to allow us to stay there for a long time and to build up to the first gulf war levels to cover other fronts.
We can't keep running everything we have into/out of Iraq forever and ignoring/hoping we will not need those resources here and/or else where.

You are aware I am sure of the bad and getting worse state of the reserves and gurard HERE.
Those forces are counted on for many disaster situtations and we DON'T have them anymore in the numbers we have them slotted in for in case of emergency.


You do realize that sealing the border would take MORE than we have in total in country now.
We can't seal our own border here where we should have some control.

You can't seal against "ALL" that is not serious in my opinion.

Iraq is not a self sustaining country now or in the near future, thus things/people must go in and out , therefor no seal.

There is not going to be an invasion from another country as long as we are there, the Iraqi natl. force given a couple more years for the mid-level officer corp to grow up and given the proper supplies will do fine with us as over-the-hill backup.

[ddog]

As a doctor, do you recommed negotiating with cancer?
Or do you agressively attack it and erradicate it?

as with everything that all depends.
if you are 85 and it's going to get you someday then I would say fine.
if you are 45 and it's going to get you someday then I would say go for it.

I'm not an Md but i think that about covers it.

[Maji]

Now this is surprising... the saudis meddling in Iraq.

Saudis quietly go about 'business' in Iraq
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II20Ak04.html

Remember, that country nourishes more islamic terrorists all over the muslim word. Most of the ultra orthodox madrassas in pakistan, India, bangladesh and other poorer countries are run by saudi money. These MADrassas are a breeding place for terrorists, IMO.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you remember, the inspectors were on the ground, doing their job.But you maintain there were no WMDs....then what were the inspectors looking for, and why were they upset that they didn't get to complete their job, IF, as you say, there were never any WMDs to begin with?

[PaceAdvantage]

Almost 70% of your fellow Americans agree with us. Polls have a nasty habit of being inaccurate....just ask John Kerry.

[hcap]

But you maintain there were no WMDs....then what were the inspectors looking for, and why were they upset that they didn't get to complete their job, IF, as you say, there were never any WMDs to begin with?The bull about everybody agreed there were WMDs, was open at that time for debate. That's why the world knowing inspectors had not been there since the late 90's, through the UN, agreed to find out the status of Iraqs weapons program.

The U.N. inspectors were in high gear, and, partly due to the threat of war, Saddam was giving them relatively broad access to suspected weapons sites. All that the inspectors asked for was a little more time. The U.N. inspection regime was a tool that could have resolved all doubts, had it been allowed to run its course. Tragically, it was cut short by the trigger-happy sheriffs in this Administration.

It appears from things like the Downing Street Memos that the Bush Administration was trying to provoke Saddam Hussein and fully expected him to say no when the UN asked him to allow inspectors back in. That would have been sufficient cause for war. But that Hussein said yes to UN inspections should have made an honest and rational administration pause in its rush to war. No such thing happened. Instead, a combination of lies and self-delusions kept us marching to war.

A major problem for the Bush Administration occurred when the UN inspectors went in and found Iraq's uranium stocks still under seal and fully accounted for. If the uranium was under seal, this was hardly evidence of a reconstituted uranium program. But to keep the drums of war beating, a 'reconstituted nuclear program' was needed.

[hcap]

PA saidPolls have a nasty habit of being inaccurate....just ask John Kerry.
Come on. The polls can't be off this much.

Almost 70% of your fellow Americans agree with us.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve... Disapprove... Unsure
%............. %.............. %

25........... 70............... 5


"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
Right Thing Stayed Out Unsure
%............... %.............. %
39.............. 53............... 8

.................................................. .........................................

Or maybe "The four horsemen" here in cyberspace are responsible for changing the course of American opinion?

Or maybe the pinko press? Your SMALL minority that YOU claim is overrepresented in these polls, evidently has brain washed ordinary Americans into agreeing with us.

Your small minority, Iraq war opponents, according to you, are obviously west side effete, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freakshow un-Americans"

Youse guys just can't help but acknowledge that getting out of Iraq is not some far-left hippie dream but is what most Americans -- the regular-Joe, coffee-and-donuts crowd -- want most.

PS: If you are correct about those effete snobs-only being on manhattans' west side, the island would be submerging up to riverside drive by now :lol:

[Gibbon]

If this is so then why haven't our Democratically controlled govt. withdrawn funding from Iraq and begun troop redeployments?

Also, why no criticizing of Dem front runner Hillary Clinton. She did in fact vote for the war and as of today, has NOT recanted.







__________________________
Good government is no substitute for self-government. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

[hcap]

Gibbon there may be Dem control but it is not Filibuster proof.
Blame your pals, not mine. And while we are at it let's change some preconceptions from the AP....


Dear AP:

Could you please change this:
Senate rejects expanding detainee rights
to this?
REPUBLICANS Filibuster
And while you're at it, how about changing this:
Senate blocks bill on combat tours
to this:
REPUBLICANS Filibuster

Thank you.

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Filibusters.gif

Your pals, not mine

[delayjf]

Hcap,

You do realize that the chart you are posting is for "the threats of a Filibuster" not actual use of filibusters. Nancy Pelosi herself said they would not vote to withdraw funding for the war.

Isn't she one of your pals?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734/

[chickenhead]

No one should let anyone off the hook for bowing to a "threat" of a fillibuster. What it does it distort the process even further, imo. It's political cover of the lamest sort, allowing the majority to say one thing and do another. I was critical of Republicans for it, I'll be critical of the Democrats for it.

[hcap]

I agree. I wasn't letting them off the hook, just that when someone says the democratic "controlled congress" has not been able to act on what the 70% majority want-out of Iraq, sooner versus later-is distorting what control means.

My gut feeling is that the dems should go thru' with the threat and let the repugs actually filibuster. A little public exposure would go a long way

"The only way to counteract Republican falsely blaming the Democrats for being "do-nothing" is to make it abundantly clear that Republicans are being obstructionist. *Make* them filibuster. Make it a true filibuster, which stops all other business until a cloture vote occurs. If anyone complains, or if anyone in the media doesn't get it, tell them that all you want is an up-or-down vote, but a minority of Republicans is preventing the business of the country from getting done, not to keep the bill from passing, but just so their president doesn't have to *bother* to veto it."
---M.J. Rosenberg

[Tom]

Ah, Chickenhead......you speak of a politician who stands on principles.
I have exhausted Google and could not find a single reference to that. I did find 2,160,000 references to Santa Clause.


It is pretty obvious that elected officials only represent thier partry, not the people. The dems are a huge farce.

[hcap]

"On Oct. 30, Oil and Gas International revealed that the Bush administration wanted a working group of 12 to 20 people to (a) recommend ways to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry "in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible U.S. military occupation government," (b) consider Iraq's continued membership of OPEC, and (c) consider whether to honor contracts Saddam Hussein had granted to non-American oil companies.

By late October 2002, columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times would later reveal, Halliburton, the energy services company previously headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, had prepared a confidential 500-page document on how to handle Iraq's oil industry after an invasion and occupation of Iraq."

"On Oct. 30, Oil and Gas International revealed that the Bush administration wanted a working group of 12 to 20 people to (a) recommend ways to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry "in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible U.S. military occupation government," (b) consider Iraq's continued membership of OPEC, and (c) consider whether to honor contracts Saddam Hussein had granted to non-American oil companies."

"There was, as well, the vexatious problem of sorting out the 30 major oil development contracts Saddam's regime had signed with companies based in Canada, China, France, India, Italy, Russia, Spain, and Vietnam. The key unresolved issue was whether these firms had signed contracts with the government of Saddam Hussein, which no longer existed, or with the Republic of Iraq which remained intact."



http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11671

[delayjf]

"On Oct. 30, Oil and Gas International revealed that the Bush administration wanted a working group of 12 to 20 people to (a) recommend ways to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry "in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible U.S. military occupation government," (b) consider Iraq's continued membership of OPEC, and (c) consider whether to honor contracts Saddam Hussein had granted to non-American oil companies.
Why not let the Iraqi's pay the US back? And why honor oil contracts to countries that were getting their oil illegally through the "oil for food program".

By late October 2002, columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times would later reveal, Halliburton, the energy services company previously headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, had prepared a confidential 500-page document on how to handle Iraq's oil industry after an invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Doesn't it make sense that a company in the oil business would prepare such a document. Does Dowd offer an alternative source of oil business know how to assist the US in dealing with Iraq's oil infrastructure. Perhaps Disney.

[Tom]

Good planning.....:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Couric weighs in on Iraq, Rather

Examiner

Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather.

“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”

[46zilzal]

Pentagon Asks $190 Billion in 2008 Iraq War Spending

By Tony Capaccio and Nicholas Johnston

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon is requesting almost $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2008, which would be the largest annual expenditure since the conflicts began.

BOTTOMLESS PIT anyone?

[delayjf]

“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”

In her defense, there's a lot that goes over her head - she should go back to the fluffy Martha Stewart / Rachael Ray interviews. She got where she is due to her looks and personality - nobody is paying her to think. I appreciate the fact that she's living up to that part of her contract.

[Tom]

Couric weighs in on Iraq, Rather



Hard for a so called anchor to have any credibilty when you do that. Although, Katie was never anything more than a short skirt and a perky smile. She had zero credentials for the job and has proven it on national TV.:lol:
It is no surprise that she doesn't understand things, though.

Daffy, anyone?:lol:

[JustRalph]

Are you guys this big a sucker? This entire Couric "pulls back the curtain on her views" is orchestrated to counter the comments made about her and quoted all over the country last week by Miss USA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20960178/

Miss USA is an ignorant 20 something, but she really put the hammer on Couric and it was quoted everywhere!

So Katie comes out this week swinging about Iraq etc..........

Wait until the book on her love life comes out.........she will really be swinging haymakers............. they are calling her a "Cougar" the book is due soon

[hcap]

Saying that it's about oil means nothing. How is it about oil? Did we go in just to make oil prices go higher due to Mid-East turmoil? Was that it?

Create unrest in the middle east so that oil prices would go up?

Or is it about taking Iraq's oil? Four+ years in, and still no evidence of the US taking Iraqi oil.

So, which one is it? How is it "all about" oil?

All these anecdotes and meaningless opinions amount to a hill of beans.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

"Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

..."How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.)

....."Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq.

[Greyfox]

Thankyou hcap for posting that interesting article.
I'm surprised that you would post one that shines a favorable light on George W. Bush's intelligence.

The author Jim Holt also went on to say that viewed from the oil perspective
the war in Iraq was:
1. a resounding success and
2. will lead to the creation of Iraq as an "American Protectorate" for years to come.

Viewed from Holt's perspective, Bush and Cheney are seen as being quite brilliant. I quote:
"The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success."

[hcap]

Yeah, an evil genius.
If a few trillion were to be spent on alternative fuels, we would have saved 2 wars. 4000 American lives and close to 1 million Iraqi lives. We would have gone after real terrorists and by now the threat of terrorism would be much less than under Dr Evil. Yeah a bunch of real geniuses.

http://arbyte.us/blog_archive/2005/11/drevil_million_dollars.jpg

[Greyfox]

Hmmm? You're suggesting A Machiavelli twist......http://www.justresponse.net/machiavelli.jpg

Aw shucks. Machiavelli and Bush have already been compared as similar by Christos Lightweaver at
http://www.heartcom.org/MachMatrix.htm

[hcap]

It may be the plan originally conceived-forget the ethical and moral complications of invading another country thru' preemptive war-ain't gonna turn out as dreamed. A stroke of genius?

Juan Cole.....

"What is clear is that Dick Cheney's desperate bid to grab Iraq for US petroleum corporations and for proprietary contracts to supply the US is backfiring big time. Instead of reducing the importance of Saudi Arabia, Cheney and the Neocons have magnified it. Instead of bringing online a big new supplier (Iraq) they have actually reduced the average production from Iraq as compared to the days of the UN sanctions on Saddam! Instead of assuring the US position as a superpower by assuring it special access to Gulf petroleum through military means, Cheney and his friends have destabilized the key energy-producing regions of the world and are driving some producers to deliberately seek proprietary contracts with China s so as to avoid over-dependence on an overbearing US that openly announces it would like to overthrow their governments. (I'm thinking of Venezuela here; with tweaking the same thing could be said of Iran).

Cheney's militarism is too blunt an instrument for the delicate job of assuring US energy security. Nearly $90 a barrel is not security for us-- it is a threat to our economy. Prices may not stay this high all that long in the short term, since primary commodity markets to fluctuate. But as the peak oil people point out, no new big fields have been found or exploited for a very long time, and demand from China, India and elsewhere is growing rapidly. It is going to be an expensive or cold winter for a lot of Americans. It likely won't be the last. Courtesy in some part, the short-sighted and counter-productive policies of one of the country's most notorious traitors, Richard Bruce Cheney.

[delayjf]

Juan Cole has absolutely no strategic vision what so ever. By the by, a recent article I read was talking bout all the unexplored oil reserves yet untapped in Iraq - although don't tell that the Peak Oil numb-nuts they may drop their joint.

Juan Cole like the rest of the left has only one agenda - to bring down the United States as the premier super power in the world. You despise Bush / Cheney because they stand in the way of your agenda.

[hcap]

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66076/

Is It Game Over for U.S. Control of Iraqi Oil?
By Jack Miles, Tomdispatch.com. Posted October 25, 2007.

.....The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the U.S. occupation of Iraq may "safely" end. Yet if, by the same route, Iraq were to resume full and independent control over the world's third-largest proven oil reserves -- 200 to 300 million barrels of light crude worth as much as $30 trillion at today's prices -- a politically incorrect question might break rudely out of the Internet universe and into the mainstream media world, into, that is, the open: Has the Iraq war been an oil war from the outset?

.....When asked, Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq, agreed. "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," he said during a roundtable discussion at Stanford University. These confessions validated the suspicions of foreign observers too numerous to count. Veteran security analyst Thomas Powers observed in the New York Review of Books recently:
What it was only feared the Russians might do [by invading Afghanistan in the 1980s] the Americans have actually done -- they have planted themselves squarely astride the world's largest pool of oil, in a position potentially to control its movement and to coerce all the governments who depend on that oil. Americans naturally do not suspect their own motives but others do. The reaction of the Russians, the Germans, and the French in the months leading up to the war suggests that none of them wished to give Americans the power which [former National Security Adviser Zbigniew] Brzezinski had feared was the goal of the Soviets.

[Tom]

Jeff, let's let him in on the little secret.
Hcap, it WAS all about oil.
WE conservative all got EZ Pass type cards - when we buy gas, we pay $0.75 a gallon. It is suppose to be hush hus, but since you are a brother in racing, I have to let you in on it. Register as a republican, and you can get in it too. As a bonus, your get a list of all active CIA agents.

I might even talk them into letting me show your our secret handshake. You won't believe what it gets in strip joints! (Hint: the password is "Bill sent me!")

[hcap]

Oil, geopolitics ala Neocon style, Israel, and Megalomania ala Bush and Cheney.

Of course. WMDs not.

Problem is so far they screwed up da plans. Missunderestimating is their trademark.

Hold on to your EZ pass cards. You're gona need it when gas is $5 a gallon.
Funny you called it "EZ Pass". Explains the EZ pass you gave all the bushies' crap since day one :lol:

[delayjf]

Missunderestimating
Careful, you might find yourself on 46's "retarded list". Your right it's about the oil, if you lefties had just let us drill in the Artic like we asked none of this would have happened - it's all your fault. ;)

[46zilzal]

Careful, you might find yourself on 46's "retarded list". Your right it's about the oil, if you lefties had just let us drill in the Artic like we asked none of this would have happened - it's all your fault. ;)
WRONG author in said list

[hcap]

The Arctic has very little as compared to Iraq. Even so if bush owned the lucky ARCTIC drilling company somehow the real oil prize would still cause him and cheney mucho salivation.

Missunderestimating?????

Death penalty verdict--"This case has had full analyzation,"
On economics-- "If the terriers and bariffs are torn down," this economy will grow."

Ruff Ruff Ruff!! :lol:

This is the problem

http://www.newmediamusings.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_and_bush.jpg

[46zilzal]

. Your right it's about the oil, if you lefties had just let us drill in the Artic like we asked none of this would have happened - it's all your fault.
Spoken like another who has NO IDEA about ecological balance.
The more tenuous the environmental balance, the easier it is to upset it.

You mean that place called the ARCTIC?

[Tom]

You mean like Gearogia, where the lib envro-wackos are drying up the entire state in order to keep water flowing to endangered mussles? (Give me a friggin map and draw me some butter - I'll take care of the mussels!).

Or in Califonia, where 57 lawsuits have prevented REAL conservationists from cleaning up the tinder in the forrests that is now fueling destruction of homes?

Artic, arctic - get a life dube - focus on issue not your tendecny to try to prove yourself superior to everone else by constantly acting like a third grade teacher. Are you that scared of truth that you cannot discuss any topic? Or are you just desperate to spin?

[46zilzal]

Y

Or in Califonia, where 57 lawsuits have prevented REAL conservationists from cleaning up the tinder in the forrests that is now fueling destruction of homes?

Artic, arctic - get a life dube - focus on issue not your tendecny to try to prove yourself superior to everone else by constantly acting like a third grade teacher. Are you that scared of truth that you cannot discuss any topic? Or are you just desperate to spin?

When I first took a class on ecology on population genetics, I thought it would be boring crunching numbers all day. I was wrong and discovered how entire ecosystems are interdependent upon one another when the slightest change in one can have devastating interactions on others thousands of miles away.

What is a tinder anyway? If often helps to be able to communicate when trying to make points.

[46zilzal]

Y

Or in Califonia, where 57 lawsuits have prevented REAL conservationists from cleaning up the tinder in the forrests that is now fueling destruction of homes?

Artic, arctic - get a life dube - focus on issue not your tendecny to try to prove yourself superior to everone else by constantly acting like a third grade teacher. Are you that scared of truth that you cannot discuss any topic? Or are you just desperate to spin?

When I first took a class on ecology on population genetics, I thought it would be boring crunching numbers all day. I was wrong and discovered how entire ecosystems are interdependent upon one another when the slightest change in one can have devastating interactions on others thousands of miles away.

If often helps to be able to communicate when trying to make points.

[Tom]

Guess what.
Man is part of that ecology, and our need for oil is natural.
We destroy eco systems all the time - it's called building.
That is the benefit of being highest order of life.

What damage do you suppose the evrio-wackos are doing in Georgia and California?

Man has ALWAYS destroyed som ethings to build others. You live in a headston for an ecosystem your house destroyed. You bad man, you!


And on communications - why is always YOU who cannot follow along is a word is mis-spelled. 99.9% of the posters here are intelligent enough to understand the message.

[46zilzal]

Guess what.
Man is part of that ecology, and our need for oil is natural.

NATURAL??? another living in Fantasyland. The oil lobby has blocked alternative transportation since the days when the old Red Car electric train system was put out of business by Standard Oil in the 50's in the LA area.

Oil is about as natural as Carol Doda's breasts.

Ecological systems crash and the outcomes of every one of them studied, in the long term, was catastrophic. Man is just another organism in the scheme of things and the only one who thinks that nature doesn't relate to him.

[Tom]

Well why should I listen to you, you insignificant organism? :lol:

Hey, cow farts cause global warming.
Man destroys things to build things.
Locusts eat everyting - you got issues with locusts, man? You should.
You ever see a town after locusts eat everything? Not pretty.

Why do you not care about the damage locusts cause while you deny man his oil?

[delayjf]

Spoken like another who has NO IDEA about ecological balance.
Well, I could say the same thing about your knowledge of military matters and foreign policy.

[hcap]

A conspiracy usually is hidden. This one is is not. Like a magician drawing your attention away from "how" the trick is really done, the very exaggerated kernels of truth about WMDs and "remaking the Mid East" bamboozeled and drew the eye away from the real prize. Read the entire article

.................................................. ............................

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4922/

Why Did We Invade Iraq Anyway?
Putting a Country in Your Tank
by Michael Schwartz

The Rise of OPEC

The United States viewed Middle Eastern oil as a precious prize long before the Iraq war. During World War II, that interest had already sprung to life: When British officials declared Middle Eastern oil “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination,” American officials agreed, calling it “a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”

This led to a scramble for access during which the United States established itself as the preeminent power of the future. Crucially, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt successfully negotiated an “oil for protection” agreement with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. That was 1945. From then on, the U.S. found itself actively (if often secretly) engaged in the region. American agents were deeply involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 (to reverse the nationalization of Iran’s oil fields), as well as in the fateful establishment of a Baathist Party dictatorship in Iraq in the early 1960s (to prevent the ascendancy of leftists who, it was feared, would align the country with the Soviet Union, putting the country’s oil in hock to the Soviet bloc).

U.S. influence in the Middle East began to wane in the 1970s, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was first formed to coordinate the production and pricing of oil on a worldwide basis. OPEC’s power was consolidated as various countries created their own oil companies, nationalized their oil holdings, and wrested decision-making away from the “Seven Sisters,” the Western oil giants — among them Shell, Texaco, and Standard Oil of New Jersey — that had previously dominated exploration, extraction, and sales of black gold................

[46zilzal]

from State of Denial.
Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, complained to the C.I.A. director that the war was not going as well as Rumsfeld claimed. "These bastards in Washington have no idea what they're doing," Woodward quoted Abizaid as saying in one meeting.

[delayjf]

Irrelevant

[46zilzal]

Irrelevant
So is the entire debacle over there.

[JustRalph]

So is the entire debacle over there.

Then shut up about it..........

[46zilzal]

Afraid Not, the more people know about the ridiculousness of the Iraq war the better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Afraid Not, the more people know about the ridiculousness of the Iraq war the better.But it's irrelevant, according to you....you make as much sense as a talking brain stem.