|
14 Nov 03 - 07:34 PM (#1053861) Subject: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Well, danged. Here we go again. Yet another plan. What happened to the last 3 or 4? Bush's PR folks are trying to get everyone to believe this is only their *second* plan... We, who have been following this story have it officially as the 3rd and, depending on ones interprstation of new plan, maybe the 7th or 8th or... But here's how it goes. Iraqitize Iraq! Yep, that's the latest. Screw democracy, Shoot, if it can't work in the US then why think it can work in Iraq? Right? Well, I gotta agree with them on that one. Democracy in Iraq is an impossible goal. Like I said, if it can't work in the US than it doesn't stand a chance in Iraq. Well, sure, I've got my ideas on what can be done in Iraq now and have suggested elements of the "Bobert Plan" in other threads but, Iz just gonna keep quiet (or try...) and let my fellow Catboxers comment... Bobert |
|
14 Nov 03 - 07:59 PM (#1053880) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: akenaton Bobert..I dont believe for one minute that America has any intention of pulling out of Iraq.I think Bush and his masters are playing the "pressure" game to encourage other countries to assist in the subjugation of the Iraqi people .America has invested too heavily in the effort to control oil supplies to back off now. An extremely dangerous situation looms...Ake |
|
14 Nov 03 - 08:24 PM (#1053896) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Ebbie Did ya see that the US is now 'planning' elections before next summer in Iraq? Planning is easy- but it would appear that conditions will have to be a LOT less volatile before that can be successfully pulled off. Not a good sign that conditions have been becoming MORE volatile, not less. |
|
14 Nov 03 - 08:46 PM (#1053911) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,pdc I find it rather interesting that in many ways, Iraq is a replay of Viet Nam. The US went into Viet Nam with all the latest technology -- air strikes, napalm, huge numbers of huge bombs, etc. The Viet Cong used technology, yes, but also operated in small packs, with stealth, guerilla tactics, etc., nibbling away at Americans until they won the war. I believe the US went into Iraq with the same belief in high-tech bombs, etc., and Iraqis are doing much the same that the Vietnamese did, on their own turf, in their own culture. Interesting. |
|
14 Nov 03 - 11:04 PM (#1053959) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Ebbie Pdc, it also reminds me of the situation between Israel and Palestine. The eye for an eye thing. And we all know how well that has worked for them. |
|
15 Nov 03 - 12:07 AM (#1053970) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Donuel This is Molly Ivans take http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=15990 Mr Ed: Stay the course reverse the course but say its the exact same course of course unless of course you feel remorse for the nameless GI's dead They say the glass is half full we know its a pile of bull the glass is cracked from all the attacks and walter reed hospital's full |
|
15 Nov 03 - 02:39 AM (#1053992) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Metchosin Some de ja voodoo in response to Troll in my post from last March perhaps? |
|
15 Nov 03 - 09:36 AM (#1054102) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Well said then, Metchosin, and it is still the case. Actually, they had *their man* but they just didn't keep him in the fold. It wasn't Saddam's choice to get left out of the loopm but the US's. He tought he had a wink from Bush One to take Kuwait only to find that he'd been lured into a trap... One from which he would no escape... Why? I don't have a clue... But he was very much *our* man... Bobert |
|
15 Nov 03 - 10:09 AM (#1054118) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST Yes, it appears that the Bush administration is now preparing the ground to withdraw from Iraq by the spring, in order to save themselves from being booted in the '04 election. Ironic isn't it, that they purportedly invaded Iraq to free the country from a nasty dictator, and that instead of the promised land, we will leave them instead with martial law, chaos, and a shitload of petty dictators, warlords, and an out of control militia? Talk about making things better for the US in the Middle East! This is a stroke of fuckin' genius, ain't it? |
|
15 Nov 03 - 11:20 AM (#1054144) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Alaska Mike Sha Boom, Sha Boom Yadada-Yadada-Yadada-Yadada Sha Boom, Sha Boom Yadada-Yadada-Yadada-Yadada Sha Boom, Sha Boom I wish this was a dream, Sweetheart. |
|
15 Nov 03 - 12:28 PM (#1054183) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow They kept Vietnamising things in Vietnam, didn't they? Didn't work. |
|
15 Nov 03 - 12:38 PM (#1054189) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Ebbie Molly Ivins: "I don't think the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq. I think it's worse than that. I think they fooled themselves. I think they were conned by Ahmad Chalabi. I think they indulged in wishful thinking to a point of near criminality. I think they decided anyone who didn't agree with them was an enemy, anti-American, disloyal. In other words, I think they're criminally stupid. " Bears repeating, I think. |
|
15 Nov 03 - 03:14 PM (#1054264) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Don Firth Methinks that Bush has a major problem with what might be called "Wile. E. Coyote moments." This is when Wile E. Coyote is concentrating so hard on the chase (motivated by his single-minded "I want! I want!") that he doesn't realize that he's run off the edge of the cliff and is standing in mid-air. He's fine until he suddenly realizes that something is not quite what he thought it was. The "moment" comes when he looks down. And then. . . . But you've got to hand it to him. As Bush hurtles toward the canyon floor, his (or somebody's) mind is working, and by the time he hits bottom with a resounding splat, he has managed to spin it into a policy statement, saying that this is what he planned all along. After all (he sees in retrospect), it is the fastest way to get down from the cliff. Don Firth |
|
15 Nov 03 - 03:52 PM (#1054284) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Amergin i thought the war had to be over before they could implement a postwar plan.... |
|
15 Nov 03 - 06:46 PM (#1054370) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace Is there gonna be a postal war in Iraq? Sorry, I know this is serious stuff, but ya know? I think about US 'policy' in Iraq and I want to wear my t-shirt that says, "I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't stick my head that far up my ass." |
|
15 Nov 03 - 09:53 PM (#1054479) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Amergin roflmao...i like that.... |
|
15 Nov 03 - 11:04 PM (#1054504) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Danged, Don... I was thinkin' of some kinda "Acme Postwar Kit" thread when I started this... Yeah, it is a lot like Wilie-Coyote foriegn policy that we've got going with these folks... Bobert |
|
16 Nov 03 - 12:15 AM (#1054520) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Donuel My next cartoon shows the transitional gov turning its power over to the provisional gov which then turns its power over to the hysterical gov turning power over to the recreational gov. etc. |
|
16 Nov 03 - 08:32 PM (#1055096) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Well, word on the streets 'round DC has it that Bush has hired a chimp to assist him with policy. Yeah, Bush sets up a big dart board of options for any given issue and lets the chimp throw the darts. This should certainly improve Bush's chances in '04..... Bobert |
|
16 Nov 03 - 08:35 PM (#1055100) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Amergin but if a chimp was setting the policy....wouldn't things be going better? |
|
16 Nov 03 - 09:18 PM (#1055122) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace Why has he hired a chump to do the policy stuff? |
|
16 Nov 03 - 09:20 PM (#1055123) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace Sorry. Saw it just as I pushed the submit bar. I thought we were the chumps. In this context, chimp makes much more sense. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 10:58 AM (#1055475) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Pre-emption in Iraq is an old policy. It was inevitable. Oil corporations required it. Bush (Poppy) supported Saddam but when the Administration couldn't own him, it turned on him. Noriega too. The Administration only likes dictators they can own. The new Manifest Destiny has to do with the price of oil. US expansionism is nothing new but part of an ongoing policy. Our country is addicted to oil. The Cartels discourage alternative energy sources. They got a cash cow. They are the new "pushers". Do you think that Iraq will see much of it's oil money slotted for reconstruction? Don't count on it. Check Afghanistan. African Kuwait. Where next? Today, Iraq, tomorrow the world! Solution for the short term.....dump W. But watch these other guys that get in. Campaign Finance Reform? Don't count on it. The election can still be bought. The latest Postwar Plan is called "covering your ass". Frank Hamilton |
|
17 Nov 03 - 11:17 AM (#1055490) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Little Hawk Accurate all the way, Frank. They only like dictators they can own. Saddam became an independent operator, and they don't tolerate that, any more than the Democrat-Republican political cartel tolerates political independents in American elections. The rule is: buy 'em out, slander 'em out, shoot 'em out or bomb 'em out...whatever works. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 11:24 AM (#1055493) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST GUEST 15 Nov 03 - 10:09 AM "Yes, it appears that the Bush administration is now preparing the ground to withdraw from Iraq by the spring, in order to save themselves from being booted in the '04 election." No sign of that whatsoever, in fact they have clearly stated the reverse. Frank Oil Corporations required what exactly?? "The new Manifest Destiny has to do with the price of oil." - Certainly does with regard to Russia (their reconstruction and future development relies on the price of oil not dropping below $21 per barrel), and to the Saudi's (they are relying on the price not dropping below $25 per barrel) Here's some other news for you the "Oil Corporations" are not exclusively American owned. USA addicted to oil - then you have no problem. Have a look at the figures for known Shale Oil reserves in the US of A. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 04:56 PM (#1055723) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Mickey191 Okay Folks, He gets us out of the quagmire, he is re- elected,and through some rouse he gets us reinvolved. Whether it is because of a Hussein sighting, civil unrest or some other "reason." Folks,don't forget this Biblical Mission our President believes in: "the calling of our time, the calling of our country to convert the world to democracy." In Little Rock, a week ago today,he said "This nation is freedom's home & Freedom's defender. We welcome this charge of history, and we are keeping it." I'm convinced he will get us back in. It's his imagined mandate. It's OIL & THE BIBLE folks! So our mission is clear. We must send G.W.Bush packing. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 06:03 PM (#1055757) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Hi Guest, >Oil Corporations required what exactly?? Exxon,Mobil,Shell et. al. require American domination of the market. >Here's some other news for you the "Oil Corporations" are not >exclusively American owned. Here's some news for you. Oil corps will soon by run by Americans. It's part of the master plan. Do you see France or German oil companies in Afghanistan or Iraq? >USA addicted to oil - then you have no problem. Have a look at the >figures for known Shale Oil reserves in the US of A. These figures if they are accurate which I doubt would make American oil corporations king of the hill. They also impact upon the environment in an unhealthy way. How 'bout another Alaska spill? Addicts have their pushers. The only way oil gets to flow is to the West (euphenism for US). Frank |
|
17 Nov 03 - 06:24 PM (#1055774) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow Do you think these guys really worry about little things like "American" or "French" or "German"? Money is globalised. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 07:55 PM (#1055816) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace This is about much more than oil. This administration is doing the work of MJ 12. The intent is complete globalization. Won't matter a damn where the oil is. One big happy family. A work force of about 6,000,000,000, and ya can decide exactly what to pay each and every one of them. |
|
17 Nov 03 - 08:02 PM (#1055821) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Well, after getting blasted by just about everyone fir the *about face*, the Bush administration clarified their plan de jour... "Ahhhh, folks, we ain't going nowhere! We're in it fir the long haul. We just want for Iraqis to, ahhhh, hmmmmm? Like, ahhh, we'll have to get back to you on this....." Normal..... (clueless.....)........ Bobert |
|
18 Nov 03 - 12:55 AM (#1055959) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Teribus Frank above mentions two oil corporations, one American based multinational Exxon/Mobil and Shell (Royal Dutch Shell) which is very much European. Now why the latter would the latter would want "American domination of the market" I cannot begin to imagine. Another he did not mention was BP/Amoco (British, BP having taken over the US Oil Company Amoco, BP already owned Standard Oil another American oil company). The French Oil Company Total-Petrofina-Elf are certainly involved in Iraq and have been for years, none of their licences have been revoked since Saddam departed. Oil, like any other commodity, gets sold to the highest bidder. What Kevin says about money is perfectly correct. The "Oil Corporations" do make money, they employ both directly and indirectly a vast number of people the world over, their owners are a vast number of shareholders, including Insurance and Financial institutions who manage pension funds for millions of people. The Oil & Gas industry is, and always has been, very much an "American game" in terms of technology - but they do not control it, and never have. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 04:25 AM (#1056016) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Hrothgar When is postwar? |
|
18 Nov 03 - 06:30 AM (#1056086) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow And, which Teribus left out, it all gets creamed off by a much smaller bunch of people who are actually in control. But nationality isn't the bottom line, that's just a matter of what happens to be convenient. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 10:48 AM (#1056224) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace Hrothgar: When they have the wrap-up. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 11:19 AM (#1056244) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST RE: ".... it all gets creamed off by a much smaller bunch of people who are actually in control." Examples please Kevin |
|
18 Nov 03 - 06:30 PM (#1056530) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: DougR Guest: your comments would be so much more meaningful, and would be taken more seriously if you would identify yourself. You make some good points but ... I can't understand why so many of you folks are so upset at Bush's postwar plan. You do want the U. S. to turn over leadership of the country to the Iraqis don't you? Bush has always said that was the plan! DougR |
|
18 Nov 03 - 06:48 PM (#1056537) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,pdc DougR, I believe your remark was a bit naive. 1) Just because Bush says he's going to do something doesn't mean he will -- check his environment promises, his No Child Left Behind promises, and many others. 2) Turning Iraq over to the Iraqis means turning it over to the American Administration's Iraqis -- the ones they will own. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 07:01 PM (#1056549) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow And, if you go a few years back, it's worth remembering that the favourite Iraqi for a previous US Administration was Saddam Hussein. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 07:04 PM (#1056551) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Dougie, Plan? Hmmmmmm? Like what is it? Bobert |
|
18 Nov 03 - 07:12 PM (#1056559) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,guest from NW "I can't understand why so many of you folks are so upset at Bush's postwar plan. You do want the U. S. to turn over leadership of the country to the Iraqis don't you? Bush has always said that was the plan!" if that is the extent of the plan why aren't we packing up right now and proceeding to "turn over leadership to the Iraquis"? if there are any more details to the plan could you point out a few? |
|
18 Nov 03 - 09:17 PM (#1056615) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Thank you, GUEST from NW. That's what I'm trying to get a handle on my own Wes Ginny self... "Ahhh, we're turning it over to the Iraqis *but* we ain't leaving..." Like what's wrong with this picturre... It's like the obnoxious drunk at yer party who announces that he's leaving and then preceeds to drag his drunk butt into yer bedroom where he lays in yer bed, watching yer TV and vomits on yer carpet... That's a plan? Beam me up... Bobert |
|
18 Nov 03 - 10:07 PM (#1056642) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Boab The situation as it now stands in Iraq [it will get worse---] was a foregone [and forecast] scenario. The ringleaders, and their lapdogs, followed a path pre-ordained by greed and sheer ineptitude. And so it continues. Anybody who thinks that George W. and his savage pack don't envisage US miltary bases in the country of Iraq beyond forever are seriously deluding themselves---or are being naive enough to be seriously deluded. Boab |
|
18 Nov 03 - 10:14 PM (#1056647) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,pdc I no longer have the link, but can find it if nagged -- 5 months before the invasion of Iraq, Canadian intelligence findings were that the situation in Iraq would not work because it would deteriorate into -- exactly what it has. No exit plan, and a quagmire. That's one reason why Canada didn't go in with the US - plus, we found it repugnant, and the government would have had a hard time selling it to us. The question is, however: if our intelligence knew, why didn't US intelligence? |
|
18 Nov 03 - 10:30 PM (#1056654) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace If our Intelligence knew, then their Intelligence knew, ya know? But the game has never been about the righting of the wrongs in Iraq, has it? An ya don't have to be an Intelligence Service to know that. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 11:06 PM (#1056671) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Thomas the Rhymer US intelligence?... head for the hoop Bobert, and and I'll set you up for a nice slam dunk! ;^) Most of us in the states are too busy to bother researching... PBS Shows pictures of each of the American War dead... in silence... How do you feel as they look back at you... those healthy young men... Makes me so sad... And then I get miffed... What ARE we doing? Maybe Rush Limbaugh will tell us... Have a heart guys... imagine how foolish George must feel these days... Let's start sending the pretzels... millions and millions of pretzels...ttr |
|
18 Nov 03 - 11:26 PM (#1056684) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Mickey191 Over 8,000 Wounded. The beautiful young American soldier in his hospital bed with no arms. Blown off. Repeating the Big Lie: To bring peace, to find WMD. I wanted to shake him and for that, I'm heartly sorry. |
|
18 Nov 03 - 11:39 PM (#1056690) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Little Hawk Japanese soldiers in World War II thought they were bringing freedom and liberation from foreign white domination to all Asians (except the Chinese?). "Asia for the Asiatics!" they cried. Sounded really idealistic, didn't it? They died in their hundreds of thousands, in the ruins of the lands they invaded, and finally in their own homeland in atomic fireballs and burning cities. This is what happens to the young and naive who believe an aggressor's propaganda and march off to make war on foreign soil. - LH |
|
19 Nov 03 - 12:08 AM (#1056698) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Amos With a dead soldier's name on each of the return envelopes, contianing one pretzel.... |
|
19 Nov 03 - 01:40 AM (#1056726) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Thomas the Rhymer Amos... return envelopes? |
|
19 Nov 03 - 04:13 AM (#1056753) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Hrothgar Don't send pretzels to Dubya. One wrong swallow, and you get Cheney. Best of luck, fellers. |
|
19 Nov 03 - 01:08 PM (#1057083) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: DougR Bobert;PDC: Wait and see whether or not the administration turns over leadership of Iraq to Iraqis. It is not yet June '04 (at least where I live). Why not do it now? Not a very bright question. It can't be done until Iraq is secure. Will the U. S. maintain a base of military operation in Iraq? Probably, and it should. Will the Iraqis welcome it? I think so. DougR |
|
19 Nov 03 - 01:22 PM (#1057093) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Amos Thomas: Sorry -- I meant return addresses of the envelopes... A |
|
19 Nov 03 - 01:40 PM (#1057112) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow But Iraqis picked by the US and Co, rather than picked by the Iraqis. And it can be assumed that any Iraqi government will be required to go along with any contracts and deals made by the occupying administration. ..... "if our intelligence knew, why didn't US intelligence? " It seems pretty clear that the people in the field and the experts, did, and that they reported in these terms - but the people making the decisions didn't want to listen to anything that might get in the way of a pre-planned invasion. That applies both to US intelligence and the UK equivalent. "There's none so blind as those who will not see." |
|
19 Nov 03 - 02:00 PM (#1057129) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert ttr: About the masses being asleep at the wheel: "The great masses of people... will ,ore easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." (Adolf Hitler) Doug: There really isn't any "turning over" that is going to occur unless, of course, that Iraq developes pretty much what Bush and Wolfowitz want in the way of a government. You can forget free elections. We ain't got 'em here so its a real stretch to think that Iraq could pull them off. Democracy? Same answer... Yeah, think dictatorship under the guise of "republic" (ha...) with a better behaved Saddam. BTW, how many folks remember that in Bush/Iraq War I, that Gorbachav negotiated with Saddam a retreat of all Iraqis from Kuwait, and Bush I said, "Firgit it!"????... Yeah, we had Saddam in our pocket and could have very likely negoitiated to have US bases on Iraqi soil if we had really wnated to... But, no, instead Bush I & II have chosen to both use war as a means of solidifying political power and paying back their military/industrial complex financial backers which is a sneaky way of shifting even more wealth from Amrerica's working class to the moneyed and privedged class... Oh, those wacky Bush's... Bobert |
|
20 Nov 03 - 12:48 AM (#1057531) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: DougR Bobert: if I din't know better, I might think you are a cynic. DougR |
|
20 Nov 03 - 07:33 AM (#1057683) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Teribus RE: Elections in Iraq, any elections that are held will be a damn sight freer than during the Ba'athist days of SH. Lots of people have negotiated things with Saddam - and just look at how many times Saddam actually held his end of the bargain. Now why exactly would the US would require military bases on Iraqi soil??? "But, no, instead Bush I & II have chosen to both use war as a means of solidifying political power and paying back their military/industrial complex financial backers which is a sneaky way of shifting even more wealth from Amrerica's working class to the moneyed and privedged class..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|
20 Nov 03 - 08:42 AM (#1057713) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert ("Hmmmmm", the Bobert thinks out loud, "Guess T. has alot of Lockheed/Martin and/or Hallinburton stock in the port folio?....") Yo, Doug. The fact that yer guy is a crook is no reason to go insinuatin' that I'm cynical... So say yer sorry and I'll say I'm sorry fir yer guy being a crook... Bobert |
|
20 Nov 03 - 11:02 AM (#1057802) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Teribus Bobert, Regarding your thoughts on me holding Lockheed/Martin and Halliburton stock - I can state with absolute certainty that I do not ...... but I guess that quite a fair number of Pension Funds do. As to your remark to Doug, "The fact that yer guy is a crook....." That "Fact" Bobert only exists as a fact inside your head - In actual fact not a fact at all. |
|
20 Nov 03 - 05:48 PM (#1058070) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert So, T-Bird, yer back to yer old tricks with tricky sentences but I'll hand it to ya that ya' didn't use no double negatives... Okay, lets, for the purpose of discussion, assume that Bush is not a crook but its difficult because he does so many things that reward his financial backers, including unnecessary wars and rebuilding and caps on settlements for the phamacudicals companies, tax breaks that favor the rich, A Medicare package that was written in secret that will put billions of dollars back to insurance companies and away from health care, an unprecidented military budget, an Energy policy that was writtren in secret by his oil buddy, Dick Cheney and 42 other oil men and not even shown to the Dems until 3 dyas before they are going to vote on it.... etc., etc., etc., etc....... The list just goes on and on and on... If Bill Clinton had done any of the above, then Ken Starr would have been all over him and Repubs' would have been calling for impeachment (not that I liked Clinton much, either.) But Bush and his boys have figured out that they have the numbers in the legislature and the courts and figure, "Hey, who gonna stop us?" They've gotten the3 elections so rigged and jerrymandered that they are right. No one can stop them except themselves... Yeah, Bush talks the talk but walks like a man with no legs... He says all the right stuff but his actions are 180 degrees away from his boasts and promises... Sounds a whole lot like a crook to me... And, BTW, how can the average American know whats really coming down? It's draned near impossible. The media manipuates information in printing the "Big Lie" on Page One and the retractions buried on page 23. And the average doesn't have time to get to page 23 because he;s too busy trying to hold on to his job at Boss Hog's Widget Co. And the beat goes on.... This ain't at all what Tom Jefferson invisioned... Bobert |
|
20 Nov 03 - 06:17 PM (#1058085) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton HI Teribus, >Frank above mentions two oil corporations, one American based >multinational Exxon/Mobil and Shell (Royal Dutch Shell) which is >very much European. Now why the latter would the latter would >want "American domination of the market" I cannot begin to imagine. All you have to do is follow the flow of oil...where it's going.Note that these oil leases are not backed by Eurodollars. >Another he did not mention was BP/Amoco (British, BP having taken >over the US Oil Company Amoco, BP already owned Standard Oil another >American oil company). Well the Brits are being thrown a crumb. They are the "lieutenants" to Bush interests. >The French Oil Company Total-Petrofina-Elf are certainly involved in >Iraq and have been for years, none of their licences have been >revoked since Saddam departed. How valid are they? Who's going to let 'em pump? >Oil, like any other commodity, gets sold to the highest bidder. Except that it took a war to put a corner on the market. >What Kevin says about money is perfectly correct. The "Oil >Corporations" do make money, they employ both directly and >indirectly a vast number of people the world over, their owners are >a vast number of shareholders, including Insurance and Financial >institutions who manage pension funds for millions of people. Many who reside in the US. They make money so that the flow of oil goes to the West. The insurance and financial institutions are predicated on keep the flow of oil to the US. All you have to do is follow the money and oil trail. ANd I'm sure that many an oil CEO has written himself a large pension fund at the expense of his employees. >The Oil & Gas industry is, and always has been, very much >an "American game" in terms of technology - but they do not control >it, and never have. They will if Bush and Cheney have their way. The "American game" controls a good bit of it now. It's pretty clear that oil is what the Bushes are about. Have you noticed that there is no encouragement today for alternative energy sources (and no propaganda please about how expensive this is) because the oil interests in the US are interested in having their markets prevail. The cost is considerable to people in the US. 87 billion is only the start. If you naively think this money is intended for Iraqi reconstruction all you have to do is look at Afghanistan. There are international interests in the oil business but they controlled by a cartel who keep the prices up so that consumers will pay more at the pump. The US interests in this are considerable. Do you honestly think that France and Germany are represented in parity with US and Britain regarding oil leases in Iraq? Frank Hamilton |
|
20 Nov 03 - 07:16 PM (#1058118) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: McGrath of Harlow I think the right word isn't "cynic" but "sceptic". A cynic takes delight in sneering at everyone and everything, and would be disappointed if it turned out that someone they'd been criticising was actually better than they had believed. Just because someone has a low opinion of politicians and a particular political culture, or of wealthy and powerful people and the methods they use to get richer and more powerful - that in no way implies they are cynical. It is far more likely to imply that they are idealistic, which is the reverse of cynical. What really is cynical is to assume that there is no point in making those kind of criticisms, because, when all is said and done, there's no way it could really be better. |
|
20 Nov 03 - 11:02 PM (#1058244) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: DougR Geeze, Kevin, what a skeptical, (cynical) point of view! :>) DougR |
|
21 Nov 03 - 03:11 AM (#1058302) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: GUEST Hi there Frank, In response to your post of - 20 Nov 03 - 06:17 PM You advise me to follow the flow of oil - Oil flows to where it is most used, to developed industrialised countries in the East and West. Any great scheme or master plan involved in that? - No, it flows that way because that is where those selling the oil get the best price for it. BP, counted as being one of the "Seven Sisters" for at least 100 years. A major oil company, whose expertise and wealth was based on their ability to find oil (Shell's on the other hand was based on transportation of oil). The BP take over of Amoco a few years ago had nothing whatsoever to do with the US administration throwing anyone any crumbs - the take-over, like their take-over of Standard Oil, was based on purely business principles and strategy. As far as I know no exploration licences have been revoked in Iraq which makes them as valid today as they were when they were granted. In what way did the war you refer to "put a corner on the (oil) market"? So the "Oil Corporations", their employees (including the boss); their shareholders (all of them), profit. Anything wrong with that? As stated above oil flows to where it is most used - again no dark secret plan, no major change in how the industry operates in response to demand. Oh, by the way, remunerations for CEO's of the type you refer to are decided and voted on by the shareholders of the company - they don't write them themselves, and they are definitely not awarded at the expense of their employees (i.e. they are no worse of after such an award than they were before it). Please explain how if "Bush and Cheney" get their way they are going to gain control the world's Oil & Gas Industry?? Don't know about Oil Company involvement in alternative energy in your neck of the woods, but over here in Europe, the EU, individual governments and the oil companies are very involved in alternative energy - mark you a great deal of the impetus behind that is the requirements to meet emmission control targets. The unfortunate thing about most alternative energy sources is that they cannot produce 440v- 3 phase power required for industry. What is the parallel in Afghanistan - money voted and allocated for reconstruction in Afghanistan is doing precisely that. Why should the case be any different in Iraq? The belief, or expectation, of instantaneous and complete improvement to circumstances in both those countries is what is naive. It is going to take time, money, combined with the will and resolve to see it through (reconstruction of Germany 5 years - as I've said before it's early days yet). You say that although : "There are international interests in the oil business but they (are) controlled by a cartel who keep the prices up so that consumers will pay more at the pump." What cartel are you referring to - OPEC? If so OPEC's main take on things is to ensure that the resources of the member states are managed and exploited to the maximum advantage of those member states. As to prices at the pump - considering what people in the US regard as reasonable use of the resource we are talking about - you should be paying five times the amount for your fuel. Regarding representative parity between France and Germany, and the US and Britain regarding oil leases in Iraq. I think you will find that if anything the French come of best - Saddam was one of their best customers for nuclear technology, missile systems and combat aircraft for years. Ba'athist Iraq paid for those goodies with oil, oil exploration and production licences, etc, which still hold good today. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 08:53 AM (#1058450) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Bobert Well, yeah, all you gotta do is *follow* the flow of oil... And where is going? Into Boss Hog's SUV's for which he recieves a healthy tax credit to own? Hmmmm? This is energy policy? Really? Rewarding consumption is not an energy policy. It's narcisim, selfish and down right friggin' stupid... There is no logic in any energy policy that is built around *consumption*. But that's what yer gonn get every time you let 42 oilmen write the policy behind closed doors... Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. Whew......... Beam me up... Bobert |
|
21 Nov 03 - 01:41 PM (#1058635) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: DougR Will somebody PLEASE beam Bobert up? :>) DougR |
|
21 Nov 03 - 02:10 PM (#1058650) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Latest Postwar Plan From: Peace Gee, DougR, then the sky would be falling the other way. At least it's a change. |