BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

Hey Ron, care to take us through exactly how Petraeus reached out to the Sunni's?? If what you say is true you must have quite a comprehensive list.

Up until the point that they realised themselves that supporting the insurgents was counter to their best interests. The Sunni Arab population has always realised that the Iraqi Government have always treated them as, "just Iraqi citizens". The change Ron old son came from the Sunni Arab elements of Iraqi society, they finally realised that Al-Qaeda and the Ba'athist hold-outs were leading them nowhere, so they joined the political process just as I said they would have to and all of a sudden Al-Qaeda found themselves out in the cold -- Petraeus raching out to the Sunni's my arse.

"2) Al-Sadr has decided that lying low for a while is the best policy. But he and his forces will still be there when the US leaves."

Al-Sadr knows damn well that the Shia Arab population of Iraq will heed the word of Al-Sistani long before they will heed him. Al-Sadr has only once dared to face up to the US forces in Iraq and he came off decidely second best. The wilder elements of the Medhi Army have rucked up and have come in second to both Iraqi and US Forces arrayed against them. So tactician Ron believes that they are laying in wait until the US leaves Iraq, yet discounts for some reason that Iraqi forces have proved loyal to their Government and capable of taking on and defeating Al-Sadr's Medhi Army. Sorry Ron old son time is not on their side.

Al-Sadr stood his private Army down for one reason and one reason only Ron. He knew that if he put it into direct confrontation with the Government of Iraq and the MNF Troops stationed in Iraq, they would lose and lose heavily.

"3)   By far the most significant cause of the improvement in Iraq is the stupid, thug-like Puritanical behavior of Al-Qaeda.   As I've noted quite a few times, Al-Qaeda's insistence on trying to enforce its own brand of Islam by maiming and murder has alienated the only possible support it could have had in Iraq."

Well no shit Sherlock!!! I have been saying that for years, when did you jump onboard?? At one time you were prattling on about US actions in Iraq being Al-Qaeda's best recruiter. What happened to that line of reasoning??

"It's as if the Inquisition had been introduced into Iraq. Consider how popular the Inquisition was with Protestants."

Oh please Ron, for someone who confessed to the fact that you don't read source material and are totally reliant on taking at face value the reported opinions of others, please don't go making historical comparisons about which you know sweet FA.

Yes of course Ron let's consider how popular the Inquisition was with the Protestants - Care to tell us exactly in how many Protestant countries the Inquisition operated? By God you really are a Grade A Fuckin' Idiot

By all means let us, "consider how popular Cromwell's side was after his death". Oh Ron, historian extraordinaire, care to Google up a certain General Monck? Aw fuck it I'll save you the trouble. He was a Cromwellian General and Admiral responsible for keeping Scotland in line. He was also instrumental in organising and negotiating the Resoration of the Stuart Monarchy in 1660. Now let's see how much of Cromwell's system remained after the Restoration shall we Historian Ron?? Parliament - stayed exactly as it had been during Cromwells time, the power of the Monarch was severely restricted. The Army modelled by Cromwell, Fairfax and Halifax remained very much the instrument of the Parliament, not of the King. So much for a total end to Puritanism, by the bye who fed you all this shit - Mel bloody Gibson? Or some other Hollywood Wanker

By the bye Historian Ron in less than thirty years we decided to turf the Stuart Twat out, best thing that ever happened to the country - All done by Parliament of course - you know - the one that you contend was completely overthrown.

"If the US had left immediately after toppling Saddam," There would have been a civil war of gigantic consequence in Iraq and the middle-east would be aflame from end to end. If you are naive enough to believe for one moment that the US would have been loved and admired for their actions in the scenario you described then you are a bigger fool than even I know you to be. True enough anti-US feeling in Iraq would be non-existant mainly due to the fact that Iraq would be non-existant.

"And if al-Qaeda had behaved then as it is behaving now, there would have been absolutely no chance al-Qaeda could take over in Iraq. As there is no chance now. The presence of US soldiers makes absolutely no difference to this. Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy. And the tiger will not change his stripes."

Hells teeth Ron talk about stating the blindingly obvious!!! But back up a mo Ron. Al-Qaeda are only acting they way that they are now in Iraq because the US and MNF troops fought them to a standstill whenever Al-Qaeda attempted to take them on. Since March 2003 Al-Qaeda in Iraq have lost over 19,000 men, the majority of whom have fallen to actions by US soldiers. You are now telling us that the US troops had nothing to do with this?? I'd love to see the substatiation for that arguement.

"It's also interesting that Bush has been forced to eat his own words--and the US military is now accepting what Bush--and McCain--said would be a dreadful mistake--a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq."

Is there a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq Ron?? Care to give us a reference or source? That prick Obama is talking about 16 months but he'd be a complete and utter idiot to hold to that and ignore his commanders on the ground, after all up to now what the hell has Barak Obama ever commanded?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:11 PM

From the expert on the international oil industry - Jack the Sailor

"That insurgency has been blowing up pipelines."

Good heavens Jack has it !!!! Can you explain how Iraq is producing and exporting more oil now than since before 1990? Must be awfully difficult with all these pipelines being blown up, but what the hell the figures cannot lie.

"The civil war has also disrupted production."

Really Jack??? What "civil war is that? Please enlighten us all.

"There was a battle over the major oil port this year."

Oh yes so there was, a battle that the Iraqi Government forces won if I remember correctly, care to contradict me Jack?

"There are fears that the war will spread to Iran or to the Saudi side of the gulf or both."

Fears that what war will spread Jack?? The "civil war"?? The "War against terror"?? Or some other war that you are going to dream up??

"But no, the uncertainty over oil prices is because of Hugo Chavez."

Now who on earth said that the increase in the price of oil per barrel was solely due to that populist wanker Hugo Chavez?? You Jack the Sailor?? Certainly not me.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

9/11 could have been prevented had the US government had any desire to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

CarolC in her post of 19 Jul 08 - 12:24 PM states the following:

"The war is between the United States and "Terror". It is a declared war, and it has a budget. A staggeringly, astonishingly, toenail curlingly enormous budget. The theater (theatre) in which this war is being fought is"

World wide CarolC, and forgive me for stating the obvious but that fact was self-evident from the outset - Or doesn't your attention span accept that sort of conflict?

Here is a toenail curling thought CarolC. The ONLY time that the United States of America has EVER been SAFE since the end of the Second World War has been in that period between the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and when the Soviet Union conducting their first Atomic Test. After that you have always been at risk. Subsequent to the ending of the "Cold War", which the USA won hands down, the attacks of 11th September 2001 showed exactly how vulnerable you were.

Now then CarolC, and all your "fellow Bush bashing fellow travellers" the events of 11th September 2001 were brought about by 19 individuals, who caused more loss of life than the entire Japanise nation managed to do on 7th December 1941. Something for you to ponder CarolC, and please tell me how this would be impossible. What if those 19 individuals had check in luggage?

Check in luggage of the nuclear, chemical or biological variety? You certainly would not be able to take in a show on Broadway would you?   Well you did mention theatre didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:40 PM

Well I dunno Numbbber 6, you seemed to have forgotten to tell me how many times that the mainland of the USA has been successfully attacked since 11th September 2001. Or do facts like that sotra stick in yer craw.

After all you've ducked any question as to what the greatest threat to the United States of America is. So you just continue to bury your head in the sand sing, "La la la la" to yourself and once you've elected Obama to be your President and the pigeons come home to roost, just remember that on this forum there was at least one person posting that told you what your defence should have been.

Since the end of the Second World War there has been two times when the United Staes of America has been shown to be demonstrably weak:

- USA v Cuba - Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis

- USA V Iran - hostage crisis

Both under Democratic Administrations, both under Administrations and Presidents that are currently being likened to Barak Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:01 PM

All they need to do is to keep a lid on things until after the election.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM

I dunno Terribus ... remember Bush beating the patriotic drum ""You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror," .... the axis of evil and all that ... and here the U.S. is exporting bras to Iran ... did you ever think that these could make excellent sling launching devices so they could hurl nuclear warheads at us.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:24 PM

The war is between the United States and "Terror". It is a declared war, and it has a budget. A staggeringly, astonishingly, toenail curlingly enormous budget. The theater (theatre) in which this war is being fought is wherever the Bush administration thinks it should be fought. Currently, it is being fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and Iran, and other places by proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jts
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 11:41 AM

>>Iraq - Nope, they are currently fighting an insurgency with the aid of troops operating under UN Mandate, they are not fighting a war, they do not independently have the means to do so.<<

That insurgency has been blowing up pipelines.
The civil war has also disrupted production.
There was a battle over the major oil port this year.
There are fears that the war will spread to Iran or to the Saudi side of the gulf or both.

But no, the uncertainty over oil prices is because of Hugo Chavez.

LOLOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:43 AM

As I've also noted many times before, there is in fact a good role for US troops to play in"Kurdistan"--as a buffer against Turkish adventurism in trying to clamp down on the PKK. But the Kurds don't consider themselves part of Iraq--and never have wanted to be one.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:32 AM

One more thing. The Inquisition Al-Qaeda has introduced into Iraq is aimed at its fellow Sunnis, as well as Kurds and Shiites. What a surprise that the Inquisition is not popular.

And if there had been zero US troops in Iraq when Al-Qaeda did this, this reaction would not change one iota.

The "Surge" is totally irrelevant--and always has been.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

This is delightful.   It's nice to know you can depend on some things.

Specifically, Teribus continues his winning ways as a perfect negative indicator.

He thinks "the surge" has resulted in the improved Iraq situation.

Uh, actually what has resulted in the improved Iraq situation has 3 causes.

1) The US military has totally rejected Teribus' brilliant, yet, somehow self-defeating attitude, that all Sunnis are the same as unreconstructed Nazis at the end of World War II. Instead, under Petraeus, the approach has been to reach out to Sunnis--to consider them just Iraqi citizens--as I have advocated from the start--and Teribus has opposed. Now even the Shiite government has been dragged kicking and screaming into this changed approach. If Teribus' long-held views were still being adhered to, the improvement would be much less.

2) Al-Sadr has decided that lying low for a while is the best policy. But he and his forces will still be there when the US leaves.

3)   By far the most significant cause of the improvement in Iraq is the stupid, thug-like Puritanical behavior of Al-Qaeda.   As I've noted quite a few times, Al-Qaeda's insistence on trying to enforce its own brand of Islam by maiming and murder has alienated the only possible support it could have had in Iraq.

It's as if the Inquisition had been introduced into Iraq. Consider how popular the Inquisition was with Protestants. After all, both sides were Christian. Or consider how popular Cromwell's side was after his death. What kind of a reception did Charles II, who brought, among other things, a total end to Puritanism as a guide for rule, get? How popular are Puritans of any stripe these days?

If the US had left immediately after toppling Saddam, the anti-US feeling in Iraq would be practically non-existent.

And if al-Qaeda had behaved then as it is behaving now, there would have been absolutely no chance al-Qaeda could take over in Iraq. As there is no chance now. The presence of US soldiers makes absolutely no difference to this. Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy. And the tiger will not change his stripes.

It's also interesting that Bush has been forced to eat his own words--and the US military is now accepting what Bush--and McCain--said would be a dreadful mistake--a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

As the WSJ points out today 19 July 2008: this "marks a change of course for the White House, which had resisted attempts to set troop withdrawal goals, and reflects the unpopularity of the US presence among Iraqis."

The timetable is also Obama's approach. So Bush and McCain have to give in to reality--and Obama's plan for Iraq.

Teribus and his fellow hardliners strike out again.

Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:24 AM

Good article, I particularly liked this bit:

"The Trade, Sanctions, Reform, and Export Enhancement Act, adopted by Congress in 2000, was specifically intended to demonstrate that our policy targets the bad behavior of regimes, not innocent populations.

The expansion of some exports to Iran, over the past eight years, is a natural reflection of Congress's intent, as codified in that act, to expand access to American agriculture and medical experts.

It's only natural that experts would have risen in the years since 2000, as a result of that act.

It's important to note that exports to Iran, under this act, are licensed on a case-by-case basis, following a rigorous interagency review process.

... Our goal here has been to provide agricultural and medical products as well as other humanitarian goods and services that are useful to the Iranian people, because our quarrel is not with the Iranian people; our quarrel is with the Iranian government that continues to proceed down this path.

I understand that these exports have increased. However, we believe that they are increasing to a segment of the population that we want to reach out to, we want to know and understand that the U.S. government -- the U.S. people want to be friends with them, want to work with them to integrate them into the world economy and become partners in the future."

All very encouraging.

By the bye, No.6, "Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush" no. But there again that is not what President Bush has been saying -

"A nuclear armed Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush" and in that Bush is 100% correct, even the Russians would agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:43 AM

Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush .... well not according to Amerikan corporations.

You might find this interesting ...

U.S.A shipment of goods to Iran

Hmmmm ... some axis of evil

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:07 AM

In reply to some points put to me by PoppaGator in his post of 17 Jul 08 - 03:23 PM

Point 1:
"Iraq has "posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003" only because it posed no such threat prior to that date, either."

Well PoppaGator that was not how two committees specifically tasked with evaluating what the greatest threat to the United States of America found it quite independently in the last quarter of 2001.

I have often asked people on this forum to explain how that threat evaluation was so implausible, now I will ask you, based upon what was known about Iraq at the end of 2001, in what way did Iraq pose no threat to the USA PoppaGator?

Point 2:
"Since the invasion, however, Iraq has become more problematic for our country's safety than it ever was before then."

Really? Is there any doubt at all now about Iraq's ambitions with regard to pursuit of WMD and associated means of manufacture and delivery? No there is not - potential threat removed, making US safer. Is the Government of Iraq still sponsoring international terrorist organisations that are anti-US in nature? No they are not - source of funding for declared enemies of the US and her allies removed, making US safer. If you doubt any of that PoppaGator tell us all how many successful attacks have been carried out against mainland USA since 11th September 2001? How many have been attempted and have been thwarted?

An unpalatable fact for most of you I know, but you have been kept safer by George W Bush and his administration after the attacks of 11th September 2001, than you were by the Clinton administration after the attack on World trade Centre in 1993.

Point 3:
"Iraq has become a safe haven and a recruiting bonanza for Al Quida since that date, whereas it provided no such comfort for our real enemies before then."

PoppaGator when Al-Qaeda fled from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban, most went into hiding in NWFP of Pakistan, two notables however fled to Iraq. As to being a "Safe Haven", I'd rather call that into doubt, they've lost over 19,000 dead, they're leaderless, uncoordinated and have been driven out of every city in Iraq, mostly by US/MNF troops assisted by Iraqi troops, Police and citizen militia's. Even the Al-Qaeda leadership hiding in the tribal lands along the Afghan-Pakistan border admit that their "cause" in Iraq is as good as lost - so much for the "recruiting bonanza".

Point 4:
"Teribus, if you truly need Amos to explain how Islamic terrorists like Al Quioda and the Taliban are a threat to the US ~ implying that they are NOT, after, so very dangerous ~ can you explain why the hell our government has been sending large numbers of our young people, and much larger numbers of Iraqi civilians, to their deaths for the last five years and more?"

Your Government PoppaGator has concentrated on the greater threat, which, post-9/11, was not Al-Qaeda, it was not the Taleban. Independently Al-Qaeda had already done the worst it could possibly do and the US had weathered it, the US had pulled together the entire world to fight terrorism, from that point on Al-Qaeda has been on the run, they are still on the run to this day. On their own as they are today, Al-Qaeda poses little or no threat.

Now what was the greatest threat scenario again:

International terrorist organisation supported and backed by a rogue regime that possesses WMD and which is hostile to the United States of America and is prepared to provide WMD, WMD materials and WMD technology to that international terrorist group in order that an asymetric attack, or attacks, involving WMD could be mounted on the mainland of the United States of America designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties.

Bearing all that in mind PoppaGator, let's take a look at what has happened to that threat to the United States of America since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 - Note PoppaGator none of this would have happened had Iraq not been invaded:

- Iraq, Regime hostile to the USA removed from power; Iraq no longer athreat because of WMD programmes; Iraq no longer a state sponsoring international terrorist groups.

- Libya, regime hostile to the USA voluntarily abandoned its WMD programmes and materials including a nuclear weapons that was well advanced that nobody knew about. This nuclear disclosure blows the lid of the activities of Dr A. Q. Khan and stops them dead in their tracks.

- Iran, regime hostile to the USA (You don't scream "Death to America" every Friday of every year since 1979 without being basically hostile towards America), reportedly crash stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 according to last November's National Intelligence Evaluation. Wonder why the Iranians did that?

- North Korea, regime hostile to the USA, forced to take part in six party talks at the insistance of the USA and finally convinced to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.

PoppaGator that's the four leading contenders for the role of rogue state in the threat equation eliminiated - and you are trying to tell me that the US isn't safer!! And just to get things clear here - you have never ever been safe, but you have been a damn sight safer under your present President that you have ever been under any of his predecessors.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 04:51 AM

There is no such thing as a 'polite' war

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:19 AM

"The premium they have been paying for gas was to pay for their roads and public transport." - Jack the Sailor

Very very funny!!

I'm sorry Jack the Sailor, I mistook you for someone who was trying to make some sense. Continue with your farcical humour.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:16 AM

Well tell us Jack, where exactly is this "war" in the middle-east? Which sides are fighting it?

Or is this like this "civil war" that you lot were ranting about in Iraq that never happened?

Is there conflict in the middle-east? Of course there is. Is there fighting in the middle-east? Of course there is, but there is no war going in the middle-east. The only countries that might be described as being on anything remotely like a war footing at the moment are Iran and Lebanon. The first to convince their own population that they are facing an external threat and the latter to deter and prevent a civil war.   Shall we take a look at the others?

Egypt - Nope.

Israel - Nope, IDF not mobilised, they are however countering attacks by external terrorist groups that are supposedly attempting to hold a "ceasefire" while they regroup and rearm for the next equally meaningless and futile bash at Israel.

Lebanon - See above

Turkey - Nope, but some internal security problems associated with their Kurdish population which has resulted in conflict and fighting, involving "hot pursuit" raids into northern Iraq. As Turkey still remains a popular European tourist holiday destination, I would venture to suggest that they are not at war with anyone.

Syria - Nope.

Palestine - Nope, although different terrorist groups within the West Bank and Gaza are fighting for their lives, both groups are currently supposed to be maintaining a "ceasefire", neither group has the capablity to wage war on any country's armed forces.

Jordan - Nope.

Kuwait - Nope.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Nope.

Yemen - Nope.

Oman - Nope.

United Arab Emirates - Nope.

Iraq - Nope, they are currently fighting an insurgency with the aid of troops operating under UN Mandate, they are not fighting a war, they do not independently have the means to do so.

Iran - See above.

Well that's about it I don't think that I have left anybody out and having checked the BBC World Service, guess what? Nobody in the middle-east is at war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:01 PM

So let's see. It's not a war... it's not an occupation... I guess that means it's a day at the beach!

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:52 PM

But much the same number of troops. For much the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:57 PM

"the difference between a surge and an escalation" - that's easy. It only has half the number of letters.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

When is a war not a war?

When Teribus says so. Just ask him. To be a war, a war must first meet Teribus's requirements. And they are...........???

As far as paying a premium for gas, though, well I think everyone in Europe has been doing that for quite a long time now, haven't they? North America is slowly catching up to reality in that regard. We travel much longer distances on average in North America, we commute to work in cars much more than Europeans do and we commute farther, we have far less public transit than other developed nations do, and we have long benefited from our comparatively low fuel prices which were, I suppose, tailored to fit our car-oriented lifestyle. That is going to change now that gas is becoming more expensive, and it may get North America to finally give good public transit the importance it deserves.

I know that people around where I live are doing a lot less long distance driving now if they can possibly manage it, and they are finding other alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

"JTS, JTS, JTS: If Obama is listening to Chuck Hagel, God help us all!"

Yes DougR, We know, we know... Anyone who does not toe the current Republican party line is evil incarnate.

Yawn....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

DougR,

The premium they have been paying for gas was to pay for their roads and public transport. The premium we now pay is being used to fund whabi terrorists sponsored by Saudi pals of your buddy Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

LOL

"There is no war in the middle-east"

Very very funny!!

I'm sorry Teribus, I mistook you for someone who was trying to make some sense. Continue with your farcical humour.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM

Donuel: If you know some Iraqis "over here" that want to fight, I suggest you call Homeland Security.

JTS, JTS, JTS: If Obama is listening to Chuck Hagel, God help us all!

Teribus: I was wondering when one of you folks across the pond was going to call your American cousins on our whine factor over the cost of gasoline. I was a bit shocked to learn, during my first trip to Ireland, that you folks have been paying a premium for gasoline for years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

"Did you get those "factors" from the main stream media?"

Answer - No.

"You don't think that War in the Middle East trumps uncertainty in those other places?"

Answer - There is no war in the middle-east, or there wasn't last time that I checked the world news. Exports of oil from the middel-east have not been disrupted since the Iraqi Forces were expelled from Kuwait in 1991.

"You don't think it (non-existant war in the middel-east) trumps all other concerns?"

Answer - No I do not.

"Its not supply and demand. There is plenty of supply on the world market and OPEC isn't pumping at anywhere near full capacity."

Answer - Are you saying that demand for fuel has not risen? Of course there are adequate supplies, but supply of crude oil is only one part of thge equation, or don't you realise that. OPEC are not the ony suppliers and why should they pump at full capacity if to do otherwise suits their national interests better. Remember Jack National Oil Companies own 93% of the world's oil while those big bad oil companies only control 7%. "Its not supply and demand" - Oil like anything else is a commodity and as far as the market value of it is concerned it is ALL a question of supply and demand.

"Refining capacity? How does a lack of refining capacity do anything but DEFLATE the price per barrel?"

This might come as startling news to you Jack the Sailor but very few people use crude oil, it has to be refined into a form that can be used as fuel. Now it would appear that according to your logic that if there are too few refineries price of a barrel of oil will go down. Now why should that be? Is it because you think that those who own the oil are different from those who refine the oil? Who are in turn different from those who distribute the oil and sell it? If so how touchingly quaint and "Camberwick Green" in nature. Besides it should be blindingly obvious that it is the demand for the refined product that determines the cost of the raw material per barrel, that along with a few other costs that have to be factored in.

"You think the refiners are handing over checks saying "I can't refine that much, but ship it to me anyway. i just love sitting on billions in inventory."

Answer - The "refiners" as you refer to them are either National Oil Company owned facilities or are owned by Oil Companies. They, along with speculators sit on oil by the tanker load waiting to see which way the market will go and where best to sell

"There is no lack of resources to bring new supplies on line the oil companies are awash with cash."

Answer - Oh, so the only resource required to bring new supplies on line is cash is it Jack the Sailor? Again a rather naive view of the real world. Now then Jack with oil at $145 per barrel how many people (nations) who have oil in their territories will be eager to exploit that wealth? Lots? All of them I would have said, all over the world. Any idea what it takes to find oil and get it to the "gas" station Jack, it takes a damn sight more than just money. I'll give you an example of things where the lead time on hardware is measured in terms of years - Wellheads, blow-out preventers, flexible pie the list goes on and on down through a whole rake of specialist expertise and equipment that is in short supply because of the world-wide scramble to produce oil. That Jack the Sailor was one thing the Kurds in Iraq were very well tuned into, that is why they were in such a rush to enter into contracts to get their oil programmes running. Doesn't matter how much money you've got Jack the Sailor if there are no rigs available for drilling your oil stays where it is.

"The "uncertainty" problems with the three countries you mentioned are largely a consequence of the belliocose behavior of the Bush administration and the oil comapnies."

Answer - Really? Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela? Now let's see:

Nigeria - Internal problems mainly to do with lack of equitable distribution of the oil wealth within the country principally in the oil producing regions of the country (Ibo). Now I do not see GWB or the USA featuring large in that scenario. (33.3% of the way there)

Russia - When the USSR collapsed western oil companies were welcomed in to boost Russian production. Once that was done the Russian Government started grabbing stuff back, which quite naturally caused investors to become more cautious and western firms viewed the area as being not worth the hassle. Russia signed energy deals with western Europe and when disputes have arisen between the Russians and her newly independent neighbours (primarily the Ukraine) the Russians promptly turned the taps off, not a very good move to inspire customer confidence. Once again I do not see GWB or the USA featuring large in that scenario. (Now 66.7% of the way there)

Venezuela - Much the same as Russia in that Chavez has acted in such a way as to scare off foreign investment and technical know how. This ultimately has a price for Venezuela's oil industry further down the line, you cannot just produce you must carry out down-hole maintenance to keep the reservoirs healthy, Chavez is not doing this and the industry world-wide knows it. Nothing whatsoever to do with GWB or the USA in that scenario. (Home)

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM

>>Factors affecting the rise in the price of oil per barrel:
- Increased demand world-wide but especially from countries such as India and China.
- Lack of refining capacity world-wide
- Lack of resources to bring new developments on-stream quick enough
- Political uncertainty particularly in Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela as major suppliers.
<<

Did you get those "factors" from the main stream media? The media dominated by Exxon and BP adverts?

You don't think that War in the Middle East trumps uncertainty in those other places?
You don't think it trumps all other concerns?

Its not supply and demand. There is plenty of supply on the world market and OPEC isn't pumping at anywhere near full capacity.

Refining capacity? How does a lack of refining capacity do anything but DEFLATE the price per barrel? You think the refiners are handing over checks saying "I can't refine that much, but ship it to me anyway. i just love sitting on billions in inventory."

There is no lack of resources to bring new supplies on line the oil companies are awash with cash.

The "uncertainty" problems with the three countries you mentioned are largely a consequence of the belliocose behavior of the Bush administration and the oil comapnies.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

The worse potential specific security threat to mainland USA would be the detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city. I think everyone is well aware of that risk, and it's in the back of everyone's mind.

There are numerous disaffected groups who would no doubt like to do just that, but they would have to acquire such a weapon first and then get the weapon onto (or very near) American soil to do it. The easiest way to do that would be to bring it in on a ship and detonate it in the harbour of some American city.

This is something that I'm sure is keeping American security forces busy on a fulltime basis...and let's hope to hell it never happens...because if it ded it would be a total disaster and it would only lead to even greater tragedies not long afterward. It would inevitably cause further wars to occur, as some country would get fingered with the blame (whether or not they really planned it).

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:44 AM

Jack the Sailor

One small correction about the 2005 Bush Thansgiving in Iraq.

He was photographed offering a resin fake turkey to the troops.

The irony of this is too great to ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 04:02 AM

JtS, if you'd been paying 2 dollars a gallon for "gas" for the last 20 years you would have paid for a nation-wide free health service; you would have paid for your new schools, bridges and roads.

The whingers in the US who complain about fuel prices should get it into their thick heads that you have been given cheap "gas" for far, far too long - You are picking up the tab now - join the rest of us in the real world. The rise in the price of oil per barrel has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, I mean how could it the latter does not export any and the former's has supposedly been under embargo and sanctions since 1990, and even when it did export oil it was ranked 17th in the order of oil exporting countries.

Factors affecting the rise in the price of oil per barrel:
- Increased demand world-wide but especially from countries such as India and China.
- Lack of refining capacity world-wide
- Lack of resources to bring new developments on-stream quick enough
- Political uncertainty particularly in Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela as major suppliers.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:26 AM

No the worst security threat to the USA is keeping all those soldiers in Iraq,
Borrowing money from China to keep a lid on their civil war;
Watching our military slowly waste away in deployment after pointless deployment.
Building schools and roads over there while ours crumble,
Paying 4 dollars a gallon of gas while they pay 40 cents.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:03 AM

So the upshot of that Amos is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda can only really now cause trouble in Afghanistan and in certain areas of Pakistan. Should Al-Qaeda mount a "terrorist spectacular" it would at worst case be no worse than 9/11. Sorry chumps that is not the greatest direct security threat that the United States of America is exposed to, and two independent bodies within the USA came to that conclusion way back in 4th Quarter of 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:17 PM

"As for the Northern Alliance, they were just a bunch of vicious warlords who were fighting for turf with the Taliban and I suspect that they are just as nasty a bunch of people as the Taliban...but for the USA the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...and the same went for the Northern Alliance."

so true L.H. ... pirates and drug marketeers. The U.S. has a very nasty habit of shaking hands with the devil.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:11 PM

Much of the stuff that I've read about Al Queda leads me to believe that Al Queda never would have come into being without the CIA to build it up in the first place. They did that in order to destabilize the Russian presence in Afghanistan and the Caspian region. Their intention was to use extreme Muslim fundamentalism to break up and exhaust the Soviet empire, and they eventually succeeded in that aim.

"Al-Queda" literally means "The Database". The reason for that is probably linked to an enormous database that the CIA kept of all the names and identities of all the Muslim fighters they had recruited and trained and assisted in the 70's and 80's to do damage to the Russians.

So the USA basically inspired and trained both the forerunners of the Taliban and Al Queda through the efforts of the CIA.

As for the Northern Alliance, they were just a bunch of vicious warlords who were fighting for turf with the Taliban and I suspect that they are just as nasty a bunch of people as the Taliban...but for the USA the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...and the same went for the Northern Alliance.

I think that Al Queda, as it was originally marketed to the American public, is for the most part a mythical entity...in this sense: it is not nearly as united, large, powerful, and well organized a group as it has been presented to be. The worldwide Al Queda network that the media has been blathering about in order to scare people and create a justification for an endless war is probably a myth for the most part...but it's a very powerful myth that is also believed by Muslims. Therefore you now have a vast number of disaffected and angry young Muslim men who would like to join "Al Queda" because the world media has convinced them that there IS such an Al Queda to join.

It becomes a case of life imitating "art" (propaganda in this case). ;-) Then too, you have a few quite serious characters who were in it from the start, and it is in their interests also that the world should imagine that Al Queda is this huge, powerful organization with cells all over the place...because that helps them recruit more foolish young jihadists from the Muslim population worldwide.

Now all of that is absolutely great if you want an endless war. By all accounts, Bin Laden wants such a war. So does the USA military industrial complex. Therefore I would say that they are both in it together, and they share the blame for it. They are enemies who need each other and whose existence is mutually convenient for each other in various ways...although they also detest one another and try to kill each other whenever possible.

The world would be far better off if both of them just went away to some other planet and let the rest of us alone here to build a peaceful community of nations. But they won't. Things are never that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:06 PM

OK ... if that is so, Surge II is justified (McCain and Obama are correct) ... but to make it really work it should overflow into Pakistan. Now that would really lite up a shitstorm wouldn't it.

Now, the purpose of the Al-Qaeda's resentment (understatement) of the U.S. is their presence in the middle east (holy territory so to speak) ... am I correct? Is this hatred going to get shoved out of the hearts and minds of the young Islamists by the presence and brute force of (infidel) military troops in their lands?

If I'm wrong on this please direct to the correct solution. Otherwise I can only assume that this whole crusade is for the sole purpose of empire building ... making Wolfowitz's strategy and dream come true.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:50 PM

Explain it again, please--the difference between a surge and an escalation?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:35 PM

This weeks Economist agrees with you Amos.

Special report on Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:54 PM

The Taliban hosted Al Queda during its formative years under bin Laden, after the Russians left Afghanistan; prior to that Al Queda, in a sort of amorphous form, was nurtured by the CIA in an effort to make Afghanistan into "the USSR's Vietnam".

The Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden during the first few weeks after 9-11, first pretending he was not in country and then woffling about turning him over, playing a very narrow, duplicitous role during that period.

In doing so they brought down upon themselves the wrath of the Bush Administration and, thereby, the US military supporting the anti-Taliban northern Alliance.

SInce then, according to what I have read, they have regrouped in the hard remote hill country and are continuing to promote harsh Sharia culture of the most extreme sort, muster recruits against the US in Iraq and provide al Qeda with support and cover.

I don't know these for facts, but they seem to be the pattern.

Anyone have any better data? I am open for education.





A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:43 PM

But then again ... retaining and adding troops in the Afgan is really about empire building, isn't it ... under the (marketing) guise of fighting the terroists.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:39 PM

Has the Afghani posed any real direct threat to the U.S. ???

as far as I know Al-Qaeda is an organization without any definite country.

That's why surge II is just another fruitless attempt to crush them ... costing a lot of $$money$$, let alone human life and just adds more fuel to the already volatile mid-east in it's distrust, hatred of the U.S. in specific.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:22 PM

Doug.... Doug ..

Bush went over there in Thanksgiving 2005 and handed out turkey legs. He went through about 6 or 7 commanders "on the ground" in Iraq at CENTCOM and in the ambassador's chair before he found ones telling him things he wanted to hear.

Doug.... Doug .. Doug....

Obama is going on tour for exactly the same reason as McCain did. He's doing it for the photo ops.

Doug.... Doug .. Doug.... Doug ..

Obama is good BECAUSE he listens to other people!!

He listens to Chuck Hagel!

Wall Street Journal Article

Apparently in McCain universe, one cannot make informed decisions by reading reports and talking to knowledgeable people.

>>>Sen. John McCain heaped praise on Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican who opposes the Iraq war and who has said he would consider joining Democrat Barack Obama's ticket. While Hagel sees the war in Iraq much like Obama does, McCain said that Hagel's views were understandable because he has made an "informed decision" and Obama has not.<<<

Apparently Mr. McCain had to burn his fingers as a child to know that the stove was hot and he hasn't learned anything except through experience since then. That would explain his opinions on abortion and women's birth control at least.

McCain didn't learn anything on his trips to Iraq. He didn't even learn there was a difference between Al Qaeda and Shiite militants, even though Lieberman told him twice.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: skipy
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:54 PM

Bring our boys & girls home & turn the whole area to obsidion
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:53 PM

Its all twoo! Even General Petraus was bumped upstairs and yet another general was put in charge.

When McCain went to Iraq he was not even a presumptive nominee, but he did brag about buying 3 carpets for only $5.

Hey Doug I know some Iraqis over here. You wanna fight them?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM

Amos: One of the great things about our country is we are allowed to form our own opinions. Even if they are wrong.

JTS: I agree that if the only thins Obama tours in Iraq with his entourage of TV network stars and some 200 other journalists visit only the kind of sites you describe, little will be gained from making the trip. I don't know why he is going anyway, other than the fact that McCain shamed him into it. If he is as brilliant as Amos seems to believe he is, he really doesn't need anyone to advise him at all! Generals on the ground, or experts in any other subject one can name.

PoppaGator: I'm sure Teribus will reply to you on his own, but my two cents to your last paragraph is simple: to keep those same young people from having to fight them here!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM

Iraq has never posed any credible threat to the USA...other than a little scheme Saddam once had to blow up George Bush Sr when he was visiting the Middle East some time after the Gulf War. I can't really blame Saddam for having pondered such a plan at that time... ;-) But in any case, such a plan does not constitute what I would term "a threat to the USA".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:45 PM

>>It is also abundantly clear that Iraq has posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003.

Since that date,
The Iraqis have killed 4,000 Americans,
They have wound tens of thousands
The have driven up oil prices thus damaging the economy.
They have cost 750 million in direct costs and maybe a trillion indirect.
They are a major factor in the current economic crises and the decline of the dollar.

Otherwise they are no threat.

Why would they come here to hurt us when they can bleed us to death over there?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

"War is over. The surge has succeeded!"


                   Good! California needs its national guard back to fight wild fires.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:23 PM

Iraq has "posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003" only because it posed no such threat prior to that date, either.

Since the invasion, however, Iraq has become more problematic for our country's safety than it ever was before then. Iraq has become a safe haven and a recruiting bonanza for Al Quida since that date, whereas it provided no such comfort for our real enemies before then.

Teribus, if you truly need Amos to explain how Islamic terrorists like Al Quioda and the Taliban are a threat to the US ~ implying that they are NOT, after, so very dangerous ~ can you explain why the hell our government has been sending large numbers of our young people, and much larger numbers of Iraqi civilians, to their deaths for the last five years and more?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:30 PM

Amos, can you explain to us exactly how today Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a threat to the United States of America? It is also abundantly clear that Iraq has posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003.