IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
Of course - it didn't prevent Churchill and others from working for an alternative. What was popular was pretending that negotiations with fascist tyrants would prevent war. Having the PM claim the opposite encouraged such wishful thinking. Do you really not understand this? If you don't, you might try reading Churchill on the subject. If that's too much, you could always get the HBO movie that was done on it last year - I thought they did an okay job.
LOL.. You are so clueless! I now see what type of person I'm dealing with here. I feel sorry for you, trader556.
That could quite possibly be the worst comeback I've ever encountered. LOLFRuiTY "bumpa$$" PeBBLe
Thanks for this excellent post, trader556... it included a few who I wasnt aware of...
The Israeli connection with and influence on US foreign policy is totally sickening...
Free Palestine!
The Israeli connection with and influence on US foreign policy is totally sickening...
Free Palestine!
Quote from trader556:
dgabriel! a pure numbskull calling out idiot? you hold first second and third place, -unless you misunderstood what I posted, and if you did ask for clarification- or go check and confirm your self
man go back under your rock, check YOUR facts
go check their bios, what is wrong with you people?
a small sample and READ:
1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam.
2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.
3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.
4). Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq.
5). Henry Kissinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders, Chile dictatorship, and more recently served as Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S.
6). Dov Zakheim----Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.
7). Kenneth Adelman-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs bydefinition are Semites.
8). I. Lewis Libby -----Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. The chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president.
9). Robert Satloff----U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.
10). Elliott Abrams-----National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department.
11). Marc Grossman-----Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.
12). Richard Haass-----Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
13). Robert Zoellick-----U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq.
14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Kabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.
15). James Schlesinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
16). Mel Sembler-----President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.
doozens more-you know them already
FRuiTY PeBBLe's quote: Well, according to the poll, we now know that 25.40% of ET members are total idiots
Ok Vinny the long$hit Contrary Pebbel bullcrap
Nice try you bumpa$$. You are acting more of a jerk as time goes by. 25.40% of THAT poll were the same person that holds the dozens of aliases, AND holds a grudge against the moderator for doing an excellent job putting up with your $hit. The idiot is you multiplied by the number of times you voted
Look man, give it a rest and let the moderators do their job. ET is one of the best free sites on the net, don't screw it up
Of course Iraq is about oil, but certainly not some silly concessions for some contractual partners that they can get, have already, want to have or have not. It is definitely not about the economic grip on the exploitation licenses, but on the strategic grip on oil as energy itself.
The US would never go into a war that costs some hundred of billions, only to sell Iraq oil most expensively, i.e. most profitably. They go to war in order to keep the oil price sustainably inexpensive and to purchase as cheaply as possible. So the war is not about oil corporations but about car drivers. And we all do profit since oil is dealt with on a world market.
As the price for Bagdad oil sinks, so sinks the price for Russian petrol in our car-tanks. In that respect Russia as as oil-exporter has in fact an economic interest in peace - which is not true for France and Germany.
Provided Iraq can be made quit OPEC, increase drastically its exploitation volume and create additional capacities to be added in case of a rise in prices on the oil world market, then Iraq could become as decisive to the price of oil as is Saudi Arabia today. He who controls Bagdad need not be scared of upheaval in Saudi-Arabia and must not arrange with a questionable clan of Kings, because Saudi Arabia, where the Al-Kaida terrorists come from and live (and not in Iraq), can be controlled quite comfortably from Bagdad.
The US would never go into a war that costs some hundred of billions, only to sell Iraq oil most expensively, i.e. most profitably. They go to war in order to keep the oil price sustainably inexpensive and to purchase as cheaply as possible. So the war is not about oil corporations but about car drivers. And we all do profit since oil is dealt with on a world market.
As the price for Bagdad oil sinks, so sinks the price for Russian petrol in our car-tanks. In that respect Russia as as oil-exporter has in fact an economic interest in peace - which is not true for France and Germany.
Provided Iraq can be made quit OPEC, increase drastically its exploitation volume and create additional capacities to be added in case of a rise in prices on the oil world market, then Iraq could become as decisive to the price of oil as is Saudi Arabia today. He who controls Bagdad need not be scared of upheaval in Saudi-Arabia and must not arrange with a questionable clan of Kings, because Saudi Arabia, where the Al-Kaida terrorists come from and live (and not in Iraq), can be controlled quite comfortably from Bagdad.
Very nice points, msfe...
Well, I think then that we partly agree. There are problems, however, with viewing the US as an empire - both practical and theoretical. The practical problem is that the term itself is a loaded one, and is inevitably greeted with reflexive reactions. The theoretical problem is establishing a useful definition of "empire." To me, the European Union looks more like a classic empire, or empire-in-formation, than the United States and its sphere of influence and interests, but I'm happy to acknowledge that the US might represent a different kind of imperial power, one based more on the extension of its political-economic system than on literal expansion of its sovereignty.
However one feels about the term, the real issue, it seems to me, is that the US is in the process of re-defining its interests in a way that leaves no Cold War Era alliance, organization, or strategic presumption unaffected. 9/11 brought home the realization that key aspects of the late 20th Century security system - which included tolerating or even propping up a number of deeply dysfunctional Middle Eastern regimes - might not only be inadequate in the 21st Century, but extremely dangerous. Recent events seem to confirm further that, in the final analysis, even the crown jewel of the post-World War II security system, the United Nations itself, qualifies as a "terrorist-supporting regime." If we hold, with President Bush, that any state that shields the implacable enemies of civilization must either change its behavior or be held accountable, can a political organization that protects and sustains those states and those behaviors escape the same test?
My point isn't that we need infiltrate Special Forces units around First Avenue and 46th in Manhattan - though they might very well encounter a "target-rich environment" - or even just that we need to re-think our relationship to the UN, and therefore to the global community that it represents. The larger implication, which also follows from our prior discussion, is just about as difficult for any of us to face as it is unavoidable - for it's far easier to focus on the pros and cons of Iraq policy, or on infighting at the UNSC and despair over the French and Germans: Though the US and its allies cannot take on the whole world at once, they may have no choice but to take on the whole world in time.
Turkey Suspends Vote on U.S. Troops
By HARMONIE TOROS
The Associated Press
Monday, February 17, 2003; 3:31 PM
Turkey's prime minister on Monday ruled out a parliamentary vote to allow tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops on its territory until Turkish and U.S. officials agree on the conditions of the deployment.
Parliament had been expected to vote Tuesday, and Washington has warned Turkey that time is running out. A delay could hamper U.S. plans to open a northern front in an Iraq war.
"We are not going to the parliament tomorrow (Tuesday)," Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters in Brussels, Belgium. "We have some concerns on economic and political issues."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21350-2003Feb17.html
By HARMONIE TOROS
The Associated Press
Monday, February 17, 2003; 3:31 PM
Turkey's prime minister on Monday ruled out a parliamentary vote to allow tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops on its territory until Turkish and U.S. officials agree on the conditions of the deployment.
Parliament had been expected to vote Tuesday, and Washington has warned Turkey that time is running out. A delay could hamper U.S. plans to open a northern front in an Iraq war.
"We are not going to the parliament tomorrow (Tuesday)," Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters in Brussels, Belgium. "We have some concerns on economic and political issues."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21350-2003Feb17.html