New Covenant Theology Forum
Welcome to the New Covenant Theology forum. Feel free to post a message regarding New Covenant Theology, Housing, Iraq or any subject that is on your conscience .
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 2 (Total Posts: 70) |
| Author | Comment This topic is sticky |
Gary Anderson
 IP: 71.94.30.132 Feb 19, 07 - 6:37 PM |
Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Except for the part about Bush and the crusade (which is proof of his misuse of religion for political and probably even personal gain), this post is MY opinion only, and is not a basis of fellowship. However, I could not in good conscience stand by and see the lies that our administration have perpetuated. Christians should love all men, however this rebuke is for a guy who has sent thousands to death and injury. But nevertheless, all of your views are entertained: The Iraq war is illegal, and the reason it is illegal is that we went to war to claim Iraq oil. Bush and Cheney and Rice (a former Chevron director), are lusting for oil and have done so prior to 9/11. They also have given our oil companies, who are running out of reserves, the reserves they need to compete in the world. But in order to gain this advantage, and void all the contracts other countries had with Iraq, the commander and thief had to invade Iraq illegally. And on top of all this, he used deceptive methods to achieve this goal. He claimed WMDs. He claimed Al Qaeda connections. He claimed he wanted democracy. He claimed it was a crusade, even though the Lord said his kingdom was not of this world, a condemnation of all crusades. This sleazebag of a president tried it all. And it all will be uncovered. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.30.132 Mar 14th, 2007 - 3:19 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
There is a contract in the works according to a lady speaking on Kudlow and Company on CNBC today, that will give the foreign oil companies 70 percent of the profits in Iraq. This is stealing, and shows we went into Iraq for oil. This flagrant violation of Iraq sovereignty is no better than Saddam himself. 83 percent of Arabs believe that we went into Iraq to steal oil, and sad to report, that appears to be the case. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.30.132 Apr 4th, 2007 - 10:24 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I posted this at A.B. (Amy) Stoddard's blog at http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/04/03/leaving-the-reservation/#comment-6492 "This is the bottom line, Amy, we have a moral obligation as citizens of the United States to speak out about just what America has done to violate Geneva Conventions, the UN charter and all manner of common sense decency. From the taking of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, diplomats who have immunity, to the abuses allowed by that little Texas hispanic clone of Bush, to offering the blood of American soldiers so that we can line the pockets of the rich, America has sunk to new lows, and has violated international laws and sanctions that we as a nation fought for. Amy, how did we get the authority to try the Nazi’s or establish Israel, or work with nations in a way that would give sanity to their behaviors? We have thrown it all away and we now have Israel in bed with the very neocons who have trashed it all. That is the lowest of the low. I support Israel, but who do they think they are supporting those who would trash the foundations of their own existence, taken to its logical conclusion. This world is beyond corruption, and Washington DC has done nothing to stop it. We have fed chairmen wanting people to take teaser loans and no one cares." Comment by Gary Anderson — April 3, 2007 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.30.132 Apr 5th, 2007 - 10:57 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
A gentleman disputed my claims by insulting me personally. Here is his statement and my responses found at http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/04/03/leaving-the-reservation/#comment-6644 : Well Gary, I DID take a look at your “website” and saw that it was nothing more than a self-serving article that is pretty much an opinion piece with no evidence to back it up. Come on — are you in junior highschool? I know 12 year old kids who could write a more convincing argument than the fairy tale you tossed up there. And another thing, I’ve seen quite a bit of that “argument” before— how much of it is plagerized? Comment by Laurence Socci — April 5, 2007 @ 7:15 am Larry, you need to explain why George Bush had the plan to divide up Iraq oil in the first place, and then acted upon it with a lying letter from Nigeria, no WMD, no Al Qaeda link, and contracts that will pay foreign oil companies 80 percent of the oil. And you need to explain why we went into Iraq when the fight was with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You have no answer, because you refuse to see the obvious. And why would Condi Rice, a chevron director and educator suddenly pop up as Bush’s primary advisor along with Cheney, an oil man who needed to bail Haliburton out of asbestos payments. The reason that you refuse to see the truth is that you don’t want to be part of the crowd that believes the truth. I don’t necessarily like the people who speak the truth. I came to this view independently of these folks while talking to a government official from Washington DC. Larry, get the president to retract the 70/30 (about 80/20 with tax free benefits) contracts to steal Iraq oil and I will retract everything. Know what? It will never happen. Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am One more point Larry. You need to know that there is censorship on this issue from the big media and corporations. That is why people are so up in arms with Rosie O, because she has made the argument mainstream. She is upsetting the apple cart. But this censorship will not happen forever. I don’t believe the conspiracy theory, however I believe that Cheney deliberately looked the other way regarding intelligence that was in possession of the administration because they needed an attack, a catalyst to give them reason to attack Iraq for oil. Larry, remember George Bush’s strange response when he heard the news of 9/11? It was what he was hoping for all along. You are supporting scoundrels because you want to believe, but your faith is misplaced. Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.30.132 Apr 5th, 2007 - 11:53 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I added a few more comments for Lawrence here: One more point Larry. You need to know that there is censorship on this issue from the big media and corporations. That is why people are so up in arms with Rosie O, because she has made the argument mainstream. She is upsetting the apple cart. But this censorship will not happen forever. I don’t believe the conspiracy theory, however I believe that Cheney deliberately looked the other way regarding intelligence that was in possession of the administration because they needed an attack, a catalyst to give them reason to attack Iraq for oil. Larry, remember George Bush’s strange response when he heard the news of 9/11? It was what he was hoping for all along. You are supporting scoundrels because you want to believe, but your faith is misplaced. Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am Larry perhaps this article will help you understand. Petrodollars and power keep America strong even when we are a debtor nation. This is a false and fragile prosperity. Remember, Iran is switching to Euros away from petrodollars. That is a bigger threat to the US than their feeble efforts at a bomb. We would go to war with Iran to keep the dollar from tanking, and indeed that is why Bush lied and went into Iraq. Anyway here is the link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20061014&articleId=3482 and here is the most significant quote: “The US waged war in Iraq not out of fundamental strength but fundamental weakness. It is economic weakness however, not military. Oil and food, and money as strategic weapon The fundamental reason for the Iraq war, beyond agendas of Richard Perle or other hawks, is hence, strategic in my view. US economic hegemony in this distorted Dollar System increasingly depends on a rising rate of support from the rest of the world to sustain US debt levels. Like the old Sorcerers’ Apprentice. But the point is past where this can be gotten easily. That is the real significance of the US shift to unilateralism and military threats as foreign policy. Europe can no longer be given a piece of the Third World debt pie as in the 1980’s. Japan has to cough up even more, as does China now. Even ordinary Americans have to give up their pension promises. If the Dollar System is to remain hegemonic, it must find major new sources of support. That spells likely destabilization and wars for the rest of the world. Could it be that in this context, some long-term thinkers in Washington and elsewhere have devised a strategy of establishing US military control of all strategic sources of oil for the one potential power rival, Eurasia, from Brussels to Berlin to Moscow and Beijing? The dollar vulnerability and debt problems are well known in leading policy circles. As Henry Kissinger once noted, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”" Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 1:48 am |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 13th, 2007 - 11:27 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm The above link shows just how evil the neocons were in wanting American oil companies to appropriate the oil fields outright, but of course the oil companies are more pragmatic. They have chosen to steal the oil through contracts that give them 70 percent of the profits tax free. I say a plague on both their houses and on Bush/Cheney/Rice for this illegal war, blood for oil. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 15th, 2007 - 9:29 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
This post at Neocon.com the blog of that poor little Jewish girl who has been sucked into the neocon sphere shows just what a liar Richard Perle, the famous neocon and admin apologist really is. This is my response to a fellow who said I was a liar and yet had no evidence to support his case. Pretty childish if you ask me: Whats that? I am not lying. I am telling you the truth. Why would the neocons argue with the oil companies prior to 9/11 over who should hold the land? The oil discussion was paramount. For you just to say I am a liar without providing any facts is just childish. We have a bunch of neoneocon children here I guess. Here is a quote from Richard Perle, the Bugsy Segal of our generation: “I think when the United States acts decisively, it strengthens the influence of the United States. Secondly, I believe that much of the charge against the United States, in the current situation, that we are interested in dominating the Middle East, that we are interested in Iraqi oil, for example, much of the charge against us will be blown away by our behavior in the aftermath of the success. So, one of the sources of anti-Americanism, which is this slander about our motives, will be decisively contradicted by our behavior. We’re not going to steal Iraq’s oil. It’s going to go to the people of Iraq. We’re not going to dominate the region. We’re going to stay only long enough to permit Iraqis to achieve a stable government. And then we’ll be gone. The idea that is used to animate anti-American feeling — that we are rapacious, that we are imperialist — will have been demonstrated to be false. So, in this one situation in Iraq, there is the potential both to transform the region and perceptions of the United States.” But we indeed ARE stealing Iraq oil with 70 percent of the tax free money going to FOREIGN oil companies. Even this was shown on Kudlow and Company a week or two ago. Perle is a liar, a disgrace, and his support for Israel is totally undone by his defense of a corrupt and lying administration. The Bush administration has demonstrated that they are stealing Iraq oil. The leftovers are for the Iraq people. Perle is a liar. Some links: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/perle.html http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/205-guid.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20061014&articleId=3482 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 15th, 2007 - 2:05 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here are some posts I made at neocon.com. Just copy and paste these in your browser: 1. Here is a pdf link which shows that Dick Cheney believed that the first gulf war was about control of oil. Certainly if the first gulf war was about world oil reserves, it is most certain (and we have many other proofs) that the war in Iraq was about oil. There are other links that show that Richard Nixon had a plan to invade Saudi Arabia way back in the 70’s and steal their oil, good ole Tricky Dick. And Richard Perle advocated that we not trade with Saudi Arabia even though he got a secret loan from them. You can find that on the net. I guess he had to resign some board because of that. This link shows Cheney’s view of the gulf war, oil limits, peak oil, etc. and has links to his other speeches: http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf I bet that a lot of you don’t know that we wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan, that Unocal invited the Taliban to Texas in 1997 and dined them (they don’t drink wine). Once the Taliban were kicked out Karzai, an associate of Unocal took over as pres of Afghanistan. While I don’t believe that 9/11 was abetted by the administration, I do believe signs were ignored and the admin wanted an event in order to further oil interests both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I cannot prove this, but it is something to ponder, as I often do…. 2. Here is a link showing the salon article regarding Wolfowitz and his mission to gobble up oil for the United States through his work at the world bank. Of course, we don’t know if his Lybian girlfriend will be his undoing, as Wolfowitz gave her big money against bank rules. One could say that Perle and Wolfowitz have the interests of America and Israel in view when they seek to strengthen the US through unilateral stealing of other nations’ oil. However, I maintain that this is a dangerous game, that it violates the UN Charter which is the basis for the existence of Israel in the first place. Perhaps Wolfowitz and Perle think that if America develops other resources and pulls away from oil, that we will have no further interest in defending Israel. While I really cannot say what they think, it appears that America will always be grabbing for oil, and our stature in the world will be diminished and all respect for us will be lost. That seems to be a very dangerous and game that these Jewish and Gentile neocons are playing and I am not quite sure why they are risking so much for this goal. Anyway here is the link and it contains the article link. http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/000347.php 3. It appears from the internal link enclosed in the link above that Wolfowitz has one purpose, to help American oil companies open up new reserves. It matters not how that is done, who we have to sleep with to get this done, etc. But it is excitement to the ears of oil people like Bush and Cheney and Rice of Chevron. Again, we take money for the poor to gain oil, we take soldiers who are unsuspecting to gain oil. We lie to the American people to gain oil. Nothing moral can come from neocons, the Rand Corp, etc. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/26/wolfowitz_at_world_bank/index1.html |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 15th, 2007 - 3:57 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here is a post I made at neocon.com which shows that Iraq regime change was going to lower oil profits in the hopes of the Bush admin: Here is a link showing that Laurence Lindsay, a Bush advisor in 2002 said that gas prices would most likely go down if we invaded Iraq. Another smoking gun that was later denied by Dan Bartlett. As the article says, facts do get in the way of rewriting history: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/ |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 15th, 2007 - 4:33 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here is a post I made at neocon.com showing that Iran is dispensing with the dollar and will only use Euros and other currencies for oil. This could facilitate the dollar decline even further and similar actions could have caused our invasion of Iraq: caHere is a link showing that the Iranians are cutting off the dollar. This is what probably ended it for Saddam, but Iran is more problematic, with major oil dislocations and cost of oil if we invade. It probably would destroy the housing market as well. Anyway this is an interesting article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COR20070412&articleId=5370 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 16th, 2007 - 1:39 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
This is a response at neocon.com to "Sloan" who thought my points were "bickering" regarding Bush and his lies: Well Sloan, how do you explain Rummy Rumsfeld in 2002 saying that the admin did not discuss oil with the link above showing that Laurence Lindsay did indeed think about oil and how oil prices would come down with the invasion of Iraq? If it were a court of law Bush would be convicted of lying about oil, WMD’s, and all the rest. The blood of our servicemen are on his hands Sloan, and yours as well if you continue to support this liar knowing what you know if you have read all these links. The evidence is overwhelming that oil was a major reason why we went into Iraq, making it an illegal war that violates the UN charter. You can live in fairy tale land if you want Sloan, but many others have been fooled enough, and again. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 21st, 2007 - 4:35 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I posted this link above, but this is the quote from a CONSERVATIVE blogger: Future of Iraq: The spoils of war How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb Published: 07 January 2007 Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972. The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said. Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled. Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty. Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil." Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals. Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal." Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March. Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates. James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire." Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair." Posted by Rico J. Halo in News, Opinion at 07:51 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/205-guid.html |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 22nd, 2007 - 7:54 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Of course we know that the Oil Ministry was protected by the original invasion of Iraq. Oil was a central issue prior to 9/11 and I have quoted the article with link as it is important to read for those trying to grasp why we went into Iraq after 9/11. Here is the complete article cited in this link I have posted often: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm Secret US plans for Iraq's oil By Greg Palast Reporting for Newsnight The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. Secret sell-off plan The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department. Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces. "Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco. "We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming." Privatisation blocked by industry Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved." Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision. Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain." New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government. View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves. Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company." The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology." A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005. Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK. You can also watch the |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 22nd, 2007 - 8:22 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I posted this message and link at neoneocon.com concerning the energy conference that paved the way for the invasion of Iraq though we just have bits and pieces of the meeting so far: People might want to follow this Wiki link about the energy task force that will no doubt be updated. A focus of the task force was oil fields and maps of the middle east. Also, many oil companies distance themselves from the meeting, although apparently most were there one way or another. Remember, this secret meeting was prior to 9/11, and Cheney is fighting tooth and nail to keep it secret. Here is the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 22nd, 2007 - 8:44 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here is a Wiki article with links supporting the Iraq oil imperialism view: Here are some additional links furnished by this Wiki article about Iraq oil imperialism fostered by the 2003 invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_imperialism_theories |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 22nd, 2007 - 9:37 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here is Laurence Lindsey’s specific comment. Remember he was a Bush insider, and a main cog in his campaign and chief economic advisor: Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war. The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil.” “Economic Effect of War Seen as Small: Lindsey Says Benefits of Ousting Saddam Outweigh Costs” Washington Times, 09/19/02 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 26th, 2007 - 10:52 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
A post at http://www.bernardgoldberg/com clarifies my point about the abuse of the UN charter. Mr Sinatra, a moderator asked if the UN is pro Israel, since I was defending the UN charter. Here is my response: Mr Sinatra, that the UN members are for or against Israel is not the point. You are not listening. The UN Charter is for Israel. It is the legal document that exists that says Israel has a right to exist. The neocons have thumbed their noses at that charter by invading a country for her natural resources, a clear violation of the charter. Undermining the authority of the charter is NOT IN ISRAEL'S LONG TERM INTEREST. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 27th, 2007 - 10:35 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I posted at the swamp in response to an article putting part of the war responsibility with the American people at this link: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/04/moyers_should_a.html#comments Here is my response: I disagree. Few knew that Bush was lying about his reasons for going into Iraq. Few knew that oil was the primary prize. The ones that did probably had little access the the mainstream media that is just now allowing some comment on the issue. Tucker Carlson was one such mainstream guy who finally spoke out about wanting to know why we went into Iraq. This months after he has been bombarded with info saying it was the oil dummy! Chris Dodd mentioned oil as the reason on ABC but that was just this last Sunday. When did he find out??? George Bush betrayed the troops by lying as to the intent for going into Iraq. He lied to the American people, and he is enriching his oil friends no matter whether we prevail immediately or not. That is because the price of gas keeps going up even while American oil companies are securing huge reserves in Iraq at a very favorable profit margin, in effect a stealing margin, for extracting Iraq oil. http://pub35.bravenet.com/forum/2973085091/show/622636 Posted by: Gary Anderson | Apr 27, 2007 12:11:06 PM |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 27th, 2007 - 11:04 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
An interview with Chris Dodd: Oscar R. Michael: The Bush administration is quietly pushing the Iraqi government to install a legally binding proposition that the major oil companies, for example ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and others, be granted the rights to approximately 70% of all oil and natural gas existing underground in Iraq. Where do you stand on who should own Iraqi oil, its production and refinement, and how do you think this administration's position is affecting its stay-the-course stance on the Iraq war? SENATOR DODD: Well, first off thanks for the question. And if it’s true, and I’m not questioning whether it is true or not, but if it is true, it is a disgraceful conclusion. Clearly, Iraq’s oil belongs to the Ira qi people. And how can we be expected to convince the world we’re fighting for democracy and freedom when we’re seizing Iraqi oil rights? In response to the first question, I believe one of the major incentives for the continuation of military forces on the ground area is exactly for the reason that you’ve identified in your question, and thus I’ve added it as a reason why, or at least part of the solution I have, for us to not only get out of Iraq, re-deploying our troops immediately, but also reducing the kind of incentives that cause us to believe we have a role to play in perpetuity in Iraq. And thus energy independence within 10 years is something I’m strongly advocating. I believe it can be done and that we no longer have to depend on energy resources coming out of the Middle East. I believe that the American people would be more than delighted to participate in an idea that would allow us to achieve that kind of independence… Americans are anxious to be asked to be a part of something larger than themselves. I can’t think of anything more important to the American people right now than reducing the kind of dependency that exists as a result of our dependency that exists as a result of our dependency in that part of the world. So, I for one believe that these resources ought to remain in Iraqi hands, we ought to develop our own policies at home by pursuing the bio-fuels, the ethanol, the wind, the solar power, the conservation, the natural gas that exists in our own country in our hemisphere, and other resources for us to become energy independent, and leave those resources where they are. The Iraqis at some point when they get their act together politically, to pull their economy together for the people in that country themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rj-Z5pQvE |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 27th, 2007 - 11:06 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
The above transcript can be found at: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=597886 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 27th, 2007 - 9:58 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
A little post at Bernie Goldberg's forum: Wow, busy day. George Tenent told us things that should have been revealed YEARS AGO. And Dick Durbin says now that the intelligence the senators got was different than the mushroom cloud intelligence we got as mere citizens. WHY DOES THAT NOT SURPRISE ME!!!!! Durbin is, as far as I am concerned, a betrayer of the public trust, and the blood of Iraq is partly on his hands, but still mostly upon the commander and thief and his fat mentor and his cute black possible lover who used to run Chevron. The war must be stopped. There is simply no way of trusting our corrupted politicians between 2000 and the present. This is the worst example of democracy in action in the history of this country. Vietnam was originally an effort to fight communism. No oil in Vietnam. That is why Iraq is the worst of all time. And the Pres and his staff will be the most disgraced of all time. No competition!!! Come on Bernie, the Pres lied to the soldiers about why we went in and betrayed their trust. It is time to speak out Bernie, and not in a book. You need to say it on Fox and you better hurry. There is such a thing as guilt by association even if you don't really agree with them. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=32205#32205 |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 29th, 2007 - 9:57 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Also posted at bernardgoldberg.com regarding the issue of going into Iraq for oil. My contention is the difference between Iraq and North Korea was the issue of oil: But you need to realize Big Unit, that the Pres decided according to Tenet, Laurence Lindsey, and even Paul Oneill to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 and oil was the issue. You forget that during this time, more progress in NUKES was made by NORTH KOREA and we did nothing. You know why, NO OIL. The difference was that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil. This is the bottom line, if the pres thinks it was in our national interest to invade Iraq for maintaining the stability of our oil supplies, why doesn't the liar just come out and say it? If he doesn't really care about the force of the UN charter or the Geneva conventions why doesn't he just thumb his nose at these publically and repudiate the charges that going into Iraq for oil and the subsequent torture of prisoners was a war crime. If the commander and thief does not care about the UN then what does he have to fear from telling the truth?????? You chicken hawks can't have it both ways. Either you have to explain North Korea which was testing missles to reach the western United States (and we did nothing), or you have to get George to fess up about the oil issue. Those are the ONLY TWO CHOICES. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 29th, 2007 - 2:07 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Also posted at Bernie's site: Jay there is just no point in you believing the commander and thief and General Betrayus. These guys will sell you down the river just like Lyndon Johnson and General Westmoreland in Vietnam. Twice you are on the wrong side of history. Johnson was a dem by the way. Just today we found out that you can't even drive anymore on the road from the airport to the green zone, and that the green zone itself is more dangerous. I am telling you, to bet on Bush, if he were a racehorse, would be a guarantee that you would lose your money. Jay, you have the support of 29 percent of the people in the US, and the more the facts come out, the lower that will go. We have a 1.3 percent GDP growth, and a recession coming, and it matters. It matters to those in the midwest if Californians cannot use their houses as atm's to buy big cars anymore. You wait, the you-know-what will hit the fan, as the biggest number resets of subprime are just starting, in May and they will peak in November, then the resets of good credit exotics will begin full fold next year. So, we are in a war costing a trillion dollars, and we are facing a serious recession. And there is no bubble that can be set on fire to fix this. Greenspan set up the housing bubble to help fund Iraq, and this will also bite you guys in the midwest. This country could pull down the world economy, and it could destroy years of progress all because George Bush wanted to control the money and oil of the world. This reckless war is digging a huge hole for the United States. We will have the neocons to thank for economic disaster. We have two choices, see this illegal war through to the end with the government tanking the dollar and the economy, or get out and start to negotiate with countries that support us for oil, and switch to other fuels. I see Bush wanting the former, but he won't get that victory because as John McCain said, he relied on the worst secretary of state in the history of the nation, Rummy Rumsfeld. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 29th, 2007 - 2:34 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
More links posted at Bernie's site: George Tenet should have resigned and told the people of this country prior to the Iraq war that we went into Iraq for oil, that it was preplanned. But he didn't. He had a chance to be a hero, but he will be remembered as a shill to George Bush. Here is his story. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18348452/ Dan Bartlett, that little twit in the administration is again on the wrong side of the facts. He also forgot that Laurence Lindsey mentioned that the crucial issue of regime change was the oil issue. We now have three insiders who say we went into Iraq for oil. Paul Oneill, Tenet, and Laurence Lindsey. Here is the link to Bartlett's first lie: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/ _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 29th, 2007 - 7:54 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
I posted this at Bernardgoldberg.com after the 60 minute interview by George Tenet: According to the Tenet interview tonight on 60 minutes, Richard Perle to George Tenet the day after 9/11, "Iraq is going to pay for this". Neocon Perle had Iraq in his sights, so did Bush/Cheney/Rice. It didn't matter whether they had WMD's, although I think Cheney fiddled with the WMD issue at the CIA. Iraq had to do with oil, with regime change to gain oil, and to enhance the access to oil in the world, and the reserves of oil companies of nations that did not get in the way of the illegal war. The plan was already in existence according to Paul Oneill, which makes what Richard Perle said make a perverse sense. It is why Cheney went to such great links to tie Al Qaeda to Iraq and 9/11 to Iraq. But this episode proves one important thing, those admin folks are scared of international law, of the UN Charter making war for treasure and plunder illegal. That is why they went to such great pains to blame their invasion on WMD, democracy, crusades, Al Qaeda, etc. They would pin it on the NY Nicks or the Queen of Sheba if they could have. It is revolting, disgusting, the low point of the low in the history of our country. It would make the WW2 heroes turn over in their graves and ask why they fought to make this country free if it meant that the leaders would just blatantly lie to the people and to the military about the mission to Iraq. What betrayal, what inherent lack of respect these neocons have treated us with!! Bow down to King Bush, Jay. You may choose to lick his boots but I don't. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 1:32 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Some troubling thoughts to ponder after posting at Bernies site again: I want to throw some links at everyone. I have not made up my mind if they are all true, but there are two things that are quite disturbing about this study that sprung from a program I saw tonight on an alternative tv station. They raise major questions. First, the BROTHER of George Bush, Marvin Bush, was a partner in the security company that guarded the world trade center. I didn't know that. Second, there remains a gag order TO THIS DAY, so that firefighters that heard explosions on floors below the burning floors are not allowed to voice those testimonies. Third, it appears that building 7 was imploded. It fell just like a building that was imploded. Here is one link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html Here is another: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html And here is a wiki link showing that the neo conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century advocated that a Pearl Harbor type of event would be needed to get America to rise up as the dominant power in the world. Members include Bush/Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz/Armitage/Libby/Bolton/Quayle/Gaffney/Forbes/Perle/Rumsfeld/Rove/Krystol (at Fox News) Here is their link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Century With these rogues all on the same page, and with George Bush's strange response in that classroom when 9/11 hit, what do you think? I support Israel, but these rogues make it very difficult for Israel to make their bed with neocons don't you think? After all, the charter of the UN is important to Israel, even if it is not important to the neocon imperialists. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 10:06 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Another post at Bernies site: OK Jay, this report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" made by PNAC, Project for the New American Century was for real. And here is a quote from section V, remembering that George Bush and Dick Cheney were members of this neocon organization. I believe that this neocon group came to power and modified the Bush One multilateral New World Order. It appears this report was issued one year prior to 9/11: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new PEARL HARBOR. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." Jay remember, it was said that Pearl Harbor was permitted, allowed by Roosevelt to anger the US citizens to war. It would be fairly easy for the United States government to allow another Pearl Harbor with all the terrorists trying to attack in the world. Why on earth would this report mention the need for a new Pearl Harbor and Bush and Cheney were members!!! Jay, this is a very ominous coincidence, don't you think? It is clear that Rumsfeld was given the taske of doing all the other upgrades in this report. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Dick Cheney was in charge of looking the other way and of controlling the intelligence leading up to 9/11. Remember, it has been said by many in government that Cheney turned a deaf ear as did Condi Rice, sweet little girl that she is. Remember Jay, Bush repeatedly has said this Iraq War is as important as WW2. Well, of course, it was started by another Pearl Harbor. How logical of the man!! http://manifestor.org/imperium/archive/PNAC.html _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 10:23 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Another post about the Democrats position at Bernies site: I am just not writing this for you Jay. But if you get the time someday look into it. This is not a happy world. It is part of growing up to realize that. But don't think the Dems are not guilty of blood for oil either. See this post from: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=63687 "Kucinich Statement on the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report HR 1591 Washington, Apr 25 - WASHINGTON, DC — Following passage of the supplemental conference report this evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich released the following statement: This “Supplemental” is a plan to extort Iraq’s oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a “hydrocarbon act” which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds “share” whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq." Jay, it is tough to fight City Hall. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 1:17 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Here are interesting links regarding the VIPS and what discussions went on Tucker today. I am proud of him for FINALLY discussing these things: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14225-2004Jul25.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity Look at the links at the bottom of the Wiki article. These guys are like many of us, learning as we go along. _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 3:51 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Another post at Bernies: This link is the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton, urging regime change. Don't let anyone tell you that these guys who took over the government with George Bush, were not after regime change PRIOR to Bush' election, let alone 9/11. These are the same guys who wanted a new Pearl Harbor as well, to speed the US toward warrior status. These morons still have this letter posted. They probably want to spy on the links: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm _________________ Gary Anderson No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Apr 30th, 2007 - 5:41 PM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
If they ever take away the above link here is the PNAC letter to Clinton: January 26, 1998 The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely, Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis ******** Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 May 1st, 2007 - 8:19 AM |
Re: Iraq. My views. Post your views.
Another post at Bernies: I have mentioned that the strength of the dollar was a reason why Bush wanted to control petrodollars, invading Iraq after they switched to the Euro. Now we are in a bind. The dollar is falling, the housing market is tanking, and we are beginning to look like Japan. This situation is deflationary big time. Yet the fed is concerned about inflation, sort of in a box, with interest rates too high to help this deflationary plunge in housing. At thestreet.com it has been calculated that housing prices went up 85 percent in 10 years in Japan. Employment remained high at the beginning of the housing slump, and it all came crashing down. In the US for the last 10 years, hou |