The left says....it's really all about....(not) oil?

Post #84,111 by Simon_Jester 2/25/03 6:49:05 PM Reply	The left says....it's really all about....(not) oil? What, then, explains the administration's Iraq policy? I offer here my own account, based on interviews with administration officials, press reports and, where necessary, speculation. It's not an explanation that will satisfy anyone looking for a single cause such as "blood for oil." Like many policy decisions, this one was the complicated and compromised product of different views and different factions within the administration. At any given point, it has contained contradictory aspects, wishful thinking and irrational fears, as well as the more conventional geopolitical calculations. [link\|http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/judis-j.html\| Source ] Yes, I recognize that this cite is biased (duh), but since some people are claiming XXX about the left's point of view...
Post #84,128 by boxley 2/25/03 8:03:39 PM Reply	Very well reasoned out will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,144 by dmarker 2/25/03 9:13:29 PM Reply	This excerpt is plain simplistic - misses point >> By offering an implausible rationale, the administration raises suspicion, particularly outside the United States, that it must have a secret agenda for ousting Hussein. Many people think that President George W. Bush wants to control Iraq's oil fields on behalf of U.S. companies. In mid-January, the German weekly Der Spiegel ran a cover story titled, "Blood for Oil." But anyone familiar with positions taken by American oil companies knows that this is implausible. In the late 1990s, oil companies lobbied to remove sanctions on Iraq. And most oil executives are extremely wary about the Bush policies toward Iraq, which they fear will destabilize the region. << Some of us here have devoted a lot of input to the issue of oil. We have also made both serious comments and jokes about Bush admins relationship to the oil industry. The above paragraph is a naive in stating ... >> George W. Bush wants to control Iraq's oil fields on behalf of U.S. companies. << That is a rather weak argument but it is one that can be debated (as is being done by this journalist). What some of us here keep hammering is the need for the US to control the supply of oil, a substance that is (as has been stated many times in govt policy docs) the lifeblood of the US economy. Oil is critical to US stability and health. Strategically and economically US does not want to have to rely on other countries controlling that suppy and always being good friends, that doesn't always happen. It doesn't matter if it is th Dutch, Russians, French or even British. US wants to ensure it has the military power in place to step in should any other country attempt to manipulate control of oil until such time as US can free itself of need for cheap M.E. oil & that we all know is decades away. US does not want a dictator in M.E. who has the potential via Nukes WMD etc: to get tempted to use those weapons to change the power base of the M.E. This is what Saddam Hussien is feared for. He had the charisma among Arabs, to unite them & to use Arab oil to control other countries. Just watch what happens with Iran as it moves toward nuke capability - it will replace Saddam as the badman of the M.E. (once Saddam has been properly neutralized). So this 'its all about oil' argument keeps getting warped & twisted & in some forms it comes across as weak whereas the issue of control is the strong case and exactly why a charade of reasons to attack Iraq, are being played out. US just cannot state point-blank that 'control of oil' is the reason. There are too many peoples & countries that would not understand nor care & many would see it as naked imperialism of the highest order whereas 'we' tend to see it as hearalding a new opportunity for world peace - but on our (US) terms. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #84,155 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:47:13 PM Reply	Okay, that's the last time.
Post #84,156 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:47:41 PM Reply	One person's opinion
Post #84,157 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:47:57 PM Reply	does not
Post #84,158 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:48:15 PM Reply	in any mother fucking way
Post #84,159 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:48:53 PM Reply	constitute the opinion
Post #84,160 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:49:10 PM Reply	of an entire
Post #84,162 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:50:03 PM Reply	political "wing".
Post #84,163 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:50:39 PM Reply	The CORRECT
Post #84,164 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:50:59 PM Reply	title of your post
Post #84,165 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:51:19 PM Reply	SHOULD be:
Post #84,166 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:52:03 PM Reply	One person on the Left says....it's really all about......
Post #84,161 by boxley 2/25/03 9:49:40 PM Reply	unless brandi sez so ! :-) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,167 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:53:01 PM Reply	Provide a link. If that is the BEST you can do, then you're an idiot. If that isn't the best you can do, then you're a fool.
Post #84,168 by dmarker 2/25/03 9:54:05 PM Reply	C'mon Box, keep brain switched on ... Brandi is spot on & I am sur you know it. You comment was unfair. Cheers Doug
Post #84,172 by boxley 2/25/03 9:55:50 PM Reply	Both of you take a humor pill and Brandi edit cuss in title will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,174 by Brandioch 2/25/03 9:58:01 PM Reply	Do you understand the phrase "fuck you"?
Post #84,176 by Brandioch 2/25/03 10:00:37 PM Reply	Here's a mother fucking movie for you. Apocalypse Now. "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene." You are in need of a reality check. You can support the death of innocent children.... But you get offended when I write "fuck".
Post #84,177 by Brandioch 2/25/03 10:01:43 PM Reply	Do you know what a mother fucking burning child smells like?
Post #84,178 by Brandioch 2/25/03 10:02:12 PM Reply	Now think about what part of that offends you the most.
Post #84,181 by boxley 2/25/03 10:12:45 PM Reply	do you understand the word Guideline? here get a [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/forum/show?forumid=5\|fucking clue] check under the behavior number three, continue in flame forum as you like, we scream at each other there, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,183 by Brandioch 2/25/03 10:27:33 PM Reply	Awww. sniff sniff I used a NAUGHTY word. The fact of the matter is that YOU are more offended by the NAUGHTY word than by the fact that children will BURN TO DEATH. There are SOME points that MUST be made in that manner. And this is a PRIME example of them. "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene."
Post #84,187 by boxley 2/25/03 10:43:17 PM Reply	I am not offended by that, goto flame. left something forya The fact of the matter is that YOU are more offended by the NAUGHTY word than by the fact that children will BURN TO DEATH. Show me a link where I said that exact quote. If you cant you are a liar. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,282 by admin 2/26/03 10:53:14 AM Reply	Make your points. Pissing on the forum guidelines isn't necessary to do so. Christ, are you 5 years old?? Stop acting like a child. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #84,315 by Brandioch 2/26/03 2:11:42 PM Reply	Sometimes, it is. What is [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obscene\|"obscene"]? Why is one thing "obscene" but another is not? Why are some words [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=profanity\|"profanity"] but other words are acceptable? The culture you were brought up in influences what you consider "obscene" or "profanity". The word "fuck" is "obscene" and "profanity". But burning a child alive is acceptable. In this culture. Why? Because this culture is heavily Puritanical. But violence against children is just peachy. As long as you can "justify" it by the ethics / morality of this culture. Which is very easy to do. Those weren't children. They were "collateral damage". Cover the Reality with the right words and you can abstract it enough to support it. But "fuck" is a naughty word. Yet there is not naughty word for killing a child. But there are lots of nice words for killing a child.
Post #84,322 by admin 2/26/03 2:32:29 PM Reply	Errr.... Don't be an ass. Don't be childish. And don't spout bullshit in order to make it seem "vague" or "out of fashion" or whatever. Be an adult for once. You're not making any point other than "Brandioch can be a right ass when he wants to be." Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #84,326 by Brandioch 2/26/03 2:45:27 PM Reply	Show me where it is "vague". And don't spout bullshit in order to make it seem "vague" or "out of fashion" or whatever. Or did you mean "vogue"? But "vogue" is the opposite of "out of fashion". I think I was exceptionally clear. Be an adult for once. You're not making any point other than "Brandioch can be a right ass when he wants to be." Like I said, this point has been made before. "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene." -Colonel Kurtz, Apocalypse Now
Post #84,343 by admin 2/26/03 3:36:10 PM Reply	Re: Show me where it is "vague". No, I meant "vague". Regardless, you've misread me. Repeat reading until comprehension is reached. The point has been made before, and I will continue making while you continue to insist on unnecessarily shitting all over a public forum. Take it to email if it means that much to you. You're behavior is no different in result than Norm's in this case. It's not needed, it's counterproductive, and it's goddamned annoying. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #84,281 by admin 2/26/03 10:51:43 AM Reply	And do YOU understand the phrase: (new thread) Created as new thread #84280 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84280\|And do YOU understand the phrase:] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #84,186 by dmarker 2/25/03 10:42:29 PM Reply	Bill, I promise that my last few days of posts will ... be the model of good net etiquette, without any swearwords, any taunting (well that will change if BP has not got the message re us keeping clear of each other). Otherwise I will be the model of politeness and factual argument and reasonable discussion and good contributions that I trust will help to expand our collective knowledge & understanding. You have my word - from this instant on. Question now is, would you be willing to take the same oath ? <grin> It isn't easy to do in these drum beating times. Cheers Doug
Post #84,188 by boxley 2/25/03 10:46:12 PM Reply	I always will try to reply as posted to If you notice that My replies in areas such as the tech areas, open forum and news are much more circumspect. Even the estimable CRC has turned this forum off until 2023 because of the noise. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,213 by bepatient 2/26/03 12:01:04 AM Reply	Who, me? I don't appear to be the one "avoiding" the situation by insinuation and insult. I pretty much will come right at you. You have no right to determine when and where I post any more than you have a right to tell Marlowe how to post links. Stick that in your high mips pipe and smoke it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,224 by Ashton 2/26/03 5:03:23 AM Reply	Gentlemen.. gentlemen - fighting in the War Room? {Neocon} But OK, while we're at it - I'm beginning to develop instant nausea at the word Neocon - as if the Troglodytes like Wolfowitz and Rove imagine they have developed a New Means of enhancing Cla$$ er 'distinction'? I see: Neo (New) Con (Con) And the Hog-in-Trough Game. Same old. New spin on the Conserving of a larger slice of All There Is - since More is Never Enough\ufffd - but with just a soup\ufffdon of Lacon and a few existential surds tossed in.. to give the impression of literacy or a {ugh} 'nother paradigm shift defining Fresh Meat to Conserve.. freeze-dried perhaps? I guess this brand of BS-speak appeals to the early-pampered impressionable young wannabe CPA workin his way up to MBA (and creative new ways to hide the vigorish in the Velocity of Money) and all. But does this tin-word, the antithesis of euphony when spoken - deserve to be given credence via general press usage ?? as in typ. spoiled-rotten effete non-intellectual droog - Candidate for Elimidate for his only 15-min of fame. Never mind Ashton Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10 (via tse)
Post #84,450 by Simon_Jester 2/26/03 8:16:39 PM Reply	A reply One person's view doesn't represent the left.... No argument there - my title is incorrect. My goal was to present that there is a fraction on the left who do (and have) favored a war with Iraq. It is, imo, interesting to note their approach to the war is vastly different from the approach of Bush. I also thought that the article provide some insight into what may be the thinking in the Whitehouse (and the political powers at play).

Welcome to IWETHEY!