Not So Quiet on the Third Front »
Posted by: Beau7890 1 month, 3 weeks agoAt this rate, the October Surprise won't be very surprising. The threats, counterthreats, and counter-counterthreats between Israel, Iran and the United States have reached new levels of hysteria in recent days.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 63
-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
This REALLY doesn't look good. From the article:
"Israel openly threatens to attack Iran's nuclear program, Iran threatens to shut down oil-shipping lanes, and the commander of the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, says this would be an 'act of war' requiring an American military response."
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> "Israel openly threatens to attack Iran's nuclear program, Iran threatens to shut down oil-shipping lanes...
Two little details that were, unfortunately, left out:
First, the entire thing started from Iranian threats to destroy Israel. These threats still continue at a much higher level but somehow this bit of information was "forgotten". It's a pity.
Second, Israel will only use force against Iran as a last resort in case no other option to stop Iran from attacking Israel is left. This, in turn, means that it would be wise for the rest of the world (and not only for the US) to do everything in their abilities to convince Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
As I'm sure you know, there is some debate over the correct translation of the words spoken by Ahmahdinejad that are commonly interpreted to have been a threat to "wipe Israel off the map." But even if he meant that, the point of the story isn't who's at fault here or who started it--it's about the fact that we appear to be heading inevitably toward yet another war, and that few other options are being discussed.
As for your second point about Israel using force only as a last resort to destroy nuclear reactors IF they're being used for weaponry, I do believe that about Israel. But the U.S. seems to want that to happen. Based on past actions, I have no faith whatsoever in the Bush administration trying to avoid war except as that last resort.
We have seen all this before in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq, and our military is stretched too thin to be effective over the long run there while also fighting in Afghanistan. We need to look for other solutions in Iran.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
In fact, there appears to be several reasons Bush, Cheney and their followers would like to start another war with Iran, even though they recently invited U.N. inspectors and diplomats from U.N. Security Council nations to examine their facilities, and demonstrated that the centrifuge used to enrich uranium likely does not have the advanced capability to enrich it to weapons-grade rather than reactor-grade material.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> As I'm sure you know, there is some debate over the correct translation of the words spoken by Ahmahdinejad that are commonly interpreted to have been a threat to "wipe Israel off the map."
There WAS some "debate" as if suddenly millions of Farsi speakers worldwide forgot their native language. Since then ,however, Iranian President EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY declared that Israel should be destroyed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
> ...we appear to be heading inevitably toward yet another war, and that few other options are being discussed.
Well, go ahead and offer one or more such options to convince Iran to drop its ambitions.
> I have no faith whatsoever in the Bush administration trying to avoid war except as that last resort.
In this case you'll have no troubles to explain the benefits the Bush administration will gain from having another war, would you?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Sure I can explain what benefits the Bush administration *thinks* it will gain from going to war with Iran.
The same ones it gained from war with Iraq. Oil and military contractor profits.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Oil and military contractor profits.
I see. In your opinion, the US got more oil from war with Iraq. Can you elaborate where this additional oil came from and where did it go?
In addition, can you explain what did the Bush administration gain from "military contractor profits"? I hope you will not insist that the entire (or, at least, most of) administration is in the military contractor business? I also hope that you realize that while military contractors got more orders most other industries suffered from declined profits as a result of the war, don't you?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Again, as you know, the oil industry is making record profits. We're using the same amount of oil, but the price is rising. You don't have to be "in the business" to benefit from that and the profits of military contractors--just buy stock. And certainly all of the chief players (the deciders, if you will) hold stock.
Or in Dick Cheney's case, hang on to the stock options you received as compensation he was CEO.
_____
"I also hope that you realize that while military contractors got more orders most other industries suffered from declined profits as a result of the war, don't you?"
Of course I do. How does this bolster your argument that this doesn't benefit the members of the administration?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> You don't have to be "in the business" to benefit from that and the profits of military contractors--just buy stock. And certainly all of the chief players (the deciders, if you will) hold stock.
This was exactly my question: do you believe that the entire Bush administration was (and is) holding stock of the oil and military contractors? If so how come the rest of Americans did not do the same? Further, if they did then ALL Americans would benefit from the war costing Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, correct?
> How does this bolster your argument that this doesn't benefit the members of the administration?
See above. Unlike you I DO NOT BELIEVE that the entire Bush administration was holding oil and military industry stocks ONLY to benefit from a war while the rest of Americans were investing in other industries, too, and lost.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
The handful in the administration who made all the war policies DO have stock. How naive are you?
Who are these people? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice...think about it.
It's called conflict of interest, and it leads to exactly the major problem of this and other failed administrations: corruption. Their policies are geared to make them money.
Though I don't suspect these people--except possibly the president--of being unaware of their motivations, conflicts of interest can unconsciously influence decision making.
That's why they're usually considered to be illegal and unethical.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> How naive are you?
I'm not.
> Who are these people? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice...think about it.
I'm being paid to think professionally. This is one of the reasons I'm not naive. This is also the the reason I do not believe that "these people" bought stock of military and oil industries and then conspired to attack oil rich countries and make huge profits as a result while forcing their fellow Americans to pay Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives as a result.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
"Professionally"? You mean you work in academics or politics?
I'm really not usually conspiracy-minded. But there is just so much evidence that the admnistration ignored all warnings of the problems that would ensue from deposing Saddam that any other explanation no longer seems likely.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> ...there is just so much evidence that the admnistration ignored all warnings of the problems that would ensue from deposing Saddam that any other explanation no longer seems likely.
I'm not sure that this is the case. You see, it was clear and obvious (at least to me and I do not believe that people in Bush administration had less knowledge that I had) that the war in Iraq would be quick and easy. To the contrary, I was sure that it would be long and complicated.
This does not mean that the administration conspired to involve the US in the war against American (and not only American) interests. It means that there were good enough reasons to believe that NOT doing it would have much more serious consequences.
One has to recall that Saddam USED chemical weapons (meaning that he HAD them) and invested Billions in developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Did you mean to say it was clear and obvious the war would NOT be quick and easy? The next sentence seems to confirm that. If so, then I agree with that part.
But as has been reported enough that I don't need to go into it (look it up if you doubt), Bush received plenty of newer information that Saddam no longer had WMDs. (And if you're doing research, look up "Curveball.")
We also booted out the UN inspectors in order to begin bombing, though they hadn't exhausted their search. There was no impending threat, no urgency.
Saddam last used chemical weapons almost 15 years before we invaded Iraq.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Bush received plenty of newer information that Saddam no longer had WMDs.
I'm sorry but I'm used to rely ON FACTS AND LOGIC in my analysis and so (I hope) does the US government.So here are the facts:
1. Saddam USED WMD's and this proves that he HAD them.
2. It is unreasonable to believe in stories that "Saddam no longer had WMDs" and it is even less reasonable to rely the security of your country on such stories... especially knowing Saddam and his actions in the past.
3. No WMD's were found in Iraq yet. This leaves us(considering (1)) with one of two possibilities:
3a. Saddams' WMD's disappeared in thin air.
3b. Saddam's WMD's were hidden good enough in order not to be found, probably in neighboring states.
4. The recent spike in nuclear activities in both Syria and Iran supports 3b, too. One has to recall how Saddam sent his fighter jets to Iran and hundreds of unedentified covered trucks to Syria...
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Here's how facts and logic work:
1) Saddam last used chemical weapons almost 15 years before we invaded Iraq. Intelligence showed he got rid of that program.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09...
2) Saying something is unreasonable doesn't make it so. You need a basis of facts for your assertions in order to use FACTS and LOGIC.
3) Saddam had no way to deliver any possible WMDs you insist he had. As I said, there was no URGENCY to discontinue looking and bomb them. And if he had WMDs in neighboring states, then I guess they're there now, aren't they? You don't really want to take over the Middle East, do you?
4) See 3.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
We should all be glad that NORMALLY facts and logic work a bit differently.
To see the reasons consider this:
1. The US last used nuclear weapons not 15 but 63 years ago. No other country ever used such weapons in combat. According to your logic this should be a proof that no nuclear weapons exist anywhere.
2. I fully agree. This, by the way, means that saying that Saddam got rid of WMD program does not make it so. At best one can say that no evidence to the contrary was found.
3. Ditto. Saying that Saddam had no way to deliver any possible WMDs does not make it so. To the contrary, such an assertion contradicts both FACTS (Saddam DID deliver chemical weapons in the past) and logic (there is no reason to believe that something (divine intervention?) prevented him from transfering information, materials and manufactured weapons to Iraq's neighbors).
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
The U.S. has kept its nuclear weapons program up to date.
Iraq did not do so with its chemical weaponry.
Here's a FOX NEWS report about the chief U.S. arms inspector confirming in 2004 that Saddam abandoned chemical weaponry in 1991:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
What I meant was that Saddam couldn't deliver weapons to the U.S. By the way, weapons delivery is a phrase commonly used to mean actually using those weapons at a distance from their home country, as in missiles. It does not mean trucking them to Syria, Thinker.
We have given Israel (since I'm certain that's where you'd say Saddam was intending to use such weapons) the ability to protect itself. As they've shown several times in the past, they do not need us to fight their battles for them. Israel's weapons technology far surpasses those of any of their neighbors--including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Iraq did not do so with its chemical weaponry.
How do you know? Chemical weapons are illegal under international law so one would expect Saddam to keep all information about them... well, confinential.
> Here's a FOX NEWS report about the chief U.S. arms inspector...
I'm sorry to say it again that the most the FOX NEWS, the chief U.S. arms inspector or anyone else can say about it is that no evidence to the contrary was found.
> What I meant was that Saddam couldn't deliver weapons to the U.S.
Thanks for the clarification. I have some news for you, however. First, there are other countris on this planet except the U.S. Second, Saddam COULD deliver weapons to the U.S. using, for example, naval-based missiles (missiles based on ships located in international waters 50 miles or so from the U.S. shores.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> By the way, weapons delivery is a phrase commonly used to mean actually using those weapons at a distance from their home country, as in missiles. It does not mean trucking them to Syria, Thinker.
The word "delivery" means exactly that, including trucking to Syria. Every time UPS guy brings a package to your door he reports to UPS system that this package was DELIVERED.
> As they've shown several times in the past, they do not need us to fight their battles for them.
While no US soldiers ever participated in any wars on Israeli side Israel DID need the US aid in the past. You may read something about the October war of 1973 as an example. If the US did not open an emergency airlift of military supplies that war would end VERY differently.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> And if he had WMDs in neighboring states, then I guess they're there now, aren't they? You don't really want to take over the Middle East, do you?
I do not think that Syria and Iran have nuclear weapons already but I DO believe that they already have chemical and biological ones. Further, while I DO NOT WANT to take over the Middle East such action may become necessary in case these or other coutries will initiate a war justifying it.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Well, you'd better make DAMN sure that you can actually WIN any war you might start with Iran, Syria, and any other countries whose weapons you're afraid of. And that you can locate the weapons after that war, and that you can stabilize those countries after the war.
Do you even think it's possible to take over and stabilize the Middle East if necessary? If you do, you are seriously deluded.
If you can't win and stabilize the nations you defeat, you might want to try other options, as the U.S. has with North Korea and China.
Our current military severely depleted, stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. What forces would you suggest using to attack Iran, if necessary?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about so I'll try to make it easier for you.
First, it is only common sense to make sure that the war you're getting into will be won.
Second, I've already said that I DID NOT WANT to take over the Middle East, however, such action may become necessary in case these or other coutries will initiate a war and in this case we'll have to make sure that the war WE're getting into will be won.
Third, I have to stress it again that we'll only get into a war in case such action may become necessary meaning that NOT DOING IT WILL NOT BE AN OPTION. It will be up to the commander-in-chief and his stuff to decide which forces should be used in such case.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
The key, Thinker, is to think about other options before you're forced into the place where "not doing it will not be an option." In other words, to try everything else you can to avoid war, short of making compromises you're not willing to make.
This was the problem with Iraq--not only was the war unnecessary to prevent Saddam from using any WMDs, but the Bush administration did not think through the consequences of stabilizing the governmentless country after Saddam was gone.
Again--no urgency--there was no sudden increase in Saddam's belligerence.
Sure, we "won" in the sense of deposing Saddam, but five years later, we're faced with the resultant destabilization and we're trying to build a new nation, which is apparently much more costly and difficult than anyone in the Bush administration ever imagined.
Unless, of course, they were trying to destabilize the region to increase the price of oil.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> The key, Thinker, is to think about other options before...
Of course. Where have YOU been 'before' and WHY did not you offer these "other options" to the President?
> ...the Bush administration did not think through the consequences of stabilizing the governmentless country after Saddam was gone.
I do not think so. If this is the case then the Bush administration is a bunch of idiots and I do not believe in it. Suggesting that others are idiots is a prerogative of pretty primitive individuals who in most cases are incapable and unwilling to understand the reasons of those others actions and decisions.
> ...there was no sudden increase in Saddam's belligerence.
How do you know?
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> ...five years later, we're faced with the resultant destabilization and we're trying to build a new nation, which is apparently much more costly and difficult than anyone in the Bush administration ever imagined.
I'm afraid that you don't have a clue what Bush administration ever imagined and I do not believe that its real goal is to build a new nation. Building new nations is a very long, complex and costly process. Building new Arab nations to the US liking is virtually impossible.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Okay, if I understand your comments, you're saying the Bush administration did actually think about the consequences of what they were doing.
And you believe there may have been a sudden increase in Saddam's belligerence during the run-up to our invasion, though every media source at the time shows Saddam backing down from every one of our demands.
And the White House did not intend to build a new nation.
But they weren't idiots, so they did in fact think through the consequences of stabilizing the governmentless Iraq, though there are centuries of history of the factions there warring with each other.
I'll bite. What DID they think?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> What DID they think?
From the information available at the time I can guess that they thought that attacking Iraq and removing Saddam was necessary and urgent. I can also guess that there were debates between members of the administration of how to explain it to the American public and the rest of the world and what to do next when Saddam and his government is removed. I do not know what the plans were but it seems that they've failed. As I've said it was next to impossible to build a new Arab nation. If you ask me the best way to get out of Iraq is to offer the leaders of the three main groups in Iraq (the Sunnis, the Shia's and the Kurds) to divide the country creating three states. The deal must assure fair share of land, water, oil, etc. to each one of these groups. The US, UN and Europe will assist in moving civilians from one region to another and other logistical issues.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm sure that all three groups will accept this plan as it is clearly beneficial for them. The neighbors of Iraq (Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) will like it, too (if you want me to elaborate I'll explain the reasons).
Finally, after making these arrangements the US can declare victory and withdraw from Iraq.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Unless, of course, they were trying to destabilize the region to increase the price of oil.
I see...
Have yo ever heard about WWII? The Korea war? The war in Vietnam? Did "they" (the US administration at the time) tried to destabilize the region to increase the price of oil or there were, possible, some other reasons for the US to involve itself in those wars, in your opinion?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
No. There were valid reasons to get into WWII. Korea and Vietnam...I can see a rational and consistent argument behind them, though I'd argue the assumptions of those who put us there were incorrect.
Bush and company's rationales for invading Iraq shifted from day to day as each was proven wrong.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> I can see a rational and consistent argument behind them, though I'd argue the assumptions of those who put us there were incorrect.
> Bush and company's rationales for invading Iraq shifted from day to day as each was proven wrong.
This means that you CAN NOT SEE the rational and consistent argument behind them? If you don't see something it does not mean that it does not exist, does it?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Sigh.
Your arguments go from bad to worse. First you "educate" me on the meaning of the word "delivery," when you clearly don't have a clue as to its common usage when discussing deployment of weapons.
Now, you continue to avoid my question to you about what it was the administration was thinking, blindly trusting that they have our best interests in mind.
If the "22" in your screen name refers to your age, I can understand. You were too young to have seen the malfeasance of politicians--to the detriment of our country--during Watergate and Iran/Contra. And you've probably never heard of April Glaspie. (Google her name.)
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> First you "educate" me on the meaning of the word "delivery," when you clearly don't have a clue as to its common usage when discussing deployment of weapons.
Yes, I do and I have. You see, as I've explained earlier, the word "delivery" means exactly that. "Weapons delivery SYSTEMS", however, have that specific meaning you've, probably, had in mind.
> ...you continue to avoid my question to you about what it was the administration was thinking, blindly trusting that they have our best interests in mind.
Somehow I've missed this question, sorry. Further, as I'm not the President (yet) or his spokesperson I can not answer this question for him, unfortunately. I can only guess what the President and members of his administration were thinking and my guess is that they were thinking about the best American interests. This was and is their job, after all. If you belive that this is not the case you should PROVE IT.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Your last comment demonstrates what I'm calling blind trust. You don't know what the administration was thinking, but you make all the assertions I said--that you believe they did have the best interests of the nation in mind, that they looked at all the consequences of invasion, that they gave careful consideration to other options before ruling them out, that there was an urgency that required immediate action in March 2003, even though the administration has been careful not to disclose any consistent justification for their invasion. And even though later actions have demonstrated no planning for the consequences.
I've given you a couple of links to articles showing they didn't (and the way to search for more). You may not believe they did, but you've offered noevidence to contradict me, only your own opinion that they're acting in good faith.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> ...you believe they did have the best interests of the nation in mind...
I've said that this was (and still is) their job. I'm afraid tat it's YOU who believes (blindly) that the President and the members of his administration are NOT DOING THEIR JOBS and that they're NOT DOING THEIR JOBS DELIBERATELY.
It's up to you to offer evidence to support these accusations. For me one (even the President) is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Reply
-
-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
The "delivery" lesson is a canard--you know exactly how I meant it, especially after I explained it to you. Yet you continue to argue as if the alternate dictionary definitions of the word "delivery" is germane to my point.
There is little in this world that can be proven beyond a doubt--we infer conclusions from a preponderance of the evidence at hand. It's inductive logic, not deductive logic. For instance, what you consider your name may not be your name--if you have a birth certificate, it's always possible it's a forgery. After all, you weren't aware of what was going on at the time.
This is why I say you discount evidence that contradicts your viewpoint while continuing to trust blindly in the White House's good intentions.
Reply-
-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
I have offered evidence. You refuse to accept it, and give no thing to refute what I offer.
Can you prove beyond a doubt that you are who you say you are? No, you can't. All you have is evidence that depends on other assumptions that you can never prove.
In the case of your blind trust of the president, you are refusing to reason based on all of the information available.
We're done.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> ..."the commander-in-chief and his stuff" currently have no options ...
How do you know? The key, Beau, is to think about other options before you're forced into the place... In addition, how can you be sure that a year from now you or another Beau7890 will not blame the next US administration for NOT "thinking about those other options before"?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Many, many existing options were summarily ruled out. You may believe the White House gave them careful consideration before discarding them, but the facts don't bear you out.
I'm not going to give you any more links. There are a zillions if you search Bush Iraq diplomacy--and specify a year or timeframe.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
>Many, many existing options were summarily ruled out.
I have no doubt about it. One option was chosen and this one, apparently, was the best.
> You may believe the White House gave them careful consideration before discarding them, but the facts don't bear you out.
I'm not sure which facts you have in mind but one fact is crucial here: it's the guy in the White House that makes the decisions... not you.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
And again, we wind up where we were a few days ago.
You have much faith in the decider," and probably in authority in general, to do the right thing.
I don't.
I'm sure you'll apply your same professional thinking skills (read "blind trust") when "the decider" is not a rabid neo-con and makes decisions you don't like.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> You have much faith in the decider," and probably in authority in general, to do the right thing.
False. I always use facts and logic to ANALYZE the situation and to arrive to the most probable answers. I can assure you that I do make mistakes sometimes but such cases are pretty rare.
> I don't.
It's up to you.
> I'm sure you'll apply your same professional thinking skills (read "blind trust")...
I'm afraid that this statement point at YOU as one using "blind trust" to assess my skills. Comical, is not it?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
HannibalBarca1 month, 3 weeks ago
Thinker22 Send Message
avatar
Reply
> Oil and military contractor profits.
I see. In your opinion, the US got more oil from war with Iraq. Can you elaborate where this additional oil came from and where did it go?
Well how about it going to 4 major oil companies that have been shut out of Iraq for 36 years due to nationalization.
It is not USA who benefits by controlling the oil, but big business as usual, also the fact of trying to keep it away from China.
No, two oil men in the WH, many PNAC members in all kind of important posts, and oil going where it is, all Starting from 9/11, one wonders why people can not connect the dots, they are everywhere, only people will argue just one of the dots at a time.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Well how about it going to 4 major oil companies that have been shut out of Iraq for 36 years due to nationalization.
Can you show a link to some reliable information proving that these 4 major oil companies are pumping oil from Iraq today?
> It is not USA who benefits by controlling the oil, but big business as usual, also the fact of trying to keep it away from China.
I see. Is the US trying to keep OIL away from China or keep BUSINESS away from China, in your opinion? I hope you know that during the last 20 years or so the amount of oil consumed in China INCREASED exponentially and so did business and that this brought trillions in profit to Western (including American) companies.
> ... one wonders why people can not connect the dots.
Well, connect the dots and explain to me how the oil companies and US in general benefit from DECREASING oil production in Iraq. Don't forget 9/11 if you don't mind.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Again, the oil companies profit, but not the US in general.
I guess the difference between your thoughts and mine are that you still trust that the Bush administration placed the good of the US in general on the same level as their own benefit. I think they struggled hard to come up with twisted rationales for helping themselves and their friends so they could make it appear they're trying to help the country.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> I guess the difference between your thoughts and mine are that you still trust that the Bush administration placed the good of the US in general on the same level as their own benefit.
Well, the job of Bush and his administration is to place the good of the country on an even higher level and I still believe that a person in general (and members of the administration, in particular) is innocent until proven guilty.
Different conspiracy theories inevitably fall apart as they require participation of bin Laden, Saddam, Ahmadinejad and others in the conspiracy to bring down themselves and cause harm to the US in order to INCREASE profits of oil companies from... DECREASED oil production.
Sorry but I don't buy it.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Um, no. The idea that the Bush administration sets its own members' interests at a higher priority than the nation's doesn't rely on the participation of any of those you mentioned. They're doing what they want to do, and we're using their actions as rationales to make war which increases oil profits.
It's not that difficult an idea to grasp. Destabilization of the region is more profitable than simply taking Iraqi oil.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> It's not that difficult an idea to grasp. Destabilization of the region is more profitable than simply taking Iraqi oil.
It IS a difficult idea for me to grasp... because it contradicts both facts and logic. You see, destabilization of an area usually leads to destruction of the economy and the infrastructure and millions of poor hungry refugees. According to your logic, the most profitable regions today should be in the poor and destabilized central Arfican countries. Are you sure that this is the case?
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Geez. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
Destabilization of the Middle East makes it harder for oil to get on the market. It does not make those Middle East wealthier. It DOES make those who control the oil wealthier--not their nations, but the individuals who control oil.
Get it?
Reply-
-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Have you ever heard of OPEC? What you're describing is what it does--reduce production to create the greatest price while increasing it when the price gets too scary. (Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has recently increased production because the world's consumers were beginning to look for ways to cut back.)
However, destabilization was created by the U.S., whose power is controlled by those who benefit personally from increased oil industry profits.
In other words, it does not take a conspiracy for the Bush administration to work in concert with OPEC to increase the price of oil.
You said earlier that you're paid to think professionally. You might be surprised at how many of us on Propeller are as well. May I ask what business you're in?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Have you ever heard of OPEC?
Yes, I did. OPEC did regulate oil prices and it worked pretty well. Much better than ANY war, by the way...
> However, destabilization was created by the U.S., whose power is controlled by those...
Hardly. Have you ever heard about Saddam Hussein? Try to look at that direction for the source of destabilization. You may be surprised.
> ...it does not take a conspiracy for the Bush administration to work in concert with OPEC to increase the price of oil.
I agree. There is no need for a conspiracy to increase the price of oil. I disagree, however, that a war is needed to do it. By the way, the oil prices, like the prices of any other commodity, are regulated by the rules of supply and demand. Prices go up when supply decreases or when demand increases. During the last 20 years or so demand for oil increased considerably because of China and India. Maybe, you should blame Bush for it, too?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
HannibalBarca1 month, 3 weeks ago
Can you show a link to some reliable information proving that these 4 major oil companies are pumping oil from Iraq today?...Sorry but it seems that the Iraq Gov is still having problems with this stipulation that US policy makers have included in their list of "to do's" by Iraq.
Your next paragraph is shooting yourself if the foot, of course China's growing demand on a non- renewable resource means less for USA.
Connect the dots?..easy, PNAC 92, Pres. and VP oil men, most important Gov postings to PNAC members, Hallibortion, an oil company which your VP was CEO gets the rebuilding contract,,, drilling for oil or building pipelines/refineries is a touch different in my mind from water treatment plants or electrical stations, road repair, kind of like hiring a plumber to build an airplane.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> Your next paragraph is shooting yourself if the foot, of course China's growing demand on a non- renewable resource means less for USA.
I'm not sure what your definition of "shooting yourself in the foot" is but you did not answer my pretty simple question (Is the US trying to keep OIL away from China or keep BUSINESS away from China, in your opinion?)
If you don't know the answer it is a definitive NO. The US DOES NOT try to keep OIL away from China or keep BUSINESS away from China. To the contrary, the amount of business the US and the rest of the world are doing with China is growing exponentially meaning that your claim about "trying to keep it away from China" was FALSE.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca1 month, 3 weeks ago
Sorry but the invasion of Iraq caused a 4 bill lose to China in investments, a mere pittance of money, but it made China shift its interests to Africa, where 30% of their oil comes from now.
As for selling oil, hell oil companies will sell(as will others)to the devil for a dollar. WW!! proved that.
And Iraq oil is slated (80%) to be awarded to 4 major oil companies, 3 American based, 1 British; not that any of these companies have any allegiance to anyone but themselves, but it is not in any way being awarded to anything Chinese.
And if relations deteriorated do you think your Gov. would not force these companies to play ball?
Reply -
0%
rimbaud1 month, 3 weeks ago
US companies are investing in the emerging growth markets in Asia (they cannot afford not to). They will build AND sell there. Even the required technical and engineering skills can be had there for cheap. Only the profits will come home to Bush's "ownership sociey", those rich or smart enough to invest. Yes, those nasty corporations are us! What's good for General Motors is good for the USA! When the up and coming Chinese are driving Chevies (GMC = General Motors China) and pumping Exxon/Iran oil, all will be well for us. Jobs that must be done locally, like Agriculture and Construction, are already heavily invested in by Mexican labor. If all you have to offer is your labor, you have been devalued, unless you can invent or design products for the new growth markets. It's a natural progression for a wealthy people... let those that are hungry study math and science and work hard. We will be the gentlemen rulers of the earth.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ChefEOD1 month, 3 weeks ago
Building to a crescendo then back to relative calm, then back just short of exploding, then backing down again. Over a period of a couple decades steadily building in intensity and peaks. Kind of like birth pangs.
Reply -
-
0%
Thinker221 month, 3 weeks ago
> ...if Israel is going to stop living in a state of siege with its neighbors.
It depends on the neighbors, you know...
You see, when you're besieged by hostile neighbors willing (and trying) to kill you it's THEM who should stop this situation. You can not do it alone and so does Israel.
Reply
-
-
Submitted By:
Beau7890
I used to have a quote here from Andre Breton, author of several surrealist works.
I now think that if you're here on Propeller ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
