The Al-Zarkawi Thread (Merged)

The problem is that the royals haven’t been so faithful to the US as many believe, and their kingdoms seem to be fantastically effective breeding grounds for the sort of disaffected young Muslims who are likely to fly aeroplanes into buildings.

It really is quite impossible to miss the policy shift, in my opinion. Past US presidents followed a realpolitik strategy of “stability at all costs”, which meant that the US actually preferred strong-man dictators in the ME, as it kept everything seemingly stable and easier to manage. Over the last few years though, and especially after 9/11, the US government has come to realise that the old policy brings neither security nor real stability. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, is a system far more likely to result in peace and stability than a dictatorship is. Not only does it provide a constructive outlet for the majority of those who become frustrated and alienated, but it results in a far less belligerent outlook – thus far no liberal democracy has ever declared war on and invaded another liberal democracy.

That’s the theory at least. Time will tell if it actually works, and Iraq hasn’t been all that encouraging so far.

Well the same is with Middle East. The pro democratic slogans is just to fine tune the Leaders when they are not exactly what the US wants. So its more of a scare then a theme to follow in years to come.
PS: Who needs democracy when Royals r so faithful to US.

Well if what you say is true and US is not their for Oil then there is only one valid reason. Mr Bush and others in power are war mongers. Democracy oh yes i almost forgot that they want a democratic world no wonder y Musharif in Pakistan is non NATO Alley. For this matter other Royals in the middle east are close alleys????

Hey, you’ve got to start somewhere, so why not Iraq? If we can keep this momentum going, then it will be the turn of the Saudis and Pakistan soon enough.

Besides, the idea is not to go on invading ad infinitum, instead the idea was to demonstrate once and for all that a liberal constitutional democracy could work in an Arab country, and make it better off. In doing so, you provide a third way between the current choices, which are either a pseudo-secular dictator or a theocracy. Once the Arab people realise that they’ve been fed a diet of lies for the past few decades, and that there is a better way (personified by Iraq), they’ll exert more pressure on their governments to become more accountable and institute democratic reforms.

That’s the theory at least. Time will tell if it actually works, and Iraq hasn’t been all that encouraging so far.

Quite right.

You can extend that principle far beyond the third world, too.

Granted, but the most extreme examples tend to be found there.

Well if what you say is true and US is not their for Oil then there is only one valid reason. Mr Bush and others in power are war mongers. Democracy oh yes i almost forgot that they want a democratic world no wonder y Musharif in Pakistan is non NATO Alley. For this matter other Royals in the middle east are close alleys????

Quite right.

You can extend that principle far beyond the third world, too.

That’s freedom of speech for you, J Boyle…… 😉

As a journalist I’m in favor of free speech…
I’m just not naive enough to believe that a lot of the “news” around the world, (especially that given to less sophisticated audiences in the “third world”) is objective journalism and not propaganda.

Well Boyle its correct that prices of Oil has gone up and the reason as mentioned by barbarian is the standoff between iran….

I wasn’t questioning the reason why oil has gone up in price…the world over (I hear Norway is also making a fortune).
If you lived in the US, you’d know many of the refined oil products sold in the US are indeed sold by non-US firms…BP, Shell (who now own the venerable Texaco brand) and Citco to name three.

I just haven’t seen proof that the US government is stealing Iraq’s oil.
If it were, the Democrats in Congress would certainly know, (the books are open…as are the books of the publically-traded oil companies) and not be shy about telling the world.

What you don’t understand US politicians are harldy unified.
The Democrats hate Mr. Bush more than they hate the terrorists. They wouild like nothing better than to bring something like this in the open.
Any idea of a “Unifed” US government is something that hasn’t existed since 1945.

The recent rise of oil on the international market to $70+ per bbl has hurt the US economy…causing inflation worries (look at the US stock market for the past copuple of weeks…) so if the US is ‘Stealing oil” why are prices rising in the US?

Well Boyle its correct that prices of Oil has gone up and the reason as mentioned by barbarian is the standoff between iran. The entire mexican facility to produce oil was hit by tropical storm and other factors. The consumer use processed oil not crude oil. Can you tell me that what portion of processing of crude oil is done by NoN-US firm? i guess very little. So its simple the profit of high prices go to US firms not oil producing countries. All u have to do is keep a storge of oil, start a rumor and the prices will hit sky and then u can make $ by pumping the stored oil but now processed. It works dear It works very well.

I’ll try and use logic to silenece the conspiracy theorists out there (not that logic ever works…witness recent thread on US moon landings…)..

The recent rise of oil on the international market to $70+ per bbl has hurt the US economy…causing inflation worries (look at the US stock market for the past copuple of weeks…) so if the US is ‘Stealing oil” why are prices rising in the US?

If you think Mr Bush (and his party) will do anything to stay in power, wouldn’t he lower the price of oil in the US? (especially before the mid-term Congressional elections coming up this fall).

A-2-S…I fear you’re being sold “a bill of goods” from some government or entity that is more interested in generating anti-US propaganda than facts. And witnessing the comments by some people here, it seems to be working.

No my friend ! You are wrong!

The high price for oil is because of high demand in Chinese and indian markets and worry about Iran Nuclear problem .

Mr.Bush said in one of his speeches U.S is addicted to Oil.

well about stealing oil!

There are many ways to steal something from somone.

Well some UK and U.S companies had link with high rank officers and senators they used there power and made the contract first.

Out of Topic but why U.S attacket Iraq?

400bl$ budget for militery is quit high.

So keeping home such a big army is quit dangerous. ( like keeping wild tiger in home. )

Ther militery companies has to produce weapon and sell it to pay there employees.

Oil fileds in middle east has to be safe and in control of U.S.

Answer if I am wrong.

🙂

That’s freedom of speech for you, J Boyle…… 😉

And I was just getting over the “Moon Landings” thread! Thanks a bunch, fella! 😮

I’ll try and use logic to silenece the conspiracy theorists out there (not that logic ever works…witness recent thread on US moon landings…)..

The recent rise of oil on the international market to $70+ per bbl has hurt the US economy…causing inflation worries (look at the US stock market for the past copuple of weeks…) so if the US is ‘Stealing oil” why are prices rising in the US?

If you think Mr Bush (and his party) will do anything to stay in power, wouldn’t he lower the price of oil in the US? (especially before the mid-term Congressional elections coming up this fall).

A-2-S…I fear you’re being sold “a bill of goods” from some government or entity that is more interested in generating anti-US propaganda than facts. And witnessing the comments by some people here, it seems to be working.

It’s really quite simple, A-2-S. Bush’s economic policy focuses not on raising taxes, but cutting them slightly in order to boost economic growth, which in turn increases the amount of money coming in through tax revenues.

So far, it’s been working – in the past two years revenues from taxes are up almost 30%, with this year’s rise being the second-highest in 25 years. This has helped slash the federal budget deficit from its December ’04 level of $419 billion to a current level of $325.6 billion, almost $100 billion less. In fact, at the current rate the deficit will be down to $260 billion by the end of the year, thereby halving the original deficit three years earlier than Bush himself had promised.

In other words, it’s certainly possible to get the two equations even without raising taxes or stealing anyone’s oil, so long as the economy is growing.

Besides, you’re looking at this from the entirely wrong angle. Your claim is that the US government needs additional money so therefore it had to have stolen the oil, but this makes absolutely no sense when you realise, as I pointed out, that full control of Iraq’s oil rests with its independent government and not with the United States. So regardless of whether you think the US has a motive to steal the oil, the actual facts prove that it has no such control.

Screwed up big would be an understatement. For those who dont seem to understand the logic in the concept of “WAR for Oil” let me put forward a simple question. The budget spending of US is the highest for the year 2005-2006 due to the two wars conducted and the so called relief effort after Katrina( the storm). So if the gov has spend so much how u think it gona get even with the equations? Raise taxes?/ thats the last thing this president and party needs if they wana be elected in next 50 years so how u think they gona work it out???
Yet how naively u claim that we are not their for Oil, if not so its not possible to sustain a war on two fronts. WAR means vetrains and wounded and it means compunsations and salaries. I hope you do keep these in mind aswell before you write in reply what comes first to ur mind.

Moderator Comment

Gentlemen.

Welcome to General Discussion.

For the benefit of those of you who don’t usually post in here, we don’t do personal insults, we don’t do nationalistic willy-waving and Rule 5 of the Code of Conduct is enforced in a firm and even-handed manner at all times.

Is everyone clear on that?

Good!

Continue……. 😀

GA

So alternatively I guess Saddam remains in power and the Iraqi people continue to suffer and die by the thousands every year while pigs like Saddam and his sons continue to rule and do whatever they please to or with whomever they please. Sounds like a great future for Iraq to me……….

From the very start Americans have publicly put great emphasis on the fact that only Americans and British companies get the reconstruction and oil export contracts. Later, some Polish companies were invited, as well.. The rest of the world was absolutely excluded. What more proof would I need?

So all of a sudden we invaded Iraq to steal their oil and share some of that with Britain and then give a little to Poland? The Iraqi government has control of the oil and they can contract out to whomever they choose. America is not stealing the oil. They are getting the Iraqi government on its feet so that it can use its natural resources to accelerate the process of rebuilding the country.

Precisely. It really amazes me how some of those here still refuse to see this most basic point: That the US has no control over Iraq’s oil. Perhaps that’s because by admitting this, they would have to give up one of their favourite criticisms of the US.

Yes he invaded in 1990, who is talking about the Gulf War of 1990, we have a dispute over this recent one, and America..could have gone and you know kicked Saddam that time, it caused a Shiite Uprising in South, where people hoped Americans will come to Rescue, No Abrams came, it was the the T series.

Uh, yes. So? I disagree completely with the decision to leave Saddam in power in 1991, but that decision was made by a different American administration with a different policy, so why should it be used as criticism of the current US president’s decision to remove Saddam now? Besides, it makes no sense to claim that Saddam should have been removed in 1991, but not in 2003.

Why all of a sudden? It was being planned that since the very start.. Don’t you remember the dispute on this forum about that? You were among the toughest defenders of the idea that ONLY US and British companies should get all oil export and reconstruction contracts after France, Germany and other Europeans refused to participate. Whom are you trying to cheat here and why?

This is just proof of your ignorance on the subject. The restriction of contracts to the countries involved in the Coalition was applicable to reconstruction contracts only, and even then was valid for only as long as the United States was the governing authority in Iraq. With the advent of an independent and democratically-elected government in Iraq, all that has fallen away, and any company from any country on earth is eligible to bid for oil export and reconstruction contracts now. I’ll repeat: oil export and reconstruction contracts are NOT currently limited to the US and Britain.

Impi is otherwise a nice guy. But he takes everything from the perspective that people who are in charge in the US are moral and honest and so are their actions. That is what I call naiviety. It is nice, but also somehow childish.. Otherway, he has my sympathies..

Give me a break. Kindly point out to me exactly where I have assumed that those in charge of the US are somehow entirely moral and honest. Your ad hominem attacks on my (perceived) position are unwarranted and actually somewhat pathetic.

In all my posts on this thread I have not taken a position on the moral standpoint of the US government, and for good reason. Instead, I have argued about what is, while debunking your incorrect assertions that the US invaded Iraq for its oil. The very fact that the old “war for oil” lie is not true does not mean the US is suddenly acting entirely benevolently or with altruistic intentions, it just means that there were other reasons for the invasion that you must consider. That’s if, of course, you’re capable of seeing the Iraq invasion in more complex terms than making it all about the oil.

In order to boast the war effort and to claim victory over killing Al-Zarkawi in an air strike few days back.
Was Zarkawi that bigger a victory that Bush had to personally fly to Iraq to take credit for it?? what do u guys think?
Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13163803/

Zarqawi was just a game.

It is the Honey and Bee game .

They put in center the Honey ( Zarqawi ) Then make it larger using “media” and there came a lot of Bees ( insurgents ) Around the Honey . Final aproach was to take the honey out ( killing Zarqawi ) And hunt at the same time a lot of bees ( insurgents ) around it.

Bush on Surprise Visit to Iraq

In order to boast the war effort and to claim victory over killing Al-Zarkawi in an air strike few days back.
Was Zarkawi that bigger a victory that Bush had to personally fly to Iraq to take credit for it?? what do u guys think?
Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13163803/

Read Georges Sada’s book.

Interesting but so far highly questionable since he alone cannot provide any serious proofs about his claims. Where is my assurance that he was not paid by CIA to ‘colorize’ his memoires a bit? It would not be the first time..

There’s a difference between what one person believes and what the government actually does…

The actual dispute was based on press announcements about US and Britain having exclusivity for any reconstruction contracts (Poland was not being considered at that time). I did not notice any changes since then.

How about European buyers pay a pro-rated share of the entire development bill. Then you can have whatever technology you want.

Not quite. Todays it is customer’s market. Customers will be dictating conditions, not sellers. I encourage Euros to set as hard conditions as it gets.. Technology transfer on demand.. finally it is a BIG purchase, not 20 aircraft. And if LM do not like that, they are free to cut production in half and release 2,000+ employees, I don’t give a damn.

You have been dealing exactly that hard with your European partners for decades. Nothing wrong with that but now it is time to experience the same business manners on your own skin.

Myself, I’d like to see the US government subsidize Boeing at the same rate that Europe subsidizes Airbus. Then let’s see what happens…

Cannot help you with that from here.. You should write this to your local senator, that is what they are for..

So because part of Europe doesn’t want something ot happen means it can’t happen?

Part of Europe? Good 2/3 is against it, my friend. I don’t think Bush has such support at home.

And counted Asia, Latin America and Australia in, I would be very surprised if the share of Bush supporters throughout the world exceeded 25-30%. That is almost 3 ‘weenie liberal Al-Qaeda-supporting Jihadis’ on one ‘highly moral defender of freedom and democracy’. Quite a rotten planet, don’t you think?

Eh?

Sorry. Reconstruction.

You’re trying to sabotage the dollar-based oil exchange. Fair is fair.

You are kidding me. Sabotage means attempts to cancel it. Europe is not trying to cancel NYMEX or IPE, we are simply providing an alternative. And a damn good one, that is why you are sh!ttin into your pants.. But that is called free market even in your part of the world. So, where is your ‘love for freedom’ now?

Please, do not try to argument about how good the dollar monopoly is for the world, you are better than that. For every 100 dollar bill you print at $0.08 cost, Europe has to earn some 84 Euro. And you are currently printing over $1 bn a day. And you are talking about ‘fair’ and calling us saboteurs?????? Wake up…

BTW, you won’t manage to cancel out euro-oil-exchange forever. It will break through, anyway.. Then you can collect your inflated green papers and make a nice little fire.. BTW, dollars burn blue, did you know it?

Hussein has time to conceal and get rid of the WMDs?.. Then there surely are proofs about that.. So, please, I am giving you space to present them..

Read Georges Sada’s book.

You were among the toughest defenders of the idea that ONLY US and British companies should get all oil export and reconstruction contracts after France, Germany and other Europeans refused to participate. Whom are you trying to cheat here and why?

There’s a difference between what one person believes and what the government actually does…

the way you treat Euros regarding JSF

How about European buyers pay a pro-rated share of the entire development bill. Then you can have whatever technology you want. Myself, I’d like to see the US government subsidize Boeing at the same rate that Europe subsidizes Airbus. Then let’s see what happens…

Iraqi invasion

So because part of Europe doesn’t want something ot happen means it can’t happen?

exclusivity for recon contracts

Eh?

repeated sabotage of the euro-based oil stock exchange

You’re trying to sabotage the dollar-based oil exchange. Fair is fair.