Wow, thanks for the link, BG. To be honest I never put in the slight effort to investigate him any further than what I saw of him in a few clips here and there. Guess I’ve been thinking of him as the flavor of the month type of candidate. But after reading the parts of your link that interest me, I could see that supporting him is not such a bad idea after all. There’s substance behind the image – or thus it would appear.
Thanks.
xt, WTF are you talking about vis-a-vis games and Hillary? You mean computer/Playstation games and the like? As in her wanting to ban some of them? Because if I didn’t like her already (and I agree with your assessment of her being sort of like a weed depending which way the wind blows) that’s just fuckin’ ridiculous. I haven’t the slightest interest in gaming (long ago, I did play Nintendo’s Zelda with my kid, but that’s about it) but to ban – and I assuem that’s what you’re saying – what adults want to do with their free time and/or what they’d let their children watch/play is certainly overintrusive from my POV. I mean, what? Games become akin to illegal substances and you have to go out and “score” in order to get them? Just too silly to contemplate.
That wasn’t even a consideration in my dislike of her (much more to do with the “reed” thing that you mentioned) but it certainly adds fuel to the fire.
OTOH, how you even dare compare her to her husband is beyond me. You – and many others – might begrudge the guy but as a political animal he simply excelled both in and out of the US. And his legacy is out there to prove said point. I mean seriously, who would you rather have at the WH presently, Bill or George? No need to answer for I think it’s too obvious a response.
I am going to forego the fact that you’ve injected race into this discussion – only because by you doing so, it demonstrates racism is alive and well. Which is a fact. – but OTOH, I am utterly clueless by your comparison. By the same token, the US could do, and has done, a lot worse than the Kennedy Presidency.
As for the rest of your post, I am afraid this is not the forum to give it a proper response. For now I am willing to say that we appear to be living in different planets…and leave it at that.
I recall a political cartoon from the Clinton Administration. A poll-taker is standing at a guy’s front door, and the guy says, “Well, I think the lousy, cheating, lying, womanizing, pot-puffing draft-dodger is doing a good job.”
No sane American will ever say anything that complimentary about W.
I actually liked Bubbah…sort of. I voted for him in the second term anyway. I was just always realistic about what kind of political shark he was. And I think the comparison is apt…she is very similar. IMHO. If you disagree…well, thats your right, ehe?
What do you mean ‘steal’? Oil is sold on the world markets. Do you think that whoever is selling the oil is going to send it anywhere but where they can get the highest value for it? Even Iran isn’t that stupid.
You really don’t have a clue about how oil is sold do you?
Once the Iraqis themselves assume control of the country any deals not signed off by them will be null and void at their whim. There would be nothing stopping them from re-nationalizing their oil industry or giving out different contracts if they wanted to. Or do you think the US would invade again to stop them? And just so you know many countries don’t have national oil companies or have a mixture of both. Many use competition between oil companies improve the recovery of oil reserves because state run oil companies tend to be bureaucratic and inefficient, nor tend to be risk takers.
Damm thats two former superpowers that have fallen into the bargain basement of foreign policy. The commies of old would not have issued a joint press statement, they would have had things out in the open for satelites to see, moved troops , held exercises and a host of other things.
Call their bluff and lets see what kind of legs they think they have with this.
@BrainGlutton Russia has Europe by the balls, mainly for gas and potentially for oil.
It is making a fortune from us, which I don’t begrudge, and ‘fortunes’ tend to be spent.
Hence ‘feeding’.
I don’t see China and Russia ‘warning’ the USA as particularly sinister, neither are really competitors - China and the USA are tied up economically (although there will be a race for raw materials) and Russia is tied up with Europe.
Russia and the USA have a few problems with maintaining influence in the old Soviet bloc, missiles in Poland is a bit tactless and there is that funny little breakaway bit of Georgia, but neither of those are particularly significant.
I seriously doubt that Russia is keen on Iran getting a bomb and neither Russia nor China are Moslem Fundamentalist friendly.
My guess is that this is a bit of posturing designed to keep on-side with the Iranians, while trying to get them to act rationally. I doubt that either have much time for Ahmadinejad, and would like to see him out of office.
Easy peachy, isn’t it? Except for the fact that the US has done their homework very well on this particular matter. Like I said, if you want to fight your ignorance on this issue, there’s plenty of educational material out there.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that all the cites I can bring-up (and as I’ve said a number of times, there are many) don’t know what they are talking about either and you are the only one’s that’s correct.
Meanwhile, if it’s all the same to you, I am going to go with the factual information I’ve been reading.
No, I think that’s one of the reasons we are reluctant to leave in the first place.
The original plan of this war was to build “enduring bases” in Iraq, and turn the country into an American “coaling station” – a safe possession from which American military power could be projected around the MENA as needed, like the Philippines were a base for projeting American military power around East Asia and the Pacific. And the main purpose of that was to make sure the oil supply would never be interrupted. Who would collect the oil revenues was always a secondary consideration.
Definitely agree. The oil (in Iraq) was a secondary consideration to the projection of US power in that region. Those who think it was all about the US ‘stealing Iraqi oil’ are, to be gentle, missing the point.
And why would those “woderful links” be put “aside” pray tell? I mean, I’ve never come out and flatly said that oil was the ONLY concern for the invasion, but as BG clearly estates – and I agree:
– bolding mine.
Thus, he is VERY clearly saying oil was indeed a HUGE motivator. Now I might have a quibble or two as regards the second part of his paragraph. Why? Well, simple. Go back to the articles posted.
But at any rate, to say that oil was simply a “secondary concern” is rather disingenuous in light of the facts that have come out. Most I’ll say is that it was a conjoined factor to the establishment of a power base in the middle of the world’s largest oil reserves. IOW, just as BG said, the invasion was to serve a dual purpose.
Agreed. And a secondary consideration is still a consideration. It’s no coincidence the Iraqis are being pressured to adopt oil legislation very favorable to W’s and Dick’s buddies in the awl bidness.
Sure, you can handwave any accusatory article away – usually done by questioning its source rather than adressing its content.
But that doesn’t make the issue magically disappear. As I’ve said (I think three times already in this thread) there’s copious material on the 'net (from all kinds of sources) for anyone who really wants to get to the bottom of this
It doesn’t matter if Hitler himself ran Iraq the oil would still flow if the country was stable. Oil is sold on the open market to whoever will buy it at the highest contracted price. If Iran refuses to sell their oil to the US then they would have to sell it to someone else at a lower than world price. Why? Because the US would buy oil from some other supplier at price that seller would set knowing that Iranian oil wasn’t available. Less supply drives prices higher. Now others want to buy cheap Iranian oil, too. Do you think Iran is going to keep selling their oil for lower prices than what everyone else sells it for for long? Not frikken likely.
The only way the US could ever guarantee the supply of oil from Iraq is to put it on tankers and take it directly to the US without selling it on the open market. Do you think those greedy US oil companies in Iraq now are going to agree to that and lose the revenue they could generate on the open market? I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you do.
Maybe if people understood the market a bit better (and I am by no means an expert) they wouldn’t keep talking nonsense.
Supply and demand. I haven’t the foggiest although I majored in BusAd and live in that world rather successfully. Gotta to admit though that them there Jesuits simply suck at educatin’ a man – or a woman for that matter.
Mind giving us people that “don’t understand the market” a lesson or ten?
Meanwhile, I’ve also noticed you haven’t responded to a single fact that I’ve posted.
