The criminal Bush.

[joblo7]

whats your point?

[hopper_62]

he can't sell the shit. at least have some passion.

[tvashtarkatena]

i don't see how a contractual obligation would necessarily survive a collapse of the government?

all pre-war contracts with france russia germany became null and void upon removal of hussein (a major reason, perhaps the biggest? for the US invasion?).

 

how could they write contracts that would survive another regime change? and really, what would the enforcement mechanism be, beyond current military occupation....

 

i don't see the logic of tying the upcoming oil deal to the current build-up.

 

i suppose maliki's signature would tie the hands of future gov's, since power will surely be with iranian oops i mean iraqi shiites?

 

The oil companies have been waiting for Iraq to stabilize, and, now that they realize that's not going to happen, they want to secure a deal before things get worse. Doing so would be much better than not doing so. Perhaps they hope that the contract will a) survive what is coming or b) be reconstituted once stability returns. It's not a stretch to imagine that the oil companies are lobbying the White House hard for an Iraq stable enough to get the deal done.

 

This agreement will determine who pumps Iraqi oil for the next 30 years. It involves trillions of dollars of revenue. Surely, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the oil companies would be desparately trying to make this happen as soon as possible, as opposed to just walking away.

 

Regardless of who gains control over Iraq's oil, they're going to need foreign companies to get it out of the ground for them.

[mattp]

Its not too much of a stretch to imagine that they've decided they are going to attack Iran, either. And who knows? Syria as well? Clearly, they have litle fear of a general instability in the region.

 

I think the oil deal scenario is plausible, but there may also be other things going on at the same time.

[sexual_chocolate]

It's not a stretch to imagine that the oil companies are lobbying the White House hard for an Iraq stable enough to get the deal done.

 

yeah you know oil, infrastructure, gw, cheney, etal are holding weekly meetings on this one, with, like you said, perhaps oil being the biggest driver of overall strategy.

any idea how much of the actual factual contractual(!) dealimabobs are being discussed/disclosed in any publications? any sources for this that you know of, you know like trade publications etc.

[joblo7]

new fucking world order! and we're IT!

[tvashtarkatena]

I'll look into it tomorrow. I know the oil industry has a couple of trade rags everybody reads.

 

There's lots of reasons why W wants the surge; The primary one being that he's a complete fucking moron.

[mattp]

Or maybe he's in it for the Rapture?

[ZimZam]

The USC prevents the "INSANE CLOWN POSSE" from being tried for crimes against humanity.

[mattp]

Too bad. This guy presents a fairly plausible argument that the clowns are going to bomb Iran, which would almost certainly DEEPEN our troubles in the region, would it not?

[sexual_chocolate]

i've heard stuff floated by israel regarding the use of bunker busting nukes to get at iran's deep installations. i would think israel certainly has them.

 

i think there are people in our administration and certainly in israel who feel so strongly about iran's potential nuke capabilities that they would bomb.

 

what would the domestic legality of a US strike be? international legality they don't care about, nor does israel. my guess would be that israel would pull the trigger.

[mattp]

Meanwhile, here is more on the oil deal:

 

page

[kevbone]

wow

[Sbwood007]

Pass the Kool-aid

[KaskadskyjKozak]

hey GW, though i don't agree with anything you have to say or have done. take a bit of advice and at least have the guts to deliver a good fucking speech.

 

(hollywood version - the original is much better)

“Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

Now, an Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.

We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor bastards we’re going up against. By God, I do. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.

Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose.

There’s one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home. And you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what did you do in the great World War II, you won’t have to say, "Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

Alright now, you sons-of-bitches, you know how I feel. Oh, and I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle – anytime, anywhere.

That’s all.”

 

Great movie!

[joblo7]

"The American "surge" will be blended into the new draconian effort announced over the weekend by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: an all-out war by the government's Shiite militia-riddled "security forces" on Sunni enclaves in Baghdad, as the Washington Post reports. American troops will "support" the "pacification effort" with what Maliki says calls "house-to-house" sweeps of Sunni areas. There is of course another phrase for this kind of operation: "ethnic cleansing." "

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=989&Itemid=135 (kevb thanks)

As the conflict goes on – and it will go on and on – the Bush Administration will continue to side with whatever faction promises uphold the "hydrocarbon law" and those profitable PSAs. If "Al Qaeda in Iraq" vowed to open the nation's oil spigots for Exxon, Fluor and Halliburton, they would suddenly find themselves transformed from "terrorists" into "moderates" – as indeed has Maliki and his violent, sectarian Dawa Party, which once killed Americans in terrorist actions but are now hailed as freedom's champions.

 

excerpts for : kkk jayb fairwaiter etc , type of americans.(blind mf's)

[mattp]

Four years ago, many were saying (among other things) that we didn't support going to war for oil. Those in support of the pending invasion were scathingly critical of such naive ignorance on the part of those who would appease Saddam and referred to them as akin to a certain Mr. Chaimberlain who declined to challenge Hitler prior to World War II.

 

Now all realize that Saddam was not quite as dangerous as Hitler, and we've seen that Bush's stated reasons for invading Iraq were false. Few on the right even still maintain that the intelligence was simply mistaken without any effort to spin it, do they?

 

With this surge, the President tells us that the goal is to stabilize Iraq so the Iraqi's can take control of their own future and there can be peace, but that is obviously BS. There have been a parade of military experts telling us that the number of troops to be added is too small to tip the scales in that fashion, and that the Iraqi army and police are simply not up for the job -- even if they suddenly changed purposes overnight and abandoned their program of systematically attacking Sunni's.

 

So: what are we doing? Preparing to bomb Iran, trying to encourage this oil deal with the Iraqi's, or something else? Is there really any "bottom line" here that is not all about oil?

 

JayB? Fairweather? Any speculation?

[kevbone]

Wonder when this will happen to Bush?

 

 

 

[kevbone]

Or have this view.

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So: what are we doing? Preparing to bomb Iran, trying to encourage this oil deal with the Iraqi's, or something else? Is there really any "bottom line" here that is not all about oil?

 

JayB? Fairweather? Any speculation?

 

Bush et al want a stable gov't in Iraq that is friendly to the US (a democratic gov't is nice, but can be sacrificed for the above goals), they want a permanent presence in the country (bases and troops), and a staging ground to undermine Iran and send strikes if necessary (i.e. a nuclear reactor that goes "on-line"). this is what the pro-Iraq war people have always envisioned and wanted.

 

[W]

Bush et al want a stable gov't in Iraq that is friendly to the US (a democratic gov't is nice, but can be sacrificed for the above goals), they want a permanent presence in the country (bases and troops), and a staging ground to undermine Iran and send strikes if necessary (i.e. a nuclear reactor that goes "on-line"). this is what the pro-Iraq war people have always envisioned and wanted.

 

Is this the new goal? Permanent occupation to secure resources and launch military attacks against anyone in the region who challenges us? I thought it was about saving the oppressed Iraqis from an evil dictator? I don't seem to recall the government ever trying to sell the US public on a permanent occupation of Iraq and the middle east, although that has been my assessment nonetheless from the very beginning. It's nice to hear a confirmation that the government has indeed lied through its teeth to everyone about it's motivations.

 

Also, does this goal (new, or otherwise)have any consideration whatsoever for what the people who live in these countries want? I'm not talking about militants. I'm talking about the general population- or should we consider anyone living there who wants us to leave a 'terrorist'? Suppose the Iraqis, and all their neighbors, don't like the idea of what they see as Christian soldiers occupying Muslim lands and securing their resources? You may have a different vision but that won't change those perceptions. Surely the Iranians must be held accountable. But what you're talking about is nothing more than a modern day attempt at colonialism of a fanatical society that has resisted foreigners for thousands of years. The only thing that will be permanent from this is continued bloodshed and attacks against Americans.

[mattp]

I think you are right, Mr. K, that their vision is for a permanent "presence" consisting of bases and troops in Iraq. Certainly, we're building facilities there which are not intended to be temporary, and this vision is consistent with the neocons' stated ambitions before 911. However, they've lied to us all along, no? What of the current "surge" in troop strength (not an escalation, they say), while inching closer and close to confrontation with Iran and Syria (not a provocation, they say)?

 

What exactly do you think the current actions might be aimed at?

[joblo7]

ITS THE OIL STUPID! OOO IIIIIIIII LLLLLLLLL !!!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[joblo7]

So: what are we doing? Preparing to bomb Iran,about oil?

 

Bush et al want a stable gov't in Iraq that is friendly to the US

 

BUSH et al, is a ruthless mafia type organisation with unlimited military potential moving in on arab territory to control(steal) their oil. they will kill as many humans as it takes to get their billions.they dont give a fuck. they're animals! get it.!

dont present it like they're opening a summer camp there.!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

A strong American military presence in a friendly Middle Eastern country has been our foriegn policy since Nixon. Originally, the primary purposes were to counter possible Soviet aggression in the region and secure our oil supply. The policy began in earnest with the Shah. When Iran blew up, we floundered for a bit with 'rapid deployment' ideas, etc, eventually drifting towards Iraq and Saddam as our next proxy. We encouraged their war with Iran to reduce the latter's regional influence. Further east, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan resulted in our unholy matrimony with Pakistan. Years before the USSR desintigrated, Paul Wolfowitz wrote up a scenario for countering military aggression by an Arab country; a alternate way for the region to be destabilized. He picked Iraq for this study. It was his study, after some modification, that became the war plan for Desert Storm.

 

Grenada, Desert Storm, Panama, these were all tests uses of American military power after Vietnam. The public was either all for these operations, or didn't react to them at all. This public reaction, or lack thereof, basically provided W with a political green light to move forward with the more aggressive strategy of direct occupation in Iraq.

 

The problem, of course, is that the result of our 35 year involvement in the Middle East has been the destabilization of the region; exactly what we'd hoped to avoid. Like Vietnam, it has produced yet another expensive failure.

 

I believe those who supported the 2003 invasion, and who believe that, had we done things 'differently', we would have succeeded in producing a stable Iraq are wrong in their thinking. The plan was a failure in concept as well as execution. Wholesale invasions unavoidably destroy institutions, infrastructure, and the social fabric. Add to this that Iraq is a fractured country with a downtrodden majority and a priveledged, deposed minority who would inevitably fight each other over the oil money. Any invasion plan, no matter how well thought out, would have produced the strong insurgency and a stronger, more belligerant Iran that we see today. Not disbanding the military might have prolonged our honeymoon period slightly (the only recommendation I've heard that would have made any difference whatsoever...the rest we tried), but it would not have addressed to two fundamental issues above. Invasion was simply a bad idea from the start, which is why those with the most experience in Middle Eastern affairs (Wolfie excepted) tried to caution the administration against it.

 

Unfortunately, as in the case of Vietnam, when faced with an untenable situation a president often does more of the same and gets us in deeper. Attack Iran? At this point, unfortunately, it seems increasingly likely.

 

Anyone wonder why we're accreting 92,000 more troops for 'combat' readiness? Combat readiness where, exactly?

 

 

Edited January 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena