Deckard says we should stay in Iraq to prevent Iranian super-islamostate? Is that what you meant? I know a joke becomes less funny when you have to explain it - maybe my brain is astrofried today ...
Good! Those are points. It's not that I have a golden keyhole through which to see the absolute truths in this matter. It's when an official story seems implausible it probably is. For malicious or benign purposes. My point was not that “this is what happened and I have proof” but that the arrest of several SAS men dressed as Arabs carrying around explosives being which lead to a military "jail break" so quickly, is very sketchy. If it had been some banal operation that the Iraqi police just didn't know about why didn't they just go through regular channels and get them out. Why did they have to attack a police station? Something is wrong! I don't need a crystal ball the figure that out. They were doing something they shouldn't and got caught. Divide a conquer is a common tactic, the intricacies of the situation: complex politics, changing alliances, histories of cultural and political infighting, and many, other possibilities could necessitate such a bombing or some other illegal or unethical operation in the eyes of the British. Short range instability could facilitate a long term goal. The war is not over and we are not just trying to restore the peace. The goal is the same. Set up a government where we get our hands on the 2nd largest oil supply in the world.
What is implausible about the official story? Don't make the same mistake Tigermission did and use nonofficial claims as justification. Any soldiers are not supposed to be held by the police - that is an agreement between the coalition and the Iraqi government - as indicated in the articles. The SAS were not being held by the police - but had been turned over to the militia - also indicated in the articles. Explosives and other ordinance are standard 'kit' for SAS operatives - also indicated in the articles. That it is a tactic used before does not equate to proof of being used in this situation, or even to a likelihood of such. Or the opposite could be true. This makes no sense. We aren't going to OWN the oil in any situation. We're still going to have to BUY it. We could have bought it from Saddam, we can buy it from Iran, we're going to buy it from whatever government comes to power in Iraq. Asserting we need a puppet regime to achieve that goal is silly.
Assuming Cheney, Bush and company think that we need a puppet government to insure that we are able to have a steady supply from Iraq, with the vast increase in consumption from China and India affecting supplies, is not farfetched at all. Assuming that they thought that leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't farfetched, either. Did you read the thread gifford started about Powell's chief of staff, Col. Wilkerson, and the statements he made? Keep D&D Civil.
Yes, I read the article but I'm not sure what that affects here. We still have to BUY the oil. Saddam sold us oil, Chavez sells us oil, Castro and Kim Jr WOULD sell us oil if they had it. Why do we need a puppet government to BUY oil from them?
I'm not saying that I believe that, but that the idea is not farfetched, as you claimed. My opinion of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld is so low now that, in my opinion, there is no telling what crackpot BS is running through their "minds." Keep D&D Civil.
well ONE advantage of having a puppet government is that you will have control on WHO Iraq will sell it's oil to...a country which has the second largest reserves in the world (some of which are untapped) is a huge advantage!...basically it forces other countries to have good relations with the U.S.
Possibly more important is how they sell their oil......the Saddam regime had threatened to began selling oil in Euros (rather than US Dollars).....if such a trend had taken favor among other oil-producing nations as well, this would have indirectly but certainly casued severe harm to our economy..
So Iraq is going to say 'no, we won't sell oil to China?' IMO, and I understand its just my opinion - that's silly.
A relevant background I think would be the CIA clandestine service's declassified report on bringing the Shah to power in Iran. It's a long read, but interesting in that it details many of the more dishonest ploys being alleged here regarding misinformation and media manipulation (specifically American media manipulation), even detailing the degree to which the Shah himself was pressured to support the overthrow. Obviously it has no direct bering on the situation at hand, but gives a pretty good idea of how far clandestine services will go to reach their goal, in their own words in the same part of the world not too long ago.
Hayes....here;s an example of what you call "silly" http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/20/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html HTML: .Meanwhile, Israel canceled -- under American pressure -- a lucrative deal to upgrade Venezuelan warplanes, Israel TV reported Thursday. The report said Israel was to install its own systems in U.S.-made F-16 fighters for the Venezuelan air force, but the U.S. government forced Israel to call off the deal. No dollar figure for the deal was given. Israeli Defense Ministry officials were not immediately available for comment.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/20/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html Hayes....here;s an example of what you call "silly".
Vince - you do understand that there is a difference between selling F-16s (military technology) and oil (a commodity), don't you? Any country can buy oil from practically any other country at the market price. Buying and selling military technology is clearly subject to security restrictions, and it's a much less open market, for very obvious reasons. Take an economics class.
When did we occupy Israel? I missed that on CNN. Lobo's pretty much right on. The situations are so disparate as to be incomparable. You seem to be saying that any pressure equates to a conspiracy. Claiming pressuring Israel not to give advanced avionics to Chavez is the same thing as SAS troopers blowing up mosques IS silly.
take an economics class ...i'm doing a minor in it so... ....i was trying to give an example of when two countries are in bed together they can influence each other... i understand the difference between oil and military tech.....however there are going to be supply problems with oil...actually you are already seeing this problem today....but it's going to get worse....you think the U.S gov. is not thinking ahead of time...establishing a steady supply source ..... oil is not a regular commodity in the friggin market place....its what runs the U.S economy.....if we don't change the way we live there's not going to be enough oil for everyone...and you're going to see this in about 5-10 years....most of the oil producing countries are producing at capacity....AND then who IRAQ sells oil to will become important!....
the total amount of oil in the world is estimated at 4 trillion barrels..... of this total........ experts estimate half is recoverable. ....these same experts estimate that 465 billion barrels of oil have been consumed...... the current rate of consumption around the world is 22 billion barrels per year......... at this rate, the world has about 45 years left to enjoy the luxuries that oil provides. and by the way many countries who have nationalized oil companies over estimate the amount of oil reserves they have to get larger loans from the World Bank... Lobo i don't think you need any economic courses to understand this.
No, but a logic course might do you good. That there is a coming scarcity of resource does not a conspiracy make.
