BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:07 AM

Teribus,

You have told me to "shut the fuck up" repeatedly in this thread.

In fact, that is your main argumentative weapon.

Now it seems to be repeating yourself.

You lost this argument when you decided, to change the tone of this thread by hurling abuse.

You have yet to make any real substantive comment on any of the other points.

And (if you care to read back) you have yet to tackle my repeatedly stated actual position.

I of course anticipate that being the self proclaimed hunter (methinks hound) that you believe you are you will probably devote all your energies to that pursuit now.

How predictable.

Teribus. As it is clearly considered within the bounds of etiquette to argue on these terms i would like to add the following.

Your contribution is worthless. Absolutely worthless. So why don't you Shut the fuck up.

---

Hmmmm. All I see here are a number of people telling a number of other people to "shut the fuck up." Seems to more-or-less cross the border of civil discussion, doesn't it? Tell you what - I'm going to close this thread, and ask you to start a new, civil discussion in another thread if you like.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 03:11 AM

Still wittering on about me commenting on your rather cliched summation of the behaviour of the US as being priceless Lox? If you want someone to actually engage in a serious debate with you it requires one rather important ingredient - you first of all have to say something that at least verges on intelligence - not just trot out the party line (as you did).

I note that that much maligned US citizen Randy Scheunemann still hasn't received his apology from you - Do you habitually go round accusing people of grand larceny without one whit of evidence??

I note that you are similarly silent regarding your strident accusations relating to your self-styled "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia", or more correctly the "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton" Mafia if you are lumping them together – classic example of someone just trotting out anything that takes their fancy, or grips their fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for the point of view expressed.

Same goes for your assertions regarding the "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain" Mafia, which as far as can be determined does not even exist, and even if it did, it would consist of two private citizens and a potential President – Hardly a power base is it?? But yet again another classic example of someone just trotting out anything that takes their fancy, or grips their fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for the point of view expressed.

But "The "Scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider theory concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia." Works for you does it Lox?? So you seriously give consideration to and believe that a registered lobbyist in Washington, who is paid to further the interests of Georgia with regard to the United States of America got the President of Georgia to provoke a hostile reaction from Russia, in which Georgia lost lumps of real estate, suffered the loss of its armed forces, had thousands of its citizens robbed of their properties and possessions and displaced – purely in order to improve the poll ratings of a nominated candidate for the forthcoming Presidential election in the United States of America??? That is the "Scheunemann Theory" propounded by CarolC and yourself isn't it??? Well having considered it Lox, far from finding that it works, I find it to be a complete and utter load of cods wallop, for which neither yourself or CarolC has produced the slightest logic, reason or substantiation.

By the bye, Lox I do take it that you do know what industries Halliburton's activities cover??? And for how long they have been engaged in them??? Do you deny that in 1998 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton that Halliburton won by competitive tender a five year "Frame Agreement Services Contract" with the Pentagon??? Do you know what that means Lox??? If they won that five year contract in 1998 Lox, when would it expire??? My reckoning makes it 2003 so it should not come as any great surprise that Halliburton was found working in Iraq and in Afghanistan for the US military – that after all is what they had contracted to do.

But so far we have wrung from you albeit rather obliquely that:

Point 1 - Mr Randall Scheunnemann did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 2 - Richard Bruce Cheney did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 3 - Halliburton, a Company with which said Richard Bruce Cheney has had no connection with since before Novenber 2000, did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 4 - In short Guest Lox the USA has not stolen or attempted to steal any of Iraq's oil.

Point 5 - That at no time at all in the length and breadth of this thread have I ever told you to f*** off.

Where this thread started to go wrong chum was when you chipped in telling people what they meant, attributing remarks to them that they never made and adjudicating as to whether or not points of view have to be substantiated and who must provide substantiation and who didn't have to bother.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:16 PM

Interesting. Still not a bit of evidence to back up the Scheunemann theory. Not surprising, since there is none. As I said, what's probably more surprising is the reaction to the first posting of the article: "Chilling", "Your best post yet", and others in that vein. When actually a more sensible response would have been along the lines of: "What drivel", " Incredibly flimsy--what a hack job."    Sorry, you cannot jump from events in 2005 and a knowledge that Scheunemann is advisor to both McCain and Georgia to a conclusion that he "engineered" the August 2008 war--without an iota of evidence.

And--once more with feeling--it is the responsibility of the purveyor of a theory without any evidence to provide same--not the target to refute. I note nobody has directly answered my query as to whether Obama has the burden to refute the garbage smear of being a closet Moslem. No mystery why--any thinking person is well aware the object of a smear has no obligation to provide evidence as to why the smear is not valid. Neither Obama nor McCain has that burden. Nor does anybody defending either against the two smears in question.

But in the Scheunemann case, there was no attempt by most Mudcatters to ask for logic or evidence--when the article is, as I've noted, a blatant smear. But I suppose, since it was a smear of Scheunemann--and McCain-- it's fine with many Mudcatters. It would be progress if Mudcatters learned it's not a good idea to smear anybody--neither Obama nor McCain.   Seems the double standard is still alive and well here.

4 Sept 2008: In response to my request for evidence supporting the Scheunemann theory, the poster was still asking me to prove the Scheunemann theory was wrong-- still on that kick at the time.   Also I was asked for evidence that Palin did in fact fight corruption in AK.   Even though I think Palin is on the wrong side of virtually every issue, I recognize facts. So I provided same. And, mirabile dictu, the poster has not brought up that topic again.

But still has not managed to respond to my request on Scheunemann--though it's my only request to her----except by gradually watering down her own convictions--which are now down to "within the realm of possibility". The Hollywood dream factory may have a use for that creative imagination. But when we're discussing accusations against political figures, it would be actually better if the proof went beyond "within the realm of possibility" to something just a bit more concrete.

As I said, it's too bad for the poster, but the world is actually slightly more complex than a game of Clue.

But at least she's managed keep her temper under control. I'm sure we can discuss without foul language--which is after all the refuge of somebody who is bankrupt of logical argument. And we know that is not the case with the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:09 PM

In the event of any dispute, I would like to clarify where this thread started to go wrong.

The three posts over the duration of which Teribus appeared to take on the role of Destroyer of Lox (or Guest lox as he prefers to call me) exist at the following locations.


From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM


"The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN." - Guest lox.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.


From: Lox - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM


"priceless"

Thank you for your weak attempt to belittle me, maybe you'll say something intelligent next time ... I won't hold my breath ...



From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:45 PM

Priceless - Attempts to belittle yourself???

Example: "an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields"

Guest lox please give me one single example - Otherwise retract the statement and shut the fuck up.


He then goes on to ignore the majority of what I posted and increases the barrage of abuse in the mistaken impression that I am either remotely intimidated or otherwise impressed.

Guess what - I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:00 PM

Don't worry about a thing. Sarah Palin is prepared to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:40 PM

Moving on, and stepping over the mess of bile and filth that Teribus has chosen to immerse himself in ...

Here's the Video I referred to earlier about the $23 Billion.

I knew I'd find it somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:49 PM

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:39 AM


"You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you"

Lets analyse that shall we ...

" attack anybody who doesn't agree with you"

The post is aimed specifically at me.





From: Teribus - PM
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 07:49 PM


"By the bye I have never contended that it was you who were attacking me - that honour rests with CarolC."


Hypocrite.



"Best come loaded for bear"



I'd best come loaded for Bull.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 07:49 PM

"I provided evidence that Iraq featured centrally to Cheneys energy policy."

Cheney's energy policy??? Now you just tell me Guest Lox exactly when it was that "Cheney's Energy Task Force" transformed itself into "Cheney's Energy Policy" then further transmuted itself into being the "Energy Importation Policy of the Government of the United States of America".

Pssssst!!! Guest Lox go to any Oil & Gas exhibition and you will have exactly the same maps of "oil fields" thrown at you. If you do manage to catch them and take them home - would you then be guilty of planning to "steal" someone elses natural resources??? Of course you wouldn't you fuckin' idiot. By the bye what other maps did they have?? Or didn't you enquire??

Now Next:

"I also provided evidence that Halliburton, the company he ran right up until he got into government"

Well no exactly Guest lox he parted company with Halliburton a long before he decided to run on the Bush/Cheney ticket but whatever don't let accuracy spoil your little fabrication - PS It's never stopped a left-winger yet - Me I'd rather deal with the truth, but there you go.

Now let's see Halliburton, according to you, "...was pumping Iraqi oil long before the new Iraqi government put the rights to do so up for tender." Was it really Guest Lox!! And who got paid for it?? How much Iraqi Oil did they pump Guest Lox?? Any idea what the effects of a sudden stop of pumping oil does to the infrastructure that is installed to produce oil does Guest Lox?? Now I know for a fact that you don't and I do - go on Guest lox prove me wrong - you come up with what happens to Production infrastructure during a sudden shut-down (PS - this is "my game" I've done it for over 35 years)

"They got the contract to do this without any competition.

This occurred because Cheneys government decreed that the circumstances overrided normal rules of fair competition."

Well no actually they didn't. If you take a look into US Government contracts awarded in 1998 you will find that during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton a services contracted was awarded under competitive tender to Halliburton for a period of five years for services in support of the US Military overseas. Now then Guest lox, I know that you are fairly smart so you do the maths - What is 1998 + 5?? What year do you come up with?? Waxman? Or whatever the fuck he is called gave up beating this drum a long time ago - my advice to you, along with accusing completely innocent people of "stealing" Iraqi oil fields, would be to pack it in and do just a modicum of research - It will save save a marked degree of embarassment.

"So In other words, Cheneys government, with an energy policy focussed on Iraqi oil, decrees that Cheneys old company should be allowed to pump Iraqi oil because the war started by Cheney is a circumstance that denies other companies the right to bid for the contract." - Guest lox

Now that is a statement of something that is completely unsubstantiated and without any basis whatsoever. Now just for the benefit of Guest lox, let's just rip this to shit:

Point 1 - It is not, nor ever has been, Cheney's government - FACT

Point 2 - There has been no "Energy Policy" based, or focused, upon Iraq's oil. US imports or Iraq oil amount to approximately 500,000 barrels per day out of the 20,000,000 that the US consumes every day, and that I believe is a "charity" buy, after all they NEVER - EVER - relied on Iraqi oil before. Now Guest Lox is telling us that it is the be-all and end-all of the energy policy of the United States of America - Priceless Guest Lox, absolutely priceless.

"KBR, a subsidiary of Cheneys company, then ripped off America and Iraq to the tune of $23 Billion, because Cheneys Government had contracted them to clean up the mess caused by the war started by Cheneys Government."

Well then Guest lox, while we are at it let's rip this to shit as well:

- KBR, Kellog Brown & Root, subsidiary of Halliburton - please state what Richard Bruce Cheney's stake in either company was as of 1st November 2000 - Don't tax yourself Guest lox it was 0, nada, zilch. Can you then substantiate your statement that either Halliburton, or it's subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root were "Cheney's company". If you cannot do that Guest Lox, shut the fuck up about it - You really do not know what you are talking about.

- Do accounting systems go haywire in extraordinary circumstances?? Of course they do - they go haywire in perfectly normal circumstances.

- "Cheney's Government"??? what is that Guest Lox??? When were they elected??? I take it that you do have a date??

This next one is, I imagine, supposed to be down-right scary:

"(KBR by the way have contracts in Georgia and Afghanistan too – well sourced evidence here"

Em Guest lox, can you please come up with any reasonable explanation as to why the foremost company in the world in terms of oilfield services and pipelines should not be involved in oil exploration, production and transportation from any oil producing region in the world - I mean over here in Europe we're dealing with them all the time - Or didn't you know that Guest lox, as you left that fact off your list.

"I haven't specifically named an oilfield as you requested.

So that clearly exonerates Cheney and Halliburton of any suspicion of wrongdoing."

I suppose that that is an admission of sorts. So let's lay it out as it actually is, so that at some later stage you can actually display a bit of honesty:

Point 1 - Mr Randall Scheunnemann did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 2 - Richard Bruce Cheney did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 3 - Halliburton, a Company with which said Richard Bruce Cheney has had no connection with since before Novenber 2000, did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 4 - In short Guest Lox the USA has not stolen or attempted to steal any of Iraq's oil.

"Example 2.

You told me to "shut the fuck up".

You didn't specifically tell me to "F*** off"

Then you now can explain to everyone exactly why it was that you attributed to me a remark that I never made - Suit your purpose did it? Or do you just spout what ever drivel comes to mind irrspective of accuracy?? By the bye I have never contended that it was you who were attacking me - that honour rests with CarolC.

Sarcasm Guest lox - lowest form of wit.

If you wish to enter a debate do so armed with fact, backed up by evidence and some form of substantiation - so far you have brought nothing apart from myth, lies and half-truths to the table.

Before getting into an arguement with me Guest Lox - Go away and do some bloody research - Left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, populist clap-trap just doesn't hack it - Best come loaded for bear, so far you've only shown that you are no more than air-gun qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 06:46 PM

Sorry, I forgot to add that you have of course conveniently ignored my comments concerning the lies told by Cheneys Government about Iraqi WMDs and the human rights abuses and murders Committed by the US army and Blackwater security.

For a reminder of Blackwaters professionalism

Check this

and this

WARNING: I must point out that due to the graphic nature of these videos you must be a responsible adult to watch them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 06:25 PM

Ok Teribus I'm starting to get an idea of how your mind works.


Example 1,

I provided evidence that Iraq featured centrally to Cheneys energy policy.

I also provided evidence that Halliburton, the company he ran right up until he got into government was pumping iraqi oil long before the new Iraqi government put the rights to do so up for tender.

They got the contract to do this without any competition.

This occurred because Cheneys government decreed that the circumstances overrided normal rules of fair competition.

So In other words, Cheneys government, with an energy policy focussed on Iraqi oil, decrees that Cheneys old company should be allowed to pump Iraqi oil because the war started by Cheney is a circumstance that denies other companies the right to bid for the contract.

KBR, a subsidiary of Cheneys company, then ripped off America and Iraq to the tune of $23 Billion, because Cheneys Government had contracted them to clean up the mess caused by the war started by Cheneys Government.

(KBR by the way have contracts in Georgia and Afghanistan too – well sourced evidence here



I haven't specifically named an oilfield as you requested.

So that clearly exonerates Cheney and Halliburton of any suspicion of wrongdoing.


Example 2.

You told me to "shut the fuck up".

You didn't specifically tell me to "F*** off"

So that clearly exonerates you of any wrong doing and supports your view that I have been attacking you.



Well there you are - I stand corrected.


(By the way Teribus, I'm not sure if you've picked up on it, but just in case you haven't, that last remark was sarcastic.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:19 PM

And Georgia was bombing the crap out of South Ossetia.

People can twist their rationales to fit their agendas all they want, but that doesn't change the ultimate truth of the situation, which is that the US, the UK, and the coalition of the coerced don't care about sovereign territorial integrity when it suits their purposes not to. And I think that for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan whose countries have been completely destroyed by the US, the UK, and the coalition of the coerced, such niceties are probably not foremost in their minds.

The truth of what is happening is that the US (and by extension the UK) are waging wars of imperial conquest over small relatively defenseless countries, for reasons of global hegemony and control of resources.

The thing that will change this equation will be the emergence of other large powers, one of which is still Russia, regardless of what the US might think about that.

Personally, I'm all for having some balance of power again. The US is no better than any other despicable despot when it's holding all the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:47 PM

But then again nobody invaded Serbia did they, Bill Clinton was against having "boots on the ground", that's why so many died. There was also that little matter of ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide in Kosovo (Read the UN Charter CarolC, that is what compelled them to act).

Withdrawal of MNF Troops from Iraq is tied exclusively to the UN Mandate that they operate under and the will of the Iraqi Government - Nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM

We didn't respect the sovereign territorial integrity of Serbia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:24 PM

Well, there's the little problem of the US pressuring the Iraqi parliament to sign over the rights to most of their oil, and making that a "benchmark" for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Their doing that makes the argument that the US isn't there for the oil look pretty ridiculous. Which of Georgia's resources has Russia tied the withdrawal of its forces to?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:46 AM

Well yes CarolC let's take a look at the two cases shall we:

US goes into Iraq and into Afghanistan and keeps both nations intact, i.e. the sovereign territorial integrity of both nations is fully respected. They head an internationally backed major reconstruction effort and train and equip the fledgling police and armed forces of both nations, while encouraging foreign trade.

The Russians go into Georgia and steal two rather large lumps of it and decree that that is the way it is going to stay. They then set up a regime of ethnic cleansing and banditry inside Georgia itself surround the country's main seaport to restrict what can and cannot be landed, then declare that Georgia, an independent state recognised as such by the UN, cannot rearm in order to defend itself. They then apparently have the gall to state which set of "international" peacekeepers they will allow in.

I can see a number of differences there CarolC. I take it that you still do not have any take on this "Right of Return" business for Georgian refugees wishing to return to Abkhazia, they must number at least 250,000 by now. Now if you are looking at an example of "might is right" look no further than their expulsion from their homes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

"since it was the Russians who requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Georgia, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country. "


And since the US and coalition requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Iraq, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country or it's oil. So no more claims about that, if your comment reflects your actual belief.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 02:11 AM

On the subject of Russia stopping at South Ossetia and Abkhazia, since it was the Russians who requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Georgia, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 02:08 AM

Just as I thought. Might makes right. If we use that standard to justify throwing our weight around whether everyone else likes it or not, instead of the rule of law, we are no better then Hitler or Mussolini. It's the same mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:01 AM

The simple answer to Rig's question is that the former is capable the latter is not.

My post of 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM, in which I made the comment "Priceless, absolutely priceless.", that Guest Lox appears to object so much to, is merely a comment, or reaction to what he/she has said - Anybody here telling me that that is not allowed?? If so then what about all the LOL's, the ROTFLMAO?? What I found as being priceless was the trotting out of the same old trite left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush crap that has been spouted on this forum, and largely disproved, for six years now.

"When you used that word I challenged you to say something intelligent instead.

At that point you told me to f*** off." - Guest Lox

Eh No, Guest Lox, you were invited to provide us with one single example of the US stealing an Iraqi oilfield - it was after all you who had stated that Scheunnemann had been instrumental in such thefts in Iraq. You were asked to provide one single example, a case in point or shut the fuck up about it - Now then Guest Lox can you please tell me where and when I told you to f*** off - Or is this another example of you putting words into my mouth???

By the bye Guest Lox - You never did furnish us with that example did you? You owe Mr. Scheunnemann an apology, you accused him of theft which he has not committed. There again, you seem to be the type that tends to throw wild, ill-considered and ill-founded accusations about.

What makes you think for one second that the Russians, unhindered and unopposed, are going to stop with just Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Guest Lox???

I also note that as with the request to substantiate your claims regarding US theft of oilfields, you have also refused to answer all my other questions related to your other flights of fancy. You know the ones Guest lox or do I have to repeat them? Just think of all those "mafia's" running about in post-election USA all bumping into one another, getting all their little schemes tangled up and muddled - As I said before, priceless, Guest lox, absolutely priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:41 PM

Why indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

If the US is running around the world big-assing it's way into everybody's business, why wouldn't one expect Russia to do the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:20 PM

I suspect it's not so much hate as clinging to empire and a supremacist ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:01 PM

>"USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" – That has been my personal experience over the last 60 years.

Shall I assume you still don't trust the Germans or the Japanese?



>Now what on earth makes Russia think that it can dictate to the world who can go where and do what Lox?

At which point did the word "request" become synonymous with the word "dictate"?

To explain in easy words ... no they appear not to have any objections ... shall I join the dots for you?


As for what you have been doing ...

Your first post in relation to any comment I made was a cut and paste of my post followed by the word "priceless!"

>You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you.

Attack? Why not engage in the discussion before throwing words like "priceless" around willy nilly.

When you used that word I challenged you to say something intelligent instead.

At that point you told me to f*** off.

You display a measure of hypocrisy in accusing me of attacking you that is only matched by your bilious bitter hatred of ... well ... I can't quite identify it - but whatever it is, you hate it with furious destructive fervour.


As for your blinkered loyalty to the boss, well you can keep it. I have lost interest in your point of view.

But I will finish with the thought - how exactly does Russia benefit from having Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Without the rest of Georgia, the oil remains out of their grasp, the strategic importance of the black sea coast, the closeness to Iran ... damn ... even if they had Georgia those reasons would be tenuous ...

Abkhazia and South Ossetia give Russia no advantage, strategically, financially or politically.

What remains?

A blood feud in Georgia between three different groups - now seperated.

I don't trust putin very much but I'm stuck for reasons for him to dominate these two little areas.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:39 AM

"they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded" - Teribus

"They have actually been requesting this very publicly for a while now. They haven't specified NATO troops, but they have been requesting an impartial foreign presence." – Guest lox.

Now what on earth makes Russia think that it can dictate to the world who can go where and do what Lox? Russia having stoked up and engineered this land grab of theirs "requests" an impartial foreign presence in Georgia? Patently ridiculous of course.

Considering the amount of western investment in the country (BTC Pipeline) and its importance to the overall economy of Georgia I would venture the point that the US or EU have got damn sight more reason to be in Georgia than Russia has to being in the former Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Regardless of what people write, you seem fixated on a "USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" form of argument.

Just as you appear to want a "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs. "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument.

You seem incapable of understanding that argument can be a constructive learning process and that there are ways of arguing that don't include being adversarial, but which do involve advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny." – Guest lox

Well just goes to show how carefully you read things doesn't it? If someone comes out with a particularly one-sided view to discuss "the possibilities" – I will normally respond with a counter view which I think falls in with your "constructive learning process". In putting forward that view I will normally include the reasoning behind what I write, I always ask questions on points known, or reported about any given situation - which accords with your "advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny".

In this particular thread I have stated why I believe that this was a situation engineered by Putin and I have questioned the "theory" that this was all done at the behest of a political party in the US in order to improve the chances of getting their candidate elected. An idea I still find utterly preposterous, as previously stated too many unknowns and too many variables for it ever to have even the remotest chance of success. Russian gains on the other hand are far more tangible, evidence exists of their pre-knowledge of what was going to happen and when – The Russians then made sure that all their pieces were in place, standing by and at full readiness – Very few unknowns, very few variables over which they exerted no control – Beneficial Russian result guaranteed.

"USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" – That has been my personal experience over the last 60 years. I have never heard anyone praise Russia for its contributions, or interventions, to the good of mankind within that period. I have on the other hand heard many, many people curse them roundly (Hungarian refugees who came to Scotland in 1956 were the first I believe). Russia's various political "experiments" round the globe have killed millions, and caused untold suffering, in remembrance of those victims of the beneficence of Russia and her rulers it is not my place to forgive and I most certainly will not forget.

As for the, "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs. "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument, I do not believe I have ever argued, or discussed any subject concerning USA/Iraq affairs in those terms. Do I believe that Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime was an evil dangerous place? Most certainly, and that would be an opinion I share with all of the man's neighbours.

I have clearly stated this to others on this forum, I now state it to you, do not put words in my mouth and then attempt to take me to task for them. Do not attribute points of view to me that are not my own and only exist in what your perception of what I have said is.


"You also seem not to understand that a theory does not have to be proved to work.

Did you know that Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory." – Guest lox

Which one of Einstein's Theories are you talking about Guest lox? Special Relativity or General Relativity, both came about through known physics and mathematics in an attempt to fully understand gravity, but you see Guest lox while it is true that a theory does not have to be proved to work, it does have to be based upon something, as does any challenge mounted to prove or disprove the theory.

"According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation." – Guest lox

Now that Guest lox, is a classic example of you putting words in my mouth. According to me Guest lox, if someone comes up with a possibility in relation to any given situation and provides no substantiation, logic or reasoning for their adopted point of view, or perspective, then it is just idle speculation, and I feel completely at liberty to challenge it.

"A theory that works stands until it is disproved.

And what generally happens with most scientific theory is not that it is scrapped, but that it evolves." – Guest lox

Couldn't agree more Newton and Einstein are good examples of exactly that.

"The "Scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider theory concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia.

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved." – Guest lox

What Works? So far we have had bald statements supported by not one shred of substantiation or evidence. Apart from someone who clings to the one truth that "USA evil and bad irrespective of stance, subject or situation" the so-called theories you refer to have been based upon absolutely nothing – That is what people on this thread are trying to extricate from the proponents of these "Grand Conspiracies".

Now let's see first we have the "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia" who do what exactly Guest lox? This next bit I know might get people on this forum frothing at the mouth:

Element 1 – Bush – George Walker Bush – Elected President of the United States of America in November 2000 (Ask Al Gore, he conceded the election) and again in November 2004 (Much to the chagrin of many who post here). Now that makes him in point of fact the Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. He does not take decisions completely off his own bat, he is supplied with information and advised by many experts both within his own administration and in many government departments and agencies. His first term of office was marked by the worst attack on America by foreign nationals in the history of the USA. Those particular terrorist attacks he responded to robustly and effectively, which is more than can be said about his predecessor in office, GWB also called for evaluations to be made to assess and identify the greatest threat facing his country. Here too he responded robustly and effectively in the removal of such threats from rogue states such as Iraq (threat identified in 1997/8); Iran (Nuclear weapons programme halted, probably only temporarily, in 2003 according to last NIE Report); North Korea and Libya. Entirely due the actions taken by the USA the most dangerous illegal covert nuclear proliferation programme in the world was uncovered and stopped in its tracks. Contrary to popular left-wing beliefs the USA under George W. Bush did not act unilaterally, they went to UN who then completely failed in its handling of what the USA felt were justified concerns – Please note, Guest lox, this is the complete opposite of what Putin and the Russians did in Georgia.

Element 2 – Cheney – Richard Bruce Cheney – Elected Vice-President of the United States of America in November 2000 and again in November 2004. He has a long history of public service and was an extremely successful businessman. Prior to becoming George Walker Bush's running mate in 2000 he relinquished his ties with the company he had run (Halliburton) and signed over any future benefits from that company to charity.

Element 3 – Halliburton Mafia – Who or what is this? As you appear to believe that they exist Guest lox maybe you could provide something by way of substantiation. I know the company, in fact I know it rather well, so I'd be interested in reading why you term them, and regard them, as being a "Mafia".

Then we have what you term as the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" who you appear to fear so much. How come Guest lox? What threat does this "axis of evil" pose? Let's have a look at it:

Element 1 – Cheney – The self same Richard Bruce Cheney who was elected in 2000 and in 2004. Please correct me if I am wrong here Guest lox, but I was under the distinct impression that Dick Cheney was not running for any political office in November 2008. That being so, can you tell me how, being a private citizen, he will be in a position to influence anything within the ranks of any McCain Administration? Also correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't they political opponents in both 2000 and in 2004? What has happened to put him at the head of this evil alliance as you perceive it? I take it that you do have some sort of reason for stating all this, that there is some sort of rationale that has some basis in fact and can be substantiated in some way? Or is it only a vague possibility, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 2 – Scheunemann - Randall J Scheunemann, McCain foreign affairs advisor and registered lobbyist. Randy Scheunemann will be what exactly in the McCain Administration Guest lox? You obviously know something as it was you and you alone that came up with this "evil alliance" that will "possibly" dominate the next US Administration, i.e. the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" despite the fact that as of now all that is known about it is as follows:

-        Come January 2009 Richard Bruce Cheney will be the ex-Vice-President of the United States of America and a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 Randall J Scheunemann will be a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 John McCain MAY BE President of the United States of America.

So then Guest lox give us the scoop, what is it that you know but we all don't, or is this just another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 3 – McCain Mafia – Is there one?? How has it manifested itself? You obviously appear to think that it exists, care to share any reasoning as to how and why? Or is this yet another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Much as it may surprise and astound him, I am completely with Ron Davies on this subject. You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you.

As to your predictions for the way things may possibly develop post election, which I find are extremely limited in outlook at best, nostalgic even. Russia failed as a "Super-Power" in the 1980's, it is not a status Russia will ever regain, there are simply not enough of them and their economy is nowhere near developed enough. Russia must turn into a trading nation to reap any benefit of her abundant natural resources and she is not going to attract many trading partners by aggressive behaviour.

The UN has been an ineffectual joke for more years than I care to remember and urgently requires radical reform and complete transparency which it continues to fight tooth and nail.

The Super-Powers of the 21st Century Guest lox – USA; China & India.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:40 AM

BTW, friendly advice is of course warmly welcomed.

I would ask though that you refer to patronizing and insulting use of the word "priceless" in this thread that was then defended with (since deleted) foul language when it was challenged.

If there was blood in the water it was because the alleged victim bit off more than he could chew.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:30 AM

I write to clarify on a point of information, not to express my opinion.


Circumstantial evidence.

Basically suspicious circumstances.

Like those described in this thread for example.

Not proof, but a theory doesn't need to be proved to work.

And it can remain a useful model to help us understand what's going on until it is either proved or disproved.


Though I reiterate, no specific theory has been argued here.


What has been said is that circumstances are suspicious in the extreme.




"4 results for: circumstantial evidence Browse Nearby Entries
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
circumstantial evidence
–noun proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence).

Also called indirect evidence.


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

[Origin: 1730–40]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
circumstantial evidence

To learn more about circumstantial evidence visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence   
n.   Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence

noun
evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute [ant: direct evidence]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: circumstantial evidence
see EVIDENCE"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:03 PM

BTW, on the subject of Khodorkovsky, it's my opinion that he and the other Russian oligarchs (crooks) belong in prison. I'll have to do some more reading before I can comment on that journalist, and that will have to wait until after Saturday (JtS' 50th birthday party).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

Please learn the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence, and also the difference between an opinion and an argument.

As I have said repeatedly, since the one saying that the article I posted is not true is the only one who is making any kind of argument, that person is the only one who has to provide any proof. Since I only voiced an opinion about what is possible rather than an argument about what is necessarily true, I do not have to provide any proof whatever.

Since I have seen no proof, or even any evidence or any facts to support the argument that the article I posted is not true, I think we can safely say that the person who is demanding proof from me for an argument that I am not making is engaging in gross hypocrisy, is not willing to put up or shut up or to hold themself to the same standards they are holding others, and does not deserve to be taken the least bit seriously.

When this person behaves in the same manner they are nagging others to behave in, that's when I will consider taking that person seriously. I don't expect that to ever happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:19 PM

Your "evidence" (8 Sept 10:38 PM) contains precisely nothing that connects Scheunemann specifically to the August 2008 attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

Perhaps you're unaware that life is not quite as neat as a game of Clue. I'm afraid I have to say I'd hate to try to employ you as a PI. With you representing me I'd be sued all the time for wrongful arrest.

"But, your honor, it was within the realm of possibility."




Curiouser and curiouser. First we have the indignant protest that anybody who criticizes the article is committing an ad hominem attack. Then the poster says I must prove the thesis of the article--which is nothing but an obvious smear with no evidence--is false. After trying to gently to guide her to the obvious truth that it is not the target of a smear but its proponent who must come up with evidence, and after weeks of no supporting evidence being revealed, despite repeated requests for it, the poster tells us she never took a stand on the validity of the thesis. (Then why, one wonders, the refusal to admit there is no evidence?) Then we're told of "circumstantial evidence", though none is forthcoming. Now the level of proof has sunk even further--now it's "within the realm of possibility" What's next--"I thought it was true."?

Sorry, "within the realm of possibility" is the retreat of somebody who, after weeks, can't come up with one iota of actual evidence--just like the allegation that Obama is a closet Moslem. The fools and scumbags--including some Mudcatters-- who like to spread that smear-- point out that his father was a Moslem and that he went to school in Indonesia, at one point a Moslem school. Your evidence to convict Mr. Scheunemann of "engineering" a war to benefit his candidate is no stronger than the Obama-closet Moslem evidence. That is to say, each one is a politically motivated smear. The only other explanation in the Scheunmann case is that the columnist was facing a deadline--hence not overly concerned about evidence--of which there is none.

The mystery then becomes: why the Mudcat hosannas for a crackpot theory? And why the need to try to defend an obviously lost cause? If you were bound and determined to lash yourself to the mast, why didn't you try to find a vessel more likely to be seaworthy?   Do you like being shipwrecked?

And as I've said, more than once, I believe: the burden in a theory with no evidence is on the proponent of said theory, not on the target to refute it.

Is the burden on Obama to prove he is not a closet Moslem?   Yes or no?



Another bit of friendly advice. Using foul language--in fact losing your temper at all--is the surest way to lose a debate. Sharks can scent blood in the water rather easily. It's possible that Teribus has learned this.

But perhaps that's your normal way of speaking. If so, carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM

"they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded"

They have actually been requesting this very publicly for a while now. They haven't specified NATO troops, but they have been requesting an impartial foreign presence.

You will find evidence on past news reports on BBC, Channel 4, SKY, ITV, CCTV (English speaking - chinese state tv), Al Jazeera (english) and Russia Today.

Regardless of what people write, you seem fixated on a "USA is good Russia is bad" vs "Russia is good USA is bad" form of argument.

Just as you appear to want a "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument.

You seem incapable of understanding that argument can be a constructive learning process and that there are ways of arguing that don't include being adversarial, but which do involve advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny.

You also seem not to understand that a theory does not have to be proved to work.

Did you know that Einsteins theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory.

According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation.

Yet without it Neil Armstrong would have set foot on empty space.

A theory that works stands until it is disproved.

And what generally happens with most scientific theory is not that it is scrapped, but that it evolves.

The "scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider thoery concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia.

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved.

I trust it enough to agree with its implication that if the perceived Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia remain in control after the next election we will see increased polarization between east and west and we will see more blatant energy foothold consolidation, not to mention a weaker and weaker UN as Russia and the USA decide more and more to act unilaterally where their overseas interests are threatened.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM

I see the guest post has been removed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM

My last was in response to points made at 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:18 PM

We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM

Ah well if it is only the possibilities that are being discussed, enjoy discussing them to your hearts content, you may even finally work round to discussing what other possibilities might equally apply to the subject.

But pleased to see that the Russians have stated that they are going to station on a more-or-less permanent basis detatchments of 4,800 troops in both Abkhazia and in South Ossetia. That will at least in the short term provide some form of economy for the inhabitants as I doubt, for the South Ossetians, that there will be much trade now passing through the Roki Tunnel from Russia to Tbilisi. As the Russians can see no possible objection to this in order to ensure the security of the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded.

We can all then muster round and fervently campaign for the "Right of Return" for the 193,000 odd Georgians who were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia, then who knows? They might possibly hold another referendum in which all the people who belong to the province get a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

It's not pointless to discuss if I find it interesting. The the point in discussing it is that I find it interesting. And maybe others might find it interesting, too. That's all the point it needs as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:20 AM

CarolC's post of 08 Sep 08 - 11:08 PM, the sting comes in the tail:

"Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread."

Anything can dwell "within the realm of possibility" CarolC and as such it is pointless to discuss them unless you are working towards migrating them to "probability", in which case hard evidence has to be considered as opposed to subjective opinion from biased sources.

Is it possible that a former lobbyist based in the USA engineered a conflict between a tiny state against its extremely powerful neighbour, that the tiny state would know it had no hope of winning just to help a candidate win the US Presidential Election in November 2008? Yes I suppose it is possible.

Is the same thing probable - I would say that it would be highly unlikely, there are far too many unknowns and variables for such a plan to ever have even the remotest chance of success.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:08 PM

For those who can't read, however:

Scheunemann used to be a lobbyist for Georgia and Saakashvili was his boss. Scheunemann now works for McCain. Scheunemann worked for McCain in the 2000 election as well, after which he headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He was also the director of the Project for a New American Century during the run-up to the war in Iraq. These are the people (along with the other neo-cons), who are responsible for our going to war against Iraq.

"In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin."

Scheunemann is found standing in the observatory over the body of Professor Plum, and he's got the smoking gun in his hand. We can't prove he pulled the trigger, but we can suspect that he did.

This isn't to say that helping get McCain elected would have been his only reason for wanting Georgia to attack and invade South Ossetia. There's plenty of other possible reasons. He is a neo-con, after all, and what they are about is world domination (by their own admission). But as I said, they tend to kill as many birds as they possibly can with one stone. And getting McCain elected helps Scheunemann accomplish his other, larger, neo-con goals of increasing US hegemony around the world.

I have not seen any good explanations why Georgia would take on a country like Russia that is vastly more powerful, militarily than it, other than that one.

None of that is hard evidence, but it's definitely circumstantial evidence. It proves nothing, but as I said, it's perfectly reasonable to question under the circumstances.

That Obama comparison, by the way, is bogus. There has been plenty of proof that Obama is not a Muslim. I have seen nothing that proves that Scheunemann was not instrumental in some way in helping to instigate Georgia's actions toward South Ossetia, and plenty of things that point the finger in his direction. If someone should provide proof that he had nothing to do with it, I will reexamine whether or not I still consider it a possibility.

Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:38 PM

The circumstantial evidence is in the article I posted. Read it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 09:51 PM

"circumstantial evidence" indicating that Scheunemann played the same role in August 2008 as in the Iraq war--i.e. he was one of the neoconservatives who "engineered" the attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

OK, so let's be specific. What exactly is this "circumstantial evidence"? We've been at this since 21 Aug--and exactly zero evidence has been revealed. There is no evidence in the article in question, which reads amazingly like a hatchet job on McCain. We're coming to the "fish or cut bait" portion of the program. The audience has been primed and the tension is building. We've sat through all the annoying ads. Surely there will be some actual evidence and facts to back up what otherwise so far bears an amazing resemblance to a politically motivated smear--that McCain's close advisor "engineered" a war to maximize his candidate's chances in the fall election. Just like the politically motivated smear, on the other side, that Obama is a closet Moslem.

"Tune in next week" will not do as an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:19 PM

Thank you teribus, It makes perfect sense to me already.

Halliburton (cheneys old company that he ditched for government) are corrupt to the core as are their subsidiaries.

Cheney wanted that oil.

He didn't count on China whipping it out from under his nose.

The look on his face must have been ... er ... "priceless".

"understanding the oil and gas industry", even with your deep and talented insight, won't help me accept the corruption, the human rights abuses, the lies or the trumped up WMD accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM

Don't know if this website has been featured here before or not but I found the link interesting.

www.halliburtonwatch.org

Meanwhile we have here the recent story of Cheney consolidating his oil interests in Azerbaijan.

Cheneys pals in halliburton made a corrupt fortune in Iraq from the war and I have no doubt that he hoped for similar assurances on his stake in Iraqi oil to the ones he is getting from the azerbaijanis.


Anyway, getting back to point, Scheunemann was tied up in the whole thing too.

Nothing is certain, but there are more than enough grounds to feel disgusted at the amount of sleaze and cronyism going on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:53 PM

Guest lox go and find out how the international oil & gas industry works, most of what you refer to then will make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:58 PM

Here's something useful too that puts the documents posted into perspective.

And here is a useful paragraph from that link.

"These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil."

You see?

the list of foreign competitors?

no?

never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:45 PM

Meanwhile, let me repeat that these
documents show that Iraq's oil fields were at the centre of cheneys energy policy for the USA in 2001

And on the subject of oil theft, have a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:31 PM

China reviving oil deals with Iraq in 2006

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM

Yes, the rights remain with the Iraqi people, as I said before. That's why I said that the US government failed in its attempts to coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing them over. Failure means lack of success.

But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"And no Guest lox I am not going to waste my time chasing about looking for something I know does not exist."

I've supplied you with a reference teribus.

It is (as I stated) a panarama investigation described in brief here.

Just as I do not have to attach a book or witness to an essay, I do not have to provide you with the actual video. A reference will do.

I've already explained how it is relevant.

If you wish to check the credibility of the source that's up to you.

As for the list, how do I put this so you'll grasp it - the information supplied to the Cheney energy group or whatever they're called is (concentrate) about their competitors.

Hence no American companies.

see?

no?

never mind.

I've also seen other BBC rticles talking about other negotiations between China and Iraq in 2006.

In the meantime, remember how there were all those fantasy weapons in Iraq?

Well as a result there were sanctions.

Forgotten?

Yeah - so no foreign trade - to cripple Iraq.

That's why Iraq needs the help of foreign oil companies now.

China beat the USA to it and I am glad.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil." - CarolC

Utter rubbish, the rights to ALL of Iraq's oil remain where they have always been, the natural resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people, and that situation will be maintained.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:36 PM

BTW, what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM post is the same thing as what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post, which anyone who had actually read my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post would know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM

No, they didn't try to "steal" any oil fields. What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil. And this is what they have so far failed to do.