Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on February 06, 2007, 01:44:08 PM
-
"U.S. to create new military command for Africa"
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-06T192242Z_01_WBT006532_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-PENTAGON-AFRICA.xml
Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
-
Of course not. Since we went to Saudi Arabia to steal their oil and failed, went to Afghanistan to steal their oil and failed, and went to Iraq to steal their oil and failed, we certainly wouldn't hesitate to try and steal Africa's oil.
-
Oh, almost forgot...
<< Vice President Richard Cheney highlighted this view in his May 2001 National Energy Policy Report: "West Africa is expected to be one of the fastest-growing sources of oil and gas for the American market." He added, "African oil tends to be of high quality and low in sulfur, making it suitable for stringent refined product requirements, and giving it a growing market share for refining centers on the East Coast of the U.S." >>
http://www.iags.org/es071603.html
-
Of course not. Since we went to Saudi Arabia to steal their oil and failed, went to Afghanistan to steal their oil and failed, and went to Iraq to steal their oil and failed, we certainly wouldn't hesitate to try and steal Africa's oil.
We didn't fail in afghanistan. Just like in Iraq, it's on course, dear.
Stall til the pipeline is built. Engage the pricks in the cities while haliburton and KBR build pipeline. Then back out of cities and guard it. Manage their oil.
it ain't rocket science, man. it's grand larceny :)
-
We didn't fail in afghanistan. Just like in Iraq, it's on course, dear.
Stall til the pipeline is built. Engage the pricks in the cities while haliburton and KBR build pipeline. Then back out of cities and guard it. Manage their oil.
it ain't rocket science, man. it's grand larceny :)
Whenever my utter pessimism about the fate of humanity starts to flag, I remind myself: "If they're this ruthless about stealing the last oil, what atrocities won't they commit when drinkable water starts to run out?"
-
Whenever my utter pessimism about the fate of humanity starts to flag, I remind myself: "If they're this ruthless about stealing the last oil, what atrocities won't they commit when drinkable water starts to run out?"
then after that what about when air starts running out? ;)
-
We didn't fail in afghanistan. Just like in Iraq, it's on course, dear.
Stall til the pipeline is built. Engage the pricks in the cities while haliburton and KBR build pipeline. Then back out of cities and guard it. Manage their oil.
it ain't rocket science, man. it's grand larceny :)
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil. So, yes, we failed if our goal was to steal their oil.
-
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil.
We negotiated with the taleban from 95 to 2001 to put in a pipeline.
They agreed then reneged.
We invaded and put in Karzai, an old Bush1 oil associate.
He signed contracts with US firms (hal, KBR and others) for the oil pipeline.
So um... you want to try answering again?
-
We negotiated with the taleban from 95 to 2001 to put in a pipeline.
They agreed then reneged.
We invaded and put in Karzai, an old Bush1 oil associate.
He signed contracts with US firms (hal, KBR and others) for the oil pipeline.
So um... you want to try answering again?
Who is "we"?
-
Who is "we"?
Bush1/Cheney actually!
This is what people aren't getting.
The pres in power is a cool position. but the groups behind it don't leave every 4 years. Bush1 started in iraq and got us the foothold. Bush1/Cheney worked during Clinton Admin to set up the energy/gas/oil deal, set to start as repubs took the white house in 01. Just like the last 6 years, the dems have been planning their deal for 08 (which I'm sure we won't hear about til 08, but has been going on since 01, as everyone knows you don't beat a wartime prez, hence hilary not running)
-
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil.
Isn't he adorable? ;D
---------
Proposed Iraq oil law mired in controversy
Sunday, January 28, 2007
By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi officials say a hotly debated proposed oil law will not favor Americans but acknowledge that foreign companies will be allowed to take their profits out of the country - an incentive to draw foreign investment.
The Oil Ministry has been struggling for months to reach a compromise over draft legislation to govern Iraq's most important industry and pave the way for much-needed investment and know-how to revitalize the devastated infrastructure. But the measure faces strong objections by ethnic Kurds and concern about American influence in the sector.
Published reports in the Middle East said the proposal would provide for so-called product sharing agreements that would give international oil firms 70 percent of the oil revenues to recover their initial investments and subsequently allow them 20 percent of the profits without any tax or restrictions on transferring funds abroad.
"Without a decisive military victory, the U.S. occupation of Iraq seems to be about to grab its oil prize by establishing a new sharing arrangement," the English-language Yemen Observer said Saturday, echoing a frequent criticism that the U.S.-led invasion was aimed in part at capturing Iraq's oil.
[http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=332795&Category=24]
-
We negotiated with the taleban from 95 to 2001 to put in a pipeline.
They agreed then reneged.
We invaded and put in Karzai, an old Bush1 oil associate.
He signed contracts with US firms (hal, KBR and others) for the oil pipeline.
So um... you want to try answering again?
The actual routing of the pipeline is now going from Iran to Pakistan and then to India and is bypassing Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp)
-
Bush1/Cheney actually!
This is what people aren't getting.
The pres in power is a cool position. but the groups behind it don't leave every 4 years. Bush1 started in iraq and got us the foothold. Bush1/Cheney worked during Clinton Admin to set up the energy/gas/oil deal, set to start as repubs took the white house in 01. Just like the last 6 years, the dems have been planning their deal for 08 (which I'm sure we won't hear about til 08, but has been going on since 01, as everyone knows you don't beat a wartime prez, hence hilary not running)
Bush and Cheney negotiated with the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to allow a private U.S. company to "manage" a pipeline? Sorry. Not buying. No proof. And it doesn't make sense anyway.
-
Isn't he adorable? ;D
---------
Proposed Iraq oil law mired in controversy
Sunday, January 28, 2007
By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi officials say a hotly debated proposed oil law will not favor Americans but acknowledge that foreign companies will be allowed to take their profits out of the country - an incentive to draw foreign investment.
The Oil Ministry has been struggling for months to reach a compromise over draft legislation to govern Iraq's most important industry and pave the way for much-needed investment and know-how to revitalize the devastated infrastructure. But the measure faces strong objections by ethnic Kurds and concern about American influence in the sector.
Published reports in the Middle East said the proposal would provide for so-called product sharing agreements that would give international oil firms 70 percent of the oil revenues to recover their initial investments and subsequently allow them 20 percent of the profits without any tax or restrictions on transferring funds abroad.
"Without a decisive military victory, the U.S. occupation of Iraq seems to be about to grab its oil prize by establishing a new sharing arrangement," the English-language Yemen Observer said Saturday, echoing a frequent criticism that the U.S.-led invasion was aimed in part at capturing Iraq's oil.
[http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=332795&Category=24]
Thanks for sharing. ::) Yeah. Certainly shows the U.S. controls Iraq's oil. I'm convinced. ::)
-
The actual routing of the pipeline is now going from Iran to Pakistan and then to India and is bypassing Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp)
Uh oh. Guess we better invade Pakistan and India . . . .
-
Thanks for sharing. ::) Yeah. Certainly shows the U.S. controls Iraq's oil. I'm convinced. ::)
Does this guy ever provide any evidence outside of newspaper clippings from Left-Wing sources? Does he ever believe anything but the worst of the US?
-
Does this guy ever provide any evidence outside of newspaper clippings from Left-Wing sources? Does he ever believe anything but the worst of the US?
No and No. I wonder why he lives in the U.S.?
-
Guess we better invade Pakistan
Well, Pakistan is harboring bin Laden, isn't it?
Maybe Bush will reverse his policy of not "spending that much time" about the man he charges with murdering 3,000 Americans - who he once vowed to bring to justice "dead or alive".
-
The actual routing of the pipeline is now going from Iran to Pakistan and then to India and is bypassing Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070207/asp/business/story_7360312.asp)
you're forgetting pakistan, buddy.
-
Does this guy ever provide any evidence outside of newspaper clippings from Left-Wing sources?
Yeah, that Associated Press is a real bunch of bomb-throwers. ::)
-
Bush and Cheney negotiated with the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to allow a private U.S. company to "manage" a pipeline? Sorry. Not buying. No proof. And it doesn't make sense anyway.
You know what "doesn't make sense"?
Negotiating with a nation for 6 years for its oil, invading them for an attack, installing a leader from your oil company, putting your oil companies in to drill and build a pipeline, then "picking up the check".
As long as there's a crisis there (war not won), the US manages that oil. Don't ya think it's a little weird we can beat anyone, anytime, but can't stop a few thou shitty ragtag militias when we have the new govt in?
You're naive to believe honor is involved when there are tens of trillions in sellable oil in play.
-
you're forgetting pakistan, buddy.
What are you talking about.
That post in no way relates to the present circumstances of what Iran and Pakistan and India want to do.
Also Pakistan is the second country I listed.
India wants oil and it wants Iranian oil. This has nothing to do with your map.
By the way where is that map from.
-
You know what "doesn't make sense"?
Negotiating with a nation for 6 years for its oil, invading them for an attack, installing a leader from your oil company, putting your oil companies in to drill and build a pipeline, then "picking up the check".
As long as there's a crisis there (war not won), the US manages that oil. Don't ya think it's a little weird we can beat anyone, anytime, but can't stop a few thou shitty ragtag militias when we have the new govt in?
You're naive to believe honor is involved when there are tens of trillions in sellable oil in play.
Bottom line is we don't own their oil and don't control it. We pay for it, like everyone else. That blows up the theory that we invaded to steal their oil. It makes no sense.
And regarding "managing the pipeline," you have already admitted you don't know anything about these "secret" contracts. You cannot rationally discuss/debate a contract you know nothing about or claim we went to war so a private U.S. company could obtain this "secret" contract.
Feels like I've said this before. :-\
-
No and No. I wonder why he lives in the U.S.?
there are plenty of self-loathing Americans
f'em
-
Bottom line is we don't own their oil and don't control it. We pay for it, like everyone else. That blows up the theory that we invaded to steal their oil. It makes no sense.
And regarding "managing the pipeline," you have already admitted you don't know anything about these "secret" contracts. You cannot rationally discuss/debate a contract you know nothing about or claim we went to war so a private U.S. company could obtain this "secret" contract.
Feels like I've said this before. :-\
As if the facts actually matter in 240's imaginary world of crazed evil US domination and repression. Some people will believe whatever they want, rather than letting the facts make up their mind for them. Again, if this is a war for oil, we're losing badly. Is fuel getting any cheaper for anyone here?
-
Bottom line is we don't own their oil and don't control it. We pay for it, like everyone else. That blows up the theory that we invaded to steal their oil. It makes no sense.
And regarding "managing the pipeline," you have already admitted you don't know anything about these "secret" contracts. You cannot rationally discuss/debate a contract you know nothing about or claim we went to war so a private U.S. company could obtain this "secret" contract.
Feels like I've said this before. :-\
If we're doing it for oil, that's FINE... just get my gas price down to 99 cents please... Hello... Congress... can you hear me?
-
there are plenty of self-loathing Americans
f'em
True.
-
As if the facts actually matter in 240's imaginary world of crazed evil US domination and repression. Some people will believe whatever they want, rather than letting the facts make up their mind for them. Again, if this is a war for oil, we're losing badly. Is fuel getting any cheaper for anyone here?
You're right. The facts don't really matter to many on this subject.
-
If we're doing it for oil, that's FINE... just get my gas price down to 99 cents please... Hello... Congress... can you hear me?
lol. Well, my gas is under $3 a gallon, so at least I don't feel like cussing every time I fill up. :-\ I hate the oil company cabal.
-
if this is a war for oil, we're losing badly.
"ExxonMobil Sets Record for Annual U.S. Company Profit, at $39.5 Billion"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249326,00.html
There I go again with one of my far-left news sources. ::)
-
"ExxonMobil Sets Record for Annual U.S. Company Profit, at $39.5 Billion"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249326,00.html
There I go again with one of my far-left news sources. ::)
lol. Private oil company makes record profits, which validates the claim that the United States government started the war to steal Iraq's oil. Riiiight. ::)
-
lol. Well, my gas is under $3 a gallon, so at least I don't feel like cussing every time I fill up. :-\ I hate the oil company cabal.
What else is interesting is how 240 harps on about the cost of the war, then in the same breath, tells us it's a clever plot to steal resources that have now (supposedly) cost us a fortune and we haven't even seen yet. If this is the case, then why create a constitution for Iraq and Afghanistan? Why hold elections?
-
lol. Private oil company makes record profits, which validates the claim that the United States government started the war to steal Iraq's oil. Riiiight. ::)
"Cheney defends refusal to hand over energy task force notes"
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/27/enron/
-
lol. Private oil company makes record profits, which validates the claim that the United States government started the war to steal Iraq's oil. Riiiight. ::)
US oil reserves are growing nicely. US oil companies are getting rich. US gas prices are low. OPEC suddenly has no power. DOW is doing super thanks to low mnfg/dist costs that come with low fuel costs.
I'm sure all these new and wild things have nothing to do with the fact we're managing their oil. Riiiight. ::)
-
"ExxonMobil Sets Record for Annual U.S. Company Profit, at $39.5 Billion"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249326,00.html
There I go again with one of my far-left news sources. ::)
oil comapnies get $.08 a gallon on average, the government gets $.48 on average. Think Pelosi will push the senate to give some back?
-
What else is interesting is how 240 harps on about the cost of the war, then in the same breath, tells us it's a clever plot to steal resources that have now (supposedly) cost us a fortune and we haven't even seen yet. If this is the case, then why create a constitution for Iraq and Afghanistan? Why hold elections?
because the leaders cannot remove us, until the war is over. as long as there's a perpetual cost of war, we are there.
We haven't seen any of the fortune yet? I disagree. See my last post.
-
US oil reserves are growing nicely. US oil companies are getting rich. US gas prices are low. OPEC suddenly has no power. DOW is doing super thanks to low mnfg/dist costs that come with low fuel costs.
I'm sure all these new and wild things have nothing to do with the fact we're managing their oil. Riiiight. ::)
Oh brother, welcome to the real world.
-
"Cheney defends refusal to hand over energy task force notes"
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/27/enron/
right back to CNN huh? commie
-
"ExxonMobil Sets Record for Annual U.S. Company Profit, at $39.5 Billion"
oil comapnies get $.08 a gallon on average, the government gets $.48 on average. Think Pelosi will push the senate to give some back?
militarymuscle, you just made my point :)
If the US Govt makes 6 times what exxon makes on oil, then that means the US just made $240 in oil profits in 2006.
-
because the leaders cannot remove us, until the war is over. as long as there's a perpetual cost of war, we are there.
We haven't seen any of the fortune yet? I disagree. See my last post.
Do you understand that a public company is separate from the US government? Also recognise the thousands of 'mom and pop' (as you guys call them) investors that have something to retire on from the successes of such companies.
-
right back to CNN huh? commie
I thought I would point out the disgustingness of this. A deployed US soldier is calling someone a "commie" because he disagrees with him.
If a civilian was calling a soldier that terrible name, it'd be anti-troop, it'd be newsworthy, it's be cowardice.
But the soldier calling an American civilian a "commie"... is that okay?
-
militarymuscle, you just made my point :)
If the US Govt makes 6 times what exxon makes on oil, then that means the US just made $240 in oil profits in 2006.
Ok, so tell me as soon as Hillary and Nancy cut fuel tax and give it back to the people....I could use it
-
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil. So, yes, we failed if our goal was to steal their oil.
BB, military muscle pointed out:
"ExxonMobil Sets Record for Annual U.S. Company Profit, at $39.5 Billion"
oil comapnies get $.08 a gallon on average, the government gets $.48 on average. Think Pelosi will push the senate to give some back?
If the US Govt makes 6 times what exxon makes on oil, then that means the US just made $240 in oil profits in 2006.
This refutes your statement, Beacy:
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil. So, yes, we failed if our goal was to steal their oil.
-
The United States government does not control, or profit from, Afghanistan's or Iraq's oil. So, yes, we failed if our goal was to steal their oil.
But the American firms that drill for the stuff do and in turn pump dollars back into the economy. Who gave these firms the contracts to manage Iraq? The government did of course.
-
But the American firms that drill for the stuff do and in turn pump dollars back into the economy. Who gave these firms the contracts to manage Iraq? The government did of course.
And who benfits from the increased tax revenue from the success of American companies? And who is motivated to finacially back campaigns for people who will further the interests?
-
But the American firms that drill for the stuff do and in turn pump dollars back into the economy. Who gave these firms the contracts to manage Iraq? The government did of course.
We didn't need a war for the oil companies to rape the American consumer. The oil companies make profits whether we are at war or peace. It just doesn't add up.
-
We didn't need a war for the oil companies to rape the American consumer. The oil companies make profits whether we are at war or peace. It just doesn't add up.
I would like to see exxon's profits during the war, vs. in times of peace. anyone have that laid out from 90 to 2007 handy?
-
And who benfits from the increased tax revenue from the success of American companies? And who is motivated to finacially back campaigns for people who will further the interests?
Corporations don't pay much in taxes. The good ones anyway. :)
-
Whenever my utter pessimism about the fate of humanity starts to flag, I remind myself: "If they're this ruthless about stealing the last oil, what atrocities won't they commit when drinkable water starts to run out?"
Las Vegas is going to be our test case on that.
-
And who benfits from the increased tax revenue from the success of American companies? And who is motivated to finacially back campaigns for people who will further the interests?
A corporation can pump money into the economy by means other then taxes. More profits by big companies = higher spending and overall demand in the economy.
-
A corporation can pump money into the economy by means other then taxes. More profits by big companies = higher spending and overall demand in the economy.
As these companies grow they hire more employees which means more tax revenue...........
Point is, the US government benefits greatly when our economic interests are taken care of.
...........not that there is any benefit for our comanies like Haliburton, Exxon etc... in Iraq.
-
As these companies grow they hire more employees which means more tax revenue...........
Point is, the US government benefits greatly when our economic interests are taken care of.
...........not that there is any benefit for our comanies like Haliburton, Exxon etc... in Iraq.
Of course our government benefits when the tax revenue increases (by, for instance, increased revenue from additional people in the workforce), but there is a long and illogical leap from that end result to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One other note: the majority of the income, earned by workers in Iraq is tax-free. Much of the military income is tax-free too.
-
Of course our government benefits when the tax revenue increases (by, for instance, increased revenue from additional people in the workforce), but there is a long and illogical leap from that end result to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One other note: the majority of the income, earned by workers in Iraq is tax-free. Much of the military income is tax-free too.
I would say then....who puts these people in power? who helps finance their campaigns who lobbies, etc.... These companies help get people elected that will look after their interests.
And yes it's all tax free in iraq until they try and bring it into the USA.
-
I would say then....who puts these people in power? who helps finance their campaigns who lobbies, etc.... These companies help get people elected that will look after their interests.
And yes it's all tax free in iraq until they try and bring it into the USA.
I agree that money controls elections and drives policy. Money gets you a seat at the table. I'm sure some policy decisions are made by what the Administration AND individual members of Congress believe is in the best interest of their large donors. Still, there is a huge leap from there to our two ongoing wars.
-
I agree that money controls elections and drives policy. Money gets you a seat at the table. I'm sure some policy decisions are made by what the Administration AND individual members of Congress believe is in the best interest of their large donors. Still, there is a huge leap from there to our two ongoing wars.
I've always maintain teh benefits of going into Iraq weren't direct. Our companies are benefiting for it and inturn so is our govenrment. I don't believe it's the entire reason, but in my gut i believe 9/11 and WMD's were used as the excuse to go invade iraq and the benefits from it economically for our country as well as the strategic benefits are the real reasons.
-
I've always maintain teh benefits of going into Iraq weren't direct. Our companies are benefiting for it and inturn so is our govenrment. I don't believe it's the entire reason, but in my gut i believe 9/11 and WMD's were used as the excuse to go invade iraq and the benefits from it economically for our country as well as the strategic benefits are the real reasons.
I don't know man. If we did go into Iraq to benefit the U.S. economy, we failed pretty miserably. And I find it hard to believe they couldn't do some kind of financial analysis that would show the war would cost a great deal of money before it started. Whatever increased profits the Halliburton shareholders made off the war is overshadowed by the billions this war has cost us.
-
I don't know man. If we did go into Iraq to benefit the U.S. economy, we failed pretty miserably. And I find it hard to believe they couldn't do some kind of financial analysis that would show the war would cost a great deal of money before it started. Whatever increased profits the Halliburton shareholders made off the war is overshadowed by the billions this war has cost us.
I think it isn't turning out the way they thought it would. Imagine however if the people welcomed us with open arms and installed a democratic government with little or no insurgency?
It would have been great for everyone.
-
I think it isn't turning out the way they thought it would. Imagine however if the people welcomed us with open arms and installed a democratic government with little or no insurgency?
It would have been great for everyone.
True. Good point. I doubt they envisioned a morass and guerilla warfare.
-
True. Good point. I doubt they envisioned a morass and guerilla warfare.
Few people envisioned that Iraq would turn out like it has.
After Saddam very few people thought that Al Sadr and Iran would move so quickly to bring the Shia together.
Also most people thought that the government of Iraq would have moved quicker to end the death squads and the internal rivalries of all the groups.
Of course this overlooked on how Eastern Europe divided after Communism fell. Yugoslavia is an example. Another example is Czechoslovakia.
-
I think it isn't turning out the way they thought it would. Imagine however if the people welcomed us with open arms and installed a democratic government with little or no insurgency?
It would have been great for everyone.
It's turning out EXACTLY like Colon Powell, the former Secretary of State, and person most revered in the United States on Foreign Policy said it would turn out...
It's not like Bush and his local cohorts said it would be, but it's JUST like the guy who was the most intelligent member of the Bush Cabinet in 2002 said it would be.
We can't forget that the real brains in that organization said it was BAD.
-
It's turning out EXACTLY like Colon Powell, the former Secretary of State, and person most revered in the United States on Foreign Policy said it would turn out...
It's not like Bush and his local cohorts said it would be, but it's JUST like the guy who was the most intelligent member of the Bush Cabinet in 2002 said it would be.
We can't forget that the real brains in that organization said it was BAD.
I agree.
-
I would like to see exxon's profits during the war, vs. in times of peace. anyone have that laid out from 90 to 2007 handy?
Oil was higher in both 1974 and 1979 than it is now.
Usage in the 80's was low because of the recession in the early 80's, a lower national speed limit and fuel efficiency standards that were tougher. That meant lower oil prices.
By the way the difference in the amount Exxon makes and the government makes is based on profit vs tax revenue at the pump. Not from development. Also these oil companies are multinational and as usage increases so does profits, because oi production has a base level before a development breaks even and after that it is all profit. That is why oil fields will be taken in and out of development.
The government in the US is using the oil development profit it is making from oil development in the US to help rebuild and increase the Strategic Reserve. http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/ (http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/)
-
It's turning out EXACTLY like Colon Powell, the former Secretary of State, and person most revered in the United States on Foreign Policy said it would turn out...
It's not like Bush and his local cohorts said it would be, but it's JUST like the guy who was the most intelligent member of the Bush Cabinet in 2002 said it would be.
We can't forget that the real brains in that organization said it was BAD.
Powell didn't give out any warnings about insurgent involvement until 2005 or that is what he said in his Biography.
Another book with some interesting commentary
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/timeline_of_den.php (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/timeline_of_den.php)
-
Thanks for the posts, Joker. Has anyone else stopped to consider the positive effects large private enterprise has for the standard of living in a country's economy? This is basic economics; something that should not be lost on the entrepreneurial minds of this board.
-
Powell didn't give out any warnings about insurgent involvement until 2005 or that is what he said in his Biography.
Another book with some interesting commentary
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/timeline_of_den.php (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/timeline_of_den.php)
That's not true... he said in front a panel in 2002 that going into Iraq was a mistake... That's not at all accurate.
I watched the panel myself in front of a congressional committee.
-
Thanks for the posts, Joker. Has anyone else stopped to consider the positive effects large private enterprise has for the standard of living in a country's economy? This is basic economics; something that should not be lost on the entrepreneurial minds of this board.
I've thought about it, but I'd rather get our economy on track before I start worrying about a bunch of people who I could care less about...
-
That's not true... he said in front a panel in 2002 that going into Iraq was a mistake... That's not at all accurate.
I watched the panel myself in front of a congressional committee.
Post a link all committee minutes are on record and on the net.
I am only going from what he said in his biography.
Sound bits from Co-operative research
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=colin_powell (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=colin_powell)
Prove me wrong.
-
Post a link all committee minutes are on record and on the net.
I am only going from what he said in his biography.
Sound bits from Co-operative research
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=colin_powell (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=colin_powell)
Prove me wrong.
I'm simply going to say that I watched it... I'm not here to prove anyone wrong... I'm simply relating what I remember....
If you think he didn't tell anyone, then fine, but I've found links from sources like the Washington Post stating that in 2001 he did say these things...
I don't need to post them, anyone can find them.
Powell did tell those guys not to go into Iraq perhaps even as early as 2001 (as some articles state)... believe what you will, or try googling "2002 colin powell says don't go to iraq" and look for some articles.
Have fun.
-
I'm simply going to say that I watched it... I'm not here to prove anyone wrong... I'm simply relating what I remember....
If you think he didn't tell anyone, then fine, but I've found links from sources like the Washington Post stating that in 2001 he did say these things...
I don't need to post them, anyone can find them.
Powell did tell those guys not to go into Iraq perhaps even as early as 2001 (as some articles state)... believe what you will, or try googling "2002 colin powell says don't go to iraq" and look for some articles.
Have fun.
Powell's warning was "you break it you own it." and then Powell spoke to he UN about WMDs not before.
No where does he mention the insurgency that was about to happen, or the poor planning.
Others mentioned some of this after the invasion. But a national uprising against America was not foreseen.
-
Powell's warning was "you break it you own it." and then Powell spoke to he UN about WMDs not before.
No where does he mention the insurgency that was about to happen, or the poor planning.
Others mentioned some of this after the invasion. But a national uprising against America was not foreseen.
What do you think you break it, you own it means? It means if the nation crumbles, it's our fault... he said it was a bad idea.
So now we're specifically talking about "insurgents"? Ok, fine... Powell, didn't say insurgents, he basically implied that you're going into a Lion's Den which is a bad idea... So now you're nit picking semantics?
Funny... No matter how you slice it... Powell said, don't do it... Bush and his cronies said, we're doing it anyway... Powell resigns, and Iraq is a shit hole... just like he said it would be.
You can debate terminology all day, but at the end of the day, Colin Powell said we shouldn't do it, but some other people didn't listen and here we are.
-
A few guys ..the Army chief of staff at the time, Shinseki, had called for 400,000 to garrison Iraq. There was alot of looting and no plan to rebuild the ifrastructure quickly. Mistakes were made but guess what the demms would have made the same mistakes. They would have listened to the same guys and come to the same conclusions. I don't get American self loathing..this is the greatest country in the world. Ribo listed a few countries he went to. Most were European and don't count. One in central american and 1...Egypt. Love to know why he was there..vaction etc. Anyway..most of the rest of the world is a shithole where life is very cheap. I can't wait to get back to the states.
-
I think it's incredibly honorable of us to give hundreds of billions $, and 3000 lives, so that iraqis could be free from sense less murder on their streets.
Also very nice of us to voluntarily give up control of their oil, as you say we will. Giving up control will nearly ensure china gets it and we are on the verge of ColdWar II in 15 years. But that doesn't matter - we do not steal. We're the US of A, bitches!
Also really cool of us to be patient with a corrupt and incompetent, ,yet remarkably compliant a-maliki. in most countries, when you fck up that much they replace you with someone who CAN get the job done. but they're sticking with their man, as his loyalty is worth far more than the 100+ killed daily by death squads and sunni/shiite warring.
-
Dude, alot of people are now debating whether we should go with a strong man we can keep from massacring his people. I don't believ u can foster democracy on people who u don't understand the concept. Mistakes have been made but there is no cookie cutter solution. It doesn't matter at this point whether we should have gone..we have to fix the problems and win.
-
A few guys ..the Army chief of staff at the time, Shinseki, had called for 400,000 to garrison Iraq. There was alot of looting and no plan to rebuild the ifrastructure quickly. Mistakes were made but guess what the demms would have made the same mistakes. They would have listened to the same guys and come to the same conclusions. I don't get American self loathing..this is the greatest country in the world. Ribo listed a few countries he went to. Most were European and don't count. One in central american and 1...Egypt. Love to know why he was there..vaction etc. Anyway..most of the rest of the world is a shithole where life is very cheap. I can't wait to get back to the states.
I highly doubt the Dems would have gone into Iraq... you certainly can't make that leap... there is nothing that anyone has ever shown would make that jump. They voted with the war because it was unheard of to be against the fight so soon after 9/11.
American self loathing? Man.. I love this country... It does a lot of shit right, and unfortunately a lot of shit wrong.
I also said back in 2002, that Saddam didn't have shit to do with 9/11 and that we should find that Bin Laden fucker first...
I guess now though... it's all self-loathing... how about we call it what it is... "the truth".
Especially since it's been 5 1/2 years and still Bin Laden roams free... wow... guess I should be happy about that.
-
What do you think you break it, you own it means? It means if the nation crumbles, it's our fault... he said it was a bad idea.
So now we're specifically talking about "insurgents"? Ok, fine... Powell, didn't say insurgents, he basically implied that you're going into a Lion's Den which is a bad idea... So now you're nit picking semantics?
Funny... No matter how you slice it... Powell said, don't do it... Bush and his cronies said, we're doing it anyway... Powell resigns, and Iraq is a shit hole... just like he said it would be.
You can debate terminology all day, but at the end of the day, Colin Powell said we shouldn't do it, but some other people didn't listen and here we are.
Powell kind of changed his mind, at least on the public record. That is why posted the cooperative research link.
What he said in 2001 is quite a bit different than what he said in 2002.
HH6 is right a few guys did speak out and many generals did after the fact. But they weren't concerned about a Shiite uprising as much as a baathist and an Al Qaeda war. Al Sadr and the elected Iraqi government changed all of this since they didn't want to deal with militias.
A guy like Jeff Miller or HH6 would know a lot more about Iraq and the US military then I would, especially Jeff he is there right now.
I am sure when HH6 gets back he can tell you why the Taliban is screwing everyone from Pakistan, since he has been dealing with that war up close and personal.
By the way the Dems voted to go into Iraq as well.
-
Was not directed at u.....The dems may not have gone in..either why that doesn't matter. The tone of the posts here seem to me that some would perfer we loose. Some would perfer that we loose our staus in the world....guess what die in a fire...we're number one because at one time we used to care about winning. America has done a hell of alot more good then evil. Most of the world is killing themselves to get here.
-
Dude, alot of people are now debating whether we should go with a strong man we can keep from massacring his people. I don't believ u can foster democracy on people who u don't understand the concept. Mistakes have been made but there is no cookie cutter solution. It doesn't matter at this point whether we should have gone..we have to fix the problems and win.
They need to stop debating and just do it.
In any nation in the world - if 120+ were being killed a day - the leader would be OUT.
Or, they could let someone like Franks or McCaffrey go in as a civvie and just let martial law reign and rain as he executed everyone who failed the insurgent polygraph. Problem solved in 60 days.
You feel me?
-
Was not directed at u.....The dems may not have gone in..either why that doesn't matter. The tone of the posts here seem to me that some would perfer we loose. Some would perfer that we loose our staus in the world....guess what die in a fire...we're number one because at one time we used to care about winning. America has done a hell of alot more good then evil. Most of the world is killing themselves to get here.
I keep saying it... I don't think we're trying to win.
Our generals used to be badass. I'm talking a 10-to-1 Clauswitz requirement for invasion. We'd crush them. Then, we would set up the govt, and leave. Our presence would be downright scary. Insurgents would think about it but would know we'd bomb their block if they sneezed.
Something is different here. Usually we leave the new govt with some great power and force. We didn't do that. Why? The formula here is flawed and I am sure you see it, HH6.
As someone posted earlier, we do not turn over control of iraqi resources (oil of course) until the US has declared military victory.
Is there motive to NOT win yet?
-
Yeah like i said 30 days and no media and we're good..I'll give u ur 60..but we both know we would never do that. Besides nobody wants this guys' job. He's a target. I'm pretty sure nobody is happy with this guy but until we find a better guy we're stuck.
-
Yeah like i said 30 days and no media and we're good..I'll give u ur 60..but we both know we would never do that. Besides nobody wants this guys' job. He's a target. I'm pretty sure nobody is happy with this guy but until we find a better guy we're stuck.
I contend that there are better guys available.
We're paying guys 1-2K a DAY to be there, experienced guys. Bremer - he did a wonderful job there, right? Get someone with balls in there. If no results in 30 days, kick them out. Watch how motivated they get when they leave they have 30 days to win the job.
(FYI - I read today records show that the first plane to hit the twin towers actually precisely hit a compter server room owned by Bremer and his partner. What are the chances? toodles!)
-
By the way the Dems voted to go into Iraq as well.
Yes, I noted that in my previous post... I'm simply saying... with the climate at the time, who wouldn't vote for that?
-
Yes, I noted that in my previous post... I'm simply saying... with the climate at the time, who wouldn't vote for that?
True history and time are wonderful things.
-
True history and time are wonderful things.
Yes, they most certainly are... but that doesn't make certain things any less factual.
-
Yes, they most certainly are... but that doesn't make certain things any less factual.
Yes it does.
History is written by the winners.
Also time lends to analysis of the past.
People making decisions don't know what the outcome is before they start.
-
WASHINGTON, DC—Despite, or perhaps because of, rising fuel prices, the unpopularity of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and mounting legal problems surrounding his administration, President Bush informed his Cabinet Monday that he is unworried about his place in history, White House sources said. "I'm telling you, pretty soon some things are going to develop so that I won't have history to worry about any longer," Bush said. "History may be written by the winners, but it doesn't get written at all if all of human language is lost in, say, fire storms, right? So I can still get off the hook." Although troubles faced by his presidency have been relatively recent, sources said they believed Bush's plan had been put into motion long before he had even taken office.
-
WASHINGTON, DC—Despite, or perhaps because of, rising fuel prices, the unpopularity of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and mounting legal problems surrounding his administration, President Bush informed his Cabinet Monday that he is unworried about his place in history, White House sources said. "I'm telling you, pretty soon some things are going to develop so that I won't have history to worry about any longer," Bush said. "History may be written by the winners, but it doesn't get written at all if all of human language is lost in, say, fire storms, right? So I can still get off the hook." Although troubles faced by his presidency have been relatively recent, sources said they believed Bush's plan had been put into motion long before he had even taken office.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52331
:)
-
Wash Post:
Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
-
WASHINGTON, DC—Despite, or perhaps because of, rising fuel prices, the unpopularity of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and mounting legal problems surrounding his administration, President Bush informed his Cabinet Monday that he is unworried about his place in history, White House sources said. "I'm telling you, pretty soon some things are going to develop so that I won't have history to worry about any longer," Bush said. "History may be written by the winners, but it doesn't get written at all if all of human language is lost in, say, fire storms, right? So I can still get off the hook." Although troubles faced by his presidency have been relatively recent, sources said they believed Bush's plan had been put into motion long before he had even taken office.
WHAT THE HELL? ???
-
Whenever my utter pessimism about the fate of humanity starts to flag, I remind myself: "If they're this ruthless about stealing the last oil, what atrocities won't they commit when drinkable water starts to run out?"
We can do our part right now to conserve and preserve earth's most precious resource.
By using Eco-Sheen (http://jme.mpgproduct.com/ecosheen.aspx?cid=50962)TM, you can clean, seal, polish, and protect your car ...ALL without water.
then after that what about when air starts running out? ;)
That's already happened. Thanks to clear cutting of the Amazon for cattle farming, our air has less oxygen than it did a hundred years ago. As a planet, we're are slowly suffocating.
-
A few guys ..the Army chief of staff at the time, Shinseki, had called for 400,000 to garrison Iraq. There was alot of looting and no plan to rebuild the ifrastructure quickly. Mistakes were made but guess what the demms would have made the same mistakes. They would have listened to the same guys and come to the same conclusions.
WTF? Oh Pluleaze! Now you're saying the Dems would have listened to the same guys?
The administration didn't listen to anyone. they dictated what the intelligence was to read. If the connections weren't found, it was considered inadequate and unrelated bits & pieces were cherry-picked to fit the agenda, or manufactured all together.
The only way the Dems would have listened to the same guys would have been if Bush/Cheney was in the oval office dictating intelligence reports. You insult not only the reader... but yourself in making that allegation.
I don't get American self loathing..this is the greatest country in the world. Ribo listed a few countries he went to. Most were European and don't count. One in central american and 1...Egypt. Love to know why he was there..vaction etc. Anyway..most of the rest of the world is a shithole where life is very cheap. I can't wait to get back to the states.
What you call American self-loathing, are Americans taking a look at what's wrong, and coming to an understanding of how a bunch of psychotic SOBs landed their country in a huge mess, destroyed another country, and set off a chain reaction that puts themselves and everyone else on the planet in harms way. that's not American self-loathing. That's the first step to making a difference and turning your nation back on the right track
You must be getting desperate.
...only 2 more days... :-*
-
WHAT THE HELL? ???
Look at the source.
Everyone should know what the Onion is. It is a comedy newspaper.
http://www.theonion.com/content/ (http://www.theonion.com/content/)
They usually post some funny stuff.
-
in 1999, they posted that the Supreme Court had ruled the American people too stupid to vote, and as a result would no longer have the right to decide who became president. Guess what happened in your next two presidential elections? :D
-
in 1999, they posted that the Supreme Court had ruled the American people too stupid to vote, and as a result would no longer have the right to decide who became president. Guess what happened in your next two presidential elections? :D
The people were actually very smart, particularly those Tennessee voters, who refused to vote for Al Gore (who is from Tennessee) and hence cost him the 2000 election.
-
The people were actually very smart, particularly those Tennessee voters, who refused to vote for Al Gore (who is from Tennessee) and hence cost him the 2000 election.
Do you feel like the American people are - overall - a smart and politically saavy group?
-
Do you feel like the American people are - overall - a smart and politically saavy group?
{phew} Thank Goodness you directed that question towards BeachBum. ;D
-
{phew} Thank Goodness you directed that question towards BeachBum. ;D
do you think he'll answer?
-
Do you feel like the American people are - overall - a smart and politically saavy group?
Unlike you, I don't believe most Americans are stupid.
240 on January 31, 2007, 08:20:01 AM:
In terms of understanding politics, history, and economics, most americans are stupid.
-
Most Americans are unaware. Do you think that most americans spend 1+ hours a day studying the issues and current events like we do here?
Does that keep your little pink panties in less of a bunch?
damn, you're acting more like a pussy every day, beachy. For a guy who condones sending our men to referee a war and bleed unnecessarily, you sure do get pissy when someone suggests we're collectively not the most aware bunch.
-
Most Americans are unaware. Do you think that most americans spend 1+ hours a day studying the issues and current events like we do here?
Does that keep your little pink panties in less of a bunch?
damn, you're acting more like a pussy every day, beachy. For a guy who condones sending our men to referee a war and bleed unnecessarily, you sure do get pissy when someone suggests we're collectively not the most aware bunch.
You're too arrogant for your own good son. You're who said "most Americans are stupid." You think too highly of yourself and you need to get over yourself.
Hey what is this week's conspiracy? O.J."? Search for the real killer? :)
-
You're too arrogant for your own good son. You're who said "most Americans are stupid." You think too highly of yourself and you need to get over yourself.
Hey what is
People who call others "son" have an inferiority complex.
They believe they can try to attain this alpha male position by telling everyone "I am at the level of this man's father!"
Or, it's just plain trashy.
-
240 on January 31, 2007, 08:20:01 AM:
In terms of understanding politics, history, and economics, most americans are stupid.