DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 08, 2007, 10:25:31 PM
-
is too early to gauge the impact of the arrest of the deputy health minister. Nor is it clear what will happen.
But the Mehdi army does appear to be feeling the pressure as a result of this targeted US approach - with many of its members now keeping their weapons out of sight and many of its leaders having left the capital.
There are fears it could simply be biding its time though, waiting for the pressure to relent.
E-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6344065.stm
-
<<There are fears it could simply be biding its time though, waiting for the pressure to relent. >>
or popping up elsewhere when least expected. Is anyone surprised that they didn't elect to stand and fight?
The Mehdi Army KNOWS that they will be in Iraq for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children's children. Can the occupaton forces say the same thing?
-
<<There are fears it could simply be biding its time though, waiting for the pressure to relent. >>
or popping up elsewhere when least expected. Is anyone surprised that they didn't elect to stand and fight?
The Mehdi Army KNOWS that they will be in Iraq for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children's children. Can the occupaton forces say the same thing?
Of course not , but the rest of the life of the Mehdi army might not be as long as the US stay.
-
<<Of course not , but the rest of the life of the Mehdi army might not be as long as the US stay.>>
No, that's why I added the lives of their children and their children's children. The only Americans who will stay there longer than that will be the ones who are buried there.
-
<<Of course not , but the rest of the life of the Mehdi army might not be as long as the US stay.>>
No, that's why I added the lives of their children and their children's children. The only Americans who will stay there longer than that will be the ones who are buried there.
They can be dead too.
-
The odds are that the U.S. will bug out well within the lifetime of the current Resistance fighters, if history and the polls are any guide. Nice sick fantasy, though. Too bad about all those dead rednecks.
-
The odds are that the U.S. will bug out well within the lifetime of the current Resistance fighters, if history and the polls are any guide. Nice sick fantasy, though. Too bad about all those dead rednecks.
I think of your longing for Americans to die as a sick fantasy too .
-
The odds are that the U.S. will bug out well within the lifetime of the current Resistance fighters, if history and the polls are any guide. Nice sick fantasy, though. Too bad about all those dead rednecks.
I think of your longing for Americans to die as a sick fantasy too .
Isn't it, though (http://www.freewebby.com/beer-food-sick-smilies/alcoholic.gif)
-
<<I think of your longing for Americans to die as a sick fantasy too .>>
Nothing sick about it. They've got it coming. And if Muslims invaded YOUR country, they'd have it coming too.
But what's really sick about your fantasies is that the people dying have done nothing wrong apart from living on top of oil that your greedy sick leadership covets.
-
MT, why place this in a religious context, e.g. Christians versus Muslims? Isn't this pandering to the side of irrationality. This conflcit, of whcih I never espoused, was and is NOT about religion at all. To place it in that context, only lets the radical militiais CONTROL the context and provide yet another reason to kill our troops over there. This conflict was and is about POWER.
-
MT, why place this in a religious context, e.g. Christians versus Muslims? Isn't this pandering to the side of irrationality.
I think you need to consider who you're responding to, Professor :-\
-
Which is why I stopped visiting for a while. It simply gets tiring....<sigh>
-
Which is why I stopped visiting for a while. It simply gets tiring....<sigh>
You are welcome to contribute , but do not feel compelled.
Some people enjoy one thing ,some another.
-
It is called "beating a dead horse."
Honest difference of opinion is stimulating, Irrationality is depressing. :-)
-
Which is why I stopped visiting for a while. It simply gets tiring....<sigh>
Understandibly so. Which is why Brass & I initiated the public financing thread, and why I introduced the to war or not, thread. We look forward to your input on those, as well
-
It is called "beating a dead horse."
Honest difference of opinion is stimulating, Irrationality is depressing. :-)
Hahahahaha
Did you know what the 3DHS was named for?
This is the Three Dead Horses Saloon!
If you ask BT politely he might show you our old logo which featured horse skulls.
Irrationality , is a valued part of my life , I deal with it as a sort of humor or art.
Irrationality has in common with beauty that it is often in the eye of the beholder.
And is often beheld reciprocally!
I am only just humble enough to remember that I have been wrong before , and the illusions I knew then were no less convinceing than the ones my opposite members labor below now , supposeing I am right this time.
-
It is called "beating a dead horse."
Seen the name of the forum lately?
-
<<MT, why place this in a religious context, e.g. Christians versus Muslims? Isn't this pandering to the side of irrationality. This conflcit, of whcih I never espoused, was and is NOT about religion at all. To place it in that context, only lets the radical militiais CONTROL the context and provide yet another reason to kill our troops over there. This conflict was and is about POWER.>>
I actually agree with you, Professor, that (a) this is not a religious conflict and (b) it is about power.
In answer to your question, (why place this in a religious context?) I was using a hypothetical example to make my point to plane. My point was that the killing of American troops in Iraq was justified, that they had it coming. To make the point, I asked plane to consider the situation from the POV of the people whose homeland was invaded and whose fellow citizens were killed - - I gave him the example of a foreign army invading America. Wouldn't it be right for Americans to kill them? To dramatize the point a bit, I used the example of a Muslim army, but for the purposes of my argument, it could equally well have been a Communist army, an Arab army, a Jewish army, a Nazi army or a Polish army. The real point I was making is that members of an invading army who invade other people's homelands should expect to be killed. Sorry if I muddied the waters with the particular example I chose to make my point.
-
<<MT, why place this in a religious context, e.g. Christians versus Muslims? Isn't this pandering to the side of irrationality. This conflcit, of whcih I never espoused, was and is NOT about religion at all. To place it in that context, only lets the radical militiais CONTROL the context and provide yet another reason to kill our troops over there. This conflict was and is about POWER.>>
I actually agree with you, Professor, that (a) this is not a religious conflict and (b) it is about power.
In answer to your question, (why place this in a religious context?) I was using a hypothetical example to make my point to plane. My point was that the killing of American troops in Iraq was justified, that they had it coming. To make the point, I asked plane to consider the situation from the POV of the people whose homeland was invaded and whose fellow citizens were killed - - I gave him the example of a foreign army invading America. Wouldn't it be right for Americans to kill them? To dramatize the point a bit, I used the example of a Muslim army, but for the purposes of my argument, it could equally well have been a Communist army, an Arab army, a Jewish army, a Nazi army or a Polish army. The real point I was making is that members of an invading army who invade other people's homelands should expect to be killed. Sorry if I muddied the waters with the particular example I chose to make my point.
Where were you when Jefferson Davis needed you?
-
<<Where were you when Jefferson Davis needed you?>>
I would have supported Jefferson Davis (much good it would have done him!) had he renounced slavery and racism, liberated blacks and enfranchised them and announced that he was fighting for the independence of a free, equal and anti-racist south. Otherwise, fuck him and fuck the C.S.A.
-
<<Where were you when Jefferson Davis needed you?>>
I would have supported Jefferson Davis (much good it would have done him!) had he renounced slavery and racism, liberated blacks and enfranchised them and announced that he was fighting for the independence of a free, equal and anti-racist south. Otherwise, fuck him and fuck the C.S.A.
I doubt that you woud have been so demanding of him.
You seem to make no such demand of the inurgency we have been speaking of here.
-
<<You seem to make no such demand of the inurgency we have been speaking of here.>>
I don't see the kind of moral disparity between the two sides here as I saw in the U.S. Civil War. When one side is just fightng for oil and the other is defending what's rightfully theirs, I don't feel the need to impose further moral standards on the defenders. When the fight is basically freedom versus slavery, the defenders of slavery had damn well better have something more to say for their cause than "Well I live here."
-
When the fight is basically freedom versus slavery, the defenders of slavery had damn well better have something more to say for their cause than "Well I live here."
So, how do you justify the northern states that continued slavery even after the Civil War ended?
-
<<So, how do you justify the northern states that continued slavery even after the Civil War ended?>>
Wasn't even aware of them. I presume the 14th amendment applied across the board and solved the entire problem fairly conclusively. I never said that the north was perfect, only that there was a big disparity in the moral aims of both sides.
-
Wasn't even aware of them. I presume the 14th amendment applied across the board and solved the entire problem fairly conclusively. I never said that the north was perfect, only that there was a big disparity in the moral aims of both sides.
Yeah, I know you weren't aware of them, even though I pointed them out in this forum a number of times. You just ignore anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.
The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. The 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, wasn't passed for a while after the war ended.
-
Wasn't even aware of them. ....
Yeah, I know you weren't aware of them, even though I pointed them out in this forum a number of times. You just ignore anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.
Must fit the template...Bush is evil, American Military is Evil, Israel is evil, South is overwhelmingly racist, yada, rant, blather
-
<<You seem to make no such demand of the inurgency we have been speaking of here.>>
I don't see the kind of moral disparity between the two sides here as I saw in the U.S. Civil War. When one side is just fighting for oil and the other is defending what's rightfully theirs, I don't feel the need to impose further moral standards on the defenders. When the fight is basically freedom versus slavery, the defenders of slavery had damn well better have something more to say for their cause than "Well I live here."
You show little familiarity with the goals of our opposition.
They are not eschewing slavery, not in any respect or form.
-
Ami: <<The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. >>
14th amendment had EVERYTHING to do with slavery. It prevented discrimination against former slaves. That was the whole point of it.
<<Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. >>
plane: <<You show little familiarity with the goals of our opposition.
They are not eschewing slavery, not in any respect or form.>>
What does slavery have to do with the current situation in Iraq? The Iraqi Resistance is not planning to bring back slavery, and whatever form of tyrannical government the different factions espouse is already being supported in one form or another by the U.S.A. in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and/or Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If you are trying to sell this as "democracy versus tyranny," you aren't going to find many buyers.
-
The Iriqui Resistance is very likely to inlude as a goal the imposition of Shria law.
They do not forbid any form of slavery.
-
<<The Iriqui Resistance is very likely to inlude as a goal the imposition of Shria law.
They do not forbid any form of slavery.>>
Well why wait for the Resistance to bring Sharia to Iraq? We know for a fact it's already in Saudi Arabia. I guess the U.S. should be invading Saudi Arabia now to stop slavery and Sharia. I know how concerned they must be about it.
-
14th amendment had EVERYTHING to do with slavery. It prevented discrimination against former slaves. That was the whole point of it.
I thought that the 13th Amendment was a little more to the point on abolishing slavery:
Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished.
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
-
<<The Iriqui Resistance is very likely to inlude as a goal the imposition of Shria law.
They do not forbid any form of slavery.>>
Well why wait for the Resistance to bring Sharia to Iraq? We know for a fact it's already in Saudi Arabia. I guess the U.S. should be invading Saudi Arabia now to stop slavery and Sharia. I know how concerned they must be about it.
No ,we will not do that.
You will have to settle for our anti - slavery work to proceed against a few nations at a time, the least threatening last.
I know that there is slavery in Saudi Araba , but their government is not advocateing and paying fo mericans to be killed , so why not work first on the ones that do advocate and pay for Americans to be killed?
We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.
-
<<We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>
Yeah? You wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia? Like what, specifically?
-
<<We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>
Yeah? You wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia? Like what, specifically?
They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.
There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.
Meanwhile they are busy trying to change us too, have you noticed that just about every American town has a nice Mosque in it?
Thank you Royal Family.
-
<<They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.
<<There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.>>
First you said the U.S. "wrought a lot of changes" in Saudi Arabia, here you are giving some piddling examples and admitting that progress is slow and there's a long way to go.
So which is it? A lot of changes, or some minimal changes leaving 90% or more of the necessary changes to the future?
-
<<They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.
<<There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.>>
First you said the U.S. "wrought a lot of changes" in Saudi Arabia, here you are giving some piddling examples and admitting that progress is slow and there's a long way to go.
So which is it? A lot of changes, or some minimal changes leaving 90% or more of the necessary changes to the future?
You caught me , it was wrong for me to say "a lot" when it is so far to go , we are a positive influence I think , but our influence is just barely tolerated by the traditionalists.
In China we are also wrecking change with influence and indirect means , the Chinese have been much more adaptable and accepting but they still do not meet our standards for human rights even nearly .
I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .
-
<<I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .>>
Here is my point. You use persuasion when you don't really give a shit, and you use force when you really, really NEED to have it your way.
"Democracy" is a don't-give-a-shit issue. If all you really wanted was democracy in Iraq, you'd do what you do in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, etc. No more, no less. You'd try to persuade them and you wouldn't push too hard. One thing you would NEVER do, and that is invade them, guns blazing, "Alright you bastards we TOLD you to be more democratic and now by God we're going to force you even if it means war. Even if thousands of us and hundreds of thousands of you have to die for it." THAT'S never happened and it never will happen.
My conclusion: the extent of your effort and the cost of it in Iraq is totally inconsistent with the way you've "spread democracy" everywhere else in the world. (I'm not counting WWII, becausae that's a case where you yourselves were attacked by undemocratic alliances and had a leadership in the persona of FDR and his associates who were clear-sighted enough to see the absolute menace posed to the world by fascism.) You "spread democracy" whenever you choose to do so, in a very low-key, low-cost way, and are satisfied with minimal to nonexistent rates of progress.
Therefore: whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.
-
Therefore: whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.
The object of the invasion was regime change.
The reason to stay is a stable and democratic Iraq.
Try not to confuse the two
-
<<I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .>>
Here is my point. You use persuasion when you don't really give a shit, and you use force when you really, really NEED to have it your way.
"Democracy" is a don't-give-a-shit issue. If all you really wanted was democracy in Iraq, you'd do what you do in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, etc. No more, no less. You'd try to persuade them and you wouldn't push too hard. One thing you would NEVER do, and that is invade them, guns blazing, "Alright you bastards we TOLD you to be more democratic and now by God we're going to force you even if it means war. Even if thousands of us and hundreds of thousands of you have to die for it." THAT'S never happened and it never will happen.
My conclusion: the extent of your effort and the cost of it in Iraq is totally inconsistent with the way you've "spread democracy" everywhere else in the world. (I'm not counting WWII, becausae that's a case where you yourselves were attacked by undemocratic alliances and had a leadership in the persona of FDR and his associates who were clear-sighted enough to see the absolute menace posed to the world by fascism.) You "spread democracy" whenever you choose to do so, in a very low-key, low-cost way, and are satisfied with minimal to nonexistent rates of progress.
Therefore: whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.
<<, where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>
-
<<The object of the invasion was regime change. >>
Only as incidental to the control of the country and its resources.
<<The reason to stay is a stable and democratic Iraq. >>
No, a puppet government that can be called "stable and democratic"
<<Try not to confuse the two >>
Why would I confuse them? The exact same thing that motivated the invasion motivates the occupation.
-
Why would I confuse them? The exact same thing that motivated the invasion motivates the occupation.
How many battalions do we have stationed at the oil fields?
How about along the pipelines?
-
<<How many battalions do we have stationed at the oil fields?
<<How about along the pipelines?>>
No idea. What's your point?
-
No idea. What's your point?
If control of the country and its resources (read oil) was the point of the invasion and still the point of the occupation, then wouldn't it make sense to protect those assets?
-
<<If control of the country and its resources (read oil) was the point of the invasion and still the point of the occupation, then wouldn't it make sense to protect those assets?>>
Who says they're not protected? Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?
-
Who says they're not protected? Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?
One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.
-
Who says they're not protected? Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?
One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.
Money and oil are war materiel and rebuilding materiel , there is a crying need to protect these resorces no matter who is harvesting them.
-
<<One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.>>
One of the current criticisms of George W. Bush is that he lied his country into a war.
Are you trying to tell me that current criticism has been suddenly elevated to the basis of proven fact?
-
One of the current criticisms of George W. Bush is that he lied his country into a war.
Are you trying to tell me that current criticism has been suddenly elevated to the basis of proven fact?
No, I'm talking about criticisms raised by authorities and backed by audits, not wild-eyed ravings by anti-Americans.
"The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) has been in operation since May 2003 to oversee the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). The IAMB released its first summary report in December 2004 covering its operations for the period from the establishment of the DFI on May 22, 2003 until the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) on June 28, 2004. We now present our second interim report with the IAMB’s comments and conclusions on our work until December 2006.
"The primary responsibility of the IAMB is to promote the objectives set forth in UNSCR 1483 of ensuring that the DFI is used in a transparent manner for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas are made consistent with prevailing international best practices. In the period from inception in 2003 to end-June 2006 the DFI received $68.8 billion from the proceeds of Iraqi oil export sales, balances from the UN oil-for-food program and frozen Iraqi funds, and disbursed $59.6 billion for the Ministry of Finance, letters of credit for Iraqi ministries, and contracts administered by US Agencies.
"The Board has consistently raised concerns about inadequate controls over Iraqi oil and other aspects of the DFI’s operations, originally with the US Government and more recently with the Government of Iraq. The IAMB was one of the first to raise these issues and alert others about these practices:
- The absence of oil metering. The IAMB recommended in March 2004 the expeditious installation of a comprehensive oil metering system in Iraq in accordance with standard oil industry practices. Oil metering is a key factor to achieve financial transparency and accountability over oil resources in Iraq. Oil production and the related oil export sales have dropped since early 2003, but are gradually rising again in 2006. As an interim step, the IAMB welcomed steps taken by the CPA to curtail smuggling. Some metering has since been installed at oil terminals, but there continues to be no metering in the oil fields. While the Iraqi Government supports oil metering, progress has been slow.
- The use of barter transactions for certain oil sales. The IAMB continues to be concerned that barter transactions are not accounted for in the DFI as required by UNSCR 1483. The State Oil Marketing Organization recorded barter transactions of $689 million between May 2003 and June 2006. Some bartering of oil for electricity with a neighboring country continues. The use of barter transactions makes it difficult to determine whether fair value has been received for Iraq’s oil export revenues.
- Persistent weak controls in the spending ministries. Recent audits note that the DFI overall control systems need to be strengthened and continue to be critical of the financial and accounting control systems in place in the spending ministries, the US agencies in respect of outstanding commitments using DFI resources and the Iraqi administration of DFI resources. The overall control system needs to be further improved to be sufficiently effective.
- The use of non-competitive bidding procedures by the CPA for some contracts funded from the DFI. The IAMB recommended that competitive bidding procedures be used and welcomed steps taken by the CPA to limit future single-sourced contracts to exceptional circumstances. The IAMB continues to question the reasonableness of some of the costs charged and the adequacy of the administration of contracts. While only relatively small exceptions were noted in the recent follow‑up special audits, including of KBR contracts, the IAMB noted exceptionally high transportation costs charged in providing humanitarian fuel supplies to Iraq, in some cases as much as 86 percent of the total contract costs and resulting in a final cost of nearly $7 per gallon. The IAMB observed that the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has also noted high levels of overhead costs in other contracts. In view of the findings of the special audits, the IAMB recommended that the Iraqi Government seek resolution with the US Government concerning the use of resources of the DFI which might be in contradiction with UNSCR 1483.
http://www.iamb.info/pr/pr121806.htm (http://www.iamb.info/pr/pr121806.htm)
More at link.
-
That's exactly what I mean about a barrage of facts proving nothing. The war couldn't be about oil because the oil isn't being guarded by the U.S. Proof? There's no controls over the oil and it's not all accounted for. And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up. At the end of the day, what does it all prove?
1. Some huge American corporations like KBR are probably making a killing overcharging for every service rendered to the production zones.
2. Somebody is stealing the oil because there aren't any controls or there aren't sufficient controls. Whooooeee! Stealing oil. In the Middle East of all places. Who woulda thunk? Who could be stealing the oil? The puppet government? Naaaahh, they look like honest folk to me. Sell out their country to the Americans, sure, but steal their country's oil? Impossible. The puppets with the connivance of the Americans? Hey not a bad idea. For every dollar the puppets can get their hands on from unmetered oil, that's a dollar in support money that the American government doesn't have to pay them. If the missing oil is as big a deal as BT and Ami seem to think it is, that's a lot of money that the American taxpayer will never have to pony up for a war that's already cost way, way over budget. Or maybe it's the occupiers themselves. Could the American army and American multinationals be sharing in any of this missing oil? Don't ask me, WTF do I know?
3. Bottom line, nobody seems to be watching the oil right now. Somebody's getting it "off the books" and the most powerful force in the country, the U.S. Army, ain't doing nothing about it. Gee, wonder why?
Ami, you are doing good work. You don't know what the hell you are doing, but you dig up facts, factoids, etc. that you just aren't able to put into context. But that's OK, some of us here can figure it all out for you. You just keep digging, Ami, I like everything you found so far.
BT, the war's about oil. It's about securing oil sources for the long haul, for the day when China and India and the rest of the world all need more than all the wells in the world can produce. That day hasn't come yet. For the time being, the U.S. Army is on the ground on top of the oil and if it manages to stay there until the oil crunch finally arrives, it will have served its function. In the meantime, nobody gives a shit what happens to the oil - - officially. It is going somewhere, that's for sure, and probably somewhere the U.S. government turns a blind eye to. They have their reasons. A little scam is going on and a few people, all in the temporary good graces of the Bush administration if not actually members thereof, are getting rich from it, but in no way do those shenanigans in any way invalidate the basic truth: that the war is for oil.
-
And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up. At the end of the day, what does it all prove?
You asked if the oil was being stolen, and I said that it was not known because of inadequate controls. You ridiculed my claim, so I produced the documentation.
It remains: it's not known whether or not Iraqi oil is being stolen.
-
BT, the war's about oil.
Glad that's settled.
-
That's exactly what I mean about a barrage of facts proving nothing. The war couldn't be about oil because the oil isn't being guarded by the U.S. Proof? There's no controls over the oil and it's not all accounted for. And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up. At the end of the day, what does it all prove?
1. Some huge American corporations like KBR are probably .........
2. Somebody is stealing the oil because there aren't any controls or there aren't sufficient controls. .... Could the American army and American multinationals be sharing in any of this missing oil? Don't ask me, WTF do I know?
3. Bottom line, nobody seems to be watching the oil right now. Somebody's getting it "off the books" ....
Tee demands facts. Tee's provided facts. Tee doesn't like facts. Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_5.gif)
Ami, you are doing good work. You don't know what the hell you are doing, but you dig up facts, factoids, etc. that you just aren't able to put into context. But that's OK, some of us here can figure it all out for you.
LOL....based on the above synopsis, that sure won't be Tee
-
<<You asked if the oil was being stolen, and I said that it was not known because of inadequate controls. You ridiculed my claim, so I produced the documentation.
<<It remains: it's not known whether or not Iraqi oil is being stolen.>>
Ami, you're ignoring context. Had there been no war and no invasion, nobody in his right mind would give a shit about whether or not the oil of Iraq is being stolen. The issue surfaced here through BT's rhetorical question: if the war's about oil, how come nobody's guarding the oil?
The issue of the stolen Iraqi oil has significance only in the context of the debate over the war's real rationale. When you pulled up those figures, it was implicitly in support of BT's contention: "See, the oil IS being stolen, [therefore the war can't be about oil.]" My post demonstrated the absurdity of that line of reasoning.
My apologies to you ONLY if you were digging up those facts in a neutral kind of way, without in any way meaning to bolster BT's argument. In that case, thanks for the factual insight, and sorry if I attacked you for a position you weren't defending.
-
<<Tee demands facts. Tee's provided facts. Tee doesn't like facts. Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template. >>
That's hilarious. If you took the trouble to read the article that Ami posted, sirs, you'd see that the vagueness was in the article itself. Oh, well, reading for comprehension was never one of your strong points, was it?
-
<<Tee demands facts. Tee's provided facts. Tee doesn't like facts. Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template. >>
If you took the trouble to read the article that Ami posted, sirs, you'd see that the vagueness was in the article itself.
Which of course is proof positive how it's all about the oil, right? ::)
-
<<Which of course is proof positive how it's all about the oil, right? >>
<sigh> no, sirs, it's proof positive of a very limited set of facts - - that there aren't a lot of controls in place, that somebody might be stealing some of it.
What it DOESN'T prove is that it's not about the oil. But I realize that is kind of a complex train of reasoning for you. Why not just leave it at this: BT and Ami have NOT proven (with the facts that Ami pulled up) that the war's not all about oil? Think you can handle that?
-
Why not just leave it at this: BT and Ami have NOT proven (with the facts that Ami pulled up) that the war's not all about oil? Think you can handle that?
And the converse is also true: Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.
-
Why not just leave it at this: BT and Ami have NOT proven that the war's not all about oil? Think you can handle that?
The ol double negative. Think you can handle how you haven't come anywhere near as close to they, to proving it was? Or are you going to fall back to the tried and true 'lack of facts/evidence is proof of such'?
-
Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.
Sure he has.
He says it is obvious to anyone with an intelligence level higher than a brain dead retard.
Very convincing.
-
<<And the converse is also true: Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.>>
Actually, I did. By eliminating the alternatives. By showing the historical precedents for industrial powers attempting to dominate the region. By showing the plans previously laid by the "President's" top advisors. By reference to the draft hydrocarbons law recently presented to the Iraqi legislature. But I guess your attention was focused elsewhere at the time.
-
<<And the converse is also true: Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.>>
Actually, I did. By eliminating the alternatives. By showing the historical precedents for industrial powers attempting to dominate the region. By showing the plans previously laid by the "President's" top advisors. By reference to the draft hydrocarbons law recently presented to the Iraqi legislature. But I guess your attention was focused elsewhere at the time.
I think that the draft Hydeocarbon Law is the most interesting part ,especially that it must be presented to an elected legislature.
I think that the elected representatives of the Iriqui people will look to their potential for reelection as they vote , and will not approve a deal that leaves Iraq poorly paid.
-
<<I think that the draft Hydeocarbon Law is the most interesting part ,especially that it must be presented to an elected legislature.
<< I think that the elected representatives of the Iriqui people will look to their potential for reelection as they vote , and will not approve a deal that leaves Iraq poorly paid.>>
That's hilarious.
-
<<I think that the draft Hydeocarbon Law is the most interesting part ,especially that it must be presented to an elected legislature.
<< I think that the elected representatives of the Iriqui people will look to their potential for reelection as they vote , and will not approve a deal that leaves Iraq poorly paid.>>
That's hilarious.
I am serious bout it , if the Iriqui legisature is not looking out for the electorate then it must be something other than a democracy , and this would amount to a major failure on their part and ours.
Perhaps you think it hilarious becase your faith is settled in the idea that no American can be altruistic ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice;_ylt=An37VeN0o5xgJKRT.HZk4wz9xg8F
"The U.S. has urged the government to move more quickly on benchmarks such as a national law governing the distribution of oil wealth. Iraqi leaders informed her that the oil deal was almost done, but Rice later told reporters she has heard that before. The secretary said she made clear to Iraqi officials that she hopes this time it is for real.
"The oil law is a proxy for something much larger," Rice said. "It's really important that they complete it, but it's also important that they have made progress."
Iraqi leaders know as well as she does, Rice said, about what must be done. "The American people are not the only ones who are impatient. The Iraqi people are impatient."
Iraq has missed its own target dates for making crucial trust-building measures, such as laws establishing provincial elections, equitably distributing the country's oil wealth and reversing prohibitions on government participation by many Sunnis because of membership in Saddam's Baath party.
"The wait for progress can't be endless," Rice said. "
-
<<Perhaps you think it hilarious becase your faith is settled in the idea that no American can be altruistic ?>>
Wrong again. I think FDR and the people around him were very altruistic. I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
-
I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
I don't believe Bush has claimed to be FDR though Hillary did claim to have had conversations (figurative?) with Eleanor
-
<<Perhaps you think it hilarious becase your faith is settled in the idea that no American can be altruistic ?>>
Wrong again. I think FDR and the people around him were very altruistic. I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
FDR set a very high standard indeed , if Bush 43 can do half so well I would be happy with him.
Do you consider the Iriqui legeslature to be a rubber stamp? They certainly are struggleing greatly over this bill which Codeleza Rice is urgeing action.
-
I think FDR and the people around him were very altruistic. I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
Agreed. He's more Abraham Lincoln, if we're going to aim at past Presidents to compare Bush to
-
I think FDR and the people around him were very altruistic. I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
Agreed. He's more Abraham Lincoln, if we're going to aim at past Presidents to compare Bush to
The only person on the entire earth to echo those words might be his loser Supreme nominee, who once told a flunkie that George W. Bush was the smartest man she had ever met.
I would like to see those around Bush--Rove, Cheney, Neocon in and not in staff--respond to your comparison of Bush to Lincoln.
My guess is that they would laugh harder at that than at the base Christians, to whom Rove referred to as "the nuts."
-
I think FDR and the people around him were very altruistic. I just don't think that George W. Bush is another FDR. Neither does anyone eles.
Agreed. He's more Abraham Lincoln, if we're going to aim at past Presidents to compare Bush to
No doubt. Had Lincoln not had the good sense to get himself assassinated at an opportune time, history would likely remember him as a provincial tyrant who led an incompetent, corrupt administration and bungled his country into a civil war. Which is likely the way history will be remembering Bush.
-
The only person on the entire earth to echo those words might be his loser Supreme nominee, who once told a flunkie that George W. Bush was the smartest man she had ever met. I would like to see those around Bush--Rove, Cheney, Neocon in and not in staff--respond to your comparison of Bush to Lincoln. My guess is that they would laugh harder at that than at the base Christians, to whom Rove referred to as "the nuts."
You have a right to guess whatever you want Crane, as wrong as it ususally is. In a nut shell, the Iraqis are to Bush, what the slaves were to Lincoln. Only history will prove if I'm right or not
-
<<Agreed. He's more Abraham Lincoln, if we're going to aim at past Presidents to compare Bush to>>
Bush as the Abraham Lincoln of the Iraqis. Hilarious concept. While Lincoln. was busy liberating the slaves, how many of them did his armies kidnap, imprison, torture and murder? How many slaves did it sexually humiliate, sic attack dogs on, form naked pyramids of? How many slave quarters were bombed, shelled, mortared or set afire and how many slaves were killed as a result? How many slave leaders were captured by Union forces and then turned over to their fellow slaves, the ones being liberatied, to be put on trial and hanged?
History will determine if you are right? I'd be more concerned about psychiatry determining whether you are sane.
-
The one accomplishment of the Juniorbush administration is that the Bushes, the Cheneys and their cronies have, as a result of the Iraq War and the tax cuts for the plutocrats have become rich beyond anyone's imagination. Inside information on weapons, oil and other industries have enabled them to do this.
Stay tuned, there are sure to be hearings on this.
They are not patriots: they are THIEVES.
-
The one accomplishment of the Juniorbush administration is that the Bushes, the Cheneys and their cronies have, as a result of the Iraq War and the tax cuts for the plutocrats have become rich beyond anyone's imagination. Inside information on weapons, oil and other industries have enabled them to do this.
Stay tuned, there are sure to be hearings on this.
They are not patriots: they are THIEVES.
Do you suspect that is why running for president is worth the hundreds of millions to do so?
I noticed the previous president is quite wealthy now too.
-
Much of the success of the Bush Administration and its unprecedented thievery is now open for examination, but an impelling force used to avoid appropriate investigation has been the wearing of the holy mantle of the base Christians.
From everything from watching politicians fold, pundits treading very carefully to posters in political clubs on the internet becoming blank and near appoplexic when the authority of religious concerns in political matters are raised, one can see just how much clout this spun sanctimony possesses, or did possess.
Hopefully, while this administration is dissected legally and discredits and indictments are determined, America will finally become cognizant of how pretentious religious sanctimony can be so successfully utilized by political spin machines.
Let us look at our religions with a fresh, objective eye, ignoring the subtle conditionings that have stultified our thinking by sublimal guilt plants, remembering that while religious freedom is essential, the metaphysics of some of these bumpkin creations are silly beyond the pale, are often nothing more than money scams, and have actively contributed to the divisiveness of this country like no other force.
Not saying they cannot exist--just saying that the mere fact that they claim fame to Jesus does not qualify them to be regarded as gospel.
-
I'm guessing religion is now a wedge issue, much like class and race before it.
Divide and conquer.
-
Not saying they cannot exist--just saying that the mere fact that they claim fame to Jesus does not qualify them to be regarded as gospel.
So, who gets to decide which religions can "be regarded as gospel"?
-
I'm guessing religion is now a wedge issue, much like class and race before it.
Divide and conquer.
What you say about the zeitgeist of current American politics is true, but what does it say about the zeitgeist of current American politics?
Maybe the final wedge issue will be that one either subscribes generally to the tenets of our religious institutions, and expects the morality of their leaders to be in the same ballpark, or that all salient decisions will be made by those whose only God is money (power.)
My hope is that while most of America watches to see who emerges as the next groomed kuppie candidate to capture the masses, they will tangentially witness that new religious voices are emerging, defining newer, truer parameters of our established religion and its over-all contribution to our moral fibre.
That way, at least, while many people currently want to see government separated from reiligion, others will begin to see that delivering religion from the clutches of the politicians will, in the end, permit their proper influence.
It is because the religions lie within the lair of the beast that we suffer because they have been rendered sterile and have no force.
-
Not saying they cannot exist--just saying that the mere fact that they claim fame to Jesus does not qualify them to be regarded as gospel.
So, who gets to decide which religions can "be regarded as gospel"?
Well, a start would be to have someone who can admit that there are some parameters.
-
Well, a start would be to have someone who can admit that there are some parameters.
What parameters are listed in the First Amendment?
-
From a proper perspective and a proper practice, we should not be looking at religion from the "outside" as a possible structure for our politics and how it can be modulated. Rather, I suggest -- and this itself has political implications, though residual -- we should first form an honest idea of how religion explains or enhances the world, and then marry that conception to the political affairs we must attend to, or not. The distinction I tout is substantive, I think, focusing more closely on the material elements of religion and politics and their intersecting or divergent paths. The distinction is also formal, planting the seat of decision in the individual, where I contend it belongs in the first instance, and not approaching the matter as a macro-analysis of a so-called ideal or healthy polity.
That much said, what else can you do but take up political arms when a so-called religious sect preaches a predominantly avaricious theory of spirituality ... and acts in accordance by throwing its weight behind political trends? The way I see it, this does not change the paradigm of the individual encounter with God and the holy which I've sketched, but virtually mandates that the authentic voices of those religious and non-religious who are gifted with a different insight have the means of projecting their individual and collective visions onto the political stage as a counterbalance, if nothing else.
-
Well, a start would be to have someone who can admit that there are some parameters.
What parameters are listed in the First Amendment?
Much of the success of the Bush Administration and its unprecedented thievery is now open for examination, but an impelling force used to avoid appropriate investigation has been the wearing of the holy mantle of the base Christians.
From everything from watching politicians fold, pundits treading very carefully to posters in political clubs on the internet becoming blank and near appoplexic when the authority of religious concerns in political matters are raised, one can see just how much clout this spun sanctimony possesses, or did possess.
Hopefully, while this administration is dissected legally and discredits and indictments are determined, America will finally become cognizant of how pretentious religious sanctimony can be so successfully utilized by political spin machines.
Let us look at our religions with a fresh, objective eye, ignoring the subtle conditionings that have stultified our thinking by sublimal guilt plants, remembering that while religious freedom is essential, the metaphysics of some of these bumpkin creations are silly beyond the pale, are often nothing more than money scams, and have actively contributed to the divisiveness of this country like no other force.
Not saying they cannot exist--just saying that the mere fact that they claim fame to Jesus does not qualify them to be regarded as gospel.
As I stated in my post, "Not saying they cannot exist . . ."
My point was not that they should be shredded by legal terms.
But your question is here addressed:
"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from governmental interference.
. . .
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferrring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.(sic ".) Some governmental activcity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transporation for parochial school students and the enforcment of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a BREACH OF THE PEACE or CAUSE VIOLENCE. The righy to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a menssage.
. . .
The right to assemble allows people to gather for PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL PURPOSES. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of associatrion and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. THIS IMPLICIT RIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES ONLY. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that ENGAGE AND PROMOTE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel indiviuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment
Nothing in my post suggested that the government step in. I merely hoped that a new breed of preachers step forth and confront some of the religions who are using faux and quasi-faux tools of their religion to promote one political party over another. There are laws, for instance, that preclude preachers from doing just that, as in the case of providing voting lists.
But they do that.
Some of these preachers can step their way through a legal minefield as well as career criminals.
As I tried to suggest in my post, this task should be accomplished by other preachers who challenge the political involvement of some of their peers.
The case of Tom DeLay is pertinent here. Was he not indicted for using the faith to raise big bucks?
Beyond what the legal establishment now provides for protection of the people from criminal activity in a religion or if legislation does not exist to prohibit specific and timely transgressions regarding specificl legal transgressions, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit establishing new laws addressing these criminal activities which operate under the banner of religion.
I can think of a whole bunch of transgressions accomplished by today's Christian base.
Randall Terry should, for instance, face charges for his rhetoric during the Schaivo Circus (the one where Bill Frist done himself in forever in politics), wherein his remarks could easily disclose calls to violence and calling for ignoring established law.
-
The case of Tom DeLay is pertinent here. Was he not indicted for using the faith to raise big bucks?
Didn't realize that credit cards were based on faith.