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 EddieZilker The Democratic Caucus isn't exactly helping matters, either. Did you see Jon Stewart, last night?

I can't watch that guy anymore either. His mannerisms are so annoying... with that whole punch line delivery style followed by staring at the camera with that pursed look, paused extra long for extended applause.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't watch that guy anymore either. His mannerisms are so annoying... with that whole punch line delivery style followed by staring at the camera with that pursed look, paused extra long for extended applause.

The short story is that some Democrat speaking into a live mic, let slip that the Democratic Caucus wanted them to constantly refer to the Tea Party as "extreme". The bit then edits to the same guy calling them "extreme" during a speech, and he's really, really hamming it up, too.

Course that followed up with Boners "ima forget how the US constitution works, even though we read it in the chamber because we are all like you know, constitutional scholars and what not" plan to somehow let the house alone implement bills...

God fucking damn it Kevin, are you really that stupid that you can blindly follow these fucking retards. I mean come on, at least democrats have the ability for self-deprecation, and often their base is openly hostile to many of its members, but for fucks sake man... You guys are like robots, and the only time you aren't is when someone is not being, and I'll say it cause its true, extreme enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Course that followed up with Boners "ima forget how the US constitution works, even though we read it in the chamber because we are all like you know, constitutional scholars and what not" plan to somehow let the house alone implement bills...

Yeah. That was a funny bit. But the point was that Republicans are much better at the sort of behavior Democrats would do well to avoid. Still, the excesses of the Republicans about it were funny.

revenue sharing policy is detailed here:


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL34064.pdf

quote:

six of its largest oil fields and two large, undeveloped natural gas fields. Iraq pre-qualified 41 international companies to participate in the bidding process. In the run-up to the bidding round, political scrutiny of Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani intensified as members of Iraq�s Council of Representatives (Parliament) voiced strong concerns about the terms of the contracts on offer and about Shahristani�s management of the oil sector to date. Calls for a vote of no confidence in Shahristani were rebuffed, although the Oil and Gas Committee in parliament has moved forward with plans to question the minister, with a session scheduled for mid-November. The first bidding round reflected international interest in and apprehension about the terms of potential investment in Iraq and prevailing political and security conditions. At the close of the bidding round on June 30, only one field bid had been accepted by Iraq�s Oil Ministry�the joint bid by U.K. oil giant BP plc and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) was chosen for the service contract for Rumaila, Iraq�s largest oil field. Iraq�s cabinet subsequently approved the proposed terms of the Rumaila bid and parliamentary leaders stated their desire to review any related contract before its signature. Bids for the other five oil fields on offer in the first round demonstrated wide differences in negotiating positions between international oil companies and Iraqi officials. Iraq sought per barrel service payments at far lower dollar-per-barrel levels than nearly all bidders were prepared to accept, in some cases bids exceeded Iraq�s offered terms by ratios of up to ten to one. Subsequent negotiations between Iraqis and international oil companies reportedly have demonstrated some flexibility on both sides, as Iraqis relaxed some production expectations and companies agreed to lower per barrel terms. A consortium bid led by Italy�s ENI reportedly was initialed on November 2, 2009, and will now be sent for review by the Iraqi cabinet. The bid, which includes U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum, was amended to accept Iraq�s original offer of a $2 per barrel remuneration fee, subject to taxation.

so basically foreign company's would be paid 2$ per barrel extracted while they pay iraq market price for the oil extracted. These fees are also subjected to taxation by the iraqi govt.


also:

quote:

Iraq�s State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) remains responsible for the sale and export of Iraqi crude oil. Under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1483 (and renewed through subsequent Security Council resolutions), revenue from Iraq�s oil exports is deposited into an Iraq-controlled account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). Five percent of the funds are reserved for a United Nations Compensation Fund for reparations to the victims of the 1990 Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The remaining 95% is deposited into a Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) account at the FRBNY and is then transferred to an Iraqi Ministry of Finance account at the Central Bank of Iraq for further distribution to Iraqi government ministries.40 Iraq has sought to reduce the percentage paid to Kuwait to 1%. However, as of October 2009, a proposal to channel paid reparation funds into joint investment projects has been rejected by Kuwaiti parliamentarians.

So the detail here is that the money is being primarily fed back into iraq. contractors pay iraq for their oil. After that its refined and sold to the consumers. Thats how the companies make money. Its not as if these contractors are ransacking the iraqi oil (as you have it played out) and selling it without expense. It's nationalized so cost of goods sold for the company goes straight to iraq fund.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN never said that did? (otherwise post it up, bullshitter). They sure as shit lead the charge and made it official though, and you can't deny it.

sorry, i thought we were arguing about whether bush and cheney invaded iraq so they could make a profit for themselves?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN But you've decided to alter your language now.

no i haven't. i stand by what i said originally. there was an element within the GOP whose ideology got a chance to play hardball post 911.

quote:

Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum��such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley��voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein�s regime from power," and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush administration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presented the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war. Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such later Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...nvasion_of_Iraq

I'm not trying to deny anyone their role or responsibility in ultimately declaring war, certainly not the republican party, when i say that the neocons dominated foreign policy under bush.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN That would be true had I not posted all the links you can read for yourself "if you weren't at work". Outside of that one link I've given you two others in this thread that you keep not wanting to reference.

i am not interested in hunting through multiple web pages trying to find a vague reference to my questions. if you have something you can quote it here and i will always read it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Making money from invading other countries isn't that complex I'm afraid.

you're right there

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm honestly sorry you can't grasp at least the motivation simplicity. Of course, I could go in to every little mechanism of these "complex political issues", like the money made by lobbyists in Michigan who wanted the contracts for the jet engines that would be ordered due to the need to increase defense spending, or private security contrator hiring at firms like blackwater, or the massive increase in arms exports for Britain, but let's face it - IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO MONEY.

i grasp the simplicity. and if i accept that you're correct, that it IS all about the money, im telling you why iraq (and afghanistan, but that's another argument obviously) were the countries chosen for the military industrial complex's cunning ruse.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN But fine, you still want more proof and I'll spoon it you to get it in to your thick head. Here's a list of contractors in Iraq. Click on a few of them and you'll see many of them provide "oil and gas consulting" or "Energy infrastructure". http://projects.publicintegrity.org...?act=pro&fil=IQ

i havent actually asked you for that. what i have asked you for is the bush-oil links in iraq, but i admit the oil consulting part didn't occur to me.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Dude, you've tried that three times and it didn't work then so stop hanging on to it. The pot just got shared around, as was the intention as there is more than enough. See above and previous links. The could not ever commandeer all the oil in Iraq if they wanted to.

it was awfully nice of the conspirators to let foreign corporations at the trough first after a war they'd done all the hard work on. what awesome chaps. US companies weren't just out-bid or anything, there was definite collusion.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN It's my opinion. Don't fucking tell me yours is gospel and mine is wrong, especially when you've given me nothing to prove otherwise yet I've posted a bunch of links supporting my assertions. in other words, I could give less of a fuck what you think, because you I've done my homework.

my narrative is well-established gospel and yours is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN But that was not what was presented either by them or by you at first and what i've been saying ALL ALONG so WHY THE FUCK are you fighting so hard to disagree with me?

no, you claim it (the war) was financial, and i claim that iraq's invasion was ideological/strategic. that's why im disagreeing with you.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You just want to try to make some petty diferentiation between the republican party at that time and it's overwhelming majority of Neocons (hint, the key is in the word majority).

jesus christ. (again) i don't give a fuck whether it was the fucking easter bunny. call those behind war whatever you fucking like. do not care. all i care about is motive.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Just wow. I just take that as another late in the day concession as you can't refute it now.

my original comments stand. US companies have not been the major beneficiaries of the oil contracts awarded in iraq. indeed as far as i am aware the exxon deal was the first. that isn't the kind of climax id expect to such a grand scheme of perfect manipulation.

You know Rann could make a convincing argument about things like US Government logistical support contracts awarded to Haliburton and KBR at little to no competition...


But saying its about oil is so much easier and sexy sounding. It scores the babes at the liberal arts colleges.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You know Rann could make a convincing argument about things like US Government logistical support contracts awarded to Haliburton and KBR at little to no competition... But saying its about oil is so much easier and sexy sounding. It scores the babes at the liberal arts colleges.

Totally.


But seriously, when distilled to it's simplest form that sadly what it comes down to.

@pkcRAISTLIN - it seems we're arguing the same point from different perspectives. I agree that they made the most of 911, but that was just "fortunate" and well used opportunity for certain factions (figureheaded by Bush and Cheyney) to use as a springboard for long before planned intentions.

The ultimate intention was to free up the oil fields from saddams monopoly and facilitate unprecedented government spending on defense, the essence of which is to make a small number of people even more wealthy.

They were playing the long game (see incompletion of Gulf conflict) and I've always believed the recent Exxon contract is the ultimate stage of the plan, finally coming to fruition for them. The preceding parts of the plan were far more immediate in yield; huge emergency spending on defense to go to war, which itself then allowed massive business opportunities in logistics, transport, security, consulting, engineering and delivery all associated with oil.

I've already shown that both Bush and Cheney had (and still to this day have) undeniable and broad (but direct) personal business interests in the Iraq war, so again, I could go in minutia of every little aspect, but ultimately, I believe this was about making money, for personal gain, from war and oil.

you don't have to worry about money being wasted if they decide no to pay the troops kev.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya. They were in and out, something that Bush could not achieve in 8 years.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN the fact that the US went in, and got out (unlike both of Bush's wars) shows this was humanitarian. You;re just angry because unlike bush, he didn't fuck it up (twice)

You were saying??

quote:

U.S. still doing limited airstrikes for NATO in Libya (CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Pentagon revealed for the first time Wednesday that U.S. fighter jets have continued to strike Libyan air defenses after turning the mission over to NATO. Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under NATO command. They can be used when needed to take out enemy defenses as part of the enforcement of the no-fly zone. CBS News National Security correspondent David Martin reported the missions, announced in an oh-by-the-way fashion by the Pentagon, have involved a handful of F-16s that have dropped a half-dozen bombs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011...n20053556.shtml


I don't know if you can handle many more embarrassments after PKC gutted you in that last debate.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You were saying?? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011...n20053556.shtml I don't know if you can handle many more embarrassments after PKC gutted you in that last debate.

Bullshit. I railed you so hard you completely disappeared from the thread entirely (not to mention other picking up on how you were getting it) and then PKC argued until I posted sources, then it became obvious we were splitting hairs on the same subject. He asked for proof, I gave it to him, and the more I gave to him and elaborated, the more he said "well I didn't think of that aspect". I've never changed my point about this war or that one, so don't even try it.

As for your point, learn to read your own sources you utter pleb

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under NATO command.

yet.....

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Libya rebels urge U.S. to bring back bombers

Man, you gotta do better than that or this is going to end like it did last time for you

I�d just like to point out that even though I didn�t think of �oil consultancy� I still think the argument that bush went into Iraq for personal financial gain is quite, quite ridiculous and also bereft of supporting evidence as far as actual motivation goes.

bush is the biggest jack wagon president we've ever had. he doesn't need a well thought out reason for doing something stupid. he said in an interview years later that even if he knew they didn't have nuclear weapons program he still have invaded.

That is a god damned lie and you know it!
George W has done more for this country than any of you so-called experts here! The Bushes are a godsend to this country, and you are all idiots for failing to comprehend that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I�d just like to point out that even though I didn�t think of �oil consultancy� I still think the argument that bush went into Iraq for personal financial gain is quite, quite ridiculous and also bereft of supporting evidence as far as actual motivation goes.

WTF? You pussy. Don't back track now. I've shown the huge and far reaching financial benefits for going to war against Iraq, from the consulting, to the security, to the infrastructure, to the logistics, and that's not even talking about defense money.

Again, amongst your three main reasons for going to war is "reducing US dependence on Hostile Oil", yet I'm the one saying it was for financial gain, and I'm the fool? Give me a fucking break.

I said Bush (along with a small group of very powerful republicans) had clear and direct financial gains from going in to Iraq. That is true as per the links to his families and others (cheyney included) and as posted, Exxon now got the first of the foreign contracts, something that simply would not have happened prior to the invasion.

So deal with it and wake up.

The US went to war with Iraq because they are paid by the jews to do so. Derrrrrp. Morons. THe lot of you.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN WTF? You pussy. Don't back track now.

Im not backtracking. My opinion hasn�t changed. I admitted I didn�t consider oil consultancy, and that�s it. I spoke up to ensure that nobody is under the impression that I agree with your conspiracies.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I've shown the huge and far reaching financial benefits for going to war against Iraq, from the consulting, to the security, to the infrastructure, to the logistics, and that's not even talking about defense money.

And all that does is prove that privatised warfare and reconstruction is expensive. It doesn�t prove anything about the motivations for war.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Again, amongst your three main reasons for going to war is "reducing US dependence on Hostile Oil", yet I'm the one saying it was for financial gain, and I'm the fool? Give me a fucking break.

Which is a strategic concern, not a �my family gets all the oil $$, yippee!!� george bush concern.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I said Bush (along with a small group of very powerful republicans) had clear and direct financial gains from going in to Iraq. That is true as per the links to his families and others (cheyney included) and as posted, Exxon now got the first of the foreign contracts, something that simply would not have happened prior to the invasion.

Exxon didn�t get the first foreign contract. It got the first contract awarded to the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot&Cold That is a god damned lie and you know it! George W has done more for this country than any of you so-called experts here! The Bushes are a godsend to this country, and you are all idiots for failing to comprehend that.

A chimp would find it hard taking you seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin A chimp would find it hard taking you seriously.

I would imagine so.

Even though that both species of chimpanzees are the sister group to the modern human lineage, I highly doubt they have the ability to measure the level of seriousness a human exhibits through speech.


A rhesus macaque however...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Im not backtracking. My opinion hasn�t changed. I admitted I didn�t consider oil consultancy, and that�s it. I spoke up to ensure that nobody is under the impression that I agree with your conspiracies.

Nor any of the other things that I've listed as being obvious financial incentives for going to war.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And all that does is prove that privatised warfare and reconstruction is expensive. It doesn�t prove anything about the motivations for war.

Read what you just wrote. "Privatised warfare"; using US tax dollars to par for a war; Using the premise of war to massively expand defense spending that hugely benefited private companies, not to mention oil companies that are now able to operate in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Which is a strategic concern, not a �my family gets all the oil $$, yippee!!� george bush concern.

I never said that, so don't dumb it down to for your own twisted and divisive version of my argument. However, I've already provided multiple links and published sources showing that Bush and Cheyney (personally) benefited financially on a a huge scale from going to war, both in terms of their oil and defense wealth interests.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Exxon didn�t get the first foreign contract. It got the first contract awarded to the US.

Valid point, I should have been more clear.

@Hot&cold - seriously lame troll attempt. Try harder or fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN

Kiss.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Bullshit. I railed you so hard you completely disappeared from the thread entirely (not to mention other picking up on how you were getting it) and then PKC argued until I posted sources, then it became obvious we were splitting hairs on the same subject. He asked for proof, I gave it to him, and the more I gave to him and elaborated, the more he said "well I didn't think of that aspect". I've never changed my point about this war or that one, so don't even try it. As for your point, learn to read your own sources you utter pleb yet..... Man, you gotta do better than that or this is going to end like it did last time for you

My god you are the dumbest piece of shit I've ever seen. First of all, I didn't vanish due to your "fabulously fabulous" winning arguments... I merely sat back and watched PKC take over, since you two started getting into it.

YOUR WORDS ASSHOLE:

quote:

You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya.

Doesn't matter if "the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under their command"... THEY ARE U.S. JETS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS, FLOWN BY U.S. PILOTS. They are just "under someone else's command."

And it doesn't matter that "Libya rebels urged the U.S. to bring back bombers". The reason doesn't matter- THE BOMBERS ARE U.S. BOMBERS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS that you so smugly instructed me were no longer part of the mission.

Did you not read this passage either?

quote:

While officials may claim American is taking a back seat in the campaign, U.S. jets have attacked Libyan targets three times in the last 10 days. Add in aerial refueling, reconnaissance and electronic jamming missions and the U.S. is flying 35 percent of all the NATO missions.

ZERO ASSETS huh? "In and out of there" huh? Who's the fucking pleb!? Man I've never seen anyone so fucking wrong act so confidently that they are right. Wow... what a useless fuck you are.

"Politics" by The17sss

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss My god you are the dumbest piece of shit I've ever seen. First of all, I didn't vanish due to your "fabulously fabulous" winning arguments... I merely sat back and watched PKC take over, since you two started getting into it. YOUR WORDS ASSHOLE: Doesn't matter if "the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under their command"... THEY ARE U.S. JETS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS, FLOWN BY U.S. PILOTS. They are just "under someone else's command." And it doesn't matter that "Libya rebels urged the U.S. to bring back bombers". The reason doesn't matter- THE BOMBERS ARE U.S. BOMBERS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS that you so smugly instructed me were no longer part of the mission. Did you not read this passage either? ZERO ASSETS huh? "In and out of there" huh? Who's the fucking pleb!? Man I've never seen anyone so fucking wrong act so confidently that they are right. Wow... what a useless fuck you are.

hehehehehehe. You backed out and let someone else takeover? Lol, don't try it. You got hammered and crawled away limping.
Learn to deal when someone hands it to you, pleb.

NATO are flying missions and that's the end of it. The USA has no autonomous control or missions. They are NATO military missions nothing more, which is a big difference (no us central command, far less numbers and type of aircraft, support, personnel, money, etc etc etc).












































































































Pleb.

He does have a point. Just because the "freedom fighters" of Africa are using AK-47s doesn't mean Russia is involved in the blood diamond trade.

Edit: A point. Not a very good one, but still a point.

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