Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

War drums for Isreal and Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Unibrow



Joined: 20 Aug 2012

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Terrorists can be elected. Most Israeli prime ministers were war criminals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
No. After the fall of the Iraqi government the Chinese and Russians (who opposed the war) got the oil. The Americans made very little effort to get the oil. Additionally, executives at oil firms in the US have explicitly and publicly opposed attacking Iran leading a zionist at ThinkProgress to declare them traitors to American national interests (the article was posted in a thread called "should America scale back relations with Israel). Oil firms want Iran open for business and not chaotic and in the arms of the Chinese.


Why would the Americans need to hog all the oil? Oil is a fungible good. Oil from Iraq is as good as oil from Kuwait is as good as oil from Alaska. But there has to be enough oil to meet world demand. Hence, the invasion of Iraq.

http://images.angelpub.com/2010/12/4208/iraq-oil-production.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But read the fine print of those contracts, and companies more familiar to Americans are now poised to benefit handsomely as the oil business picks up in Iraq.

The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors.

Halliburton and Baker Hughes are American, while Schlumberger is based in Paris though its drilling subdivision is headquartered in Houston. Weatherford, though founded in Texas, is now incorporated in Switzerland. “Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. “There will be an enormous scale of investment.” Mr. Munton estimated roughly half of the expected $150 billion the international majors will spend in capital outlays at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade will go to drilling subcontractors, most of them American.

Halliburton has won drilling and well refurbishment contracts at three of the six major fields, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes at two others. One Chinese oil-services company is also working on these projects, as is a domestic Iraqi subcontractor, the Iraq Drilling Co.


Full Article
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros, that's extremely silly. You think the "it" it was worth here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4 was oil?

I like quotes:

Quote:
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.


Seems clear enough and fits with all the evidence. I know, Kuros, you know what's up but you're scared at what this means. Your fear is probably legitimate and justified. We can not continue to kill people and smash nations and destroy civilizations all over the world for foreign interests.

AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr
Quote:
"Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."


Joe Klein:
Quote:
"You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the “benign domino theory” that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about–off the record, of course–in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel’s security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel’s enemies in the region?"


Ari Shavit [2003]:
Quote:
"In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town [Washington]: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history."


Stephen Walt:
Quote:
"The remarkable thing about the Iraq war is how few people it took to engineer. It wasn’t promoted by the U.S. military, the CIA, the State Department, or oil companies. Instead, the main architects were a group of well-connected neoconservatives, who began openly lobbying for war during the Clinton administration…

As the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman told Ha’aretz in May 2003: ‘Iraq was the war neoconservatives wanted… the war the neoconservatives marketed…. I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office [in Washington]) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."


I know Kuros. It's tough to accept the state of things. How many Arabs and Persians and Serbs and whomever else will have to die before you're willing to talk about the elephant in our living room.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Kuros, that's extremely silly. You think the "it" it was worth here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4 was oil?


I'm not saying it was one or the other. A coalition was built. Some wanted to help Israel. Some wanted to develop oil. Some were worried about showing Saudi Arabia a lesson. Some were genuinely duped about the sham national security justifications.

Yes, the Iraq was about oil, Israel, terrorism, old fashioned imperialism, Dems wanting to look tough, all of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Walt, again:

Quote:
"The remarkable thing about the Iraq war is how few people it took to engineer. It wasn’t promoted by the U.S. military, the CIA, the State Department, or oil companies. Instead, the main architects were a group of well-connected neoconservatives, who began openly lobbying for war during the Clinton administration…

As the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman told Ha’aretz in May 2003: ‘Iraq was the war neoconservatives wanted… the war the neoconservatives marketed…. I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office [in Washington]) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."


Not oil. Not Saudi. No. It was for Israel. I know your thing is being moderate, middle of the road etc but on this the you're out to lunch. Defer to Walt, Friedman, Zelikow etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with honestly describing what happened (and is happening) and why.

For Christ sakes, we're getting the exact same line again on Iran. 71% of Americans think Iran has nukes! If you're really paying attention you'll note that Russia will be a post-Iran target (there is already an aggressive project to undermine Putin and spark a revolution). Maybe the end of our species will shake you out of your moderate coma.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
actionjackson



Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
FLASHBACK: Netanyahu Said Iraq War Would Benefit The Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday told a Paris-based magazine that a military strike on Iran would be beneficial to the region. Netanyahu’s statement was published on the eve of a meeting with French President Francois Holland, during which the two planned to discuss the Iran issue among other topics. Netanyahu cited Iran’s lack of popularity in the Middle East:

“Five minutes after, contrary to what the skeptics say, I think a feeling of relief would spread across the region…Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it, and some governments in the region, as well as their citizens, have understood that a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for them, not just for Israel.”

Sound familiar? Netanyahu’s statement echoes a point that he made in 2002, when he advocated for a strike on Iraq on the grounds that, among other things, it would benefit the region:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region…the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.”

It hardly bears repeating that Arabs in the Middle East did not react favorably to the Iraq war. The year the war began, the Los Angeles Times reported from Syria and found that negative views of America had hardened. One Syrian told the Times ”What they are doing is worse than what Saddam [Hussein] has done.” Brookings Institution polling from 2003 backed up the anecdotes. More than 60 percent of Arabs saw the Iraq war causing “less peace” in the region and more than 70 percent said it would result in “more terrorism.” Shelby Tahimi, a Middle East expert and the creator of the poll, found an “unprecedented tide of public opinion running against the United States” after the Iraq war.

In the end, the war did not have “positive reverberations” for Arabs in the region. An anti-war group reported this year that over a 100,000 civilians died in the war. The violence spread to other countries as well: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the early 2000s, organized a vicious bombing campaign in Jordan, killing 54 people at hotels across Amman. Sectarianism in Iraq grew exponentially, often times with Iran reportedly supporting Shiite militants, and thousands died in Iraq as a result. A report published earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former U.S. defense and diplomatic officials said a strike on Iran would cause similar regional chaos:

“A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.“

This time, Netanyahu is referencing Iran’s unpopularity, likely referring to well-known animosity between the leaders of several Gulf nations and Iran. In 2010, after Wikileaks exposed U.S. diplomatic cables, Arab leaders’ hostile views of Iran were undeniable. In one cable, a Saudi official explained the “King’s frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program.” The official added in what is now a well-known phrase that the King had said to “cut off the head of the snake.” Another cable quoted Bahrain’s King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa telling Gen. David Petraeus that Iran’s nuclear program “must be stopped.” Qatar, according to a different Wikileaks cable, reportedly said the U.S. could use a military base on its land.

But when it comes to the general Arab population, the numbers tell a different story. Polling shows that while a majority of Arabs see Iran as playing a negative role in the region, a majority also feel that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/31/1117211/netanyahu-iran-iraq/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Russia is not next.

The Iraq War was not unique either if you are familiar with the history of US imperialism.


Last edited by catman on Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Not oil. Not Saudi. No. It was for Israel. I know your thing is being moderate, middle of the road etc but on this the you're out to lunch.


Hey, hey. No need for name-calling. I'm not a 'moderate.'

I've already said I oppose any actions against Iran that would let blood. But I can't bring myself to oppose sanctions or computer viruses. I am against the targeting and killing of Iranian scientists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

catman wrote:
Russia is not next.


During the dust-up between Georgia (whose foreign minister at the time Davit Kezerashvili was an Israeli) the neo-cons (including the disgusting John McCain) wanted the United States to side with Georgia. Cheney actually wanted to shell Russian positions! Do you remember this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/mccain-to-georgian-president-t.html
Quote:
"Today, We Are All Georgians"


The idiot Mikheil Saakashvili who was then in charge of Georgia (but no longer, thank Christ) was attempting to start a Russian-American war. He almost succeeded, but Rand Paul (the racist-bigot!) put a stop to it.

True story.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/rand-paul-prevents-war-with-russia/

Quote:
When John McCain proclaimed in 2008, “Today, we’re all Georgians,” unfortunately he was not talking about the Southern state. No, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee was declaring his — indeed, all of our — support for the nation of Georgia, which that year became involved in a brief military conflict with neighboring Russia over who had claim to the region of South Ossetia. Which country’s soldiers fired first became a matter of international dispute, but the Bush administration made clear that this would not become America’s dispute; there would be no military response by the United States. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed that America had successfully avoided a shooting war with Russia during the Cold War and he saw “no reason to change that approach today.”

A few days ago, some Republican senators attempted to lay the groundwork for a shooting war with Russia. I wish I were exaggerating.

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

This is not a triviality. Make no mistake: Bringing Georgia into NATO could lead to a new military conflict for the United States, which is why any move that would facilitate Georgia’s entry into the alliance should be publicly debated. Rubio’s attempt to push this through by unanimous consent — that is to say, without any formal debate or vote — is highly suspect and calls into question the senator’s better judgment.

But what Sen. Rubio is advocating is nothing new. Examining the political context of McCain’s declaration of solidarity with Georgia in 2008 should give Americans pause about the Washington establishment’s foreign policy agenda. After the 2008 South Ossetia conflict, Pat Buchanan wrote:

Who is Randy Scheunemann? He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States. But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role. He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.

Continued Buchanan:

From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 — pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili. What were Mikheil’s marching orders to Tbilisi’s man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia. Scheunemann came close to succeeding.

Buchanan’s description of Scheunemann and his activities is instructive because Georgia’s entry into NATO would commit the United States to fighting for Georgia. Buchanan explains what would have happened in 2008 if Georgia had been part of NATO at that time:

Had [Scheunemann succeeded], U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann’s client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.

It’s worth noting that at the same time Bush and Gates were saying America should not become involved in this affair, both were calling on NATO to admit Georgia, as was then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama. Obviously Sen. Rubio has plenty of establishment allies on this issue.

But what these political elites do not necessarily have is the support of the American people. When McCain said, “I know I speak for every American when I say to [Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili], ‘Today, we are all Georgians,’” he was not speaking for the American people. It’s hard to imagine many Americans, then or now, wanting to send their sons and daughters off to fight a questionable war in Eurasia.

Still, whether the American people stand with Sen. Rand Paul — the only Capitol Hill leader who tried to prevent a war with Russia last week — or with McCain, Obama, Bush and Rubio, this is an issue still up for debate.

And it deserves to be debated. The Georgians will have to wait.


God damn, they almost got a war guarantee. You all remember the last big war guarantee, I trust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the point. The neo-cons aren't in power right now. We will find out after Tuesday if they regain control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

catman wrote:
That's the point. The neo-cons aren't in power right now. We will find out after Tuesday if they regain control.

That's not the point. You, like so many others, seem to have been unaware of the obvious fact that the areas our military is currently harassing have the potential to trigger a world war. Especially Iran and Pakistan. If we (or Israel) were to full-on invade either country, it could potentially drag us into to a war with either Russia or China (respectively), or both. It's no joke, it's deadly serious. And if you think Obama is helping by murdering civilians weekly in Pakistan with drones, or pushing Iran further into a corner, think again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unibrow wrote:
Terrorists can be elected. Most Israeli prime ministers were war criminals.


Well at the very least Israel is willing to compromise. How about Israel's enemies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGWWOtGXTTU

Intersting is that you have so much time for Israel and none for the Sudan.

Fact Israel's enemies practice apartheid. Israel's enemies behave worse during war time. I wonder why you have so much time for Israel's enemies while you apologize for the Sudan. Actually I don't wonder - It is all pretty clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:

Not oil. Not Saudi. No. It was for Israel.



Saudi Arabia real reason for invasion: analyst

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/03/1080941715525.html
April 3, 2004 - 3:10PM

Forget Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.

Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.

Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.

"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.

Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.

"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.

"Then the US turned to the question: we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."

He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.

Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.

He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.

But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.

"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.

"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."

Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.

"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.

"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.

"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.

"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
recessiontime



Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Russia will be a post-Iran target (there is already an aggressive project to undermine Putin and spark a revolution). Maybe the end of our species will shake you out of your moderate coma.


Not going to happen. The US will not attack any country that has a nuke. They won't even attack NK and they only have a handful of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 13 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International