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

Subject: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Today's Sunday Times carries the following statement from Alan Greenspan, ex chairman of th US Federal Reserve.

"It saddens me that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows; the Iraq war is largely about oil"

This from one of the "High Priests of capitalism" is a boost for the anti-war left.

This validates my opinion, that we are prepared to indulge in piracy and countenance the deaths of hundreds of thousands , to fulfill our energy requirments.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

Well, so would any individual faced with imminent extinction. But there's the great lie -- the threat was created to support a business model, not an actually threatened life.


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: harpmolly
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:23 PM

Good God, akenaton...do I actually find myself *agreeing* with you? :D

Scary, eh? *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:25 PM

It's been confirmed that the Pope is indeed a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:57 PM

And O.J. Simpson is a man of questionable character.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

What's new? Thought this rang a bell then found what I posted in 2003.



"Metchosin    BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions? (126* d)
                   RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?        22 Mar 03

and just in case this has not been been linked to before, for those that still think that this is about weapons of mass destruction and bringing Democracy to Iraq, a little info on
Power Brokering in the Middle East

The players in this game couldn't care less about the plight of the average Iraqi as long as they have control."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

akenaton

This validates my opinion, that we are prepared to indulge in piracy and countenance the deaths of hundreds of thousands , to fulfill our energy requirments.

harpmolly

Good God, akenaton...do I actually find myself *agreeing* with you? :D

Careful, he didn't actually say that he disapproved.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

I am quite shocked to learn of this. Do the American people know their government lied to them?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

You have to get their minds off Britney Spears first.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

What other "revelations" are there in this book? Did Greenspan notice that GWB didn't exactly balance his budgets?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

"Earlier this month, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq announced that it had signed a production-sharing deal with Texas-based Hunt Oil. The move is an indication that Western oil companies, frustrated over the delay in the passage of a national oil law by the Iraqi government, are moving to make deals with regional bodies to get access to Iraq's vast oil reserves.

As significant as the deal itself is the identity of the company involved. Ray Hunt, the CEO and president of privately held Hunt Oil, is a close confidant of President Bush and a prominent figure in the US political and intelligence establishment."

Hard to believe, huh? Now, where are the mouths who said this was about WMDs and terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM

Hah Snail...You are correct to be cautious.

By WE, I mean the electorate of US/UK, and if we were honest even the "liberals" of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

Hi Molly nice to meet you in happier circumstances.....Just watch your arse this time....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Olive
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

Well, those energy requirements were established over a hundred years ago by the people now poised to kick off WW3.

Over a hundred years ago steam technology was suppressed and the US economy was diverted toward petroleum. Coal and other power sources were marginalized too, not just in the US but around the world. So now we have world dependence on oil. And it's contrived. The wealthy elite (the Dutch & English royalty, the Rothschilds and their Rockefeller agents in the US), 1) bought up all oil preduction, 2) kept the construction of oil refineries to a minimum, and 3) started the lie of 'peak oil' (the planet is running out of oil.) And now the global elite are about to attack Iran. Isn't 3/4 of the world's oil shipped through the strait of Hormuz? And when Iran is attacked, it will shut down Hormuz. Oil prices will skyrocket and nations will sink into chaos.

This global chaos is what the elite are after. When the wars are over, the world's population will be reduced by half, and the traumatized survivors will be easy to control. The global elite will have a plan for that, too.

Oil is just a control mechanism. The elite also use money as a control mechanism, and mass media. By controlling what your brain picks up on TV, and by converting the necessities of life into paper script, and by being able to cut off your fuel, they own you. The people who have set up this system think generationally. So of course it's about oil. It's been about oil for more than a century.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

"Coal and other power sources were marginalized too, not just in the US but around the world."

While I agree with you in general, I also think it a good thing that the use of coal was suppressed. It was a terrible pollutant then. It's only been the last few decades in which coal has become 'clean enough to burn'. The technology wasn't there before. It is now.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:22 PM

Coulda got it for 'em wholesale . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: gnu
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:24 PM

Olive (oil...allow me).... thank you. Well said. The rich subjugate the poor. And, although I have tried, and kinda failed, to say the same in many ways on many threads, you have just said it perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:36 PM

Note that the Hunt deal is with "Kurdistan", not the "Iraqi government". Therefore that cannot be used as evidence that the Iraq war was about oil--the US would have had access to "Kurdistan" oil regardless--ever since the Gulf war the Kurds would be happy to have Western oil investment. And that is still their plan--whatever the Maliki government wants. Now they say that the Hunt oil income would be shared by all Iraqis--but I suspect
that if the Maliki government continues to insist that there should be no oil deals until the Iraq oil law is passed, eventually the Kurds will get tired of playing the game and keep the income for themselves. There won't be any oil flowing for a while anyway--and by then the Maliki government will likely be a memory.

"Kurdistan" is both the agent and the model of the breakup of "Iraq". And there's no reason why it should not go its own way---especially since it is the US fallback position--which eventually Bush will admit.

It is fascinating that Greenspan has said that the war was about oil. And it's obviously true, to some extent. But I suspect it was also about Bush wanting to be a "war president", especially after toppling the Taliban, with the political benefits that accrued to that. He saw another war he could win on the cheap--having been assured by the only advisors he allowed access to him--that it would be. Strange how that happens, when you reject any advice that might contradict what you want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

Now the French are getting 'mouthy' about Iran. I guess they want some oil, too. I can get it for them, wholesale.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:43 PM

Also, it's noteworthy that the Wall St Journal editorial page, which is an amazingly faithful reflection of Bush regime attitudes, has already been publishing very critical columns about Greenspan's tenure as Fed chairman. It'll be interesting to see if they allege he is senile, politically naive or what--to try to deny the validity of Greenspan's observation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:05 PM

Well, Greenspan is about half right... It wasn't only about oil but politics... Afganistan was settlin' into a borin' war and the '04 election was comin' and Karl Rove knew that '04 wasn't gojng to be a cakewalk and so he let Bush know that a new shiney war would get him thru '04...

Ohio??? Okay, maybe Rove missed but the crooks cleaned it up...

But there is no question that Bush would have lost '04 without Iraq... No question at all... Even against a lousy Dem candidtate in John Kerry...

Dean, however, would have kicked Bush's ass...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM

Bobert-

Dean would have smashed Bush?--it ain't necessarily so. Remember the main attack on Kerry, was, as usual, "weak on national security". That took some doing. With Dean that would not have been at all hard to establish--harder than against a Vietnam combat veteran.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Alice
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:34 PM

Greenspan was on 60 Minutes tonight.
I hope it sells more of his book.
When asked, he said Clinton was the smartest
president he worked under, Ford the most ethical,
and Nixon the most foul mouthed and racist person
he'd been around.
Hillary he said is very smart, very capable of being
president, but he would vote for
a Republican (Greenspan is a Republican).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:48 PM

It wasn't just about Iraqi oil. It was about controlling all the oil in that entire region, which includes the Middle East and the Caspian region. The USA wanted to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, set up permanent bases there, and use them as staging points for further ambitious moves in the direction of, most likely, Iran...and quite possibly Syria.

Iraq is one part of a larger grand strategy, a strategy which is grand imperialism on a vast scale. Excuses will be found for future wars, as they have been found for past wars. This sort of thing's been going on for centuries, and it always involves the robbing of the less powerful by the more powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

Interesting side note to this discussion.

Heard that Israel bombed a Syrian Nuclear installation.

Here we go again? Remember who first attacked Iraq to destroy nuclear facilities? And who later sent in their troops?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:21 AM

The fight over oil in that region Little Hawk isn't over either. The US has long been far more interested in the region as a whole & doesn't give a shit about Iraq or Iran for that matter, they're just stepping stones. It wants control over the oil flow through out the Mid East & North West Africa & it'll go after it, slowly, maybe but that is the "End Game"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:55 AM

I'm waiting for teribus (the resident know-it-all) to argue this point with Alan Greenspan, ex chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:46 AM

Hey!--What's all this guff about "clean burning coal"? There is no such beast. Any engineer will tell you that the main measure of combustion efficiency with respect to carbonaceaous fuels is in analysis of the "flue gases". And the higher the figure for carbon dioxide, the happier will everyone be---except those who are concerned about greenhouse gases, that is! Finding a way to capture and confining carbon dioxide is the ONLY way to making "clean burning coal" a credible expression.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:04 AM

"Dean, however, would have kicked Bush's ass..."


                      But the corporate forces of evil destroyed Dean in Iowa, in case a Democrat got elected.


"Greenspan was on 60 Minutes tonight.
I hope it sells more of his book."


                     Oh, that's why he finally admitted Iraq was about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:05 AM

""clean burning coal""

Ah - Little Fascist Johnny has that under control! - so he tells us...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:25 AM

"coal has become 'clean enough to burn'."

Boab, that is not what I said. What I did say is above, here. Coal burns more cleanly today than it did even 30 years ago. But that's a far cry from me saying it is clean burning.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:29 AM

BTW, I live in a coal mining area.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:36 AM

To some it is official when Greenspan has now said in his new book that the Iraq war is all about oil .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM

I am waiting anxiously for those folks who were so vocal about it all being about terrorism and WMDs to put Greenspan in his place. Yep. Let's hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:22 AM

The effect of the war has been to provoke MORE terrorism, but that's always what happens when you violently invade other people's countries.

I mean, hey, just look at all the "terrorism" the Nazis had to contend with in WWII. ;-) Terrorists were springing up all over Europe and killing innocent Germans, for God's sake!!! What was their problem anyway?   (don't take me literally, please......)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

Foolstroupe--You juxtapose the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor by Israel with the sending of US troops to Iraq as if that was one concerted attack. Be fair! The first gulf war was almost ten years after than the Israeli action, and the proximate cause for US/UN involvement was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The current Iraq war started more than twenty years later, and had nothing to do with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:46 AM

And a bloody good thing it was that that reactor was destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:18 PM

Yea, where´s Teribus when you need him?......

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Well, so as not to disappoint dianavan.

Greenspan says that it was all about oil.

All the anti-war; anti-Bush start jumping up and down chattering with excitement.

OK, it was all about oil, but not in the way most who have posted to this thread imagine.

The US position with regards to the Middle-East and particularly to the Persian Gulf is something similar to Great Britain's attitude to Europe from about the early 1700's to 1914. At no time throughout that period did Britain ever want to rule or control Europe, nor did they ever seek to do so. Their primary aim in their foreign policy towards Europe was that they would make absolutely sure not to let any other single state ever control Europe.

The USA has no intention of controlling the Middle-East, but it doesn't want anybody else to control it either. Far, far too many of the USA's allies and trading partners rely on oil from the Middle-East, the USA itself most singularly does not, particularly not with oil at the price per barrel that it is at present.

Little Hawk
"It wasn't just about Iraqi oil. It was about controlling all the oil in that entire region, which includes the Middle East and the Caspian region. The USA wanted to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, set up permanent bases there, and use them as staging points for further ambitious moves in the direction of, most likely, Iran...and quite possibly Syria."

Now Little Hawk can you possibly explain why they need this now, when they didn't seem to need this at any point during the last sixty years. The plain fact is that they don't need permanent bases in the region now, they never, ever did. And they are not setting up any such bases now.

Control of the area is not on the cards - for a start it is impossible for the USA to gain such control, just as it was impossible for Great Britain to gain control of Europe, but they can stop anyone else from controlling it and ensure that oil supplies flow freely out of the Gulf. To do that you do not need permanent land bases - you need a Navy - The United States of America has got a Navy that is second to none - in exactly the same way as Great Britain needed and had the Navy it required between 1700 and 1914.

All this by the way was not brought to the table by President George W. Bush, or by any member of his Administration. It was introduced into US Foreign Policy many, many years ago by that "nice" peanut farmer chappy "Jimmy" Carter.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:12 PM

Nice try Teribus, but laying it all at the feet of Jimmy Carter is like trying to blame the Planter's Peanut Man for AIDS.

From my link above:

"A client oil state was first defined by Lord Curzon, who was the British foreign secretary after World War I. He said it was an "Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff . . . There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on".

The US took over the British imperial prize in the Middle East after WWII. The official US State Department history (1945, volume 8, page 45) noted: "These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment."

The US is not going to give Iraq up without a fight, even if the main cost will be damage to its reputation as a good global citizen."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM

Jimmy Carter is a favorite whipping boy for the Right. The poor man, after all, was attacked by a killer rabbit while out canoeing... ;-) ...thus cementing his reputation as an official "wimp" for all time.

Anyway, Teribus, I consider all American presidents to have been servants of the grand strategy I allude to...not just the Republican presidents.

I don't think the USA's policy is surprising, as it's motivated by self-interest. I just think it's unacceptable to many in the Third World whom it directly affects, that's all...

Because of that, you will see further struggle and further terrorism. Such things happen when great powers muck around in the affairs of smaller powers (as they always do). I see no reason to sympathize with the activities of the great powers when they do that.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:22 PM

"The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." - President Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address, 23rd January 1980.

Metchosin, read that last paragraph again very carefully, then go back and read what I said in my post. If you then have any doubts about the United States of America's long term policies in the region come back and talk about it.

The article you linked to, dated 2002 was way off mark. neither French, nor Russian, oil interests in Iraq have suffered one jot, much to consternation of those who predicted that "big bad" American Oil Companies were going to "steal" Iraq's oil.

One of these days the truth will sink in:

- You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible (None of you who have claimed that it is possible have ever come up with a way of explaining the means of doing so)

- Just as you cannot "steal" it you most certainly cannot "control" it, you cannot "corner the market" and if you cannot control the market you cannot control the commodity. (This used to be a great hobby-horse of dianavan's, and no matter how many times she was asked to explain the how, she always just ducked the question)

Oh and what the US State Department history 1945 said at the time was probably very true at that time, 62 years down the track, things have changed - greatly.

People have talked a bit about coal - the long term view should be that it is too precious to burn.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

It's kind of important to read exactly what Greenspan 'admits'...and who he says he 'advised' about what, and what what was NOT said.

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! He did NOT say...and specifically did not assert...that it was all about 'getting' Iraq's oil, as so many seem to insinuate. I gather that Greenspan assumed that, with Saddam gone, access to Iraqi oil might automatically follow as a plus.

Whether it is true that Bush & Co. listened to Greenspan and integrated his analysis into their plans is NOT clear. There's a lot we can guess at in these issues, but oversimplifying and making broad assertions about what YOU believe policy was, is kinda dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

Bush 'surprised' by Greenspan--White House



Agence France-Presse
Last updated 10:42pm (Mla time) 09/17/2007


WASHINGTON--US President George W. Bush was "a bit surprised" by a memoir by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan that alleges "the Iraq war is largely about oil," the White House said Monday.

Spokesman Dana Perino pointed to a new interview with Greenspan in which he backtracked and "acknowledged that oil was not the president's motive for engagement in Iraq and our decision to go into Iraq."

In published excerpts of the book, Greenspan said: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil."

In an interview with the Washington Post, done Saturday but published on Monday, Greenspan explained "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:14 PM

Obviously, NO one in the administration wants to go on record as having oil on their minds. WMDs, real or ephemeral, were a much better excuse.....but obviously, oil was a big unspoken issue, whether they even admitted it to themselves or not.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM

1. The effect of the war has been to provoke MORE terrorism ...

But that's just fine with the BuShites. As long as the average U.S. citizen/voter is kept ready to shit his/her drawers for fear of "tay-rists- phantom or real doesn't signify- they won't have time to figure out how badly they're being screwed over.

2.Yea, where´s Teribus when you need him?

Who, precisely, needs him & for what??

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

"Jimmy Carter is a favorite whipping boy for the Right."


                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.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 07:24 PM

It's hard for anyone not already wallowing in the profits of one energy source to bear the costs of R&D on another type....and those who are invested in oil & gas don't WANT to spend their profits on Solar or Wind development..etc...until forced to.

Carter just didn't have the clout to twist their arms.

Now I read every day about new breakthroughs in other types of energy...and I see evidence that the big oil conglomerates are trying to horn in and be sure THEY get control of that also...when we have no choice but to do with MUCH less oil.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 07:25 PM

. . . or take over the conglomerates.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:42 PM

Much as it pains me to agree with Teribus on anything, and I assure you it does:

"Iraq is part of a larger grand strategy, which is imperialism on a vast scale." Sorry, but that's grandiloquent drivel "on a vast scale".

Sounds like somebody addicted to wargaming, who always wants to read something cosmic into any development.

GWB is sui generis--for which we can all thank our God, our stars, or whatever benevolent force you may choose. The Iraq war and Bush's 2004 election were only possible thanks to 2 wonderfully successful propaganda campaigns. Bush will be gone in January 2009. After that, "fool me once, shame on you..." Even the-- substantial-- sheeplike portion of the US electorate can learn--and probably has.

Unless of course the poster's point is that capitalism itself is a vast imperialist conspiracy. Which on Mudcat is a definite possibility. An intriguing viewpoint--and in that case there's no point in discussing economics, politics, or history with the poster. But I'm sure he can find other intellectual giants to pass time with. Enjoy!

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

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM

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

            The oil would have had very little value. There would have been no reason to invade.



         "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?"

         If the US hadn't been big-assin' itself around in the Middle East in the first place, the Embassies and the USS Cole wouldn't have been out there presenting themselves as targets.


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

       It depends on whether these treaties were entered into before or after Carter. If they were after, they probably wouldn't have happened. If you're talking about agreements with Israel, it's time for that allie to stand on her own two feet.


"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."

       Obviously, if the US hadn't been there, poking its nose into everybody else's business, trying to convert people of one superstitious persuasion to another, 9/11 would have never happened. The hijackers would have had no motive. The president would have been able to concentrate on more important things.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

" The president would have been able to concentrate on more important things."

Keriste, you think that would have been a GOOD thing?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 12:04 PM

Thanks, Amos. I was just about to post a correction to Teribus. Let me see if I've got this right. Teribus lives across the pond but has no problem castigating the lot of us, misquoting, etc. as though he lives right here in the good ol' yew ess of eh? NOT that he isn't entitled to his opinions, but it does smack a bit of over-arching certitude that his way is the right way and the rest of us be damned.

If you're going to quote me, get it right, Teribus. Oh, and for the record, I have NOT flown anywhere in over nine years and I do NOT drive an SUV. Assumptions do make one look such an ass now, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM

Teribus lives in a high tax, high standard of living country. And he likes it there.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:03 PM

"Keriste, you think that would have been a GOOD thing?"


               I guess it depends on how you spell it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible (None of you who have claimed that it is possible have ever come up with a way of explaining the means of doing so)"

Many have explained. Your mind is made up. Further discussion is useless.

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

May not have prevented attack. Certainly was a factor in the response.

"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?"

This is a nice little diversion. 9-11 and Cole had everything to do with the bin-Sultan airbase (now abandoned by USA) in Saudia Arabia - too close (by Muslim fundamentalist standards) to Mecca. If we were close to Mecca to protect oil interests, you just answered your own question.

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

HUH? (red herring alert)

"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."

HUH? (red herring alert)

"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"

Okay, let's grant you the current statistics (but please ad up the TOTAL mid-East contribution, okay?). Now, shall we discuss the FUTURE?

"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."

Nope. What controls everything is the volume of political campaign contributions and the resulting payback. Free market -- my arse.

BTW is it possible to be anti-war and not be simultaneously anti-Bush, and not be simultaneously a left-wing clown?. If all of these things are necessarily inter-related, only one sobriquet will do.

"stop driving around in your SUV's and stop flying all over the place at the drop of a hat."

Done that. Now what?

I feel better now, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE
"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible
UNQUOTE

Hmmmmm, you obviously haven't kept up with the News over the furore about Australia's recent stealing of East Timor's Oil & Gas reserves....


It was done just by the stroke of a pen... dead easy...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 02:35 AM

"Some will rob you with a sixgun....some with a fountain pen"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 01:41 AM

"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible"

"Many have explained." - TIA

Well no actually, many have not, and if the absolute drivel about camapign contributions controlling what happens within the oil industry world-wide has got anything to do with those so-called explanations, I rest my case.

"What controls everything is the volume of political campaign contributions and the resulting payback." - laughable.

Now by all means, "please ad up the TOTAL mid-East contribution, okay?":
- US daily consumption of oil is? - 20.08 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports of oil amount to? - 10.5 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports of oil from OPEC countries? - 8.127 million barrels per day
- US daily imports from Persian Gulf? - 2.334 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports from Iraq? - 450,000 barrels per day.

By Christ TIA, they are "stealing" a lot aren't they? Must have something to do with all that payback, bloody strange that not a single US oil company has an operating licence inside Iraq isn't it?

Rather odd that neither yourself or Riginslinger draw attention to the fact that all the attacks I mentioned pre-date Afghanistan and Iraq. You are partially correct about the air-base. Osa Bin Laden's "beef" is actually with the Government and ruling family of Saudi Arabia, who, in 1990 chose the international community in preference to Osama's fighters to protect them from Saddam Hussein. That was America's great crime, acting under UN Mandate to expell an aggressor state from Kuwait and acting on previously negotiated bi-lateral defense treaties (Yes Riginslinger the US has one with Saudi Arabia and most if not all of the Gulf Emirate States, Israel is far from being the only US ally in the region).

"The oil would have had very little value. There would have been no reason to invade." - Riginslinger

Now let's see Riginslinger if we've got this right. We are discussing "Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait". As the US imported no oil from Iraq and very, very little at the time from Kuwait, where the US got their oil from does not really enter the equation does it. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to gain control of their oil in order to pay for and rebuild after his disastrous war with Iran. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the US.

TIA the two questions you failed to answer:

"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."

Not red herrings at all, are they? Just a trifle inconvenient for you to handle given your perspective on things.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:50 AM

Thanks Subiret

That's now 2 documented examples... all done without physically carrying it around too...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:54 AM

I thought that oil was measured by the barrel, so whatever anyone stated or mistated would make no difference.
You want to buy a barrel, then you pay for a barrel.
Or am I missing something.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

OK Foolestroupe & Subiret, how did he get hold of it? and where did he hide it? Most importantly what's he going to do with it?, who is he going to sell it to? How is he going to sell it to them?

By all means Guest Subiret, do a bit of "googling" you will instantly find who has oil deals in Iraq - BP ain't amongst them, you'll find lots of French and Russia interests and licences, none at all for the "oil barons" that dianavan always keeps banging on about - but I suppose that's what you get if exposed to too much "Dallas" at a formative age.

"You can steal a nation's oil. I forget the figures offhand,... but after Iraq was invaded by 'coalition' forces, Tony Blair stole half of Iraq's oil. Stole it with a sentence." - Utter crap and completely ridiculous. But look on the bright side it was enough to sell it to Foolestroupe - but then some are a damn sight more gullible than others. Be interested in hearing your answers to the questions asked.

By the bye, Guest Subiret, as Tony Blair never worked for, or held any position of authority within, the World Bank, he can suggest whatever he likes, neither the World Bank or the Government of Iraq have to pay any attention at all to his ramblings, or yours for that matter. Besides the way it works is this, according to their web-site - Donor nations pledge aid, which the World Bank then disburses - no deals related to Iraqi oil involved whatsoever - No theft of Iraq's Oil. IDA interest free loans paid back over a period of 40 years with a further 10 year grace period, how the country receiving the loans does that is up to them, no conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 10:36 AM

Perhaps you need to research the Aussie 'theft' ... :-) We tried to start selling the Drilling Rights... after we signed the deal :-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:00 AM

Some interesting articles as to who might be stealing a nation's oil:

Who is stealing Iraq's oil - TIME.

Also, interesting analysis.

Also, there is this:

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. This was kept secret from both the Iraqi and American people, but the draft has now been submitted to their parliament for its approval, so details of the thievery have leaked out.

The law would transform Iraq's huge oil reserve from a nationally-owned resource to a privatization model, opening two-thirds of the known oil fields to foreign control.

Instead of parliament making the major decisions over oil, an unelected authority called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would take charge. And guess who would have seats on this council? The major oil corporations!

This autocratic group would then decide who gets the contrats to extract the nation's oil. Yes... that means Big Oil would be approving its owns bids. Also, the corporations would not have to hire Iraqis, reinvest profits in Iraq, or share new technologies. Foreign interests would even be allowed to divvy up the territory now and hold their pieces of the action until after the current civil war settles down, then move in to grab profits.

This scheme is nothing but a license for Big Oil to plunder a nation and its people. So much for Bush & Company's rhetoric about "bringing democracy to Iraq." They're using our troops to give away Iraq's oil... and its sovereignty.

This is Jim Hightower saying... To learn more about this shameful ripoff, call the watchdog group: Oil Change International: 202-518-9029

And, this from HERE:

From Bush Admin insiders turned whistleblowers, Bush Admin documents leaked to British news, incl BBC News Investigation 3/17/05 "US Secret Plans for Iraq Oil", etc,etc etc, and now from 7/6/07 interviews on Democracy Now with an Iraqi general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and the president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union in Iraq---We The People watch helplessly as the Bush Admin is now in the process of trying to legitimize stealing Iraqi oil. Iraqi oil is nationalized and protected under their 70-yr old Constitution, but the Bush Admin and US oil companies with the help of multinational oil companies are changing all that.

For readers who haven't read other articles in this series I'll republish excerpts of the 2005 BBC News Investigation and other UK News and leaked documents, then last will be the recent interviews by Democracy Now. (Note-Articles #1-#4 in this series are long,so it's better to print and read later.)

Background-While the mainstream media says the Iraqi Congress is making decisions to allow multinational oil companies to buy their oil, many independent sources including an earlier Democracy Now broadcast revealed that the Iraqis were pressured by the Bush Admin to break their 70 year-old Constitution that stipulates that the oil belongs to the Iraq nation. The US Senate Intelligence Committee already held a Hearing confirming the Bush Admin manipulated US Intelligence to justify invading Iraq, see 6/26/06 Testimony & Report by Carnegie Endowment on C-Span. But due to Bush Admin deceptions, the US Congress is now using this oil transfer as part of the benchmarks for watching US success in Iraq, to see if Iraq is becoming self-sufficient,this is a sick twist of reality. Please call Congress now.

*UK NEWS--BBC News article "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil" by Greg Palast investigative journalist with Harper's Magazine, revealed by insiders and a 323-pg secret document, just weeks after Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, and Big Oil created secret plans for Iraq's Oil. Palast's article at BBC Newsnight (excerpts) "The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed". "Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:30 PM

"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. This was kept secret from both the Iraqi and American people, but the draft has now been submitted to their parliament for its approval, so details of the thievery have leaked out."

I take it then katlaughing that you have not read through the "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law", I have and it may surprise you to know that in its thirty-three pages it does not mention anything about Western corporations. It does however say the following:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Other provisions katlaughing.

Article 6 - Creating the Iraq National Oil Company

INOC owns and operates all main transportation pipelines
INOC owns and operates all export loading facilities

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. National control;
2. Ownership of the resources;
3. Optimum economic return to the country;
4. Appropriate return on investment to the investor; and
5. Reasonable incentives to the investor for ensuring solutions which are optimal to the country in the long term related to:
a. Improved and enhanced recovery;
b. Technology transfer;
c. Training and development of Iraqi personnel;
d. Optimal utilisation of infrastructure;
e. Environmentally friendly solutions and plans.

For the umpteenth and oneth time.

You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 05:32 PM

Do you have a link to that which you cite, Teribus? If so, please post it. I'd like to take a look.

As to the actual physical act of stealing a nation's oil, tell it to China:

In December 2003, an illegal tap installed on the Lanchengyu Pipeline, then the country's longest oil pipeline, blew off and caused a leak of more than 440 cubic metres of gasoline.

Oil supplies were cut off for about 15 hours and the nearby railway line was held up for six hours. The spilled gasoline seriously polluted local rivers and thousands of people had to be evacuated.

Two thieves responsible for the accident were executed for "destroying facilities that are easily combustible."

But Ma said punishment given to most pipeline thieves was less severe.

"Those who drill pipelines are usually charged with theft and receive prison sentences of less than 10 years," he said.

"But we're now suggesting they should be charged with destroying facilities that are easily combustible."

He added that China's Supreme People's Court is drafting related regulations that would add the death penalty to the list of punishments.

About 23 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities where fuel thefts are comparatively serious are involved in the ongoing crackdown.

or, Nigeria,

and, just to throw something else interesting into the mix, have fun reading Oil Junkies for Jesus vs the Oil Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:04 PM

Katlaughing,

Are you really that desperate to refute what can only be described as something that is as plain as a pikestaff? You are being deliberately obtuse and you know it.

The anti-war, anti-bush left, wing clowns who have been barking on about evil mega corporations, big bad American oil companies (why does it always have to be American oil companies, that from the comic books?? everything else seems to be),"oil barons", Halliburton, et al, stealing a county's (Iraq's) oil. Utter crap, what you come up with is called pillferage, and none too successful or large scale at that.

For the umpteenth and second time - You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

So, you don't have a cite link?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

Simply Google "Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law" then read the document for yourself.

While you're at it here's the list of oil fields and operators currently working in Iraq (source: World Markets Research Centre): West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkey, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian);
Tawke 1 (DNO AS - Norwegian).

Now all that oil and gas, katlaughing, is owned by the people of Iraq, the companies listed up there as field operators have got a licence to produce it. That licence can be taken away at the drop of a hat. Now as one who appears to believe that it was all done so that the big bad US could "steal" Iraq's oil can you explain how and why there are no major US oil companies listed there?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:05 PM

Plain as a pikestaff? I don't know if this group is any more credible than Teribus, but they don't seem to share his viewpoint, either regarding the clarity of the treaty or control of the resource. Seems they've also read it in Arabic as well as English and they aren't too keen about it.....especially some of the annexes to the treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

That licence can be taken away at the drop of a hat

Bit like the way Iraq threw Blackwater out of the country. Or didn't as the case might be.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:48 PM

The problem is Teribus - as I have pointed out to you before - just because someone says it is so - does not make it so.

I did as you suggested and googled "Iraq Oil and Gas Law".

Here is what the third hit says. Without being pedantic,it hardly supports your case.

Here is another quote from that same google that you suggested:

Some legislators have also complained that different versions of the law are in circulation and lawmakers do not know which version to discuss.

"We are for enacting a law to regulate oil and gas production but we, in the Council of Representatives, have so far been confused as there is no final formal version that we can discuss and give our views on in a definite way. There are several versions and some have no annexes," legislator Basim almharif from the Shiite Islamic al-Fadilah Party told DPA.

You can find that quote here



I also googled World Markets Research Centre

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

That was posted too soon and I apologise for that.

I also googled World Markets Research Centre - though you didn't suggest that I should.

It doesn't exist and it re-directs people to Global Insight.

Try this..........

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:46 PM

"For the umpteenth and second time - You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible."

Except for East Timor.... which he refuses to discuss.... :-P

We dood it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM

You can steal anything by means of a treaty, a trade agreement, a contract, the stroke of a pen.

Only primitives try to steal things with guns. The pen is far more effective an instrument of theft.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM

How one steals oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:01 PM

Drill on a diagonal fer krissake.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:35 PM

The main point of 'theft' is 'Show Me Da Money!' - who gets the money - if you can screw the dumb natives out of Manhattan Island for just a handful of beads... is that theft?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

Mets! Great link! You, too, FolkieDave!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM

"Al-Ghad is the voice of the democratic left in Iraq"--according to its own website. If it is the only source of the allegation that the Hunt oil deal is official US policy--the phrase "Bush-linked" is not enough-- we need a more reliable one. Particularly since some of the other sources, like the Wall St Journal article alluded to earlier in the thread, indicate that the US government is in fact not pleased with the move by Hunt Oil, since they realize it undercuts the Maliki regime.

So if anybody has good solid information on this, as opposed to rhetoric or blogs, please share it.

And if there's interest, I'm sure I can find the Wall St Journal article in question.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:48 PM

I thought Hunt Oil went out of business in the 1980's when they tried to corner the silver market.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:00 AM

Foolestroupe,

East Timor is a boundary dispute involving three countries that is far from being a done deal. That dispute is also linked to agreements reached with the Indonesian Government prior to East Timor gaining its independence.

Metchosin - refers to a left wing blog (i.e. can't be bothered to read the document herself and relies on somebody else to tell her what it says, as long as that particular hit disagrees with what people think I am saying) Same goes for Folkiedave, Foolestroupe, et al. Rather agree with Ron Davies:

""Al-Ghad is the voice of the democratic left in Iraq"--according to its own website. If it is the only source of the allegation that the Hunt oil deal is official US policy--the phrase "Bush-linked" is not enough-- we need a more reliable one."

+

"So if anybody has good solid information on this, as opposed to rhetoric or blogs, please share it."

Particularly the last quote.

Peace, directional drilling and horizontal drilling have been around for decades, but even with that its not how you "steal" oil, for a start the oil has to be deep enough to allow you to turn the drill string. Example from long ago in the North Sea. In UK/Norwegian Sectors the Norwegians were livid when the Brits (Shell actually) found oil in the Brent and Murchison Fields because it forced them to develop the deeper Statfjord Field earlier than they intended. That was because the fields although big are fractured reservoirs and natural seepage occurs between them. Had the Nowegians chosen not to develop Statfjord, the British could still not have been accused of "stealing" Norwegian oil, as they were drilling exclusively in the British Sector.

International oil companies are actually against privatisation of Iraq's oil, which, if you read Articles 1 and 6 of the Draft Law it is not going to happen and what is more was never on the cards.

Karlaughing having read through the document, did you find any refernces to those western oil companies that you and that "Kelptocracy" originally mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:32 AM

I beg your pardon.....Dear Teribus, I happened to read a sizeable portion of that blog, particularly those articles pertaining to the anexes. As you seemed reluctant to cite your sources, I provided a link to the website because it contained a draft of the full treaty document to which you referred. Don't let critical thinking interfere with your rhetoric. I refer you to the biography of Nicholas Chauvin.

What I said was I don't know if your view point is any more credible than theirs and I still stand by that.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:38 AM

But Teribus what I said was that I took up your invitation to google Iraq Oil and Draft Law and the "hits" I got on Google did not wholly support your case.

I also took a look at your other reference to World Markets Research Centre and it no longer exists and redirects you elsewhere.

Marking your citing of references I have to give you 0/10 so far.

But do keep trying - with a bit of application I am sure you can do a lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 05:16 AM

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

I found it strange that the major players US/UK in the
oil and gas market, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. were not represented in Teribus's list.

A bit of digging led me to the fact that in fact they have not so far been players in this market because in fact there is no legal framework for them to operate there. The new Oil law will provide this opportunity and there was a big meeting in Dubai September 2nd at which they are all represented.

There is no doubt what will happen - Production Sharing Agreements.
They allow the Iraqi to say they own the oil and it allows privatisation of the industry at the same time. You have to hand it to these boys - they are clever.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:21 PM

How much of Britain's oil has been stolen Folkiedave? How much of Norway's? In fact how much of anybody's oil has been stolen?

Oh yes the PSA's, do you mean like the ones that Saddam negotiated with the French and the Russians where they got the 75% of the profits for 25 years and preferential tax breaks, or do you you mean like the one negotiated by the Kurds with the Norwegian Company DNO where DNO bear all the costs for exploration and for installation of the the production facilities in return for a 40% stake in the field on which they then pay full royalties and tax. Ah, of course I forgot with Saddam and the Russians and the French it wasn't just about oil was it, there was a the pressing need to find ways of paying for a massive arsenal of weaponry.

Just to re-iterate - the draft law:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Other provisions katlaughing.

Article 6 - Creating the Iraq National Oil Company

INOC owns and operates all main transportation pipelines
INOC owns and operates all export loading facilities

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. National control;
2. Ownership of the resources;
3. Optimum economic return to the country;
4. Appropriate return on investment to the investor; and
5. Reasonable incentives to the investor for ensuring solutions which are optimal to the country in the long term related to:
a. Improved and enhanced recovery;
b. Technology transfer;
c. Training and development of Iraqi personnel;
d. Optimal utilisation of infrastructure;
e. Environmentally friendly solutions and plans.

Oh, by the bye Folkiedave, as you have read the new Draft Law, you can tell everybody why the likes of Exxon and BP have no legal framework in place to operate in Iraq (Shell which is a Dutch Company Folkiedave) is because for them to operate in Iraq Folkiedave they have to have local partners (Iraqi's or Iraqi Companies) who will own 51% of that joint business, i.e. Folkiedave they will control it.

Katlaughing, to hell with your bloggs, I am perfectly capable of reading information from source and forming my own opinions, I don't need to be advised as to what I have to think by anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:27 PM

Yo, Teribus. Howzit, man?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

At no time have I suggested any of Iraq's oil has been stolen. You must be mixing me up with someone else Teribus.

I didn't think much to the PSA's that Saddam made either. Why on earth should I?

As for the Kurds making separate agreements so much for the Oil Law - or do you agree that the Kurds can make separate agreements with the Norwegians? So Article One - the one you quoted in your last missive Teribus, that didn't last long did it?

It is against the law to do all sorts of things Teribus - it doesn't mean to say that the law will not be broken. Ever gone over 30 mph in a 30 mph limit Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:06 PM

My giddy Aunt Folkiedave, do you ever read anything!!

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. NATIONAL CONTROL;
2. OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES;

I believe that you have spent your life in the field of education Folkiedave, hope it wasn't maths, because, if you enter into a business relationship and have a 40% stake, I believe that the other partner HAS CONTROL of the business - TRUE???

Now then Folkiedave what did Article 1 say again:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

So let me get this right Teribus.

The Iraq Oil law says:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates

I haven't looked that up but taken it from your missives.

do you you mean like the one negotiated by the Kurds with the Norwegian Company DNO where DNO bear all the costs for exploration and for installation of the the production facilities in return for a 40% stake in the field on which they then pay full royalties and tax.

I haven't looked that one up either but taken that from your missive too.

So just so we understand each other - the Iraq oil reserves are owned by all the people in all regions and governates - but it doesn't apply when the Kurds make a separate agreement with the Norwegians.

So have you been over 30 mph in a built-up area Teribus? It's against the law. Tell me you didn't do it.

You understand I spent my life in the field of education.

You understand wrongly. As usual you have taken a little knowledge and made wrong assumptions from it. It's a habit you have.

Stop it, Teribus - it might get you into real trouble one day instead of just making you look like a right-wing neo-con bully as it does on here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:28 PM

"on which they then pay full royalties and tax."

They are purchasing, WITH their investment, the right TO BUY the oil.


Sort of like stock options- which do NOT give control of the stock itself.


And the Kurds now will have to deal with the distribution ( per whatever the IRAQI's decide) of those royalties and taxes to "all the people in all regions and governates ". Seems so easy to understand, when one does not presume that the US is always wrong regardless of its actions...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 11:10 PM

Speaking of the Kurds, I wonder if GWB ever figured out why Turkey didn't want to allow American troops to pass through their country in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:44 AM

Not quite how I read it BB. It seems the Iraq government read it the same way as me.

The Kurds have made a separate agreement with the Norwegian Oil company (and now it seems Hunt Oil as well) in direct contravention of the Iraqi government's wishes. Do you really believe the Kurds will then distribute this money to the rest of Iraq?

Well good heavens there goes a whole squadron of farmyard animals flying past my window.

But the real point is that Article One has simply been ignored by the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:39 AM

So let me get this right Folkiedave - From your post.

"The Iraq Oil law says:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates

I haven't looked that up but taken it from your missives." - Folkiedave.

Followed by:

"Not quite how I read it BB. It seems the Iraq government read it the same way as me." - Folkiedave

So "the Iraq Government read it the same way as me." - You mean that, like you, they didn't read it at all Folkiedave?

I know that you hate reading material from source Folkiedave but the document we happen to be discussing is the "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law". So can you explain the following:

"As for the Kurds making separate agreements so much for the Oil Law - or do you agree that the Kurds can make separate agreements with the Norwegians? So Article One - the one you quoted in your last missive Teribus, that didn't last long did it?" - Folkiedave

The "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law", Folkiedave.

What does "Draft" mean and imply with regard to this law Folkiedave? Does it mean that it is in force, or on the table for discussion? You see, inconvenient as it is for your rather haphazard logic and reasoning, the CPA, the Interim Iraqi Government and the current duly elected Iraqi Government successively honoured previous agreements relating to oil, and under present laws the Kurds have every right to negotiate with whoever they want. Now who owns the natural resources - the Iraqi people do, it has cost them (the Iraqi people) absolutely nothing to explore and develope the Tawke 1 oil field, they still control the field with a 60% share as opposed to DNO's 40% - money for nothing in effect. Then Folkiedave guess what happens when DNO, having produced the oil, wants to sell it. They (DNO) pay the INOC transportation charges on ALL the oil that is pumped into INOC's transportation system, then they pay the Iraqi Government Royalties on ALL the oil produced.

So for no outlay and for absolutely no risk the Iraqi Government make quite a tidy sum of money from DNO and the Tawke 1 Field, as opposed to very little from deals that Saddam signed with the French and Russians. Another kick in the teeth for the Iraqi people under Saddam was that because Saddam got very little out of it and the Iraqi people got absolutely damn all (Once Saddam had paid for all his Palaces, 384 Rocket Motors and his intermediate rocket R&D Programme) the fields were kept on full production, without the down-hole monitoring and maintenance essential to keep the reservoirs "healthy". So the result is that although you have oil down there in abundance, you have to spend a fortune to enable yourself to get it out (In my little list of companies operating in Iraq I mentioned Sonatrach - solving such problems is their speciality).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:51 AM

"far from being a done deal"

Well, Little Fascist Johnny wanted all us dumb Aussies to think it was...

:-)

... till the shit hit the fan... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM

the Interim Iraqi Government and the current duly elected Iraqi Government successively honoured previous agreements relating to oil, and under present laws the Kurds have every right to negotiate with whoever they want

So when the Los Angeles Times says that isn't what the Iraqi government says I am expected to believe you?

See a summary of the article here.

The fact is that the Kurds are fed up with Baghdad and are starting to make their own agreements to exploit the oil resources in their region. They are no longer prepared to wait for any oil law, draft oil law or any other kind of law. I'd guess that they are hoping to breakaway and set up a Kurdish nation myself.

And you believe they will pass on any revenues they receive? There goes another squadron of flying farmyard animals.

Now I thought when you wrote on this date 24 Sep 07 - 03:30 PM about the Draft Oil Law - all 33 pages of it - you felt it was important - that it it was going to have some legal importance and it meant something. Now you tell us it's just a draft - no importance - never did believe it anyway.

Try and understand the situation a little better, and don't rely on what the law says - sometimes it is broken.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

Oh no Folkiedave, I only raised the contents of the Draft Oil and gas law to refute what Katlaughing came up with about her

"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."

No mention of Western Corporations was there Folkiedave? - Oh yes, I forgot, you haven't read it but are prepared to argue about its content and purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

Teribus - you are starting to flounder.

I never read the Draft Oil Law because it is - as I suspect you think too - irrelevant. Most draft laws are. When I did as you suggested and googled Iraq and Draft Oil law there seemed to be a number of versions- so I didn't bother too much, I used, as I freely admitted, your own quotes. Sorry you don't have confidence in them.

We shall see what agreements are made or have been made when the dust settles after the Dubai meeting.

Now - were the Kurds correct to start allowing exploration in defiance of the national government (who arranged the Dubai meeting to try and sort this kind of thing out) or not? And if you think they are right - are you happy to extend that right to other oil-producing regions in Iraq?

And do you then think there is any point in any sort of national law?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 06:48 PM

Ah, but the devil is always in the details. The original draft was crafted by a US firm, not the parliament of Occupied Iraq and the letting of contracts is in the hands of a board made up of international Oil Execs, not the government of Iraq.

No wonder it has stalled.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 09:08 PM

Read Naomi Klein's book excerpt in the Guardian link Metchosin provided. Fascinating. And well argued.

Question: if there is so little in it for Iraqi legislators, who in fact have to pass the oil law, why would they ever do it? Is it just the 21st century version of "Such A Parcel of Rogues In A Nation", (which you're probably familiar with)?

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.

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

Teribus my old fruit - had you cared to read properly you would have understood that the piece was not about Scottish politics but about your ability to predict events. Which as you freely admit when it came to the Iraq War was - how can I put this in words of one syllable so you understand it- I know - wrong.

If you are making a plea for proportional representation by quoting the Scottish election result then fine - but people might understand you better if you said - "I believe in proportional representation as a better form of electoral system than the one we have."

But then you would be in good company - so does Arthur Scargill.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

Teribus:

If you persist in humiliating these two foolish boys, you risk being accused of child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:52 PM

I assume that the majority of Mudcatters would prefer to see Iraq's oil controlled by Osama Ben Laden?

If it was only about oil, why didn't we just seize the oilfields and start shipping oil to the U.S.?

Alan Greenspan has a right to an opinion. Doesn't mean, however, that he is right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:56 PM

It's all in the perception, the point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:58 PM

DougR,

I think rather that they want the oil controlled by France, Germany, Russia, or China- You know, the countries that did not want to hinder Saddam's efforts to develop WMD.

Have to punish the Evil US for doing something when the UN wouldn't- Otherwise you get situations like Darfur and Burma where the UN expresses its displeasure, and gets ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:00 PM

Yeah, beardedbruce, but you got to admit when the UN "speaks" people listen. Why I cannot comprehend.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:49 PM

Well, Dougie, I sure nuff would rather see Iraq's oil controled by Osoma bin Laden if it meant that the last 4 years plus in Iraq hadn't happened.... Yes, Osoma would be a definate improvement... Plus, over a half million folks would still be alive, the region would be more stable and the pipelines wouldn't be gettin' blown up several times a month... Ahhhh, not to mention that the US wouldn't have thrown over a half a trillion $$$ (borrowed, I minght add) down a rat-hole...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:53 PM

Well Bobert, you have at last confirmed it. You are in real need of psychiatric help.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:15 PM

The huge (and phony) death count in Iraq was fabricated by two Johns Hopkins teachers who were connected to a school of international politics, not medicine. That figure was placed before the public by the publisher of Lancet for political reasons (a few weeks before the US elections). He has stated that himself.

The actual number should be about 38,000.

Had Saddam been left in power, at the rate of 159 dead per day (see Amnesty International) there would have been 250,000 dead since the beginning of the MAR 2003 military action. We have prevented about 200,000 deaths and may be able to establish a stable democracy which will be an asset to the world community. It was once the biggest threat extant.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:41 PM

pdq.... You seem quite an authority on Scottish Politics?

"The actual number should be about 38,000."....Did you shoot them yourself?

"We have prevented about 200,000 deaths and may be able to establish a stable democracy which will be an asset to the world community. It was once the biggest threat extant"

Teribus will you please tell pdq to DREAM ON!!

Was that post supposed to be some sort of American joke?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:55 PM

Eh? Folkiedave, the system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament is a form of Proportional Representation known as the Additional Member System (AMS). Each voter has two votes, the first for a Regional Member, there being 56 regional Members across 8 regions. The second vote is based on the usual "first past the post" system for the 73 Constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament.

In either case two-thirds of the people of Scotland rejected the SNP. That is what the figures tell me, but they only represent some form of substantive evidence of the overall political picture in Scotland based upon how they actually voted, or didn't.

If Akenaton wants to parley those figures into something that supports his contention that Scotland voted for the SNP he could only be described by any rational human being as being delusional. How else could you describe as a mandate to rule, a situation where only half the electorate turn out, and of that half, two-thirds do not vote for you.

Translated Ake, Folkiedave, that means through deliberate voting practice, or through apathy, 83% of the electorate of Scotland did not vote for the Scottish Nationalists - What kind of victory is that folks? - Momentous? Credible? Non-existent? Looks like another of those elections where a box marked "None of the above" would have more truly reflected the mood of the electorate as a whole. They should do what they do in Australia - You get fined if you don't vote.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:10 PM

Ake,

And we waited for the UN to act in Darfur- From an article today "More than 200,000 people have been killed, 2.5 million driven from their homes"


So, will YOU accept the blame for those 200,000 dead, since the US did not act on it's own ( years ago, when BUSH declared it Genocide, but the UN argued about it) but did as YOU wanted, tried to generate a consensus that China and Russia kept blocking?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:19 PM

"over a half million folks would still be alive" - Bobert

Still waving that ficticious figure about like a flag I see Bobert.

To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pielines have been blown up, last one was June 20th. Now where exactly were those pipelines that were "gettin' blown up several times a month" located Bobert? Or are they, just like your 500,000+ dead just a myth, a concoction asiduously latched onto by the anti-war; anti-Bush chorus, to be shouted about from the roof-tops until somebody asks you for some form of substantiation - Then everything goes quiet or the personal attacks begin.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:20 PM

Ake,

The 200,000 figure I stated is my estimate on the number of people Saddam did not have a chance to kill because we, the big bad US of A, gave him the boot. It cannot be an actual number because he was not able to continue his violence. We saw to that. The peice of shit is gone. We deserve thanks. If it does not come now, it will come from future historian.

About Scottish politics, I know nothing. That is why I have posted precisely nothing on that subject.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

Apologies that should have been, "To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pipelines have been blown up, last one was June 20th."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

U.S. Deaths: Self-Inflicted As reported by the DoD as of 8/31/2007


Army--104; Navy--4; Marines--14; Air Force--0

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:58 PM

Teribus...I think the word you seek is indeed momentous.
The SNP came from absolutely nowhere to win the election by 1 seat
The first time Labour had been defeated in Scotland for fifty years!

But the real point is that the impetous and momentum which delivered that victory has continued under the new left wing Scottish government

The next time,.... now that people see the nationalists are capable of doing the job...the percentage voting nationalist will be over 50 and then we will be in a position to fly our flag.

And it's nearly all thanks to Blair...God bless him..(well maybe not)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 05:45 PM

To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pipelines have been blown up, last one was June 20th."

Do keep up old fruit.....Here are two you forgot to mention......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL234974820070923

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 05:46 PM

And since you are in favour of asking questions do you agree with some form of proportional representation?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:06 PM

And I think this is the definitive body count web site.....

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Incidentally Teribus looking through a random selection of your posts I notice you never seem to leave any "blue clickies". Not learnt to do that old fruit? It does help when you are quoting sources.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:21 PM

from that source:
74,431 – 81,119

That is inline with the 38,000 killed by Coalition forces. Please note that the people you seem to want to have control are responsible for the remaining 55,000 or so...


Still under the 200,000 that was mentions as being prevented by overthrowing Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM

It is always the "false dilemma" with some war supporters. If anyone opposes bush's unilateral invasion, you say "then you support Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden". This is a well known logical fallacy, that (as with all logical fallacies) when used, lowers the credibility of the user in any future discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:49 PM

The figure of "38,000 civilian casualties" was from MAR 2003 to OCT 2006, the second time Lancet online was promoting made-up the figures, this time it was "650,000 - 850,000 civilian deaths". The web site Iraq Body Count, shown a few posts back, is clearly by an anti-war group, which makes the Lancet loons look as bad as most sane people have been saying. Their figure is about 10% of the Lancet online BS figure and is for a period 1 year longer.

The civilian deaths are from coalition action aimed at stopping Saddam's regular army and his special guards, but it also include those killed by terrorist infiltrators, jihadists and others. Some people have been killed for personal reasons, such as long-standing feuds and for property theft. Easy to kill your enemy and blame it on the US and Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:36 PM

"Iraq Body Count, shown a few posts back, is clearly by an anti-war group"

Better go read up on them and their methods before you start proclaiming.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:40 PM

Ah hell, I'll make it easy for you:

"IBC's documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

***** IBC's figures are not 'estimates' but a record of actual, documented deaths. *****

IBC records solely violent deaths.

IBC records solely civilian (strictly, 'non-combatant') deaths.

IBC's figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised."

***emphasis by TIA***

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:42 PM

...and I don't think anyone could credibly argue that the meticulously documented deaths are the only ones that have occurred, so the *actual* number is higher (possibly by a lot).


(opinion of TIA in paren's)

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

The usual "prove it" defense when anyone brings up body counts... One thing for sure is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about how mnay folks have been killed...

But consider this... It has been reported that over 3000 sorties were flown in the pre-mission-accomplished days... Now each sortie is an individual flight with a mutitude of bombs dropped from each one... Now if you average that an F-16 alone can drop a half a dozen bombs and bombers hundreds of bombs it is not out of reason that upwards of of 100,000 or so bombs were dropped on Iraq... Now we throw in artillery, tanks, missles (smart or otherwise) and the millions of rounds of small arms fire- all in a country no larger than Texas- and it is not unreasonable for any person with an I.Q. greater than that of an empty box of animal crackers to think that the numbers the Bush folks are throwing out are just plain bull... If you can't kill more folks with upwards of 100,000 bombs and millions of rounds of tanmk, artillery and small weapons fire then I'd say that you have some very, very poorly trained soldiers and, if for no other reason, you should quit playng war because yer guys can't hit the broadside of a barn...

Simple Logic, 001 (non credit, remedial)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:02 PM

The deaths of civilians and soldiers--it's become a fuckin' numbers game? Keriste . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

BTW, Teribus...

Would you like to provide an "objective" source for your assertioon that the pipeline have only been hit 7 times this year... But before you go into yer War 'n Peace post. please Google up your sources just to be sure that they are on the up and ups 'cause yo8u know I'm going to....

And please, no Bush administration sources... That are as bogus as three dollar bills...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM

Let's clarify. The group Iraq Body Count seems to have made an honest effort to generate a truthful figure regarding the total civilian deaths since MAR 2003 in the country of Iraq. They desrve respect for that.

However, if you read the rest of the material on the site, it is all anti-war, with links to numerous anti-war groups. That would seem to give the relatively low number more credibility than if it were posted on a pro-war site. Saying that they are anti-war is not a slap at them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:09 PM

Saying that IBC is anti-war may not be a "slap" at them, but it was clearly an attempt on your (pdq's) part to provide a reason why their numbers should not be believed.

So, in the same vein (not a slap), is it unfair for me to point out that the 38,000 number comes from the Bush Administration which is decidedly pro-war.

The Bush Administration (unlike IBC) has provided no publically-viewable documentation for their "number". Okay, THAT was a slap, and intentional.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

If you have been paying attention to the "casualty figures", you have no doubt noticed that estimates vary widely (and as pdq tacitly points out) and partisanly (is this a word?). Part of the confusion stems from the definition of "casualty". The Wikipedia article on Iraq war casualties has been quite a battleground over the last few years. It has evolved into a pretty complete compendium of all available data, based on all working definitions, and honoring a wide spectrum of viewpoints. If you really want to discuss casualties, this is a damn good place to start -- although following links to original sources and beyond is highly recommended. Don't just listen to GWB, or Rush, or TIA (especially TIA). You've got a lot of reading to do before you can argue about "casualties" with any degree of authority. (Kudos to those who have).

It is here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:27 PM

TIA, you are not reading the posts.

The Iraq Body Count number is reasonable and dates from today, 2007. The number I gave, although it is from another source and dates from 2006, is also reasonable.

Actually, you are free to take the average of the two. Nobody can be certain anyway.

The figure that is absurd is the "650,000 - 850,000" given by Lancet online in OCT 2006. That figure is ten times more than the Iraq Body Count figure. The Lancet online number is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:54 PM

Actually, I do read the posts, and read an awful lot elswhere too.

No, the Lancet number is not "absurd". It is based on statistical techniques that are widely accepted in other fields. There are "experts" who (perhaps legitimately) question this number -- but interestingly do not question numbers arrived at by the same means in other fields.

I have provided a link above to a pretty comprehensive discussion. It'll take a while to get through it all, but will lead to an informed discussion of this decidedly partisan and emotional issue.

There was a prior thread in which the Lancet article was argued pretty thoroughly (and I - surprisingly - opined plenty there, so I will not repeat).

So long, but best regards and respect (seriously).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:56 PM

Sorry, I have been un-signed-in for weeks now. Cookie reset.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 12:34 AM

Thanks for the information Folkiedave.

To date this year Bobert there have been only 9 attacks on pipelines, in which pielines have been blown up. Now where exactly were those pipelines that were "gettin' blown up several times a month" located Bobert?

TIA the Hopkins Report itself states that it is only an "estimate" in which it uses the phrase "may have died". Exactly how that translates to such as yourself and Bobert as "actual" and "definitely died" I cannot understand as I believe neither of you were involved in the Study and both of you only read, or give credence to material that solely supports your point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:50 AM

Thanks for the information Folkiedave.

You are welcome Teribus.

Here's another one since you liked that one so much. It is dated August 10th.

"Sabotage attacks averaging two a week against northern export pipelines have all but stopped Iraq's oil flows through Turkey's Ceyhan port after the 2003 U.S. invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Numerous attempts since to ensure smooth flows have failed".

Two a week (average) looks like repeated attacks to me.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:51 AM

And you still haven't told us if you line-up alongside Arthur Scargill in the matter of proportional representation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:12 AM

Thanks, FolkieDave, for saving me the precious time of having to go back thru my newspaper clipopings to find the same source that you apparently have found... I remember reading that quote and sure I clipped it out for my files... Unfortunately, my filing syustem leaves a little bit to improvement but the stuff is all there... Up to about 10 inched deep in clippings now...

As for "definate dead", T... What does that mean???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:16 AM

Teribus, you are a bonehead. Your comment to me is a perfectly clear indication that you did not read my preceding posts. Your knee just twitches doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:32 AM

Speaking of numbers (of dead)...how many Iraquis have been forced to flee and become unwanted refugees in neighboring countries? Few have made it to the US, of course, since we are rather restrictive of people coming in of late. I don't have a link, but I have heard it is the vicinity of 2 or 3 million.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

Remarkably as you asked that question there was a report by Reuters yesterday.

You can find it here.

Basically it suggests there are 4 million refugees - half of which fled before Saddam was toppled and half afterwards.

As to the numbers of Iraq refugees allowed into the USA - not very many is the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:52 AM

Hi Bobert,

You tell me, what's the difference:

A. " I have definitely won the lottery"

B. " I may have won the lottery"

Who goes out and spends the money A or B.

May have died implies that there is an element of doubt, the "death" has not been verified.

"Definitely dead" implies that there is no doubt that the death has been verified.

Hopkins figures were estimates that is why they stated may have died. IraqBodyCount figures are all verified the low range figure by two independent sources the high figure by one source.

Proportional Representation = Ineffecive non-government, classic example Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:02 AM

"Hopkins figures were estimates"

The Hopkins figures were bullshit to begin with. I really wish folks would stop using them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:04 AM

Well I am sorry you don't agree with proportional representation as an electoral system.

In Great Britain every year since 1945 more people have voted against the winning party than in favour of it. That's without the non-voters of course. And Teribus believes this is effective government.

But it is hardly democratic is it - when more people vote against the winners than in favour of the winners? And that's without the non-voters.

Well at least we know where we stand old fruit. Is this why you went to live abroad? And where you live - what sort of system do they have?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

Left wing socialist ...SNP

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 01:39 PM

Hee,hee, hee

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:25 PM

One issue Party that hasn't done anything yet. Only beat the Lords of Divine Rule in Scotland (The Labour Party) because they'd done even less and brought the entire country into disrepute doing it. People generally were totally jacked off with them so they demonstrated with a protest vote - I will be interested to see what happens next election.

Best chance Scotland has of independence is for the SNP to convince Westminster to give the English a vote on the Union. Main advantage for England is that they would never have to suffer a socialist government again, that's why Labour are against giving one half of the "Union" the right to vote on it, which is rather unfair, don't you agree Ake?

Proportional Representation Folkiedave - Now let's see since 1945 how many Governments has the UK had? Now compare that to how many Governments Italy has had in the same period. Now tell which you truly believe to have been the more effective. I know which I would opt for, as for your choice I just want to see if you know what effective means.

"The Hopkins figures were bullshit to begin with. I really wish folks would stop using them." - Peace

Could not agree more with you even if I tried.

Bobert - Cat got yer tongue? Who spends the money A or B?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:21 PM

A: "Saddam Hussein definitely has weapons of mass destruction"

B: "Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass desctruction"

Which is a suitable pretense for invasion?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

or

C. "The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs for developing weapons of mass destruction"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

"People generally were totally jacked off with "them" so they demonstrated with a protest vote - I will be interested to see what happens next election."


For "them" substitute "Blair" and we can agree about..."Blair has been forced from office by public disgust"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

The Italian Constitution and electoral system was deliberately made weak and divisive post world War two to ensure that the Communist Party of Italy was never able to get democratic control. Thus the number of governments post-war.

West Germany - the powerhouse of the European economy post-war has proportional representation. Pretty effective sort of economy I'd say. One of the current economies doing pretty well in Europe is Ireland. Proportional representation. Israel, strong country if nothing more - proportional representation.

The countries with "first-past-the-post" systems tend to have lower turn outs like the USA with its voter turn-out of around 50%.

But of course it is hardly democratic when a party with less votes than the opposition wins. I thought that was what you were arguing earlier.

I like to see the party with the most votes get seats in proportion to those votes (more or less) - what a shame you prefer them not to.

Incidentally, you still haven't told us what the electoral system is in the high tax, high standard of living country that you live in. Do tell old fruit, people might be interested. Denmark for example uses the party list system. Pretty effective government in Denmark.

I happen to think that the Iraq body count website is a more likely figure than the Hopkins figure. 49 killed yesterday. They will be delighted to know we have an accurate count of people killed.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

As per usual, a thouroughly ill thought out T-Bird defense/analogy...

Upwards of 100,000 bombs and millions and millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire directed at population centers in a country the size of Iraq and you want us to belive the 35,000 and change figure...

Maybe you'd also like for us to believe that Saddam had all these WMD's, was trying to purchase enriched uranium in Niger, that if we didn't stop him then the mushroom clouds were next on Saddam's agenda...

No one can definately say how many folks have died but one thing is for sure is if on 35,000 have died then our military ain't worth a flip and our service people don't know jack about aiming their own WMD... I mean, I could round up a dozen 'er so hillbillies who could do one heck of a lot better with that kind of firepower against a rather defensless population...

And, fir the record... No, cat ain't got my tongue... Unlike you, I have a real job and don't live in front of a computer screen...

(But, Bobert, T-zer is one the Bush/Blair payroll... Ain't that a real jo???)

Sorry, T... Defending these knotheads is a one heck of a job... Hope the pay is good...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:42 PM

Bobert,

It really is NOT that difficult to actually check your figures...

"MCALESTER, Oklahoma - As U.S. bombs fall on Iraq, workers at America's pre-eminent bomb factory half a world away in the rolling hills of Oklahoma watch a TV set during their lunch break to see the results of their handiwork.

Run by the U.S. federal government, the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) has been in operation since World War Two and has produced almost all of the estimated 13,000 bombs that have pounded Iraq."

You appear to be 770% high in your estimate... about normal for you.

Of course, claiming a "sortie" drops an average of 30 bombs every time might be the cause. Between photo recon and all those attacks with fighter/bombers that only carry 4-6 bombs, it takes a whole lot of area bombardment flights to bring the average up- and we didn't fly them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:52 PM

Interestingly, the Lancet survey result is no longer a crazy statistical outlier. A September, 2007 Opinion Research Bureau study arrives at an even higher figure of over 1,000,000 post-invasion deaths.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

This study, instead of being hotly debated, is being largely ignored.

I don't think anyone knows the "true" figure. I am sure that any reasonable person would agree that the total documented deaths is surely less than the true number.

I suspect that many have no interest in the true number, and for political reasons will only admit to documented deaths (and even then, round them down).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:34 PM

BB,

The Pentagon has gone on record of saying that over 30,000 sorties were flown in Iraq...

Now a sortie is a bombing mision and given the multiple bombs that am airplane can carry it is rather obvious that the 11,000 finure is as bogus as Bush's original reasons on why the US had to invade Iraq...

Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya that someone at the bomb plant is usin' fuzzy math...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:48 PM

Bobert,

1. it was "all of the estimated 13,000 bombs that have pounded Iraq."
NOT 11,000.

2. You state:"Now a sortie is a bombing mision and given the multiple bombs that am airplane can carry"

A sortie is ANY flight by any plane or aircraft. A helicopter insertion of a medical team is a sortie.

" However, in military parlance, a "sortie" is an operational flight from a military aircraft. A Yahoo! Reference search on the term resulted in two definitions: an armed attack, especially one made from a plane surrounded by enemy forces, or a flight of a combat aircraft on a mission. "

Your arguements might be more effective if you stopped trying to make up the facts as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:59 PM

teribus said, "The USA has no intention of controlling the Middle-East, but it doesn't want anybody else to control it either."

What kind of a statement is that? Does that mean they just want to keep the Middle East in constant turmoil and keep the Muslim world in their place?

I also see that teribus has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was about oil but not in the sense that the lefties think it was.

Can you please explain in more detail?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:11 AM

BB --

"The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs..." That dog not only won't hunt--it's been buried for years.

For the n th time, UN reports only permit an UN-sponsored invasion. Bush's invasion was emphatically not blessed by the UN. Exactly what about that do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:21 AM

From whatever source one uses or believes, the total number of "bombs" will be a bit misleading since the USA joins China, Pakistan, Russia and Israel in refusing to support a treaty banning cluster munitions (CBU's).

Go ahead and count bombs, then realize that…"each CBU-87 contains 202 BLU-97s or Combined Effects Bombs (CEBs) which have anti-personnel, anti-tank, and incendiary capabilities or kill mechanisms"…

More here…

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:35 AM

BB,

Don't confuse Bobert, for all his arguements he relies on the "BOBERT FACT" which requires no form of substantiation.

Bobert also wants to look at the combat statistics:

"Desert Storm" was by far the more destructive with around 130,000 killed that included all Iraqi military fatalities.

The Invasion of March 2003 and operations to May resulted in about one tenth the civilian fatalities of "Desert Storm". Very few infrastructure targets were hit in 2003 compared to "Desert Storm" and there was a very good reason for that.

I am interested to see that dianavan appears to believe that the middle-east region has to be controlled by some other country, because if not it can only result in turmoil. By the bye, dianavan the middle-east is not "the Muslim world", not by a long shot. The answers to your questions dianavan are contained and explained in my first post to this thread, all you've got to do is read it, I did after all write it at your specific request.

Ake, the protest vote in Scotland was directed against Jack McConell and the Scottish Labour party, nothing to do with Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:11 AM

Perfectly valid assessment at the time Ron. In fact it was the only valid assessment at the time and was widely believed by the member states of the United Nations and their Intelligence Services.

It is extremely inconvenient that counter to what the anti-war, anti-Bush chorus chirp, the information regarding what WMD Iraq may have held all came from the UN, whose inspectors were the last people in Iraq verifying what the situation actually was, it was not "made up" by either George W Bush, or by Tony Blair.

Identification that Iraq represented a threat to US interests was not something engineered by George W Bush, or by any member of his Administration. That conclusion had been reached three years before GWB came to the White House and had been clearly expressed by Bill Clinton on 17th February 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:26 AM

It was all about the WMD's he possessed and thus a threat to the region. He was always a threat to the region and when he was fighting against Iran the USA was happy to support him. When he was using WMD's in the form of chemical weapons against Iran why was there invasion then?

Another country in the area has almost certainly stockpiled a huge arsenal of weapons including nuclear weapons, and hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, therefore doesn't even get inspected.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:01 AM

That should read "why was there no invasion then" - meaning at that time

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:49 AM

So, BB, what were the other 17,000 or so flights about??? Come on, pal, your logic just ain't up to snuff here... And whatever your source is on the 13,000 can't possibly be anythingbut propaganda 'cause something just don't add up... The Penhtagon says over 30,000 so that leave one heck of alot of flights unaccounted for??? This ain't rocket swergery here... What were the other 17,000 plus flights about??? Sight seeing???

Yo, T-zer,

Speaking of ***fuzzy math***, how can you say that Desert Storm, with 130,000 folks killed was more destructive??? That is an absolutely rediculuos claim given there is more a very strong likelyhood that over a half a million folks have died in Iraq... Oh sure, you can play game with semantics and you can question the meathodology of the Johns Hopkins study but you can't expect people to believe your propagandized Bush War Machine number of 35 or so thousand... Yeah, I know that Hitler said that folks would believe the BIG LIE but folks have gotten a tad smarter about accepting the Bush/Blair/BB/Teribus propaganda crapola... Folks here, with the exception of you and BB, just don't believe your sources... They are not even remotely credible...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:50 AM

Folkiedave,

If you are saying that Iran did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you are wrong. They did.

Iran was also the target of a recent UN resolution condemning their nuclear program. See UN Security Council Resolution 1737. Thei nuclear program cannot be about power generation since the country is floating on oil.

During the Iran-Iraq War, both sides used chemical (and probably biological) weapons one each other. We (the US) condemned both sides. Also, we did not really support Iraq, but we did give them surveillance photos and other assistance after Iran had crossed over into Iraqi territory, thereby becomming the aggressor.

During the Ian-Iraq War, less than 1% of the Iraqi weapons were US-made and almost all came to Saddam through third parties, including Argentina and Israel, and were largely un-authorized, being the work of for-profit arms dealers. Also, some of the arms were sold by states wishing to generate money by selling what was supplied to them for self-defense.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:56 PM

"over a half million folks would still be alive," - Bobert

"given there is more a very strong likelyhood that over a half a million folks have died in Iraq." - Bobert

Well Bobert you appear to be moving in the right direction.

Oh by the bye, Bobert:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4817582.stm

How many got killed in that "sortie" Bobert.

Hey, Folkiedave, those rascally Kurds have signed another four oil deals, which the Iraqi oil minister is calling illegal, but which I am pretty sure they aren't on account of there being no law in place for them to break, but Folkiedave, can you explain to us why the Kurds should be thanked for doing so, and ultimately will be thanked for doing so. French and Canadian companies are involved I believe and one of the contracts involves a refinery.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:25 PM

First of all Teribus - congratulations on learning to do the blue clicky. I expect to see more of your information suitably referenced in future. It would have been easy to reference your story about the new oil deals like this for example.

As for the illegality of the Kurds actions since you believe it is OK for them to "go it alone" why do you think none of the other regions of Iraq have gone down this road, (or would you support them if they did?) and why do you think the USA also finds such contracts unhelpful?

Looks like a bit of a breakaway state to me Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:33 PM

If you are saying that Iran did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you are wrong. They did.

Iran was also the target of a recent UN resolution condemning their nuclear program. See UN Security Council Resolution 1737. Thei nuclear program cannot be about power generation since the country is floating on oil.

I haven't said anywhere that Iran has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Just the opposite in fact since I pointed out that countries who do not sign do not have weapons inspectors.

Try again with another country with a large nuclear weapons stockpile that hasn't signed.

As for the USA being neutral and condemning both sides - really?

Go do some reading. Read this for example.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

""The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs..." That dog not only won't hunt--it's been buried for years.
"

Please try READING the reports. I have quoted them in the past- just look back. BUT READ WHAT THEY SAY!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM

OK Folkiedave why should they be applauded for doing this?

And Hell's Teeth Folkiedave, we're not back at that Donald Rumsfeld, Ultra-Mega-important US Government Oficial, Special Envoy with the Authority to speak and act on behalf of, and for, the President, Congress and people of the United States of America are we???

No need for the blue clicky on this occasion, Folkiedave has already provided it. Pssst Folkiedave have a read of Document 31 - The meeting notes. Then come back and tell us what they said, tell us how many and what weapons Rumsfeld "sold" to Iraq. Note this is not some "blogg", this is not some MSM outlet trying to sell copy or boost ratings. This document records the meeting between Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld and was addressed to the US Secretary of State and classified as "Secret" and "Immediate". Its purpose is to serve as a briefing document, no hype, no spin just a straightforward record of the conversation. You will see that the US is attempting to reduce if not halt the flow of weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:00 PM

"I pointed out that countries who do not sign do not have weapons inspectors. "

True- AND they do not get the assistance to their civlian nuclear programs that signatorties get.

The non- signing countries are

India
Israel
Pakistan

North Korea sign, violated, and withdrew. After getting the assistance, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:16 PM

Bobert:

Learn to read.

http://keld.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/15/838263-air-force-quietly-builds-iraq-presence-drops-5-times-more-bombs


"Air force chief Air Marshal Angus Houston said Australia's 14 F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers dropped a total of 126 laser guided bombs - 115 of the 500 pound GBU-12 bombs and 11 of the much larger 2,000 pound GBU-10 bombs."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/04/1054700269932.html

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:24 PM

Air War, Iraq: 2006

While cluster bombs remain a point of contention, Air Force officials do acknowledge that U.S. military and coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of other types of bombs on targets in Iraq in 2006. This figure -- 177 bombs in all -- does not include guided missiles or unguided rockets fired, or cannon rounds expended; nor, according to a CENTAF spokesman, does it take into account the munitions used by some Marine Corps and other coalition fixed-wing aircraft or any Army or Marine Corps helicopter gunships; nor does it include munitions used by the armed helicopters of the many private security contractors flying their own missions in Iraq.

In statistics provided to me, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped those 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles." The Guided Bomb Unit-12, a laser-guided bomb with a 500-pound general purpose warhead -- 95 of which were reportedly dropped in 2006 -- was the most frequently used bomb in Iraq last year, according to CENTAF. In addition, 67 satellite-guided, 500-pound GBU-38s and 15 2,000-pound GBU-31/32 munitions were also dropped on Iraqi targets in 2006, according to official U.S. figures. There is no independent way, however, to confirm the accuracy of this official count.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TUR20070526&articleId=5781

reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped those 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles."

Let me see...For 2006, 177 + 52 = 229 over 10,519 sorties..... 0.0218 bombs or missiles per sortie.



Call it 35,000 ( I'll give you 5,000 FREE) total sorties- then that would be 653 bombs and missiles. Given that during the war there WAS large scale bombing of bunkers and installations by B-1 , B-2 and B-52 bombers, I suspect 17,000 total bombs is about right. Care to give me any reason to think THAT number is propaganda, when YOU have NO basis in facts for your number at all?

Remember,
"Statistics tell the story: Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first six months of 2007, a fivefold increase over the 86 used in the first half of 2006, and three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data."

WOW- I just noticed that in 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007 they dropped a TOTAL of 666 bombs and missiles on Iraq!


That only leaves 12,334 or so for 2002 through 2005 ( twice as long a time): That INCLUDES the entire attack. Care to show me any figures that might indicate we dropped more than that?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM

Bobert: "It has been reported that over 3000 sorties were flown in the pre-mission-accomplished days... Now each sortie is an individual flight with a mutitude of bombs dropped from each one... Now if you average that an F-16 alone can drop a half a dozen bombs and bombers hundreds of bombs it is not out of reason that upwards of of 100,000 or so bombs were dropped on Iraq..."

Mother Jones: "Total air sorties, 41,000; Strike Sorties, 15,500; Bombs Dropped, 27,000. And that only covers the pre-"Mission Accomplished" phase of the war."

So MJ ( if YOU accept thier figures- they DO have a slight interest in producing a biased viewpoint) said 27000 / 41000 bombs per sortie DURING THE ATTACK
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/iraq_year_three.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2950837.stm

Of course, it could ALL just be proganda.
0.659 bombs per sortie INCLUDING the B-52s DURING the attack...


I think the 17,000 +/- bombs is a little more accurate than your WAG.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:47 PM

more:

:Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started. :


http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324


Let me see... more than 600 bombs- (call it 650) and 21,736 sorties...

0.0299 bombs per sortie.

So back off your *lies*, Bobert. Or come up with SOME kind of facts to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:52 PM

You are a hoot, BB... I mean, like fallin' down holding yer sides, laughin' type hoot...

Yer posts remind me of the 2000 Florida recount with the number of bombs creeping steadily upwards... Heck, If I stayed away a couple days you'd probably be up to 70 or 80 thousand... Just today you have managed to get the numbers up several thousand while I was busy working...

Okay, lets just say that it was *17,000 bombs, millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire* (not to nention those nasty little cluster bombs which we will onlu count as ones-ies) with all this stuff aimed at population centers ina country the size of Texas by the best trained army in the world.... You with me so far, BB... This ain't about academics and propaganda...This is about pure and simple ***horse sense***... So we have all this stuff aimed mostly at population centers and you and your bud, Teribus, expect the thinking world to believe that only 35,000 to 38,000 Iraqis died as a result???

This is the argtument here... It's not about whether 17,000 or 100,000 bombs (depending on definitaion of "is" is in "What "is" a bomb???)... It's about the pure simple logic that if only 35 to 38,000 died then every Amercian serviceman was aimin' to ***miss***...

Is it your contention that the US military conspired to make Bush look bad by purposely ***missing*** their targets???

Hmmmmmm????

You know perfectly well what this is about... It's about the deaths of civilians.... Women... Old peoppe like maybe yer parents.... Kids... Thios is what it is about... It isn't some stupif acedemic exercise.... It's about the massive human loss of life that if your side lets down it's gurad for one minute and the world really gets beyond the lies and propaganda will ***insist*** that George W. Bush an' his buds be tried for War Crimes...

You can play all the academic games you want but this is the real story... Historians wikll bget this one right just as I got my prerdictions of what was gfoing to happen in Iraq right... You were wrong then... Teribus was wrong then.... And you both are still wrong in playing games and not facing the reality of what your folks have done to the world...

No, this ain't about the Saddams... It's about the George Bushs and the Beardedbruces...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:00 PM

Sorry, T-zer, if you are feelin' kind left out here butt yer bud, BB, has outworked ya' today but...

...nevermind all that 'cause I know that you are tryin' the best you can and I don't want that to go unappreciated... OKay???

I was able to to get my pea-shooter dial up to download yer little article about the jet scarin' away the all the bad guys... I was thinkin' that was purdy cool... Of course, the story doesn't have any relationship to Iraq but I enjoyed it non the less 'casue I like airplane stories where folks don't "actually die" (yer term???) but get the crap scared outta 'um so...

... I reckon it was 'bout 35 'er 40 years ago and my brother had gotten his pilot's license and so we were flying over Loudoun County, Va. (which today is as close to a no-fly zone as you can find) an', okay I had flown a lot of Cubs as a kid (no license) with other pilots but never a Cesna with a *yoke*... So we were at 'round 5000 feet and my brother stalls the sumabich... I mean, this thing is like dead... Bells ringin', wings shakin' dead... Then he pushes in the yoke and we are droppin' like a friggin' stone and prolly fall some 4000 feet before he pulls up and lets the air running thru the prop restart the engine... Man, he had me scared outta my head... I thought we was gonna die but I tried to act as if I was all calm during his little ***prank*** (haha) and was watchin' what he was doing...

Bout 15 years ago we were flying in a Cezna 210 (turbo) down to North Carolina and my brother said he needed a quit nap and gave me a heading and told me to just hang on that heading... Now the Cezna 210 usually flies at 'bout 10,000 so the trubo will work but the ceiling was like 5000 feet so we were just below the clouds and here I was with virtually the same danged plane with my brother nodded off in the left seat... Well, what a guy to do??? So I pulled up on the yoke ever so slightly and then the stall bells went off... My brother slept rith thru 'um... So I pushed the yoke in and let the sumabich fall... Soon as I did that my brother woke up and he was quite aggitated.... Oh, life can be so good... "Yer plane, bro" I said as he scambled tofirst figure out that he was awake and second that I'd put us into the same fall that he had put us thru some 20 years earlier... But he pulled it out just the same way... Heck, I coulda pulled us out, too but I just made him sweat...

We haven't talked about that incdent since it happened... I remember him being real pissed at the time but havin' a few laughs over it later that night in some bar...

Well, this ain't got one thing to do with this thread except the link that you, T-Bird, provided brought back that memory and I just thought it was prolly the only time that I'd gettin' 'round to tellin' it so...

Thanks, T-zer, fir the link...

Now back to the slog...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:25 PM

Sorry Bobert but you just do not like facts, I mean really facts, not "BOBERT FACTS" that are just things that are made up at the spur of the moment to suit whatever arguement is the flavour of the day.

Now Bobert I gave you an example of a - roll of drums - a "sortie" (Bobert definition for the unitiated - a sortie is something that is flown by a US aircraft that ALWAYS results in CIVILIAN deaths) - now come on Bobert tell us how many civilians were killed as the result of that "sortie". By the bye, for those who do not wish to wait around for Bobert to struggle with his various prejudices, his bigotry and his bias, the answer is NONE.

So shock, horror and amazement a "sortie" has been flown in which NOBODY has died. That truth having been clearly established Bobert how many of the others were the same. Think carefully before answering Bobert - the only person you will be lying to is yourself. Oddly enough I don't think that that will matter a damn to likes of Bobert, his head is stuck so far up his own arse the only sensible conversation he can have is with his own echo.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:29 PM

That's 3 "bye the byes" for you in one day, T, so I hate to tell ay that you have struck out...

Awww, jus' funnin'...

Well, in the case you have have linked, which BTW wasn't in a, ahhhhh, friggin war zone where every plane is armed to the teeth, no one died...

No one died when I stalled the 210 and sent it into a free fall either...

Difference is that that there is a *difference3*... Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that there were flights in Iraq where folks were jus' jus' joy-riding, 'er doing recon but those flights, given that this was a war zone weren't the average day at the office...

I think, if you were to really ***think*** (I know that you ain't being paid to, ahhh, think...) about it you'd admit that the bulk of the sorties flown over Iraq weren't sight seeing or recon but maybe they were... I doubt it...

BB is up to at least 17,000 of the 30,000 not being sight seein' or pleasure flights so I think that it is not unreasonable for any thinking person to perhaps, jus' perhaps, thinki that maybe a lot of these flights were flights where there were targets and bombs...

(But, Bobert, how could this be in a war zone???)

Call it a "lucky guess"...

So back to the original premise... Bewenn what I have suggested and ehat BB has suggested there were a lot of bombs dropped on Iraq...

Do you know how large Iraq is, T???

Do you know how little of Iraq would be considered "military targets", T???

Now if you were to take away that portion of Iraq where I believe we can have a general consensus that there are no tragets of military value and reduced it to land size I believe that rather than bombing an area the size of Texas we are really talking about bombing an area the size of Rhode Island...

Are you with me this far, T???

So here we have between 17,000 bombs (BB's figure) and upeards of 100,000 bombs fallin' on an area no larger than Rhode Island... Throw in millions and millions of rounds otr tank, artillery and small arms and your 35,000-38,000 figure of Iraqi deaths is beyond comprehension to anyone with any level of "military science" training...

In other words, your numbers are so deep in the area of "fuzzy math" that it would take both Oral Roberts and Jesus Christ to budge 'um a millimeter... That, my friend, is the reality of your arguments... Yeah, you'd love to pin me down... Problem is that you dn't have a credible alternative story... All you have is worn out mythology and propaganda that any college debate team would drop into a shreader as if it was air... No, amke that hot air...

Thin about what you are suggesting, T... It is unbeleiveable... 35,000??? Come on man, quit making a fool out of yourself... We both know you are as wrong as wrong can be...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:31 PM

Bobert I am so disappointed to learn that you don't like facts, that you are not o in an affectionate relationship with facts and that you may not even sleep with facts.

What are you, some kind of fact hater?

It must be true. Teribus said it.

You and facts should get to know each other better.
Let me introduce you.
You, this is fact, fact this is you. You fact, Fact you. :)





Teribus your America is a free market America.
There is much in it to be proud of I am sure.
As you said you can;t make an omlette without breaking an egg.
But were not talking eggs anymore.

It's endless foreign wars, mass killing and destruction, detentions and torture, contempt for international law, and total disregard for human rights and social justice everywhere. At home, it's just as bad short of open warfare:

-- democracy is a fantasy in a corporatist state placing profits over people;

-- the prison-industrial complex is a growth industry;


-- social decay is increasing as well as real human need;

-- social justice, civil liberties and human rights are non-starters;

-- an unprecedented wealth disparity exists in a rigid class society with growing poverty in the richest country in the world that's also the least caring;

-- government is the most secret, intrusive and repressive in our history;

-- the rule of law is null and void;

-- a cesspool of uncontrolled corruption prevails with no accountability;

-- a de facto one party state exists with no checks and balances or separation of powers and a president claiming "unitary executive" powers to do as he pleases and does with impunity;

-- suppression of all dissenting ideas and thoughts;

-- an out-of-control military-industrial complex bent on world dominance; and

-- a mainstream media serving as national thought control police gatekeepers glorifying wars, defiling democracy and supporting imperial conquest and repression.

But it is yours and you love it.

Many of us are only saying that it can be more than just a plunder machine. It could be Everything that everyone could be proud of.
Utopia? no But a market that allows for more than only one tenth of one percent of the population to have access to actual freedom and independence.

That is a system that would be the love all all people of all nations.
Our enemies would be nothing but tiny puppet dictators.

There is nothing wrong with being universaly loved instead of scorned as we are today. You just have to know whats going on first.
You already have the will and passion to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:40 PM

Bobert,

"Okay, lets just say that it was *17,000 bombs, millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire* (not to nention those nasty little cluster bombs which we will onlu count as ones-ies) with all this stuff aimed at population centers ina country the size of Texas by the best trained army in the world.... You with me so far, BB... This ain't about academics and propaganda...This is about pure and simple ***horse sense***... So we have all this stuff aimed mostly at population centers and you and your bud, Teribus, expect the thinking world to believe that only 35,000 to 38,000 Iraqis died as a result???"

You seem to miss the point. IF you really thought that was true, WHY DO YOU KEEP EXAGERATING the figure? I would think the truth would serve- BUT you insist on inflating the numbers, without even the attempt to back them up.

As for the NUMBER of bombs, I stand by the 17,000 or so that were actually produced and used. The other numbers were from Left wing sources that I do not trust, and I used them just to show that your 100,000 bombs figure was based on total nonsense.

And WHO claims that "all this stuff aimed at population centers "? You, or some reputable source? It seems to me that MOST of the bombs were during the initial attack, and most of them were aimed at military sites. Are you claiming that Saddam violated the Geneva Conventions by placing military instalations in population centers?

In addition to all his violations of UN resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:01 PM

"It's about the deaths of civilians.... Women... Old peoppe like maybe yer parents.... Kids... Thios is what it is about... It isn't some stupif acedemic exercise.... It's about the massive human loss of life "


I agree. Aned I hold all those who protested the actions of the US, and objected to the UN taking action WHILE SAYING NOTHING to Saddam about his responsibilities.

THOSE people are the ones who encouraged the war, by making Saddam think that he could get away with it. France, Germany, and Russia are more responsible for the invasion of Iraq than the Bush administration is- Had Saddam even suspected that he would be held responsible, he would have taken one of the many chances to flee to another country, with a chunk of wealth, and there would have been no invasion.

But he had every reason to think that he could get away with staying in power without commplying with the UNR: After all, the French ( who were getting the oil ( REMEMBER BLOOD FOR OIL???) told him that there would be no action against him. And the Germans, ( who were selling him the prohibited items that the UN inspectors DID find) said that there would be no action. And all the demonstrators said there should be no action against him. And the US gave him three months (after the UN report declared that he had NOT complied with the UNR) to get all the evidence, so he thought that he was going to get away with it. So, why would he give up?

So yes, it is about senseless deaths- caused by those who, by their actions ONLY against the US told Saddam that it was ok for him to continue in power, and that he would not be held responsible for complying with the UNR, or even the cease-fire that he signed in 1992....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:00 AM

"Had Saddam even suspected that he would be held responsible, he would have taken one of the many chances to flee to another country, with a chunk of wealth, and there would have been no invasion."

                If Saddam had left the country, things in Iraq probably would have come unglued anyway, though 150,000 American service people wouldn't have been trapped in the middle of it.

                Maybe that's what motivated the Bush administration to act when they did. They didn't want to see a civil war in Iraq take place that they couldn't participate in.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:33 AM

So pleased that you do not regard the South of Iraq as a war zone Bobert.

So tell me if I am understanding your logic. You are trying to tell us that the battlefield dispositions of the Iraqi Army have to be grouped together to form a concentrated target area, which coincidently has to be a centre of dense population, then we have to imagine the number of casualties that must have occurred as a result of this concentration being hit by "upeards of 100,000 bombs fallin' on an area no larger than Rhode Island... Throw in millions and millions of rounds otr tank, artillery and small arms". Where you get these numbers is probably the same place you get most of your information - plucked out of thin air.

But it didn't happen like that did it Bobert?

The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the elite Republican Guard. Entire units disbanded into the crowds upon the approach of invading troops, or actually sought out U.S. and U.K. forces out to surrender. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the CIA or coerced into surrendering.

The Iraqi Army also suffered from incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked, there was no resistance, there was no "Urban Battle in Baghdad".

By no means did the invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; U.S. and U.K. units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points rather than seek engagements with Iraqi units. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by U.S. forces, especially in southern Iraq.

I gravely doubt your estimates with regard to munitions expended the whole thing was over in 21 days bar the shouting and very litle fighting took place in built up areas. Given the combat reports it would tend to suggest that most "sorties" returned to base with full loads. But at least you have come round to the actual fact and admitted that not all sorties involved loss of life.

So 3 major advances today Bobert:

1. The Hopkins figure only estimates numbers who may have died, not numbers who have died.

2. That the Southern Governates of Iraq are peaceful and are not a war zone.

3. That not all sorties flown by Coalition aircraft result in the death of Iraqi civilians.

Weel done Bobert, very encouraging.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:49 AM

BB--

"Try reading the reports." Uh, sorry, for the n + 1 th time, it makes no difference what the reports say. Point is, and it pains me to have to say I've to I've told you more than once already that if enforcement of UN resolutions is to be done, it needs UN approval.

Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary.

Would you perhaps understand better if I used your own approach?--it makes NO DIFFERENCE what's in the reports. Do you only understand SHOUTING?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:50 AM

"to say I've told you"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 09:31 AM

There was Teribus' timeless objection to the Lancet study again:

"The Hopkins figure only estimates numbers who may have died, not numbers who have died"

Teribus will refuse to believe that Pol Pot killed 3 million in the killing fields unless you show him 3 million stamped and signed death certificates. Remember, that 3 million figure you so often hear only represents the number that may have died, not the numbers who have died.

And Sudan? Nothing bad happening there. Remember, the reported numbers of dead and displaced only represent those who may have been killed or displaced, not the number who have been killed or displaced.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM

"refuse to believe that Pol Pot killed 3 million in the killing fields unless "


I think it was 2 million or so...

" During his time in power Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism where city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians[citation needed] (approximately a quarter of the population).[citation needed] His regime achieved special notoriety for singling out all intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies" for murder"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

Oh, so are we back to the "Saddam was a bad man" rationale for the war, BB???

Is that your final answer, or would you like to continue moving the goal posts around to suit yuor latest arguement??? That really is what you do here... If you feel the heat in one place you just try to move the discussion away from where you are uncomfy...

Are you saying that removing Saddam justified the invasion and subsequent occupation???

Yeah, sure, Saddam was bad man... So what??? The US is bed with lots of bad men... This is the real world...

I agree with Donuel intirely that the US has allowed bad men to operate becasue the US hasn't been a very good role model... Bush, I think is the worst we have had to endure since, ahhhhh, Nixon but in terms of creating worldwide scorn I believe Bush has 1st place locked up going back, ahhhhhh, maybe forever...

As for you, BB, not trusting "left" sources I can certainly relate, except in my case its your sources, which come right from the company song book... The folks who wrote that book are the same folks who used lies to take our nation into Iraqmire in the first place...

If there is a well earned credibilty problem out there, it ain't our side who has created it... It's your side... People, in general, just aren't buyin' your stories anymore... Yeah, T-Bird will buy 'um and you'll buy his but there are few takers these days for your stories and continued mytholgy...

Just because you SCREAM somehting, doesn't make it a FACT... The historians will get thru your sides smokescreens... The have allready done a purdy good job on exposing the initial and most serious the lies that we told during Bush's mad-dash-to-Iraq and I am certain that the current batch of lies coming from the Bush administration will also be debunked... Including the number of dead... These things just can't be covered up but so long...

But, hark, BB... You being such the loyal little Bush foot souldier won't evr have to be contronted by the ***truth*** because there is a small but very dedicated group of folks like you who will go to the grave patting one another on the back and blaming, much like Pol Pot, the liberals/intellectuals for everything that goes wrong...

Normal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:25 PM

BB--

Still waiting for an answer. Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:06 PM

Thanks for the correction BB, but remember, those are only people who may have died as opposed to people who have died.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:15 PM

Not to fret, TIA...

Bush and BB's little cover-up will be found out... Right now all we are getting is what they say is the story... The historians are close on the heels of those who thought they had a perfect storm to keep the truth from seeing the light of day...

Ain't worked out that way...

Just as I, as well as others, predicted what would happen in Iraq, I feel very comfortable that the truth will find it's way thru the barriers that the Bush adminiistration has set up to keep it hidden...

Jesus told Mathew that "there is nothing hidden that one day will not be found and no secrets kept that will not one day be common knowledge"...

On that front, time is on our side...

Will it bring back the lives of the half million, or so, Iraqis??? No, it won't... But at least the truth will come out and maybe, just maybe, all of America will finally get it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Bobert,

I have shown that your estimates of bombs per sortie are way off.

By any figures that are available, the number seems to be

0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack
0.659 bombs per sortie DURING the bombing campaign
0.0218 for 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007.

I use sources that I do not believe would hesitate to exagerate as much as you, if they could- so why do you call thee figures "lies"?

A "lie" is when someone, after being informed of the truth, and given the facts, insists that the false statements they made earlier MUST be true, and repeats them. THAT is what you are doing.


I have asked numerous times for any factual basis for the "half a million civilian deaths" that you keep repeating, and have not seen fact one. YES, too many have been killed- MOST by those that YOU would leave in defacto control of the country. When they have killed all those that disagree with them, I guess you will say you are sorry, but we have no business trying to save anyone's lives- It's not like they are godd ol' red blooded Americans, so let them kill eachg other, you seem to be saying- correct me if I am wrong.


Just because YOU repeat a lie over and over does not make it true. If you have facts to present, I will be glad to listen to them: You seem unwiling to even bother to look for facts, but make them up as you go along. This devalues your arguements EVEN when they have some substance, and should be paid attention to. Yet when you insist of repeating lies, why should we bother to try to find the truth that you might have to say?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:05 PM

"0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

Sorry, typo. That should be " 0.0299 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

According to
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM

Ron D.

"Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?"

Subject to debate. IMO, Yes. But there are points ON BOTH SIDES.


It is the failure of BOTH sides to even try to understand that those who disagree with them have what they consider to be good reasons to do so. To ignore those reasons is to make certain that those people will NEVER agree with what you have decided is right.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:58 PM

BB,

No, you haven't shown me anything... What you have done is report what has been carefully selected for your consumption.... The truth is being kept from you yet you are so blind as to keep falling for Bush's pea-under-the-shell game and you actually believe the crap that comes outta the propaganda pipeline... Your sources are not independent... They are just pages out of Bush's comapny fight song book... You can't see this becasue you are apparently blinded to the truth...

We tried to tell you that you were buying bad goods during the mad-dash-to-Iraq but you were then, as you are now, not able to see that it is folks like you who are the most manipilated by the Bush PR/propaganda team... You still don't get it...

The real truth about what the US has done in Iraq probably won't be known until it is over... Then, as in Vietnam the real story will be told...

But I will bet you a dollar to doughnuts that when we get the "rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say, what you have stated about the extent of the bombing in Iraq will be shown to be as wrong as wrong can be...

Right now, there is very concerted effort to paint Iraq as some kinda success... This is a concereted effort... The actual story isn't being told... What is being told is complete fiction... Can I prove that tonight??? No, but history will prove it just as hiostory has proved that I had some level of underastanding of what was going to happen in Iraq during the mad-dash...

No brag, just fact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:54 PM

BB--

Oh, it's subject to debate that Bush had UN blessing to invade Iraq, is it? Perhaps you'd be good enough to give one scintilla of evidence. NB--that is not quoting UN resolutions--we need a statement authorizing Bush to use force to enforce said resolutions.

Good luck.

I'll be watching.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 10:07 PM

"the propaganda pipeline"
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/iraq_year_three.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2950837.stm


OK, They are propaganda, I guess....


Since they are anti-war.


As for your sources...

Oh, you have yet to present ANY of them- I guess that means we sghould trust your god-like knowledge to only make up "true" figures...


RD,
"that is not quoting UN resolutions"

If you do not accept UNR as indicating the will of the UN, YOU have a real problem- And since you don't read the UNR, I fail to see how you can make ANY statement as to the intent of the UN.

Sort of like you saying you want the Bush administration take on things without ever having to read anything by any spokesman for them.

But then I guess it IS easier to "win" your point when you don't allow the other team to play....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:43 AM

BB--


It's very simple--I would think a rocket scientist such as yourself should be able to understand.

Either the UN gave Bush its blessing to enforce its resolutions on Iraq or it did not. To the vast majority of the educated world it is obvious that the UN did not give Bush its blessing. If you feel differently, it would seem you might possibly be able to come up with some evidence   that the UN did authorize Bush to invade.

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence--(why do I get the impression it may be a long wait?)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:18 AM

In the words of the immortal Tina Turner - "What's the UN got to do with it?"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:23 AM

Did that come out before or after the Creedence hit "Bad Logic Rising"--with its immortal line "There's a non-sequitur on the Right"?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:47 AM

Bobert-
You are correct. The truth will eventually come out. Hints of the truth are appearing already, and being (purposely?) ignored. There has been almost zero coverage of a recent (September 18, 2007) survey by the Opinion Research Bureau (ORB) that puts the number of dead as a result of the invasion at nearly twice the disputed Lancet figure. No one is even bothering to dispute this latest survey. It is simply ignored.

The source

References on the lack of coverage

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:00 AM

Yo, BB...

How'z about actually reading the two links that TIA has provided without thinking the entire time how to twist and spin and figure out just which Bush blog propaganda links to post to refute them... Granted, there are studies on both ends of the spectrum and I'd be williong to say that maybe the answer lie (no pun intended) somewhere in between... Like I have said, historians will get it right (no pun intended, part 2) but one thing is for sure and that is Bush doesn't want us to see the dead, be it ours or the Iraqis... And Bush is doing everything he can to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t in Iraq...

And you can take that to the bank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

The problem to my mind about the body counts based on surveys like that is that there is a ratio between killed and injured on these occasions and if we accept the large numbers killed - then there ought to be an even larger number of injured.

I think the ratio is normally seen as about 3:1 but I can stand corrected on that. I see no evidence of the large numbers of wounded.

On the other hand the Iraq Body Count website does suggest (by them) that their figures are almost certainly an undercount of the total dead of the war. For instance it only counts civilian - i.e. non-combatant - deaths, and says itself it misses those who may have died from injuries a while afterwards.

Either way - it was 33 killed yesterday and the total cost of the war - to the USA - over and above what they would normally have spent on armed forces is around $457 billion dollars.

Clearly those in favour of the war regard this as deaths well justified and money well spent.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:00 PM

"Clearly those in favour of the war regard this as deaths well justified and money well spent."


                   Anything to cut down on human population growth, I suppose, but you wouldn't think they'd want to lose the money.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 04:41 PM

Looks to me like teribus is hanging on by his fingernails.

He's actually trying to convince people that Bush didn't have to go it alone because he had the blessing of the U.N.

Give your head a shake.

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

Good point, d... But what is the most infuriating is that the Congression resolution that passed givin' Bush the authority had very destinct language about such an action being taken as a "last resort"...

Problem is that Hanz Bliz was reporting prior to Bush's decision (ha), make that "final orders", that the Iraqis were cooperating and theat he was able to have his inspectors inspect what they wanted to inspect... Hardly justifies Bush's decision to say that the invasion was the "last resort"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:19 PM

"Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary." - Ron Davies

Actually Ron Davies and others on this forum the question is not whether or not George W Bush Bush had the approval of the UN, he didn't require the approval of the UN. He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America. That answer had actually been given three years before during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton - that answer was yes Iraq did pose a threat to the United States of America. Now this is not the opinion of Teribus it is recorded fact, now I know that the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd here on this forum do not want to acknowledge this fact but the least you can do is have the honesty to give your sources if you dispute anything that I have said, you will be hard pressed to refute what Bill Clinton laid out in February 1998.

By the bye, for any of you American Mudcatters out there, if you are in any shadow of a doubt, you elect YOUR President to look after the interests of the United States of America, and solely the interests of the United States of America. Now on this Forum I want to hear from Mudcatters from the United States of America who disagree with that premise, and I also want to hear why they think otherwise.

Please note that since 911 you have not been subject to one single attack, I would like to ask those on this Forum who have proclaimed that the the terrorist threat has blossomed because of the actions of the United States of America why there has been no, absolutely no, evidence of such activity.

Much as you tossers care to deny it, your military are winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan, all that remains is for the internal politics to consolidate the gains.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:42 PM

Ahhhh, problem is that Bush wasn't actually elected, T...

He was selected by a Republican appointed Supreme Court who ruled in Bush v. Gore that5 if the Florida recount were allowed to continue that Bush "would be harmed"...

This is not an election... It is a farce... The kind one expects to witness in any number of 3rd world countries where corruption is the rule...

There is no doubt that Bush "would have been harmed"... That's about the only part of the Supreme Court "selection" that is correct...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:07 PM

teribus - Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S.? Yes, but that is not the same as "going it alone" to attack Iraq. The U.S. did not have U.N. approval to invade.

As I said before, you are hanging by your fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:13 PM

He also didn't have Congressional approval given the "last resort" nature of the resolution...

The invasion was definately not "last resort" but more like 1st resort...

B~

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

Very obvious point of fact dianavan - no country on this planet requires the consent, or approval, of the United Nations to defend itself.

Completely at odds with what the anti-war, anti-Bush chorus wish to present, it was a larger "coalition" of countries that were involved in 2003 (43) than were involved in 1991 (34).

The decision to intervene was taken with full approval of both Houses, which is why there will never be any impeachment process. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to prevent the war, he did not take any, having been badly advised by France, China, Russia and Germany. The US in the aftermath of 911 in no way, shape or form was going to rely on the ineffectual posturing of the UN to provide for its security.

Bobert, Amos, Dianavan, et al, history will show that George W Bush WON the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections in the US, nothing you say or do is going to alter the fact, learn to live with it and move on. You act and sound like spoilt children who didn't get their own way over something.

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

I am totally and utterly against communism and terrorism," she thundered in a BBC interview. "But if you are going to pronounce a new law that wherever communism reigns against the will of their people, the United States shall enter - then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.

Margaret Thatcher.

Add countries that the USA thinks are something to do with terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:29 AM

Teribus,( BB et. al--)

"Actually, Ron Davies and others on this forum, the question is not whether George W Bush had the approval of the UN" for his invasion of Iraq.

It pains me more than I can say--you know it does--to have to tell you you're wrong yet again. Not only is that the question in a larger sense, but your faithful companion, BB (alias Tonto) has made it exactly the question "on this forum" yet again.

BB 5 Oct 2007 7:09 PM:

"Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?"

"Subject to debate IMO . Yes."


Complete--and rather tired--drivel.


And we've heard this answer from him before. Evidently, as a good propaganda student, he feels that if he says it enough times, it will be accepted as true.

Sorry, no.

As a rocket scientist, it is clear, as I noted, that he has has the intelligence to actually back up this statement.

If it can be done.

So he--and you--since you have stuck your oar in--are cordially invited, yet again, to give us a direct quote from the UN authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

And I do not intend to let you Bush apologists go until you do.

Or admit the obvious--finally--that there is no such statement by the UN.

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

"that he has the intelligence"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:29 AM

He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America.

And what did this case consist of?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

Yes, the American President is supposed to serve the interests of the American people. And No, the invasion of Iraq does not serve our interests.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:20 PM

"Bobert, Amos, Dianavan, et al, history will show that George W Bush WON the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections in the US..."

Huh???

I said nothing about the election. This is just another red herring.

You are looking more foolish by the minute.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 11:20 AM

BB, Teribus, et al. Bush apologists----

Still waiting for that evidence I'm sure you have--since you're convinced it's true--that Bush did have UN authorization to invade Iraq.

We need a direct statement from the UN authorizing Bush to enforce UN resolutions.

Now where is it?

The silence is deafening--and damning for your cause.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 02:08 PM

The US is still waiting Ron, don't go holding your breath.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Well that's as long as I can hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 05:35 AM

Looks like this thread is over then - we are agreed - Bush did not have direct authorisation from the UN to invade Iraq.

At least we can move on from here now. Thanks Ron.

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

"The Caspian Sea region, including the Sea and the states surrounding it, is important to world energy markets because of its potential to become a major oil and natural gas exporter over the next decade."

Unfortunately, its not just about Iraq, either.

Nor is it just about oil. Its about who controls the energy resources.

Its also about Afghanistan and all of the countries around the Caspian Sea.

Unfortunately, the people in power think that war is the only answer.

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

oops Here's a source:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Background.html

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 11:09 PM

I think we should give the Bush apologists a bit more time--say, a day more--to come up with the UN authorization of Bush's invasion of Iraq--which BB, for one, believes Bush had. And our resident Bush supporters-- (being careful not to ruffle their feathers by calling them Bushites) --should also be aware that if by some chance they fail to do so, that closes the door--forever--to their mentioning any UN resolution as a justification for the Iraq war. Since, obviously, if the resolutions are UN resolutions, it's up to the UN to either enforce them or authorize some other group to do so. And if the UN does not authorize some other group, say, the US-- to pick a purely theoretical example-- the US cannot cite either the UN or UN resolutions as reason for the war.

And neither can Teribus, BB, et al.

So all their wonderfully impressive erudition on UN resolutions regarding Iraq is totally irrelevant regarding the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:17 PM

The Iraq war is mostly a success.


All the US privatized/participants are making money hand over fist. The oil is still not signed over to Western countries and is subject to daily pipeline sabotage but the 132 mercenary corporations are more than happy with the money they have made.

We have SPENT over a classfied trillion dollars in Iraq but just think of it as SOMEONE MADE a portion of that Trillion Dollars on Iraq.

NOT TO MENTION defense contractors like Lockheed, Gruman, Raytheon, Mac Doug etc....   


The only people who are not paid exorbetant contracts, fees and salaries are the US Federal troops.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:52 PM

I must correct my last statement above (in response to a Teribus question). I thought about it while running last evening, and I was wrong -- The President swears to uphold the Constitution. *That* is his job. I suppose that by upholding the Constitution he is representing the interests of the American people who believe in the nation our founders were trying to create. Our current occupant has been serving the interests of some American people by trashing the Constitution. There can be a big difference between "serving the interests of the people" and "upholding the Constitution".

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:53 PM

BTW, that post does two things
1) corrects my previous satement
2) refresh

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 06:36 PM

T-zer,

As per usual you are wrong on three counts:

1. The invasion of Iraq was not ordered up under "full approval" of both houses... There were alot of folks who voted against it... That doesn not make "full" approval...

2. One common thing observatyion that mnay of the folks who did vote for the resoultion is that if they know now what they knew then then they wouldn't have voted for it... This ain't splittin' hairs... It is common knowledge that Bush and his war team cherry picked intellegence in making a case for war.... Had Congress been privied to the wide scope of anaylsis that was coming from the CIA, based on what many are saying now, they wouldn't have voted for it...

3. No, Bush did loose the 2000 election... Well, that is if the rule of law amounts to anything... Gore had a right to ask for a recount... Tghe margin of "so-called vitory" by Bush was small ebough for Gore to legally ask for and be grenated a recount... But pure nasty politics trumped the law as a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court jumped in and invalidated Florida's own Supreme Court decision to alloow the recount to continue??? BTW, T-zer, you should note that 2 of the Republican appointed justices couldn't even bring themselves to engage in thievery... That is an important point... After the Supreme Court stopped the recount saying that if it were to continue that George Bush "would be harmed" if the recount continued, we later learned that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris has violated all kinds of laws in dropping over 57,000 predominently black folks from the voting rolls... No, T, Bush lost big!!! So did the United States becuase becasue of the 2000 election we looked no better than and corrupt dictatorship, think Saddam Hussain here, in running fair elections... No, Bush lost... There's way too much evidence now to refute that Bush lost...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 11:11 PM

"Bush lost big!!!"

                The only question remaining to be answered is, why did the Democrats run a buffoon in 2004?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 11:29 PM

Better question:

Who spent the millions of dollars to air fucking liar adds that convinced so many that a decorated war hero was more of a buffoon than a frat boy draft evader?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 04:47 PM

Well, 2000 is much clearer than 2004 but there is room for concern that the Repubs pulled a fast one in Ohio allowing Bush to squeak by the baffon...

And if the Swift Boat Liars, who weren't even at the incident that they attacked Kerry on, hadn't had millions and millions of dollars to run 24/7 lies then it shouldn't have even been close...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 05:38 PM

All of that is true, but why do people buy into it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 06:39 PM

Because most people are too ill-informed to actually cast intellegent votes...

Like I've said, I think that when one steps into the voting booth that they should have to take a short quiz before their votes should be counted...

Sample question:

Which of the following is not a one of the 3 branches of governemnt?

A. The Executive Branch
B. The Judical Branch
C. The Walmart Branch
D. The Legislative Branch

I mean, really, why should stupid ill-informed people be allowed to vote... Tom Jefferson said that democracy needed an informed electorate... He didn't say that everyone should be able to vote...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 10:10 PM

Mostly they weren't convinced by the Swift boat slander--but it gave people already against Kerry more incentive to actually vote. As did the push for homosexual marriage--and that well-known reactionary, Barney Frank, realized this and warned his own true believers against bringing out their opponents. Did they listen? What do you think? Just as pushing hard to get plaques of the 10 Commandments out of courtrooms energized the opposition--which has a lot more votes than true-believer atheists do.   Mudcat is not a good reflection of the US electorate, you may have noticed.

And on top of that, we had Mr. Cheney assuring everyone everywhere he went: "Here, in (your town) a dirty bomb could be exploded." (Implication--much more likely with Kerry).

All you need to do with a fearful population is play to that fear--which the Bush "team" did masterfully.

And, as I noted earlier, the Right's favorite whipping boy, the UN, just about handed the election to Bush by acting as honest broker and putting an Iraqi face (Allawi) on the opposition to the insurgency--thereby giving the lie-- til after November 2004--to the idea that Iraq was Vietnam Part II.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Nigeria
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 11:37 PM

Yup, it's all about oil.

In the north, anti-Christian violence continues. The most recent outbreak came about when paranoid Moslem high school students accused Christian students of planning an attack on a mosque. This led to attacks on the Christian minority in the northern Kano state (which is mostly Moslem), the death of nine Christians, the wounding of 61 others. Some 500 Christians were forced to flee their homes, and nine churches were burned down. Islamic radical preachers in the north are constantly preaching against the Christian "war on Islam," even though nearly all the religious violence in the world is Moslems attacking non-Moslems.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:17 AM

I guess if you could stamp out the scourge of religion, you could have an open discussion about oil that might prove productive.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

Rig-

Interesting that you seem to want non-religious people to be able to say whatever they like--but want to "stamp out" religion. Your language would fit right into the Inquisition.

And I don't consider myself in the least religious.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Nigeria
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:56 PM

Nigeria produces oil too! Funny how little you know about oil...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 09:14 AM

Not sure what you point is Nigeria. In relation to the (oft strayed-from) topic of this thread, are you saying Bush should invade Nigeria?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM

Originally from the Economist-on oil and oilitics involving Turkey, Iraq, the Kurds, (Iran and Syria) and the west.


Still about oil?