New Abu Ghraib Images (WARNING: very disturbing)

reply to post by Silenceisall


There is no plan for the US to control the oil

I was there during the elections, and we did no such thing as tell people who to vote for(in fact it was the insurgents that said they would kill people if they did vote, and the people still turned out).

After the invasion, there was no Iraqi infrastructure or services to handle the reconstruction, so we had to use contractors

The situation in Iraq is winnable. If the country is stabilized, like has happened in the vast majority of Iraq to include to formerly least stable province, and the Iraqis can provide their own security needs, that sounds like an achieveable scenario. If your attitude is that we have no hope of success, then you guarantee a loss with self fulfilling prophecy.

There is no plan for the US to control the oil

Please read this: www.guardian.co.uk...

A quote from the article:

"The law that Washington and the US oil lobby really want would set the arrangements for foreign companies to operate in Iraq's oil sector. Independent analysts say the terms being proposed are far more favourable for foreign oil companies than those of any other oil-producing state in the region, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They all impose some safeguards for the national interest, whether it is having a national company that controls production; specifying in contracts the maximum level of foreigners' profits; limiting foreigners to a small number of fields; or insisting that disputes are arbitrated in local rather than international tribunals. Other big oil countries, including Russia and Venezuela, insist on parliamentary approval for contracts covering "strategic" fields or for joint ventures."

I was there during the elections, and we did no such thing as tell people who to vote for(in fact it was the insurgents that said they would kill people if they did vote, and the people still turned out).

It wasn't the average soldiers doing it, and you were not everywhere at once.

After the invasion, there was no Iraqi infrastructure or services to handle the reconstruction, so we had to use contractors

No, the infrastructure was bombed to pieces, but the engineers and construction workers were still there. But instead they chose to bring in Haliburton, which, as you know, has been an upstanding corporate citizen:

www.boston.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

The situation in Iraq is winnable.

Man I hope you are right, but winnable for me means an independant Iraq with no American interference...fat chance.

If the country is stabilized, like has happened in the vast majority of Iraq to include to formerly least stable province, and the Iraqis can provide their own security needs, that sounds like an achieveable scenario. If your attitude is that we have no hope of success, then you guarantee a loss with self fulfilling prophecy.

Again, you and I have different ideas of what a winning situation entails.



[edit on 6-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by Silenceisall
There is no plan for the US to control the oil


"The law that Washington and the US oil lobby really want would set the arrangements for foreign companies to operate in Iraq's oil sector. Independent analysts say the terms being proposed are far more favourable for foreign oil companies than those of any other oil-producing state in the region, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They all impose some safeguards for the national interest, whether it is having a national company that controls production; specifying in contracts the maximum level of foreigners' profits; limiting foreigners to a small number of fields; or insisting that disputes are arbitrated in local rather than international tribunals. Other big oil countries, including Russia and Venezuela, insist on parliamentary approval for contracts covering "strategic" fields or for joint ventures."

I was there during the elections, and we did no such thing as tell people who to vote for(in fact it was the insurgents that said they would kill people if they did vote, and the people still turned out).

It wasn't the average soldiers doing it, and you were not everywhere at once.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

I read the article, and I fail to see how that is tantamount to the US controlling Iraq's oil. It said that conditions would be more favorable than in other oil producing states, not that we would control their oil. The reason the conditions would be more favorable is because our companies would be the ones providing the billions of dollars in capital to set up the facilities and drill, not to mention assuming the risks in exploration. These conditions wouldn't be permanent either. I suppose it all depends on what that foreign investment in money and blood(the servicemen who have died to give Iraqis freedom from a brutal tyrant) is worth, to whether it is viewed as a good deal or not.

As for the elections issue, I'm gonna have to beg to differ. The US military was not allowed to participate in any way prior to or during the elections, aside from providing security(and this was under very specific conditions- distance from the polling site, etc..). This came from both the Transitional government of the Iraqis, and from the 4 star General on the US side. We weren't even allowed to hand out pamphlets telling people when or where the elections would be held, much less who to vote for.

reply to post by GT100FV


I read the article, and I fail to see how that is tantamount to the US controlling Iraq's oil. It said that conditions would be more favorable than in other oil producing states, not that we would control their oil.

Try these then, more detail:


www.fpif.org...


The reason the conditions would be more favorable is because our companies would be the ones providing the billions of dollars in capital to set up the facilities and drill, not to mention assuming the risks in exploration.

That is partly why the war was waged in the first place. The companies benefit and the US controls oil supplies through them

These conditions wouldn't be permanent either.

Read the article above...long time periods of control..30 years, etc, and that's just for starters

I suppose it all depends on what that foreign investment in money and blood(the servicemen who have died to give Iraqis freedom from a brutal tyrant) is worth, to whether it is viewed as a good deal or not.

It is worth a heck of a lot more than some oil. Those lives were priceless, and so were those of the 100,000 citizens killed.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by Silenceisall


Read the article above...long time periods of control..30 years, etc, and that's just for starters

I suppose it all depends on what that foreign investment in money and blood(the servicemen who have died to give Iraqis freedom from a brutal tyrant) is worth, to whether it is viewed as a good deal or not.

It is worth a heck of a lot more than some oil. Those lives were priceless, and so were those of the 100,000 citizens killed.

I agree- those lives were priceless, hence the oil deal they want. I'm not saying that we should trade life, so that a company can get a good oil deal. What I am saying is that we have sacrificed a lot of lives and money for their freedom, and will be spending countless billions exploring, drilling and setting up infrastructure, which the Iraqis will eventually take over, and we darn well better see some gratitude for it. How many years do you think would be more fair, based on the sacrifice and expense? 20, 10, 5, 1?

As for the 100,000 Iraqis, how many of those do you reckon that insurgents/terrorists were responsible for? How many do you suppose would've died under Saddam? At least now, they will have hope unlike under Saddam.

Originally posted by GT100FV

Originally posted by Silenceisall


Read the article above...long time periods of control..30 years, etc, and that's just for starters

I suppose it all depends on what that foreign investment in money and blood(the servicemen who have died to give Iraqis freedom from a brutal tyrant) is worth, to whether it is viewed as a good deal or not.

It is worth a heck of a lot more than some oil. Those lives were priceless, and so were those of the 100,000 citizens killed.

I agree- those lives were priceless, hence the oil deal they want. I'm not saying that we should trade life, so that a company can get a good oil deal. What I am saying is that we have sacrificed a lot of lives and money for their freedom, and will be spending countless billions exploring, drilling and setting up infrastructure, which the Iraqis will eventually take over, and we darn well better see some gratitude for it. How many years do you think would be more fair, based on the sacrifice and expense? 20, 10, 5, 1?

As for the 100,000 Iraqis, how many of those do you reckon that insurgents/terrorists were responsible for? How many do you suppose would've died under Saddam? At least now, they will have hope unlike under Saddam.

My argument is that is was never about "their freedom" but only about the oil bill that is now passed. By the way, you say that the US did the Iraqi people a big favour, and so deserves to be repaid. So the US takes the oil spoils (95% of their economy)? Is that how you go about your daily business. Do a favour for somebody, and then you expect to get paid back and even take it by force (legal or otherwise)? Your good acts would be viewed as no more than a business transaction, and not a very moral one either.

How can the US expect to be seen as anything but a greedy colonial power?





[edit on 6-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by Silenceisall


Did I miss the part about the US getting 95% of their oil revenue in the article? The invasion wasn't about getting a good oil deal in return for freedom either. That was a byproduct.

By the way, the Iraqis have the option of not agreeing to the plan.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by GT100FV]

Originally posted by GT100FV
reply to post by Silenceisall

 

Did I miss the part about the US getting 95% of their oil revenue in the article? The invasion wasn't about getting a good oil deal in return for freedom either. That was a byproduct.

Oil accounts for 95% of their GDP. The US and Great Britain are effectively taking control of that part of the economy, and diverting a large portion of the revenues to their companies.

By the way, the Iraqis have the option of not agreeing to the plan.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by GT100FV]

I seriously doubt that

reply to post by Silenceisall


The question then is what percentage are the US and Britain getting, and is it unfair? The Iraqis will have to decide that. They do have the option to not accept the plan though. It may cause other repercussions if the plan they agree to, isn't particularly appealing. Whatever the case, the percentage that the Iraqis don't share(which I'm guessing will be a majority percentage), won't be affected by the fact that the US and Britain have a good deal.

Say what you will, but you ought to know better than to think that the US is at war in Iraq to get their petroleum. I hear people say that all of the time. Hogwash. Why is it so hard to believe that we are actually trying to help Iraqi people gain their freedom?

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Jerico...you have been watching a little too much Fox news. The US has had hundreds of thousands of troupes in Iraq for five years and have found nothing, not even a trace of WMDs. Plus we know that they manufactured evidence and suppressed other evidence according to what they wanted the public to believe. You were lied to, and you are holding on to the lies. Let them go and take responsibility for what is being done in your name.

Have you actually been in Iraq? Do you know how vast the deserts are there? After we rolled up into Iraq when the war started, we found fighters that had been buried during the First Gulf War that we didn't know about.

I've flown over Iraq I don't know how many times. You won't believe what could be hidden out there.

Nothing about the traffic heading into Syria. No one has an answer for that; too bad I saw that with my own eyes, and not something I read online.

great pictures, finally more turth revealed

reply to post by Christian Voice


because america invaded to stop the production of (pretend)weapons of mass destruction aimed at the USA?
"freeing"(what a tragic joke) the iraqi people was never the reason. ever.

it's for control of the oil. no doubt.

afghanistan, too, except it's oil pipeline, in that case.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Say what you will, but you ought to know better than to think that the US is at war in Iraq to get their petroleum. I hear people say that all of the time. Hogwash. Why is it so hard to believe that we are actually trying to help Iraqi people gain their freedom?

This is hardly even worth addressing, but you just have to look at the oil bill that the US and its oil lobby wanted to ram down Iraq's throat to get a sense of their real intentions. If the bill had at least even attempted to seem fair, they might have gotten away with it. I actually believe that total chaos was the game plan, because there is no way any military can be so incompetent. Total chaos leaves the country in disarray. Thus the US oil lobby steps in and asserts control of oil reserves (if you want to get into a discussion of how and why we can). There is also the Pentagon's aims. The Pentagon believes that a great final conflict is on its way and most of the war machinery of the world runs on oil.




[edit on 7-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

After all the death and destruction and the proven lies and manipulation, you still believe the "decider" has your best interests at heart. You are a loyal soldier indeed. Too bad that has no value in this administration

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

What happened to deesw, it says he's been banned.

reply to post by Christian Voice


He was a fan of yours, believe it or not

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by Silenceisall

This is hardly even worth addressing, but you just have to look at the oil bill that the US and its oil lobby wanted to ram down Iraq's throat to get a sense of their real intentions. If the bill had at least even attempted to seem fair, they might have gotten away with it. I actually believe that total chaos was the game plan, because there is no way any military can be so incompetent. Total chaos leaves the country in disarray. Thus the US oil lobby steps in and asserts control of oil reserves (if you want to get into a discussion of how and why we can). There is also the Pentagon's aims. The Pentagon believes that a great final conflict is on its way and most of the war machinery of the world runs on oil.


[edit on 7-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

Would you tell us what a fair oil bill would look like? One that wasn't particularly attractive to anybody but the Iraqis? Like I said before- the costs in the investment in those areas won't be cheap, nor was the freeing of the country.
How is chaos the game plan?- the longer we're there, the more strain there is on people and equipment, retention/recruitment, lack of training for other missions that the military is expected to be able to conduct, etc...
Incompetence? What military battle has the US lost in Iraq? Anytime insurgents get in a fight with us, they lose badly. We've had fewer casualties in 5 years than we had on some days in WWII. You do understand that we can't be everywhere at once, with the number of troops we have there, so you can't fault the military from stopping every attack. Additionally out of 18 Provinces, at least 15 are stable(meaning things aren't exploding, or bodies being found).

People! Wake up!! We are in a war. Am I disgusted by what I see these soldiers doing? Yes I am! Although the real thing that bothers me is that everyone who comments this thread is uneducated. Have you seen the videos of their so called "prisons"? They have videos of torturing American soldiers that are ten times as worse than this. They behead us, rape us, beat us until were dead, and other unimaginable acts that would blow your mind. Btw, it's not as if these soldiers are just randomly doing these horrible deeds secretly. They have orders from high commanding military officers to do their job in helping us win this war. Wake up, see the big picture, and stop going against your own country. Being united as a country is the only way we can win this war.