There's a LOT you don't know, Bill.

Post #37,558 by Brandioch 5/5/02 11:40:48 AM Reply	There's a LOT you don't know, Bill. International politics being a prime example. Yasser...we treat him differently because of the political situation with ISRAEL. Israel wants him DEAD. Saudi Arabia wants him ALIVE. We don't want him declared a "terrorist" because we've said it is okay to bomb and kill terrorists. If he's dead, Saudi Arabia is unhappy. If we support his death, Saudi Arabia is unhappy as US. And we want them to be happy with us otherwise the oil is in jeopardy. But I'll be happy to hear what your fantasy regarding Yasser and Israel is and why we're supporting Israel by claiming he isn't a terrorist. Go ahead. Tell me a story. This one should be REAL good. Almost as good as THIS one: The US has proven oil reserves far in excess of those of Saudi Arabia. But we do NOT have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to EXPLOIT them. Without the infrastructure, they are "there" but they are not "available". Do I really have to explain this to you? Okay, you're dieing in the desert. You'd survive if you could get water. There's lots of water. But it is 100m underground. Now, you'd survive IF you had a pumping station already setup. Since you don't, you die. Just like our national security. Go ahead, Bill. Tell me again that the oil is "there". Just keep skipping over the fact that we don't have the infrastructure. Or is that too complex for your binary point of view?
Post #37,560 by bepatient 5/5/02 11:48:17 AM Reply	A perfect display of your cluelessness.... ...without Israel there is no Yasser. And >I"m< the one clueless about international politics >bog<. No reason to even bring him up. He's an old guy in Palestine that likes Corn Flakes and Hummus. Root cause analysis...look it up...you need to...really. And on your desert example...I think I might be able to survive...although I'd be a little inconvenienced when I noticed that instead of being full to the rim...my canteen is only 80% full. I might even not mind that thirst at all if I knew that when I was done crossing...I would find out that I'm at the shore of the largest source of fresh water on the planet. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,568 by Brandioch 5/5/02 12:46:37 PM Reply	WTF? A perfect display of your cluelessness.... ...without Israel there is no Yasser. Root cause analysis...look it up...you need to...really. Been done. Resulted in "oil" as the root cause. From your posts, it seems that "Israel" is the root cause that you came up with. Very strange, that. Allow me to quote myself from my previous post: But I'll be happy to hear what your fantasy regarding Yasser and Israel is and why we're supporting Israel by claiming he isn't a terrorist. Go ahead. Tell me a story. This one should be REAL good. So, you see Israel as the problem because if there was no Israel, then there would be no Yasser and our foreign policy wouldn't require that we support petty dictators and oppressive regimes like the Taliban (hosted in Texas in 1997). Bill, do you have ANY grasp on reality? And on your desert example...I think I might be able to survive...although I'd be a little inconvenienced when I noticed that instead of being full to the rim...my canteen is only 80% full. Ah, don't forget that your brother is driving a water tanker over the dune in 10 minutes. Ah, but if he's late, too bad. Unless you think you can dig 100m on one canteen of water? I might even not mind that thirst at all if I knew that when I was done crossing...I would find out that I'm at the shore of the largest source of fresh water on the planet. Hmmm, I said: Okay, you're dieing in the desert. You'd survive if you could get water. There's lots of water. But it is 100m underground. But you don't understand that, do you? You're operating under the exact same delusion you are in real life. You think that oil will magically appear when needed. Without any time invested in building the infrastructure to get to it. Bill, magic and miracles only happen in your fantasy world. The real world requires time and effort to get to those resources.
Post #37,569 by bepatient 5/5/02 1:27:31 PM Reply	Re: WTF? (planet are you on) Example given by you of being in the desert with NO water is garbage. 80% of our oil comes from outside the middle east. AND...as YOU are so fond to point out...some of our EXCESS goes to Japan...which means we could reduce IMMEDIATELY to even less than 20% Saudi Oil. You seem to be trying to convince someone that ALL of our oil comes from Saudi...which is...quite frankly...bullshit. What do the Taliban have to do with oil? Do we now import it fram Afghanistan too? Funny...that place looks like they would really like to have oil to export...it would solve alot of problems that could be solved with money. So stick with the program...is this about supporting oppressive regimes that support terrorism? Or is this a debate about the root cause of all of that... You dove in in support of a stance that its "all about oil"... It isn't. Except on Planet Brandioch. Even the guy you jumped in on admits the same. By the way...do you happen to know what Fluospar is used for. Everyone south of you will be very interested in it in about a month..Texas, Arizona and Florida would be very unfriendly without it. One of those 100% non strategic materials on the previous list. One for whcih there is no current substitute. Ah...who am I kidding..you know everything. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,573 by Brandioch 5/5/02 2:51:49 PM Reply	It's called "Earth". You might want to visit sometime. You seem to be trying to convince someone that ALL of our oil comes from Saudi...which is...quite frankly...bullshit. Thank you, Bill "strawman" Patient. No. I never said that all of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia. What do the Taliban have to do with oil? Like I said, you are ignorant of world events. [link\|http://www.rememberjohn.com/Oilbarons.html\|Bill's Ignorance is vast] Do we now import it fram Afghanistan too? No. Funny...that place looks like they would really like to have oil to export...it would solve alot of problems that could be solved with money. Bill "strawman" Patient. So stick with the program...is this about supporting oppressive regimes that support terrorism? Or is this a debate about the root cause of all of that... And why do you separate them? What is the root cause of our support of dictators in the mid-east? Answer: Oil. You dove in in support of a stance that its "all about oil"... Yes. And I just said it again. As opposed to >YOU< who seems to imply that the "root cause" of our supporting dictators in the mid-east is....Israel's existance? Yes, you said that if Israel DID NOT EXIST, then we would not have a problem with Yasser. By the way...do you happen to know what Fluospar is used for. Everyone south of you will be very interested in it in about a month..Texas, Arizona and Florida would be very unfriendly without it. Bill "strawman" Patient has a problem with links and supporting documentation. But I had already established that. Bill "strawman" Patient does NOT "debate" in my style. Read this post. My "style" is to provide links and references to my claims. Bill's is to "ask" questions hoping that I will get tired of running down his allegations and give up. Bill "Strawman" Patient, why don't you tell me what >YOU< think the importance of "Fluospar" is? And why are you switching from the MICA discussion earlier? Are you ready to admit that you were wrong about the strategic importance of Chinese mica? So, in these last few posts, I have established that: #1. Bill has no idea what the importance of Afghanistan is with regard to oil. #2. Bill thinks Israel's existance is the "root cause" of our supporting dictatorships in the mid-east. #3. Bill cannot admit when he is wrong regarding the strategic importance of Chinese mica. Now, I shall switch to Bill's "style" of "debate". Bill, you're wrong. Why don't you tell me why you are wrong?
Post #37,580 by a6l6e6x 5/5/02 5:23:51 PM Reply	Re: Price of crude oil. [link\|http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm\|Oil Price History and Analysis.] In 1972 the price of crude oil was about $3.00 and by the end of 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled to $12.00. So, what happened to cause such a turn of events? The Yom Kippur War started with an attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt on October 5, 1973. The United States and many countries in the western world showed strong support for Israel. As a result of this support Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the nations supporting Israel. Arab nations curtailed production by 5 million barrels per day (MMBPD) about 1 MMBPD was made up by increased production on other countries. The net loss of 4 MMBPD extended through March of 1974 and represented 7 percent of the free-world production. There's a clue here about relevance of Israel to oil prices. Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #37,593 by Brandioch 5/5/02 8:38:46 PM Reply	That's a "clue"? Ummm, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. This isn't about Israel. This is about keeping the Arab states happy. As a result of this support Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the nations supporting Israel. We supported something/someone they didn't want us to support and did not support something/someone they did want us to support. In other words, we made them unhappy. We made them unhappy because of our support of something/someone they didn't want us to support. They are unhappy because we did not support something/someone they wanted us to support. So they hit back via oil. The same thing with Yasser. If we support Israel, they are unhappy. If we don't support Yasser, they are unhappy.
Post #37,604 by bepatient 5/6/02 12:00:53 AM Reply	Wow...thats deep... ...you supply "facts"...that we're wanting to build a pipeline to supply oil to Pakistan? Pardon me...but wtf does that have to do with US oil supply? (remember...you seem to harp on US National Security). And we wouldn't have any interest in keeping Pakistan happy would we? Seeing as they have nukes and all and were quite keen on using them on India there for a while. (Maybe our interest in that region isn't oil???) And you are the one saying that NONE of the materials on that China list is nearly as important as oil...yet you have NO CLUE as to what most of them are actually used to make. Sure seems like a sweeping statement to make when you have no idea what you're talking about, doesn't it? So...let me see... Its all about the oil. Yasser Arafat...would we wouldn't even know the man's name without Israel. Afghanistan...they have no oil...but they live between the mideast and Pakistan...so we want to build a pipeline to supply the Pakistani's oil...somehow that will keep our tanks from having fuel in a crisis. So pipeline building is somehow vital to National Security now. Interesting. We know have tanks that run on pipelines? Cool...that little piece of tech must have slipped past me. Never mind that Saudi oil is the minority of what we import. Even though you phrase your counter argument to sound as if we would have no oil without Saudi oil. You know..our tanks can't move without oil...right? Good thing we get most of it from ourselves, Canada and Venezuela, isn't it? And if the screaming weenies would quit about ANWR already..we could have all of Saudi's oil replaced before 2010. Your welcome to come to reality any time. Reality, though, seems to be a bit more complicated than you would like to admit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,607 by Brandioch 5/6/02 1:05:50 AM Reply	Do you not know how to read? Wow...thats deep... ...you supply "facts"...that we're wanting to build a pipeline to supply oil to Pakistan? Pardon me...but wtf does that have to do with US oil supply? (remember...you seem to harp on US National Security). Hmmm, You put "facts" in quotation marks. Do you not believe that such was the case? Did I not provide support for my claims of US oil companies hosting the Taliban in Texas in 1997? I said that it happened. You questioned it. I provided support for my statement. And your counter to my support was to question more? Whatever. That is ALL you CAN do as I have just proven my point with references. And you are the one saying that NONE of the materials on that China list is nearly as important as oil...yet you have NO CLUE as to what most of them are actually used to make. Sure seems like a sweeping statement to make when you have no idea what you're talking about, doesn't it? Again, whatever. Unlike YOU, I do not have to avoid answering questions. When I make a statement (Taliban in Texas in 1997 discussing oil deals) I can support it. With facts. With references. That are easily confirmed. All you can do is "ask" questions and make general statements which you refuse to support. You asked whether another country could control another resource and I asked WHAT resource and WHICH country. You, eventually, said "China" and gave a list of imports from various countries. Fine. I'll work with that. China exports mica to the US. Since that was the country and mica was on your list, I chose that one. Now you're crying about ANOTHER material? AND you're claiming that I don't know what they're used for? Bill, you named "China" and gave me a list of imports. If you didn't know enough about the world situation, you COULD have been more specific. But, in support of my earlier statement, you do NOT know enough about what's happening in the world. So I chose mica from China. Gee, Bill. It seems that Chinese mica is NOT of strategic importance to our national security. I gave you EVERY opportunity to tell me which country and what resource. You failed. Again and again and again. Now you're blaming ME for not telling YOU which imports are critical? You said "China" and you gave a list containing mica. And I proved my point using the criteria YOU provided. Now you want to change the criteria. Whatever. You were wrong on Afghanistan and oil. You were wrong on Chinese mica. You were wrong time and time and time again. But, despite all those instances, in your mind, you're still right. Bill, there's a name for someone who continues to believe what he wants to believe even when facts contrary to his belief are presented. Religious nutcase. And it's nice to see that you've fallen back into your old "debate style" of skipping any links or references to support your position.
Post #37,608 by bepatient 5/6/02 1:46:45 AM Reply	I don't mean to pry... ...but it seems like you're trying to make a point about US energy dependence by bringing in a "fact" about building a pipeline to supply Pakistan. Doesn't that seem just a bit like.....a stretch? I'm fine being a zealot in your eyes if it means that I understand that a combined list of material would have an equally disastrous effect on the economy of the US. (maybe because I happen to know what they're used for...unlike someone who thinks its all about oil) ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that we have 80% of our oil requirements already sourced outside of the mideast and the capability and approval (nearly) to develop independence from that oil in under 10 years. Now can we get back to the point please. You say all of our problems in the region are due to oil. You use Yasser Arafat as an example. Hmmm...I don't remember him as an oil baron. I remeber him being a principle enemy of Israel due to a fight for an independent land. One that we took away from them some 60 years back. I don't remember us building vast oil fields when we did that though. Funny that...I remember us creating the State of Israel. But its all about the oil. Yep. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,619 by Brandioch 5/6/02 11:13:51 AM Reply	I'll even give you the format, Bill "strawman" Patient. "xxxxx is the country controlling resource yyyyyy which is important to national security because of (a detailed analysis follows explaining what that resource is used in, specifically, and why that product is important to national security). The link to support this statement is (here)." There, that isn't hard, is it? Well, for Bill "strawman" Patient, it is impossible. Something about a mental block against admitting he is ignorant of anything outside of his fantasy world. I don't mean to pry... ...but it seems like you're trying to make a point about US energy dependence by bringing in a "fact" about building a pipeline to supply Pakistan. The point, which I am not surprised you don't recall as it was stated earlier and I have already established that you memory is even weaker than your grasp on reality (I will also postulate that these two facts are related. Your memory loses any facts that don't fit your fantasy which allows you to maintain your fantasy.) is the US foreign policy in the mid-east is primarily based upon our addiction to their oil. That is why we are willing to host oppressive dictatorships and the like. As we did in 1997 when we hosted the Taliban in Texas so we could get an agreement to pipe oil across their lands. #1. We dealt with the Taliban in 1997. #2. We dealt with them to get a pipeline across their country. #3. This pipeline was to carry oil. #4. This is the same Taliban that is "evil" today. #5. We knew how they treated their women in 1997 (the same as they treated them in 2001). There, nicely wrapped up and numbered in easily verifiable, digestible nuggets. Therefore, I have substantiated my position that our ADDICTION to their OIL is the ROOT of our FOREIGN POLICY in the MID-EAST. Doesn't that seem just a bit like.....a stretch? No, Bill "strawman" Patient. It doesn't. Because I can supply example after example after example. The best you can do is that if Israel didn't exist, then we wouldn't be supporting them and risking the oil flow. Which, if you will notice, gets back to oil. You use Yasser Arafat as an example. Hmmm...I don't remember him as an oil baron. And I never said he was. Just as I never said that Afghanistan had oil fields. Bill "strawman" Patient strikes AGAIN. To support my statement, I will reference the oil embargo. Israel was at war. Israel does not supply us with oil. We supported Israel in that war and, as punishment, Saudi Arabial cut back on our oil. There, we lost oil from Saudi Arabia because of something we did that didn't involve Saudi Arabia. Keep going, Bill "strawman" Patient. At this point, I'm just establishing your M.O. and ignorance. I'm fine being a zealot in your eyes if it means that I understand that a combined list of material would have an equally disastrous effect on the economy of the US. But you have NOT shown that you understand that. You have shown that such is your fantasy. That's the difference between SAYING something and providing links and references. And, if you will read back through this thread, you will find that you have stated that NOT providing such IS your "debate style". (maybe because I happen to know what they're used for...unlike someone who thinks its all about oil) And the link/reference you have provided is WHERE? That's right. You did NOT provide such. Once again, you are refusing to provide substantiation for your claims. Which is, you have admitted, your "debate style". For my part, I'm not going to go digging for references that such is NOT the case for EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL YOU LISTED. I'm going to refute your claim by demonstrating that ONE of materials you listed is NOT critical to the US. That material being MICA. There. You made a statement, broad and unfocused, and I treated it as if it were focused and accurate and then I refuted it. I asked you what country controlled what resource that was critical to our national security. You, in a round about way, claimed that Chinese mica was. I refuted that. You lose. Just as I have demonstrated that you do not understand the politics of the mid-east. You lose, again. I have also established what your "debate style" is. You lose a third time.
Post #37,626 by bepatient 5/6/02 11:53:34 AM 5/6/02 12:01:57 PM Reply	Wow..thats deep sir. I forgot my hip waders. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. I'm not the one claiming that Yasser Arafat would be a factor without the existance of Israel. I'm not the one claiming that relations in the mideast are as simple as stating "its all about the oil". I'm not the one falsely claiming that our tanks and other military hardware will stop running without Saudi oil. I'm not the one ignoring the equally disastrous economic effects of a simultaneous assault against housing, chemicals, electronics, aluminum and steel production, aerospace (commercial/military aircraft and weapons), automotive and commercial and residential refrigeration. In economic terms...both and oil embargo and a loss of these materials result in material shortages and cost-push inflation. The government, however, (and that includes the military) would remain largely unaffected due to strategic reserves. And you think favored nations for China is becasue we want to sell >them< something...and chide me about >my< knowledge of international relations. Wow. Thats good. Feel free to recap your idiotic arguments again at this point. Everyone will need to be told again that supplying Pakistan with oil is risking our ability to keep the M1A1s running. Oops...forgot one thing... Follow the logic... US foreign policy in the mid-east is primarily based upon our addiction to their oil. //snip// #2. We dealt with them to get a pipeline across their country. #3. This pipeline was to carry oil. To who??? Pakistan. Ok...">our< addiction"...pretend your hooked on heroin(maybe not far off considering these logical leaps)...how does getting someone >else< a fix keep you from DTs? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient May 6, 2002, 12:01:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,652 by Brandioch 5/6/02 2:51:02 PM Reply	Strawman strikes again. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. You IMPLY that you don't use strawmen, and IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you retreat to a strawman. It's pathological with you, isn't it?
Post #37,654 by mmoffitt 5/6/02 2:57:59 PM Reply	Simple Question. If Israel is our real buddy in the region, then why is Saudi Arabia called, officially, our buddy if its not about the oil? I mean, if you're correct and oil isn't corrupting our policy in the region, why would we support such an oppressive regime as the one that exists in Saudi Arabia? They do not share our values, they have as an atrocious a human rights record as you can find, they are overtly hostile towards our pal Israel. Yet, Saudi Arabia remains our buddy (I heard Dubya gushing over them as recently as last week). And its not about oil? Tell me, exactly what is it that causes us to support the Saudi regime if its not their oil?
Post #37,669 by rsf 5/6/02 4:57:04 PM Reply	Simple Answer, perhaps Oil is always going to play a part in US policy towards Saudi Arabia but I think right now our intentions towards Iraq are playing a much bigger role in the White House. It's no secret that W, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. are setting their sights on a US/Iraq war before the next presidential election. In order to engage in such a war, the Pentagon is probably pushing foreign policy in the direction of keeping Saudi Arabia's rulers on our side so that we can use their land for staging attacks. I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. Ray
Post #37,676 by Brandioch 5/6/02 5:16:30 PM Reply	But isn't that still about the oil? I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. So, our goal might be to establish another government, with oil reserves, that is friendlier to us than Saudi Arabia? And the reason to do this would be to neutralize Saudi Arabia's hold over us which is based upon oil? This is why I say that it always comes back to oil in the mid-east.
Post #37,677 by bepatient 5/6/02 5:20:59 PM Reply	Simple answer... ...the are the largest and most moderate (officially) nation in the muslim MidEast...and pretty much the only one left to be friends with. We're pretty good friends with Kuwait...but they're not all that bid nor influential. Who else is there...Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt? Israel is not a muslim nation. Or should we not attempt to have an ally...or at least >good< diplomatic relations with at least one muslim nation in the Mideast? Don't get me wrong...I'm not claiming that oil plays no part in the equation...not at all...Just disputing the position that its "all about oil". That is a tired argument and a vast oversimplification of the problem. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. So far...this position has been disputed by 1) Claiming our stance on Yasser Arafat is influenced by oil. My response...Arafat is an old guy eating Hummus and pita that we have never even heard of...if not for Israel. 2) Claiming that we supported the Taliban because of our need for oil. My response...if >we< needed it...then why the hell is Pakistan getting it? Interesting that neither make any sense in context...yet I am strawman. The context you ask? It all started very simply... If we have more than they do, why are we risking national security by being so dependant upon their's? Theirs is cheaper and the libruls don't like us drilling at home. And...btw...we're not risking National Security. , I still remember the embargo. It was a clear example of exactly who was in charge of whom. If they wanted to, they could hit our combat ability How..we import less than 20% of our oil form the region and send some of ours other places. They can hit is in the pocket...but they can't stop the tanks. Now, let's look long term. Nukes. The technology isn't getting any more difficult. Iraq was working on it before we attacked in 1990. Eventually, given enough money and time and determination, one of those states will have nukes. 2 problems here. 1) They would still have money even if >we< didn't buy their oil and they would still hate us. Pakistan has nukes...we don't buy oil from them. Korea has them...again no oil. China has nukes...we send them an awful lot of money...but not for oil. Unless your position is that the US is the only country that buys oil. Then...I'd have to say that not all of the money they have is ours. But >I< am strawman. And then we've spent the past dozen or so posts degenerating from there...about having other enemies that can damage our strategic position as much or more than Saudi could by cutting off supply of strategic materials. To which I get a desert scenario where I have no water...but I'd have 80% of my water in real life...yadda yadda. All of which is simply been caused by me not ignoring the idiot in the first place. Any takers on the response time and tenor pool?? :-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,693 by Brandioch 5/6/02 9:17:44 PM Reply	Ummm, that wasn't "simple". So, we're friends with Kuwait. But Kuwait isn't "all that bid nor influential." And we're friends with Israel. But Israel isn't a "muslim nation." So, we have to be friends with someone who #1. Is Muslim -and- #2. Is influential. I notice that you left out Uzbekistan. You remember Uzbekistan? They were the first to let us deploy our warplanes in their country during "Eduring Freedom". They are Muslim AND influential. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. But WHY is it the principle benefactor of US aid in the region? Why do we send MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A DAY to Israel? I am not familiar with ANY other country that receives that level of aid. Contrast that with the dollars sent to African nations. Israel is sucking down BIG dollars in support. But WHY are we supporting them? They aren't Muslim and, if we dropped our support, they wouldn't be influential (they wouldn't be there!).
Post #37,698 by bepatient 5/6/02 10:14:42 PM Reply	But you seem to be. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? Maybe just that the only reason we supported the creation of the Israeli state was because of Saudi oil? But wait..we send millions of dollars in aid to Israel...and they don't have oil...and we send very little aid to the rest of the region...but they >do< have oil. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? Could you please make up your mind? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,725 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:19:27 AM Reply	The country is Uzbekistan. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? I've never said we were. I've never implied we were. I've specifically staed that we were not. Yet you want to try to make that my position. Bill "Strawman" Patient, same as ever. I've given you the name of an Islamic state that is friendly to us and is no small player. Uzbekistan. When the facts contradict your positon, ignore the facts and hide behind a strawman. How do you reconcile Uzbekistan with your previous post about Saudi Arabia being the only friendly Muslim country (aside from Kuwait who is too insignificant to matter) being our only "ally" there (aside from Israel who, while significant, is not Muslim)? They're a reformed Soviet style state with near 100% literacy. They are as close to "friendly" as we have over there. They also have far fewer Islamic extremists than Saudi Arabia has. This is what "informed" means. This is why you have to hide behind strawmen and I can provide facts, references and names to support my position. You left Uzbekistan off your list of Arab countries. Yet they were the first to let us land our warplanes in their country. You seem to believe Israel's existance is the root cause. Why don't you tell me what Israel/Usbekistan relations are like? The reason you have NOT heard of Uzbekistan is that the Right Wing Rags you get all of your "information" from do not find it useful. Uzbekistan. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? No, it wouldn't. And I have already explained why. Strawman, again, Bill? Why would I expect you to change now? The people with the oil are not our friends. We need someone over there who will act as our puppet in a military fashion. That is Israel. We have Israel dependant upon us for military parts and Israel is dependant upon its military for its existance. We give Israel millions of dollars a day in aid and Israel does things like bomb nuclear reactors of potential enemies. If Israel was not there, there would be at least ONE weapons grade reactor in Iraq. Iraq wants more oil resources (they invaded Kuwait for them). Iraq hates the US. If Iraq grabbed the oil, it would cut off the supply to the US. This is an example of why the US funds Israel so the US will have access to oil in the Mid-East. I don't think you'll bother to respond to anything I've said about Uzbekistan. I understand this is new information to you;.
Post #37,744 by bepatient 5/7/02 9:05:21 AM Reply	Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. End of thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,763 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:11:58 AM Reply	Like I said, "strawman". Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. No. This is a fact that refutes your position that Israel's existance is the root cause. Uzbekistan meets the criteria that you claim only Saudi Arabia met AND they are friendly with Israel. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. So you claim. Yet you have not offered anything to refute my position. Correction, you offered a theory that I destroyed when I informed you of Uzbekistan. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) What are you talking about? Are there other criteria that are attempting to specify now? If so, could you clearly specify them? #1. Islamic #2. Significant #3. ? #4. ? #5. ? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Like I said before, when hit with facts, you run. Otherwise, as in the Ben & Jerry cop killer thread, you will continue to post.
Post #37,769 by bepatient 5/7/02 11:50:29 AM Reply	Reading ability? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,771 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:53:18 AM Reply	You concede? Not in this thread but about being able to fly charter when the majors were "grounded"? Sorry, just had to get that in ;-) I just want to see you write it: "Okay, I was wrong."
Post #37,799 by bepatient 5/7/02 2:20:35 PM Reply	Dude...sure...why not. even though I chartered 2 Gulfstream IV's that were back before the first commercial flight left Philadelphia. But its not worth fighting about. Okay...I was wrong. I'm having a Rodney King moment. Take advantage of it. Feel better now? nudge nudge ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,806 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 2:48:57 PM Reply	Saved to File, Burned on CD. Thanks
Post #37,813 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:20:21 PM Reply	Anytime ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,802 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:37:59 PM Reply	Protocol and courtesy. #1. Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. #2. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. #3. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" #4. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) THEN you say: Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Oh, poor baby. Looks like I didn't let you get away with introducing more criteria before you ran. Let me explain the courtesy of this to you, Bill "strawman" Patient. When you "agree to disagree" you do NOT try to refute previous points. If you are trying to refute previous points, the discussion is continuing. But, why am I surprised that you don't understand basic courtesy. After all, the strawman is your favorite "discussion" technique. Grow up.
Post #37,811 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:17:07 PM Reply	You follow neither. I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) And courtesy??? Ending this thread is a courtesy to 295 other registered users who, I'm certain, gave up on this thread about about 50% of its current level of right-shift. I neither claim victory nor admit defeat...just endeavor to stop here with the realization that we will not now, nor ever come to terms. You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. So take a Zanax already. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,818 by Brandioch 5/7/02 3:48:55 PM Reply	And when it falls to ME to explain courtesy...... You follow neither. Ah, but I do follow protocol for debates. And I am courteous. I just don't waste it on people who would not recognize it. (Bill "Strawman" Patient being a prime example) I believe you said you were ending this thread. What was that I said about you living in a fantasy world? How many posts AFTER "End of Thread" will a thread end? Hmmmmm? I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) Like I said, your fantasy world. So, if you've already refuted them and you want to agree to disagree and you're ending this thread..... How many posts ago was that? You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. That would be a good point to end this on. So take a Zanax already. Oooooh. But you couldn't resist that "last" personal attack, could you? Face facts, "Strawman". The criteria you gave could be met by more countries than you named. And some of those countries are beter allies than Saudi Arabia. Like I said, your ignorance is vast. But, being ignorant of the situation over there doesn't stop you from having the correct opinion, does it? I don't waste courtesy on those who won't recognize it. The least you could do is follow protocol. But why do that if you don't have basic courtesy?
Post #37,823 by bepatient 5/7/02 4:08:25 PM Reply	Pardon me.. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. The continuation of that, my friend, has been all your doing. Telling you to chill (Take a Zanax already) was not a personal attack. I've made a few of those, as have you...but that wasn't one of them. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,843 by Brandioch 5/7/02 5:31:39 PM Reply	So, you admit you know nothing about the mid-east. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. And we've already established that we're not best buds. So why are you continuing this past the "End of Thread" you announced? Hmmmm............
Post #37,875 by bepatient 5/8/02 12:04:12 AM Reply	Funny You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #60,257 by pwhysall 10/30/02 2:15:45 PM Reply	This thread is eternal, immortal and knows where you live. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #37,758 by Arkadiy 5/7/02 10:35:47 AM Reply	Re: The country is Uzbekistan. ...is neither very muslim nor very influential. The regime there is a secular dictatorship that barely pays a lip service to Islam. Their leader Islam Karimov, former Secretary of Communist Party, is beyond atheism, much like Saddam Hussein. They aren't powerful because they are still in the shadow of Russia, and they have to fight muslim uprisings, which they do with habitual communist cruelty. I am more ashamed of our "friendship" with Uzbekistan than of that with the Saudis.
Post #37,762 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:10:29 AM Reply	Perhaps, tovarish, only because you know them better.
Post #37,765 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:30:13 AM Reply	Da.
Post #37,708 by a6l6e6x 5/6/02 11:29:17 PM Reply	Ex-Prez Carter: US aid to Israel ~ $10/million / day! Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #37,729 by Ashton 5/7/02 3:18:53 AM Reply	How much a day is a surrogate 'US Presence' worth? After all - Billy alone could fund that project for 10-15 years (if we don't count his fortune increasing from interest & investments - an almost certainty with that massive a power base from which to manipulate [everyone around]). What would have been the political/$$ cost - had the US had to take out that Iraqi nascent reactor [or.. and especially - the Next One] ?? Ashton
Post #37,776 by boxley 5/7/02 12:19:04 PM Reply	you forgot our good friends, Turkey secular muslim nation TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,803 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:44:42 PM Reply	With lots of support for us too. The Mid-East is NOT populat The Mid-East is NOT populated, 100%, by rampaging fundamentalist terrorists. And I think we could make a LOT more progress towards lasting peace over there if we focused on the supporting the countries who were interested in peace (not the peace of destroying Israel). There is no reason why Muslims and Jews cannot live together peacefully. But first, we have to stop supporting those who use that conflict to build their political/economic bases. (Yasser being the best example of such)
Post #37,826 by boxley 5/7/02 4:27:41 PM Reply	Well the issue of how the current situation got started has nothing to do with either oil or Israel, sure the Israelis were hated BUT during the cold war circa 1948 we determined that the "Secular" Arabs were going socialist/communists and funded the fundamentalists and fuedalists to takeover. Nasser was overthrown at our behest as well as the Syrian Government, The Shaw was pushed on Iran etc. Now when we could use secular socialist nations over there we have a hodgepodge of lunie dictatorships and Fundie Islamic Republics. thanks, Bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,834 by Ashton 5/7/02 4:46:22 PM Reply	Do you mean to say that, what goes around comes around? :-\ufffd
Post #37,837 by boxley 5/7/02 4:54:04 PM Reply	no, what comes around goes around Our foreign Policy is always short sighted. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Historical incapability is our major flaw. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,846 by Ashton 5/7/02 5:39:48 PM Reply	Thou sayest. I agree(est). Sad, ain't it..every time too.
Post #37,866 by Brandioch 5/7/02 8:55:49 PM Reply	Yup. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Sometimes it doesn't even make it through the current administration. The US needs to clearly define what behaviours we will support and which we will not. Then >WE< have to follow those rules in our own dealings. No more overthrowing governments. No more funding local wars.
Post #37,869 by Ashton 5/7/02 9:56:25 PM Reply	Yabut.. ________Can That be Good for Bizness ?? and - is there any Other final litmus test we ever employ, before we launch any new operation in or outside our borders? Civics Students Want to Know. ie. Could any US Pres get elected on that platform? - what with all that Evil in the world which.. only We could ever fix, because nobody knows more than We know, has bigger guns, is as rich (or ummm, can stop us?). I think We'd have to lose something Big once.. before the above fine thought would prove to be more than mere blab for sheepish effect. (??) Love to be proven wrong, of course - but.. taking most bets. We're on a Roll ----> (do tanks 'roll' or 'conveyor' along? in that Field Artillery song)

Welcome to IWETHEY!