monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Last night I watched Rachel Maddow put her spin on this mess. she literally was bouncing in her chair and her adam's apple was bouncing up and down in tune. She really was enjoying herself as she always does when she gets to talk 'boy's' talk of war and related things. Correctly, she told us in screeches how it was Bush and his neocons fault that all this slaughter and brutality took place to begin with. Which most surely must have given all her listeners a warm feeling of innocence, even in the face of all the slaughter. But then I thought, there's something wrong with this picture? What is she doing? Is what she is doing being done in a deliberate attempt to get a false message across. Is she that smart? Or is it that she is only doing what has been so well learned by US media announcers on both sides of the aisle? Is Rachel giving us the real true message? Finally, I came to a conclusion that I believe is correct. It wasn't Bush2's fault and it wasn't the neocons' fault at all. THE UNITED STATES DID IT! Forget the left/right spin and counterspin, it's all a diversion, conscious or otherwise, to keep us from cutting to the chase. Conscious or otherwise? I'm leaning more and more toward the former. p.s. On Guard for Thee. Where's the humour I'm missing in your suggestion that we don't know why Bush2 did it? How long are we supposed to keep pretending that the UNITED STATES didn't do it for oil? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849 Iraq has formally called on the United States to launch air strikes against jihadist militants who have seized several key cities. "We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power," confirmed top US military commander Gen Martin Dempsey. The announcement came after insurgents launched an attack on Iraq's biggest oil refinery north of Baghdad. PM Nouri Maliki earlier urged Iraqis to unite against the militants. Another mistake is about to happen putting the region into more risk of yet more extreme violence. Since the drones worked so well in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I expect a few wedding parties to end in tragedy. National interest to fight ISIS wherever they are. I think I've heard something like that with regards to Al-Queda. Good thing Al-Queda has had their numbers reduced and leaders killed or they would still be causing problems over there ............ Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849 Another mistake is about to happen putting the region into more risk of yet more extreme violence. Since the drones worked so well in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I expect a few wedding parties to end in tragedy. National interest to fight ISIS wherever they are. I think I've heard something like that with regards to Al-Queda. Good thing Al-Queda has had their numbers reduced and leaders killed or they would still be causing problems over there ............ The US war planners have expressed a lot of doubt on whether or not drone attacks or bombing can accomplish anything in Iraq now. The obvious problem is that there needs to be 'on the ground' intelligence in order to determine who to kill. That is no longer present in Iraq according to Richard Cohen and obviously some other experts. And so, to start bombing without that intelligence there would obviously be a lot of 'their own' killed by mistake. Would Cohen lie? Has the US actually maintained a US intelligence presence in Iraq just in case things started to go bad? There's very little enthusiasm coming out of the US at the moment for renewing the occupation and it's at least believable that the 275 are being put in Iraq to defend the US's embassy. However, if intelligence personnel are being planted in Iraq as we speak, it would surely escape notice of the media. I for one doubt it's happening. And it's pretty certain that the decision to bomb Iraq's people hasn't been made yet. There's some hope with Obama that it won't happen. The most optimistic approach at the moment is to say that ISIS won't be able to take Baghdad because of their small numbers. I'm going to suggest that they will come up with the numbers necessary when the time comes. In the meantime it's quite likely that the car bombings will be restarted in earnest. How in hell is the US going to bomb that? But the real hope for the US is that Iran is going to come to their rescue. The US is saying that they won't become Iran's air force but there doesn't appear to be any other solution? Ideas? Discussion? Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 the U.S. broke it... the U.S. can fix it! In keeping with the past Cheney/Rumsfeld declarations one can expect that if the U.S. "goes in again", "it will be greeted as a liberator... and it might last 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 months, but certainly not any longer than that!" Obama inherited a secure and stable Iraq, with zero U.S. casualties per month. And he squandered it all for purely political reasons. He's the one who broke it, after a great deal of effort to fix the problems. Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Last night I watched Rachel Maddow put her spin on this mess. she literally was bouncing in her chair and her adam's apple was bouncing up and down in tune. She really was enjoying herself as she always does when she gets to talk 'boy's' talk of war and related things. Correctly, she told us in screeches how it was Bush and his neocons fault that all this slaughter and brutality took place to begin with. Which most surely must have given all her listeners a warm feeling of innocence, even in the face of all the slaughter. But then I thought, there's something wrong with this picture? What is she doing? Is what she is doing being done in a deliberate attempt to get a false message across. Is she that smart? Or is it that she is only doing what has been so well learned by US media announcers on both sides of the aisle? Is Rachel giving us the real true message? Finally, I came to a conclusion that I believe is correct. It wasn't Bush2's fault and it wasn't the neocons' fault at all. THE UNITED STATES DID IT! Forget the left/right spin and counterspin, it's all a diversion, conscious or otherwise, to keep us from cutting to the chase. Conscious or otherwise? I'm leaning more and more toward the former. p.s. On Guard for Thee. Where's the humour I'm missing in your suggestion that we don't know why Bush2 did it? How long are we supposed to keep pretending that the UNITED STATES didn't do it for oil? The nonsense about it being for oil is an easy cop-out to a much more complex issue. But the nonsense about it being for oil is much easier, and results in much less critical thinking. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Obama inherited a secure and stable Iraq, with zero U.S. casualties per month. And he squandered it all for purely political reasons. He's the one who broke it, after a great deal of effort to fix the problems. It was never secure and never stable after the US 'left'. IN your own words, Absolute nonsense. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Obama inherited a secure and stable Iraq, with zero U.S. casualties per month. And he squandered it all for purely political reasons. He's the one who broke it, after a great deal of effort to fix the problems. Shady, you're not getting in step with current events. As Canadians we need to try to rise about the internal US blaming of one side against the other. From a Canadian POV, nothing else is really important any more than just understanding that the US DID IT! So in that spirit of cooperation and friendliness with my fellow Canadians, I'm with you. And fwiw, I'll even say that Obama is to blame for Iraq, both currently and historically if you like. All I want you to acknowledge is that Obama is just another American. Now let's talk about Iraq! Neighbour! Fellow Canadian! Dare I say, Friend? (snicker) Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 It was never secure and never stable after the US 'left'. IN your own words, Absolute nonsense. It was significantly more secure and stable. Those are facts. The violence in Iraq dropped off of a cliff. Statistics don't lie. But some people around here do. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 The nonsense about it being for oil is an easy cop-out to a much more complex issue. But the nonsense about it being for oil is much easier, and results in much less critical thinking. Actually there is an even more simple cop-out with the line of blaming Muslims. Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Actually there is an even more simple cop-out with the line of blaming Muslims. That would be wrong as well. The origins of the Iraq invasion are much more complex. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 That would be wrong as well. The origins of the Iraq invasion are much more complex. Well at least you are starting to get it. You've come a long way Shady. Be proud. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 The nonsense about it being for oil is an easy cop-out to a much more complex issue. But the nonsense about it being for oil is much easier, and results in much less critical thinking. It's about oil. Period! If anyone wants to get into a detailed discussion on that then I'm more than willing to help them understand. So if you think I want to make it easy and blame it on oil then you're either going to have to put up or shut up. You say it's a much more complex issue but you didn't explain in the least what is so complex about it? So first of all, it's about oil. That's undeniable of course because it's not about Iraq's cabbage crop. Now give us just a little bit of the complexity you are so obviously capable of giving. Or, as I said, why not just shut up and pretend that you've won the debate again? Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 It's about oil. Period! If anyone wants to get into a detailed discussion on that then I'm more than willing to help them understand. So if you think I want to make it easy and blame it on oil then you're either going to have to put up or shut up. You say it's a much more complex issue but you didn't explain in the least what is so complex about it? So first of all, it's about oil. That's undeniable of course because it's not about Iraq's cabbage crop. Now give us just a little bit of the complexity you are so obviously capable of giving. Or, as I said, why not just shut up and pretend that you've won the debate again? It's not about oil. Otherwise, there would be, and have been, an extensive supply chain transporting Iraqi oil to America. That never happened, or is happening. America has received, and is receiving, barely any oil from Iraq. That's a fact. Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 It's not about oil.Speaking of complexities, it must have blown your mind then when the price of oil went up in response to that crisis. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Speaking of complexities, it must have blown your mind then when the price of oil went up in response to that crisis. Not really. Whenever there's an interruption, or even a risk of an interruption in the global oil supply, market usually reacts negatively. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Not really. Whenever there's an interruption, or even a risk of an interruption in the global oil supply, market usually reacts negatively. Iraq is not the center or even a major player in global production of oil. Not since the invasion by the USA. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 It's not about oil. Otherwise, there would be, and have been, an extensive supply chain transporting Iraqi oil to America. That never happened, or is happening. America has received, and is receiving, barely any oil from Iraq. That's a fact. Come on Shady, I know you're not that stupid. And I'm going to set the record straight and tell you that I'm not either. In fact, it's a bit of an insult to me that you would say it. But I'll be brief and start at the beginning just in case? For beginners. Sesame Street style. The world's oil goes into one big bucket and that's what sets world prices. Full bucket, lower prices. Nuff said. And now the key question. If it's not all about oil then what is it about? Be brave! Here's a few suggestions: WMD's terrorism cabbage crop weapons testing any of the above and oil Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Speaking of complexities, it must have blown your mind then when the price of oil went up in response to that crisis. Hahahahaha! Too funny! That is by far the best explanation and the best comment on the situation I've heard in a long time. And you managed to add a little humour too! Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Iraq is not the center or even a major player in global production of oil. Not since the invasion by the USA. Exactly. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Exactly. So WTF are you trying to say then? Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Come on Shady, I know you're not that stupid. And I'm going to set the record straight and tell you that I'm not either. In fact, it's a bit of an insult to me that you would say it.But I'll be brief and start at the beginning just in case? For beginners. Sesame Street style. The world's oil goes into one big bucket and that's what sets world prices. Full bucket, lower prices. Nuff said.And now the key question. If it's not all about oil then what is it about? Be brave!Here's a few suggestions:WMD'sterrorismcabbage cropweapons testingany of the above and oil It was about Saddam Hussein, oil, terrorism, Israel, and the broader Middle East. Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 So WTF are you trying to say then? That it wasn't war for oil. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 It was about Saddam Hussein, oil, terrorism, Israel, and the broader Middle East. That it wasn't war for oil. Which is it? Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Which is it? Like I've already stated, many things. Not just oil. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Like I've already stated, many things. Not just oil. So you need to make a correction or at least a clarification. We would not want to be confused about what you are saying. Oil was still part of it. Haliburton (oil and infrastructure) and Blackwater (protection for Haliburton) and other companies made a KILLING off Iraq. Edited June 18, 2014 by GostHacked Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.