BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:59 PM

"other intellectual giants"--like himself, of course

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:49 PM

Oh dear. (smile) Such nastiness. Such snottiness.

Why does it always have to come down to personal attacks on a poster you happen to disagree with about something, Ron?

My point is that all great powers practice grand imperial strategy. The USA does, and has been doing so ever since Teddy Roosevelt's era, if not before. Britain does and has done so since the time of Queen Elizabeth the 1st. France did also, but took a few setbacks here and there...thus their profile is a bit lower than it used to be. Russia does...has also taken some setbacks. Spain once did. Holland once did. Belgium once did. China does. Lesser powers also often practice more localized imperial strategy, but they necessarily do it on a more limited scale.

The USA is the greatest power in the world at the moment, so its plans rank in the affairs of other nations than some of its competitors, but they all do it. Because the USA is number one right now, it is hated by many people. As such, it's in the position that Britain once was or that Rome once was.

History repeats itself....but the weapons grow ever more destructive. And the world gets smaller. And the stakes get higher.

I don't like arguing with you, Ron, because you keep descending to really quite vicious personal attacks on me, laden with ill feeling. It's not healthy for me even to get drawn into responding to them, and that's why I often don't.

Really, man. Your attitude is poisonous.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Neil D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 11:01 PM

"He says that the point was that *IF* Saddam was allowed to remain in power, he would eventually have attempted to control the Strait of Hormuz, and thus have the power to cut OFF large amounts of the world's oil supply!"
   So Mr. Greenspan is saying we are now involved in a chaotic situation which will cost about 2 trillion dollars, many tens of thousands of lives and the respect of the rest of the world because Saddam would have "eventually" "attempted" to cut off the world's oil supply. Was this fiscal responsibilty?.
   Would someone like to speculate how soon Saddam Hussein, dealing with international sanctions, hostile neighbors and a population divided religiously, ethnically and tribally, would have been in position to threaten takeover of the Strait of Hormuz. Five years? Ten? Anytime soon? Would his neighbors in the region who also ship oil though the Strait have been sitting idly by all this time. Are we providing muscle for Iran as well as the Saudi Royal Family. (Iran has benefitted more than anyone from this fiasco.) How pre-emptive is too pre-emptive?
   By the way, Mr. Greenspan this rationale for war, the threat of cutting off our oil supply, is awkwardly close to sounding like the reason Japan felt it necessary to attack us in 1941.
   Sounds to me like another will o' wisp like WMDs and links to Al Qaeda. These never existed and the best intelligence of the "Liberal Media" knew better during the build-up to catastrophe in '02 and '03.
This administration had no good non-imperialistic reason for starting this war. And having done so, they have done a piss poor job of executing it. Their wrong-headed immorality is only matched by their incompetence.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 11:22 PM

" So Mr. Greenspan is saying we are now involved in a chaotic situation which will cost about 2 trillion dollars, many tens of thousands of lives and the respect of the rest of the world because Saddam would have "eventually" "attempted" to cut off the world's oil supply."

No...he is saying that he, (Greenspan), is admitting/agreeing that Saddam's 'probable' attempt would have been a justifiable reason to pre-empt him, NOT that it is the excuse that was used. [That's as close as I can come to Greenspan's convoluted, layered logic and explanation.] Greenspan also admits that he used to carefully spend several minutes saying almost nothing in rambling sentences to reporters, in order to obfuscate what was really being decided.

That's why I say that it is not a good idea to over-simplify what Greenspan 'seems' to have said and toss out boiled down synopses....as I have just done. *wry grin*

It is a big mess...and Bush obviously does NOT like Greenspan saying these things because it sounds like he is indicting Bush & Co. for all these motives which they are not about to admit to.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 11:23 PM

Contrary to your suggestion, Ron, I do not regard capitalism as a vast imperialist conspiracy. The USA's efforts to build a worldwide financial empire backed by its military might would be going ahead right now regardless of whether the US was capitalist or not. The USA could have NO capitalism whatsoever, and it would still be out empire-building...it would just be doing it in not quite the same fashion, that's all...as far as certain details of protocol went. The end result would be quite similar, though. Small countries would be attacked and strategic resources would be gobbled up to fill the appetite of the Superpower.

I mean, hey, did being opposed to capitalism stop Stalin or Mao from empire-building? I don't think so. ;-)

I am not attempting to demonize capitalism, Ron. I favor a system that mixes capitalism and socialism in a harmonious fashion...which is approximately what we already have right now in most western nations.

I would favor having a World Court and a United Nations that could effectively prosecute and stop ANY nation on this planet from launching a so-called pre-emptive (meaning: FIRST) attack on another nation. We don't have that right now. We have a world court, but it's quite helpless to prevent a superpower from doing what it wants to do...as has been demonstrated in the past.

The World Court censured the USA in the 80's for various illegal attacks on Nicaragua. The USA ignored that ruling. The United Nations did not support or endorse the USA's attack on Iraq in 2003. The USA ignored that also, and did exactly what it wanted to do.

The world, as a community, is completely helpless to prevent the most militarily powerful few nations from doing what they want to do...and all the smaller countries know that. That's why the USA is so hated around much of the world today. It's a bully. It's an international outlaw, and that is quite clear to most people who are not Americans...and even to some who are Americans.

But it has always been this way with the most powerful nations in the world at any given time in our past history. They all act like outlaws whenever they know...or at least think...they can do it with impunity.

Germany did. Japan did. Italy did. Rome did. Alexander did. Persia did. Egypt did. Russia did. Great Britain did. France did. China did. Spain did. The USA did. The USA is just the latest top dog...the best armed and most aggressive bully in the world at the moment. That is why the USA has many enemies across the world, and it is why the USA is in fear of being attacked by terrorists. Not because they hate democracy...not because they hate freedom...because they hate the USA's imperial policies.

A century from now, it'll be someone else. Every dog has his day, and then it passes.

I'm just criticizing the biggest bully of the present era, Ron...much like Nathan Hale, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and their revolutionary compadres did in the 1770s. They were the radicals then. They were the "terrorists" who dared challenge the world order of their day. They were the little guys who dared face the imperial bully of their era. The biggest bully then...the one they had to deal with...was Great Britain.

These things change as time goes by.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

I think if Saddam had ever attempted to control the Strait of Hormuz, he would have been going straight into another war with Iran...a country of far greater strength in depth than Iraq. It would not have gone well for him. Any attempt by Saddam to control the Strait of Hormuz would have led to an immediate Iranian response AND probably also a multi-national attack on Saddam by other powers, and that would have proven fatal to his purpose.

Saddam was really capable of doing just one thing effectively: controlling Iraq. That he could do.

No one else has proven capable of doing it since, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:18 AM

Close, Bill... but not exactly.

NYTimes today...
-Mr. Greenspan, of course, had been the ultimate Washington insider for years, and knew full well that politicians cited his words selectively to suit their agendas. He was also legendary for ducking delicate issues by, as he once said, "mumbling with great incoherence."-

There are two things of great importance to America in the Middle East...

Oil... and Isreal.

Both are central to the US economy.

Oil will inevitably follow the narrow chasms of economic causality... before, during, and after the wars that are fought over who controls it.

Isreal, on the other hand... is subjected to vastly different circumstances, than say, your average commodity, or the exchange currency in which it is dealt.

Since the nation of Isreal was created rather recently by Western interjection... Insuring that Isreal and her neighbors shall live in peaceful and mutual prosperity is the responsibility of the western world at large... and this, I believe, is the crux of the modern Middle East's terrible incitefulness.

If war was ever the answer to the middle east's problems, why hasn't peace ever lasted there?

I suppose it's time to do our best to heal the relations throughout the Middle East... and it's my contention that a true world-wide coalition could be easily gathered and fruitfully dispatched so as to facilitate mutual growth and well being amongst Isreal and her neighbors... and thereby... make the world a great deal safer.

Good solid self-realized infrustructures in prosperous self-guided republics (do I mean democracies?) that concern themselves about benefitting the well-being of their neighbors... these are the best and longest lasting threats to terrorism ever devised.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:35 AM

"I'm just criticizing the biggest bully of the present era, Ron...much like Nathan Hale, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and their revolutionary compadres did in the 1770s. They were the radicals then. They were the "terrorists" who dared challenge the world order of their day. They were the little guys who dared face the imperial bully of their era. The biggest bully then...the one they had to deal with...was Great Britain" - Little Hawk

Utter crap LH, the "American's" war of independence had a bit more to do with the colonists desire to expand west into the Ohio and Wabash Basin. To do that they had to break atreaty made between the British Government and the Native Americans after the the War of 1754. Britain's track record was that they tended in general to abide by the treaties they made. Radicals? certainly that, land hungry slave owners and hypocrites to a man.

"That's because now even they recognize that Carter was right all along. If the country had made itself energy independant as Carter was trying to do, none of this Iraq stuff ever would have happened." - Riginslinger

Now how would the USA being energy independent have prevented, Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait?

How would the USA being energy independent have prevented Al-Qaeda's attacks on the World trade centre (1993), the US Embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?

How would the USA being energy independent have negated the USA's obligations under bilateral treaties to her allies?

How would the advice given to the President of the USA, with regard to threat evaluation, have been any different in the wake of 911 than it was had the US been energy independent.

Once again for the umpteenth time - The US does not get any significant proportion of its oil from the middle-east - if you do not believe me then take a look at the daily import figures and remember that those imports count for less than 50% of the oil needs of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:41 AM

"The current Iraq war started more than twenty years later, and had nothing to do with Israel."

I agree, but George's Daddy did have a 'thunk' about 'doing the job while they were there' a decade before ... just that the various Arab cousins were not on side at that time...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:44 AM

"those imports count for less than 50% of the oil needs of the USA."

But without that percentage, the USA would be in chaos - remember the 70s? Lines at petrol pumps, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:25 AM

"There are two things of great importance to America in the Middle East...

Oil... and Isreal."



                  I agree with that, and I understand "oil..."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

"Utter crap LH, the "American's" war of independence had a bit more to do with the colonists desire to expand west into the Ohio and Wabash Basin. To do that they had to break atreaty made between the British Government and the Native Americans after the the War of 1754. Britain's track record was that they tended in general to abide by the treaties they made. Radicals? certainly that, land hungry slave owners and hypocrites to a man."

Hey! That's a really interesting take on the subject, Teribus...and I would agree with it to a VERY considerable extent. Surprised? ;-) I am always willing to agree with one of my erstwhile opponents on this forum when he says something that makes sense to me...even if I don't usually get along with him.

I wish more people here were capable of that sort of equanimity when discussing a subject, any subject, but they let their personal vendettas get in the way, it seems.

I think you said it, though, because you're not an American. You're from the UK. If you were an American, you would not have said it...nor would it have even occurred to you.

I like to see people who can think outside their own cultural box.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM

**pedant alert, pedant alert!**

Israel folks..not "Isreal"

**end pedant alert**

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:20 PM

Funny that! When I said it, I was swarmed by a bunch of Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:25 PM

'Israel folks..not "Isreal"'


          Whoops!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:27 PM

is real astute of you, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

Just say it "Is...Ra...El" in your mind and you won't get it wrong.

Kind of like "New...Clee...Ar". It's not really hard when you break up the word into bite-sized parts.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:26 PM

Thanks, Bill... at least I was consistant tho, and with a record 5 mis-spellings of the same six letter word in a single post... (sheepish grin)... I'm hoping to be saved by a clone perhaps a little past the nick of time.

Though I do intend to persue 'strong points' in my endeavors... spelling may be beyond my grasp in this lifetime.

Please accept this... as my formal appology... or is that apoledgy... or, maybe it's apalligy...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 07:14 PM

That's apalligly bad spelling...

Sorry, Told in the Node...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 07:52 PM

In any event, Joe Lieberman won't spell it wrong. It was all about Is-ree-al for him.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:11 PM

Well said, foolestroupe, I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:25 PM

You don't have to stand on Ceremony Thomas...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 10:25 PM

we aims to be helpful..

(I use a ...checks as I type, 'cause I get these dyslexic fits)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 10:50 PM

Two bumper stickers seen recently:

How many people have to die for a barrel of oil?

It's hard to convince people you're helping them while killing them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 11:00 PM

No, please...! Don't hold back on my account... I insist!

Do be so good as to rub my nose in it... to the utmost...

And remember, old boy... the little humourous snub at the conclusion?...

OK then... off you go!
;^)ttr

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 12:23 AM

Is it mere embarrassment you want, Thomas, or total absolute humiliation? We aim to please... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 12:57 AM

I wouldn't be makin' any unnecessary plans there Little Hawk... an ewe can jus' tell ol' Chongo ta lay off the sauce fer a coupla days... ;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 01:00 AM

"those imports count for less than 50% of the oil needs of the USA."

But without that percentage, the USA would be in chaos - remember the 70s? Lines at petrol pumps, etc? - Foolestroupe.

USA uses 20 million barrels per day, it imports approximately half of that, mostly from Canada and Venezuela. What it gets from the Persian Gulf region is minute, what it is supposed to be "stealing" from Iraq is miniscule and they are paying market price for it.

By the bye, Foolestroupe, you are talking about events that happened nearly 40 years ago, the world and the Oil & Gas industry has changed a great deal since those days. As far as Iraq's oil goes the US did very well without it for the best part of 17 years.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 01:15 AM

Yeah. So I guess we Canadians had better not cut off the USA's oil, eh, Teribus? ;-) Don't worry, it ain't gonna happen! Never, never, never. We wouldn't dream of doing anything so rash.

Say, I was wondering...do you only respond to people on this forum when you disagree with them? Is agreement and common ground just not challenging or exciting enough to merit a response?

I think it's possible to get addicted to arguing merely for arguing's sake, and I see a lot of that on this forum. I see a lot of it on public affairs shows on TV too. It's stupid and counterproductive. not one of those "talking heads" on the TV seems to give a damn what anyone else says...they just want to score points. They act like they were fighting a war rather than having a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 01:45 AM

US Oil imports...November 2005

Canada-18%
Mexico-15%
Saudi Arabia-12%
Nigeria-12%
Venezuela-10%
Angola-6%
Iraq-5%
Algeria-3%
Columbia-3%
Ecuador-3%
UK-2%
Kuwait-2%
Equatorial Guinea-1%
Norway-1%

and the remaining 7% comes from:

Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China (both mainland and Taiwan), Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Midway Islands, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Oman, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Viet Nam, and Yemen.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,folkiedave- cookieless in Spain
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 05:54 AM

No chance of the USA invading Iraq to protect future needs then?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 09:19 AM

Where have you been for teh last few years, folkiedave - doing Rip Van Winkle impressions?


QUOTE
USA uses 20 million barrels per day, it imports approximately half of that, mostly from Canada and Venezuela. What it gets from the Persian Gulf region is minute, what it is supposed to be "stealing" from Iraq is miniscule and they are paying market price for it.
UNQUOTE

... out of touch as usual - when that runs out, it is necessary to have the Middle East supply 'on tap' and safely out of the hands of others...


QUOTE
By the bye, Foolestroupe, you are talking about events that happened nearly 40 years ago, the world and the Oil & Gas industry has changed a great deal since those days. As far as Iraq's oil goes the US did very well without it for the best part of 17 years.
UNQUOTE

Those who do no learn from history are condemned to repeat it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM

"out of touch as usual - when that runs out, it is necessary to have the Middle East supply 'on tap' and safely out of the hands of others..." - Foolestroupe

I think that it's you that's out of touch F. The price of crude oil today hit 82US$ per barrel. Now the prediction within the industry is that oil will never get down to the 22US$ - 25US$ the minimum that Russia and Saudi Arabia need. That's important Foolestroupe because you see as long as it stays above about 35US$ per barrel, shale and oilsands production is financially attractive. Without Canada, the US are sitting on over 400 years supply of the stuff. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but when it comes to having a supply of oil 'on tap' and safely out of the hands of others - you can't get it better, or more secure, than that.

"Those who do no learn from history are condemned to repeat it!"

And when was the last time OPEC held the world to ransom Foolestroupe? I would say since 1973 we learned our lessons rather well.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 01:13 PM

I am not sure I understand that Teribus. If the US has 400 years of oil at 35 dollars a barrel - why on earth is the price 80+ dollars a barrel and is the USA paying that price?

Does that mean the price of petrol is going too come down in the USA? It is last Xmas since I was there but that wasn´t the impression I got.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 01:16 PM

Just disagree with him and eventually he will talk to you... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:39 PM

"... US are sitting on over 400 years supply ..."

I assume that means *IF* we dug up and crushed all the oil shale in Utah..etc..? Gee, we could call the resulting pile Mt. Independence.

I really doubt the figure, though....it reminds me of those who say "there's no food shortage, we just have to distribute it equally all over the world." Yep...and use 25% of the world's energy just trying...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM

The only thing there's no shortage of is BS.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:53 PM

What I am seeing of the oil shale and oil drilling industry in Western Colorado and parts of Wyoming is sickening to behold. We are fighting the destruction of our environment, but still I see rig after rig dotting the landscape of early ranches like my great-grandparents owned, sometimes situated right next to someone's home or smack dab in the middle of what was a beautiful mountain meadow. I was raised an oil field brat, but I've never seen it like it is now. Whether we really have any surplus or not doesn't matter. what does matter is we get rid of our dependency on oil. It is killing our planet and, eventually, us. I would be glad to supply pictures.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:39 AM

Who said that "the US has 400 years of oil at 35 dollars a barrel", Folkiedave?

"why on earth is the price 80+ dollars a barrel and is the USA paying that price?" - Folkiedave.

But I thought it was the contention of all you anti-War, anti-Bush, left wing clowns that it was the "big bad" US oil companies and mega-evil "corporations" who controlled everything. Utter bullshit of course, what controls, or dictates, the price of any commodity is the market for whatever that commodity is.

Oh, by the bye katlaughing it is not oil that is "killing" our planet it is mankind - stop driving around in your SUV's and stop flying all over the place at the drop of a hat. The oil is being produced and refined into fuel to allow all that. Stop doing it and look what happens to the market for fuel, and the price producers can get for it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:57 AM

T., if you're going to lambast someone for what they say, at least hear what they straight first. Kat said the dependency on oil was harming the planet, not the oil itself. Just, in effect, as you said yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:27 AM

because you see as long as it stays above about 35US$ per barrel, shale and oilsands production is financially attractive. Without Canada, the US are sitting on over 400 years supply of the stuff. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but when it comes to having a supply of oil 'on tap' and safely out of the hands of others - you can't get it better, or more secure, than that.

Who said that "the US has 400 years of oil at 35 dollars a barrel", Folkiedave?

Teribus I could have sworn you did.

However if Greenspan says it was largely about oil - i have to go along with him rather than you.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:10 AM

Read it again Folkiedave, you will see that I didn't. What I did say was that provided the price of oil stays above about 35US$ per barrel production of Shale Oil is attractive. That is a bit different to me saying that the US has 400 years supply at 35US$ per barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:49 AM

"Say, I was wondering...do you (Teribus) only respond to people on this forum when you disagree with them? Is agreement and common ground just not challenging or exciting enough to merit a response?" - Little Hawk.

Pssst Little Hawk, you mean like this example:

Subject: RE: BS: Banks going bust.
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM

"Northern Rock are merely the latest victims of an irresponsible, malicious media, who have forgotten the principles of reporting the news, and are busily engaged in manipulating same." - Don(Wyziwyg)T

"It completes the Media's self fulfilling prophecy by turning a glitch into a crisis, and rendering one of our most solid financial institutions liable to takeover, either by foreign conglomerates, or worse, by asset strippers.

The Media should be ashamed of their part in this, but of course they are not." - Don(Wyziwyg)T

I could not agree with you more Don, not only on this particular story but the media play this game time, and time, and time again. They are too interesting in making news, they no longer know how to report it."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM

If its not about the oil, then what is it all about, T?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:33 PM

Good, Teribus, good. ;-) I would hate to think that you had become a hopeless addict of contention for contention's sake alone. Whenever you say something that I think is correct and on the mark, I acknowledge my agreement with it....as you may have noticed.

I do not believe in disagreeing with people here merely on the basis of past prejudice...and I'm not saying you necessarily do either...but there sure as hell are some people on this forum who tend to do just that, although they may not do it invariably. Very few people are so completely consistent in their behaviour as to do something like that invariably....they just usually do it. Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:47 PM

Here's another thing. I've noticed that most vehement arguers on this forum have a habit of conveniently assuming that their opponents believe all sorts of patently ridiculous things, things that only a complete simpleton or a lunatic would believe... ;-)

This is made quite clear when they put hypothetical words in the mouth of their opponent (or thoughts in the mind of their opponent) that their opponent would never have come up with himself...or when they conveniently misconstrue or twist something the opponent said, thereby stretching it to some ridiculous hyperbolic extreme so as to give the impression that the opponent is a drooling idiot who should be confined in a mental instition...or when they quote their opponent entirely out of context, again to give the impression that he is a moron, a dimwit, a person incapable of understanding anything.

Yes, I see a lot of that here. Sad, really. People should try to be a little less vicious to one another.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:18 PM

Bit of drift here but didn't want to start new thread.

A new poll by a UK organisation seems to bear out the John Hopkins/ Lancet figure of violent deaths in Iraq since 2003.

This new poll estimates violent deaths as "over 1 million".

poll results

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:19 AM

"That's because now even they recognize that Carter was right all along. If the country had made itself energy independant as Carter was trying to do, none of this Iraq stuff ever would have happened." - Riginslinger

In understanding "oil" Riginslinger you forgot to explain the following:

Now how would the USA being energy independent have prevented, Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait?

How would the USA being energy independent have prevented Al-Qaeda's attacks on the World trade centre (1993), the US Embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?

How would the USA being energy independent have negated the USA's obligations under bilateral treaties to her allies?

How would the advice given to the President of the USA, with regard to threat evaluation, have been any different in the wake of 911 than it was had the US been energy independent.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Murphy
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 06:57 AM

Ah, there you go again, blinded by the smokescreen. Do you not know that the war was about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not Saddam's but America's. The multi billion dollars arms indudrialists and their incestuous brothers in high office needed a boost for their sagging industry and what better than a skirmish a safe distance from home. A perfect scenario for the disposal of obselete stock and a testing ground for new technology. Multi billion dollar contracts and no accountabilty (National Security). Did Eisenhower pay the Japs to bomb Pearl Harbour?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:13 AM

100 Up