Author Topic: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL  (Read 4450 times)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« on: July 31, 2008, 10:53:56 PM »
Just heard Glenn Beck Say.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2008, 10:57:40 PM »
And....he's right.

The surge is working.


24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2008, 11:05:31 PM »
...and he's just figuring that out now?    He's quick...NOT!
w

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2008, 11:06:34 PM »
The fact that America freed Iraqi's from Saddam and they don't have to pay us is absolutely crazy.  Time to take what is ours, right?

The idiotic Left Wing Nuts and America Haters across the globe say that is what we are doing anyway, lets take what we need and bring the price of oil back to $1.15 a gallon.    

Let me know which American doesn't think that is a good idea....

<TP awaits patiently for a Yankee to say they would rather pay $4.50 a gallon>
1

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2008, 11:24:37 PM »
OUR OIL



hahahahahaha

oh yeah that's rich.  Glen feels entitled to.  Does he believe poor people are 'entitled' to free health care and welfare too?  Can't have it both ways, neotaint lol...



TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2008, 11:58:55 PM »
Both ways????

Poor Americans can buy cheap gas too, infact we can say we are doing it to help the poor in America.  Bush is a noble man, if you just open your mind a little bit.

It's all perception baby!!!!


BECK FOR PRESIDENT







<ok ok that was a bit much...g'night>
1

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2008, 05:47:22 AM »
For anyone who knows anything about history, the filthy stinking arabs who are too lazy to wash their own behinds had to have America and England mine ALL of their oil, survey the land and build ALL the equipment to mine the oil. Without us these filthbags would be exporting sand and camel dung, or they would be drinking the oil instead of fistfucking the entire planet with insane oil prices. Just another friendly reminder about our stupid and suicidal energy policies.

PS- HES NOT TALKING ABOUT IRAQ YOU MORONS... THE SAUDI'S FUND ( BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY ALONG WITH IRAN) MOST OF THE WORLDS ISLAMIC TERROR. WE ARE FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR ARE WE NOT?   THE SAUDI'S CONTROL OUR OIL & WE ARE FIGHTING TERRORISTS FUNDED BY THE SAUDIS, THEREFORE BECK IS 110% CORRECT. Hope this helps...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2008, 06:18:12 AM »
the filthy stinking arabs who are too lazy to wash their own behinds had to have America and England mine ALL of their oil, survey the land and build ALL the equipment to mine the oil.

Correct.  Which is why they keep trying to sell contracts to China and S. American firms, which gets them bombed ;)

Moosejay

  • Guest
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2008, 09:17:38 AM »
...and he's just figuring that out now?    He's quick...NOT!

much smarter than me

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2008, 10:07:25 AM »
Both ways????

Poor Americans can buy cheap gas too, infact we can say we are doing it to help the poor in America.  Bush is a noble man, if you just open your mind a little bit.

It's all perception baby!!!!


BECK FOR PRESIDENT







<ok ok that was a bit much...g'night>
Does anyone have a clue of what he just tried to reason for us?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2008, 10:15:30 AM »
Does anyone have a clue of what he just tried to reason for us?

He's anti-change to the point of fantasy.

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2008, 10:41:39 AM »
And....he's right.

The surge is working.


lol  funny

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2008, 11:26:45 AM »
Does anyone have a clue of what he just tried to reason for us?

Well it was said "Glen feels entitled to"...taking oil from Iraq that we helped secure and produce in greater abundance is no comparison to welfare as stated "Does he believe poor people are 'entitled' to free health care and welfare too?"

The oil hasn't been free nor are "we" asking for it to be free.  What I am saying is for America's kind and selfless deeds in Iraq we should use oil revenue from Iraq to subsidize our price per barrel.

I just completely disagree with the parrellel that was drawn between oil and welfare and free health care.  Maybe I misunderstood the post :) .
1

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2008, 11:27:35 AM »
the surge hasn't even concluded yet.

we won't know its effects until a year from now.

remember bush declared victory once when a hell of a lot of troops made peace and quiet in iraq.  The moment they left, all the bad guys came back out and started blowing shit up again.

it's very possible that for a second time, Bush/mccain will claim victory (for political expediency) before we know if it worked or not.  Mccain will have his moment on a battleship to celebrate.  Then, in 2009, whn Iraqi violence is back up, president mccain will have the "Surge II" with some clever name like "the Ramp Up" and people will say "this is nothing like the surge, and libs suck".

We don't know if the surge worked.  period.

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2008, 11:28:36 AM »
the surge hasn't even concluded yet.

we won't know its effects until a year from now.

remember bush declared victory once when a hell of a lot of troops made peace and quiet in iraq.  The moment they left, all the bad guys came back out and started blowing shit up again.

it's very possible that for a second time, Bush/mccain will claim victory (for political expediency) before we know if it worked or not.  Mccain will have his moment on a battleship to celebrate.  Then, in 2009, whn Iraqi violence is back up, president mccain will have the "Surge II" with some clever name like "the Ramp Up" and people will say "this is nothing like the surge, and libs suck".

We don't know if the surge worked.  period.

Well I can assure you one thing.....The Surge is WORKING!
1

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2008, 11:29:02 AM »
Well I can assure you one thing.....The Surge is WORKING!

how?

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2008, 11:31:39 AM »
how?

THE IRAQ SURGE:  WHY IT'S WORKING ...

By GORDON CUCULLU

Petraeus: "People realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past."March 20, 2007

'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."

In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."

"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold."

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. "We initiated Operation Safe Markets," Petraeus said, "and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets." Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them.

As a result, "The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place." With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally.

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - "acting like a politician," Petraeus said, without malice. "He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots."

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."

Virtually everyone who knows him says that David Petraeus is one of the brightest, most capable officers in today's Army. "He is the perfect person for the job," retired Major Gen. Paul Vallely noted.

Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we're winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, "We'll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer." That's his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war.

Gordon Cucullu is a retired U.S. Army officer and a member of Benador Associates. His book on Guantanamo is due out this fall.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0
1

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2008, 11:35:30 AM »
how?

Is the Surge Working?

July 31, 2007 11:53 AM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link

Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Their conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:

And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from—mainly from General Keane. As many of us—there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things—after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.

But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation—things are going so well—those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.

Read that last sentence again. "And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue." The reality, that is, of how she sees it. Which is, apparently, that Iraq is a totally lost cause. She can't bear to hear anyone say anything otherwise.

But one thing students of the history of war know is that things can change in war. And apparently they've been changing in Iraq, at least in the opinions of Michael O'Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, and Gen. Jack Keane. Democrats like Boyda would like to preserve in amber the state of public opinion that prevailed during the 2006 election and for the first half of this year that we have been defeated in Iraq. The more cynical among them want to make political gain from that; the less cynical want to end a conflict that is taking American lives as fast as they can.

But there is evidence—just a little evidence so far—that opinion may be changing. The New York Times and CBS took a poll and found that support for going to war in Iraq had risen to 42 percent from 35 percent from May to July. The percentage of those thinking it was the wrong decision fell to 54 percent from 61 percent. This was a statistically significant difference and indicated a very different political balance. Not many politicians want to get on the wrong side of a 35-61 split. But many politicians are willing to take the risk of getting on the wrong side of a 42-54 split. The former means that opinion is running negative in just about every state and district. The latter means that opinion is running about 50-50 in states and districts somewhat more Republican than average. Which is many, many states and districts.

Using the 2004 election results as a gauge of what states and districts are more Republican than average (though not of current opinion today, which is different from what it was in November 2004), you find that very many are: George W. Bush carried the 50 states by a 31-19 margin and carried the 435 congressional districts by a 255-180 margin.

The Times and CBS News didn't believe the 42-54 result, for the good reason that the poll didn't show movement on opinion on Iraq and for (I suspect) the bad reason that they couldn't imagine there could be any rise in the percentage favoring the policies of Bushchimphitler. So they took another poll—an unusual step, because it costs money to take polls, and news organizations, particularly those with declining audiences like the Times and CBS, have limited budgets. Presumably they expected to get a different result. But they got pretty much the same numbers.

Interesting. We'll be able to see if there are similar shifts in other polls. Maybe there will be; maybe there won't. The nightmare scenario for Democrats is that increasing numbers of Americans will see progress in Iraq and will not want to accept defeat when they could have victory. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, according to the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, is already having such a nightmare. He said that a positive report by Gen. David Petraeus in September will be "a real big problem for us":

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

The "us" in question is of course the House Democratic leadership. A political party gets itself in a bad position when military success for the nation is a "real big problem for us." Voters generally want their politicians to root for the nation, not against it. We're still a good distance from this nightmare scenario for congressional Democrats, and we may never get there. But it seems that Jim Clyburn, a highly competent politician and from everything I've seen a really nice man, is worried about it.

Finally, read this interview by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt of John F. Burns, the New York Times's chief correspondent in Iraq. Burns is a superb reporter, probably one of the best war reporters of all time, and his analysis is absolutely fascinating. And if you haven't already, take a look at the reader-supported reporting of Michael Yon and Michael Totten.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html

1

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2008, 12:05:32 PM »
How responsible is the surge for the decrease in violence?

Are there other factors?

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2008, 12:14:23 PM »
What other possible answer is there. The AQI leadership is dead or on the run, the money guysare dead or on the run, the Mahdi army was crushed and their leadership is in Iran, licking their asses...what else. The SOI movemnet is a success. The more time we have to build the army and police and create safety for the people, the more the country gets rebuilt. U guys can keep ur heads in the sand....but nobody can mount any kind of argument that the surge/COIN operation was/is not working. The surge itself is over.
L

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2008, 12:31:26 PM »
I don't know about all this other crap being talked about.  I think the point of the thread got lost a bit.  I remember when guys like Glenn were calling it complete conspiracy talk that we're after the oil.  Now we're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL.  You cannot deny stuff like this being said having a "that takes the cake" appeal for posting.  The very essense of this crowd proclaiming resources in other countries as OURS.  There's a bit of an LOL in that for everyone ;D

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2008, 12:39:43 PM »
Well we aren't getting a break on that oil,  but we have enough control that if the shit really hit the fan we could do what we need to I guess. As long as things reamin like they are, we aren't going to seize oil, but if we got nuked or something completely ridiculous happened, then maybe we would, I have no idea.

On the surge:

from the Washington Post:

Baghdad, July 30 -- The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and US officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.

L

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2008, 12:45:46 PM »
Well we aren't getting a break on that oil,  but we have enough control that if the shit really hit the fan we could do what we need to I guess. As long as things reamin like they are, we aren't going to seize oil, but if we got nuked or something completely ridiculous happened, then maybe we would, I have no idea.

But you gotta think it's a little funny, the switch to it being about oil from many rightwing talking heads.  The very essence of these guys saying their resources are ours.  I think even in what you just said, you recognise that.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2008, 12:50:31 PM »
How responsible is the surge for the decrease in violence?

Are there other factors?

If you consider the USA paying insurgents not to fight a factor, ...then yes, there are other factors.  ;)

I just wonder what the various factions are going to do once the US taxpayer stops paying them.
Will they take all their riches, convert them to WMD and start causing chaos again, so that a case can be made for "see... we shouldn't leave?"
w

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2008, 01:04:29 PM »
Jag, part of the COIN strategy is to do just that, we found guys who could be reasoned with, who found other guys who decided that 300 buck a month and a stable country was better then eventually living in a ditch being hunted by angry 18 year old Americans.
Hugo....it was in our best interest to be around the oil....so no arguement there. It was in our interest to make sure Saddam did not invade his neighbors or support terrorists. It was in our interest to make sure he did not have or develop WMD's. I belive and will go to my grave believe that Bush and the intel community thought he had wmds of some kind. They did ignore any contridictory intel, which there wasn't much, but anything that did not fit the picture was discarded. We dod it all the time, even in our private lives. If it were me, I'd look at history and ask the CIA why they think he's got wmds if they've never ever predicated correctly a country having or not having them.  Either way,we're there and we have found a solution to the Iraq war. COIN.
L