desperate housewives and Al Queda

[Plane]

More than 50% is a given.  The interesting question is, more than 66 2/3 %?

Now we can argue!

If there were a 50% voteing block for aggrandisement  , you could win a presidency with it .

So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?

[Michael Tee]

<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>

Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists.  Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.   In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist.  All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue.  It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms.  Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc.  There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all.  The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned.  Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word.  Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.

[Plane]

<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>

Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists.  Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.   In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist.  All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue.  It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms.  Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc.  There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all.  The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned.  Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word.  Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.

Also perhaps it just isn't about oil .

WE have been around on this , there is no profit motive , where there is no profit.

[Michael Tee]

There's obviously a profit motive.  The original draft hydrocarbons law gave foreigners the right to purchase up to 90% of the oil reserves.  Obviously that 90% was a bargaining chip, but it's entirely possible that the puppet government will "bargain down" to 50% and finalize it.  (Under Saddam, the Iraqis got 100% and no equity could be sold off to foreigners.  The profits on oil sales remained 100% to the Iraqi nation in perpetuity.  Even if Saddam and his cronies personally stole 50% of the revenues for themselves - - probably an impossibility - - that would still leave 50% to the Iraqis.)

If you want to argue that there is no profit to be derived from owning 50% or 10% or even 1% of the world's second largest proven oil reserves, don't waste your breath on me.  Get your self a ticket to Kuwait and try to convince the Emir of the logic of your theory - - once you show him what a barren and profitless nuisance it all is, maybe he'll sign over some of his wells to you.   Maybe he'll sign them all over to you.

[Plane]

There's obviously a profit motive.  The original draft hydrocarbons law gave foreigners the right to purchase up to 90% of the oil reserves.  Obviously that 90% was a bargaining chip, but it's entirely possible that the puppet government will "bargain down" to 50% and finalize it.  (Under Saddam, the Iraqis got 100% and no equity could be sold off to foreigners.  The profits on oil sales remained 100% to the Iraqi nation in perpetuity.  Even if Saddam and his cronies personally stole 50% of the revenues for themselves - - probably an impossibility - - that would still leave 50% to the Iraqis.)

If you want to argue that there is no profit to be derived from owning 50% or 10% or even 1% of the world's second largest proven oil reserves, don't waste your breath on me.  Get your self a ticket to Kuwait and try to convince the Emir of the logic of your theory - - once you show him what a barren and profitless nuisance it all is, maybe he'll sign over some of his wells to you.   Maybe he'll sign them all over to you.

That's a lot of Obviously .
It is obviously true that under Saddam Iraqis made 100% since Saddam himself was getting most of himself and he was Iraqi.
Who do you think is writing the Hydrocarbon bill anyway?
After all of those representatives got together from being elected from all over Iraq , what would make them listen to any outsider?

You are obviously projecting your thoughts onto fictitious conspirers. Because there is obviousl no profi tobe had that couldn't be got otherwise.

[Michael Tee]

<<Who do you think is writing the Hydrocarbon bill anyway?>>

You're kidding me, right?

<<After all of those representatives got together from being elected from all over Iraq , what would make them listen to any outsider?>>

I dunno.  Because the outsider's guns decide who runs and who doesn't, who winds up in the torture chambers now and who doesn't?  Ever hear of a fellow named Mao and something he said about the barrel of a gun?

<<Because there is obviousl no profi tobe had that couldn't be got otherwise.>>

Well let's look at that, shall we?  Under Saddam, the foreigners (U.S. & British) were completely cut out of the loop.  Now they stand to make 50% or more of every dollar's profit made on the sale of Iraqi oil.  "No profit to be made" may be a nice mantra for those who want to fool the world into thinking of Amerikkka as an altruistic nation, but in fact nobody is fooled.  If there were really no profit to be made from the ownership of Middle Eastern oil wells, the Emir of Kuwait would give them away for the asking.  Try asking.

[_JS]

<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>

Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists.  Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.   In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist.  All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue.  It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms.  Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc.  There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all.  The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned.  Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word.  Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.

Also perhaps it just isn't about oil .

WE have been around on this , there is no profit motive , where there is no profit.

Imperialism isn't just about profit. But to say the United States is not (and has not been for roughly five decades) an empire is simply to deny the blatant truth.

Mike is correct in that politicians and others pay lip service to "democracy," but in the world we don't fight for democracy, freedom, or any of those catch phrases that the American public eats with a spoon. We fight for ideology, projection of power, natural resources, and to aid the modern version of "colonies."

[The_Professor]

Nope.

Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.

[Michael Tee]

<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>

Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him.  Bush might just be pathological enough to wish to project power for the sake of projecting power, just so he can strut around in a flight suit under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but he's only one man.  His supporters and backers, the men and women who really run the country, wouldn't allow him to invade Dogpatch if they didn't see obscenely large profits flowing into their coffers from it.

[The_Professor]

The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellent to way to "show the flag".

[yellow_crane]

The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellen to way to "show the flag".

To improve the world's opinion of the United States, the lowest ever, it might be best to remove the all our flags as well.

Out of sight, out of mind.  Let them all have time to heal from our imperialism.

[_JS]

<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>

Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him.

Oh I agree completely. And obviously there have been major profits made, anyone who says otherwise is simply looking the other way.

Let's look at Halliburton's 5 year stocks on the NYSE:



Not half bad, huh? The 52-week change was 23.35%. That's far better than the market average, that's for damn sure.

The privatisation of Iraq's economy by the Provisional Government mirrored the same "shock therapy" that Chile went through. The effects were similar as well. Iraq became a place for foreign companies to come in and take what they wanted, without paying a nickel in taxes to the Iraqi people. Their workers were immune from any legal standards set by the Iraqi Government (making Iraqi-owned businesses non-competetive).

Bechtel, a private engineering firm, had revenues that jumped quite nicely with their Iraq contracts from 2003 to 2006:



A 25.7% jump in revenues. Sweet!

Iraq provided a chance to experiment with the free market as well. Blackwater introduced the free market military. A military that, while expensive, also lacked any real accountability - a good thing for any empire that wants to try and preserve an image of "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy."

So, no...there were people who made fortunes in Iraq. Chances are that you'll never meet any of them and they represent a tiny percentage of the population of the United States, let alone the world. Just like California though, there was more there than just gold (or oil as the case may be) to make a fortune on.

Iraq is just another in the list to be added to Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, Greece, etc. I would not underestimate ideology playing a huge role in our imperialist adventures. It has nothing to do with liberty or democracy, but free markets and the neoliberal version of corporatism.

[The_Professor]

The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellen to way to "show the flag".

To improve the world's opinion of the United States, the lowest ever, it might be best to remove the all our flags as well.

Out of sight, out of mind.  Let them all have time to heal from our imperialism.

Sorry, quite the opposite. Show the flag and let it be known, over time, in a positive vein.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that the Carlisle Group (which Olebush administers with other oligarchs) is private, and their profits are therefore a secret. But I bet that they did better than Halliburton or Bechtel by a goodly margin. They also invest in weapons, which the US govt. has been using up quite rapidly of late.

It's not that the oligarchy wants the US to be an imperial power, the main thing is that they profit from the process, and there is little question that this is happening.
 

[Plane]

<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>

Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him.

Oh I agree completely. And obviously there have been major profits made, anyone who says otherwise is simply looking the other way.

Let's look at Halliburton's 5 year stocks on the NYSE:



Not half bad, huh? The 52-week change was 23.35%. That's far better than the market average, that's for damn sure.

The privatisation of Iraq's economy by the Provisional Government mirrored the same "shock therapy" that Chile went through. The effects were similar as well. Iraq became a place for foreign companies to come in and take what they wanted, without paying a nickel in taxes to the Iraqi people. Their workers were immune from any legal standards set by the Iraqi Government (making Iraqi-owned businesses non-competetive).

Bechtel, a private engineering firm, had revenues that jumped quite nicely with their Iraq contracts from 2003 to 2006:



A 25.7% jump in revenues. Sweet!

Iraq provided a chance to experiment with the free market as well. Blackwater introduced the free market military. A military that, while expensive, also lacked any real accountability - a good thing for any empire that wants to try and preserve an image of "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy."

So, no...there were people who made fortunes in Iraq. Chances are that you'll never meet any of them and they represent a tiny percentage of the population of the United States, let alone the world. Just like California though, there was more there than just gold (or oil as the case may be) to make a fortune on.

Iraq is just another in the list to be added to Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, Greece, etc. I would not underestimate ideology playing a huge role in our imperialist adventures. It has nothing to do with liberty or democracy, but free markets and the neoliberal version of corporatism.

Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?

Has either one of them actually made a profit there?


Ideology is indeed closer to the reason , our attitude  is what it was that made elections necessacery .