|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dome Vans
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It is and always has been about the oil. The Iraqi people will see little of the money, and the Americans are not leaving Iraq.
| Quote: |
The 104-acre complex � the size of about 80 football fields � will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The average Baghdad home has electricity only four hours a day, according to Bowen's office.
The current U.S. Embassy in Iraq has nearly 1,000 Americans working there, more than at any other U.S. embassy. |
Yep, preparing construction contracts for Cheney, paving the way for more multinationals to grease their way into peoples lives. Kick the people while they're down.
Re: prev post about Bush trying to make saddam a example in the middle east, and failing miserably is dead on.
His main lie to the other middle eastern countries that he had WMD's was just all talk. He never had them and never would have got them. BUt let's allow more rogue states like Israel have the bomb that really beats it all. They're more of a threat to middle eastern peace than Iraq ever was. Shown by Israel's sickening unprovoked attack on Lebanon.
This is all one big mess which proves that humans have no real idea about the consequences their actions. Especially Bush. And look where it has got us now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
Did you know?
At the same summit in Crawford, Texas, where Bush and Blair decided to mount the Iraq (undeclared) War, they also initiated an energy group - at Blair's suggestion - to deal with issues of securing supplies of energy (oil)?
Coincidence? |
No. Why not take the opportunity to think long range? Blair cautioned Bush to take many steps, like get UN approval. It would only seem rational that while they're going to war in the oil producing region, they'd tackle ostensible post war security. Even at the start of WWII, during the darkest days, Churchill and Roosevelt started making plans for a post-war world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference |
You have quite a forgiving stance on this given all the evidence of preemptive war. Since the Downing Street Memo, the rebuke of the Office of Special Operations, etc., show conclusively the war was engineered, how do you come to the conclusion they were just preparing for the worst? Do you simply dismiss Downing Street? The comments by those in the administration they targeted Iraq from Day 1? Etc.? If you are considering them, how do you come to such a benign conclusion? It's quite a strange calculus you use.
Shall we add in the rather strange focus and insistence on Iraq passing the Oil Bill written by American corporations? Should the administration not be more focused on basic law and order? Why such a focus on the oil law? More important to consider, why the extortion? Or are you dismissing the administration's threat to withdraw immediately if the oil bill is not passed? What is the rationale for such a bald threat? After all, we didn't invade for the oil, did we?
Perhaps you know something that has escaped my attention?
Arjuna: Coming from the same man who disclosed the attempted coup against Roosevelt, it's hard to dismiss. |
Well, EFL, I didn't say they didn't invade for the oil. America invade for the oil, to get rid of Saddam, Dubya's ego, God told him to. Blair I think went along simply because it is America's lap dog and he had to. There was no way he could say no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Well, EFL, I didn't say they didn't invade for the oil. |
No? Very well. You mentioned none of that before. You said they were just being prudent looking ahead.
BTW, the name is keane, thanks.
| Quote: |
| America invade for the oil, to get rid of Saddam, Dubya's ego, God told him to. Blair I think went along simply because it is America's lap dog and he had to. There was no way he could say no. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Arjuna: Coming from the same man who disclosed the attempted coup against Roosevelt, it's hard to dismiss. |
Yes, he* was one fine human being.
*Smedley Darlington Butler
Last edited by arjuna on Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
BTW, the name is keane, thanks. |
Like Andy from the Office. After his anger management training he came back and claimed he had a new name Drew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
BTW, the name is keane, thanks. |
Like Andy from the Office. After his anger management training he came back and claimed he had a new name Drew. |
Hmmm... don't watch the office. Perhaps you've further to add to the thread, or do you prefer catty comments to discussion?
For my part, I see the US economy as on the verge of big trouble. Obviously, I am not the only one who thinks so. Economists all over the planet are concerned about it, though at this time most seem to be betting on the more positive outcome. That said, very learned people are openly worried about not only recession, but depression.
The housing bubble is bursting. how far it will go is yet to be seen. It will not peak until late this year or the first half of '08 as more sub-primes come due for resetting.
Inflation is artificially low. As you all know energy is no longer included in that. Just what do you think the real inflation rate is? Let me help you out. Food costs are soaring. Care to guess why?
The middle class is disappearing. Literally. With a great deal of manufacturing having left the nation in the last decade or two, those good-paying, low education level jobs are no longer there and the American workforce is not well-educated enough to handle a mostly hi-tech economy.
The debt burden the US now carries is massive. Not large, not big, but massive. When will that bird come home to roost? (Or is that too forward thinking for you? If the economy seems OK now, it is OK?)
This is a small list, and proves nothing, but this is not a discussion involving provables, only opinions. There is ample evidence we are or will be in trouble.
Now, with the IEA saying tight supplies are in the near and mid-term future, what do you think continued 70$+ oil is going to do to inflation? Hint: Oil is essential to a vast array of things common and uncommon, agriculture most of all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFL Trainee wrote:
| Quote: |
| Shut up. ya bore me. If it's critical of Bush or the US, you froth at the mouth, lie and obfuscate. Disgusting |
Uh, sure, yeah. Well, we all can't be as measured in tone as you are. 
You might want to run your oil conspiracy scheme pass regicide. Could be you'd find a soulmate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me point you all to here:
An Unhappy Future
It would be wise to note his worries don't even include the issue of a peak in oil production.
McGarrett: Are regicide and I in a race? Why would I pass him? Or are you suggesting I pass him a note so as to join you in middle school-style banter?
You'll find little to interest you in provoking me. Waste your own time if it suits you to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| His main lie to the other middle eastern countries that he had WMD's was just all talk. He never had them... . |
Tell that to the Kurds. Saddam did indeed have chemical WMD in the past and used them against the Kurds. And it was well known that at one point he had a active nuclear program. Back up, take a deep breath and try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| His main lie to the other middle eastern countries that he had WMD's was just all talk. He never had them... . |
Tell that to the Kurds. Saddam did indeed have chemical WMD in the past and used them against the Kurds. And it was well known that at one point he had a active nuclear program. Back up, take a deep breath and try again. |
I think it is fair to say that Dome meant during the period having to do with the current undeclared-thus-illegal war. If not, it changes nothing since you know his formerly having and using chemical weapons had nothing to do with whether he had them at the time of the invasion. And don't give us the talking point on the inspectors leaving: they were sent out by the Bush administration. The head of the inspection teams had given a 95 percent certainty in public, and higher in private, that there were none there at the time of the invasion.
Now take your own closing advice, then take two talking points and call us in the morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| His main lie to the other middle eastern countries that he had WMD's was just all talk. He never had them... . |
Tell that to the Kurds. Saddam did indeed have chemical WMD in the past and used them against the Kurds. And it was well known that at one point he had a active nuclear program. Back up, take a deep breath and try again. |
I think it is fair to say that Dome meant during the period having to do with the current undeclared-thus-illegal war. If not, it changes nothing since you know his formerly having and using chemical weapons had nothing to do with whether he had them at the time of the invasion. And don't give us the talking point on the inspectors leaving: they were sent out by the Bush administration. The head of the inspection teams had given a 95 percent certainty in public, and higher in private, that there were none there at the time of the invasion.
Now take your own closing advice, then take two talking points and call us in the morning. |
Saddam was not in compliance . That is a fact. And he intended to remarm. and most of the world thought Saddam had WMDs. The Bush administration certainly thought Saddam had WMDs otherwise they would have come up w/ another justification for the war.
And the war was not illegal cause Saddam never gave up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Saddam was not in compliance . That is a fact. And he intended to remarm. and most of the world thought Saddam had WMDs. The Bush administration certainly thought Saddam had WMDs otherwise they would have come up w/ another justification for the war.
And the war was not illegal cause Saddam never gave up his war. |
All completely incorrect. This sums up your view, I think:
| Quote: |
Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States � the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain � actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and �our women� will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have � not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.
And their key political beliefs � from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home � are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the �base,� a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion � a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed. |
Glenn Greenwald. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All completely incorrect. This sums up your view, I think: |
| Quote: |
Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States � the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain � actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and �our women� will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have � not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.
And their key political beliefs � from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home � are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the �base,� a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion � a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed. |
Glenn Greenwald.[/quote]
No that is not my view.
This is more in line w/ my view
| Quote: |
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
But the fact that Saddam never gave up his war. Nor was he in compliance.
Also the US criminal justice system isn't up to dealing with the threat posed by Al Qaeda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No that is not my view.
This is more in line w/ my view
| Quote: |
| The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world... |
|
I believe you are dissembling, friend. You posted this:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Hizb ut-Tahrir promises that a revived Caliphate will end corruption and bring prosperity - though the group doesn't say how. It will let Muslims challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West, its followers say.
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
and this group is a lot nicer and softer than Al Qaeda. |
But I will not discuss AQ nor the caliphate with you further. The issue is oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EFL Trainer]
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| His main lie to the other middle eastern countries that he had WMD's was just all talk. He never had them... . |
Tell that to the Kurds. Saddam did indeed have chemical WMD in the past and used them against the Kurds. And it was well known that at one point he had a active nuclear program. Back up, take a deep breath and try again. |
I think it is fair to say that Dome meant during the period having to do with the current undeclared-thus-illegal war.
Unless Dome is another of your socks EFL, then you can not know what he meant. If he is not, then why not let HIM tell us what he meant?
If not, it changes nothing since you know his formerly having and using chemical weapons had nothing to do with whether he had them at the time of the invasion.
That isn't the point...you missed it completely as usual. Dome claimed that Saddam NEVER had chemical weapons (never means at ANY TIME NOT JUST THE TIME OF THE INVASION). That is wrong. Period. Bleating about the invasion is irrelevant. Saddam had chemical weapons at one point. Fact.
And don't give us the talking point on the inspectors leaving: they were sent out by the Bush administration. The head of the inspection teams had given a 95 percent certainty in public, and higher in private, that there were none there at the time of the invasion.
No he didn't. He said that he couldn't tell for sure that there were none. Links to this "higher in private" please
Now take your own closing advice, then take two talking points and call us in the morning.
Weak EFL, just weak. I'll have to GIVE you 2 points out of ten for that. You can do better.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
