Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

He's at it again!!

Quote:

At a recent joint press conference, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, were asked if the battle against the insurgency and against "foreign" terrorists was being won.

General Myers said that despite the increase in violence, the US was making progress.

"I think we're definitely winning," he said. I think we've been winning for some time." He went on to say that in terms of "incidents", "it's right where it was a year ago".

Mr Rumsfeld avoided the question. "Winning or losing is not the issue in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word 'winning' and 'losing' in a war," he said.

source

0 Replies

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/pics/7843.jpg

Quote:

"Stealing" the "oil" is the real issue!!

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
"Stealing" the "oil" is the real issue!!

This is fascinating! How exactly are we doing this? Are we loading big ships with oil, not paying for it, and transporting it to the US? I would love to know the details of this theft.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
"Stealing" the "oil" is the real issue!!

This is fascinating! How exactly are we doing this? Are we loading big ships with oil, not paying for it, and transporting it to the US? I would love to know the details of this theft.

No, not daylight robbery brandon - just making sure that the oil is there for Halliburton, that's all. See taking it all would lower the price and attack profits. But tying up the huge reserves of oil in Iraq by invading and occupying and installing a puppet government means that (a) the oil is there when needed and (b) the price can be kept high by keeping it off the market.

Simple really Very Happy

Oh and I'm not forgetting that's exactly what the British and French did back when it was Mesopotamia :wink:

0 Replies

http://img58.echo.cx/img58/9554/tinfoil20hat9wc.jpg

0 Replies

I'd prefer the thousand words Timber Very Happy

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
"Stealing" the "oil" is the real issue!!

This is fascinating! How exactly are we doing this? Are we loading big ships with oil, not paying for it, and transporting it to the US? I would love to know the details of this theft.

No, not daylight robbery brandon - just making sure that the oil is there for Halliburton, that's all. See taking it all would lower the price and attack profits. But tying up the huge reserves of oil in Iraq by invading and occupying and installing a puppet government means that (a) the oil is there when needed and (b) the price can be kept high by keeping it off the market.

Simple really

Oh and I'm not forgetting that's exactly what the British and French did back when it was Mesopotamia :wink:

Well, you are speculating as to motive. I would like to see any evidence you have that this was Bush's intention, as opposed to what he says his intention was. It seems to me that if we wanted to set up a puppet government, setting up a system of permanent free elections and putting in a government that might at any time rebel agains their American "slavemasters" isn't a very good plan.

0 Replies

Quote:

Pump prices for regular grade gasoline fell 0.3 cent to an average $2.175 a gallon yesterday, according to the AAA, formerly the American Automobile Association. Prices touched a record $2.276 a gallon on April 8 and are 13 percent higher than a year ago.

source

0.3 CENTS!!!
Woo-hoo!

Let me see - the citizens of Iraq are gaining nothing from the vast amount of oil being taken from their nation AND in the USA you are still paying close to $50 a barrel for crude!

0 Replies

And you now have to find another more billions to 'reconstruct' Iraq......

Quote:

This week, Congress unanimously passed legislation to provide an extra $US82 billion ($107 billion) in emergency funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The cost of these wars now exceeds $US300 billion, and many observers believe there will be further requests for money before the end of the year.

Where has ALL the billions and billions of dollars that the 'reconstruction' agencies took in for the last two years selling all that Iraqi oil??

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ...asked if the battle against the insurgency and against "foreign" terrorists was being won.

Mr Rumsfeld... "Winning or losing is not the issue in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word 'winning' and 'losing' in a war," he said.

jesus h. jones on a shingle! now that is an astoundingly immaculate work of complete bullcrap.

conventional context ??? wtf ??

there are only two outcomes in a war... you win, or you lose. period.

if this is the kind of alleged leadership guiding the war in iraq, no wonder the "very fast, in and out war" is still going on.

yeah, there's a lot of "in and out" going on, but it ain't in iraq.

send this pnac'ing jerkweed over to baghdad and let him do some of the dirty work. ten will get ya twenty he figures out the difference between winning and losing in any context pretty damn quick.

why do people keep supporting this bunch of idiots ???

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, you are speculating as to motive. I would like to see any evidence you have that this was Bush's intention, as opposed to what he says his intention was. It seems to me that if we wanted to set up a puppet government, setting up a system of permanent free elections and putting in a government that might at any time rebel agains their American "slavemasters" isn't a very good plan.

I am speculating, you're quite right. I haven't got any hard evidence at all. However I would point to the revised multiple reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the fact that Rumsfeld has stated there was/is not exit plan to bolster my speculation.

As far as the free elections and government is concerned, yes, it's a risk but probably one that had to be taken.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
"Stealing" the "oil" is the real issue!!

This is fascinating! How exactly are we doing this? Are we loading big ships with oil, not paying for it, and transporting it to the US? I would love to know the details of this theft.

No, not daylight robbery brandon - just making sure that the oil is there for Halliburton, that's all. See taking it all would lower the price and attack profits. But tying up the huge reserves of oil in Iraq by invading and occupying and installing a puppet government means that (a) the oil is there when needed and (b) the price can be kept high by keeping it off the market.

Simple really

Oh and I'm not forgetting that's exactly what the British and French did back when it was Mesopotamia :wink:

What does Halliburton have to do with the oil?
Halliburton doesnt own any oil wells,they dont pump oil,they dont own any oil tankers,they dont own any refineries,and they dont own any gas stations.

They are NOT an oil company,and they dont make any money from the oil.

0 Replies

No? How do they make their money?

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

No? How do they make their money?

Halliburton is an oil services company.
They do maintenance on wells,they provide transportation to oil fields,they maintain oil pipelines,they provide pumps,well heads,and other equipment to oil companies.

http://www.halliburton.com/

Go to their website and see for yourself.
But,they DO NOT own,produce,transport,or otherwise have any interest in oil itself.
They are just a service company for the oil industry.

0 Replies

Thanks for the correction. Yes - quite an impressive website too.

Okay I shall amend my comment to,"...just making sure the oil is there, that's all".

Reference to Halliburton is wrong. I won't edit the original post - but the error is noted here.

0 Replies

Haliburton is a hell of a lot more than "just a service company for the oil industry." That ludicrous statement is roughly equivalent to suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was just a military exercise.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Haliburton is a hell of a lot more than "just a service company for the oil industry." That ludicrous statement is roughly equivalent to suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was just a military exercise.

ahh, the old "so what's wrong with halliburton" routine.

halliburton/kbr and a few other subsidiaries basically provide just about everything materiel and service related for the art of war. with roots extending back as far as the early 1900's, kbr has been the us government's go to guy, beginning early on with ship building.

there's a hell of a lot of pretty decent info out there on the halliburton/kbr thing. the more you read about it, the more questions you have...

0 Replies

Unless, of course, one restricts one's reading to the material provided at the Halliburton web site.

0 Replies

The exit policy is dependent upon Halliburton. Whenever they tell Chaney that they have gotten all the loot they can out of Iraq we will exit.

0 Replies

Halliburton was the same company that managed to rack up some additional 'overheads' moving fuel into Iraq from.................... Kuwait!!!!

Quote:

Halliburton (NYSE: HAL), which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney until he joined the race for the White House in 2000, has said its KBR subsidiary delivered fuel for the best possible price in Iraq and has consistently denied overcharges.

KBR is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and is under investigation by several U.S. government departments over whether it overcharged for some services.

Waxman, a Democrat, is pressing for hearings on Halliburton's work in Iraq, particularly for the delivery of fuel.

Reuters added that more than $1.7 billion in Iraqi money, drawn from the Development Fund for Iraq, were paid to Halliburton to bring fuel to Iraq.

source

0 Replies

Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know