THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Quite jealous of Sand Bag McTag's new name.
Any chance of one for me Ican?

Yesterday I got roundly condemned for suggesting the Iraq oil heist was a betrayal of the ordinary soldier. This morning from the Guardian

No home fit for heroes

Around 130,000 veterans of the Iraqi conflict have already returned to the US. For some, all that awaits is a life of virtual destitution. So far, the numbers are small, but the fear is that they are just the start of a chronic problem that America will be dealing with for years to come.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/
0,12271,1450822,00.html

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:
Showing there were in existence plans to take over and privatise the Iraqi oil industry within weeks of Bush's inauguration in 2001

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=0

Sand-Bag-McTag, left out the rest of this BBC story. For example (ican added the boldface):

Quote:
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
...

Privatization blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.

...

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

Again we are confronted by a BBC allegation of uncertain validity about an alleged scheme by the Bush&Adm that was not implemented. What sly devils these guys are. No one can disprove that a nefarious plan was formulated if it was never implemented. What guys? Why of course the always reliable BBC guys via sand-bag-mctag

This seems like nonsense to me, as usual. I gave the link for anyone who wished to read on. The Greg Palast site, too, gives links for further evidence in corroboration. So, innocent as charged. But sand will be useful to you, since you like to keep your head in it.

I try to keep my posts as short as reasonably possible (an aim I commend to you) and I took from the material only the point I wished to bring out: namely, that there was a plan within this US administration to divide and privatise the assets (oil production) of another sovereign country (Iraq) before any hostilities were arranged with that country.

And so this leads on to the conclusion that it is a very strong likelihood (to put it at its mildest) that all the flannel over the 9-11 attack and its aftermath was a smokscreen to mask that earlier underlying intention; grand larceny, an international crime.

I go further, although not many here have joined me yet, in saying that complicity in the 9-11 attack was part of the US administrations plan; at the very least, to use the 9-11 attack to focus hatred on a country which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. But I think in all probability that they actually knew the attack would help them in the goal of warmongering and so deliberately did nothing to prevent it- but unaccountably letting planeloads of Saudis escape the next day, when all other flights were banned.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quite jealous of Sand Bag McTag's new name.
Any chance of one for me Ican?

Yesterday I got roundly condemned for suggesting the Iraq oil heist was a betrayal of the ordinary soldier. This morning from the Guardian

No home fit for heroes

Around 130,000 veterans of the Iraqi conflict have already returned to the US. For some, all that awaits is a life of virtual destitution. So far, the numbers are small, but the fear is that they are just the start of a chronic problem that America will be dealing with for years to come.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/
0,12271,1450822,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1450822,00.html

Thanks Steve, that link will work better (for wingnuts open-minded enough to read The Guardian)

0 Replies

Thanks for repairing the link McT

0 Replies

Sand Bag McTag and Unbelieven Steven join the ranks of true and faithful skeptics. (Brit spelling in their honour.)

0 Replies

Troops were guarding the ministry of oil while the rest of Baghdad was looted .... maybe the troops' were acting on their own volition as in Abu Ghraib ... who knows?

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Sand Bag McTag and Unbelieven Steven join the ranks of true and faithful skeptics. (Brit spelling in their honour.)

Impressive spelling, and persuasive argument. Er.... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I go further, although not many here have joined me yet, in saying that complicity in the 9-11 attack was part of the US administrations plan; at the very least, to use the 9-11 attack to focus hatred on a country which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. But I think in all probability that they actually knew the attack would help them in the goal of warmongering and so deliberately did nothing to prevent it- but unaccountably letting planeloads of Saudis escape the next day, when all other flights were banned.

It's hardly surprising so few have chosen to join you on such a precarious limb.

0 Replies

Quote:

The report blamed everyone involved in the WMD fiasco except the Bush administration officials who actually made the decision to go to war. "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received," the commission explained. That omission is unfortunate. If there's one thing that has become clear in the history of U.S. intelligence over the past 50 years it is that the CIA is not in fact a rogue agency. It is shaped, often to a fault, by the priorities and pet projects of whoever is in the White House. Intelligence supports policy, but it doesn't make it.

clyop, this says it all. Personally I have no evidence that disputes the words quoted from the commission member.

When posters post quotes from actual people that is easy to prove or disprove that the person quoted said it or not.

The article I cut and pasted came from the Washington Post which is hardly scouring the internet for obscure articles. It wasn't an opinion piece but a news information regarding the commission which looked into the intelligence failure (so called) leading up to the Iraq war. (Which initially Bush didn't even want to form but was pressured into it like he was the 9/11 report. Just like the 9/11 report he managed to make stipulations that hindered a true and open inquiry.

Lastly, lately I have been feeling a bit sorry for those who do not belong to an exclusive club like the Blame America First Club and I set my mind to coming up with a name for those who don't qualify to get into such a sought after club and came up with a (not really original) club, I call it the Blame Everybody But Bush club or to make it short and instantly recognizable: BEBB.

[note, if the name has already been formed, sorry for my overlooking it]

0 Replies

Well, I read the piece in the Guardian - the heart wrenching stories of Harld and Nicole. Harold who when offered a job, declined, saying he preferred to continue working for the advocacy group he was touting; and Nicole who despite being "A smart young woman with plans to go to university and study political science and journalism, Nicole's outlook on life is generally upbeat. "They throw you a lot of lemons and you have to make lemonade," she says. ", can no longer get along with her mother, and has chosen instead to reject the home offered to her and join the ranks of "homeless' who, while living off the dole still claim to "get no state benefits".

Worse the vaunted Guardian, with its well known scientific and statistical acumen notes that there are already 67 cases like those of Harold and Nicole out of 130,000 veterans who have returned from the conflict. Think of it - 67 out of 130,000, an overwhelming 0.05% of returning veterans will have some adjustment problems. The Guardian writer, with suitable self-righteous overtones goes on to cite this as the precursor to a tide of such problems that will overwhelm us. No mention of the indisputable fact that many times 0.05% of almost any randomly selected group of people will have serious adjustment problems. Indeed well over 0.05% of the well-favored graduates of elite universities encounter such problems.

How an educated, reasonably intelligent person could so credulously accept such transparent propaganda is something that defies understanding. Even more amazing is their posting it here as some sort of "proof". Evidently McTag and Steve are in the grip of prejudices and preconceptions that run very deep, able to so cloud their judgement that they offer this transparent crap to a skeptical audience as though it is compelling truth. Such a profound lack of situational awareness on their part cries for explanation.

0 Replies

so the message from geroge is, enjoin youselves in a war zone and become well adjusted ahead of the statistical probablity. good mental health is a product of an m-16 in one hand and a bible in the other.

0 Replies

Not at all. That sort of "statistical inference", based on unverifiable and meaningless taxonomies, is the specialty of the Guardian and other like rags.

This was not quite up to your par, Dys.

0 Replies

He's been under the weather lately. I expect him to say "faggot" any minute.

....<harkens>

0 Replies

George wrote

"Even more amazing is their posting it here as some sort of "proof". Evidently McTag and Steve are in the grip of prejudices and preconceptions that run very deep, able to so cloud their judgement that they offer this transparent crap to a skeptical audience as though it is compelling truth. Such a profound lack of situational awareness on their part cries for explanation."

I only posted the article George, I didn't write it. In fact I didn't even read it apart from the opening paragraph. just posted it to get some feed back Smile

Gary Younge is not my favourite columnist. But neither is the Guardian a rag.

Kara thanks for the tag

Wasn't Unbelieven Steven brother of Doubting Thomas?

0 Replies

well it is springtime here and as I prune up the small trees and shrubs I bind the fagots to be hauled away.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well Ican, just reading these last few pages, there are those who scour the internet looking for articles to support their point of view and they post them and post them and post them as 'proof' of the facts no matter how many other articles dispute those same facts. (I'm not commenting about those--including me--who post something with new information, a new slant on an issue, or a different point of view that is constructive to the debate.)

The fact is, some can't do what George suggested--adjust their conclusions as new evidence is presented. The--what do you call them, the "Irratios?" will conclude from their posts what even their posts don't say.

Foxy, what do you want to tell us with this post? "... there are those who scour the internet looking for articles to support their point of view..." So you don't do that? Oh, wait, you say you do, too: "I'm not commenting about those--including me--who post something with new information, a new slant on an issue, or a different point of view that is constructive to the debate"...

Foxy, what is "constructive to the debate"? Only what you approve of? Look at ican: he's posting over and over and over again the very same statements or opinions, even without giving any link at all. That hardly qualifies as "constructive to the debate" re your definition, yet I haven't seen any attacks on ican by you. Is that because you mostly agree with his opinion?

Everybody scours the internet looking for articles to support his point of view. Everybody. Some are looking for opinion pieces, some are looking for more matter-of-fact information. Most of us probably look for information that supports a different point of view. But attacking people for doing so is something I can hardly agree with.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Repeatedly posted:

<snip>

Al Qaeda were based in Iraq prior to US invasion of Iraq.

You posted this repeatedly indeed. Nevertheless, it's a lie.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I only posted the article George, I didn't write it. In fact I didn't even read it apart from the opening paragraph. just posted it to get some feed back

Gary Younge is not my favourite columnist. But neither is the Guardian a rag.

Well, you posted it in the context of supporting your equally absurd contention that somehow our soldiers have been and feel betrayed by the evil machinations of a foreign policy bent on seizing oil reserves before the imagined calamity of 'peak oil' hits us. Given that, whether you read it or not, doesn't really change the emptiness of the argument or the many verifiable facts that prove it wrong.

My expressed opinion of the Guardian was excessive. Undoubtedly there are some merits in some of the stuff published in it. The example you provided us however was obvious propaganda, based on palpably false inference and positively (and likely deliberately) misleading. Not an example of professional journalism, even by small town standards.

By the way, if we are as unscrupulous as you contend, and if oil was our motive, we could always take Venezuela. The logistics would be easier, the regime easier to knock down - the whole effort much simpler.

0 Replies

Yes I did post it because I think the ordinary soldier is being used in furtherance of goals which he/she would not have signed up for.

You keep saying peak oil is fantasy pseudo science etc. But for me that and the euro/dollar currency competition are the only things that can make sense of the Iraq adventure.

If you think I'm being petulant about it, you're right. I was one who was pursuaded by Blair's rhetoric to support the war. And I'm frankly outraged that all the reasonable sounding justifications for it have been knocked down one by one to leave the obvious motive that no one likes to talk about in polite company...oil.

0 Replies

Venezuela?

Thats on the list too.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know