Just heard on news on radio station that Nancy Pelosi now favors immediate pull out!

Published on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 by the Independent / UK
Iraq's Oil: The Spoils of War
by Philip Thornton

Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.

Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."

Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.

"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.

Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."

No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

###
 
bsnyder said:
I know many of you truly believe that Bush lied. I think you're being manipulated by a group of people who don't really believe it, but it has suited their political purposes well, to make those charges. If you look at ALL the facts, not just the ones that support your view, it's the only logical conclusion.
Huh? As far as I can tell, everybody on this thread agrees with the basic facts that (1) Bush knew there was doubt in the intelligence and (2) Bush said there was no doubt in the intelligence. The vast majority of people look at (1) and (2) and jump to the easy conclusion that Bush lied.

It doesn't take any manipulation for be to believe that when somebody says something they know is false they are lying. To be honest, I think 99% of the population would say that would somebody tells people something he knows to be false, he is lying.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Clearly, the information that has come out shows that the intelligence used to support the war was wrong.
And clearly Bush, Cheney, Rice etc. lied to the American people about what was in that intelligence.
 
bsnyder said:
See my post above. And you have no idea how old I am...

And how cheeky is it to complain that a Bush supporter hasn't been subjected to scorn? :rotfl2: No different than "love it or leave it". So what? Grow a thicker skin and get over it!

But a bush supporter wasn't being accused of being a traitor at the time in question. And I don't recall bush stating that the republicans were being un-patriotic but he sure as hell threw that at the democrats.

The comments about the hard hats were meant for everyone and not specfically to you.
 
salmoneous said:
Huh? As far as I can tell, everybody on this thread agrees with the basic facts that (1) Bush knew there was doubt in the intelligence and (2) Bush said there was no doubt in the intelligence. The vast majority of people look at (1) and (2) and jump to the easy conclusion that Bush lied.

It doesn't take any manipulation for be to believe that when somebody says something they know is false they are lying. To be honest, I think 99% of the population would say that would somebody tells people something he knows to be false, he is lying.

Excellent post.

The bottom line:

Either bush is a liar or he is incompetent. Neither trait is one that I look for in a leader. There is no other alternative. A liar or an incompetent. Apparently to some republicans it doesn't matter that the CIC is a liar or an incompetent. They will blindly follow no matter what. This gives those supporters ZERO credibility.

Now the question is to what degree is bush a liar and to what degree is he an incompetent. Is he half a liar and half an incompetent? Or is it more like 90% liar and 10% incompetent? I think the investigations will show that he is much more deliberate in his actions than the stupid, hayseed, Texan persona which he employs reveals.

I think bush and cheney and rice are cold calculated liars.

I will relish the impending investigations, the indictments, the resignations, the disgrace, the trials and the sentences.

And then I will think of these swine no more.
 
LuvDuke said:
There were several reasons why the vote wasn't unanimous.

1) Some people didn't believe you should give a president an authorization to go to war. The Constitution says "Congress declares war" and not the president goes to war when he/she thinks it necessary.

2) Some people, like Kucinich, are anti-war.

3) Some people looked at the evidence and concluded Iraq wasn't a threat.

There's a myriad of reasons why the vote wasn't unanimous and, frankly, you'd have to go check for yourself as to all of them.

But, frankly, how does the fact that the vote wasn't unanimous somehow lead to the conclusion all the evidence was presented? I don't understand how you're getting from A to B unless I'm misunderstanding.

The reason I asked why was the impression given that people wouldn't dare say anything against what Bush wanted because of the hostile climate. My point was that if the climate was so hostile towards anyone who opposed the war, then why did anyone vote against it. I'm fairly confident that all the evidence wasn't presented at the time, based on things that I've read since.

The thing that gets to me about these threads, and this is a general statement NOT directed at anyone in particular is the absolutism that creeps in. When did we lose the ability to look at issues from a balanced perspective? Depending on which post you're reading, either all Democrats are agents of the Devil or all Republicans are agents of the Devil. In real life, there are agents of the Devil on both sides! Also, depending on what post you're reading either the Republicans started it during the Clinton administration or the Democrats started it during the Reagan years.
As a country, we've got to get back to the point where we can acknowledge that both parties have good ideas and bad ideas. Getting out of Iraq, dealing with illegal immigration, anything government does requires compromise. We need a little more purple and a little less red and blue.
 
Fitswimmer said:
The reason I asked why was the impression given that people wouldn't dare say anything against what Bush wanted because of the hostile climate. My point was that if the climate was so hostile towards anyone who opposed the war, then why did anyone vote against it.

IMO, that's a little simplistic. People voted against the war for a variety of reasons. And the fact is, those who did oppose the war were accused of being traitors, in league with Al-Qaeda, an ally of Saddam Hussein, etc. It happened.

Fitswimmer said:
I'm fairly confident that all the evidence wasn't presented at the time, based on things that I've read since.

That's certainly a reasonable conclusion.

Fitswimmer said:
The thing that gets to me about these threads, and this is a general statement NOT directed at anyone in particular is the absolutism that creeps in. When did we lose the ability to look at issues from a balanced perspective? Depending on which post you're reading, either all Democrats are agents of the Devil or all Republicans are agents of the Devil. In real life, there are agents of the Devil on both sides! Also, depending on what post you're reading either the Republicans started it during the Clinton administration or the Democrats started it during the Reagan years.
As a country, we've got to get back to the point where we can acknowledge that both parties have good ideas and bad ideas. Getting out of Iraq, dealing with illegal immigration, anything government does requires compromise. We need a little more purple and a little less red and blue.

There are absolutes. Either the Bush administration lied or they didn't? Either they had a plan or they didn't? There's no ambiguity about that.

As for compromise, that remains to be seen.
 
bsnyder said:
... but then, he's in a special category all his own. He'd sell out his own mother if it would benefit his political party.
Again, you are in your own world and you are wrong. I actually have read the intelligence reports and the studies. The only real difference is that I was able to understand these committee reports and studies. I honestly have looked at the facts and unlike you have read the reports. For example I am sure that you have not read the NYT articles on the tubes. Those articles make very clear that the bulk of the intelligence was against the conclusion that the tubes were for nuclear weapons programs. Basically you have the top experts in the field compared to a guy name Joe. I love the fact that IAEA laughed at Joe and released a report the day before bush state of the union where he made the claim about the tubes.

I honestly believe that it is not even close issue as to whether bush lied. There is so much out there that it is not even close. I honestly worry about people who have some issue that prevent them from seeing the truth. The facts are clear that bush cherry picked intelligence to justify the war and that the Downing Street Memo is correct. Luckily the vast bulk of the American public are not suffering from whatever condition that prevent them from seeing the truth.
 
Saffron said:
The Democrats blew it big time when they voted to allow Bush and Co to go to war because of WMD. Or was it to liberate the people of Iraq? Or was it to get rid of a murderous dictator? Or was it to establish a democracy in a place that wanted a democracy? What the hell was it that the Democrats voted for anyway? I can't keep Bush's reasons straight. But whatever, the Democrats blew it big time.

I have no idea why we're in Iraq. I didn't know why we were invading the country in 2003 and I have no idea why we're there now. Is it about oil, maybe. Is it about nation building, maybe. The closest I can come to thinking why we're there is because Iraq is in the center of the Middle East. What a great place to set up home to keep an eye on other Middle Eastern countries, like a spy central. I think that's a horrible, disgusting reason to kill people, but I think if something like that were to be said, it would make sense. It would be selfish, horrific, disgusting, murderous behavior, but I could see that as Bush's reason, seeing how spying on people seems to be a favorite past time of his. :teeth: Otherwise I have no clue why we're there.

There were people who spoke out against the war, they were thought to be nuts by the neo-cons. Remember Howard Dean (who didn't have a vote on the war unfortunately) and Kucinich who was labled as nuts for speaking his mind and voting against the war. Why the Democrats sold out is beyond me. I guess it had to do with what politicians do best ... vote in the middle and hope for the best and hope to GOD you have an honest man as our leader. Too bad for the Democrats, they really dropped the ball.

On the other hand, about all this pulling out of Iraq TODAY, right NOW stuff.
Before the war started people on the left on this board were crying for an exit strategy, simply because when it was inevitable that the invasion was going to happen, no one wanted to see another Vietnam. And ... once the invasion happened people cried louder for an exit strategy. What did we get? "Stay the course", "Mission accomplished", "we'll be there as long as it takes" BS. All the while, those of us on the left kept saying, if we go in there without a strategy we'll be bogged down in there for years if not decades.

And NOW, right now, this minute without the newly elected Democrats even being in office yet, the Republicans NOW want an exit strategy when they could not have given a fig before this last election day. Funny how that works, huh?

You made this mess. You decided to vote Bush and company back into office AFTER the war started. You clean it up, no matter if the war wages on 5, 10, 20 months or years from now. You championed this war. You cheered as the bombs dropped. You cheered as stories of success where hand selected and hand fed to you. You bought the story of Bush being a uniter not a divider. You cheered the mission being accomplished. You wanted to stay the course. You wanted to be there as long as it takes. You take responsiblity for this mess and stop trying to lay the blame at the feet of the people who have been decrying this war since day one. Let's not forget, Bush is still in charge of the military and foreign policy. You do something to get him to get off his smirking, idiotic *** and get our men and women out of there before more get killed and maimed. You take responsiblity for your actions. You take responsibilty for the way the Iraqis live and die today and how they'll live and die once we pull out of there. You take responsibilty for Iraq today, tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, next century and stop trying to blame it the Democrats. You come up with a plan to get us out of your war, the war you wanted, the war you championed, the war you are NOW, three years and thousands of dead and wounded later, worried about ending. You.

And if it all goes well, I for one will sit back and smile at you and your mission and the great job you did in bringing peace in the Middle East and the entire world, it's been a dream of mine since I was a kid. I will be happy and proud of all of you who championed this war. Until then, I'll stick with trying to give others a chance to figure a way out of that debacle you call "The War on Terrorism" or is it "Iraqi Freedom" or what the hell is it anyway? :crazy2:

Well said and ITA! :thumbsup2
 
bsnyder said:
He didn't. If Bush lied, then.....the Democrats did the same - are they evil too? .
Your talking point here is based on a talking point tried by bush last year and rejected. Your theory is that the Democrats looked at the same facts as bush and did not object. That talking point was proven wrong last year and your theory that the Democrats are evil for not speaking up because the Democrats did not have access to the same information as bush. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence” as his administration. This is patently false.

Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:

FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]
FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: “The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress — ‘We believe these would be used for centrifuges.’ — didn’t deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it’s unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.” [10/7/04]​
FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “[P]eople say, ‘Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an administration which tends not to release — not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have.” [11/04/05]​
FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission” of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, “a Clinton-era National Security Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,” “the Administration consistently engaged in ‘creative omission,’ overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. ‘The President is responsible for serving the entire nation,’ Pollack writes. ‘Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government – and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]​
FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:
“The claim that the White House and Congress saw the ’same intelligence’ on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administration’s use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defense’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi.” [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]​
Bet's talking point (it is not an argument) is based on the concept that the Democrats had access to the same information as bush. That is a lie.
 
Again bet's talking point is based on the theory or claim that the Democrats had access to the same information as bush and therefore are equally at fault for not opposing the war. That talking point is WRONG as is bet's claims. Here is a great article that shoots down bet's claim that the Democrats had access to the same information as bush and therefore are equally responsible fot the mess that we are in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.....

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.
 
bsnyder said:
I'm talking about the Senate Intelligence Committee report, the Robb Silberman Report and the Kerr report. You haven't read them. If you had, you wouldn't make such a silly argument.
Bet, you have not read these reports either. Otherwise you would know what these reports covered. These reports did not cover the issue of whether bush misused the intelligence http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
Bet, you are completely and utterly WRONG. If you had actually read the reports that you claimed to have read, then you would had known what was covered by such reports. Again, the only one group that is looking into the misuse of intelligence is the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Phase II Study that I keep mentioning.

Bet, you really should read the stuff you quote. If you had, you would not make the claims that you ave. Again, even the author of the report that you claimed to have read stated
"Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry
 
bsnyder said:
And the consensus view of the US intelligence agencies, as well as those of GB, France, Germany and Russia, was that Saddam had an active chemical and biological WMD program and was working on acquiring nuclear capability.
Again, you are WRONG. France and Russia did not buy the fixed intelligence and facts being used by bush. http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-129
Myth: The Rest of the World Reached the Same Conclusions on Iraq’s Threat
President Bush: “Intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.” (11/11/05)​
Fact: British government officials doubted the conclusions reached by the Bush Administration. Several British government memos from the period prior to the war’s beginning, leaked to the press earlier this year, make clear that the British government did not agree with the Bush Administration’s assessment of Saddam Hussein. Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Blair, told the Prime Minister in a memo that “the [Bush Administration’s] case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” He also noted that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” (Memo, 7/23/02, as reported in The Sunday Times, 5/1/05)

Likewise, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Prime Minister that “there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Osama bin Laden] and Al Qaida” and that “in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action.” (Memo, 3/25/02, provided to Los Angeles Times, 6/15/05) Finally, a memo from the British Defence Secretariat states that “there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD” and, while sharing the Bush Administration’s belief that Iraq may have been continuing to develop WMD, warns that “our intelligence is poor.” (Memo, 3/8/02, provided to Los Angeles Times, 6/15/05) While the British government ultimately decided to go along with the United States in an invasion of Iraq, it is clear that British intelligence cast serious doubt on the conclusions of the Bush Administration.

Fact: Several key allies rejected the Bush Administration’s conclusions. Contrary to the Bush Administration’s assertions, several of the United States’s key allies opposed the war in Iraq, expressed uncertainty about the Administration’s conclusions regarding Iraq’s WMD, and rejected the Administration’s attempts to connect Iraq with terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Historic allies, including Germany, France, and Belgium, and key regional allies, like Russia, Jordan, and Turkey, opposed the war in Iraq and called upon the Administration to resolve the conflict by extending inspections by UN weapons experts. Moreover, while foreign leaders expressed ambivalence about the Bush Administration’s WMD claims, several leaders clearly rejected the Administration’s claims on Iraq’s links to terrorism:
French President Jacques Chirac: “No evidence has been found so far – or at least has been made official – of ties between Iraq and international terrorism, and particularly al Qaeda. So I don’t know, but for the time being, there’s no evidence, to my knowledge.” (Interview, 9/8/02)​
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov: “As for ideas that – or some allegations that there are international terrorists who are hiding in Iraq or Iraq has been implement in sponsoring terrorism, I’m afraid that’s wrong. That’s wrong information. Terrorists have unfortunately other areas where they hide.” (Meet the Press, 3/17/02)​
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov: “So far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq’s ties with al-Qaeda.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2/1/03)​
Fact: Key international agencies rejected the conclusions of the Bush Administration. Hans Blix led the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) inspections of Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003. Shortly before the Bush Administration launched its invasion of Iraq, Blix reported to the United Nations, “How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.” (2/14/03) Likewise, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported to the U.N. Security Council that several of the Bush Administration’s claims on Iraq’s nuclear program should be rejected. Specifically, Mr. ElBaradei stated that “Iraq’s efforts to import…aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges” for nuclear weapons activities, that the Administration’s allegations about Iraqi efforts to obtain enriched uranium for Niger “are unfounded,” and that there was “no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.” (3/7/03)
Yet one more of bet's claims that is false.
 
If we aren't supposed to have a time-table and we aren't supposed to summarily leave, isn't that just saying we'll be there forever?

I'm favoring immediate pull-out with no announcement. Call it "cut-and-run" or whatever spin term was created to push an agenda, but I see that as the only option for getting out with minimal loss of our troops.
 
manning said:
Was this from a democratic web site ??

Actually, everyone of those statements can be tracked back to a source such as the LA Times, the Sunday Times, Meet The Press, The Sydney Morning Herald, etc..

If they're accurately quoted, and you can easily check that yourself, it wouldn't make any difference if the gathering point was the Communist Manifesto.
 
momof2inPA said:
If we aren't supposed to have a time-table and we aren't supposed to summarily leave, isn't that just saying we'll be there forever?

I'm favoring immediate pull-out with no announcement. Call it "cut-and-run" or whatever spin term was created to push an agenda, but I see that as the only option for getting out with minimal loss of our troops.

If you listened to Abazaid on Friday, he doesn't want anymore troops, he doesn't want any troops withdrawn, and he doesn't want an artificial timetables. In other words, "STAY THE COURSE".

Since it's the Republicans who re-elected Bush and are NOW demanding a plan, they should be the ones demanding Bush get off his dead ***.
 
AMEN on this Sunday morning!

And since it hasn't happened in the last three years, let's see it happen before January since all of a sudden NOW a plan is needed. Let's see them clean up their own bloody mess.
 
Judge Smails said:
The facts I posted were dismissed out of hand as being "a coincidence".
A person would have to think that we are not pulling one drop of oil out of the ground in Iraq. The fact remains that there is oil production in Iraq, that the US government is overseeing that production and that companies like halliburton are making enormous profits off of that oil production.

We are in Iraq to take their oil.



If there was no oil production, you'd be complaining too. If we didn't oversee it and somthing bad happened to the Iraqi's oil, you'd be even more upset.

You are making a BIG assumption that because Iraq has oil and we are helping to oversee and protect it -- that we are there to take their oil.

It's like saying the guards at Fort Knox are there to steal the gold just because they are there and get paid.
 
Joe, I think you just proved Judge Smails' point with that analogy. The only difference is, from 2003 - 2006, the American military (I don't know which guards Fort Knox) didn't kill thousands of people in Kentucky in order to guard the boullion.

The Marines/soldiers at Fort Knox are guarding the Amecian's interest in Kentucky, exactly like they guard the American interest in Iraq. I guess it's okay for you to shed blood for oil, it's not for me, no matter whose blood is shed. Couldn't we as a civilized people negotiate for oil instead of killing for it and taking it forcefully?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top