So France was RIGHT...?

[Jocko]

Jock,

I wouldn't find the numbers where you you know that you find them inside yourself:

I know that I find the rate of the killings by Bush since 2001 compared to the killings by Hussein since 2001, below.

The U.S. government site

[url]http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0331hmnrightsrpt.htm[/url]

shows in regards to Hussein regime in Iraq:

In April the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper reported that Lieutenant Colonel Mohamad Daham al-Tikriti, a recent defector from the General Security Service, admitted that in February 150-200 civilians were killed "at random" on suspicion of conspiracy and buried in a mass grave near Baghdad as part of a larger effort in which 1,500 civilians were summarily executed in the first 2 months of the year. etc. etc. etc.

So your source is the Guardian. Mentioned in a State Dept. page, sure, but still.... the GUARDIAN?

Where did you get the 7,000 figure from, the ELF?

Jock,

"...genuine intellectual skepticism...", now that's too pretentious for you just to utter the expression:

don't be too greedy now, with words like "...intellectual...", Jocky.

If the best you can do is cite the Guardian, then I stand confirmed. And don't call me Jocky; terms of endearment from someone like you make my skin crawl. And it seems I'm not the only one who's noticed this amusingly small-minded technique of yours; check the posts above.

And it would be best spelled "Cretin," BTW.

 

[Ion]

...
If the best you can do is cite the Guardian, then I stand confirmed. And don't call me Jocky; terms of endearment from someone like you make my skin crawl. And it seems I'm not the only one who's noticed this amusingly small-minded technique of yours; check the posts above.

And it would be best spelled "Cretin," BTW.

Jocky,

the number of murders since the 90s by Hussein comes from the U.S. government site, endorsing information from the Guardian.

See what I mean about you abusing the word "...intellectual..."?

 

[Jocko]

Jocky,

the number of murders since the 90s by Hussein comes from the U.S. government site, endorsing information from the Guardian.

See what I mean about you abusing the word "...intellectual..."?

Yes, a site run by the same government you claim has been lying all along.

So we have a source you don't trust mentioning a source no one in their right mind could trust. If that's your idea of "intellect," I'm glad I don't make your list.

Edited to add:

By way of example, look at Yahoo news and find a story about the "time traveling stockbroker" who recently "disappeared." The original story broke in the Weekly World News (a slightly funnier rag than the Guardian, though nearly as accurate).

Does Yahoo repeating the story make it more true?

 

[Ion]

Yes, a site run by the same government you claim has been lying all along.
...

I take the U.S. government at its own game of numbers.

To prove that even by this lying government' standards, Bush computes to being more murderous worldwide since 2001 than Hussein is since 1992.

 

[Jocko]

I take the U.S. government at its own game of numbers.

To prove that even by this lying government' standards, Bush computes to being more murderous worldwide since 2001 than Hussein is since 1992.

Yep, war's a bitch. So's cherrypicking your figures, but I'm sure someone here has already pointed this out to you, so I won't belabor the point.

I think your insincerity trumps any intellectual (there's that word again!) point you may have originally had.

 

[DrChinese]

Jocky,

...

LOL. But I would have guessed the familiar for Jocko would be Jock...

 

[Ion]

Prove this:

...
I think your insincerity...
...

If you manage to do it (and I think that this is a quasi un surmountable task that I am asking you to do), then consider that I never killed anyone in my life.

See how far Bush has gone?

 

[Troll]

Re: How about the President?

He is KINDA of an American spokesperson, right?

How about if HE goes before the U.N. and apologises for NOT listening to France & Germany, ad dragggig the World into WWIII?

Do you expect that to happen before or after France apologizes for selling Iraq stuff that went against UN Sanctions? I mean Bush has only been in for 3 years and the sanctions are 12 years old. I'm thinking france should go first

 

[Ion]

It's the oil, stupid!

...
I mean Bush has only been in for 3 years...
...

The article in the link below (which I found elsewhere) discusses three general ideas:

.) first, imminence of peak oil production;

.) second, what would happen to the world and its population;

.) third, how Iraq would play out in the nearer term.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/ItsTheOil.htm

The title is:

"It's the Oil Stupid".

The main points are:

--In the 50s to the 70s, U.S. had control of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E..
It had influence in Iraq.
U.S. strategists indeed had long vision.
OIL SUPPLY IS FINITE.

--US lost Iran in 1980;
was asked to leave Saudi Arabia in 2000 to 2002 and lost Saddam Hussein as a cooperative puppet.

--Iraq invasion by U.S. and U.K. is an attept to recover lost ground.

The article says also that:

--Decline in oil production would cause catastrophic upheavals.

--World population would be destroyed by war from 6.2 billion to a few hundred thousands (to reduce energy users.).

--Terrorism would expand in volume and ferocity.

-- The best way to control Iraq and similar nations would be to form three separate governing regions under U.S./U.K. puppets.

--Countries that cannot be controlled would be destroyed.

U.S. and U.K. would initiate these things for merely a few or several more years of "sufficient" oil supply.

The endgame would be the same no matter what as there is no energy substitute of similar versatility, portability and vastness of available volume like oil.

 

[Troll]

Re: It's the oil, stupid!

The article in the link below (which I found elsewhere) discusses three general ideas:

.) first, imminence of peak oil production;

.) second, what would happen to the world and its population;

.) third, how Iraq would play out in the nearer term.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/ItsTheOil.htm

The title is:

"It's the Oil Stupid".

The main points are:

--In the 50s to the 70s, U.S. had control of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E..
It had influence in Iraq.
U.S. strategists indeed had long vision.
OIL SUPPLY IS FINITE.

--US lost Iran in 1980;
was asked to leave Saudi Arabia in 2000 to 2002 and lost Saddam Hussein as a cooperative puppet.

--Iraq invasion by U.S. and U.K. is an attept to recover lost ground.

The article says also that:

--decline in oil production would cause catastrophic upheavals

--World population would be destroyed by war from 6.2 billion to a few hundred thousands (to reduce energy users.)

--Terrorism would expand in volume and ferocity.

-- best way to control Iraq and similar nations would be to form three separate governing regions under U.S./U.K. puppets.

--countries that cannot be controlled would be destroyed.

U.S. and U.K. would initiate these things for merely a few or several more years of "sufficient" oil supply.
The endgame would be the same no matter what as there is no energy substitute of similar versatility, portability and vastness of available volume like oil.

I'm not claiming we didn't have some weight in some countries at one point in time. But really, all you offer with that link is speculation. I could speculate that we could drill Anwar and not need to sweat Opec as some have done.

But that would still be a waste of time as it would not pertain one bit to the claim made in the the post I replied to nor my post itself. Are you trying to use a diversionary tactic or did you just want to speculate and posted to the last one you saw? Because I gotta tell ya, I don't see a relationship in the posts and replies. Sorry

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

...
Because I gotta tell ya, I don't see a relationship in the posts and replies. Sorry

The thread "So France was RIGHT...?" attempts to describe who was right about the motives for the war in Iraq, and who has to apologize to whom for the wrong reasons.

The link that I posted, highlights that when you see the real (and undeclared) reason for the war in Iraq, then underneath the governmental propaganda nobody apologizes to anybody for fabricating reasons:

Bush and Blair just beat others in the chase for oil, for the benefit of the U.S. and U.K..

Because this chase goes bad for Bush and Blair right now, the article speculates about what will happen.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

The thread "So France was RIGHT...?" attempts to describe who was right about the motives for the war in Iraq, and who has to apologize to whom for the wrong reasons.

The link that I posted, highlights that when you see the real (and undeclared) reason for the war in Iraq, then underneath the governmental propaganda nobody apologizes to anybody for fabricating reasons:

Bush and Blair just beat others in the chase for oil, for the benefit of the U.S. and U.K..

Because this chase goes bad for Bush and Blair right now, the article speculates about what will happen.

yeah but you used that in a reply to my reply about France supplying weapons against the wishes of the UN Sanctions. Had you not quoted me I'd have seen the reasoning and blew it off as that wasn't what I was talking about. I mean you only used "Bush has only been in three years". Kinda hard to establish a reason for the post you made behind that.

Personally I can think of several reasons why we went in. None really matter to me. Dude needed to go.

I do have to wonder how it is that some think we're going to have control over the oil once power is handed back to Iraq and they are back in the graces of Opec. At best we may have a little pull in nudging, but control? Nope

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

...
I do have to wonder how it is that some think we're going to have control over the oil once power is handed back to Iraq and they are back in the graces of Opec. At best we may have a little pull in nudging, but control? Nope

Read the article.

The article speculates towards the end that Bush and whoever is in charge of U.S. after Bush, and Blair and whoever is in charge of U.K. after Blair, will divide Iraq in three zones corresponding to their cultural heritages, with puppet leaders at the mercy of U.S. and U.K..

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

Read the article.

The article speculates towards the end that Bush and whoever is in charge of U.S. after Bush, and Blair and whoever is in charge of U.K. after Blair, will divide Iraq in three zones corresponding to their cultural heritages, with puppet leaders at the mercy of U.S. and U.K..

yes I did catch that and I did read the article. to be honest I love specualtion as 90% of what we do is based upon our own specualtion of action and reaction. So please don't take what I'm saying as a slight or offense towards you personally.

I just tend to currently disagree with the article as so far we've been working towards a goal of full control to the people themselves with no divisions and have a time line for it. granted I've made my own specualtions as to what will happen if we alter that in some way or fail to meet our own goals

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

You got it:

...
...granted I've made my own specualtions as to what will happen...

As for Bush's and Cheney's interest in Iraq's oil, that part is not speculation:

Bush's and Cheney's quotes about Iraq's oil, and Halliburton's, Exxon's and Chevron's contracts are documented.

The article speculates about the future.

It doesn't speculate about the already documented interest in oil.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

You got it:

As for Bush's and Cheney's interest in Iraq's oil, that part is not speculation:

Bush's and Cheney's quotes about Iraq's oil, and Halliburton's, Exxon's and Chevron's contracts are documented.

Halliburton's contracts would have more than likely been granted by any democrat president not affiliated with them. I mean even Marines have idiots that rape children but they're still the best group of people for the job in many cases. Sometimes things that look fishy turn out to be an eel

And the article uses the known interest in oil to speculate about it

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

Not true:

Halliburton's contracts would have more than likely been granted by any democrat president not affiliated with them.
...

When Bush went to U.N. last month to beg for international money and armies, a criticism of his single-minded agenda was the Halliburton contracts.

It really comes down to having Bush beating other leaders to the chase for oil, by him forcing the war in Iraq, then awarding contracts to Halliburton from U.S., and not awarding contracts to the other countries.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

Not true:

When Bush went to U.N. last month to beg for international money and international armies, a criticism of his single-minded agenda was the Halliburton contract.

It really comes down to having Bush beating other leaders to the chase for oil, by him forcing the war in Iraq, then awarding contracts to Halliburton from U.S., and not awarding contracts to the other countries.

If he's getting the criticism on a matter that is a non-issue unless it's pushed then it really comes down to envy on the part of others that would have done said things for said purposes. But that envy doesn't mean that his reasons are the ones the envious ones claim they are

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

That's why I posted above:

...
The link that I posted, highlights that when you see the real (and undeclared) reason for the war in Iraq, then underneath the governmental propaganda nobody apologizes to anybody for fabricating reasons:

Bush and Blair just beat others in the chase for oil, for the benefit of the U.S. and U.K..
...

.) France and me, we agree for about five minutes, and that's just because they lost the chase for the oil in Iraq and they play human virtues;

.) Bush's U.S. and me, we don't agree at all:

Bush's U.S. playing human virtues, that's buffoonery.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the oil, stupid!

.) France and me, we agree for about five minutes, and that's just because they lost the chase for the oil in Iraq and they play human virtues;

"France" and "human virtues" don't belong in the same sentence (*cough* Ivory Coast! *cough* Rwanda! *cough*). But then, I don't think "Ion" and "human virtues" go in the same sentence either, so I guess it all balances out in the end.