babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » How the U.S. murdered a city

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How the U.S. murdered a city
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 February 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"I am Hudda Fawzi Salam Issawi from the Jolan district of Fallujah," she told me. "Five of us, including a 55 year old neighbour, were trapped together in our house in Fallujah when the siege began.

"On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered. "This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.

"Me and my 13 year old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father's pocket."



Story

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 February 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My God ... and Wingy just posted the mildest part of the article ... someone needs to answer for this crime! I tried to think of words to describe the utter hate I feel towards the USA right now, but somehow nothing seems strong enough. Imagine how the Iraqis must feel.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 17 February 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Terrible.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 17 February 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simply disgusting.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 17 February 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OMG!!! how could my countrymen do this????
From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 17 February 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:
OMG!!! how could my countrymen do this????

Capitalism. Oil. Hatred.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 17 February 2005 06:10 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:

Capitalism. Oil. Hatred.


i just don't get it....


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 17 February 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand how somebody can knowingly participate in this massacre.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 February 2005 06:42 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What else is there to say?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 February 2005 06:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mi Lai, El Mazote etc and Fallujah too. It's a culture of violence not unlike the British during that empire's hay days. We're the best, screw the rest.

The bigger they are and all that. Who can make war with the beast?. The Lord will smite them. Or are they smitten already ?. Or is it smited ?. ya


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 February 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:
OMG!!! how could my countrymen do this????

Are you kidding?

quote:
Josephine Baker, the St. Louis-born entertainer who decided she could not live in this country, said at the time: "The very idea of America makes me shake and tremble and gives me nightmares."

quote:
In 1906, an American military detachment attacked a village of Filipino Moslems ("Moros") living in the hollow of a mountain in one of the southern islands. Every one of 600 men, women, and children were killed. This was the Moro Massacre, which drew an angry response from Mark Twain and other anti-imperialist Americans.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 February 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it was during the period of the Reformation that 10 000 blacks were lynched. Canada let thousands of Chinese be killed while blasting for the railway while they were in our "care." And when labour leader Atlee pleaded the coal miners case to Churchill, the old fart suggested military action. The old bastard.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 February 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Moro people are still being massacred, as are the indigenous islanders. ... and set against each other, of course.

Even "good guys" massacre of course. Even valliant Canadians fighting the good fight in the Second World War. My mum used to tell a story about a guy she knew who had received a medal for "mopping up" some German troops. The guy went back home and proceeded to keep shooting cats, dogs, farm animals, innocent wildlife (not for food, just out of cruelty).

Isaac Babel was a revolutionary, a "Jew on horseback" (astonishing the antisemitic Cossacks in the Red Army ... who never suspected their commander was Jewish as well) but though a passionate supporter of the revolution - against the litany of pogroms similar to the massacres described above - he didn't gloss over the atrocities committed by the Reds as well as the Whites.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 17 February 2005 08:36 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing new for the armies with supremecist ideology (RSR anyone?). Remember, "Nits make Lice".

The parallels between the Great Patriotic War and this are numbing. As the Wehrmacht rampaged across Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, exterminating the Untermenschen terrorists, so goes the Marines.

Not much fun in Stalingrad.

Incidentally, something struck me the other day. When was the last time the US Marines fought white people? They were in the Pacific theater during WWII, the Philippeans before that. Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, The Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. But they never seem to fight White folks. The shock troops of White Supremecy.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 17 February 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well for WWII it was because of WWI Jingles and inter service rivalry. The end result of the inter service bickering was an agreement that this time (WWII) the european theatre would be left to the army as it had the better 'heroic' appeal or some such nonsense
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 17 February 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We all knew/know this has been going on. It's not as if the US administration has been sucessful at hiding it. And even those who watch CNN & Fox should be able to figure it out. It's not possible to do what they're trying to do without making a mess; a very bloody mess. And they have the gall to call the Iranians terrorists.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 February 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture — suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that the death had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances under which the man died were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging."


Yahoo News


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 18 February 2005 08:07 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Of course, the US press will investigate this right?
We can't have the Middle East believing these crazy stories about Americans killing civilians trying to surrender right?
There will be a thorough investigation and t ... I can't keep up the sarcastic voice.

Remember the massacre of the wedding party? Remember Abu Ghraib?

That's why i was so impatient with our recent repugnican visitor. I'm getting so disgusted with their dangerous stupidity and etc., .... tired too.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 18 February 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You meam like this one?

quote:

"I feel like [Fallujah] was the pinnacle of my existence - that nothing I will ever do will be like what I have done," says the religious marine from Spotsylvania, Va. "I'm pretty sure there will be times just as good ... just as awesome - and I'll appreciate it in a different way. But right now, I still have my blinders on; the pall of the city is still over me."

...

Corporal Milholin is due to leave the Marine Corps in June 2006, and is not looking forward to returning for a few months to Iraq - unless the action is as hot as Fallujah. He and his wife, Brianne, want to start a family.


Bastards


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 18 February 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I'm going to be sick. . .
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The blind arrogance and sense of entitlement is overwhelming, isn't it?

God forgive them. No one else is ever going to.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 18 February 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am so saddened, yet again, by the actions of the US government.

Does anyone here think that GWB and his cronies will ever be charged with War Crimes? Does anyone think that the next pre-emptive 'strike for freedom' will be okay'd (maybe not literally but figuratively) by the UN and the International Courts?

How is it that the US is exempt from war crimes, gets away with undermining so many international treaties, and can still function as some type of a legitimately sane country?

In short, will we ever see the US be held up for their crimes against so many countries? (I am sure there will be a hit planned to take out Chavez, and the US has said it will punish Cuba even worse (how they can is beyond me, short of invading and stealing the land).

I know this may sound naive, but certainly the world leaders who deal with Bush must know they are dealing with an insane man?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 18 February 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thus, on one hand, Thucydides was the first to describe international relations as anarchic and immoral. The "Melian dialogue" best exemplifies Thucydides' view that interstate politics lack regulation and justice. In the "Melian dialogue," he wrote that, in interstate relations, "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." For him, international relations allow the mighty do as they please and forfce the weak to suffer as they must.

From here .


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stargazer:
I know this may sound naive, but certainly the world leaders who deal with Bush must know they are dealing with an insane man?

I doubt it. World leaders tend to suck up to power. A lot of world leaders (and I include wealthy corporatists in this) admired and sucked up to Hitler until he attacked France. Even then, American corporatists were quietly helping him.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 18 February 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Thwap, but certainly 'the weak' (as in I guess the rest of the world) will have no choice but to fight back. There are reasons for superpowers failing. I'm just wondering when this one will, and how many have to die before it does.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 18 February 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stargazer:

Does anyone here think that GWB and his cronies will ever be charged with War Crimes?

No. The law can't touch them. There is no way to take them into custody.
The closest it would be possible to get would be a trial in absentia with a penalty of outlawry. That is, find them guilty of crimes against humanity and make it legal (outside the US and sycophant states) for anyone who gets the chance to nail them.

I'm not necessarily advocating that, but dang, in some contexts it's awful tempting.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stargazer:
Thanks Thwap, but certainly 'the weak' (as in I guess the rest of the world) will have no choice but to fight back. There are reasons for superpowers failing. I'm just wondering when this one will, and how many have to die before it does.

Lots. Bush is pushing for a major conflagration. He probably doesn't see it that way, but he can't continue the beligerence forever without creating enemies, lots of enemies. The Bush supporters think of it as a crusade, Christians punishing the Muslims; or some such cockamany nonsense. The reality is of much larger scale. We could be looking at 300 million Americans + Brits + Canadians + Australians against most of the rest of the world. No, I don't like the idea of Canadians being in that mix, but our Canadian elite seem to think they can make more money by uniting us with the US.

I foresee flames in the South 48.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 February 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
sucked up to Hitler until he attacked France

You mean poland!

Or even Belgium, holland or denmark or even luxenbourg, all of which were invaded first though poland was the one that started the war


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Or even Belgium, holland or denmark or even luxenbourg, all of which were invaded first though poland was the one that started the war

How do you get to Holland by going through Poland?

Many of the corporate and political elite were quite willing to forgive and forget about Hitler's invasions of Poland, Chechoslovakia, and even even Denmark. Even after the Blitz into France many of them quietly supported Hitler. Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies are well known, as are Henry Ford's, Joe Kennedy's, and Prescott Bush's. Both Churchill and Roosevelt had a terrible time getting the elite onto the allied side, or to at least stop supporting Hitler.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 February 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Poland was invaded and subsequently caused england and france to declare war on germany.

Hitler then invaded denmark, belgium, holland and luxembourg on his way to france. Churchill needed no encouragement to the elites once war had been declared (and a british carrier sunk with great loss of life days after war was declared). Eddy had by this time been shuffled off to the bahamas (or was it bermuda).

Rooseveldt never was able to get into the war with germany and only achieved that when Hitler declared war on america to support japan. If he had not, rooseveldt would have only concentrated on japan and ignored germany

[ 18 February 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2005 04:08 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but as late as 1942, Esso was still shipping oil to Germany.

quote:
The tycoons were linked by an ideology: the ideology of Business as Usual. Bound by identical reactionary ideas, the members sought a common future in fascist domination regardless of which world leader might further that ambition.
From Trading with the Enemy.

[ 18 February 2005: Message edited by: Cougyr ]


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 February 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I dont deny that, but it has nothing to do with your original assertion and doesnt consider the british at all.

The U.S. did not want to go to war with germany if it could avoid it and only hitlers declaration of war made rooseveldts war aims remotely possible.

France was not a concern for anyone (except maybe the british because of the closeness to them)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Bacchus, I'm not sure what you are getting at. I thought my point was that world leaders, particularly the corporate elite, suck up to power. As to whether it was France or Poland that got Churchill's dander up I don't care, although I think that most Brits weren't too upset until France fell.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 February 2005 06:23 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Most brits expected france to collapse but the higher ups disliked it because a occupied france is too close to britain.

I know the elites suck up, my point was the U.S. ones never really cared and the british ones never really got to the same level as the american ones. Politically hitler had his admirers but not really economically for the british


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 February 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How did a discussion of current, present and ongoing atrocities get into a silly debate about the elites pre-WWII? Is this a deliberate hijacking? Is the current topic not important enough?
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 18 February 2005 07:16 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
something struck me the other day. When was the last time the US Marines fought white people? They were in the Pacific theater during WWII, the Philippeans before that. Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, The Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. But they never seem to fight White folks. The shock troops of White Supremecy.

The USMC made up a large part of the American Expeditionary Force in 1918 fighting the Germans.

The USMC was better trained and equiped at the start of the island-hopping campaign against the Japanese. The U.S. Army developed amphibious troups to use in the Pacific as there were insufficient marines available as the size of the Pacific war grew.


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 February 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is Ramadi next?

quote:
American and Iraqi government forces have surrounded the city of Ramadi in preparation for an expected full-scale attack on the city.

The Independent
The city is under curfew and there has been no evacuation and they plan a "full scale assualt."

Another war crime in the making ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 February 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
. . . and follows a pledge by Washington to pacify the remaining rebel strongholds.

Pacify?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This just keeps on getting more and more sickening, and I am really beginning to detest those who support the USian actions.

How anyone can condone this, say nothing of the destruction Fallujah or this whole mess is beyond me!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 February 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How anyone can condone this...

Democracy
God
The Rapture
Helter Skelter
Freedom
Prosperity
Jesus Christ
The Pursuit of Happiness
Saddam tried to Kill my Daddy
The City on the Hill
The Good, the True and the Beautiful
Sept. 11: "The Day that Changed the World"®
My Apocalypse is bigger than your Apocalypse


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 22 February 2005 03:44 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, in other news ...
From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 22 February 2005 08:23 AM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And, in other news ...

So the use of car bombs by insurgents justifies the decimation of a city and the infliction of suffering upon innocent civilians? Would the British have been justified fifteen years ago in laying waste to Belfast in the hopes of killing Republican terrorists?


From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 22 February 2005 09:58 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
And, in other news ...

Yes, looking at the first two pages of that google search I see there were car bombings in Baghdad, Thailand, Spain, Lebanon ... they seem to have picked their Iraqi city to cleanse, which Thai, Spanish, and Lebanonese/Syrian city do you figure they should select to murder all the inhabitants of in the name of fighting car bombs?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 February 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seiltänzer:
Would the British have been justified fifteen years ago in laying waste to Belfast in the hopes of killing Republican terrorists?

I'm sure some of them would have. Fortunately, saner minds were more restrained. In present day America, saner minds have no say. Fanaticism is glorified.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 23 February 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seiltänzer:

So the use of car bombs by insurgents justifies the decimation of a city and the infliction of suffering upon innocent civilians? Would the British have been justified fifteen years ago in laying waste to Belfast in the hopes of killing Republican terrorists?


Stalingrad was decimated. Hamburg was decimated. By no stretch of the imagination was Fallujah "decimated", although it does have a nice melodramatic ring to it.

That you at least acknowledge the insurgents in Fallujah are terrorists, on par with the IRA, is a step in the right direction.

I see no problem with inflicting suffering on terrorists -- but that's just me, and I don't count.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 23 February 2005 12:44 AM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
I see no problem with inflicting suffering on terrorists -- but that's just me, and I don't count.

The big problem is how you identify who's a terrorist and who's an innocent bystander. It also depends on which side you are on. To an American, Ethan Allen was an hero; to a Canadian he was a terrorist. I would guess that to an Iraqi, the rebels are heroes and the Americans are terrorists.

Now, I'm sure you wouldn't accuse someone just because GW Bush does. Would you?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 23 February 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Surely you're not suggesting that True Americans would ever question the words of the Great Leader, are you, tree-man? Perish the thought!

BTW, I guess we'll have to stop referring to the destruction of downtown New York as "decimation", or "apocalyptic", or any such hyperbolic term. Right? After all, the damage there was far less than that done to Stalingrad, or Hamburg... or Fallujah, for that matter. So it was trivial, really, according to Pere Ubu's logic.

Yup. That's what we've come to. Defending the destruction of a city because other cities were destroyed worse at some point in the past. Amurricans' hearts must just be quivering with pride.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 February 2005 01:29 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we go along with PereUbu's reasoning, the Red Army members defending Stalingrad from the Nazis must have been "terrorists".

Oddly enough, the Nazis did in fact refer to Russian partisans as "terrorists".


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 23 February 2005 01:37 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The big problem is how you identify who's a terrorist and who's an innocent bystander.

Yet sometimes there are very subtle clues: terrorists tend to do things like setting-off car bombs; innocent bystanders are usually the people killed and maimed by aforementioned car bombs.

quote:
It also depends on which side you are on.

Good point. As fortune would have it, I happen to not be on the side of Muslim religious fanatics, who would happily decapitate/burn/shoot/blow up my family and friends. Sorry, no dilemma here.

quote:
I would guess that to an Iraqi, the rebels are heroes and the Americans are terrorists.

That you imagine such a thing, sadly, does not surprise me. I'll bet you noticed how Iraqi citizens showed their contempt for Americans by showing up to vote, in unprecedented numbers, against threat to life and limb, for an election made possible by the very Americans you believe they hate so much. I guess Iraqis are using some kind of crazy-ass reverse psychology?

quote:
Now, I'm sure you wouldn't accuse someone just because GW Bush does. Would you?

No, I certainly don't need Mr. Bush to tell me that people who set off car bombs are terrorists. By the same token, unlike you, I also don't feel duty bound to automatically blindly reject self-evident facts, as a knee-jerk reaction, simply because George W. Bush happens to agree with my assesments on some points. That's your bag.

~~~~~~~~

quote:
Surely you're not suggesting that True Americans would ever question the words of the Great Leader

I'm fairly certain that no American citizen is obligated to accept the utterances of the late Comrade Kim Il Sung. Sadly, the same cannot be said of North Koreans. That's one of the nifty things about America -- it's not North Korea -- as much as you fantasize to the contrary.

quote:
So it was trivial, really, according to Pere Ubu's logic.

Except for one problem: I didn't say that -- you did.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 23 February 2005 01:48 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If we go along with PereUbu's reasoning, the Red Army members defending Stalingrad from the Nazis must have been "terrorists".

I'd love to oblige you, but, evidently, that is your reasoning, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth.

quote:
Oddly enough, the Nazis did in fact refer to Russian partisans as "terrorists".

That's because, by the letter of the law, partisans are terrorists. However, that misses your point, which is to strip the discussion of it's context -- unless, of course, you are trying to equate The United States with Nazi Germany.

Oh, sorry? Did I spoil your brilliantly original punchline?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 February 2005 01:58 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
However, that misses your point, which is to strip the discussion of it's [sic] context

Sorry, Flash, but you introduced Stalingrad to the discussion.

Citing historical events to make comparisons is far from stripping a discussion of its context. Doing so instead provides context, something your bland "Iraqis are terrorists" braying lacks.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 23 February 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... something your bland "Iraqis are terrorists" braying lacks.

Really? Then please be so good as to point out where I have said anything like "Iraqis are terrorists"?

I believe, sir, you are once again putting words into my mouth.

I leave it for the reader to decide who here is doing the "braying" -- bland, or otherwise.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 23 February 2005 04:48 AM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
Stalingrad was decimated. Hamburg was decimated. By no stretch of the imagination was Fallujah "decimated", although it does have a nice melodramatic ring to it.

I take it you haven't seen the pictures. But then again you wouldn't see them on Fox News.

quote:
That you at least acknowledge the insurgents in Fallujah are terrorists, on par with the IRA, is a step in the right direction.

I'm using the language defined by popular discourse. If you'd like to know who I think truly deserve the name of terrorists at the current moment in time then it is those who launch a war of aggression and kill 100,000 civilians in the process.

quote:
I see no problem with inflicting suffering on terrorists

Neither do I, provided we define terrorists in the way I just have.

quote:
Yet sometimes there are very subtle clues: terrorists tend to do things like setting-off car bombs; innocent bystanders are usually the people killed and maimed by aforementioned car bombs.

And smart bombs have become so smart they can discriminate human targets. But they are probably more discriminatory than trigger happy GIs. Did you even read the article posted and do you think this boy was a 'terrorist'? - "Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad's brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too."

quote:
I happen to not be on the side of Muslim religious fanatics, who would happily decapitate/burn/shoot/blow up my family and friends.

But the Americans are allowed to happily decapitate/burn/shoot/blow up Muslim families.

quote:
I'll bet you noticed how Iraqi citizens showed their contempt for Americans by showing up to vote, in unprecedented numbers, against threat to life and limb, for an election made possible by the very Americans you believe they hate so much.

How many voted in Fallujah? In the Sunni province of Al-Anbar 2 percent voted. Sounds like contempt.

quote:
That's because, by the letter of the law, partisans are terrorists.

Here is the letter of the law according to Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

By the letter of the law, that would make Bush and Co. terrorists.


From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 23 February 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. PereUbu, I would agree that someone who sets off a car bomb in a crowd and kills innocents is a terrorist. If it's a suicide bomber, he's dead too. So, back to my earlier delemma. How do you tell the terrorists from the rest of the Iraqi population? I assume they look alike, talk alike, worship alike, etc; or at least enough that our western eyes wouldn't notice any difference. And, if you do catch an individual whom you suspect to be a terrorist, don't you think he/she deserves a fair trial? Or have you convicted already? How do you get the terrorists, but only the terrorists? They don't carry signs. How do you do all this without harming the innocent population?
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 February 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you call someone who secures an area by killing every single livig thing in that area with no regard for status, age, gender, species or any other criteria a terrorist? I would. The US operation in Iraq is illegal and a war of terror against a civiian population. And to steal oil. I would say they are common criminals, but even the criminal element in most societies display a greater respect for human life than does the United States government and military.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 23 February 2005 07:57 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How little has changed:

Terrorism: The Politics of Language - Chomsky 1986


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 23 February 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
radiorahim, that's a fascinating read.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 23 February 2005 09:20 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Story


can this story be independently confirmed?


it appears apocryphal. The alleged account gets repeated over and over again but there is no robust independant confimration of the story or a reference to a source.


I doubt the authenticity of this story. The "security sweeps" and Abu Gharaib stories are confirmed.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 February 2005 08:51 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You'll love this source, blinders.

quote:
Overnight US bombardments hit a clinic inside the Sunni Muslim city, killing doctors, nurses and patients, residents said. US military authorities denied the reports.

Many families fled the city of 300,000 long before the offensive began. An official from a Sunni Muslim group with links to some fighters in Falluja said on Monday only about 60,000 people remained.

Residents say they have no power and are using kerosene lamps at night. They say they keep to ground floors for safety. Food shops have been closed for six days.

"My kids are hysterical with fear," said Farhan Salih. "They are traumatised by the sound but there is nowhere to take them."


Here's a cheery article from someone on the warmonger's side of the fence.

quote:
I have no expectations that Fallujah's elders will make the right call, do the right thing. And when they fail to do so – say, in the next few days – the U.S. should pound Fallujah like it has never been pounded before.

We should not try to gain an international consensus for this action. We should not apologize for it. We should not restrain our Air Force and our artillery batteries from wreaking devastation. We should not expose our ground troops to unnecessary risks.

In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.


Amer-i-ca, fuck yah!

Why civilian casualties are not reported in Western rags newspapers

quote:
The issue is both valid and vexing. Times reporters (as well as those from other news organizations, of course) are risking their lives when venturing into Fallujah and other battle zones, and I don't think anyone can expect them to publish, without qualification, purported facts they cannot verify or attribute with confidence. In a war such as this one, even the relief agencies, whom I too regard as impartial sources, cannot make the distinction between those of the dead who were civilians and those who were fighters in civilian clothing.

Further complicating factors were discussed in "How Many Iraqis Are Dying? By One Count, 208 in a Week," by Norimitsu Onishi, which ran on Page One on October 19.

But I do think the Times could be more forthcoming than it has been, citing as often as possible figures of civilian deaths reported by reputable sources, carefully attributed.


Yes, it could be more forthcoming. But it generally isn't.

FAIR's response:

quote:
But Okrent's response, along with one from Times editor Andrea Kannapell (full text below), fails to address the core criticism of the alert. Kannapell argues that the Times "did not suggest that there were no civilian casualties," which was never FAIR's contention. FAIR's criticism was that the Times repeatedly cast doubt on reports that civilian deaths during the April offensive in Fallujah were "large" or "heavy." That there were, indeed, heavy civilian casualties in Fallujah has been affirmed not only by local hospital officials, but by refugees, independent observers in the city (including journalists) and human rights groups. Iraq Body Count, which only includes multiply-cited reports from doctors and eyewitnesses, found at least 308 women and children alone were killed in Fallujah in April (iraqbodycount.net, 10/26/04)-- deaths that could quite confidently be distinguished from "fighters in civilian clothing."

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 February 2005 09:57 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stupid fuckwits ... they can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a child or old lady because supposedly they both might be wearing civilian cloths ... but then they have no idea at all as to what Ward Churchill was talking about in his essay.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 24 February 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.

Ignorant Americans...

"With cheerfully smoothed countenances, day after day, and generation after generation, they, calling cheerfully to one another, 'Well-speed-ye,' are at work, sowing the wind. And yet, as God lives, they shall reap the whirlwind: no other thing, we say, is possible,--since God is a Truth and His World is a Truth." Thomas Carlyle


From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 February 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't read anymore because then I begin to think like them; that the bomb would be a good idea.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 February 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They want to destroy the whole area and build a New York City there, and for that they are tearing down everything. We want to live in peace. We are tired of fighting and bombs. God, please protect us," Muhammad Farhan, a father of five, who was fleeing the city with his family, told IRIN.

Reuters report on flight from Ramadi where US killers are now operating

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 February 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I can't read anymore because then I begin to think like them; that the bomb would be a good idea.

I'll plead the "fifth" on that myself.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 24 February 2005 04:14 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
I'll plead the "fifth" on that myself.

You're Canadian. There is no "fifth".


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 February 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

You're Canadian. There is no "fifth".


Oh yeah ... OK I plead the "section 11c"


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 February 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Someone of conscience is standing up and trying to be heard

quote:
I also apologize to the Iraqi people. To them I say I am sorry for the curfews, for the raids, for the killings. May they find it in their hearts to forgive me.

One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning was that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today, as I sit behind bars I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions? I am confined to a prison but I feel, today more than ever, connected to all humanity. Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience.



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 02:18 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "Seiltänzer":
quote:
I take it you haven't seen the pictures. But then again you wouldn't see them on Fox News.

I've never seen Fox News, so I'll have to take your word for it. You sound like an expert. Perhaps I should spend more time perusing the pages of Socialist Worker, where the story in question was originally published? (chortle!) Now there's credibility.

quote:
I'm using the language defined by popular discourse.

Well, that's a relief. For a minute there, I was afraid you were going to use some sort of crazy moon-man language that you just make up as you go along.

quote:
If you'd like to know who I think truly deserve the name of terrorists at the current moment in time then it is those who launch a war of aggression and kill 100,000 civilians in the process.

Actually, I didn't want to know, but thanks for sharing. 100,000? How did you come up with that? Even the highly partisan "Iraq Body Count" website claims the maximumnumber of civilian casualties at slightly over 18,000 -- and that includes all civilians, such as defense contractors, foreign aid workers, etc., not just Iraqis. Do you even bother to check your claims, or do you just give free reign to your imagination?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see no problem with inflicting suffering on terrorists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither do I, provided we define terrorists in the way I just have.


Ah, so you are just using some sort of crazy moon-man language that you just make up as you go along. Black is white, and white is black. In the same vein, I know a guy who is a millionaire -- provided we define having $32.64, as being a millionaire.

quote:
Did you even read the article posted and do you think this boy was a 'terrorist'? - "Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad's brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too."

They left out the part where US Marines painted their faces with their victim's blood, and danced naked under the full moon -- while high on crack, of course. If anything, Socialist Worker uses too much editorial restraint!

quote:
But the Americans are allowed to happily decapitate/burn/shoot/blow up Muslim families.

Wow. A rhetorical come-back on par with "I know you are, but what am I?". So tell us: Exactly how many people have Americans happily decapitated? Feel free to round up to the nearest dozen, or so. Perhaps they should start? Apparently this type of thing is part of "the language of popular discourse" among Islamofascists.

quote:
How many voted in Fallujah?

Approximately 8,000. Fallujah accounted for 44% of the votes in Anbar province.

quote:
In the Sunni province of Al-Anbar 2 percent voted.

Nope. It was more like 7%.

quote:
Sounds like contempt.

Actually, it sounds like a fatwah was issued by the local clerics, helped along by insurgents offers to kill anyone and their families who dared to defy the fatwah. Nonetheless, in yet another display of bald-faced hypocrisy, several Sunni groups, having failed to oppress enough locals into bringing illegitemacy to the election results (and, naturally, ending up with no representation), are now demanding to share power with the election winners. Their tactics backfired, and now they're furiously backpedalling.

Then again, the fact that the Sunni Triangle has been a historical Ba'athist stronghold probably has a lot to do with the lower turnouts, compared to the rest of the country. Who has the most to lose in a free and democratic Iraq, afterall?

So, in a way, you're right. It was contempt. Contempt for democracy, that is.

quote:
Here is the letter of the law according to Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

So you want to play lawyer, do you? You forgot to mention the rest of the US code, specifically 1189 (a)(1)(C): "the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States."

Oh, and the United States of America is not a subnational group, nor is it a clandestine agent. But, if you want to play tiresome word games, as you obviously do, knock yourself out. Too bad you're not any good at that ... either.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 03:03 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting Cougyr:
quote:
Mr. PereUbu, I would agree that someone who sets off a car bomb in a crowd and kills innocents is a terrorist. If it's a suicide bomber, he's dead too.

I'm glad to hear you feel that way, although, sadly, we can't say the same for everyone enjoying the relative security of Western democracy.

quote:
So, back to my earlier delemma. How do you tell the terrorists from the rest of the Iraqi population? I assume they look alike, talk alike, worship alike, etc; or at least enough that our western eyes wouldn't notice any difference.

Well, it is a dilemma, isn't it? I'm sure even Iraqi security specialists grapple with that problem. But that's the whole point of being a terrorist, isn't it? You don't wear a uniform; you blend in. The whole intent of terrorism is to kill indiscriminately. That way, when retaliatory measures are taken, and innocent people are accidentally harmed by the authorities, you can point your finger and say, "look at those evil Americans (or whatever the case may be), they are killing innocent civilians!". This naturally plays into the hands of soft-headed pacifists and appeasers, who, if you really think about it, are co-conspirators in terrorists' acts of violence.

Just like the US Code says terrorism is "... usually intended to influence an audience." By looking at this thread, insurgent terrorists have certainly found their demographic.

So what's the alternative to dealing with terrorism? Do nothing, and let terrorists have free reign, for fear that in apprehending them, innocent people will be harmed? We all agree that innocent people have been harmed, and will continue to be harmed in the fight against terrorism. It is a cost we are forced to accept and attempt to minimise to whatever extent possible. However, it is a cost which the terrorists themselves never have to answer for -- in spite of the fact that they are the root cause.

Terrorists count on the fact that, above all, those they end up having the most influence over are easily frightened and with a good measure of spinelessness thrown in. The terrorists aren't trying to influence Iraqis -- they are trying to influence smug, safe, liberal diletantes -- the chattering classes, if you will. In that, they are successful.

quote:
And, if you do catch an individual whom you suspect to be a terrorist, don't you think he/she deserves a fair trial?

Nope, not necessarily. I think it largely depends on the circumstances of how they are "caught". If red-handed, eg. a sniper, then they deserve to be immediately despatched to The Land of Wind and Ghosts, by whatever means are expedient. You can't seriously ask a soldier to risk his life to take a sniper prisoner, could you?

On the other hand, if the evidence is debatable, then sure, the case demands further investigation.

quote:
How do you do all this without harming the innocent population?

As I've said, that's the problem, isn't it? How do you go swimming, without getting wet? But what is your alternative? Bend over and drop our pants every time someone threatens an act of terrorism? As history has shown with nauseating frequency, weakness and appeasement is always rewarded with slavery and death. Some among us will continue to not accept this lesson.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 04:19 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting, *ahem*, "WingNut":

quote:
The US operation in Iraq is illegal and a war of terror against a civiian population. And to steal oil.

So tell us, exactly how much oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?

C'mon, don't leave us hanging.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 25 February 2005 06:17 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even the highly partisan "Iraq Body Count" website claims the maximumnumber of civilian casualties at slightly over 18,000

Since you're accusing people of inventing language to suit their needs, does 'highly partisan' now mean 'only includes deaths documented by at least three independent news sources'?

quote:
Nope. It was more like 7%.

Er, twice small potatoes is still small potatoes. Forgive me if I don't fellate you for the smashing success at getting out 7% of the vote.
But then, given that I'm actually responding to someone who thinks that the root cause of terrorism is (wait for it) terrorists:

quote:
the terrorists themselves never have to answer for -- in spite of the fact that they are the root cause.

Gosh, you know, they just keep growing like weeds, don't they? Some people are just born terrorists. Hm, waitaminute, I guess that would explain your not having any problems with grandmothers and five-year-olds getting shot by the troops in the cause of stopping 'terrorism': after all, if terrorists just magically come into being at birth, then hey, everyone can be a terrorist. Oh, except Americans. No terrorists magically appear in the US of A, natch.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 February 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah, I think the root cause of terrorism is that some people are born terrorist victims ... if there were no terrorist victims being born, then terrorists would have no on who to practice their terrorism. And of course, it is ONLY the USA where terrorist victims are born.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 25 February 2005 10:17 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why bother guys? If someone wants to suck on the propaganda teat of Uncle Sam, nothing you say is going to make any difference.

I live here, I see what's going on, I hear my own media and what the coffee shop conversation is. And slowly, ever so slowly, there is opposition building among the heartlanders. Even the ordinary USian starts to wonder about war without end.

And the oil? Christ sakes man, just look at the map. You'll never get accurate figures on production or reserves (try getting them from Saudi Arabia, let alone Iraq), but in the competition for what oil is left after the coming production peak (Peak Oil, which I bet you don't believe has credibility either) the US must control the Persian Gulf region INCLUDING the Straits of Hormuz (ergo Iran) in order to GUARANTEE the flow of oil to US oil companies and US industry and business. 50 percent of what's left is there. Why do you think the Chinese and Indians are roaming the world trying their damnest to secure oil contracts with other nations?

Eventually we will strike Iran in an effort to topple the government. As long as the Iranians can close the flow of oil at the Straits of Hormuz, the situation is unacceptable to the US. The nuclear issue is a red herring.

Did the Iraqis learn a lesson at Fallujah? I think they did and its not one that will benefit the US effort.

As always, time will tell. And time is not on our side.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 February 2005 10:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So tell us, exactly how much oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?

All of it. Buy a paper. It is worth the investment.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 February 2005 10:59 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:And, if you do catch an individual whom you suspect to be a terrorist, don't you think he/she deserves a fair trial?

Nope, not necessarily.



quote:
What exactly are these "paramilitary operations" which the commission, the U.S. Congress and all our stalwarts think we should have more of? As Knight-Ridder notes, they are actions "conducted by armed units that do not belong to conventional military formations" -- in other words, terrorist groups, according to the Bush regime's own definition. Those designated as terrorists by Bush should not be covered by the Geneva Conventions, we are told, because they are not part of a "conventional military formation." They're outlaws, Bush says, fit to be killed or locked up without charges. Yet of course he commands the largest collection of such "outlaws" in the world.

And "outlaw" is no metaphorical term here. As Knight-Ridder explains, specifically "covert" operations are those "in which the U.S. government wants to be able to deny any involvement" because they "at times violate international law or the laws of war."



Core Values

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tell us, exactly how much oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All of it. Buy a paper. It is worth the investment.


That's quite an assinine response. But you haven't actually answered the question.

I read several papers throughout the week, including international publications. To date, I haven't seen one single story claiming that the US has, or is, stealing one drop of oil.

So tell us, how did you come by this rather startling piece of information?


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Forgive me if I don't fellate you for the smashing success at getting out 7% of the vote.

I see. So then, can we assume that, conversely, you believe since Saddam recieved a 99.8% voter turnout for the sham election under his regime -- that it was an indication of his wild popularity among Iraqis?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter what the voter turnout was in this election, you would have found something to complain bitterly about.

In any case, as I have illustrated, it's really no surprise, given the circumstances, that the turnout was significantly lower in the Sunni Triangle area.

However, it is particularly indicative of the coalition success, that in Fallujah itself, people felt so much more safe and secure, that the turnout was much higher than in the surrounding Sunni Triangle area.

You just can't stand Iraqis voting, can you? Interesting, that you only seem to take smug satisfaction when they either don't, or are prevented from voting through oppression.

Thanks for giving us an insight into the true nature of your character.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 February 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of your statements are asinine which is the best that can be expected from someone apologizing for and defending mass murder and illegal war.

Clearly, you have no difficulty accepting the spilling of blood in the name of oil and empire so long as it not yours.

You are less interested in debate as you are interested in attempting to portray a series of lies leading to an illegal war of aggression as some sort of humitarian gesture. You offer nothing more than yet another lie.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 25 February 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Ignore the vermin.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 February 2005 08:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:

I read several papers throughout the week, including international publications. To date, I haven't seen one single story claiming that the US has, or is, stealing one drop of oil.


Reading all week? Man is a scholar on the mid east.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 February 2005 09:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Since the Occupation and deliberate destruction of the Iraqi society began, the West “anti-war” movement remains silent pretending it is not supporting “violent” Resistance led by “fundamentalists”. Unfortunately, it is the occupation forces and the Bush right-wing administration that are spreading this line. The violence is brought by the Occupation, not by the people fighting to end it. Everywhere, violent resistance arises from a violent foreign military occupation. Those who obliged to kill to defend their country and people are called “terrorists”; those who kill en masse to enforce their tyranny of domination are the noble (wo)men of Western “civilisation”. As the American civil rights advocate, Martin Luther King said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed … without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government”.

It should be emphasized that there are criminal elements working with the Occupation against the principle aim of the Iraqi Resistance. This distortion of the image of the Iraqi Resistance has its purposes and designed to discredit the name of the Resistance. Reports from Iraq have contradicted this distorted image of a legitimate popular Resistance movement fighting against illegal and tyrannical Occupation [Molly Bingham, Boston Globe, 15 December 2004]. “It was a mistake to discount the Iraqi [R]esistance”, a US soldier, Lt. Col. Kim Keslung told the Wall Street Journal October, 2003. “If someone invaded Texas, we'd do the same thing”, he added.

The aim of the Resistance is the unconditional withdraw of all foreign forces from Iraq and the return of Iraq sovereignty. All Iraqi citizens, men, women and children, not “foreigners” are against the Occupation of their land. There is no evidence that there are foreigners among the Resistance. The foreigners are the US, Italians, Poles, English, and Australian soldiers. If there were foreigners fighting with the Resistance, they would be welcomed fighting along their Iraqi brethrens. The Australian Government of John Howard is sending (against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people) 450 soldiers to Iraq allegedly “to help” their US, Japanese, and English “brethrens”. Why can’t the Iraqis call on their Muslim and Arab brethrens for help? Iraqis have legitimate right to defend themselves and their country against foreign invaders.



The Rest

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 25 February 2005 09:38 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still can't answer the question, eh?

What oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 February 2005 09:46 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no question to answer. An obstinate apologizer for mass murder does not ask questions and could care less about answers. You are a propagandist - a tool for murderers of innocent children.

Here is but one of your victims:

Her blood is on your filthy hands.

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 25 February 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ignore the vermin.


here here!! I second that motion. Aguing with this type of right wing person (who clearly sees him/herself as some sort of a moderate voice of reason in faux news land) is just simply not worth it. Its quite clear this person is never going to listen and has only come here to peeve people off.

Well some news for you, person called Pereube, I think you are hilarious!!! Thanks for making me laugh. Really. Belly laugh. Till I hurt.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 25 February 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Why did the Usians invade Iraq in the first place? I forgot.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 February 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
Still can't answer the question, eh?

What oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?



Simply put: US interest in the region began in the 1930's. At the time oil concession were mostly hanlded by the British and the French. Those concessions were given at a rate of 20% to the resource country, 80% to whatever oli concern was involved. That was the standard rate going in what is now Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

When the Americans came in they offered a new deal which was very popular locally: a 50/50 share of revenue between the host country and the oil concern. This and growing us military power post WW2 made US investment very popular, as greater wealth spurred economic development. Thus the US was able to squeeze out its French and British competition.

This was the practice in Iraq up until the fall of Hussien. Lo and behold, as soon as the CPA starts writing the rules, the US introduces a flat tax, as a preconstitutional measure regarding oil revenue, that the new Iraq regime can not recind even if it choses to in a new constitution. The flat tax allows the Iraqi government only a 15% share in oil revenue -- a deal even worse than that given by Britain and France in the 1930's.


US oil concerns stand to increase oil revenue substantialy, almost by three fold from Iraqi oil. There is no need to point out that George Bush and much of his cabinet and close advisors are very close too the oil concerns who stand to make these profits.

This new arrangement has not been in any way approved by any legitimate Iraqi body other than those imposed by the CPA. Further, this flat tax system, according to the laws also imposed by the CPA, can not be changed by an incoming government, even if a new Iraq parliment votes to change the deal. It is irrevocable based on the charte under which the CPA has given the new Iraqi goverment its mandate.

That is how the Bush adminstration is stealing Iraqi oil.

I suggest you study the history and politics of the region, as well as the policies of the CPA and the US authority in Iraq today, before you pop-off like an idiot.

Probably no one was interested in answering your question because of your obvious ignorance about the subject, and because they are bored answering questions that are founded in such deep ignorance.

Or do you think it would be lawful for a coutnry to invade the US, fundamentally change the tax structure without consulting americans and then impose a set of laws which prevent any future indiginous government from changing the new tax structure, which incidentally (shock and suprise) favours the business interests of the invading country?

It is imperialism pure and simple.

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 25 February 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
That's quite an assinine response. But you haven't actually answered the question.

I read several papers throughout the week, including international publications. To date, I haven't seen one single story claiming that the US has, or is, stealing one drop of oil.

So tell us, how did you come by this rather startling piece of information?


I believe what he's referring to is the "privatization" of their oil fields by American companies (too bad rest of the world, no open bidding here) and one in particular with close ties to a certain US VP, all at well below below market price I hear, proceeds not proceding to their rightful Iraqi owners, none of whom agreed to the sale. You may not consider this forced expropriation or "liberation" as theft, but it's against long established UN prohibitions against profiting from wars of conquest. I wouldn't expect that you'd see much on this in most American papers though.

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 26 February 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Still can't answer the question, eh?

What oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?



Duh...privatization at gunpoint = theft.



From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 27 February 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
All of your statements are asinine which is the best that can be expected from someone apologizing for and defending mass murder and illegal war.

Clearly, you have no difficulty accepting the spilling of blood in the name of oil and empire so long as it not yours.

You are less interested in debate as you are interested in attempting to portray a series of lies leading to an illegal war of aggression as some sort of humitarian gesture. You offer nothing more than yet another lie.



wow nice strawman, and great appeal to emotion. I am sure you will convince him to see how correct your perspective is this way.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 February 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Appeal to emotion? For blood spilled? Life lost? Massive life lost. For power and oil? You're fucking right. And what is the basis for your appeal? Disspassionate logical assesment of geo-political power politics? The banality of evil ...
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 27 February 2005 06:27 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Appeal to emotion? For blood spilled? Life lost? Massive life lost. For power and oil? You're fucking right. And what is the basis for your appeal? Disspassionate logical assesment of geo-political power politics? The banality of evil ...


Once again you come through on a strawman... Do you have a factory that makes strawmen? You and Anne Coulter have a lot in common. She builds a lot of strawmen too.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 February 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, sorry, but that reply sort of betrays your intellectual inferiority. You're bothering me now ... go away.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 27 February 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Myself and other's, according to Wing-Nut, betray our intellectual inferiority. Intellectually Inferior to whom? To Wing Nut? Albert Schweitzer? I accept I am fallible and often prone to misunderstanding things and make mistakes in my thinking. Sometimes I don't buy into everything Wing Nut posits, so does that make me intellectually inferior? If a poster questions any of Wing Nuts posits they are labelled murderers, defenders of murderers, and liers, and many other things. Wing Nut makes claims and then gets angry when people inquire or comment or offer a perspective, and if that perspective does not match Wing-Nuts, well... watch out. Now the intellectually inferior must "go away". Wing Nut's posits can't be challenged because if they are Wing Nut banishes the inferior.

Its a great system. Make a claim, paint someone as a murderer and lier who dares to challenge the claim, and then bannish them to prevent them from challenging those labels.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 February 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's okay. I accept your apology.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 27 February 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
Wing Nut makes claims and then gets angry when people inquire or comment or offer a perspective, and if that perspective does not match Wing-Nuts, well... watch out. Now the intellectually inferior must "go away". Wing Nut's posits can't be challenged because if they are Wing Nut banishes the inferior.

Its a great system. Make a claim, paint someone as a murderer and lier who dares to challenge the claim, and then bannish them to prevent them from challenging those labels.[/QB]



Which inquiry, perspective or comment is it that you have made that Wingnut is now supposed to be upset about? Sorry, my "find" function seems to be broken, as it fails to return any reference to any of your profound comments on the subject.

As far as I can tell, your only contribution to this thread is to take direct attacks at Wingnut without making your own opinon known on the issue ... maybe if you presented an opinion, rather than simply making accusations, we could all then judge whether Wingy was mistaken about his choice to dismiss your intellect.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 27 February 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "WingNut":

quote:
There is no question to answer.

No?

Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll find there is a question to answer.

Here, I'll give you a hint:

What oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Three posts answered this question. Wingnut need not add to the detritus of this thread by rehashing those answers, well known to most posters here.

If you refuse to rebut those arguments made, or acknowledge their existence the least you could do is stop repeating the question like a idiot savant.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2005 11:46 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:
Quoting "WingNut":
Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll find there is a question to answer.

Here, I'll give you a hint:
What oil has the US "stolen" from Iraq?

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


Wingnut, I think he's referring to the world's most oil dependant nation's fascists who stole the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, but I'm not sure.

Don't bother, WingNut. When arguing with idiots, they wear you down and beat you with experience.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 28 February 2005 01:36 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, Cueball, have it your way ...
but I should tell you, I do actually work in the oil and gas business, so I happen to have some small degree of general knowledge, which you quite evidently lack.

quote:
I suggest you study the history and politics of the region, as well as the policies of the CPA and the US authority in Iraq today, before you pop-off like an idiot.

Well, thank you for your wise suggestion, but, speaking of "popping-off like an idiot, let's start right at the beginning of your -- *ahem* -- "imaginative" post:

quote:
Simply put: US interest in the region began in the 1930's.

No, actually the Standard Oil consortium (to name only one US party) was interested in Iraq long before that.

quote:
At the time oil concession were mostly hanlded by the British and the French.

You don't actually have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

quote:
Those concessions were given at a rate of 20% to the resource country, 80% to whatever oli concern was involved.

Now I know you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

quote:
That was the standard rate going in what is now Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

It was? I've never heard of that ... and, apparently, neither has anyone else. Thanks for clearing that up, then.

quote:
When the Americans came in they offered a new deal which was very popular locally: a 50/50 share of revenue between the host country and the oil concern.

No, US partnership in The Iraqi Petroleum Comapany (a wholly foreign-owned consortium, of which US interests were only one component) dated from 1927. From 1931 onward, the deal with the company was to guarantee annual royalties of GBP 400,000(!) to the government of Iraq. Hardly 20%. That arrangement was not formally ammended until 1952, when Iraq gained 50% of oil profits from concession holders.

quote:
Thus the US was able to squeeze out its French and British competition.

Except for one small quibble: Nothing like that ever happened. Sorry, but French and British membership in the Iraq Petroleum Company did not change. Nobody was "squeezed out", although it's apparent from your exertions that you are trying to squeeze something out.

quote:
This was the practice in Iraq up until the fall of Hussien.

You left out a small peice of trivia -- that all foreign-owned oil companies in Iraq were nationalised by the Baath Party in 1972 -- 1975. All foreign oil workers were kicked out. Incidentally, this was the last time any major investment in production infrastructure was made, which explains the decrepitude they suffer from to this day.

Sorry? You were saying something about someone "popping-off like an idiot"?

To put it mildly, you are just a bit light on the facts. The few facts you do present are a complete mishmash of confusion and embroidery:

quote:
Lo and behold, as soon as the CPA starts writing the rules, the US introduces a flat tax, as a preconstitutional measure regarding oil revenue, that the new Iraq regime can not recind even if it choses to in a new constitution. The flat tax allows the Iraqi government only a 15% share in oil revenue -- a deal even worse than that given by Britain and France in the 1930's.

My God, where do I start?
Firstly, the flat tax refers to personal and corporate income -- not petroleum royalties. In any case, since Iraq's oil industry is still nationalised -- it wouldn't make any difference, even if things worked the way you incorrectly imagine they do.

quote:
US oil concerns stand to increase oil revenue substantialy, almost by three fold from Iraqi oil.

You figure? That would be quite a feat, considering they don't own any Iraqi oil property. Even if what you say had the smallest kernel of truth to it, that's an optimistic forecast, to put it mildly. Considering the the amount of money that has to be spent to see a dime's worth of return, I'm guessing you're trying to sell stock, or something?

quote:
There is no need to point out that George Bush and much of his cabinet and close advisors are very close too the oil concerns who stand to make these profits.

If there's no need to point it out, then why do you go out of your way to do so? Nice use of empty rhetoric and innuendo, though.

quote:
This new arrangement has not been in any way approved by any legitimate Iraqi body other than those imposed by the CPA.

Hmm, I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that this "arrangement" exists only in your own confused mind?

quote:
Further, this flat tax system, according to the laws also imposed by the CPA, can not be changed by an incoming government, even if a new Iraq parliment votes to change the deal.

What's so humourous about your post is that not only do you have absolutely no comprehension of the situation, but you embellish on it so masterfully. You're really like a dog with a new bone on this one, eh? Or are you just regurgitating something you read on some crackpot web site, somewhere?

Once again, what the flat corporate and personal income tax has to do royalties from a nationally owned oil industry remains a complete mystery.

quote:
That is how the Bush adminstration is stealing Iraqi oil.

(LOL!) Riiiight ...
As I said, even if there was any element of factual truth to your elaborate theory (never mind any logic!), which, as it happens, there isn't -- none of that would amount to "stealing Iraqi oil".

Then again, around here, words like "stealing" and "terrorism" tend to be redefined to mean anything you feel like, at any given time.

quote:
Probably no one was interested in answering your question because of your obvious ignorance about the subject, and because they are bored answering questions that are founded in such deep ignorance.

Yeah, I should smarten up, eh?

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 28 February 2005 01:54 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
[QB]

I believe what he's referring to is the "privatization" of their oil fields by American companies (too bad rest of the world, no open bidding here) and one in particular with close ties to a certain US VP, all at well below below market price I hear, proceeds not proceding to their rightful Iraqi owners, none of whom agreed to the sale. You may not consider this forced expropriation or "liberation" as theft, but it's against long established UN prohibitions against profiting from wars of conquest. I wouldn't expect that you'd see much on this in most American papers though.

/QB]


On the other hand, perhaps American papers haven't reported the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry because ... um, y'know ... it hasn't happened?

Nice speculative fiction, though. I particularly liked the saucy innuendo.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 28 February 2005 02:09 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "WingNut":
quote:
You are a propagandist - a tool for murderers of innocent children.

So, first he calls me, among other things, a "propagandist", and then immediately proceeds to post a completely irrelevant, yet sensationalistic photo.

"Wingnut" concludes with:

quote:
Here is but one of your victims:
Her blood is on your filthy hands.

Dude, who writes your material?


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2005 02:30 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So there it is, a loyal idiot of the oil cartel admits that 1.5 million dead Iraqis since 1991 did have everything to do with a resource grab and nothing to do with fascist lies about Iraq.

Eventually, the drones meet themselves on the way back.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 28 February 2005 02:34 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe CueBall was in fact mistaken in that Paul Bremer's privatization dictates did not in the end include the oil industry, which is still nationalized -- for the common-sense reason that such a transparent grab for the gooey stuff would have been so utterly, brain-bonkingly obvious that even the most fanatical Bush-licking patriot could've seen it. And of course, had the US directly privatized Iraq's oil, approximately 100% of the Iraqi population would have immediately joined the resistance and started blowing up every American in sight. Nobody in Iraq would have stood for that, for one single second.

That the Shrubniks wanted to privatize Iraq's oil isn't in doubt, though. If Iraqis hadn't reacted in such a ferociously negative fashion, it probably would've happened by now.

What Bremer did undeniably do, during his tenure as dictator of Iraq, was to try and steal everything else in Iraq, by attempting to ram thru privatization of practically every non-oil component of Iraq's economy, though they had to be more sneaky about it than they originally intended. And attempting to have those fundamental economic changes hammerlocked into stone so that no future Iraqi government, if a stable one actually emerges, will be able to reverse them. Those efforts continue today; whether they'll come off remains to be seen.

Note, also, that literal privatization isn't actually necessary. What is desired is control of the oil, which can be accomplished without actually owning the oilfields. Saudi oil, after all, isn't owned by Americans, but is pretty clearly under American control, in the sense that it's held by a client dictatorship which is utterly and entirely dependent on the US for its very survival. Something similar is no doubt the ultimate goal in Iraq; though leaving Iraq's oil in government hands may stick in the craw of the more demented neocon ideologues in Washington, that's what they may have to settle for in the end.

Of course, all right-thinking people know that none of this matters, and that this war was an angelic, selfless undertaking to bring Iraqis Democracy™ and Freedom™.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 28 February 2005 02:34 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "Fidel":

quote:
So there it is, a loyal idiot of the oil cartel admits that 1.5 million dead Iraqis since 1991 did have everything to do with a resource grab and nothing to do with fascist lies about Iraq.

Yes, that's exactly what I've said.

Or not.

quote:
Eventually, the drones meet themselves on the way back.

Whatever that's supposed to mean ...
I'm sure it's probably profound, somehow.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 28 February 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "beluga2":

quote:
I believe CueBall was in fact mistaken in that Paul Bremer's privatization dictates did not in the end include the oil industry, which is still nationalized

Yes, just a minor oversight there.

quote:
And of course, had the US directly privatized Iraq's oil, approximately 100% of the Iraqi population would have immediately joined the resistance and started blowing up every American in sight.

What?!!! You mean 100% of the Iraqi population doesn't already support the "resistance"?!!! Surely, you're not suggesting there are one or two Iraqis who don't wholeheartedly support the brave (*cough*cough*) "resistance"?

quote:
What Bremer did undeniably do, during his tenure as dictator of Iraq, was to try and steal everything else in Iraq, by attempting to ram thru privatization of practically every non-oil component of Iraq's economy, though they had to be more sneaky about it than they originally intended.

Yes, since it goes without saying that privatizing a particular sector of the economy is exactly the same as "stealing" it. But precicely what is all this super-duper loot the US stole from Iraq, besides oil? A pile of rocks? A turn signal from a '79 Chevette? Or are you talking about that Orange Julius stand they used to have at the mall in Baghdad?

quote:
leaving Iraq's oil in government hands may stick in the craw of the more demented neocon ideologues in Washington

Like there's any other kind??


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 28 February 2005 03:17 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I can extract precisely one semi-substantive, non-snarky comment out of that brain-blurt, and here it is:

quote:
Yes, since it goes without saying that privatizing a particular sector of the economy is exactly the same as "stealing" it.

Yes, in fact, it is precisely that -- when the economy being forcibly privatized belongs to a country that is under military occupation by a foreign power. Note that this was long before there was any hint of participation by Iraqis in the decision-making process, regarding some pretty fundamental issues about the nature of Iraqi society.

No doubt you wouldn't object if some Communist power were to invade the US, abolish private property, nationalize every nook and cranny of the American economy... and then allow Americans to vote on it afterwards, after all the changes have already been made and implemented in irreversible fashion.

Which syllable of the word "democracy" do you not understand?

And BTW, the "loot" Bremer intended to dole out included every single government-owned business in Iraq (excluding oil).


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So how many more posts before he packs up what's left of his marbles and tells us to eff off ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2005 03:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, US partnership in The Iraqi Petroleum Comapany (a wholly foreign-owned consortium, of which US interests were only one component) dated from 1927. From 1931 onward, the deal with the company was to guarantee annual royalties of GBP 400,000(!) to the government of Iraq. Hardly 20%. That arrangement was not formally ammended until 1952, when Iraq gained 50% of oil profits from concession holders.


Prevericate away then. Funny how in one sentence you decry my statement that US oil interest began in the 1930's and then in the very next note that 1931 was key date.

My outline, was in fact an outline. All "outlines" as a character of their nature subject to criticism via nitpicking. However the point of an outline is not to establish the specific facts, as such would require far more server space than Babble has to offer, but they do serve to establish the general facts, all of which your attempts to undermine have simply reinforced.

The fact is that however the timeline is estabished (1930's being a good period to establish the movement from French and British interests to US,) as you yourself establish when your are forced to deal with the actual facts as opposed to the rhetorical nonsense that makes up the (non) substance of your posts.

YOu agree for instance that US interests really began to be a force in the 1930's and that the US improved on the circumstances of the French and English offerings, even to the point of agreeing to the figures (50/50.) The facts are, in general, in accord with my outline as even you admit.

You note 1952 as the date which is in variance with my view... I guess you miss my caveat "post ww2." 1952 is post WW2 is it not? Whereas 1930 is not. If you insist on being officious please contradict the facts as I stated them as opposed to making up what it is that I have said.

Good though, it is nice to see that you are actually interested infacts, even though it is apparently only through force of arguement that you feel required to discuss them, as you have.

Sad that your are so commited to your rabid ideological viewpoint, that you feel forced to plug the leaks in your titanically foolish argument, even when it is apparent that you should abandon ship in order to salvage your self-respect.

Thanks for confiriming the general details of my argument.

quote:
Yes, since it goes without saying that privatizing a particular sector of the economy is exactly the same as "stealing" it. But precicely what is all this super-duper loot the US stole from Iraq, besides oil? A pile of rocks? A turn signal from a '79 Chevette? Or are you talking about that Orange Julius stand they used to have at the mall in Baghdad?

First your characterization of one of what was the most advanced industrial economies in the Middle East is completely at variance from the facts -- case in point weren't they supposed to be capable of building sophisticated weapons systems, chemical and otherwise? The answer to your question: it is theft.

If the previous owners, the people of Iraq, have no say in the process of privatization. Which democratically elected Iraqi body allowed for the transfer of publically owned property to the private sector? None, it was established by through bureaucratic fiat by Washington appointees.

Aren't you the one harping on about democracy. Yet you seem completely satisified with decision being made for Iraqis by people elected not by Iraqis but appointed by people elected by Americans.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2005 03:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
[QB]I believe CueBall was in fact mistaken in that Paul Bremer's privatization dictates did not in the end include the oil industry, which is still nationalized -- for the common-sense reason that such a transparent grab for the gooey stuff would have been so utterly, brain-bonkingly obvious that even the most fanatical Bush-licking patriot could've seen it. And of course, had the US directly privatized Iraq's oil, approximately 100% of the Iraqi population would have immediately joined the resistance and started blowing up every American in sight. Nobody in Iraq would have stood for that, for one single second.
QB]

Well check into it then. My information is that the tax, as a system of repatriating oil revenue has been changed along with everything else. It may be that the CPA changed its mind. Is that the case?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2005 04:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 28 February 2005 05:04 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually I'M the one who was being sloppy with the term 'privatization' so blame me. The neo-cons in Washington wanted to privatize it originally, (well documented) but Beluga2 is right, probably too obvious, so Washington decided against it...at least in name. Control is a better term for it, most of the industry will be in private, mostly American, hands with the Iraqi government having an "oversight" role and collecting some unnamed amount of revenues from it, how much will make it to back to the people of Iraq is doubtful. All new oil fields in the still undeveloped western sector however (if they ever get the area under control) will be open to private companies, meaning mostly foreign ones, meaning mostly American. What else is new? And foreign companies will supply all the parts and most the trained labour of course. The amount of oil pumped and therefore the prices should be easier to control then. That looks like the plan now anyway. I'll pass along some more up-to-date information tomorrow.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2005 05:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that U.S. coveting oil in Middle East was especially evident in the 1980's around the time when Iran-Contra was an issue. The CIA/NSC needed money to setup armed camps on Honduran borders. Because of Congress, they had to turn to serreptitous means to fund their dirty wars in Latin America and Africa.

Enter Canadian born Gerald Bull. Bull was an opportunist and capitalist extraordinaire. Bull designed and sold large cannons to Jonas Savimbi's UNITAs in Angola and supported by the South African apartheid government, which was itself alleged to be restrained by an oil and weapons embargo by UN member nations at the time.
Bull's cannons tilted the dirty war in Angola toward UNITA's victory.

Bull, a paid CIA agent and weapons dealer, built large guns for Saddam and apparently one "super gun" capable of sending shells as far away as Israel. Everyone now knows that US and British weapons dealers were arming Saddam in his war with Iran. And there was some issue about Kuwait doing "slant" drilling of Iraq's massive Rumaila oil deposit extending into Kuwait and costing Iraq something like $14 Billion dollars in lost oil revenues. Following the invasion of Kuwait, George Bush compared Saddam to Hitler, set up the American response, and he and Maggie began covering up their past dealings.

To make a long summary even longer than it should be, Saddam was to receive big gun parts while South Africa was to receive oil it badly needed as a result of the "embargo", and plenty of cash to go around to fund the killing in Latin America and Angola. Bull was the victim of a professional hit at his Brussel's apartment. Some say mossad while others claim "Group 13."


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 28 February 2005 05:25 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember seeing a "Fifth Estate" story on that Bull character after he was killed, definitely shady operations but can't remember any clear connections being made about who actually pulled the trigger. But then it Was CBC. Do you have any sources on that Fidel?
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2005 05:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CBC archives
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Fidel, I'd forgotten most the details surrounding this guys case.

Funny, but the website I visited just the other day now asks for membership subscriptions as does the other so I'm going to have to print out the relevant articles, don't think theyre copy-rite material but will delete if anyone's worried. I'll let others here read between the lines.


Iraq seeks E&D investment, nixes reserves privatization

Eric Watkins
Senior Correspondent

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 16 -- Iraqi Oil Minister Thamir al-Ghadban claims that his country can boost its oil production level from its current 2.1 million b/d to 6 million b/d, aided by Iraqi, Arab, and foreign investments. But he ruled out any privatization of the "extraction sector," saying it was out of the question at the moment.

"In past decades, Iraq was plagued with wars, sieges, and the misuse of its oil wealth," al-Ghadban said in the Arabic Asharq al-Awsat newspaper published on Feb. 15.

"We, the people concerned with oil affairs, have many dreams, which are well-studied plans based on rigorous scientific foundations. Now we hope to implement these plans, because the war era has passed," he said.

"Iraqi oil policy aims at consolidating the oil reserves and at increasing the production and export capacity of crude oil and gas, a fact that would increase the country's revenue and financial resources," he said.

"There are axes for developing the oil sector. The first axis could be summarized in drawing up an integrated, comprehensive plan that proceeds in the direction of expanding the volume of oil and gas explorations in Iraq," said al-Ghadban.

"Iraq is one of the oldest oil countries in the region, but it is the least explored country. The western desert, as a mere example, constitutes one third of the area of Iraq. The studies prepared by Iraqi and foreign companies during the 1990s show that this is a promising area and could be rich with light crude oil," he said.

"Furthermore, the Al-Jazirah region, between the Tigris and the Euphrates [rivers] in western Iraq, next to the Iraqi-Syrian border, is also a very promising region," he said, adding, "As for the basin of the Tigris and the Euphrates, there is major exploration work that will be carried out, and this will increase the oil and gas reserves."

Al-Ghadban said that production of as much as 6 million b/d of oil "is a strategic aim that we will work to fulfill within 5-6 years from the moment we start."

Oil policy focus
In this sector, he said, the general features of the oil policy will focus on two directions.

"The first is that the Oil Ministry, and perhaps in the future the Iraqi National Oil Co., will increase the currently available production capacity to 3.5 million b/d," he said, adding, "This will be achieved by relying on the ministry's effort and finances and by utilizing foreign expertise through regular 'engineering and executive' contracts, while the qualified Iraqi personnel continue to manage 100% of this process."

Al-Ghadban said, "As for the second direction, it should proceed in parallel with the first one, and Iraqi, Arab, and foreign investments will be utilized to develop the explored oil fields, which number more than 30. Some of these fields are classified as ultragiant fields, and they will be developed to add production capacity of more than 2.5 million b/d of new oil."

The Iraqi minister added that, "There are various formulas of cooperation. They could be used individually or in groups, but choosing one formula over another should be made through the new interim government and the elected National Assembly."

The minister saw no problem with Iraq's intention to sign contracts with foreign and international companies well known in oil investment or with the privatization of some oil projects.

"There is nothing wrong with the private sector playing a wide and extensive role in the oil industry," he said. "We believe it is neither important, nor necessary for the Oil Ministry to manage the petrol or liquid oil stations.

"Therefore, we are completely agreeable to opening the field to the private sector to build storage depots, refineries, or gas laboratories according to various techniques that are scientifically known as 'BOT' or building and ownership techniques, and then at the end of the period hand over the installation to the ministry."

In such cases, he said, "the role of the ministry will be to plan, to specify the projects, and to sign the long-term contracts with the investors to provide the raw material, the oil or gas. The investor will manage the project for a period of time or build and manage without the condition of handing over the building.

Reserves off limits
"As for the extraction sector, that is, dealing with the oil and gas reserves, which are 'assets,' privatization is completely out of question at the moment," he said.

The minister explained that the Iraqi, Arab, and foreign private sectors could develop the fields with the agreement of the Oil Ministry, and according to mechanisms to be agreed, namely "service contracts, repurchase contracts, production-sharing contracts."

However, these mechanisms would have to be agreed by the coming government and the elected National Assembly because of the importance of the extraction sector to the natural wealth, being the property of the people and because of its importance to the Iraqi economy.

Al-Ghadban observed that the private sector could play other roles, for example, offering various oil services, such as drilling wells, civil engineering, and the services needed for the drilling operations.

Furthermore, there would be many other operations needed in implementing the projects, such as laying pipes, building installations, and many other tasks and civil engineering work, like paving roads, building camps, and various preparatory activities.

Url:
http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ONART&C=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=221446&p=7


I'll post the rest (with proper links hopefully) when I have more time, definite patterns here.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 07 March 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting "Cueball":

quote:
My outline, was in fact an outline. All "outlines" as a character of their nature subject to criticism via nitpicking. However the point of an outline is not to establish the specific facts ... (yawn, *snip*)

Okay, let's recap here, shall we, Mister Cueball?

First it was stridently claimed that the United States was somehow systematically stealing oil from Iraq.

You failed to show that. Strike one.

Next, you claimed that the United States was privatising the Iraqi oil industry -- while preposterously proclaiming it to be the equivalent of "theft".

On the contrary, the US hasn't done that, nor do they apparently have any intention to. Strike two.

Finally, in utter desperation, you irrelevantly decry the privatisation of some obscure state enterprise, or other, which was nationalised by Saddam and the Ba'ath Party.

Naturally, this has nothing to do with the original claim that the US is "stealing" Iraqi oil. Strike three.

Now then, tell us again how the United States is "stealing" oil from Iraq? Or would you rather blindly stick to chanting your empty shibboleths?


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Notice of course that I unlike you actually presented a case, unlike you who seems to think your opined declarations should stand as fact simply because you believe them.

Interestingly the only "facts" which you brought to the table, are actually confirmations of the very facts that I used in my case. Yet, you seem to think that somehow when the facts (share of oil prices, the evolution of US oil interests in the region) are sited by you, and not me, that they are substantially different, and contradciot mine, when they simply do not.

What is the substantive difference between:

Cueball:

quote:
Simply put: US interest in the region began in the 1930's. At the time oil concession were mostly hanlded by the British and the French. Those concessions were given at a rate of 20% to the resource country, 80% to whatever oli concern was involved. That was the standard rate going in what is now Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

When the Americans came in they offered a new deal which was very popular locally: a 50/50 share of revenue between the host country and the oil concern. This and growing us military power post WW2 made US investment very popular, as greater wealth spurred economic development. Thus the US was able to squeeze out its French and British competition.


And you...

quote:
No, US partnership in The Iraqi Petroleum Comapany (a wholly foreign-owned consortium, of which US interests were only one component) dated from 1927. From 1931 onward, the deal with the company was to guarantee annual royalties of GBP 400,000(!) to the government of Iraq. Hardly 20%. That arrangement was not formally ammended until 1952, when Iraq gained 50% of oil profits from concession holders.


There is no difference, except that you chose to interpret those facts differently.

Yet, because you are completely blind to any viewpoint other than your own, you think that the facts are in contradiction. You have the critical thinking ability of a Soviet Commissar.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 29 March 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an interesting one about the US shift in position, haven't see it elsewhere here. Condensed version with Url so posted in whole. the US still controls the flow and US companies still get the contracts and un'discovered' oil fields. Puppet government controls the revenues.

BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL
Monday, March 28, 2005

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons ... and OPEC is the winner.

"For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil ...."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

>From the exclusive Harper's report by Greg Palast:

Within weeks of the first inaugural, prominent Iraqi expatriates -- many with ties to U.S. industry -- were invited to secret discussions directed by Pamela Quanrud, National Security Council, now at the State Department. "It quickly became an oil group," said one participant, Falah Aljibury. Aljibury is an advisor to Amerada Hess' oil trading arm and Goldman Sachs.

"The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry -- they'd hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days," Aljibury told me. On this plan, Hussein would simply have been replaced by some former Baathist general.

However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy. "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" generally embodied the principles for postwar Iraq favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Iran-Contra figure, now Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams. The blue-print mapped out a radical makeover of Iraq as a free-maket Xanadu including, on page 73, the sell-off of the nation's crown jewels: "privatization
[of] the oil and supporting industries."

It was reasoned that if Iraq's fields were broken up and sold off, competing operators would crank up production. This extra crude would flood world petroleum markets, OPEC would devolve into mass cheating and overproduction, oil prices would fall over a cliff, and Saudi Arabia, both economically and politically, would fall to its knees.

However, in plotting the destruction of OPEC, the neocons failed to predict the virulent resistance of insurgent forces: the U.S. oil industry itself. Rob McKee, a former executive vice-president of ConocoPhillips, designated by the Bush Administration to advise the Iraqi oil ministry, had little tolerance for the neocons' threat to privatize the oil fields nor their obsession on ways to undermine OPEC. (In 2004, with oil approaching the $50 a barrel mark all year, the major U.S. oil companies posted record or near-record profits. ConocoPhillips this February reported a doubling of its quarterly profits.)

In November 2003, McKee quietly ordered up a new plan for Iraq's oil. For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan, but when I threatened legal action, I was able to obtain the multi-volume document describing seven possible models of oil production for Iraq, each one merely a different flavor of a single option: a state-owned oil company under which the state maintains official title to the reserves but operation and control are given to foreign oil companies.

According to Ed Morse, another Hess Oil advisor, the switch to an OPEC-friendly policy for Iraq was driven by Dick Cheney. "The VP's office [has] not pursued a policy in Iraq that would lead to a rapid opening of the Iraqi energy sector
that would put us on a track to say, "We're going to put a squeeze on OPEC."

Cheney, far from "putting the squeeze on OPEC," has taken a defacto seat there, allowing the cartel to maintain its suffocating grip on the U.S. economy.

*****

Read the full story in the April edition of Harper's Magazine, out this week: "OPEC ON THE MARCH: Why Iraq Still Sells Its Oil à la Cartel," by Greg Palast.

Watch Palast's report on the Harper's discovery on BBC television's premier nightly current affairs show, Newsnight, viewable on-line at:

BBC Newsnight - U.S. Secret Plan for Iraq's Oil
http://gregpalast.com/video/BBCIraqOilReport.mov


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca