Council Member
Posts: 2,289 
March 15th, 2008, 12:57 AM
March 15th, 2008
Reading the General Petraeus report on the Iraq debacle reminded me of nothing so much as Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men yelling, "You can't handle the truth!" The report goes to great lengths to paint a picture of progress in Iraq, but the truth is a far different story. As the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, the declining number of deaths in Iraq that Petraeus cites depends on a few accounting tricks: like not counting a death as an assassination if you're shot in the front of the head, and not counting deaths by car bombs.
So, what are we really doing in Iraq?
We're building and maintaining permanent military bases from which our military will ensure a near-monopoly of the world's second-largest oil reserve. All this... for a small cadre of corporate fatheads, including the top members of Bush, Inc. The American taxpayer will be burdened with footing the bill for security in Iraq ($2 billion PER DAY!) to provide stable working conditions for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, not to mention the dozens of corporations feeding off the military spend bosom.
But this White House clearly believes you can't handle the truth.
Well, those of us in the energy world can handle it, and here it is: because the U.S. could not tolerate the possibility that the second-largest oil bonanza on Earth might be held beyond our reach by a dictator who hated us.
The fact is, the U.S. uses fully one-quarter of the world's oil, but we possess only about two percent of its reserves, and we rely on imports for about 60% of our consumption.
Meanwhile, Peak Oil is either just behind us, or nearly upon us...
Without guaranteed access to Iraq's oil, we absolutely could not maintain our military and economic dominance of the world. Vice President Cheney has known this, even spoken publicly about it, for many years. And why else would he have convened a meeting of Big Oil representatives within his first month in the White House to pore over maps of Iraq's oil fields, as if that were the top priority of the administration?
--------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone surprised? Not me!!!
Are You Sure You Can Handle the Truth?
Petraeus Report Cooks the Books with Deft Kabuki Spin.
Benefactor: Big Oil.
Benefactor: Big Oil.
March 15th, 2008
Reading the General Petraeus report on the Iraq debacle reminded me of nothing so much as Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men yelling, "You can't handle the truth!" The report goes to great lengths to paint a picture of progress in Iraq, but the truth is a far different story. As the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, the declining number of deaths in Iraq that Petraeus cites depends on a few accounting tricks: like not counting a death as an assassination if you're shot in the front of the head, and not counting deaths by car bombs.
So, what are we really doing in Iraq?
We're building and maintaining permanent military bases from which our military will ensure a near-monopoly of the world's second-largest oil reserve. All this... for a small cadre of corporate fatheads, including the top members of Bush, Inc. The American taxpayer will be burdened with footing the bill for security in Iraq ($2 billion PER DAY!) to provide stable working conditions for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, not to mention the dozens of corporations feeding off the military spend bosom.
But this White House clearly believes you can't handle the truth.
Well, those of us in the energy world can handle it, and here it is: because the U.S. could not tolerate the possibility that the second-largest oil bonanza on Earth might be held beyond our reach by a dictator who hated us.
The fact is, the U.S. uses fully one-quarter of the world's oil, but we possess only about two percent of its reserves, and we rely on imports for about 60% of our consumption.
Meanwhile, Peak Oil is either just behind us, or nearly upon us...
Without guaranteed access to Iraq's oil, we absolutely could not maintain our military and economic dominance of the world. Vice President Cheney has known this, even spoken publicly about it, for many years. And why else would he have convened a meeting of Big Oil representatives within his first month in the White House to pore over maps of Iraq's oil fields, as if that were the top priority of the administration?
--------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone surprised? Not me!!!
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,582
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
March 15th, 2008, 01:18 AM
I understand the serious need for oil, that is simple. Why do they have to have wars, and
spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do it, when, they could just buy the oil from the
owners.
I believe they were buying oil from Saddam Husein weren't they?, So, why couldnt they
just continue doing that, as they do from Saudi Arabia, and others.
Is it truly just simple childlish greed, and they would go to any lengths to have what they
want, 'for nothing'? But it isn't for nothing, it costs the amount they spent on the war, and the lives of the u.s. military almost 4000, along with thouslands of injured, and of
course, if what you say is true, they don't give a flying f***k about the iraqi deaths and
suffering.
So, I am still left wondering.
You know, bush doesn't have enough brain matter to make any of those decisions concerning planning wars to get oil, and figuring how to go about it, so, he just sat
around sucking his thumb while cheney and his cronies did it?, is that the story, or?
After the dust settles, they still don't have any oil from that country for nothing, and
Iraq has their own government now, so, they aren't going to give large amounts of oil
to the u.s., so, that plan didn't work, what's next.!!!!
I understand the serious need for oil, that is simple. Why do they have to have wars, and
spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do it, when, they could just buy the oil from the
owners.
I believe they were buying oil from Saddam Husein weren't they?, So, why couldnt they
just continue doing that, as they do from Saudi Arabia, and others.
Is it truly just simple childlish greed, and they would go to any lengths to have what they
want, 'for nothing'? But it isn't for nothing, it costs the amount they spent on the war, and the lives of the u.s. military almost 4000, along with thouslands of injured, and of
course, if what you say is true, they don't give a flying f***k about the iraqi deaths and
suffering.
So, I am still left wondering.
You know, bush doesn't have enough brain matter to make any of those decisions concerning planning wars to get oil, and figuring how to go about it, so, he just sat
around sucking his thumb while cheney and his cronies did it?, is that the story, or?
After the dust settles, they still don't have any oil from that country for nothing, and
Iraq has their own government now, so, they aren't going to give large amounts of oil
to the u.s., so, that plan didn't work, what's next.!!!!
Electoral Member
Posts: 902
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 15th, 2008, 01:47 AM
Saddam switched to selling in non-US currency.
The US will have 90% of the profits of all oil sales for at least 40 years (plus the cost associated with that securing will be paid separately by the US taxpayer). The less people left alive over there the better (for the US and for the oil industry).
Don't leave Israel out of the equation, having the US control that area will lead to them having totally free oil (once they start shipping from Israel). It gives Israel teeth in the area, they will decide who is their enemy and the US will do their bidding so Israel will be guiltless in the eyes of other Nations.
Want to bet that Iran also dropped off a copy of the constitution Venezuela adopted (that puts the oil wealth back where it belongs, with the people of Iraq). So if you think things are unsettled there right now, just wait till the US version is adopted (oil companies get the loin's share) over that other version (the people get the lion's share).
If you don't know the US is Israel's lap dog by now you just haven't been paying attention for the last 60 years of history.
Saddam switched to selling in non-US currency.
The US will have 90% of the profits of all oil sales for at least 40 years (plus the cost associated with that securing will be paid separately by the US taxpayer). The less people left alive over there the better (for the US and for the oil industry).
Don't leave Israel out of the equation, having the US control that area will lead to them having totally free oil (once they start shipping from Israel). It gives Israel teeth in the area, they will decide who is their enemy and the US will do their bidding so Israel will be guiltless in the eyes of other Nations.
Want to bet that Iran also dropped off a copy of the constitution Venezuela adopted (that puts the oil wealth back where it belongs, with the people of Iraq). So if you think things are unsettled there right now, just wait till the US version is adopted (oil companies get the loin's share) over that other version (the people get the lion's share).
If you don't know the US is Israel's lap dog by now you just haven't been paying attention for the last 60 years of history.
Electoral Member
Posts: 902
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 15th, 2008, 01:48 AM
Quoting RomSpaceKnight
That would include the million plus civilians right?
Iraq is front and center in ME politics. Afghanistan is a backwater. An entire generation of wannabee terrorist are being fed into the killing machine known as the US Army. That is why the US is in Iraq.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,384
Location: London, Ont. Canada
Location: London, Ont. Canada
March 15th, 2008, 05:14 AM
Quoting MHz
I believe they fall under collateral damage. Besides they're not white Christian Americans so what do they count for. What's a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's compared to a couple thousand Americans.
That would include the million plus civilians right?
Council Member
Posts: 1,727
Location: BC
Location: BC
March 15th, 2008, 07:17 AM
There were two countries that refused to buy US debt: Iran and Iraq. Venezuela has also refused. This is their true crime. It isn't terror, WMDs, or something altruistic that makes the US government hate these countries so badly; it is just outright avarice and greed.
The war on terror is an excuse for the Fed to print billions of dollars and pour them into the industrial military complex which just so happens to be largely supplied to by the same people that own the Fed. It has proven to be very profitable which war always is to the sorted few. Banks around the world have been buying US debt in an attempt to stave off total economic collapse. The US dollar is now virtually worthless. Since the US mortgage crises economists have been praying another bubble will emerge to sop up inflation, which is caused by too much easy money (a.k.a credit). It is very important that the US people don't realize how worthless their money is and that the war be maintained or there will be complete economic collapse world wide. Both republicans and Democrats know this and is the reason neither will stop the war. All that money has to be absorbed somewhere and a war is as good a place as any for now (in their evil little pee brains anyway). Up to now inflation has been sopped up by the housing bubble. My opinion is that the threat of "global warming" is being promoted because it could be the next bubble everyone is praying for, our that is the hope anyway.
This isn't a conspiracy and I'm not suggesting that a few people are in control. It is the natural culmination of a foul corrupt system that worships greed as good. The entire financial and political elite are responsible since their insatiable appetites is what has led them to the brink of disaster and they just can't stop. It is a monster out of control. The best thing the US could do is burn their money by the billions but that won't happen until people realize how worthless it is and by then it will be too late; until then, so long as the money still has purchasing power, the elite won't stop.
Quoting talloola
Henry Kissinger negotiated a deal with most Mideast oil countries that they had to use 20% of their profits to buy US dept. This allows the US and in particular The Federal Reserve Bank to print more money. Since the Federal Reserve is largely unregulated it means the owners of this private corporation can print the money and loan it. The current ratio is 1:9, that is, for every dollar a bank has deposited they can lend 9+1dollars (9 + the deposited money). This means that if a bank has met it's limit it can sell the debt to an oil country like Saudi Arabia (or put it in a bogus investment package and pawn it off on the private sector - enter the mortgage crisis). Once the bank has sold the debt they are free to loan more money. The Fed prints the money and charges interest to the bank who in turn charges you, the consumer, interest. Currently the Fed and US government are looking for ways to loan money beyond the 1:9 ration. This is a really really bad thing to do so they are trying to hide it by calling them "loan auctions" and other ridiculous names.
I understand the serious need for oil, that is simple. Why do they have to have wars, and
spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do it, when, they could just buy the oil from the
owners.
I believe they were buying oil from Saddam Husein weren't they?, So, why couldnt they
just continue doing that, as they do from Saudi Arabia, and others.
Is it truly just simple childlish greed, and they would go to any lengths to have what they
want, 'for nothing'? But it isn't for nothing, it costs the amount they spent on the war, and the lives of the u.s. military almost 4000, along with thouslands of injured, and of
course, if what you say is true, they don't give a flying f***k about the iraqi deaths and
suffering.
So, I am still left wondering.
spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do it, when, they could just buy the oil from the
owners.
I believe they were buying oil from Saddam Husein weren't they?, So, why couldnt they
just continue doing that, as they do from Saudi Arabia, and others.
Is it truly just simple childlish greed, and they would go to any lengths to have what they
want, 'for nothing'? But it isn't for nothing, it costs the amount they spent on the war, and the lives of the u.s. military almost 4000, along with thouslands of injured, and of
course, if what you say is true, they don't give a flying f***k about the iraqi deaths and
suffering.
So, I am still left wondering.
There were two countries that refused to buy US debt: Iran and Iraq. Venezuela has also refused. This is their true crime. It isn't terror, WMDs, or something altruistic that makes the US government hate these countries so badly; it is just outright avarice and greed.
The war on terror is an excuse for the Fed to print billions of dollars and pour them into the industrial military complex which just so happens to be largely supplied to by the same people that own the Fed. It has proven to be very profitable which war always is to the sorted few. Banks around the world have been buying US debt in an attempt to stave off total economic collapse. The US dollar is now virtually worthless. Since the US mortgage crises economists have been praying another bubble will emerge to sop up inflation, which is caused by too much easy money (a.k.a credit). It is very important that the US people don't realize how worthless their money is and that the war be maintained or there will be complete economic collapse world wide. Both republicans and Democrats know this and is the reason neither will stop the war. All that money has to be absorbed somewhere and a war is as good a place as any for now (in their evil little pee brains anyway). Up to now inflation has been sopped up by the housing bubble. My opinion is that the threat of "global warming" is being promoted because it could be the next bubble everyone is praying for, our that is the hope anyway.
This isn't a conspiracy and I'm not suggesting that a few people are in control. It is the natural culmination of a foul corrupt system that worships greed as good. The entire financial and political elite are responsible since their insatiable appetites is what has led them to the brink of disaster and they just can't stop. It is a monster out of control. The best thing the US could do is burn their money by the billions but that won't happen until people realize how worthless it is and by then it will be too late; until then, so long as the money still has purchasing power, the elite won't stop.
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,582
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
March 15th, 2008, 12:20 PM
picture for me, to help me undetrstand the inside track. Most of the stuff I read here is just from
people who 'hate' the u.s. and will write anything to trash them, so that doesn't help me understand
the facts.
So then, when are we all going to stop calling the u.s. 'the most powerful country' in
the world, and call them 'the most pitiful' country in the world, cause it seems that
they are imploding. When will they begin to eat their own misery instead of spreading
it all over the world. When will the sign be put on the u.s., SOLD, and the new owner
will be China, and maybe, just maybe, that will be better for all of us.
Quoting Scott Free
OK, your explanation , which I apprecdiate, sounds sensible and factual, and fits into the
This isn't a conspiracy and I'm not suggesting that a few people are in control. It is the natural culmination of a foul corrupt system that worships greed as good. The entire financial and political elite are responsible since their insatiable appetites is what has led them to the brink of disaster and they just can't stop. It is a monster out of control. The best thing the US could do is burn their money by the billions but that won't happen until people realize how worthless it is and by then it will be too late; until then, so long as the money still has purchasing power, the elite won't stop.
picture for me, to help me undetrstand the inside track. Most of the stuff I read here is just from
people who 'hate' the u.s. and will write anything to trash them, so that doesn't help me understand
the facts.
So then, when are we all going to stop calling the u.s. 'the most powerful country' in
the world, and call them 'the most pitiful' country in the world, cause it seems that
they are imploding. When will they begin to eat their own misery instead of spreading
it all over the world. When will the sign be put on the u.s., SOLD, and the new owner
will be China, and maybe, just maybe, that will be better for all of us.
Electoral Member
Posts: 902
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 15th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Back when Saddam invaded Kuwait, one reason given was that they were slant drilling into Iraq oil-fields. That story never really got followed up by anybody, like checking where (all) those holes actually went. Iraq's output was severely reduced since they were expelled. If Kuwait (better put as American drilling rigs) was actually doing that then that practice would have continued after those wells were put back into production. Is there any info on just what wells were set on fire? (ie just the very most northern ones).
According to fig 12 from this site their production took a nose-dive around that time but since then it rose substantially from what it was before, about 1000 kb/d. Did they open new fields about then?
Saudi production stayed basically the same since about 1990.
fig 10
So were they stealing oil to begin with and are they still stealing it? Any search will bring up lots of documents that point to that as being one of, if not the main reason for the invasion.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2968
Back when Saddam invaded Kuwait, one reason given was that they were slant drilling into Iraq oil-fields. That story never really got followed up by anybody, like checking where (all) those holes actually went. Iraq's output was severely reduced since they were expelled. If Kuwait (better put as American drilling rigs) was actually doing that then that practice would have continued after those wells were put back into production. Is there any info on just what wells were set on fire? (ie just the very most northern ones).
According to fig 12 from this site their production took a nose-dive around that time but since then it rose substantially from what it was before, about 1000 kb/d. Did they open new fields about then?
Saudi production stayed basically the same since about 1990.
fig 10
So were they stealing oil to begin with and are they still stealing it? Any search will bring up lots of documents that point to that as being one of, if not the main reason for the invasion.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2968
Council Member
Posts: 1,727
Location: BC
Location: BC
March 15th, 2008, 04:16 PM
The Department OF Homeland Defense released a report on the USAs vulnerability to a HEMP attack, that is High [altitude] Electro Magnetic Pulse. Basically a high yield nuke going off over the central USA between 40-60 miles above the ground will compress the atmosphere which will act as an antenna spreading the pulse over the entire USA parts of northern Mexico and southern Canada. The report said such an attack would set the USA back into the 1800s. No infrastructure would function, large scale farms would be unworkable, and it explained that the population would have to go through an "adjustment" since the USA wouldn't be able to support 300 million people but only around 10 million. All electronic equipment would fail and need to be replaced. It would have to be brought in from Europe since the USAs capability to manufacture would be completely lost. The report estimated that it would take centuries before the USA even remotely resembled its former self, if ever. The report went on to explain that since the end of the cold war the US military has been buying off the shelf electronics to save money instead of using their own much more expensive components which are properly shielded from electro magnetic radiation. The report said this meant such an attack would mean the US military would be completely crippled. They wouldn't be able to communicate, their vehicles wouldn't function and more importantly they wouldn't be able to launch a nuclear retaliation or even be able to tell where the attack came from!
I'll take you back to the second world war where Japan sent incideraries by balloon through the high altitude winds which reach speeds of 200 mph. There was at the time a radio blackout on reporting the attacks and since the Japanese didn't hear any reports of their attacks working they stopped. Canada has released the information (freedom of information) but the USA still holds this information as classified. The attacks were actually very successful and hit parts of Canada and the USA. My grandfather told me about them hitting the Okanagan and now it has been shown they also hit the Kootenays. They also hit many places in the USA. So basically the USA is vulnerable to North Korea or anyone else sending a HEMP attack via balloon! That is very vulnerable IMO.
That is only one example. There are many many more.
The American culture holds individualism and self-reliance as their most redeeming feature but unfortunately in this day and age that antiquated notion is no longer valid. They are left with two choice: join the world community and enter into agreements for world disarmament (which they have flatly turned down over and over again) or dominate the world. Unfortunately they have decided on the later rather than the former and this is ultimately going to be what destroys them.
We see the USA turning into a corpocracy (corporatism) because democracies are notoriously bad at war (Vietnam syndrome) and if they want to dominate the world they need to become fascist. It has to happen or else they need to join the world community, which isn't probably going to happen, but they are trying to maintain the veneer of democracy. They have turned into the very thing they hate. A one party system with two factions. It is important to remember that many jackboot states have great glorious elections but that is irrelevant. What is important is who runs things and call the shots. In Russia it's Putin and in the USA it's corporations. Corporations love war. Wars are very profitable for them.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Again, this isn't some kind of conspiracy. I recommend reading Brzezinski. He openly touts the merits of corporate lobbying as a fair means for the USA to dominate the world. In his estimation the fact any country can "lobby" (a.k.a bribe, nudge nudge wink wink) means that it is a fair system superior to that of the UN. In short: complete world domination under a system of corruption by a single countries political elite.
"American foreign policy must remain concerned with geopolitical dimension and must employ its influence in Eurasia in a manner that creates a stable continental equilibrium, with the United states as the political arbiter."
"Most foreign governments also employ American lobbyists to advance their case, especially in congress, in adition to approximately one thousand special foreign interest groups registered as active in America's capital.../
\... American supremacy has thus produced a new international order that not only replicates but institutionalizes abroad many of the features of the American system itself."
- Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard
Remember too this guy is the Democratic Henry Kissinger! Brzezinski is considered a dove but I have trouble sepperating him from the neocon camp.
Quoting talloola
I made a mistake in my post. The ratio is 1:7 not 1:9. OK, your explanation , which I apprecdiate, sounds sensible and factual, and fits into the
picture for me, to help me undetrstand the inside track. Most of the stuff I read here is just from
people who 'hate' the u.s. and will write anything to trash them, so that doesn't help me understand
the facts.
picture for me, to help me undetrstand the inside track. Most of the stuff I read here is just from
people who 'hate' the u.s. and will write anything to trash them, so that doesn't help me understand
the facts.
Quoting talloola
The US isn't the most powerful country in the world, I completely agree with you, but that can't be demonstrated without a 3rd world war. They have so much propaganda and huge military budgets that they look powerful but they have so many weaknesses that they couldn't possibly be. There is a big - huge - difference between a war of attrition and anything they have ever been involved in. I don't think their military planners are aware of this little fact; they seem to be buying their own BS. With todays technology and the proliferation of nuclear weapons any country can toss them into utter chaos on a whim. I'll give you one example: So then, when are we all going to stop calling the u.s. 'the most powerful country' in
the world, and call them 'the most pitiful' country in the world, cause it seems that
they are imploding. When will they begin to eat their own misery instead of spreading
it all over the world. When will the sign be put on the u.s., SOLD, and the new owner
will be China, and maybe, just maybe, that will be better for all of us.
the world, and call them 'the most pitiful' country in the world, cause it seems that
they are imploding. When will they begin to eat their own misery instead of spreading
it all over the world. When will the sign be put on the u.s., SOLD, and the new owner
will be China, and maybe, just maybe, that will be better for all of us.
The Department OF Homeland Defense released a report on the USAs vulnerability to a HEMP attack, that is High [altitude] Electro Magnetic Pulse. Basically a high yield nuke going off over the central USA between 40-60 miles above the ground will compress the atmosphere which will act as an antenna spreading the pulse over the entire USA parts of northern Mexico and southern Canada. The report said such an attack would set the USA back into the 1800s. No infrastructure would function, large scale farms would be unworkable, and it explained that the population would have to go through an "adjustment" since the USA wouldn't be able to support 300 million people but only around 10 million. All electronic equipment would fail and need to be replaced. It would have to be brought in from Europe since the USAs capability to manufacture would be completely lost. The report estimated that it would take centuries before the USA even remotely resembled its former self, if ever. The report went on to explain that since the end of the cold war the US military has been buying off the shelf electronics to save money instead of using their own much more expensive components which are properly shielded from electro magnetic radiation. The report said this meant such an attack would mean the US military would be completely crippled. They wouldn't be able to communicate, their vehicles wouldn't function and more importantly they wouldn't be able to launch a nuclear retaliation or even be able to tell where the attack came from!
I'll take you back to the second world war where Japan sent incideraries by balloon through the high altitude winds which reach speeds of 200 mph. There was at the time a radio blackout on reporting the attacks and since the Japanese didn't hear any reports of their attacks working they stopped. Canada has released the information (freedom of information) but the USA still holds this information as classified. The attacks were actually very successful and hit parts of Canada and the USA. My grandfather told me about them hitting the Okanagan and now it has been shown they also hit the Kootenays. They also hit many places in the USA. So basically the USA is vulnerable to North Korea or anyone else sending a HEMP attack via balloon! That is very vulnerable IMO.
That is only one example. There are many many more.
The American culture holds individualism and self-reliance as their most redeeming feature but unfortunately in this day and age that antiquated notion is no longer valid. They are left with two choice: join the world community and enter into agreements for world disarmament (which they have flatly turned down over and over again) or dominate the world. Unfortunately they have decided on the later rather than the former and this is ultimately going to be what destroys them.
We see the USA turning into a corpocracy (corporatism) because democracies are notoriously bad at war (Vietnam syndrome) and if they want to dominate the world they need to become fascist. It has to happen or else they need to join the world community, which isn't probably going to happen, but they are trying to maintain the veneer of democracy. They have turned into the very thing they hate. A one party system with two factions. It is important to remember that many jackboot states have great glorious elections but that is irrelevant. What is important is who runs things and call the shots. In Russia it's Putin and in the USA it's corporations. Corporations love war. Wars are very profitable for them.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Again, this isn't some kind of conspiracy. I recommend reading Brzezinski. He openly touts the merits of corporate lobbying as a fair means for the USA to dominate the world. In his estimation the fact any country can "lobby" (a.k.a bribe, nudge nudge wink wink) means that it is a fair system superior to that of the UN. In short: complete world domination under a system of corruption by a single countries political elite.
"American foreign policy must remain concerned with geopolitical dimension and must employ its influence in Eurasia in a manner that creates a stable continental equilibrium, with the United states as the political arbiter."
"Most foreign governments also employ American lobbyists to advance their case, especially in congress, in adition to approximately one thousand special foreign interest groups registered as active in America's capital.../
\... American supremacy has thus produced a new international order that not only replicates but institutionalizes abroad many of the features of the American system itself."
- Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard
Remember too this guy is the Democratic Henry Kissinger! Brzezinski is considered a dove but I have trouble sepperating him from the neocon camp.
Electoral Member
Posts: 902
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 15th, 2008, 04:37 PM
They changed it from Operation Iraqi Liberation. I kid you not.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030324-4.html
They changed it from Operation Iraqi Liberation. I kid you not.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030324-4.html
Electoral Member
Posts: 356
Location: California
Location: California
March 15th, 2008, 06:10 PM
I honestly think the troops were sent in with a shopping list. The whole operation other than the first two weeks was poorly planned, ill conceived and finally a disaster. But the Texan and Wyoming cowboys thought it would be a cake walk. Once they disarmed the Iraqi army and left them with no means to support their families the real trouble started. Once backed into a corner the disbanded soldiers formed up again in small squads and started what the media called the insurgency. I called it starving and hungry family men desperate to get food, medical care and other staples for their families. We were the agressor and they went right after the US military. To them were are a force of occupation and they want us out so they can get on with their lives too. All our press releases are heavily censored and many are simply not true. The White House acts like it has never heard of the word truth before and their actions show it too.
I honestly think the troops were sent in with a shopping list. The whole operation other than the first two weeks was poorly planned, ill conceived and finally a disaster. But the Texan and Wyoming cowboys thought it would be a cake walk. Once they disarmed the Iraqi army and left them with no means to support their families the real trouble started. Once backed into a corner the disbanded soldiers formed up again in small squads and started what the media called the insurgency. I called it starving and hungry family men desperate to get food, medical care and other staples for their families. We were the agressor and they went right after the US military. To them were are a force of occupation and they want us out so they can get on with their lives too. All our press releases are heavily censored and many are simply not true. The White House acts like it has never heard of the word truth before and their actions show it too.
Electoral Member
Posts: 902
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 15th, 2008, 08:00 PM
What if conditions today in Iraq are just what the plans called for?
Wasn't the original 'vision' that was sold to the world that Iraq would end up looking almost the same as present day Kuwait? Dealing with western oil firms has done a lot for that nation, yet that Nation is almost the only one that has turned out like that. The west was in Iran for 20+ years (53-79) but nothing compared to Kuwait ever sprang up. Wealth filters down to everybody in Kuwait but only a very few that held power in Iran had their standard of living raised to any degree. Isn't that part of why there was the revolution in'79? Venezuela is another example, only a few at the top were living the 'good-life', until the 'revolution there. Cuba may not have had oil but there was certainly lots of US money going there before Castro. Once again, only a few benefited. All 3 of those places revolted against the West, all 3 have been under sanctions since those various times. 40 years non-stop for Cuba, close to 30 years for Iran, less for Venezuela but the US is certainly bitter towards them.
Does anybody know of any Nation that has had major dealings with the US that has come close to becoming the 'model' that Kuwait was set up to be?
I hate to bring up the 'old west' but the way it worked is that the original people lost everything more or less, so it would not be a unique situation, reward a few very handsomely and fuk the rest, let them eat dirt. Cruel as it sounds the more kept in poverty the more money for the western corporation and that means more for the 'shareholders' in those companies. I doubt they care about the poorest in those lands, not when it comes out of their very own pockets.
Rant over, go back to sleep now.
What if conditions today in Iraq are just what the plans called for?
Wasn't the original 'vision' that was sold to the world that Iraq would end up looking almost the same as present day Kuwait? Dealing with western oil firms has done a lot for that nation, yet that Nation is almost the only one that has turned out like that. The west was in Iran for 20+ years (53-79) but nothing compared to Kuwait ever sprang up. Wealth filters down to everybody in Kuwait but only a very few that held power in Iran had their standard of living raised to any degree. Isn't that part of why there was the revolution in'79? Venezuela is another example, only a few at the top were living the 'good-life', until the 'revolution there. Cuba may not have had oil but there was certainly lots of US money going there before Castro. Once again, only a few benefited. All 3 of those places revolted against the West, all 3 have been under sanctions since those various times. 40 years non-stop for Cuba, close to 30 years for Iran, less for Venezuela but the US is certainly bitter towards them.
Does anybody know of any Nation that has had major dealings with the US that has come close to becoming the 'model' that Kuwait was set up to be?
I hate to bring up the 'old west' but the way it worked is that the original people lost everything more or less, so it would not be a unique situation, reward a few very handsomely and fuk the rest, let them eat dirt. Cruel as it sounds the more kept in poverty the more money for the western corporation and that means more for the 'shareholders' in those companies. I doubt they care about the poorest in those lands, not when it comes out of their very own pockets.
Rant over, go back to sleep now.
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,582
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
March 15th, 2008, 11:35 PM
'tired', and I may be wrong but the cockyness he always showed is fading, and he looks
just like 'what' he is, a 'COMPLETE FAILURE', he has failed his own country , so
the idea of him going into Iran, seems ludicrous to me, and if he does, then he is even
more 'insane' than I give him credit for.
The money he has spent on the war is 'breaking the bank' and his country is broke.
And, the congress will never vote for that, even the republicans wouldn't want to do that, BUT WAIT, if McCain is president, then he will want to do it, cause if he doesn't,
he will be bored, and will just sit around reading 'war' books.
Quoting gopher
It maybe just wishful thinking, but I don't think bush will do that, he is beginning to look 'old' Your article reminds me of Reagan's remark, you ain't seen nothing yet, baby.
Just wait until imperialist evil Bush
invades Iran.
Just wait until imperialist evil Bush
invades Iran. 'tired', and I may be wrong but the cockyness he always showed is fading, and he looks
just like 'what' he is, a 'COMPLETE FAILURE', he has failed his own country , so
the idea of him going into Iran, seems ludicrous to me, and if he does, then he is even
more 'insane' than I give him credit for.
The money he has spent on the war is 'breaking the bank' and his country is broke.
And, the congress will never vote for that, even the republicans wouldn't want to do that, BUT WAIT, if McCain is president, then he will want to do it, cause if he doesn't,
he will be bored, and will just sit around reading 'war' books.
