|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 6, 2008 7:11:56 GMT -5
Color me surprised.....  Was there ever any question what this was all about? July 5, 2008 ArticleBig Oil poised to make triumphant return to Iraq
Small service contracts announced last week are a step toward major development deals
Jul 05, 2008 04:30 AM
Linda McQuaig
When Big Oil excutives and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney met for secret energy talks in the spring of 2001, one subject that weighed on all their minds was the potential loss of Iraq's bountiful oil reserves.
After more than a decade of hostile U.S.-Iraqi relations, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had negotiated deals with oil companies from a range of countries, including Russia, China and India, to develop Iraq's largely undeveloped reserves.
That meant U.S. oil companies were to be denied a stake in developing one of the last oil bonanzas left on Earth. It also meant that the U.S. risked being denied access to this vast new source of petroleum – the commodity it considers essential to its continued status as an economic and military superpower.
So it wasn't surprising that Cheney's energy task force – set up with urgency within weeks of the Bush administration taking office – took great interest in a document called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The document (eventually made public after a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration) included a detailed breakdown of Iraq's 97 oil fields, listing in each case the foreign company that was negotiating a development contract with Saddam, and the status of those negotiations.
But, according to the narrative presented by the White House and rarely challenged by the media, none of this mattered to Washington's strategic planners: the fact that Iraq's vast oil reserves were about to slip into the hands of America's rivals and Big Oil's competitors allegedly played no role in the administration's decision to overthrow Saddam two years later.
Of course, outside the narrow confines of the political and media establishment, most ordinary people have had little difficulty seeing through the official reasons offered up by the Bush administration to explain its insistence on invading and occupying a country that, apart from oil, consists mostly of sand.
Now there's some fresh fodder for that debate, with the announcement last week by the Iraqi government that it is signing no-bid contracts with five of the biggest multinational oil companies – the same corporate crowd that met with Cheney back in 2001 and fretted over Saddam's oil deals with "foreign suitors."
Those "foreign suitors" – including state-owned companies from oil-hungry China and India – have now been pushed aside. In their place, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total have been selected for the first stage of developing six of Iraq's largest oil fields.
So, for instance, Iraq's magnificent Rumaila oil field, which had been slated to go to the Russian oil company Lukoil back in 2001, will now go to British oil giant BP.
Although these new contracts are relatively small service contracts, they are considered a crucial foot in the door for getting what the companies are really after – major development deals known as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), where the companies invest in a project, control it and receive the lion's share of the profits.
PSAs resemble the kinds of arrangements that used to prevail in the Middle East when a handful of U.S. and British oil companies controlled the world's oil through their cartel known as the Seven Sisters. |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jul 6, 2008 7:44:58 GMT -5
Russia, China and India must have been given quiet compensation or they'd be putting up a stink. Gotta get those western companies entrenched before November.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 6, 2008 8:02:37 GMT -5
Do you think Obama or McCain would deny the interests of big oil?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jul 6, 2008 10:47:51 GMT -5
I have some friends from Venezuela who are small business owners, who complain about Hugo Chavez because all the main industries are nationalized, and because resources are so scarce, it makes running a business very difficult. However, while I'd never be confused for a left winger, I have to admire Chavez for literally being one of the few on this planet for having the gumption to stand up to the US and the corporatocracy, in favor of controlling their resources ahead of corporate interests, distributing Venezuela's resource wealth to their own. If things every get under control in the middle east, and the US all of a sudden is able to free up their military resources, don't be surprised if Chavez and Venezuela becomes the next big "threat" to world security. Actually, a quick google search www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1807217,00.html reveals that Chavez may have already become that threat and the Pentagon/CIA spinmasters are already at work at project-Chavez. The CIA is going to have to be a little more savy in trying to kill him or orchestrate a coup, given their already numerous failed attempts. Go, Hugo Go!!! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 6, 2008 11:32:57 GMT -5
Good thing our western tar sands are loaded with US involvement.....otherwise WE'D be the next "threat". You're kidding yourself if you think differently. The Alberta tar sands are more than 50% US-owned. Our SSP. 2006 articleAnd now that they've discovered even more oil in Saskatchewan...(Smiley last year, Preeceville, the most recent).....well, the bar has been set, hasn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 6, 2008 13:58:14 GMT -5
It's TORONTO STAR article which means it's as left wing as the "Socialist Truth" papers you use to find in mens bathrooms when it ran out of toilet paper.
What's wrong with oil? And what's wrong with the US exercising their hegemony? Better them then China or Russia.
It's against the Canadian constitution to complain about oil prices and then turn around and complain about the US looking after their interets...and by extention ours. Either that or one needs to wear the H word with pride.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 6, 2008 14:03:30 GMT -5
I have some friends from Venezuela who are small business owners, who complain about Hugo Chavez because all the main industries are nationalized, and because resources are so scarce, it makes running a business very difficult. However, while I'd never be confused for a left winger, I have to admire Chavez for literally being one of the few on this planet for having the gumption to stand up to the US and the corporatocracy, in favor of controlling their resources ahead of corporate interests, distributing Venezuela's resource wealth to their own. If things every get under control in the middle east, and the US all of a sudden is able to free up their military resources, don't be surprised if Chavez and Venezuela becomes the next big "threat" to world security. Actually, a quick google search www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1807217,00.html reveals that Chavez may have already become that threat and the Pentagon/CIA spinmasters are already at work at project-Chavez. The CIA is going to have to be a little more savy in trying to kill him or orchestrate a coup, given their already numerous failed attempts. Go, Hugo Go!!! I would nationile oil companies siimply because they have shown bad faith. I am as right wing as they come to politics but if companies cross over the "open market" barriers and attempt to manipulate the economy for profits, the they are fair game. Plus I don't believe that essantial utilities should be private. On the other hand, I could imagine what a moron like Dion would do if he was in power and had control over the oil market in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 6, 2008 15:25:22 GMT -5
It's TORONTO STAR article which means it's as left wing as the "Socialist Truth" papers you use to find in mens bathrooms when it ran out of toilet paper. What's wrong with oil? And what's wrong with the US exercising their hegemony? Better them then China or Russia. It's the reprehensible misuse of the military and the slaughter of innocent civilians...otherwise known as "collateral damage". That's the problem I have with it. The lies over the campaign in Iraq have morphed several times since its inception. When oil company owners/executives etc., and the politicians they've bought, send themselves and their families to fight for the oil.....well....that'll be the day. If the U.S. had sold the Iraq campaign by saying, "If we don't get control of this oil, it's going to fall into the hands of China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. And so, we're going to have to fight for it.", I wonder if it would have received approval from anyone. Of course not. It's called invasion, murder, and theft. And so came the lies, even though Bush himself later said that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jul 6, 2008 16:10:52 GMT -5
Do you think Obama or McCain would deny the interests of big oil? Of course not but it looks better when it's the former government that's responsible. You can't cancel a contract can you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 6, 2008 16:59:33 GMT -5
It's TORONTO STAR article which means it's as left wing as the "Socialist Truth" papers you use to find in mens bathrooms when it ran out of toilet paper. What's wrong with oil? And what's wrong with the US exercising their hegemony? Better them then China or Russia. It's the reprehensible misuse of the military and the slaughter of innocent civilians...otherwise known as "collateral damage". That's the problem I have with it. The lies over the campaign in Iraq have morphed several times since its inception. When oil company owners/executives etc., and the politicians they've bought, send themselves and their families to fight for the oil.....well....that'll be the day. If the U.S. had sold the Iraq campaign by saying, "If we don't get control of this oil, it's going to fall into the hands of China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. And so, we're going to have to fight for it.", I wonder if it would have received approval from anyone. Of course not. It's called invasion, murder, and theft. And so came the lies, even though Bush himself later said that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001. What about the babies? You forgot the part where the American went it to eat the babies. The American went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. Did they do it for the poppy fields? I don't hear squat about that. It cost them billions of dollar and many lives. Never heard squat about that. When they went into Panama to get rid of Noriega, everybody got on their soapbox how that was intended to control the Canal. The Americans gave the Canal to the Panamanians. Never heard anybody complement them for it. When they went into Bosnia, never heard anybody complement them about that. But if they DARE to allow in the MOST ADVANCED oil companies in the world to quickly DEVELOP the Iraqi fields, they must be mass murderers stealing the oil. Ohh but wait, they should let the Russian and Chinese develop the oil fields with technology they barely have so they can appear fair and sexy to Canadians and Europeans. Through years of sanctions and secterian violence, the Iraqi fields are in a complete mess. it will take ten if not hundreds of billions of dollars to develop them. Billions of dollars the Iraqi government does not have. Quick question..... Who originally developed the Libyan fields? Who developed the Saudi fields? Who is developing the far eastern Russian oil fields? Who developed MOST for the major fields throughout the world? Who is NOT developing the Iranian fields and why are they not able to extract the full potential of their fields? Who is allowing their Venezualan fields to be developed by those evil American companies? And why? But why let facts, technology and enormous decelopment costs stand in the way of a good old Anti-American rant. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 6, 2008 19:04:34 GMT -5
What about the babies? You forgot the part where the American went it to eat the babies. And you forgot the bald eagle, god bless america, and the star spangled banner. I think I'm just gonna stick to the Habs on this board. As if I inferred that the Americans went in to eat the babies....or anything remotely like that. I said the Bush administration lied several times to mask their true intent, and therefore misued their military. Extrapolating that opinion to include eating babies is quite insulting. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 6, 2008 19:28:40 GMT -5
Russia, China and India must have been given quiet compensation or they'd be putting up a stink. Gotta get those western companies entrenched before November. Russia has quietly become the world's number-2 producer of oil. They're raking in money hand over fist, while the USA has been accumulating a near out-of-control national debt. Russia is saving, America is spending. I remember initially supporting the war in Iraq until the real agenda came to the surface. It's all about oil and who distributes.
Check out Youssaf Sleiman on ".. when the oil starts flowing ..." There's some other info on the clip as well. Some is factual, some isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jul 6, 2008 20:05:21 GMT -5
Generally, the problem with US hegemony is it is built on hypocrisy.
Waving the flags of democracy, basic human rights, "free" market capitalism, really is all about economic hostage taking: propping up countries all over the world with puppet regimes whose corrupt leaders are paid handsome sums of money and have their kids educated in prestigious American universities, to turn a blind eye to the corporations that plunder and exploit the countries of all their resources (including human), while the home offices reports some pretty impressive returns to shareholders and nothing is returned to the countries, leaving them poorer than they were in the first place.
Noriega was a friend of the CIA at one time. Outside of his militia, Panama had no military. The invasion was an unprovoked, unilateral attack to unseat a government because his refusal to renegotiate the canal treaty. Noriega sits in jail for drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering. The war on drugs is usually the Washington rhetoric that is drummed up for some Latin American countries in orchestrating take-overs.
I've heard and read that it is alleged that Noriega held some damning evidence against George W. Bush, and that George H. Bush was so pissed, he wanted Noriega's head. Apparently some footage of ole Georgy snorting coke, and having kinky sex with prostitutes somewhere on Contadora Island.
I spend a bit of time in Latin America. My wife is from Brazil, and I have some business contacts there, as well as Argentina, and Uruguay. The story of these countries, as well as those of Boliva, Ecuador, Venezuela and countless others, as told by them is incredible. These are stories that are never reported by CNN and North American mainstream media. Stories of corporate hitmen, bribary, corruption, ridiculous loans and financial arrangement with the IMF and the World Bank, etc...... When that doesn't work, the next step is the jackels and the CIA for assasinations and coups.
It is no wonder that Latin America led by Chavez is uniting against the US (except Columbia, who the US hold in their back pocket). Nobody buys anything that comes out of Washington in Latin America anymore. Bush is derided as a bendejo.
The US is the greatest country in the world. However, their has to be a better balance between it's core ideals and it's (and ours) incredible thirst for resources and wealth. There is something wrong when a country that makes up 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of its resources, and produces 30% of the world's pollution. There is also something wrong when a country like Venezuela offers aid to Katrina victims in NO, before a US federal response, and that aid is turned down.
It's economy is crumbling, and their empire is giving way to others. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to try something else for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 6, 2008 20:42:58 GMT -5
The American went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. Well not to be picky ... they went into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. The Taliban wouldn't cooperate and hand over Bin Laden .... so they became the issue, but they were a side issue, Who complains they arent making enough money and rakes in billions in surpluses while continuing to up the price of oil based on speculation and not facts? Who refuses to let countries/jurisdictions to have any benefits from their own natural resources? I can't shed a tear for Big Oil .... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 7, 2008 0:57:12 GMT -5
What about the babies? You forgot the part where the American went it to eat the babies. And you forgot the bald eagle, god bless america, and the star spangled banner. I think I'm just gonna stick to the Habs on this board. As if I inferred that the Americans went in to eat the babies....or anything remotely like that. I said the Bush administration lied several times to mask their true intent, and therefore misued their military. Extrapolating that opinion to include eating babies is quite insulting. If it's okay to use words like "slaughter" "murder" "theft" then we might as well go all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 7, 2008 1:05:47 GMT -5
Generally, the problem with US hegemony is it is built on hypocrisy. Waving the flags of democracy, basic human rights, "free" market capitalism, really is all about economic hostage taking: propping up countries all over the world with puppet regimes whose corrupt leaders are paid handsome sums of money and have their kids educated in prestigious American universities, to turn a blind eye to the corporations that plunder and exploit the countries of all their resources (including human), while the home offices reports some pretty impressive returns to shareholders and nothing is returned to the countries, leaving them poorer than they were in the first place. Noriega was a friend of the CIA at one time. Outside of his militia, Panama had no military. The invasion was an unprovoked, unilateral attack to unseat a government because his refusal to renegotiate the canal treaty. Noriega sits in jail for drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering. The war on drugs is usually the Washington rhetoric that is drummed up for some Latin American countries in orchestrating take-overs. I've heard and read that it is alleged that Noriega held some damning evidence against George W. Bush, and that George H. Bush was so pissed, he wanted Noriega's head. Apparently some footage of ole Georgy snorting coke, and having kinky sex with prostitutes somewhere on Contadora Island. I spend a bit of time in Latin America. My wife is from Brazil, and I have some business contacts there, as well as Argentina, and Uruguay. The story of these countries, as well as those of Boliva, Ecuador, Venezuela and countless others, as told by them is incredible. These are stories that are never reported by CNN and North American mainstream media. Stories of corporate hitmen, bribary, corruption, ridiculous loans and financial arrangement with the IMF and the World Bank, etc...... When that doesn't work, the next step is the jackels and the CIA for assasinations and coups. It is no wonder that Latin America led by Chavez is uniting against the US (except Columbia, who the US hold in their back pocket). Nobody buys anything that comes out of Washington in Latin America anymore. Bush is derided as a bendejo. The US is the greatest country in the world. However, their has to be a better balance between it's core ideals and it's (and ours) incredible thirst for resources and wealth. There is something wrong when a country that makes up 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of its resources, and produces 30% of the world's pollution. There is also something wrong when a country like Venezuela offers aid to Katrina victims in NO, before a US federal response, and that aid is turned down. It's economy is crumbling, and their empire is giving way to others. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to try something else for a while. I am not excusing what the US has done in the name of their own interests. On the other hand, what have we done with the native population? What do they say about glass houses? The big difference here is scale. Canada is NOT a superpower and nobody depends on it for security. I wonder if we would be so ready to criticze them if we were in their shoes? Or if we would be so different. As for trying "something else"? You think that it would be a better world with Russia or China as dominating superpowers? The Tibetans and the Georgians would disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 7, 2008 1:15:43 GMT -5
The American went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. Well not to be picky ... they went into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. The Taliban wouldn't cooperate and hand over Bin Laden .... so they became the issue, but they were a side issue, Who complains they arent making enough money and rakes in billions in surpluses while continuing to up the price of oil based on speculation and not facts? Who refuses to let countries/jurisdictions to have any benefits from their own natural resources? I can't shed a tear for Big Oil .... I'm not sheding a tear either but there seems to be a Canadian past-time to soap box the holier then thou attitude against the Americans. It's okay to feed off their economy, it's okay to sell them trillions of dollars of oil....and it's okay to sh!t on them. Let's drop the hypocracy and do the "right thing". Tomorrow, let's stop ALL TRADE with the US until they change their ways. That will show them ath we really mean what we say and we are not just another hypocracy laden little country. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 7, 2008 2:38:44 GMT -5
It's the reprehensible misuse of the military and the slaughter of innocent civilians...otherwise known as "collateral damage". That's the problem I have with it. The lies over the campaign in Iraq have morphed several times since its inception. When oil company owners/executives etc., and the politicians they've bought, send themselves and their families to fight for the oil.....well....that'll be the day. If the U.S. had sold the Iraq campaign by saying, "If we don't get control of this oil, it's going to fall into the hands of China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. And so, we're going to have to fight for it.", I wonder if it would have received approval from anyone. Of course not. It's called invasion, murder, and theft. And so came the lies, even though Bush himself later said that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001. What about the babies? You forgot the part where the American went it to eat the babies. The American went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. Did they do it for the poppy fields? I don't hear squat about that. It cost them billions of dollar and many lives. Never heard squat about that. When they went into Panama to get rid of Noriega, everybody got on their soapbox how that was intended to control the Canal. The Americans gave the Canal to the Panamanians. Never heard anybody complement them for it. When they went into Bosnia, never heard anybody complement them about that. But if they DARE to allow in the MOST ADVANCED oil companies in the world to quickly DEVELOP the Iraqi fields, they must be mass murderers stealing the oil. Ohh but wait, they should let the Russian and Chinese develop the oil fields with technology they barely have so they can appear fair and sexy to Canadians and Europeans. Through years of sanctions and secterian violence, the Iraqi fields are in a complete mess. it will take ten if not hundreds of billions of dollars to develop them. Billions of dollars the Iraqi government does not have. Quick question..... Who originally developed the Libyan fields? Who developed the Saudi fields? Who is developing the far eastern Russian oil fields? Who developed MOST for the major fields throughout the world? Who is NOT developing the Iranian fields and why are they not able to extract the full potential of their fields? Who is allowing their Venezualan fields to be developed by those evil American companies? And why? But why let facts, technology and enormous decelopment costs stand in the way of a good old Anti-American rant. I too am tired of the socialists that try to blame everyone who is successful and credit the welfare and unemployed. Excessive oil profits due to price increase caused by supply and demand. Next they want to punish the farmers who grow corn for making too much money now that ethanol has increased the cost of resources. Copper has gone up so punish the mines and miners. The world has more people using more oil. Price increases have driven down consumption in the US by 1.3%. Consumption in China and India are up by over 20% and climbing rapidly. Last time I checked we are DEPENDENT on Iraq, Iran and Venezuela for a resource that is critical to our economy. Yes, put up windmills, nuclear plants and solar panels, but we need to drill in the Arctic and off the Newfoundland coast and in the tar sands of Alberta. Don't be surprised if our enemies control our economy and the prices are high. If the price is too high, adding more tax won't bring it down. A few years ago I invested in some shares of oil companies. I don't influence world prices, I haven't invaded any countries and I haven't propped up a dictator. I did recognize that I complained too much about oil that was $45 a barrel and it was time to do something about it. Now when the price goes up, I dutifully pay at the pump and watch my investments grow. I come out ahead, but certainly don't have any 747's parked waiting for me or Hollywood starlets around my swimming pool. All owners of oil companies are not corrupt or the cause of high prices. We are the good guys that pay taxes, not the welfare mothers or terrorists. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 7, 2008 9:02:19 GMT -5
And you forgot the bald eagle, god bless america, and the star spangled banner. I think I'm just gonna stick to the Habs on this board. As if I inferred that the Americans went in to eat the babies....or anything remotely like that. I said the Bush administration lied several times to mask their true intent, and therefore misued their military. Extrapolating that opinion to include eating babies is quite insulting. If it's okay to use words like "slaughter" "murder" "theft" then we might as well go all the way. Respond to my point without saying, "Yeah but...." Did the Bush (and Blair) administration not lie several times about the reasons for invading Iraq, when their sole intent was to regain control of the oil fields through force (i.e. theft...as the oil field did not belong to them)....thereby using their military for the interest of big oil? My words: slaughter, murder, and theft are appropriate. "Eating babies" is not. It's a hyperbole used to minimize the argument made. Watch this tap dance.. Even though Bush admits in this clip that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he still makes a connection to it at least three times. Lots of despicable things have been perpetrated throughout history in the name of greed, power, and wealth. Invasions, genocide, murder, theft....and yes, the history of Canada is dotted with them, too. Doesn't make it right....and it hardly makes the invasion of Iraq, and the misuse of the military, excusable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And something else we don't get on Fox News... The U.S.'s illegal use of depleted uranium shells in 4 campaigns since 1991...including the Gulf War and the Iraq Invasion....which is responsible for birth defects, cancers, and other illnesses to everyone exposed...including the troops. And of course they come home, get cancer, produce deformed babies, contract respiratory illnesses, etc. Just as the Pentagon denied the adverse effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam....they have also denied the existence of Gulf War Syndrome...and so it will continue. But the government "supports" the troops, right? There are scientific explanations of DU all over the net, including testimonials from U.S. vets, and sickening videos on youtube of the severe birth defects and tumors caused by the use of DU. I'm not going to post them here. But it seems as if the only weapon of mass destruction was used by the "good guys", and with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, U-238 is going to be causing problems for quite some time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, the problem is too big to change...at least for the general population...which is why most turn a deaf ear and a blind eye. I know I can't think about it all the time....it frustrates the crap out of me....almost flat-out depressing. But in no way am I proud of what's being done....nor do I not shed a tear for innocent victims and misused military. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's it for me on these topics on this board. Back to the Habs..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 7, 2008 12:21:24 GMT -5
When negotiating with Iraq, it's better to have Laraque on board than Grabovski.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 7, 2008 15:39:22 GMT -5
Respond to my point without saying, "Yeah but...." Did the Bush (and Blair) administration not lie several times about the reasons for invading Iraq, when their sole intent was to regain control of the oil fields through force (i.e. theft...as the oil field did not belong to them)....thereby using their military for the interest of big oil? Yes, they did. I was duped into believing this to be a just war. Yes they are ... but for both sides. The side that was wronged and the side that was lied to. He doesn't tap dance all that well IMO. But, I like to think we've matured a bit over the years. We're not totally out of the woods but we're certainly trying more and more. Add misuse of intelligence + misuse of the press + misuse of military = problems they're having now. Actually I feel for those men and women in uniform, mate. They had the choice whether to join or not, granted, but when they did they waived certain democratic privileges. One of those was the right to say 'no, I'm not going'. By signing their names, they become the professionals who take pain and suffering of combat off our hands. When they're told to go many will go with a smile on their faces, but even if they don't the vast majority will go anyway; no fuss. And the more they read the press the harder it becomes to ignore it. Yet, as soldiers, sailors or airmen, they venture into the fray with their doubts. I shed a tear for many of these men and women, CH. However, I do not shed any tears for the governments that send them off with hidden agendas. Bummer! |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 7, 2008 15:49:30 GMT -5
I don't know how this always happens but it does. Threads like this usually degrade into anti-American opinions or 'why-America-is-justified-in-whatever.'
For me, this isn't about the American people. It's about their representatives in the White House. They're the ones to profit blame for what's going on nowadays. And I'm not just talking about the Iraqi War.
* Their national debt is spiraling out of control.
* Their country is now in a recession.
* Some Americans I've talked to are concerned that they may have lost the image of the world's lone Superpower.
* They've lost a lot of international respect (due to several things).
But, the ones always left holding the bag are the American people.
Not right.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 7, 2008 16:30:24 GMT -5
[ I shed a tear for many of these men and women, CH. However, I do not shed any tears for the governments that send them off with hidden agendas. Thanks for the reply, Dis....but check my quote on this topic again. I said, "Nor do I not shed a tear..... Which means I DO shed a tear. For me to say otherwise would totally go against how I feel. I guess I should have said, "I shed many a tear....." |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 7, 2008 18:03:40 GMT -5
Generally, the problem with US hegemony is it is built on hypocrisy. Waving the flags of democracy, basic human rights, "free" market capitalism, really is all about economic hostage taking: propping up countries all over the world with puppet regimes whose corrupt leaders are paid handsome sums of money and have their kids educated in prestigious American universities, to turn a blind eye to the corporations that plunder and exploit the countries of all their resources (including human), while the home offices reports some pretty impressive returns to shareholders and nothing is returned to the countries, leaving them poorer than they were in the first place. Noriega was a friend of the CIA at one time. Outside of his militia, Panama had no military. The invasion was an unprovoked, unilateral attack to unseat a government because his refusal to renegotiate the canal treaty. Noriega sits in jail for drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering. The war on drugs is usually the Washington rhetoric that is drummed up for some Latin American countries in orchestrating take-overs. I've heard and read that it is alleged that Noriega held some damning evidence against George W. Bush, and that George H. Bush was so pissed, he wanted Noriega's head. Apparently some footage of ole Georgy snorting coke, and having kinky sex with prostitutes somewhere on Contadora Island. I spend a bit of time in Latin America. My wife is from Brazil, and I have some business contacts there, as well as Argentina, and Uruguay. The story of these countries, as well as those of Boliva, Ecuador, Venezuela and countless others, as told by them is incredible. These are stories that are never reported by CNN and North American mainstream media. Stories of corporate hitmen, bribary, corruption, ridiculous loans and financial arrangement with the IMF and the World Bank, etc...... When that doesn't work, the next step is the jackels and the CIA for assasinations and coups. It is no wonder that Latin America led by Chavez is uniting against the US (except Columbia, who the US hold in their back pocket). Nobody buys anything that comes out of Washington in Latin America anymore. Bush is derided as a bendejo. The US is the greatest country in the world. However, their has to be a better balance between it's core ideals and it's (and ours) incredible thirst for resources and wealth. There is something wrong when a country that makes up 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of its resources, and produces 30% of the world's pollution. There is also something wrong when a country like Venezuela offers aid to Katrina victims in NO, before a US federal response, and that aid is turned down. It's economy is crumbling, and their empire is giving way to others. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to try something else for a while. I am not excusing what the US has done in the name of their own interests. On the other hand, what have we done with the native population? What do they say about glass houses? The big difference here is scale. Canada is NOT a superpower and nobody depends on it for security. I wonder if we would be so ready to criticze them if we were in their shoes? Or if we would be so different. As for trying "something else"? You think that it would be a better world with Russia or China as dominating superpowers? The Tibetans and the Georgians would disagree with you. Great post! Since you moderated to Mildly, your posts are right on! Of course when the US invades Iraq to depose the murderer Saddam and his rapist sons, the US is an invader. When they don't invade Darfur to stop the genocide, they are not good concerned world citizens. The US is capable of turning the rubble in Iraq and Iran to dust. We desperately want to get out of the middle east just like we wanted out of of Vietnam. We have no intention of occupation. We can't even figure out who the good guys are to leave in charge. We can't airlift food and medical supplies to countries where the governments steal them. THe outstanding efforts and good intentions of the US are criticized by the countries that rermain on the sidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 7, 2008 19:31:27 GMT -5
I think one of the reason I've avoided this thread is because it's just a retread of every argument that's been made for and against the war from the beginning, and no one really seems to be willing to budge on the subject (I'm as guilty as anyone on this count). Given my style of debate I tend to wind up offending people I'd rather not offend, so when I saw this I said "not this time" and figured I'd stay out of it all. So much for that idea. Respond to my point without saying, "Yeah but...." Did the Bush (and Blair) administration not lie several times about the reasons for invading Iraq, when their sole intent was to regain control of the oil fields through force (i.e. theft...as the oil field did not belong to them)....thereby using their military for the interest of big oil? Did they? Can you prove, without using circumstancial evidence, that Bush and Blair lied about the reasons their government chose to invade Iraq? Or are you just pushing that Kool-Aid like every other critic of the war. 'Blood for Oil' was the refrain used way back when this debate first started. But no one has proven anything yet. And no one will. You know why? Because it's impossible. It's something a lot of people on both sides miss. The USA was not the shining knight going into Baghdad (that was just spin), but they're not Snidley Whiplash either (again, spin). We (and our neighbours to the south) live in a democracy (spare me any snide comments you may have about Bush stealing the election in Florida, that's another debate). Not a true democracy, I'll admit, but a representative democracy is still a democracy, and the only one feasible in this day and age. And that means when a government does something, it does it for not one reason, but a myriad of reasons. Were there some representatives and senators motivated by cash and oil? Sure. Were there some motivated by revenge? Sure - there's even a strong case to suggest that this was the real reason Bush pushed for the war - to avenge daddy. Were there some who thought of themselves as liberators of an oppressed people? Sure - and contrary to what we may think here, they are. Are there some who thought Iraq was working on WMD's? Sure - and not only Americans on this one folks, the Russian Spy Agency (the former KGB) passed evidence on to Putin who passed it on to Bush that this was happening. Were there some people who thought that Iraq was behind 9/11? Yup. Were there some who didn't really care and just wanted to turn some backwater nation into a smoking crater? You can count on it. So you may have been 'lied' to, but if you believe it's all about oil, you're being 'lied' to again. By different people. In truth, it's infinitely more complex than that. You want to know something? There are people in the U.S and Canada who profited from World War 2. Does that make the war against the Nazi's unjustified? Does that make it a 'Blood for Money' situation? Or is it possible for people to profit and a cause to be justified all the same? My words: slaughter, murder, and theft are appropriate. "Eating babies" is not. It's a hyperbole used to minimize the argument made. And you use hyperbole to maximize your argument made. Slaughter is certainly not appropriate. Murder is doubtful on a grand scale (there may be individuals in Iraq who have committed acts that may be defined as murder, but certainly not on an operational scale. Theft may - may - be appropriate if you can prove that the intention of the entire U.S. Government was to gain access to those oil reserves (see above). Your choice of words is designed to inflame your reader - unless you care to back any of those statements up. Watch this tap dance.. Even though Bush admits in this clip that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he still makes a connection to it at least three times. He makes the connection. He's also very explicit in saying that (a) Iraq had no part in 9/11 and that (b) he believes (as an individual and as the head of a government) that although Iraq was not 'directly' involved, it contributed an environment that fostered and gave birth to such attacks. Kinda like how the being exposed to left wing ideals long enough lowers IQ (okay, okay - that was a mean, inappropriate joke. A better example would be 'the environment in native communities in Canada gives rise to alcoholism and violence' or 'the environment in certain, unnamed but well known, areas of Toronto gives rise to gun and gang violence' or 'the hockey mad environment in Canada helps a country with a relatively small population raise a large number of the top-level players in the hockey world') Lots of despicable things have been perpetrated throughout history in the name of greed, power, and wealth. Invasions, genocide, murder, theft....and yes, the history of Canada is dotted with them, too. Doesn't make it right....and it hardly makes the invasion of Iraq, and the misuse of the military, excusable. You speak as if the invasion of Iraq has only brought misery into the lives of the Iraqi people. I am fairly sure that that is a patent untruth. At the very least, their soccer team must be breathing easy now. A great deal of good has come from the war. Sure - people have profited. And a large number of people have profited, through greed, from an otherwise moral and just action. A great many companies profited heavily from the war effort in WW2. A lot of people made a lot of money (hell, it brought the entire economy out of the Great Depression). Was that unjust? And something else we don't get on Fox News... The U.S.'s illegal use of depleted uranium shells in 4 campaigns since 1991...including the Gulf War and the Iraq Invasion....which is responsible for birth defects, cancers, and other illnesses to everyone exposed...including the troops. And of course they come home, get cancer, produce deformed babies, contract respiratory illnesses, etc. Illegal? Care to back that up with proof? Or is this just another 'Blood for Oil' line. According the the Hague (actually, the International Court of Justice therein), who updated the Geneva Convention in 1996 (because it was 1925 when the original Geneva Conventions were written, before the advent of DU shells) they did not mention DU weapons at all. In 2001, when the ICJ was asked to prosecute someone for war crimes over NATO's use of DU shells in the former Yugoslavia, chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte declined saying: Pretty simple and straightforward to me. Unless you've got something else, I call hyperbole (actually, I call a lie - but hyperbole ties back and works better). As to possible negative effects, I quote: The RAND Corperation (1999) Oncology Study (source does not say who) (2001) NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson (2001) Australian Defence Ministry (2002) Pier Roberto Danesi, Former Director of the IAEA Seibersdorf Laboratory (2002) International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) Further to that, Al Marshall (a mathematician or statistician I suppose) did a statistical analysis of Gulf War veterans, and found there to be no correlation in exposure to DU and cancer (and in this house, mathematics is king, queen and emperor). Just as the Pentagon denied the adverse effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam....they have also denied the existence of Gulf War Syndrome...and so it will continue. But the government "supports" the troops, right? There are scientific explanations of DU all over the net, including testimonials from U.S. vets, and sickening videos on youtube of the severe birth defects and tumors caused by the use of DU. I'm not going to post them here. But it seems as if the only weapon of mass destruction was used by the "good guys", and with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, U-238 is going to be causing problems for quite some time. It's funny how you group Agent Orange (which is a single, admitted example of what you are talking about) with Gulf War Syndrome (wholly unsubstantiated) and DU (which, despite your protests to the contrary, are not in any way illegal under any binding convention nor proved harmful - save of course the disastrous effect it has on your body when you are shot with it). Are you hoping that the truth of Agent Orange will rub off on all the rest and make your argument sound more convincing? Or (I ask once again) do you have anything - anything - resembling proof? Yes, the problem is too big to change...at least for the general population...which is why most turn a deaf ear and a blind eye. I know I can't think about it all the time....it frustrates the crap out of me....almost flat-out depressing. But in no way am I proud of what's being done....nor do I not shed a tear for innocent victims and misused military. Glurge mostly, but it brings up something I'd like to make a point about. What makes you the one who is right? Because you've been told DU is bad? Because someone convinced you some time ago that every American is out for oil so that they can fill up their big bad Hummers and drive until polar bears are eradicated and winter turns to summer? You say we're all 'turning a blind eye and a deaf ear' but it seems to me that, unless you start ponying up some proof, you're the one who's turning the proverbial eye and ear. That's it for me on these topics on this board. Back to the Habs..... Unfortunate - I suppose I should have read this part first. But I'm willing to listen, if you have something to support your wild claims. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 7, 2008 19:54:03 GMT -5
Kinda like how the being exposed to left wing ideals long enough lowers IQ (okay, okay - that was a mean, inappropriate joke. That says it all right there. You showed your hand. i.e. if people think even slightly to the left of centre, they're clueless. A cheap, dismissive, personal attack. But I don't take it personally, believe me. There's a ton of "evidence", lies, half-truths, truths, etc. on both sides of the argument that would allow this topic to be debated ad nauseum. We'll likely never know the truth. At least we can all agree on GO HABS GO  |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jul 7, 2008 19:57:16 GMT -5
So the Habs signed Ryan Flinn today.
|
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Jul 7, 2008 20:30:02 GMT -5
[sarcasm]what! the bush administration went into the middle east because of the oil? no frickin' way, they went there because they wanted to spread "democracy" because they were running out of customers in their own countries and needed mcdonald's in iraq. why else would they have spent trillions of dollars, it was important that they had stability there for the corporations to move in and fleece all the wealthy iraqi's. whats that you say, they have no money. ok maybe they are just there for the liquid gold.
quite the stretch, considering bush and co. don't stand to make anything off of this invasion.
[/sarcasm]
thanks george, enjoy your retirement, you did well for your buddies, very very well.
ridiculous imo to think that they went into afghanistan and iraq for any other reason.
"we will bring to justice the men who were responsible for this" yeah only if it's profitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 7, 2008 20:44:50 GMT -5
So the Habs signed Ryan Flinn today. Which oil company does he represent again?  |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jul 7, 2008 20:55:42 GMT -5
So the Habs signed Ryan Flinn today. Which oil company does he represent again? Big Steel Oil. No one's getting pushed around in Hamilton either. |
|
