Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 141
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #61  
    And yes, oil is the main component for the U.S. action in Iraq. To think otherwise is extremely naive.
    But this means either two things.

    1. We are going to steal oil.
    2. We are going to setup a new government that will give us oil at reduced cost. This ofcourse would mean a new iraq government would pull themselves out of Opec.

    Do you think either of these will happen?
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    But this means either two things.

    1. We are going to steal oil.
    2. We are going to setup a new government that will give us oil at reduced cost. This ofcourse would mean a new iraq government would pull themselves out of Opec.

    Do you think either of these will happen?
    I see a third possibility: we setup a new government and keep oil prices the same.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #63  
    Who keeps the price the same? Iraq or USA? I don't think the US will get any break. I think the only $$ that may pass hands (big maybe) is Iraq may pay the US down the road for part of the military costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I see a third possibility: we setup a new government and keep oil prices the same.
  4. #64  
    the US controls (directly or indirectly) the production of 33% of oil worldwide, so guess who sets the price and who is the major benificiary, guess who profitted from higher oil prices, certainly not iraqis with a totally destroyed infrastructure, truncated rebuild funding.
    Treoing & Loving it
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    But this means either two things.

    1. We are going to steal oil.
    2. We are going to setup a new government that will give us oil at reduced cost. This ofcourse would mean a new iraq government would pull themselves out of Opec.

    Do you think either of these will happen?

    Why, when I say the large amount of oil in Iraq is the key component of our interests there, do you think that can only mean us obtaining that oil?
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    ... Iraq or USA? ...
    There's a difference right now?
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Who keeps the price the same? Iraq or USA? I don't think the US will get any break. I think the only $$ that may pass hands (big maybe) is Iraq may pay the US down the road for part of the military costs.
    I mean 'relatively'. The US has an interest in maintaining gas/oil prices and Iraq has an interest in building its economy up in a new political environment (which arguably entails keeping its existing business partners happy.) It's a win-win both ways.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #68  
    I didn't see " " so I've got to assume you don't know what many of us do know.

    Iraq had elections. The US provisional government no longer exists.

    from CIA Factbook,

    ....Coalition forces remain in Iraq, helping to restore degraded infrastructure and facilitating the establishment of a freely elected government, while simultaneously dealing with a robust insurgency. The Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government (IG) in June 2004. Iraqis voted on 30 January 2005 to elect a 275-member Transitional National Assembly and voted on 15 December 2005 to elect a 275-member Council of Representatives that will finalize a permanent constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    There's a difference right now?
  9. #69  
    No question the US would like oil prices to be stable. I don't know the situation pre-Saddam, was the USA buying oil from Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I mean 'relatively'. The US has an interest in maintaining gas/oil prices and Iraq has an interest in building its economy up in a new political environment (which arguably entails keeping its existing business partners happy.) It's a win-win both ways.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So we changed the regime but not the tactics. Nice.

    YOUR MISSING THE POINT!!!!!!!!! The REGIME did NOT do this. A handful of rogues police did. The REGIME is condemning these men who did this and are going to make them pay for their crimes!!!!
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  11.    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    YOUR MISSING THE POINT!!!!!!!!! The REGIME did NOT do this. A handful of rogues police did. The REGIME is condemning these men who did this and are going to make them pay for their crimes!!!!
    You're missing the point. This gov't is and will be Shiite and anti-Sunni. These 'death squads' were operating within and on the orders of the Interior Ministry.
  12. #72  
    It may be true, but as of now it is allegedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're missing the point. This gov't is and will be Shiite and anti-Sunni. These 'death squads' were operating within and on the orders of the Interior Ministry.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're missing the point. This gov't is and will be Shiite and anti-Sunni. These 'death squads' were operating within and on the orders of the Interior Ministry.
    You must've had low scores on the comprehension section of the SAT's because I'm having to explain articles to you on a regular basis:

    From the article YOU posted a link to:
    But Gen Peterson said he was convinced Iraqi Interior Minster Bayan Jabr, a member of Sciri, had no knowledge of or involvement in the death squads.

    "Who are these guys? That's what the minister is trying to find out," he said.

    "They are discrediting him and his organisation. He wants to find these guys. He does not support them."

    But Gen Peterson said he believed other death squads were operating within the Iraqi security forces.


    What Gen Peterson is saying is that some lower level rogue factions are carrying out non-sanctioned missions behind the Minister's back. In the previous regime, Saddam would be ordering these missions and giving the guys medals instead of throwing them in prison like these guys. So it really is as I said before. It IS YOU MISSING the point. Now apologize!!
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    You must've had low scores on the comprehension section of the SAT's because I'm having to explain articles to you on a regular basis:

    From the article YOU posted a link to:
    But Gen Peterson said he was convinced Iraqi Interior Minster Bayan Jabr, a member of Sciri, had no knowledge of or involvement in the death squads.

    "Who are these guys? That's what the minister is trying to find out," he said.

    "They are discrediting him and his organisation. He wants to find these guys. He does not support them."

    But Gen Peterson said he believed other death squads were operating within the Iraqi security forces.


    What Gen Peterson is saying is that some lower level rogue factions are carrying out non-sanctioned missions behind the Minister's back. In the previous regime, Saddam would be ordering these missions and giving the guys medals instead of throwing them in prison like these guys. So it really is as I said before. It IS YOU MISSING the point. Now apologize!!
    I'll apologize when the death squads stop. You apologize when the death squads finish.

  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    What does invading Iraq have to do with terrorism? Oh, yea, you're still confused.


    OK, if you want to play silly word games change the word terrorism to killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens and failing to follow the madates set forth by the grand body of the UN
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16.    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    OK, if you want to play silly word games change the word terrorism to killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens and failing to follow the madates set forth by the grand body of the UN
    Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait,....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, not quite yet....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, still working, they're still buying it, wait....nope! Quick! Change invasion excuses!
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait,....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, not quite yet....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, still working, they're still buying it, wait....nope! Quick! Change invasion excuses!
    Ah yes, the old pass the buck, or change excuses or blame intelligence.
    lol got to love it...
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait,....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, not quite yet....now! Quick! Change invasion excuses! Wait, wait, still working, they're still buying it, wait....nope! Quick! Change invasion excuses!
    Looks like you and surur are drinking out of the same cup again. You really should scan the UN resolutions or maybe read the inspetors reports to get a slight glimpse of reality. I do understand your need to attempt humor and/or insult since your arguments lack credibility.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19.    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Looks like you and surur are drinking out of the same cup again. You really should scan the UN resolutions or maybe read the inspetors reports to get a slight glimpse of reality. I do understand your need to attempt humor and/or insult since your arguments lack credibility.
    Seems to me I recall this admin warning UN inspectors to leave Iraq as an invasion was imminent.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Seems to me I recall this admin warning UN inspectors to leave Iraq as an invasion was imminent.
    I know you would prefer to leave them on the ground another 10 years. After all, they had only been give about 10 years to verify that Saddam had complied with ALL UN mandates. The UN reports were pretty straight forward when they concluded that they could not verify mandates set forth by the UN had been followed, that there were significant amounts of material unaccounted for..... But that has all been explained to you numerous times and you do not seem to be able to comprehend those facts.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions