0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 07:11 am
"Many of them do have that background. Irving Kristol uses this past in a rather sneaky manner (credibility enhancement of a sort) with his well-noted line, "I was a leftist who was mugged by reality." Of course, not all victims of a serious mugging evolve into higher beings, some become insane vigiliantees. Horowitz is another example. Let me quote the fine fellow: "...you cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.'""

Blatham, sorry i cant get the stupid quote thing to work properly i find it easier to cut and paste

But from your comments above is this where the Leo Strauss-neo Conservative connection comes in?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:12 am
I have no doubt that some of the unaccounted $100 million in Iraqi reconstruction funds was stolen, but it is likely to be a very small fraction of that total. Those of you who have ever filled out your own tax forms will have an impression of the inanities of government accounting. The immediate challenges of reconstruction in Iraq required cash payments for labor, services and materials, and often precluded compiance with the bureaucratic norms for awarding contracts and accounting for funds distributed. Officials and contractors did what was necessary and opened the doors to the pipsqueak accountants after the fact - guess what, they were unable to audit or account for the proper distribution of 0.1% of the funds spent (note - one-tenth of one percent!). So $100 million is "unaccounted for". One of the major contractors doing the Iraqi reconstruction is an investor in my firm, and we too have a small piece of the action, so these observations are more than just remote opinion.

Steve and I agree that (1) oil consumption is rising fast; (2) that one day conventional oil extraction will peak and begin to decline. We disagree on just how soon that peak will occur; on the availability and potential of other oil extraction techniques (horizontal drilling, deep wells, enhanced recovery); other sources including shale and tar sands; and finally on the rate at which the eventual decline in production will occur. I believe the peak is at least 40 years distant and that the decline in production (if it occurs then) will be very slow. Oil reserves are themselves dependent on the price of this commodity. When the price goes up by over 60% (as it has done in the last several years) new sources and new techniques become feasible, adding to availability. Even without price increases, technical inniovation has steadily added to the reserve potential of even known oil fields - a phenomenon that should be familiar to the owners of the North Sea oil fields.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:22 am
blatham wrote:

Quote:
That's why I enjoy arguing with you. Friendship & respect helps too.
I'm getting misty and can no longer type...


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Go to hell!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:54 am
blatham wrote:


Doubly unknown, adding that moral component. American soldiers can now be captured and tortured by the precedent the US has set. As a fundamental moral principle, we are hypocrites when we ask others to act in a manner which we ourselves refuse to act. China can, again by US precedent, feel free to unilaterally declare and engage military operations upon some state it declares a danger. The US, by consequence of its decision that might does make right leaves itself open, in any consistent set of moral principles, to anything done to it which falls outside of agreements she has made and has stuck to consistently.


Nonsense. American soldiers were tortured by the North Koreans during that war and later by the North Vietnamese. There are but few new risks afoot on that score. It is the fear of retaliation, not conventions signed in Switzerland that limit such actions.

China has already fought us in Korea - a war in which it took on the "unassailable" moral force of the vaunted United Nations. That regime has already shown the world its full understanding of the ancient principles os strategy as set down by Sun Tsu, and its ready willingness to pursue realpolitik. I doubt seriously that we have changed their views of what is permissable at all.

Might made right long before there was a United States and long before any decisions we have made. We haven't changed anything in that area, except perhaps the foolish illusions of those who live in an imaginary world.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:00 am
George if we can agree that conventional oil will peak sometime between now and 50 years hence then we are making some progress. You say peak oil is at least 40 years away. I would like reassurance on that. I am not a petroleum geologist so I have to rely on others for expertise in that field. This from PowerSwitch statement of beliefs:


... the growing consensus amongst the World's leading petroleum geologists and geophysicists is that the peak of global oil production will occur at some point within the next 10 years...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=444&Itemid=2


Two things strike me from that statement

1. That you are really sticking your neck out if you use a phrase like "the growing consensus amongst the World's leading petroleum geologists" if there isnt one

2. 10 years or 15 years or even 20 years is really saying "its happening now"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:04 am
If petroleum production begins to dramatically drop in our lifetimes, i will be amused, cynically amused, to watch the global capitalists scrambling to unearth the alternative energy programs they have buried in the past. They have some problems with those, however. They cannot charge you for the wind, nor for the light of the sun. No amount of invasions will secure control of such energy sources.

Hmm . . . what to do, what to do?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:50 am
Set, I noticed recently that BP advertises itself as Beyond Petroleum.

Oil is unlike other natural resources. As the price increases, more activity goes into extracting it. But no high price can avoid the day when more energy goes into extraction than is liberated by the oil itself. You have an energy sink rather than a source. In practise commerical considerations dictate the well is abandoned long before that point. But its ok because we keep finding more oil, except that we are now consuming every year 4 times the amount we find.

In the long term we will have to move away from oil. Its the transition over the next 20-30 years that will be difficult. I belief these considerations are dictating US/UK policy towards the whole middle eastern region.

[and in fact always have. When steam turbines and oil fired boilers gave the Royal Navy a big advantage, Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty took a keen interest in the affairs of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, now known as BP or Beyond Petroleum]
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:24 pm
Steve,

I agree that we will not likely find the very large pools of easily recovered shallow depth oil in the same quantities that we have in the past century. However, it is noteworthy that it wasn't until almost a centrury had passed since the dawn of the petroleum age that the huge deposits in the North and Norwegian Seas were discovered right in the midst of one of the great centers of consumption. We have only recently begun to exploit the large fields still being mapped on the Atlantic coast of Central Africaq. There are likely more to be found in Central Asia, perhaps the Arctic area of Siberia and the Pacific Maratime provinces of Russia, and perhaps Africa. The earth is very old and the potential for buried biomass is very great.

The Allies fought WWII largely with American petroleum - we depleted huge reserves pumping them often at excessive rates to sustain the war effort. However there are still occasional finds at greater depths even here. Just two days ago a small company announced the discovery of a new deep field in an area of Utah that had previously been thought fully surveyed. The estimated recovery is not huge - just one or two billion barrels, but it is more than a blip on the "peak oil" charts you cited.

The elasticity of the estimate of recoverable oil reserves with the price of that commodity is significantly increased by new technologies (horizontal drilling, deep wells, deep ocean drilling, enhanced extraction, etc.) which are constantly being improved. Moreover technical innovation and price have made new sources, including the tar sands of Alberta and the huge shale deposits in the U.S. Rocky Mountain region, entirely feasible - indeen production from Alberta is underway now using new in situ energy efficient processes for extracting the oil from the sands. The U.S. has huge reserves of high quality coal that one day mifght become a sources of liquid or gaseous fuel as well. The earth is very old and the organic potential of buried biomass is very large - we have every reason to expect continued new techniques and sources to emerge.

Oddly the output of solar and wind powered sources of energy have rather consistently fallen well below the predictions of the (largely armchair) protagonists of these sources. Residents of the San Francisco area who drive over the Altamont Pass into the Central Valley note the many hundreds of wind turbine towers (mostly feathered and idle) that crowd the ridge horizon for miles along the pass. What few realize is that even at peak capacity their cumulative total output is not even half that of a standard-sized coal or nuclear power plant.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:33 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
. . . [and in fact always have. When steam turbines and oil fired boilers gave the Royal Navy a big advantage, Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty took a keen interest in the affairs of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, now known as BP or Beyond Petroleum]


I have long asserted this in varoius threads. It is usually greeted with stoney silence. More to the point, Churchill, long after he ceased to be First Lord, helped Arthur Balfour to divide the former Ottoman territories. Given Balfour's advanced age, and the radical shift of boundaries from those originally proposed, to those actually implemented after Churchill took a hand in it--i believe that the lust for oil for the Royal Navy lead Chruchill to set the new borders. And, of course, this lead to the first Iraq fiasco, in the 1920's, when insurrgents targeted Tommies.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:33 pm
Well George, I really do hope you are right. But these days it is so easy to find disturbing views (I've never heard of Boone Pickens...maybe you have)

Quote:-

Legendary oil magnate calls it, peak oil is here

Boone Pickens Warns of Petroleum Production Peak

May 04, 2005 PALM SPRINGS, CA. - May 3, 2005. By EV World

Legendary Oklahoma energy magnate, T. Boone Pickens will be 77 years old this month, and maybe because of that, he feels free to speak what's on his mind; and he did to an audience of alternative fuel advocates in Palm Springs today.

Addressing the 11th National Clean Cities conference, hosted by the former mayor of Palm Springs and introduced by former U.S. Energy Secretary John Herrington (1984-1989), Boone, as his friends refer to him, was candid in his views of wind energy, nuclear power, natural gas, and in particular petroleum.

While he acknowledges wind power is cheap today, he, as well as former-Secretary Herrington, questioned the contribution it can make to the nation's future energy needs. He finds nuclear power attractive and believes natural gas should be used to power our transportation fleets rather than to generate electricity. In general, he was very upbeat about the prospects for alternative transportation fuels.

But on the future of petroleum, he was less sanguine.

"Let me tell you some facts the way I see it," he began. "Global oil (production) is 84 million barrels (a day). I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels. I don't care what (Saudi Crown Prince) Abdullah, (Russian Premier Vladimir) Putin or anybody else says about oil reserves or production. I think they are on decline in the biggest oil fields in the world today and I know what's it like once you turn the corner and start declining, it's a tread mill that you just can't keep up with.

"So, when you start adding the reserves in these countries, you're not even replacing what you're taking out.

"Let me take you to another situation quickly. 84 million barrels a day times 365 days is 30 billion barrels of oil a year that we're depleting. All of the world's (oil) industry doesn't even come close to replacing 30 billion barrels of oil. We don't spend enough money to even give ourselves a chance to replace 30 billion barrels. It may be because the prospects are not there. I rather imagine that's what the answer is to that.

"So, if you accept that 84 million barrels a day is all the world can (produce), and then look at refining capacity, I think it's just a coincidence that refining capacity... world capacity... is 84 million barrels a day. So, we're in balance: 84, 84.

"Now you see the projections for the fourth quarter of '05, I mean like tomorrow; it is 86 to 87 million barrels of oil a day required. China (and) India (are) growing fast. Our economy is going down a little bit, but it doesn't seem to be shutting off demand for gasoline, oil, natural gas, whatever. But around the world... just assume that the (U.S.) economy is slowing, but China is still ramped up; it is still 86, 87 million for the fourth quarter.

"Now we've got some pretty good inventory, those will be... I think.. they'll be gone in the third quarter. I can't wait to see how this is all going to play out.

"Don't let the day-to-day NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange) fool you, because it can turn and go the other direction. I may be wrong. Some of the experts say we'll be down to $35 oil by the end of the year. I think it'll be $60 oil by the end of the year. You're going to see $3 gasoline twelve months from today, or some time during that period. I know you've already experienced it in California. I am not that much out of it... But in the Midwest you've probably got $2.20 today. That's the way I see it unfolding".

Pickens went to explain that if he were Energy "Czar", he'd immediately begin to phase out the use of natural gas in electric power generation and encourage the construction of more coal-fired and nuclear power plants. He'd use the natural gas to power transportation instead.

Speaking of the various alternative fuels, he stated, "I don't think any of them can miss. I think some will be further out than others. Hydrogen, I think, is going to take a long time". Speaking before an audience with vested interests in ethanol, biodiesel, propane and compressed natural gas as transportation fuels, he added that he believes all the alternatives will work.

"We're going to have to use shale oil the western slope of the Rockies. That's going to happen. The technology is just about here", he noted, adding that he blames both Republican and Democratic administrations for not engaging in long term planning to meet the nation's future energy needs.

"It's all getting very, very tight. We're just about there. The sixty percent we import now (of petroleum), is about all we can get from the countries that export". He cited the example of Venezuela where its "screwball" leader, Hugo Chavez has pledged to not sell any additional oil to the United States.

"The majors, they talk about plenty of oil and that they can produce more, but if you look at ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, BP (British Petroleum), all the production (is) going down every year. They don't replace and they don't add to production, but they say there's plenty of oil around.

"Now why would they say that? One of the chief economists with one of the major oil companies... I was at a conference where he was... we were talking and I asked, why do they say that? And he said, can you imagine what would happen if one of these major oil company's CEO's got up and made a speech and he said, 'We're running out of oil'? I said there'd be panic and he said, 'That's right. They're not going to make the statement. They're going to say there's plenty of oil around'".

"I know that sounds rather simple, but that's the best answer I've had... why they keep saying that there's plenty of oil around. I can't tell you positive, but I am just so sure that we have peaked and from here on the demand side that we are going to have a hard time making the trip on fuel. I know demand will come down with price. That will happen".

He answered several audience questions and predicted that if the summer is hot in the Southeast that natural gas prices will go to $10. "Natural gas is in decline", he stated, concluding that eventually the market will sort out the winners and losers".

After his remarks, EV World asked Mr. Pickens if he agrees with Houston-based investment banker Matthew Simmons that Saudi Arabia's oil fields may be on the verge of decline and he replied that he did agree him.

If Pickens and Simmons are correct, then Crown Prince Abdullah's promises to raise production over the next ten years to 15 million barrels a day may be just wishful thinking, in which case, Saudi Arabia's role as swing producer and oil price stabilizer may be a thing of the past. Oil prices will begin to experience unprecedented volatility, which is likely to place serious stresses on a world largely unprepared for the end of cheap fossil fuels. The road from here on will be a bumpy one.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 12:35 pm
In an American context, Boone Pickens does indeed deserve the sobriquet "legendary" . . .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 06:19 pm
Setanta wrote:
In an American context, Boone Pickens does indeed deserve the sobriquet "legendary" . . .


Boone Pickens: legendary, yes; omniscient, no.

Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).

91 million acres = 142,188 square miles.

9,100 acres =14.21875 square miles.

That's one-ten-thousandth of the size of ANWR.

President Bush has proposed development of an area in ANWR for oil production that is smaller than 9,100 acres.

... And it's ours!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 06:24 pm
You say we invaded Iraq for its oil. Did you mean we invaded Iraq so we could reduce its oil production? Intentional or not, that is exactly what has been accomplished.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:05 pm
Quote:
Iraqi Powers Link Dialogue to Pullout Timetable

"Cabinet posts and titles are insignificant if they were meant to marginalize the Iraqis of variant ethnic backgrounds," said Dari.

By Samir Haddad, IOL Correspondent

BAGHDAD, May 7, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) - The second anti-occupation conference in Iraq rejected on Saturday, May 7, any talks with the new government unless it clearly seeks a timetable for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation forces.

"We want an official and clear timetable for the withdrawal guaranteed by the United Nations and neutral international bodies," said Harith Al-Dari, the Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and a member of the conference's secretariat-general.

"Only then, we will offer our hands to the government, otherwise we will carry on with our peaceful opposition until we achieve our goal," he said, adding that the Iraqi people do not expect the withdrawal overnight.

"The Iraqi people are rejecting the US-led occupation," stressed the leader of the AMS, the highest Sunni religious authority in Iraq.

He said anti-occupation powers have countered government claims that the pullout of US-led occupation troops would spark a civil war.

"We frequently told them that the intervention of the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) would help achieve independence and stability," said the prominent Iraqi scholar.

"If not, the Iraqi army, which is well-trained and respected by all ethnic groups, can be reinstated to take over."

The conference, which was hosted by the Bar Association in Baghdad, brought together a cohort of Sunni and Shiite figures along with ambassadors of different Arab countries.

Slogans like "Get Out of Our Country," "InvadersÂ…Go Home," and "One Country, One People and One Army," were emblazoned across the conference room.

In their first conference, which was held on February 15, the anti-occupation powers set their own conditions to join the political landscape, chiefly a pullout timetable.

Main Problem

Calling the US-led occupation "the mother of all problems in Iraq," Dari said the failure of setting such a timetable is an insult to all Iraqis.

"It will marginalize all Iraqis, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkomans and Christians alike, and play well into the hands of the occupiers and their proxies," he told the conference.

The AMS leader continued: "Cabinet posts and titles are insignificant if they were meant to marginalize the Iraqis of variant ethnic backgrounds.

"Those cabinet ministers are, in effect, helpless and powerless and do not represent the people on the street."

Iraqi sources said Saturday that Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari agreed on who will be the country's new defense and oil ministers, breaking an impasse which prevented the full cabinet from being sworn.

They told Reuters that Saadoun Al-Dulaimi, a Sunni Arab, would be the new defense minister, while Ibrahim Bahr Al-Uloum, a Shiite, would take the key oil ministry.

Shiite and Kurdish leaders, who won the parliamentary elections and have the lion's share of portfolios, have promised to give key cabinet posts to Sunni Arabs.

There are only 17 Sunni Arab lawmakers in the 275-member parliament.

The majority of Sunnis did not cast ballot in the polls, citing lack of transparency and fair play under the US occupation, with the AMS championing the boycott call.

Unity

The anti-occupation conference's secretary general, Shiite scholar Mohammad Mahdi Al-Khalsi, said the conference is also aimed at preserving Iraq's national unity.

"We will stand firmly in the face of all crimes in a patriotic and Islamic spirit," he pledged.

Dari stressed, meanwhile, that fighting terrorism, enhancing security and resisting the US-led occupation cannot justify the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians.

"The Iraqis will eventually rebel against the new dictators who unjustifiably shed civilian blood," he said.

The AMS leader warned that conspiracies are concocted against Iraq under the cloak of US-led occupation.

"They all serve the US-Zionist scheme in the region," he said, urging the Iraqi people to act in unison.

"This conference constitutes a bulwark against such malicious schemes."

The bodies of fourteen Iraqi Sunnis, who were shot dead and left at a Baghdad garbage dump, were found on Friday.

The AMS published the names of the 14 victims, all from one of Iraq's most powerful tribes. Some were brothers, according to Reuters.

Mainly Shiite and Kurdish Iraqi police and army forces have been a target of frequent attacks since reformation under the US-led occupation.

Leading Shiite figures have recently welcomed an initiative put forward by a prominent Sunni scholar to foster national unity and head off looming sectarian strife.

Back To News Page

Please feel free to contact News editor at:
[email protected]

Advanced Search



Source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:46 pm
T Boone Pickens is a cranky old-style Texas oil entrepreneur who made a killing in the boom market of the '70s and who managed to hold on during the declines that followed. He is getting on in years and appears have the sour viewpoint that sometimes comes with age, but overall he is a very smart guy and I am inclined to at least take him seriously.

I certainly agree with his basic points that (1) our government has wasted a good deal of time and doesn't have a real energy policy (2) We should accelerate the construction of nuclear and coal fired power plants to replace the gas fired plants which for the past 15 years have been just about the only type that can get past the steadfast opposition of environmentalist zealots, and try to use our available natural gas for transportation as a petroleum substitute; (3) Wind and solar power have not met the expectations of their impractical advocates, but, with sustained high oil prices ethanol will become useful.

Interesting to note that these recommendations were exactly what came our of Vice President Cheney's now infamous meetings with real experts in the field, including a number of prominent industry figures. The loonie left was all agog about a corporate conspiracy, but didn't bother to read or consider the recommendations they produced. The administration has opened up the Alaskan fields for production, is working hard to increase the domestic natural gas supply through the licensing of LNG terminals on both coasts, and restore the nuclear power industry. However they are meeting with enormous resistance from environmentalists who apparently wish to go back to the bucolic world of pre industrial times (problem is there were fewer than one billion people alive then). So far no action from the administration about further exploiting our truly abundant reserves of high quality low sulfur coal - that is too hot a potato.

I also think Pickens is correct about the world capacity of petroleum refineries - we have just enough with virtually no reserve capacity. The economics of this very competitive business simply don't permit the continued existence of any excess capacity at any stage of production and distribution. We are certainly in for some market, supply, distribution, and price shocks as demand rises. However I believe the supply is there if we are wise enough to manage things well. That, however, certainly is an open question.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 05:20 am
The oil market only works well if there is excess refining capacity to fine tune supply to meet demand.

I think its highly significant that the excess capacity isnt there anymore, i.e the oil companies have not been investing in new plant. Why?

Same goes for exploration. High crude oil prices should be stimulating active new searches. But again the oil companies are not drilling the exploratory wells at anything like the rate they were in past decades. Why not?

The answer I believe is that the oil companies know something about oil that they are very reluctant to talk about....

Its not running out (in the commonly accepted understanding of that term) but it is about to hit peak imo.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:29 am
One reason they aren't drilling - at least in some of the most promising areas - is the stubborn (and idiotic) opposition of environmentalists and their political supporters (or exploiters, as the case may be). We have a very large, well surveyed field on the North Slope in Alaska that has been placed legally off limits by these idiots for more than a decade - all to protect "the endangered Arctic Tundra" from what they imagine (contrary to the facts) will be a serious environmental insult to the region. Similar resistance limits our exploitation of some near offshore fields.

It is very hard, almost impossible, to get an environmental permit for the construction of a new oil refinery in most parts of this country. It also would be enormously expensive to shut down an old and obsolete refinery due to the environmental litigation that will certainly follow. The result is stranded capital and a lack of new investment.

Pickens' point about the foolish (in his view) use of natural gas for electric power production is a case in point. The coal-fired steam plants that power the turbines that produce over half of our electrical power are thermodynamically very efficient - they transform a relatively high fraction of the chemical energy stored in the fuel into power delivered to the turbogenerator, and discharge relatively less waste heat to the environment. Modern gas turbines (which operate more or less like jet engines) are much improved but still less efficient than the Rankine Steam cycle. Despite this virtually all of the new plant capacity built in this country for the last 20 years has been gas turbine - and this in the face of fairly persistent shortages of that fuel due to a limited distribution network. Why? Two reasons (1) Gas turbines are easy to start up and shut down - they can be used to meet peak power demands in the morning and evening and shut down at other times. (2) The environmental resistance to new coal-fired plants has made their construction virtually impossible - even with the newest, most advanced combustion controls to limit SOX & NOX.

The conspiracy theory on the part of the oil producers you suggest may be possible - I doubt it but can't prove the truth of my opinion. As it is there are enough governmental impediments to the efficient operation of this vital industry to explain the present situation. Possibly the Oil producers are waiting for a few more summer shortages & price peaks to stimulate sensible political action.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:41 am
Well, for example....Exxon doesn't need to drill anymore, they already extract more than they can refine amd refine more than they can sell.

Exploration and extraction has become so efficient that it gives the illusion that they have slowed down drilling, if you catch my meaning.

More refineries is the key...maybe we'll see some built on some old military bases in the next decade or so.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:56 am
Huge oil find in Utah.

Utah black gold
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:33 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Quote:
Iraqi Powers Link Dialogue to Pullout Timetable

...

“We want an official and clear timetable for the withdrawal guaranteed by the United Nations and neutral international bodies,” said Harith Al-Dari, the Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and a member of the conference’s secretariat-general.

“Only then, we will offer our hands to the government, otherwise we will carry on with our peaceful opposition until we achieve our goal,” he said, adding that the Iraqi people do not expect the withdrawal overnight.

What these fools cannot seem to grasp is that "an official and clear timetable for the withdrawal of American troops" cannot be achieved without them offering their "hands to the govenment." I hope the US is not about to specify a time table until the Baathist-al-Qaeda gangsters are finally suppessed by the Iraqis themselves. Otherwise the US would guarantee a re-establishment of the same gangster government that prevailed prior to our invasion and killed thousands of Iraqis annually. That in turn would guarantee a re-establishment of al Qaeda training bases in Iraq and a high probability of more 9/11s perpetrated in the US within a very few years thereafter.

...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:52:23