So we basically just gave the oil companies a 1.2 trillion war present with the added bonus of 30 years of increasing profits for them and increasing debt to the Saudis and Chinese and increasing taxes for our kids. Great Job Bushco! That make great freaking sense, who is the retard who drafted this plan? In the words of Gomer Pyle, "Sooprise, soooprise, sooprise." Not. Many felt this oil grab was the primary goal going in. Craig Crawford, one of the many political analysts out there, the other day opined that one had to wonder the Saudi;s role in all of this. After all, they've excluded Iraq from OPEC for how long now, some say (correctly, imo) that is simply because the less Iraqi oil that is on the market--only means OPEC oil is that much more precious. Now once again, where were the majority of those 911 pilots originally from? reread the article. You'll see the 75% is a max and only for start up costs, not 75% of the oil profits for 30 years. Those horrible, terrible "BIg Oil" companies! It's great, I have 2 of those in my portfolio! Funny how direct lies come from the same old places. Does that make you feel better,green? The 30 years of 20% profits to the oil co's is still double the traditional amount for this kind of deal. Sparling- If you have the Oil companies in your portfolio, I hope you'll enjoy the dividends you earn in hell, paid for with the blood of American soldiers who died so you can drive a f'king SUV. Traitor. Sparling- If you have the Oil companies in your portfolio, I hopePeople like you give "environmentalism" a bad name Greenman...talk about intolerant.I don't drive an SUV, but I don't bemoan anyone who does. Just because I don't hold your pollyannaish view of the world, doesn't mean I'm a traitor. If it were up to people of your ilk, we'd all be riding bikes (which I do for recreation) and living in communes, albeit under the rule of some tyrannical nut. Grow up. I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a rationally motivated person who sees things in a larger perspective than my own immediate gratification or personal monetary gain. Taking a lions' share of the Iraqi people's only source of revenue, (after bombing them and destroyong their entire infrastructure) instead of funding the rebuilding of their industries ( like the Marshall Plan) is completely ludicrous. How the hell are the Iraqi people ever going to have a legitimate government if the people see that their only resource is being stolen by foreign occupiers? The Iraqi's NEED their oil revenues to rebuild their society. If they are left to be poor, uneducated, and schooled in madrases, that will ... Wow... Green, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what is going on over there do you. This is amazing. "After bombing them and destroying their entire infrastructure" Are you serious? Either you are the most ill-informed nitwit on the planet. (Which I doubt since you apparently know how to push buttons and make the pretty color bright box make pictures.) Or you are truly one of those who desperately hates America. In any case.... and I mean this in the most honest and nicest way possible. Please move to another country. It will save you money later in therapy. Have you seen whats happened to their industry and economy since we've been there? See, this must be that dirty little secret that doesn'... The only thing I can say is it is very interesting to note just how many boadyguards and security people the big oil exces have with them 24x7. They have as much or more protection then the president. The Oil companies have always controlled the world - not just the US, but the entire world. The Tobacco companies were always second, but they have diversified after all the lawsuits. Steve, Kool aid drinking is hazardous to your health. Seeing that the majorty of this country (the US) believes we should be OUT of Iraq, I am firmly in the mainstream on this issue. I think maybe you should move to Australia. Give the Iraqis back their country and their oil, and fix all the things we f'cked up on the way out. No, I'm pretty sure the "average" American doesn't think we have obliterated their infrastructure. That's the most ill-informed comment I've ever heard anyone make when trying to actually succeed in having an intelligent conversation. That,of course, may not have been you intention in the first place. Now, since you wouldn't actually address my comment, I will address yours. You are attempting to lump yourself in with normal people by speaking in generalities. Don't. You wouldn't like it here. Stay out on the left fringe. I, like almost every American, DO want us to leave, but NOT without VICTORY. Your kind want us out to disgrace Bush, disgrace America, and most of all, loose. Oh, and the... Steve, I see that your dittohead brainwashing is irreversible. Jan. 20, 2007 - When President George W. Bush declared earlier this month that the only way to quell sectarian violence in Iraq was to send more than 20,000 additional American troops, he probably knew the move would be unpopular. Indeed, the latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that Bush’s call for a “surge” in troops is opposed by two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans and supported by only a quarter (26 percent). Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out “as soon as possible.” Still, almost half (45 percent) don’t want to see the United States beat too hasty a retreat. They prefer to maintain troop levels in Iraq for “at least another year or two” to give the Iraqis more time to settle their differences and reach a political settlement, even though only 27 percent of those polled are “very or somewhat” confident that Iraqis would be able to control the violence and provide their own security. Two-thirds (67 percent) of those interviewed think that the United States is losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq and only 23 percent favor additional troops at this time. so my 46% beats your 45% by a slim margin, but I'm still in the majority and you are sliding toward the fringes. "No, I'm pretty sure the "average" American doesn't think we have obliterated their infrastructure. " Okay we didn't intentionally destroy their infrastructure, we just allowed it to be ransacked by looters, when we should (and could) have protected it. As an occupying power we are obligated to protect more than just the oil wells, which is all we did in the initial days after the fall of Baghdad. One look at this will give you a few facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War And the IV Geneva Conventions clearly state that Occupying powers are responsible for protecting the populace and their property from looting and pillaging. We failed that job miserably. |
View the Top Clips from January 18, 2007
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
