War For Oil

[Akumulator]

I want to ask... is there anyone who seriously thinks that the war in Iraq (or even Afghanistan) was really anything other than a war for oil? I've always thought that this Iraq war was nothing but that. The US has oil interests in Iraq, not humanitarian. Oil has always been the boogy man argument of the cause for war, but is it not true?

Now, Alan Greenspan:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

[Splinemodel]

By the time Iraq is ready to produce oil, we will have a better alternative. It's hard to say if that was in the plans, but there's certainly the chance that it was.

[@_@ Artman]

By the time Iraq is ready to produce oil, we will have a better alternative.

Oh, oh. please let us in on the secret miracles for not only our transportation needs but our utility, production and manufacturing needs too!.

It's hard to say if that was in the plans, but there's certainly the chance that it was.

You keep saying that, you may eventually realize you're wrong. This has been an objective for over 30 years (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/fields.htm).

[Mystic]

Then why didn't we take the oil?

[SDW2001]

Could have set my watch by the timing of this one. Saw the headline and thought "Countdown to "War for Oil" thread.

<yawn>

[e1618978]

Then why didn't we take the oil?

Because it wasn't our goal to take the oil, it was our goal to prevent disruption of the oil supply, which would cost us our standard of living.

All those people who chant "No war for oil" have not thought things through, because without oil their children freeze and starve.

[@_@ Artman]

Then why didn't we take the oil?

Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, also testified before Congress this week with Petraeus, and he has more good news about what he still celebrates as the "liberation of Iraq." Remember that Bush Administration promise that the oil-rich Iraqis would pick up the check for the cost of their liberation? Well, Crocker is bullish on that front: the Iraqi economy is on schedule to grow by 6 percent, according to his testimony. Perhaps he is referring to the additional money dumped into Iraq's economy by American taxpayers chipping in for the surge.

He certainly wasn't basing his estimate on any improvement in Iraqi oil production or any other economic component. As the International Monetary Fund reported last month in its annual review of Iraq's economy, "Economic growth has been slower than expected at the time of the last (review) mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has failed to materialize." In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in U.S. tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.

This whole situation has become mired in politics, religion and of course violence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299313/site/newsweek/). Like a Middle East version of Deadwood.

By the way...

http://www.hbo.com/deadwood/img/castandcrew/actors/keoneyoung.jpg


Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

"The Chinese could announce something within the next few months" if all goes well with the oil law, said James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who specializes in the Middle East.

The Asian firms are at an advantage for several reasons.

First, less constrained by Western sanctions during the Hussein regime, they've been operating in Iraq and know the country's oilfields, said Falah Aljibury, an energy analyst who has advised several Iraqi oil ministers as well as other OPEC nations.

Aljibury said the first contracts likely awarded will be to the Chinese in the south central part of Iraq, the Vietnamese in the south, the Indians along the Kuwaiti border, and the Indonesians in the western desert.

The contracts under consideration are small.

Aljibury said the Chinese agreement is to produce about 70,000 barrels of oil a day, while the Vietnamese one is for about 60,000.



The Chinese though, with the man power and foresight may get first in line for a few barrels (http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm). Getting a small foothold and getting energy in return while people squabble and die in the streets.

[mydo]

Certainly if there were no oil then no one would care. There would never have been a powerful dictator there. There would be no issue about WOMDs because there would be no money to pay for it. Iraq would be another Darfur.

[iPoster]

'If this war is for oil, why am I paying so much'....ah, forget it. :rolleyes:

Iraq would be another Darfur.

Truth.

[sammi jo]

Could have set my watch by the timing of this one. Saw the headline and thought "Countdown to "War for Oil" thread.

<yawn>

What, in your opinion, was the reason/justification for the Iraq war? You have always been very supportive of it, throughout all of the Bush Administration's shifting justifications for it.

[segovius]

What, in your opinion, was the reason/justification for the Iraq war? You have always been very supportive of it, throughout all of the Bush Administration's shifting justifications for it.

SDW doesn't have opinions...only a credo: evildoing heathens must be eliminated.

[Splinemodel]

blah, blah, blah.

I'm not sure how such a non-positional, optimistic message got you so riled up. It's as if you want this to be a war for oil, and that you want technology to be stagnant so that. . . I have no idea what could possibly be your motive, if you even have one.

[@_@ Artman]

I'm not sure how such a non-positional, optimistic message got you so riled up. It's as if you want this to be a war for oil, and that you want technology to be stagnant so that. . . I have no idea what could possibly be your motive, if you even have one.

Neither do I (where the fuck did I post "blah, blah, blah" in this thread?).

I don't want. It is (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).

You're a weird fuckin' dude, honestly. :err:

[Splinemodel]

I'll take the accusation of being weird as a compliment, given that the conventional wisdom of the day, on either side, is pathetic and depressing.

Greenspan is of the opinion that the war was oil-driven. He's an economic-minded guy, so it would make sense that this would be his conclusion. Right now, it's hard to verify these claims. Perhaps there's compelling evidence in his book, but as far as I know, no one here has read it yet.

Nonetheless, my "conveniently over-optimistic" viewpoint comes as I eat, sleep, and breath high-tech. It is the source of my primary income (day job), and my somewhat more lucrative secondary income (investing in high tech). Over the past two years, there have been enormous strides in non fossil fuel power technology, and "green" tech in general. In addition, energy analysts sing in unison that oil prices aren't coming down. This furthers the market for non fossil fuel power technology. In the seemingly likely event that Iraq won't be producing oil for 10 years, and in quantity by 20 years, I can say definitively that the market for petroleum will be quite a bit reduced by then.

[@_@ Artman]

I'll take the accusation of being weird as a compliment, given that the conventional wisdom of the day, on either side, is pathetic and depressing.

I'll put it this way. Your reply to my comment was wierd. I don't know you, so I can't honestly say you are weird.

Greenspan is of the opinion that the war was oil-driven. He's an economic-minded guy, so it would make sense that this would be his conclusion. Right now, it's hard to verify these claims. Perhaps there's compelling evidence in his book, but as far as I know, no one here has read it yet.

I've posted a link that proves that we have had military objective for oil fields in the Middle East since 1975 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/fields.htm). Some could go all the way back to World War I and the British invasion of Iraq too. But I'll let the more experienced historians continue with that.

Or a comedian on a bicycle. Robert Newman's History of Oil (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159)

Nonetheless, my "conveniently over-optimistic" viewpoint comes as I eat, sleep, and breath high-tech. It is the source of my primary income (day job), and my somewhat more lucrative secondary income (investing in high tech). Over the past two years, there have been enormous strides in non fossil fuel power technology, and "green" tech in general. In addition, energy analysts sing in unison that oil prices aren't coming down. This furthers the market for non fossil fuel power technology. In the seemingly likely event that Iraq won't be producing oil for 10 years, and in quantity by 20 years, I can say definitively that the market for petroleum will be quite a bit reduced by then.

Good. Great. Keep up the good work. Do me a favor and tell our ignorant administration about this revelation too. Maybe we can then stop them from taking what's left for themselves, their oil cronies and ending our world as we know it.

Second thought: Maybe they want us to think that it's about oil. Sure, it will make us feel slightly guilty about all the corpses, but happy about the cheap gas.

This war is more about contractors getting rich than it is about oil. Dozens of billions of dollars were spent on contractors during this war, more than ever before. The defense spending is higher than ever before, and all that money provides a big incentive for wars to happen. Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayer is being robbed blind.

[Nightcrawler]

Then why didn't we take the oil?

That's what will happen. The US and its american oil-companies are just waiting for the legal framework to be passed, ie. the hydrocarbon-law. It's nearly guaranteed that american oil-companies will get longterm-contracts to control the majority of the oil-fields.

The current shortterm contracts that asian countries are getting are miniscule, 60k, 70 k barrels for the asian countries? That's nothing compared to the millions of barrels per year that the american oil-companies are waiting for.

Nightcrawler

[screener]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6910364
Well, the legislation Bush promised never materialized, and on Wednesday attempts to arrive at a compromise oil law collapsed.
What's particularly revealing is the cause of the breakdown. Last month, the provincial government in Kurdistan, defying the central government, passed its own oil law; last week, a Kurdish Web site announced that the provincial government had signed a production-sharing deal with Hunt Oil of Dallas, and that seems to have been the last straw.

You remember Bunker Hunt, of the attempted cornering of the Silver Market.

Now here's the thing: Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Bush. More than that, Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.

Ray L. Hunt is Bunker's half brother.
Not that Ray has crooked tendencies.

No, what's interesting about this deal is the fact that Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad's disapproval, he's essentially betting that the Iraqi government - which hasn't met a single one of the major benchmarks Bush laid out in January - won't get its act together. Indeed, he's effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.

Interesting huh?

[SDW2001]

What, in your opinion, was the reason/justification for the Iraq war? You have always been very supportive of it, throughout all of the Bush Administration's shifting justifications for it.

You really want to start that again? Well OK then.

1. We believed he had WMD.
2. He violated 17 UN resolutions.
3. He violated the 1991 ceasefire hundreds of times.
4. He had loose ties to terror groups and may have provided them with WMD in the future.
5. In addition to the above, he was openly hostile towards the US and our allies. He praised 9/11 for example. To my knowledge he was the only world leader to do so.
6. Assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush.
7. A Democracy in the ME could be a force for positive change.



Now I know you believe whole heartedly that BUSH LIED (TM) about WMD, but let's put that argument partially aside. You claim the admin had "shifting justifications," just as many of your liberal cohorts have claimed. But that's false.

There were always multiple reasons we invaded as listed above.... the primary one being WMD. The Bush Admin layed all of the reasons out. However, it's my opinion they made a huge mistake by focusing so heavily on WMD in their public statements. That's not to say they didn't talk about those reasons, because they did. But it was lopsided enough so that when no WMD were found and they talked about the other reasons, opponents of the war and members of the media got to pretend they had never heard them before. "You're shifting justifications for the war!" they screamed. And guess what? The public started to buy it.


SDW doesn't have opinions...only a credo: evildoing heathens must be eliminated.


You know, we all insult each other and generally rip each other here. That's part of the fun. But this is different, because your statement is a totally unprovoked personal attack that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It wasn't even said in a heated debate. I think you should receive an infraction for that and apologize.

[@_@ Artman]

You really want to start that again? Well OK then.

1. We believed he had WMD.

[CIA Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)]

2. He violated 17 UN resolutions.

[Let the invasion of Israel begin! (http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html)]

3. He violated the 1991 ceasefire hundreds of times.

[The No-Fly Zone War (http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html)]

4. He had loose ties to terror groups and may have provided them with WMD in the future.

[Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47812-2004Jun16?language=printer)]

5. In addition to the above, he was openly hostile towards the US and our allies. He praised 9/11 for example. To my knowledge he was the only world leader to do so.

[Ding! (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm)]

6. Assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush.

[So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm)]

7. A Democracy in the ME could be a force for positive change.

[''U.S. Retreats from Theory of Democratic Transformation in the Middle East''] (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=243&language_id=1)



1 out of 7. Though I couldn't find this statement of "praise" out of Saddam's mouth.

Saddam was an asshole and his sons were even worse. If anything, we could have taken Saddam and his sons with a smart bomb, or supported a coup a la Iran 1953 or something old school. But we wanted boots on the ground permanently. And this is what this quagmire for oil has become.

[sammi jo]

1 out of 7. Though I couldn't find this statement of "praise" out of Saddam's mouth.

I still have several copies of the LA Times for about 8-10 days after 9/11. I recall the comments from various leaders, including Saddam Hussein, who expressed "regret and sympathy" for those who had perished. I tried to find this comment online, but no evidence. Whatever. Saddam's dead now, and that's no great loss for anyone. He was our asshole, actually, but he overstepped his boundary, and he consequently paid the price.

[segovius]

He was our asshole, actually, but he overstepped his boundary, and he consequently paid the price.

Well, maybe he just knew too much about too many things and had to be shut up...

[screener]

Well, maybe he just knew too much about too many things and had to be shut up...

Or maybe he was a threat to the Dollar Hegemony.
I posted this before here, and also a couple of years ago at another site from another source.
If the US dollar is usurped by the Euro as the main trading currency, the US is Fucked.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars – due to their depreciation – will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

And the dollar is falling, and talk of war with Iran is heating up.

Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources – we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.


Ron Paul must have come up with this tirade before you-all invaded Iraq.
Now Iran is in the firing line.
Fucking Americans.

[Ptrash]

By the time Iraq is ready to produce oil, we will have a better alternative. It's hard to say if that was in the plans, but there's certainly the chance that it was.

It wasn't an invasion to simply steal Iraqi oil (that was an added bonus :smokey:) but rather a strategic act that probably has many aims, with one of its primary objectives to give the US (the world's policeman) a local base in a region that's of incredible economic, social and political importance, and create . It's not just oil; most goods travel by ship, and the countries in the middle east control the most direct shipping route--via the Suez Canal, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman--between Asia and Europe.

I have a friend who loves to talk about how real estate developers thiink in 25 year chunks of time. While politicians don't think much beyond the present, policymakers and executors dealing with strategic resources almost have to look at long term as well as present conditions. (I guess the job of the elected officials is to sell us on a version of reality that's palatable to the greatest number of people.)

BTW, I'm not excusing their actions, just trying to understand them (policymakers and bureaucrats). I assume they believe the things they tell us; on the other hand some of them are total BS artists just serving at the pleasure of multinational companies. (Part of the probelm is we're all still thinking in national terms, when major institutions increasingly think in global terms, and maybe that's the major role of politicians these days, to ease us into a new world without national borders.)

. . .

I've posted a link that proves that we have had military objective for oil fields in the Middle East since 1975.

This war is more about contractors getting rich than it is about oil. Dozens of billions of dollars were spent on contractors during this war, more than ever before. The defense spending is higher than ever before, and all that money provides a big incentive for wars to happen. Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayer is being robbed blind.

I think you hit on a major domestic aim of this war, the continued privitization of our government, especially the military and intelligence apparatus. Agian, the people directing such efforts have to get rich, or make their friends rich, as a side benefit. And then there's the distraction effect, as it's dominated our political discussion while some really horrible economic policies have been continued that are impoverishing and disempowering millions of Americans. Not the least, it's also served to drive the erosion of our civil liberties. The combined impact is we're gonna wake up a few years form now living in some kind of mutant totalitarian society (think Orwell's 1984 grafted onto Huxley's Brave New World).

PS It'd be cool to have a topic listing all the potential objectives of the Iraq war. What amazes me is anyone who's ever worked for an institution has had to experience both the private and public face of the work that they engage in. The more controversial or troublesome it is, the less you tell the public, the more you lie and and the greater likelihood that it will be attempted in stages. Yet for some reason when it comes to politics we disconnect from our own experiences in the workplace and insist on believing the bulshit we are told by officials (public or private), like the war in Iraq is about 9/11 and keeping "terrorists" out of the US, as well as forgetting all the instances when we've learned years later that what our gov't told us at the moment had little relationship to the truth.

PPS --I'm listening to Tim Wiener talking about his new book on the CIA (Legacy of Ashes), on Tavis Smiley. He made a great observation, about how we're just so inexpereinced at running an empire, compared to the British and the Chinese, especially when it comes to intelligence matters. Sometimes I've wondered who's really pulling the strings here--who's benefitted from the Iraq debacle? Certainly the Russians, and the Chinese, and right-wing Islamicists.

[Ptrash]

This whole situation has become mired in politics, religion and of course violence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299313/site/newsweek/). Like a Middle East version of Deadwood.

By the way...

http://www.hbo.com/deadwood/img/castandcrew/actors/keoneyoung.jpg

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

"The Chinese could announce something within the next few months" if all goes well with the oil law, said James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who specializes in the Middle East.

The Asian firms are at an advantage for several reasons.

First, less constrained by Western sanctions during the Hussein regime, they've been operating in Iraq and know the country's oilfields, said Falah Aljibury, an energy analyst who has advised several Iraqi oil ministers as well as other OPEC nations.

Aljibury said the first contracts likely awarded will be to the Chinese in the south central part of Iraq, the Vietnamese in the south, the Indians along the Kuwaiti border, and the Indonesians in the western desert.

The contracts under consideration are small.

Aljibury said the Chinese agreement is to produce about 70,000 barrels of oil a day, while the Vietnamese one is for about 60,000.

The Chinese though, with the man power and foresight may get first in line for a few barrels (http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm). Getting a small foothold and getting energy in return while people squabble and die in the streets.

I just read JG Ballard's Empire of the Sun. I think he paints a realistic, if one-sided, portrait of certain aspects of life in Shanghai, China, in the war years of the 1940s: peasants lying dead in the street, public stranglings and beheadings, immense poverty and suffering and a population used to the value of life being stolen from them by whoever had power--warlords, crime syndicates, landowners, foreign invaders, their own governments. The best line was at the very end, when he described a group of drunken American and British sailors pissing on top of a set of stairs, down at the Chinese passersby on a Shanghai street. Can't remember it verbatim, but it was something like "You could tell the Chinese would one day get their revenge, and it would be horrific."

[sammi jo]

Now Henry Kissinger weighs in on the action, and says it the way it is.... ie... the reasons for going to war against Iraq, Iran, (and Afghanistan in *my* opinion) etc had everything to do with oil, not the promotion of democracy, or WMDs/nukes, or going after terrorists, or any of the other bogus reasons (technically lies), as presented by the Bush Administration. I don't know how much trust one can put in a man wanted by 20+ nations for war crimes, but here's the link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/greenspan-kissinger-oil_b_64659.html):

[SDW2001]

1 out of 7. Though I couldn't find this statement of "praise" out of Saddam's mouth.

Saddam was an asshole and his sons were even worse. If anything, we could have taken Saddam and his sons with a smart bomb, or supported a coup a la Iran 1953 or something old school. But we wanted boots on the ground permanently. And this is what this quagmire for oil has become.

I won't get into the pissing contest with you on my list, because I'm frankly not sure you even believe your own argument. But you might be right about wanting boots on the ground. It might be partly about oil, but I don't think it's the whole shootin' match.

[Fellowship]

For all the NEOCONS who think they are going to benefit from all these wars in the middle east:

Ask yourself - "Who are the ones getting rich and who are the ones going bankrupt?

"Neo-Cons who trumpet the ethnic cleansing of the middle east using the twisted logic that it benefits Americans as their dollar sinks to peso level and gas prices explode while the cost of living becomes unaffordable are living in a complete fantasy world, but when the wake up call arrives the consequences of their ignorance are going to reap a hellish revenge."

Taken fron this link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_kissinger_admits_iran_attack_about_oil.htm

I for one am no NEOCON cheerleader like Sean Hannity / Fox News etc... and I am proud of it.

Fellows

[@_@ Artman]

I won't get into the pissing contest with you on my list, because I'm frankly not sure you even believe your own argument. But you might be right about wanting boots on the ground. It might be partly about oil, but I don't think it's the whole shootin' match.

I think that it is that you don't have a leg to stand on anymore.

http://www.macleans.ca/images/homepage/Macleans_Oct1.JPG

:wow: :smokey:

[SDW2001]

For all the NEOCONS who think they are going to benefit from all these wars in the middle east:

Ask yourself - "Who are the ones getting rich and who are the ones going bankrupt?

"Neo-Cons who trumpet the ethnic cleansing of the middle east using the twisted logic that it benefits Americans as their dollar sinks to peso level and gas prices explode while the cost of living becomes unaffordable are living in a complete fantasy world, but when the wake up call arrives the consequences of their ignorance are going to reap a hellish revenge."

Taken fron this link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_kissinger_admits_iran_attack_about_oil.htm

I for one am no NEOCON cheerleader like Sean Hannity / Fox News etc... and I am proud of it.

Fellows

First, no one is allowed to link to infowars without a disclaimer anymore. Second, I don't think you even really know what "Neocon" means. You think you do, but you don't. Thirdly, you don't really believe that "neocons" want "ethnic cleansing, do you?

I think that it is that you don't have a leg to stand on anymore.

http://www.macleans.ca/images/homepage/Macleans_Oct1.JPG

:wow: :smokey:

Yeah, there's a reasonable opinion.

[segovius]

Yeah, there's a reasonable opinion.

That's your only response ever....why make it?

All that will happen is that people will ask you to explain why they are not equals when both torture, steal and kill.

Then you will deny it.

Then someone more informed will prove it and then you will carry on as before...

I mean why bother? Why not just hang out at a Bush fan club for instance - I'm sure there is one but it sure as hell ain't in here...

[Fellowship]

First, no one is allowed to link to infowars without a disclaimer anymore. Second, I don't think you even really know what "Neocon" means. You think you do, but you don't.



edit. just not worth the time..

Fellowship

[sammi jo]

First, no one is allowed to link to infowars without a disclaimer anymore.

A lot of material on Infowars.com are links to stories on the mainstream media. Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a disclaimer when linking to articles on Fox, or CNN, or any of the other Soviet-style corporate bootlicking "news" outlets that masquerade as real, balanced, honest media.

Second, I don't think you even really know what "Neocon" means. You think you do, but you don't.

It's common knowledge what NeoCon means. Anyone can look it up, who has a capacity to read and comprehend straightforward English.

Thirdly, you don't really believe that "neocons" want "ethnic cleansing, do you?

Lets just say that in the last few years, a group of powerful well-connected people (NeoCons) have assembled within the government of the world's sole superpower, and many of them happen to exhibit an irrational phobia towards a certain ethno-religious group (Muslims). When combining that psychological group dysfunction with the fact that a number of nations (which happen to be populated and run by that same hated "ethno-religious group" (Muslims)), happen to be in the way of the political agenda of the (NeoCons) because much of the oil we so covet happens to belong to the people of those nations, then the likelihood of "bad stuff" happening is doubled (or squared perhaps).

You claim that the NeoCons are not interested in "ethnic cleansing"? Straight from the bible of the NeoCon agenda comes this statement: " ....advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool....."


This sounds more like something out of Heinrich Himmler's wettest dreams. The NeoCons do include ethnic cleansing as a part of their agenda, even though it would never be included in any specific public statement (people tend not to be exactly honest about things that the majority of people, or any sane person will object to), and it doesnt take much to deduce about which "specific genotype"the NeoCons are referring. There's ethnic cleansing going down in the occupied Palestinian territories right now, but we don't hear about it in the US because there's a mainstream media blackout on it. Palestine is just the start.

[@_@ Artman]

First, no one is allowed to link to infowars without a disclaimer anymore.

We will if you do the same when you post a NewsMax link.

Yeah, there's a reasonable opinion.

Actually it is a brilliant report on a reporter's return to Iraq. Worth reading. (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1) Oh wait, you won't.

Anyways, our president is not well liked. At all.

Here's Mexico's view:

http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/Milenio0.preview.jpeg

Here's Amnesty International:

http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/Bush-low_1.preview.jpg

Alex Ross's best selling T-shirt:

http://www.realitybasednation.com/images/bush-ross.jpg

I could go on, but what's the use? Waste of bandwidth and typing.

I hope for the sake of America and the western world that the Republicans won't react like the Muslims did on the Muhammad drawings.

[segovius]

I hope for the sake of America and the western world that the Republicans won't react like the Muslims did on the Muhammad drawings.

Well, if Bush is being lied about and he is the opposite of how he is being represented maybe they should......

Question really is; are the depictions accurate?

[SDW2001]

That's your only response ever....why make it?

All that will happen is that people will ask you to explain why they are not equals when both torture, steal and kill.

Then you will deny it.

Then someone more informed will prove it and then you will carry on as before...

I mean why bother? Why not just hang out at a Bush fan club for instance - I'm sure there is one but it sure as hell ain't in here...

Comparing Bush to Saddam is pathetic and disgusting and not even worth my time. Period.

A lot of material on Infowars.com are links to stories on the mainstream media.

Hmmm....you mean like Drudge then?

Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a disclaimer when linking to articles on Fox, or CNN, or any of the other Soviet-style corporate bootlicking "news" outlets that masquerade as real, balanced, honest media.

:lol: Fox and CNN=buttbuddies?



It's common knowledge what NeoCon means. Anyone can look it up, who has a capacity to read and comprehend straightforward English.

No, it's not. It's common misconception, actually.



Lets just say that in the last few years, a group of powerful well-connected people (NeoCons) have assembled within the government of the world's sole superpower, and many of them happen to exhibit an irrational phobia towards a certain ethno-religious group (Muslims).

Yeah, it's irrational to fear and loathe muslim terrorists. I mean, it's not like they ahev been responsible for virtually every major terror attack in the last 30 years or something.




When combining that psychological group dysfunction with the fact that a number of nations (which happen to be populated and run by that same hated "ethno-religious group" (Muslims)), happen to be in the way of the political agenda of the (NeoCons) because much of the oil we so covet happens to belong to the people of those nations, then the likelihood of "bad stuff" happening is doubled (or squared perhaps).

Translation: "...like that fucking jew, Wolfowitz"



You claim that the NeoCons are not interested in "ethnic cleansing"? Straight from the bible of the NeoCon agenda comes this statement: " ....advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool....."

What pray tell is the bible of the Neocon agenda, and where is that statement found. Also, I would like to see the context.




This sounds more like something out of Heinrich Himmler's wettest dreams. The NeoCons do include ethnic cleansing as a part of their agenda, even though it would never be included in any specific public statement (people tend not to be exactly honest about things that the majority of people, or any sane person will object to), and it doesnt take much to deduce about which "specific genotype"the NeoCons are referring. There's ethnic cleansing going down in the occupied Palestinian territories right now, but we don't hear about it in the US because there's a mainstream media blackout on it. Palestine is just the start.

That's what we call a self-reinforcing delusion sammi. "There is not evidence because they don't want you to have any."


We will if you do the same when you post a NewsMax link.

I usually do, actually.






Actually it is a brilliant report on a reporter's return to Iraq. Worth reading. (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1) Oh wait, you won't.

Anyways, our president is not well liked. At all.

(images)

I could go on, but what's the use? Waste of bandwidth and typing.

I hope for the sake of America and the western world that the Republicans won't react like the Muslims did on the Muhammad drawings.

Regardless of conditions in Iraq, comparing Bush to Saddam is utterly ridiculous and not something I'm even going to you on.

[screener]

Comparing Bush to Saddam is pathetic and disgusting and not even worth my time. Period.

Regardless of conditions in Iraq, comparing Bush to Saddam is utterly ridiculous and not something I'm even going to you on.

Never judge a book, or magazine by it's cover.
The Maclean's cover is just a hook to grab attention.

Try reading the article, and others linked to, with an open mind and maybe you'll be able to argue your position as a Bush "POODLE" in a more knowledgeable way.

Perhaps then you won't reply so often with "I don't know what you mean".