View Story | 71 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Ain't happening. They have this stuff that we need. Ya know, oil.
You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.
by mattman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:00:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
secular but after a decade of sanctions and now war, it has degenerated into chaos.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:05:49 PM PDT
Hooray for the Trifecta that made it all possible!
Ha-ha HAA!
The Daily Outrage: It's like being a punk rocker, but without the optimism.
by eroded47095 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:07:04 PM PDT
That's just propaganda to conceal the true motive and to blame it all on Bush, Cheney and corporate America. If there was interest in oil they would have pushed for attacking Saudi Arabia (9/11 provided the perfect pretext since that's were Bin Laden and most of the hijackers were from). They wanted Saddam Hussein for a very particular reason.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM PDT
by eroded47095 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM PDT
Iran and Iraq have long-standing boundaries disputes in the regions of eastern Iraq where there are oil fields. The difference of a few miles of territory can mean the equivilent of Billions of dollars in oil revenue.
The bush administration, foreseeing the current boom in oil due to the predicted reaching of peak oil, had interest in Iraq because they wanted to be sure the oil fields stayed on the side of the borders that are allied with us. remember years ago we were on different sides of the same situation.
If Iran gets the boundaries it feels are just, Iraq loses oil, and we lose control of the oil field in the so-called "middle-east democracy".
We did not go to Iraq because we didn't like Sadam, there are lots of bad guys in the world. We went to Iraq to secure Sadam's oil fields.
If you like Iraq, you're gonna love Iran.
by FundaMental Transformation on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM PDT
As far as oil at least having a teensy amount to do with it.
Some say they didn't want the O-I-L bourse trading in the Euro.
Like Iran is thinking on trading oil in the Euro.
Instead of the Dollar.
Not that it makes much sense to me.
by eroded47095 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:32:12 PM PDT
"December 2007 Iran stops accepting U.S. dollars for oil. [24]"
[from Wikipedia]
And the Iranian missiles began to rain down upon the exalted Green Zone!
by eroded47095 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:43:59 PM PDT
which means that any other countries who purchase oil from Iran are also forgoing dollars to make the contract. from a stictly business point of view, can you blame them?
That's the scary part. I can't blame them. How can you hate them for protecting themselves and managing their needs in their own best interest.
And by the way... as cynical as we have had to become... was it proven that they are Iranian missiles or are we just taking someones' word for it? After years of being lied to, it's hard to believe anything anymore.
by FundaMental Transformation on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:39 AM PDT
On the Green Zone.
That's how much I'm sick of their lies.
by eroded47095 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM PDT
the idea of invading Iraq. It was the neocons, and they did so long before the Bush administration came into power. Now the neocons may have used the oil argument as a way of making the war more palitable to the Bush administration, and as a way of deflecting attention from the true motive.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:40:00 PM PDT
The neocons were birthed right outta the Imperialistic "manifest destiny" that was here since the beginning of this Nation. And when you say the "Bush administration" -- you have to remember that the Bush administration is longer than this two term presidency -- being that - regardless of what some say -- it is a Dynasty. I consider the Bush administration began at least in 1989. from wiki on bush 1:
He became involved in politics soon after founding his own oil company, serving as a member of the House of Representatives, among other positions. He ran unsuccessfully for president of the United States in 1980, but was chosen by party nominee Ronald Reagan to be the vice presidential nominee; the two were subsequently elected. During his tenure, Bush headed administration task forces on deregulation and fighting drug abuse.
holy cow.
ok, also check this:article on oil imperialism.
I have not 'vetted' the article (and that web-site is somewhat sketchy with the far-far-outs -- it's a grain-of-salt site). But historically, this story makes makes sense to me. what do you think?
by FundaMental Transformation on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:03 AM PDT
because we went to war with Iraq and Iran WON. Much stronger now than before.
And what's left of "Iraq" is snuggled close to - Iran. Surprise!
So how did we come out ahead? Or make the Arab world "weaker".
by mattman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM PDT
So how did we come out ahead?
Who's we? America didn't come out ahead, but I don't think it had anything to do with America's strategic interests.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM PDT
So then who came out ahead, what with Iran being far more powerful now?
Iran? Was THAT thier genius plan?
by mattman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM PDT
anti-semitic extremists from becoming too powerful (hence the decade long obsession with Sadam Hussein) but if Iran is indeed as powerful as you describe, then the plan did backfire.
But in fact Iran has no real power. They just want to keep it that way.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM PDT
why the fuck are they so damned scared of it? Why all the sturm und drang?
Why all the pimping for war?
by mattman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM PDT
and by then they may not have a president as easy to manipulate as Bush. Beside you don't need that much power to be a threat, especially if you have a martyr complex.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM PDT
Ya got the wrong buncha Muslems.
So are ya saying that America is going to war because Israel has got the vapors?
Fuck that.
by mattman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:45:46 PM PDT
The US looked the other way while Pakistan was developing them.
But, more to the point: you seem to be advocating 'preventative war'.
That's insane.
Talk to Action
by Troutfishing on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:02:53 PM PDT
I'm a pacifist. The neocons, not so much. And Pakistan is not an Arab country so the neocons would be less paranoid about them.
by greenboy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:46:10 PM PDT
But, I've love to hear more so I can attempt to grok the concept.
by Troutfishing on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 71 comments