TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Libya Situation
Pages (30): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 »

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay has no desire to be policed by your shit government. (republican or democratic...it doesn't matter.)

In that case of Iraq you are correct, but but was pretty clear that the Libyan rebels were asking for our assistance.

They asked for international assistance, and last time i checked international does not mean just the US.

When the PDD goes horribly wrong in the COR...

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Just asking, but are either of you sure how far apart on what you're arguing, you really are?

Absolutely we are. He thinks the US went to war at the behest of bush & cheney because they wanted to pad their bank account. I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US� dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.

One of us thinks that there is texture and nuance to global politics and the other thinks 2 men invaded iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay They asked for international assistance, and last time i checked international does not mean just the US.

Last time I checked they were in a situation where they didn't give a shit who stopped those tanks coming at them.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle In that case of Iraq you are correct, but but was pretty clear that the Libyan rebels were asking for our assistance.

I didn't think the part where you quoted him he was talking about Libya at all, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Jay. Seemed like he was more talking in general about how it doesn't matter if the U.S. is Republican or Democratic led, people abroad aren't American citizens and we don't have any right to tell them what to think or want.

Sorry to interrupt but I always wanted to know why Kadafi is still only a Colonel. I thought by now he would have been promoted to General.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Seemed like he was more talking in general about how it doesn't matter if the U.S. is Republican or Democratic led, people abroad aren't American citizens and we don't have any right to tell them what to think or want.

And that's why I don't understand how a US anti-narcotics division can even have jurisdiction in a foreign country. They are making arrests on people who aren't even American citizens. But I guess I'm just a hopelessly misguided liberal for pointing this out.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/20...rco-Insurgency/

quote:

AFGHANISTAN -- The Drug Enforcement Administration started fighting the illegal drug trade in 1973. Its main focus: keeping drugs out of the U.S. However, in recent years, the agency has expanded its mission to tracking drugs to their source - a strategy which puts them at the center of the War on Terror. DEA FAST Teams Five years ago, fewer than a dozen DEA agents were responsible for covering all of Afghanistan. Today, there are nearly 100 agents. That's because the fight there is against a narco-insurgency, meaning the Taliban receive a large part of their funding from illegal drug activity. As the U.S. military works to defeat the enemy and minimize collateral damage, the DEA is using its Foreign Deployed Assistance and Support, or FAST, teams to help hunt for Taliban drug kingpins. "We do basically all the types of operations we would do back home," said one DEA official, who spoke with CBN News on condition of anonymity for security reasons. "Whether a search warrant, an arrest warrant, seizure of drugs, any type of counternarcotics law enforcement, we train our Afghan counterparts in those same kind of missions. "We are not military. We are law enforcement," he explained. "So what we do is when we come over to Afghanistan - what gives us the ability to function and work in this country -- is going along with our Afghan counterparts." "We are there to advise and mentor and train them in counternarcotics law and procedures," he said. "And we're really starting to see some good effects come from that."

I suppose one can argue that the DEA isn't making the arrests themselves, but simply instructing the Afghanis on how to do this, but it seems like they are pushing their own anti-narcotic agenda onto a foreign country.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I didn't think the part where you quoted him he was talking about Libya at all, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Jay. Seemed like he was more talking in general about how it doesn't matter if the U.S. is Republican or Democratic led, people abroad aren't American citizens and we don't have any right to tell them what to think or want.

If that were the case he would've said so in his response.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle If that were the case he would've said so in his response.

I think he was just going with it


But then again, I could be completely wrong. That's just how he came across to me, especially in the context of the original post

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen And that's why I don't understand how a US anti-narcotics division can even have jurisdiction in a foreign country. They are making arrests on people who aren't even American citizens. But I guess I'm just a hopelessly misguided liberal for pointing this out. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/20...rco-Insurgency/ I suppose one can argue that the DEA isn't making the arrests themselves, but simply instructing the Afghanis on how to do this, but it seems like they are pushing their own anti-narcotic agenda onto a foreign country.

All the answers to your questions are in the article. They have the jurisdiction because they are just going along with Afghan DEA agents. They're training them and advising them.

And, as they mentioned, it's not pushing our own anti-narcotic agenda on to them, it's the fact that the Taliban gets a huge amount of their money from the drug trade, and the Afghan government (in theory, at least), does not want the Taliban to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Good news today out of Libya! Just kidding. French journalist Julien Fouchet describes seeing imams driving in a pick up truck and reciting prayers over a loudspeaker to the rebels. And Iman Bugaighis, the spokesman for the National Transition Council, admitted, "We have twenty-five fighters on the front that were linked to al-Qaeda." And this: http://www.lejdd.fr/International/A...?from=headlines And to make matters worse, a senior security official in Algeria claims that Al Qaeda is taking advantage of the turmoil in Libya to purchase weapons. From Reuters----> http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1303...ia-al-qaeda.htm

So Qaddafi was right about the rebels and Al-Qaeda.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Absolutely we are. .

Funny that - change of tune from your initial stance, ever since you realised I can back up my position, you seem far more agreeable.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN He thinks the US went to war at the behest of bush & cheney because they wanted to pad their bank account. I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US� dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.

Oh so you're pulling the "neocons" vs "real republicans" card. I've heard this from a couple of republicans now using it to distance themselves away from to administration that they were happy to vote for twice.

You say potato I say invasion for money. You can look for nuances all you want, it was about greed and making a small number of people even more wealthy, and it worked.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Funny that - change of tune from your initial stance, ever since you realised I can back up my position, you seem far more agreeable.

you haven't backed up a single claim i asked of you. hint: we all know about the defence contractors. i was asking about oil.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh so you're pulling the "neocons" vs "real republicans" card.

im not playing any "cards" at all. i am pointing out the fact that the PNAC guys were rewarded with prominent positions within the administration and this is a central reason for the iraq invasion. this is backed up by, well, everything that's ever come out of PNAC.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I've heard this from a couple of republicans now using it to distance themselves away from to administration that they were happy to vote for twice.

cool story bro.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You say potato I say invasion for money. You can look for nuances all you want, it was about greed and making a small number of people even more wealthy, and it worked.

like i said, extremely childish opinions you seem to hold.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you haven't backed up a single claim i asked of you. hint: we all know about the defence contractors. i was asking about oil.

I'm not going to spoon feed you with the c0r version. Read the link I posted before in there with all the other links, it has detailed information on the entire Bush family's interests, including oil.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not playing any "cards" at all. i am pointing out the fact that the PNAC guys were rewarded with prominent positions within the administration and this is a central reason for the iraq invasion. this is backed up by, well, everything that's ever come out of PNAC.

WTF? Don't try that shit. What next, the Chewbaca defense?

Just about the only thing I respect about Bush is he that stood by his convictions, however misguided or destructive they were, and didn't back down or blame someone else. So don't pussy out and say, well that's not true republican values, it's neocons or PNAC.

So fucking what the PNAC guys got rewarded? So did every republican lobbyist, intelligence official, contractor and advisor, Neocon or not - it was a purebred republican administration and no matter how you try to distance yourself from the labels of "neocons within the party" or the PNAC contingent it's what the party became and still very much is today, along with the new breed birthers and teabaggers (essentially more of the same). You may very well want to distance yourself from that but unfortunately that's the majority of that party now, so deal with it and take some responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN cool story bro.

erm...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN extremely childish

Seriously? You should have stuck with "but it was necons, not republicans". At least that has an excuse in there.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN like i said, extremely childish opinions you seem to hold.

Er, you've already conceded that the war was about profiteering,in your eyes for defense contractors, but just choose not to want to believe the oil part.

Please explain how that makes it right or not "about money" and profiteering". My simple explanation about the war being for oil and money is correct. You may want to window dress it but I prefer to to sugar coat the invasion of other countries or blame "minority factions" within the ruling party for it.

Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA).

Your arguments just make no sense.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA).

just an FYI, CANADA is the number 1 for imports to the US for crude.

canada exports 2,149 BBL per day to the US
iraq exports 470 BBL per day to the US.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

your crude dude

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit just an FYI, CANADA is the number 1 for imports to the US for crude. canada exports 2,149 BBL per day to the US iraq exports 470 BBL per day to the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ent/import.html

I know, posted for the third time in this thread.

They also still have excess capacity and it's easier to transport than on ships from the middle east, so the only reason to get it form the middle east is when you can get it cheaper

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I know, posted for the third time in this thread. They also still have excess capacity and it's easier to transport than on ships from the middle east, so the only reason to get it form the middle east is when you can get it cheaper

Cushing oklahoma is pretty much at capacity, With WTI (US standard) trading on Brent's (North sea) fundamentals (currently brent is trading at 122$/bbl). So the issue of cheap oil is moot. No one wants expensive oil and no one wants cheap oil. A happy balance is the most profitable and sustainable for everyone. Iraq's primary customer for exports is asia with the western hemisphere making up only 30% of exports.

quote:

Exports Iraq exported 1.8 million bbl/d of crude oil in 2009. About 1.5 million bbl/d of this came from Iraq�s Persian Gulf ports, with the rest exported via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline in the north. The majority of Iraqi oil exports go to refineries in Asia, especially China, India, and South Korea.

also

quote:

Iraq was the world�s 12th largest oil producer in 2009, and has the world�s fourth largest proven petroleum reserves after Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran. Just a fraction of Iraq�s known fields are in development, and Iraq may be one of the few places left where vast reserves, proven and unknown, have barely been exploited. Iraq�s energy sector is heavily based upon oil, with approximately 94 percent of its energy needs met with petroleum. In addition, crude oil export revenues accounted for over two-thirds of GDP in 2009 .

this is referenced from here:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IZ

also:


lets look at 2009 they took in 38.9 billion in exports of oil & gas per anum. that corresponds with a production number of 2.4 MILLION bbl per day at an average 2009 price of 56.5$ per barrel (remember we started 2009 with 30 $ per bbl)

so it looks to me like they are keeping their oil revenues. You can cross reference production #s with revenues. I have yet to see you post any facts with regards to bush raking in all that "export" money.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1034.htm

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN WTF? Don't try that shit. What next, the Chewbaca defense?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm not going to spoon feed you with the c0r version. Read the link I posted before in there with all the other links, it has detailed information on the entire Bush family's interests, including oil.

Yeah, that�s what I thought.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Just about the only thing I respect about Bush is he that stood by his convictions, however misguided or destructive they were, and didn't back down or blame someone else. So don't pussy out and say, well that's not true republican values, it's neocons or PNAC.

Are you fucking retarded? I don�t give two fucking shits about republicans or neocons. They�re certainly tarred with the same brush as far as I am concerned. Im not trying to shift responsibility from one group of idiots to another. Im telling you what the principle cause of the retarded �nation building� ideology was.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN So fucking what the PNAC guys got rewarded? So did every republican lobbyist, intelligence official, contractor and advisor, Neocon or not - it was a purebred republican administration and no matter how you try to distance yourself from the labels of "neocons within the party" or the PNAC contingent it's what the party became and still very much is today, along with the new breed birthers and teabaggers (essentially more of the same). You may very well want to distance yourself from that but unfortunately that's the majority of that party now, so deal with it and take some responsibility.

You�re about as thick as they come. Yeah man, I should take some responsibility for a party I despise from a country I don�t live in. good argument!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Seriously? You should have stuck with "but it was necons, not republicans". At least that has an excuse in there.

nope, you�re fucking childish. Ignoring reality and substituting it with simplistic and immature depictions of global politics.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Er, you've already conceded that the war was about profiteering,in your eyes for defense contractors, but just choose not to want to believe the oil part.

I accepted that there the defence contractors made out like bandits, and this is well documented. What I was asking from you is to support the claim that bush�s family made money from the oil that was actually contracted to Russia and china.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Please explain how that makes it right or not "about money" and profiteering". My simple explanation about the war being for oil and money is correct. You may want to window dress it but I prefer to to sugar coat the invasion of other countries or blame "minority factions" within the ruling party for it.

See, here�s what you obviously don�t understand. Even if you could prove to me that bush�s personal oil interests benefitted from the war, you still can�t show that this is what the war was about. the 911 conspiracy �tards say that this �evidence� proves 911 was an inside job. You�re both using the same evidence to �prove� retarded ideas. You�re making a (stupid) inference and then just asserting that it�s true.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA).

Well, ill ignore the fact that I didn�t say this was the primary motive for war (reading comprehension fail) and just point out that the GOP are hardly the greenest of parties going around, but I do agree that would�ve been a much better solution.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Your arguments just make no sense.

It does to the adults in the room. You just have a child�s appreciation of political realities.

DJ RANN, I'm having a hard time telling if you're trolling or just really this ignorant when it comes to politics, international relations, and economics.

Just thought it was interesting that this showed up when I opened the thread, just now.








At least it didn't yell at me.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Just thought it was interesting that this showed up when I opened the thread, just now. At least it didn't yell at me.

God that stare just burns a hole through me. I bet The17sss just made a mess on his keyboard.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.