kuzadd Posted November 12, 2007 Report Posted November 12, 2007 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705 U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry. oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/n...ui_n_72174.html entire article above link, with pics a little more, The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own. I love that pentagon BS "no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq" Yet, they have built "Vatican 2" oh sorry, that's the embassy , for starters, another one( a base) on the iranian border and this one atop an oil platform!!! No intent of staying though, LOL, God I roll every time I read this claptrap. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Topaz Posted November 12, 2007 Report Posted November 12, 2007 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/n...ui_n_72174.html entire article above link, with pics a little more, I love that pentagon BS "no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq" Yet, they have built "Vatican 2" oh sorry, that's the embassy , for starters, another one( a base) on the iranian border and this one atop an oil platform!!! No intent of staying though, LOL, God I roll every time I read this claptrap. This isn't the the first a president has done this, they did to guard elsewhere, like southern Europe, so Russia couldn't get their hands on them and I'm sure else where, the government just doesn't tell taxpayer were their money is going! Just 'goggle" US military and oil see what comes up. Quote
Wilber Posted November 15, 2007 Report Posted November 15, 2007 Stalin had the "Fatherland", Hitler had the "Motherland" and now Bush has the "Homeland" I always thought it was Hitler who had the "Fatherland" and Stalin the "Motherland". Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 15, 2007 Report Posted November 15, 2007 Still, Iraq needs it's oil revenues if it is to recover economically. It's not just an important issue to the US. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted November 15, 2007 Report Posted November 15, 2007 Sounds smart to me. Especially when there's Iranian Rev Guards scooting by in boghammers with the potential to threaten the lives of innocent oil workers....... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kuzadd Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Posted November 16, 2007 I always thought it was Hitler who had the "Fatherland" and Stalin the "Motherland". oddly enough this signature has raised that question quite a bit. during ww2 Stalin embraced the Fatherland, while Hitler used the Motherland check this out: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=265222 And yet when Russian soldiers went to the front, they wrote on their tanks for the fatherland and for Stalin. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Posted November 16, 2007 Still, Iraq needs it's oil revenues if it is to recover economically. It's not just an important issue to the US. Iraq, will not see any or very,very little revenue from it's own oil. There was news about the very profitable agreements, made for western oil co. Not for iraq. "The flag, follows the money and the troops follow the flags."Gen. Smedley Butler But this was always about "wmd's" no, I mean "freedom and democracy". Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Posted November 16, 2007 Especially when there's Iranian Rev Guards scooting by in boghammers with the potential to threaten the lives of innocent oil workers....... Yes, I can well imagine the US gives a hoot about "innocent oil workers"? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2007 Report Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) oddly enough this signature has raised that question quite a bit.during ww2 Stalin embraced the Fatherland, while Hitler used the Motherland That's only partially true...remember kuzzadd? Easy there, GI Jane. Seems we're both right. After November 1941, Stalin started refering to Russia in his speeches as 'the Motherland' Before that, there are examples of him using 'the Fatherland' in his speeches. This change of gender was apparently due to two reasons:1) To bring back some of the Tsarist traditions in order to boost moral amoungst the army and civilian population. The term 'Motherland' being one of those traditions. Churches were reopened for example and old religious icons paraded about. 2) To be the opposite of the now hated Germans. For example: July 1941/ http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/stalin1.htm Nov 1941/ http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411107a.html In Mein Kamph, Hitler terms it "The Fatherland"...which is the traditional German terminology. However, some historians claim that Hitler used Germany as an analogy for his mother, Klara, while Austria was his father(land). Thus the few references here and there to Hitlter's 'Germany= Motherland'. This also apparently changed for good when Austria and Germany joined together during Anschluss...his first misson accomplished. Великая Отечественная война...while it does use отец as the root, it doesn't mean "father", but "domestic". The more common term is родина which means all three: motherland, fatherland, homeland. And yet when Russian soldiers went to the front, they wrote on their tanks for the fatherland and for Stalin. They used родина which means all three: Motherland, Fatherland, Homeland. ----------------------------------------------------------- Who's leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here? ---Brian the Dog: Family Guy Edited November 16, 2007 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kuzadd Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) That's only partially true...remember kuzzadd?And yet when Russian soldiers went to the front, they wrote on their tanks for the fatherland and for Stalin. They used родина which means all three: Motherland, Fatherland, Homeland. ----------------------------------------------------------- Who's leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here? ---Brian the Dog: Family Guy It is correct, though isn't it? Stalin used Fatherland in his speeches, didn't he? weren't we in fact both correct, in light of the fact that Hitler was using Motherland. "German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland. And not, indeed on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever. No, no. Even if the union were a matter of economic indifference, and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economic standpoint, still it ought to[Page 648] But the point of the lingo, is already explained. Wilber or you can switch it around as you please, the point is still the same. Fatherland, motherland, homeland, rhetoric, for the state as "caretaker", frightening. Edited November 16, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted November 16, 2007 Report Posted November 16, 2007 Yes, I can well imagine the US gives a hoot about "innocent oil workers"? I doubt you have the capacity. Never the less the US and Britain and ject about every western nation takes the oil production and security very seriously, especially given many of the techs on those platforms are their citizens. Perhaps you don't remember the mayhem of the tankers wars and the damage inflicted by Iran with their boghammers on civilian shipping and property. Again, this is a prudent move. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2007 Report Posted November 16, 2007 It is correct, though isn't it? Partially correct. Take note: 'Fatherland' used by Stalin pre-invasion. ------------------------------------------ More than once, thousands and thousands of young Germans have stepped forward with self-sacrificing resolve to sacrifice their young lives freely and joyfully on the altar of the beloved Fatherland. ---Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. Let the victorious banner of the great Lenin fly over your heads! Utter destruction to the German invaders! Death to the German armies of occupation! Long live our glorious Motherland, her freedom and her independence! Under the banner of Lenin-onward to victory! ---Joseph Stalin, November 7, 1941 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.