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

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 01:11 AM

Ah, and what was the name of that US Firm that did the crafting Metchosin?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

Ah, and what was the name of that US Firm that did the crafting Metchosin?

It's called Bearingpoint Teribus.

"......a BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, had been tasked with advising the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law. The legislation, which is due to be presented to Iraq's parliament within days, will give Western oil companies a large slice of profits from the country's oil fields in exchange for investing in new oil infrastructure."

Next?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 11:35 AM

Ah, Folkiedave, you mean this one:

"BearingPoint Inc. (NYSE: BE) is one of the world's largest providers of management and technology consulting services to Global 2000 companies and government organizations in 60 countries worldwide. Based in McLean, VA, the firm has more than 17,000 employees and major practice areas focusing on the Public Services, Financial Services and Commercial Services markets.

The company provides management and technology strategy, systems design and architecture, applications implementation, network infrastructure, systems integration and managed services. BearingPoint's tailored solutions are designed to help clients generate revenue, reduce costs and access the information necessary to operate their business on a timely basis. The company is among Fortune Magazine's "Most Admired" companies in its Information Technology Services sector."

Well if the Draft Oil and Gas Law was the result of their work then they are certainly up to speed on things connected with the oil industry, and guess what Folkiedave, katlaughing, et al, not one single mention of Iraq having to give it's oil away to any Western Corporations, quite the reverse in fact.

As for:
"...The legislation, which is due to be presented to Iraq's parliament within days, will give Western oil companies a large slice of profits from the country's oil fields in exchange for investing in new oil infrastructure."

I don't know where you got that quote from Folkiedave, but either the "BearingPoint employee", or the journalist, and I tend to imagine that it was the journalist, is talking out of their arse.

As usual with the media in dealing with Iraq the story was written before the man left his office, or even spoke to the BearingPoint employee - "will give Western oil companies"? that's a definite is it? Has it already happened (This by the bye is not breaking news this piece is a few months old). What you have quoted Folkiedave is not fact, as bourne out by the wording of the draft law drawn up with the assistance of BearingPoint acting as consultants, what you are quoting is pure supposition on the part of a journalist.

As I said in my first post to this thread, I will go along with Alan Greenspan, it was about oil, but not in the way most here think, or wish, that it was.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 12:13 PM

Teribus - you are blustering again for the second time this week. You asked for the name of the US firm - and you got it.

Live with it. Teribus.

Bearing Point? That's the one - this one:

BearingPoint is being paid $240m for its work in Iraq, winning an initial contract from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. It was charged with supporting the then Coalition Provisional Authority to introduce policies "which are designed to create a competitive private sector". Its role is to examine laws, regulations and institutions that regulate trade, commerce and investment,and to advise ministries and the central bank.

....BearingPoint has dramatically stepped up its attempts to buy influence in Washington. Its contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan
coincide with a big increase in its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. In 2005, the latest year for which figures have been collated, BearingPoint paid $1m to lobbyists, equalling the record total it paid in 2003. That is five times its average annual bill for lobbyists prior to the war in Iraq........

Yep, Teribus that's the one.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 02:35 PM

Anything particularly wrong with encouraging a competitive private sector Folkiedave? It seems to have worked rather well in quite a large number of other places, if memory serves me correctly.

As for blustering Folkiedave well....

How much of Iraq's oil has been stolen Folkiedave? - Answer: None.

Does the USA control Iraq's oil Folkiedave? - Answer: No it does not.

Have the Iraqi Government been forced into giving their oil away to Western Corporations Folkiedave? - Answer: No they have not.

As for floundering Folkiedave, not only are you floundering but you are tying yourself in knots:

"I never read the Draft Oil Law because it is - as I suspect you think too - irrelevant. Most draft laws are."

You don't bother reading something, but are fully prepared to argue about the intent and content of the document.

Was it "irrelevant" when Katlaughing came out with:

"A cabal of Kleptocrats – including the Bushites, the Iraqi cabinet, and the major oil corporations – have drafted a new oil law requiring Iraq to open up its fields to control by Western corporations."

Because the information that reporter is attempting to put across is both misleading and incorrect, it is not factual news, it is the reporters opinion, and highly subjective opinion at that. Another attempt to create a myth for the anti-war, anti-Bush; left-wing socialist clowns to cling to in order to refer to it as proof supporting their case. Its a shame that it doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny - for those who can read and think for themselves, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 02:49 PM

Thank you Folkiedave

Ah! The Competitive Private Sector

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM

Bluster Teribus sheer bluster.

I haven't said the things you say I have said. Sorry - but you must be thinking of two other people.

As for reading things - most people will have read the sneering way in which you asked for the name of the company aiding Iraq to draft its oil law and then when the answer "BearPoint" came along you blustered and blustered.

You still bluster. The neo-cons have to try and justify the bollocks they have made in Iraq, billions of taxpayers' dollars spent on what?; thousands of Americans killed for what?; millions of tax-payers dollars going missing; thousands of weapons going missing and in rebel hands so American soldiers are killed by American weapons; a civil war in progress; the Kurds doing their best to break-away signing oil agreements with American companies which are condemned by the Iraq government; 4 million refugees; etc. etc.

As far the wonders of the private sector........personally I would like to live in a high tax country with quality services - like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

"the sneering way in which you asked for the name of the company aiding Iraq to draft its oil law"

"Ah, and what was the name of that US Firm that did the crafting Metchosin?"

Exactly how would you have asked for that information Folkiedave?

Hang on, wait a minute Folkiedave doesn't answer questions, how silly of me.

Your little heart-felt rant, which really amounts to just so many crododile tears. With regards to the insurgency in both Iraq and in Afghanistan Folkiedave, militarily the MNF and ISAF are winning, hands down. It only remains for the politicians within both those countries to follow through on what is required and it's a done deal. I know you, and your "fellow travellers" don't like that, and the Guardian, and the BBC are trying their utmost to bolster your belief of the opposite position, but they, like you are wrong.

Tides turning Folkiedave, has been for some time now, you haven't cottoned on because you adopted your point of view a long time ago and you have painted yourself into a corner. Don't worry about it, it's a great failing and weakness of the "Left", you are very poor at adapting to changing situations. All I can say is that thank Christ you are not responsible for anything affecting the lives of anyone I care about. The only reason I could see for anybody following your advice or direction would be through a over-charged sense of curiousity.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 08:45 PM

Not to worry, FolkieD....

Teribus was one of the strongest defenders of no-bid contracts that went to Halliburton and it's subsiderary, Brown & Root after the "Mission Accomplished" phase in Iraq...

...so the T-Bird is fond of non-competitive contractors when it fits his arguments... Just not so fond when it doesn't but...

...hey, that's what the T is all about...

He is strictly partisan and worships Geopge Bush so he'll always find a positive spin on anything that comes outta the Bush administration...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 12:24 AM

Ten billion fucking dollars a week is what that idiot in the white house is spending for his little oil war in Iraq, along with the cost of lives which are priceless, every one of them. (Oops, forgot I wasn't supposed to read OR think for myself.)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 01:05 AM

Ten Billion & not one vote in favor of child health care or child care. Or affordable education or health insurance. Or crumbs for the bettering of our enviorment or climate control or, or, or.

There are those that will support a war or any war even past wars like Viet Nam & can't see the downfall of even that one, never mind seeing the downfall of the present ones, that is their warrior way & they will follow their warrior leaders & presidents to hell. They will try to take us all to hell with them. They can't see their surroundings only the road in front of them & the ass that they follow.

Ten Billion & the ass is asking for 190 more? He hasn't even ventured near the Big Easy nor the Big Muddy recently, nothing more for them either "& the big fool says to push on"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 03:46 AM

"Ten Billion & not one vote in favor of child health care or child care. Or affordable education or health insurance. Or crumbs for the bettering of our enviorment or climate control or, or, or."

Then change your political system Barry to one where those elected to represent you form Government and Opposition to collectively debate and decide what is to be done. Not one where you elect a Head of State to create an Administration and decide what is done while your House of Representatives and Senate occupy what amounts to a useless talking shop.

As I've commented on before on this forum the crop of politicians you are blessed with currently in the US, particularly those jostling for nomination as Presidential candidates and become the potential leader of the free world couldn't even lead a dog on a leash.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:52 AM

Exactly how would you have asked for that information Folkiedave?

I would have looked for it myself Teribus. Sorry you aren't capable.

I didn't answer what you said because it did not represent my views. I pointed that out at the time.

As for not answering questions you still haven't explained if you support the Kurds making what the Iraq oil minister calls illegal agreements with companies and whether you feel that right should be extended to other regions of Iraq. Yesterday the State Department condemned Hunt Oil's agreement too saying it wasn't helpful to USA policy. The agreement similar to the one you supported and said the Kurds had the right to make under Iraq's own laws.

Remarkably Teribus I want to see an end to the slaughter in Iraq. 23 killed yesterday (Thursday 27th September) including 7 policemen.

Glad you think the tide is turning. Tell that to those killed yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:48 AM

You miss the point that until the draft Iraq Oil and Gas Law is voted on what the Kurds have done is not illegal, there is no national law in place for them to break, I thought that that distinction would be obvious.

"The contracts with the companies were done according to an oil and gas law approved by the Kurdistan parliament and were allowed under the Iraqi constitution, Jamal Abdullah , an official spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government, said in an interview Thursday.

"The companies we have contracts with are well-known companies," he said. "We have consulted with experts on oil law and we haven't done anything illegal or against the constitution."

"We look for oil, we encourage drilling for it and production, but we never market or sell it without the supervision of the central government," Abdullah said. "We agree that the oil in Kurdistan is for all Iraqis, not for the Kurds only."

The deal with Hunt Oil as with DNO is for new fields where the oil company take all the risks (million dollars a hole Folkiedave, whether you find anything or not)

"The deals are for areas where oil hasn't been found yet, not Iraq's massive existing oil fields, which would remain under the control of the national oil company. Kurdistan and Hunt officials have declined to reveal the terms. Typically in such a deal, Hunt would get a share of the revenues after it discovers, develops and begins pumping oil."

Nothing wrong with that at all Folkiedave, common working practice the world over in the oil and gas industry. As for withdrawal of licences take a look what has happened in Venezuela.

One minute we have the anti-war; anti-Bush; hard left yelling that the US went into Iraq to "steal" Iraq's oil and now, as part of that camp you are telling me that the US Government are against deals such as the one that Hunt Oil has negotiated, quite legally, with the regional government of the semiautonomous Parliament of the Kurdish Region of Iraq.

Make up your minds, katlaughings Kleptocracy with the support and collusion of the US Government are pushing for "western corporations" to take control of Iraq's natural resources or they're not. It would seem that they are not, the international oil industry is against mass privatisation of Iraq's oil and gas industry, they prefer partnership under Iraq National Oil Company/Iraq Government control.

Yes the invasion of Iraq was about oil, among other things, but not in the way the anti-war; anti-Bush; hard left think it was.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 07:40 AM

Well, Zippity Do Da - the Kurdish Regional Government supports Kurdish Regional Government policy. There is a surprise.

What a shame neither the Iraq Central Government nor the USA supports such a policy.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — A senior State Department official in Baghdad acknowledged Thursday that the first American oil contract in Iraq, that of the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas with the Kurdistan Regional Government, was at cross purposes with the stated United States foreign policy of strengthening the country's central government.

Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, has said the Hunt Oil contract is not valid, though there is a provision for reviewing and possibly approving it in the proposed oil law. The intent of that law is to pool oil revenue to distribute it equitably to the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas of Iraq.

Under draft versions of the national law, the central government would have a say in whether individual oil contracts are legal. The Iraqi national oil law is one of the 18 benchmarks established by the Bush administration to evaluate the Iraqi government's progress.

New York Times 28/09/07.

So the Iraq government doesn't support it and the the US government finds it unhelpful.

It's good for the Kurds to know they have you on their side Teribus - if no-one else.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

"We look for oil, we encourage drilling for it and production, but we never market or sell it without the supervision of the central government," Abdullah said. "We agree that the oil in Kurdistan is for all Iraqis, not for the Kurds only." -Jamal Abdullah , official spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Now what part of that do you not understand Folkiedave?

"The intent of that law is to pool oil revenue to distribute it equitably to the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas of Iraq" - Iraqi Government view.

"We agree that the oil in Kurdistan is for all Iraqis, not for the Kurds only" - viewpoint of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

What is the difference Folkiedave?

From the article you quoted, when Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, said that the Hunt Oil contract was not valid, he referred to the possibility, in the future, of the contract being reviewed and approved under the terms of the new proposed oil law.

Now then Folkiedave are you trying to tell everybody here that that draft law is actually in place, that its conditions and regulations can be enforced? Because you know as well as I do that that is simply not the case. How much of Iraq's oil have Hunt Oil Company got Folkiedave? So far nothing, they haven't even started to look for it. Knowing the current situation with regard to exploration and completion, I can understand exactly why the Kurdistan Regional Government want to get on with things, they want to get ahead of the game while oil is at an all time high. That amounts to good business sense, there is nothing sinister or underhand about it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 11:46 AM

Well as the quote I gave you said, neither the Iraq government or the US government think giving contracts to Hunt Oil - for whatever.

But you do approve Teribus and that's the important thing.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 12:18 PM

Let me try that again:

Well as the quote I gave you said, neither the Iraq government or the US government approved of the Kurdish Regional Government giving contracts to Hunt Oil or whoever for whatever.

But you do approve Teribus and that's the important thing.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 12:21 PM

"Then change your political system Barry to one where those elected to represent you form Government and Opposition to collectively debate and decide what is to be done."

Thank you for your bright advise T, I'll see to it right away, you should follow it yourself but then where you live is to you a place that needs no changing. If it did you would have done it already.

"As I've commented on before on this forum the crop of politicians you are blessed with currently in the US, particularly those jostling for nomination as Presidential candidates and become the potential leader of the free world couldn't even lead a dog on a leash."

I agree but why have you back our present bitch's every play? You are bad to the bone.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM

"He is strictly partisan and worships Geopge Bush so he'll always find a positive spin on anything that comes outta the Bush administration...

Normal..."


Of course, the following is true of Bobert and a number of others here:

He is strictly partisan and hates George Bush so he'll always find a negative spin on anything that comes outta the Bush administration...

Normal...




"or the US government approved of the Kurdish Regional Government giving contracts to Hunt Oil or whoever for whatever."

Nice to know that the US is now SUPPOSED to approve all Iraqi oil policy. ( according to some here)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:21 PM

"I agree but why have you back our present bitch's every play?"

Do I Barry? Or do I just tend to disagree with, and point to the errors made by those whose irrational hatred of the man completely blinds their judgement.

I can see why the security services and intelligence agencies of the United States of America identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a potential threat in 1998.

I can see why those same people identified Iraq as posing the greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the 911 attacks in 2001 and throughout 2002.

I didn't believe that the US would invade, because I didn't believe that Saddam Hussein was as stupid as he proved to be. But then he was being badly advised by his main trading partners, particularly the ones who had permanent seats on the Security Council.

It wouldn't have mattered a damn who had won the 2000 Presidential election, the cards would have fallen pretty much as they have. The threat would have been evaluated on the same evidence and by the same people. The advice given to whoever was President would have been given by the same people and would have been exactly the same. The decisions taken therefore would have been the same. Main difference between most on this forum and myself is I can see and understand why things have been done the way that they have, mainly because I do not have a George W. Bush axe to grind.

Now all of that Barry is a bit different from me, backing your present bitch's every play.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:49 PM

Come on now BB, one doesn't have to spin to point out the mistakes, stupidity and downright evil emanating from this administration.

They are crystal clear for all to see.

WE in the UK have accepted that we have been screwed by our leaders,
Blair has been forced from office by public disgust and laughably sits in his new job of Middle East "Peace Envoy", a job created for him by his old master George W Bush

Mr T and yourself would have us believe that you set great store by "facts", but no matter how much evidence is produced as to the duplicity of US/UK in Iraq, neither of you have the guts to admit that you have been wrong....and willfully wrong....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:53 PM

Sorry Joe above was from me...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 07:04 PM

My standard answer to the claim: "It's about oil" is: thank God it's about SOMETHING. I'd hate to go to war over nothing. . .

But in fact, it can't be about oil, or oil alone. Oil is one of those 'fluid' commodities that anyone can and does sell to anyone else. It doesn't matter who owns it because you can always buy it ('ceptin for the very occasional blockade, and I don't recall a war over breaking down the blockade).

So while oil is a perfectly acceptable reason to go to war, it isn't about oil.

Mr. Greenspan was very good about what he did - monetary control. He was not considered a great sage in other respects, and was frequently wrong in his market predictions. That doesn't detract from his intelligence, humor, capability, and honesty. But he isn't always right.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 04:26 AM

Hey Barry a classic example of what I have just said in my last post:

"WE in the UK have accepted that we have been screwed by our leaders,
Blair has been forced from office by public disgust and laughably sits in his new job of Middle East "Peace Envoy", a job created for him by his old master George W Bush

Mr T and yourself would have us believe that you set great store by "facts", but no matter how much evidence is produced as to the duplicity of US/UK in Iraq, neither of you have the guts to admit that you have been wrong....and willfully wrong....Ake"

Point 1.
"WE in the UK have accepted that we have been screwed by our leaders"

Only Akenaton's opinion, which he presents with conviction as fact, it is not.

Point 2.
"Blair has been forced from office by public disgust"

Absolute nonsense, had that been the case he would have lost the last election he fought and won. I don't know who Akenaton thinks was responsible for that, but I suspect it had something to do with the general public casting their votes for Labour with the full understanding that Tony Blair was leader of that party. But again what is stated above is Akenaton's opinion, highly subjective and stated with conviction and presented by him as fact, but it is not. Tony Blair is on record as stating that he would stand down as leader at some time during this current Parliament, and that is exactly what he did, he was forced from office by nobody, that is fact.

Point 3.
"Mr T and yourself would have us believe that you set great store by "facts", but no matter how much evidence is produced as to the duplicity of US/UK in Iraq, neither of you have the guts to admit that you have been wrong....and willfully wrong"

Yes I do set great store by the facts surrounding any situation and set of circumstances. Unfortunately, to date, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate the duplicity of the US/UK in Iraq, a wealth of opinion to suggest it, fuelled by markedly biased reporting by the MSM in the UK, but no evidence to support those contentions, that is fact.

Now in saying all of that Barry, I am pointing out the inaccuracies and faults in Akenaton's statements, I am not supporting Tony Blair - True??

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM

no evidence has been produced to demonstrate the duplicity of the US/UK in Iraq,

You mean like the 45 minute claim? The Sun headline "Brits 45 minutes from doom".

You mean like the claim that Saddam had been seeking uranium from Africa?

You mean like all the weapons of mass destruction that were found after the war?

Of course not. They were not duplicitous. Teribus says it - it must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:32 AM

Folkiedave,

Go back and read your own last post. In doing so examine the statements made, do so critically, play the devil's advocate, establish what was actually said as opposed to what was reported as being said. You yourself give an excellent example:

"You mean like the 45 minute claim? The Sun headline "Brits 45 minutes from doom".

OK Folkiedave did the Prime Minister say that we were 45 minutes from doom, or was that how it was incorrectly reported by the British Press to make it sound more sensational, in order to sell copy. As I have said previously on this forum in other threads. The second I saw the mention of 45 minutes in relation to chemical and biological weapons I knew exactly what was being referred to - the time taken to arm, missile warheads, bombs, artillery rounds, mortar shells. Saddam Hussein was originally armed by Soviet Russia, anyone who had served in any of the armed forces of NATO during the "Cold War" could tell you exactly what the 45 minute claim was about.

Oddly enough on the attempted purchase of uranium cake from Niger, this the Americans got from the intelligence services of Italy and the UK. While the Americans have now dismissed it, the UK intelligence services have not and still to this day hold it as valid.

On the Weapons of Mass Destruction Folkiedave, did they have to find any? Or was the object of the exercise to ensure that Iraq was not pursuing the development and manufacture of such weapons, thereby removing all possible prospect of future use of such weapons internationally or domestically by the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think that if you read the mandates given to both UNSCOM and to UNMOVIC you will find that it was the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:21 AM

Here is what the Prime Minister said:

"I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

Now the question you need to answer Teribus is not about the Sun headline but whether what Blair said was true or not. Of course it is possible to argue he is quoting what the Intelligence Services said. Since we later found out this was based on hearsay and clearly wasn't true I would argue it was duplicitous.

As far as the Saddam search for Uranium in Africa was concerned the intelligence report was based on forged documents. Of course the US admits it was wrong. To say the UK does not admit its mistake does not mean they were right - just that they haven't admitted their duplicity. #you may find this hard to believe but the UK goverment does not go around saying, "Ooops sorry we lied". Just because they haven't admitted their duplicity does not mean to say they weren't duplicitous.

As far as WMD's were concerned, did they find any or was it to make sure he didn't make any more?

Well he certainly didn't have any worth bothering about that's for sure - you can be certain we would be still hearing about them in letters six foot high if he had.

As for not making any more weapons, that really worked didn't it. Since the start of the war around 80,000 civilians killed. 3,800+ American soldiers killed, and around 25,000 American soldiers wounded, about 1,000 sent home for mental problems. Around 300 UK soldiers killed.

It was about stopping Saddam making more weapons? Tell that to the 49 killed yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 09:23 AM

"It wouldn't have mattered a damn who had won the 2000 Presidential election, the cards would have fallen pretty much as they have."

OMG. I don't know whether to laugh or throw up. Unbelivable naivetee.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 09:40 AM

TIA - Throw up; it's beyond laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM

I don't usually get involved in this shit but I have to answer Teribus who is becoming wildly inaccurate.

1/2. are actually the same point.

Blair said on numerous occasions that he intented to serve a full third term.
Public opinion polls showed that he had become very unpopular...several percentage points behind Mr Cameron.
Although Labour won the last election, their majority was considerably reduced...Many said that the victory was in reality a defeat.....Public opinion had swug away from Labour.

Now this in itself does not prove my point.....But, when Blair was forced by the party to stand down and replaced by Brown, who had been less visible in his support for the Iraq war, Labour began to climb in the opinion polls. Now standing 10 points higher than Mr Cameron

Everything I write here Teribus, is "my opinion" just like you.

In this case, my opinion reflects the facts quite accurately ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:43 AM

Akenaton,

"Blair said on numerous occasions that he intented to serve a full third term."

Blair said on a number of accasions that he was going to do soemthing about Education, the Health Service and a number of other things, he didn't do any of those either. I believe that a deal had been reached with Gordon Brown for him to take over during the term of this Parliament.

"Public opinion polls showed that he had become very unpopular...several percentage points behind Mr Cameron."

If you think for one minute that Politicians pay any serious attention to Public Opinion polls you are delluded. It is also funny how "Public Opinion Polls" are trotted out and quoted only when they serve the purpose put forward by those quoting them. Best indicator would be ask members of the general public how much they thought that "New Labour" paid attention to "public opinion" and you would not get the answer to support your contentions, they couldn't give a damn about public opinion Akenaton and have proved that time and again.

"Although Labour won the last election, their majority was considerably reduced...Many said that the victory was in reality a defeat"

All relative Akenaton, had you given the size of that election victory to either Wilson or Callaghan they would have thought it a landslide.

"Public opinion had swug away from Labour."

Obviously not so much as to lose them the election Akenaton, which for your arguement is a trifle inconvenient.

"when Blair was forced by the party to stand down and replaced by Brown, who had been less visible in his support for the Iraq war, Labour began to climb in the opinion polls. Now standing 10 points higher than Mr Cameron"

The "Cameron Bounce", I think they called in the UK press. So Blair was forced to stand down was he Akenaton?, by whom? when? If it happened as you stated you will be able to give me that information. But please remember that you originally said that "Blair has been forced from office by public disgust", which is a bit different, not that it really matters, counter to your opinion Tony Blair selected his time to leave office, he wasn't forced to do anything.

Most of my opinions Akenaton are based on some form of substantive evidence, yours are not.

Folkiedave,

"I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

At the time the above was stated in Parliament Tony Blair believed the above to be completely true. In the above he says quite clearly that what he is stating is based upon what he has been told by the intelligence services. The WMD that Saddam Hussein was suspected of holding were detailed not by US or UK intelligence services but by the UN's Inspection teams.

On the nuclear side of things, at the time there were a couple of surprises in the summer of 2003, the greatest of which was Libya's renunciation of her WMD programmes. When this was revealed people, in particular the IAEA, were astounded at the fact that Libya had a highly advanced nuclear weapons programme, and the cover was blown on Dr. A. Q. Khan's little game. Now the following is only my opinion, contrary to what the IAEA stated about Iraq, I believe that Iraq did have a nuclear programme running, I believe that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the evidence of that left Iraq in its entirety in late 2002 in trucks to Syria and thence to Pakistan onboard a Pakistani Air Force Transport aircraft put at the disposal of Dr A. Q. Khan. That flight is logged, original round trip to Tehran, with a diversion to Damascus. To believe that Saddam was not aware of Iran's nuclear programme would be nonsense, to then believe that he would do nothing about it is ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 03:18 AM

Do you not get out much Teribus?
My job takes me out among the general public, I meet people of all political persuasions and before his welcome demise there was hardly a person with a good word to say about him.

It was a case of "For gods's sake GO!!"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 04:28 AM

Akenton, Teribus lives in a high tax country which he likes. I doubt he would have heard many talking about Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 11:13 AM

"For God's sake go!" Eh Akenaton, unfortunately for you and your case no-one actually had the temerity to say it either within NuLab or outwith the party. Kind of puts a dint in:

"Blair has been forced from office by public disgust" - your first pass at it, and:

"Blair was forced by the party to stand down" - your second attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 02:33 PM

It's quite simple Teribus.

The Party knew that with Blair as PM they were unelectable.
Their huge majority had melted like snow from a dyke; and it was nothing the other parties had done which caused that to happen.

No....... itwas public disgust/distrust with Mr Antony B Liar.

Now I believe the other members of Blairs war cabinet were just as culpable...including Macavity Brown....but their turn will come when Scotland gains independence. New Labour will be finished as a political force, and they will all scamper to their natural home ...The Conservative Party....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 03:56 PM

Your opinion Ake ... completely unsupported by any fact or form of substantiation.... you are of course welcome to your myth, believe what you will, just don't expect it to be given any credence just because you want to believe that it is true.

"I believe the other members of Blairs war cabinet were just as culpable....but their turn will come when Scotland gains independence."

Dream on Ake, that day is one hell of a long way off, especially when you consider that two-thirds aof all those who voted in the last election in Scotland clearly illustrated that they do not want anything to do with the kippers agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 04:12 PM

The times they are a changin'   :0)

"Your opinion Ake ... completely unsupported by any fact or form of substantiation...."
How the hell do you make out that your opinion... That Blair wanted to go in mid term...is any more substantiated than mine.
You don't expect the Party to tell the truth do you?
One must read between the lines and that is what I have done.
Events have borne out what I said....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 04:51 PM

Your Myth Ake - dig out.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:33 PM

Dream on Ake, that day is one hell of a long way off, especially when you consider that two-thirds aof all those who voted in the last election in Scotland clearly illustrated that they do not want anything to do with the kippers agenda.

You have to be good when you write political predictions. In fact many of them are wrong. Look at this one - no names, let's call him "Thor be with us" for now, talking about the the possiblity of Bush invading Iraq, before it started.

Just so much Magpie chatter - He won't do it because he can't do it without the willing assistance of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the current situation this assistance will not be forthcoming. My bet is that the inspectors will go back in and some face-saving way of backing down will be found.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:36 PM

Give up, Ake, my friend... T is on their payroll and will spin and spi9n and spin until the cows come home... T isn't particularially interested in the truth... MIght of fact, T usually runs from the truth... He just brings up another subject rather that face reality...

He was this way during the mad-dash-to-Iraq by both Blair and his bud, Bush... What he did during those times is exactly what you are dealing with now... He won't allow the bigt picture because the big picture makes his employers look bad so he either just makes stuff up or tries to move the discussion onto a microscope slide of his choice, thereby ignoring the reality of the big picture and then he tries to lure you into an academic squablle over the smallest of details hoping that you will forget the big picture...

This has been and continues to be his only strategy as he goes about defending his heros, Geroge Liar Bush and Tony B. Liar...

All I can say is that the money must be good 'casue no-one would do what T does if the money wasn't good...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:50 AM

Hey Folkiedave, here's one from a much more recent post that clearly shows that I did not expect the US to attack:

Teribus - 28 Sep 07 - 06:21 PM

"I didn't believe that the US would invade, because I didn't believe that Saddam Hussein was as stupid as he proved to be. But then he was being badly advised by his main trading partners, particularly the ones who had permanent seats on the Security Council."

My statement dated I believe sometime late summer, early Autumn in 2002, quoted by you:

"Just so much Magpie chatter - He won't do it because he can't do it without the willing assistance of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the current situation this assistance will not be forthcoming. My bet is that the inspectors will go back in and some face-saving way of backing down will be found."

Well the actual run-on was that the inspectors did go back in. When the attack came on 20th March 2003, it meant that without the willing assistance from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Iraq's western borders with Jordan and with Syria could not be sealed rapidly, which allowed the infiltration of the foreign fighters who now form the bulk of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Turkey's refusal to allow US intervention from her territory was a major weakness, I thought so then, I still think so now.

Perhaps you can tell us Folkiedave what the people in Scotland voted for? To occupy the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, their choice panned out as follows:

SNP - 47
Labour - 46
Conservative - 17
Lib Dem - 16
Green - 2
Ind - 1

While constituents in 47 places showed their desire to elect a Nationalist candidate, constituents in 82 places showed that they didn't.

Oh, by the bye Folkiedave it's Tyr, not Thor.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:00 AM

The majority is unimportant, the swing from Labour to SNP is what counts and all the indications suggest that the swing away from Labour in Scotland has continued to increase under the Nationalist administration.
This is in marked contrast to what is happening in the rest of the UK and can only be attributed to a growing wish for complete independence.   Hopefully independence would free us from the expense and moral bankrupcy of Trident replacement, and in time the disbanding of most of the Scottish fighting force....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 09:42 AM

Perhaps you can tell us Folkiedave what the people in Scotland voted for? To occupy the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, their choice panned out as follows:

Not really Teribus - despite a scottish wife and a mother from the Orkneys - I know very little about scottish politics. I realise that doesn't stop you commenting but it does me.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:55 AM

Well at least you're learning Folkiedave, you knew absolutely damn all about about either the oil and gas industry or the proposed draft Iraqi legislation relating to the same, and conclusively proved it, but that didn't stop you commenting on it. Your reticence regarding Scottish politics is encouraging.

"The majority is unimportant..." - Akenaton.

Absolutely priceless my little Trot,

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:40 AM

Put quite starkly Ake it works out as follows:

On a Constituency Basis where there were 2,016,978 votes counted the Scottish Nationalist Party got 664,227 votes. They fielded a candidate in all constituencies, therefore the people of Scotland, or at least the 50-51% of the eligible voters who bothered to turn up, did have a chance to vote for a Scottish Nationalist Candidate. Eh, Ake, that by my arithmetic means that of the 2,016,978 Scots voters who turned up 1,352,751 said no to the SNP (Ration of 1:2.04 against)

On a Regional Basis where there were 2,042,109 votes counted, the SNP got 633,401 votes, that means that 1,408,708 votes were against the SNP (Ratio of 1:2.22 against)

Now what was it you were calling into question as being inaccurate again Folkiedave? - Oh Yes, I remember now:

"Dream on Ake, that day is one hell of a long way off, especially when you consider that two-thirds of all those who voted in the last election in Scotland clearly illustrated that they do not want anything to do with the kippers agenda."

Well Folkiedave with the ratios at 1:2.04 against and 1:2.22 against, I would say that it is fairly accurate to say that (How did I put it?) two-thirds of all those who voted in the last election in Scotland clearly illustrated that they do not want anything to do with the SNP.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:40 AM

Sorry Teribus ..I keep forgetting that I must answer your posts in simple English.
I should have said....The size of the majority is unimportant.

But really Teribus, do you have to bring yourself down to this level?
Why don't you just admit you have been wrong from the beginning?...Then you can start all over with a bit of credibility.

Admitting ones mistakes and appealing to the public for understanding is the new fashion don't y' know.

Folks here will admire you all the more for it....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:03 PM

you knew absolutely damn all about about either the oil and gas industry or the proposed draft Iraqi legislation relating to the same, and conclusively proved it, but that didn't stop you commenting on it

And I thought that was you. You supported a move by the KRD that was condemned by both the Iraq Government and the US government.

Not bad for someone who claims knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:09 PM

You have been wrong a lot lately Teribus, and a couple of years ago I remember you telling me to dream on.....I was an "old left" dinosaur and would nver see a left wing govt.
Well the govt I have in Scotland NOW will do me fine to be going on with.....So as they say "Yer no' often right Teribus...but yer wrong again"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:28 PM

Easier wound up than clockwork mice.