|
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... How much you wanna bet the deal goes through, and your moron president announces a short list of absurd reasons why it's a great idea? The only way that the deal won't go through is if China refuses to budge on the currency stalemate. *If* the deal goes through, the real reasons won't be made public. China is being pressured to float it's currency. If the deal goes through, China will miraculously relent on the currency issue, and finally let their currency float...which would help America's economy in the long run. |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:24:25 +0000, NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... How much you wanna bet the deal goes through, and your moron president announces a short list of absurd reasons why it's a great idea? The only way that the deal won't go through is if China refuses to budge on the currency stalemate. *If* the deal goes through, the real reasons won't be made public. Frankly, I'm not sure the deal can be legally stopped. While there will be a CFIUS review, it is unlikely that the UNOCAL deal will meet it's guidelines for denial. http://www.treas.gov/offices/interna...s/exon-florio/ China is being pressured to float it's currency. If the deal goes through, China will miraculously relent on the currency issue, and finally let their currency float...which would help America's economy in the long run. Doubtful. China has already stated it will re-peg it's yuan from it's 8.28 level, "in it's own time", but to float the yuan, very doubtful. China hasn't a history of responding to outside pressures, and with an over $100 billion trade surplus with the US, UNOCAL at $18 billion, is small potatoes. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:24:25 +0000, NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... How much you wanna bet the deal goes through, and your moron president announces a short list of absurd reasons why it's a great idea? The only way that the deal won't go through is if China refuses to budge on the currency stalemate. *If* the deal goes through, the real reasons won't be made public. Frankly, I'm not sure the deal can be legally stopped. While there will be a CFIUS review, it is unlikely that the UNOCAL deal will meet it's guidelines for denial. http://www.treas.gov/offices/interna...s/exon-florio/ " Factors To Be Considered. The Exon-Florio provision lists the following factors that the President or his designee may consider in determining the effects of a foreign acquisition on national security. These factors a (snip) (3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security; " Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. You don't think he'll see CNOOC's control of a US oil company as something that potentially "affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security"? I do. China is being pressured to float it's currency. If the deal goes through, China will miraculously relent on the currency issue, and finally let their currency float...which would help America's economy in the long run. Doubtful. China has already stated it will re-peg it's yuan from it's 8.28 level, "in it's own time", but to float the yuan, very doubtful. China hasn't a history of responding to outside pressures, I don't think approval of the UNOCAL deal is enough bargaining power to get the Chinese to float their currency...but it will at least provide a veil for both sides to meet under and discuss the currency impasse. and with an over $100 billion trade surplus with the US, UNOCAL at $18 billion, is small potatoes. Much of the trade surplus is because their currency is pegged. The Chinese are starting to **** off Europe, Japan, and Canada...who, combined, do as much trade or more with China than we do. China has no choice but to relent on this issue, or face harsh tariffs all over the place. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major factor? Newsgroups: rec.boats From: "NOYB" - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 18:50:45 GMT Local: Thurs,May 1 2003 2:50 pm Subject: Bush lied us into a war...the S.O.B. Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... megabite wrote: OK! He lied. So What!....There is nothing you or anyone else is going to do about it. It's important to note, I believe, that while Bill Clinton lied about meaningless sex acts, Dubya the Doof lies about really important stuff...and gets away with it. Bush had about a half dozen reasons for invading Iraq, or so he said, and now each of those reasons is being discarded. Why did Bush invade Iraq? To pump up his ratings and to provide a pay-off for his political friends ...you forgot to mention that, strategically, there's not a better country to occupy while we reshape the Middle East. Geographically, it provides a perfect launching pad for attacks against terrorist groups in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Conveniently, it also happens to have the World's second largest (some might even say *largest*) oil reserves. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major factor? Two years ago, you were still backing up the childish reasons he was feeding half the country (the morons who need pablum 3 meals per day, and voted for him). Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". |
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. There is no evidence that President Bush takes anything seriously except playing golf... in video games, not for real... A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major factor? Doug Kanter wrote: Two years ago, you were still backing up the childish reasons he was feeding half the country (the morons who need pablum 3 meals per day, and voted for him). Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". And please note that in quoting his own post, saying that oils was the reason, he did NOT put oil as the first reason. And his other reasons, such as using Iraq as a base for launching attacks against Iran and/or Syria, have proven to be pipe dreams. Also notice that NOBBY (along with his Krause-obsessed claque of fascist pea-brains) has *never* acknowledged the basic fact that there were never WMDs and no ties to Sept 11th. It will be interesting to see what President Bush has to say in trying to rally support for his Iraq war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4631339.stm Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message
... one wonders why he's even trying. DSK Because the idiot thinks a "poll" is what you tie your dog to in the yard. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major factor? Two years ago, you were still backing up the childish reasons he was feeding half the country (the morons who need pablum 3 meals per day, and voted for him). Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". But it's not "oil. Period". It's oil...and a whole list of other reasons. But oil is the biggie. |
... Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real
reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". NOYB wrote: But it's not "oil. Period". It's oil...and a whole list of other reasons. But oil is the biggie. If that's the case, then why all the smokescreen about using Iraq as a strategic base, keeping terrorists at arm's length, and of course WMDs? We both know the reason, I'm just curious as to whether or not you can admit it publicly. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply. There is no evidence that President Bush takes anything seriously except playing golf... in video games, not for real... A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to this country. You get extra cookies today. Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major factor? Doug Kanter wrote: Two years ago, you were still backing up the childish reasons he was feeding half the country (the morons who need pablum 3 meals per day, and voted for him). Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". And please note that in quoting his own post, saying that oils was the reason, he did NOT put oil as the first reason. And his other reasons, such as using Iraq as a base for launching attacks against Iran and/or Syria, have proven to be pipe dreams. Patience. He's not even 6 full months into his second term. It took 2 years in his first term before finally attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam. Also notice that NOBBY (along with his Krause-obsessed claque of fascist pea-brains) has *never* acknowledged the basic fact that there were never WMDs and no ties to Sept 11th. Because that's not a fact. As Cheney said "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Even Duelfer admitted that "we just can't say for sure that no WMD's or WMD-related material were shipped to Syria". Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. |
one wonders why he's even trying.
Doug Kanter wrote: Because the idiot thinks a "poll" is what you tie your dog to in the yard. But hey, *this* President leads from conviction, he doesn't pay attention to polls! That's why he's giving speeches attempting to bolster support for his Iraq war, becase he doesn't care about polls! Every time you think Bush & Cheney can't possibly sink any lower in mendacity & hypocrisy, they invent a new way of dropping the bar. DSK |
.... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow
*any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. NOYB wrote: Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames! ... Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman. DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. So, you're saying the insurgency is NOT on its last legs, and that the agencies whose people are in Iraq (as opposed to a golf course in Virginia) are completely wrong? |
"Red Cloud©" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:13:56 -0400, DSK wrote: .... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. NOYB wrote: Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames! ... Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman. DSK Pentagon Auditors Flag up to $1 Billion in Overcharges by Halliburt-HEY, LOOK IT'S THAT ARUBA GIRL! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc rusty redcloud Good article, but as in the past, nothing will change, and we all know why. |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:41:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:
You don't think he'll see CNOOC's control of a US oil company as something that potentially "affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security"? I do. I saw more of a threat from China's purchase of IBM's PC business (Lenovo), or the technology transferring from Boeing. Frankly, I don't like seeing American assets leaving, but unfortunately, the flag of multi-national corporations is green, not Red, White, and Blue. Much of the trade surplus is because their currency is pegged. The Chinese are starting to **** off Europe, Japan, and Canada...who, combined, do as much trade or more with China than we do. China has no choice but to relent on this issue, or face harsh tariffs all over the place. I just don't see it. Tariffs are a two edged sword. I would expect to see a revaluing of the yuan, but not a float. Time will tell. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Red Cloud©" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:13:56 -0400, DSK wrote: .... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. NOYB wrote: Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames! ... Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman. DSK Pentagon Auditors Flag up to $1 Billion in Overcharges by Halliburt-HEY, LOOK IT'S THAT ARUBA GIRL! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc rusty redcloud Good article, but as in the past, nothing will change, and we all know why. Because there's no substance to it? |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. So, you're saying the insurgency is NOT on its last legs, and that the agencies whose people are in Iraq (as opposed to a golf course in Virginia) are completely wrong? Those people are wrong in referring to the people blowing up car bombs as "insurgents". The "insurgency" (Saddam's Fedayeen henchmen) is certainly in its final throes. What you're seeing now are foreign-born terrorists. Prime Minister al-Jaafari explained it best in an interview with David Gregory the other day: GREGORY: Vice President Cheney said a few days ago that he thinks the insurgency is in its final throes. Do you agree with that? AL-JAAFARI: Indeed. It's true. We do not call them insurgents. We call them terrorists. Because that's what they do. They carry out acts of terrorism against innocent people, men, women and children and it is true that with the help of friends and with the support of our friends and with our securing our borders, we will very soon defeat terrorism. GREGORY: Well, here's a different view. The top military commander in the Persian Gulf actually disagrees with the vice president, saying that the insurgency is as strong today as it was six months ago. This after successful elections in January. This after a political process that's moving toward a constitution in August. Why hasn't the insurgency been brought to its heels? AL-JAAFARI: I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... ... Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period". NOYB wrote: But it's not "oil. Period". It's oil...and a whole list of other reasons. But oil is the biggie. If that's the case, then why all the smokescreen about using Iraq as a strategic base, keeping terrorists at arm's length, and of course WMDs? Because those things are all true...and a lot easier for the average American to understand. Wolfowitz admitted as much when he said that there were several reasons we went to war with Iraq, but the administration "chose the one area issue everyone could agree on" (ie--WMD). We both know the reason, I'm just curious as to whether or not you can admit it publicly. Admit "what" publicly? That there were several reasons for going to war? Was Pearl Harbor the only reason we went to war with Japan *and* Germany? No. But it was the catalyst mixed in with a bunch of other ingredients. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:41:20 +0000, NOYB wrote: You don't think he'll see CNOOC's control of a US oil company as something that potentially "affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security"? I do. I saw more of a threat from China's purchase of IBM's PC business (Lenovo), or the technology transferring from Boeing. Frankly, I don't like seeing American assets leaving, but unfortunately, the flag of multi-national corporations is green, not Red, White, and Blue. Much of the trade surplus is because their currency is pegged. The Chinese are starting to **** off Europe, Japan, and Canada...who, combined, do as much trade or more with China than we do. China has no choice but to relent on this issue, or face harsh tariffs all over the place. I just don't see it. Tariffs are a two edged sword. I would expect to see a revaluing of the yuan, but not a float. Initially, a revalue. Eventually, a float. China would going into a severe depression if they floated their currency over night. |
If that's the case, then why all the smokescreen about using Iraq as a
strategic base, keeping terrorists at arm's length, and of course WMDs? NOYB wrote: Because those things are all true...and a lot easier for the average American to understand. In other words, you think that a majority... perhaps 51%... of Americans' are too stupid to understand, and that's why they voted for Bush & Cheney? Wolfowitz admitted as much when he said that there were several reasons we went to war with Iraq, but the administration "chose the one area issue everyone could agree on" (ie--WMD). And it was a big fat lie from day 1. We both know the reason, I'm just curious as to whether or not you can admit it publicly. Admit "what" publicly? That there were several reasons for going to war? No, that Bush & Cheney lie routinely, because it's their only option to try and hold some positive opinion among those too stupid to understand the truth. Was Pearl Harbor the only reason we went to war with Japan *and* Germany? No, German subs attacked U.S. ships before we declared war on them. Of course, that wasn't the *only* reason either. Germany & Italy & Japan had attacked & invaded other nations we were allied with. ... it was the catalyst mixed in with a bunch of other ingredients. So, you agree that we had solid reasons for entering WW2 (despite the widespread Republican hatred of FDR) but that Bush & Cheney had to fall back on a lame-ass lies to convince Americans to back the war against Iraq? DSK |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. Zzzzzzzzzz........... Yep, you're sleeping in class again, Doug. You have a comprehension problem. I give up. Have a nice "ignorance is bliss" life. |
Bill McKee wrote:
China is an oil importer! They require oil to supply the factories that produce all that made in China stuff. Is why they bid an extremely high price for Unocal Oil. 1% if Unocal's oil reserves are US based, the other 99% are in Asia. Now tell me why oil is increasing because of Bush and not the old supply and demand curve? We and China have fairly strong economies. And add India to the mix. wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... That's: Bad for Bush Bad for the US Bad for boating. :-( I agree. And what exactly did Bush have to do with this? Here you go Jim: Don't Blame OPEC; Higher Gas Prices Are Almost Entirely Bush's Fault Dave Lindorff, ILCA Associate Member What is making oil so expensive is not energy policy or even SUV's, dangerous as those are for the environment. It's Bush's massive deficits and his willful destruction of the US dollar that has gas selling at $2.30 a gallon and rising. There's been a lot of hand-wringing going on among economists and politicians, and a lot of fuming at the gas pump by consumers over the soaring price of oil over the last two years. Increasingly, concern is being expressed by treasury officials and economists about the negative impact soaring oil prices and related gas prices could have on the overall economy. Politicians--especially Republicans--are also fretting, since the thousands of extra dollars consumers are now spending on electricity, home heating and gasoline have, for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, more than cancelled out any minimal benefits they saw from the president's tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The focus of all this anger and angst is oil prices. As a result, everyone is looking at culprits in the wrong place, blaming wasteful energy use, OPEC production quotas, monopolistic oil companies and/or conniving oil traders. In fact the real culprit behind these higher oil prices is the Bush Administration, which, thanks to its massive deficits and tax give-aways to the rich and corporations, to its war spending, and to its failure to combat unprecedented and ever-larger trade deficits, has been causing the dollar to plunge in value. Oil is a commodity and it is priced in dollars. If dollars decline in value, then the price of oil will rise in inverse proportion. One need only look at Europe to see what this means. Over the period from February 1, 2003, just before the start of the Iraq War, when oil prices began to rise in earnest, to Feb. 1, 2005, the price of a barrel of oil in dollars rose about 30 percent, from $30.13 a barrel to $42.91 a barrel. But over that same period of time, the Euro, Europe's new combined currency, rose 21 percent against the U.S. dollar, from .93 Euros to the dollar in February, 2003 to just .77 to the U.S. dollar in February, 2005. For Europeans, then, the net rise in oil prices over the two years of the Iraq War has been just 9 percent, or less than 5 percent per year--hardly the kind of energy inflation that would cause economic problems. And this situation is likely to get only worse. Some Wall Street oil industry analysts are now predicting that oil could, before too long, hit $100 a barrel. What they are saying really is that the dollar is likely to fall in value by 50 percent. Should that happen, though, the OPEC states would likely at some point along the way decide that it is ridiculous for them to continue pricing oil in dollars, since the piles of dollars filling their bank vaults will be losing value faster than their oil wells are being drained. At some point, the oil producing states, including Russia and Norway, will inevitably switch to pricing their oil in a basket of currencies--a basket that would prominently feature the Euro and probably the Japanese Yen. At that point there would be little left to prop up the dollar, and it could end up becoming little better than a Third World currency. And that is Bush's fault? The policy of spreading the wealth around means Americans must accept a lower standard of living, a sustainable one, so others can come closer to a level that would seem equitable. No one would dare to suggest that some country's leaders can see the worldwide inequities and concocted a strategy to equalise them, bringing security and peace by forcing us to accept equality in lifestyle for the masses, if not the few super rich. It has only been a hundred years since most people lived on farms with no running water, don't forget. The present situation is a runaway future shock bubble of stupendous growth in every area, amazing improvements for a small percentage of the totality on earth, stupor and stagnation for many. The rich will give to the poor, but perhaps not willingly. The rich will be taxed and the poor will be subsidised. Manipulating the price of oil might just be one link in a chain. I have believed for years that the oil patch guys want the price higher, but could not decide what their reason might really be. They don't care about the money, they are not merely a little bit rich, don't forget. It comes down to a man's legacy. What use is it to be the richest dead guy in the cemetary? If only it really goes that way, instead of some rich *******s getting richer by screwing the poorest and weakest and most defensless again. I thought many years ago that we rich (in relative worldwide terms) would learn to accept a little less if the poor might have a little less stolen from them to subsidize us. Is the only way to coerce altruism from the selfish rich majority in a relatively rich country a de facto clandestine conspiracy to fleece we who do not consider ourselves rich, so as to pull us down and the poor up a little? How would you try to accomplish this, if you had the levers of power? ---part two------ So now oil is headed for 100/bbl? Will oil sands investment finally get to where it should be? The sands contain 1/3 of the world's oil reserves, and there is plenty, but has been uneconomical, they said, until it gets to er, excuse me, but this is the truth...35/bbl. Will then one or two surprise new oil refineries cause the prices to crash and all that investment dissapear? Where does money like that disappear to? Impatience? Is that price a spot price for the best crude on a specific witchey date governed by puts and options and hedges and quarterly balance sheets? What does it really cost to pull a bbl of oil up the hole? 2 bucks? One? Does it depend on how many guards you must pay to stand near the pipeline? Think, dammit! Terry K Publish! |
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Jack Goff" wrote in message om... For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. The price is not connected with the physical reality of the supply. It is being determined by traders who bet on things that have not happened yet. Do you understand the futures market? Do you know what it is? Zzzzzzzzzz........... Spot price. Future obligations. Best sweet crude. Futures, puts and options. Hedges. Speculation. Paranoia, panic, psychosis. News hounds. Too much coke. Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in refineries or new wells, YET! You figure it out. Terry K |
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... Pentagon Auditors Flag up to $1 Billion in Overcharges by Halliburt-HEY, LOOK IT'S THAT ARUBA GIRL! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc rusty redcloud Good article, but as in the past, nothing will change, and we all know why. Because there's no substance to it? Who told you to say that? |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even trying. Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second chance to learn the material. So, you're saying the insurgency is NOT on its last legs, and that the agencies whose people are in Iraq (as opposed to a golf course in Virginia) are completely wrong? Those people are wrong in referring to the people blowing up car bombs as "insurgents". The "insurgency" (Saddam's Fedayeen henchmen) is certainly in its final throes. What you're seeing now are foreign-born terrorists. Prime Minister al-Jaafari explained it best in an interview with David Gregory the other day: GREGORY: Vice President Cheney said a few days ago that he thinks the insurgency is in its final throes. Do you agree with that? AL-JAAFARI: Indeed. It's true. We do not call them insurgents. We call them terrorists. Because that's what they do. They carry out acts of terrorism against innocent people, men, women and children and it is true that with the help of friends and with the support of our friends and with our securing our borders, we will very soon defeat terrorism. GREGORY: Well, here's a different view. The top military commander in the Persian Gulf actually disagrees with the vice president, saying that the insurgency is as strong today as it was six months ago. This after successful elections in January. This after a political process that's moving toward a constitution in August. Why hasn't the insurgency been brought to its heels? AL-JAAFARI: I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists. This is the silliest thing you've said in a long time. |
"NOBBY" wrote
... And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. Funny, that's not what the Army intel and CIA guys say. I read a report the other week that said only about 1/4 of the terrorists in Iraq were 'foreign fighters.' "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists. Doug Kanter wrote: This is the silliest thing you've said in a long time. Well, he's trying to re-define what "is" is, so that Bush/Cheney won't look so ridiculous. Another funny thing is the way they don't say a word about Halliburton any more. Halliburton pretty much admitted to the first $125 million of theft & fraud, maybe because it's just a drop in the bucket. Now they're faced with the possibility of losing serious money... but hey, just lie like a rug, pretend everything's OK, and hum a few hymns, it'll all blow over! Meanwhile, Iraqis have pretty much given up on getting their electricity & water turned back on. The US contractors are spending more on security than they are on the actual projects, and marking time. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message
... Meanwhile, Iraqis have pretty much given up on getting their electricity & water turned back on. The US contractors are spending more on security than they are on the actual projects, and marking time. You don't need electricity or water to operate shovels and bury bodies. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. Zzzzzzzzzz........... Yep, you're sleeping in class again, Doug. You have a comprehension problem. I give up. Have a nice "ignorance is bliss" life. You must also believe that the value of most common stock is really connected with what the books say. :-) |
John H wrote: Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your argument? John, how come you find it okay if YOU, JimH, Fritz and NOYB call people names, but when someone who is debating you, as opposed to being in your circle jerk does it, it's bad? |
"DSK" wrote in message ... "NOBBY" wrote ... And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. Funny, that's not what the Army intel and CIA guys say. I read a report the other week that said only about 1/4 of the terrorists in Iraq were 'foreign fighters.' Unnamed sources, eh Doug? These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists. |
NOYB wrote:
Unnamed sources, eh Doug? ??? The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'? ... These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources He's also a politician, and likely to say a lot of things that aren't quite strictly true... possibly he's been misinformed himself, possibly trying to put a spin things, possibly trying to curry favor with the Bush/Cheney Administration. So, are you going to address the question here? What sources did Vice President Cheney use to gather his info that the insurgency is on it's last legs? Do you agree with his statement? What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S. military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll be there forever? And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again? I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden, since he remains uncaptured and since it's now public knowledge that Bush pulled troops off the hunt so as to invade Iraq. I was also surprised to hear him say that the Army didn't want more troops. If that's true, then why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more troops? Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need more? These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush & Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain? DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... "NOBBY" wrote ... And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. Funny, that's not what the Army intel and CIA guys say. I read a report the other week that said only about 1/4 of the terrorists in Iraq were 'foreign fighters.' Unnamed sources, eh Doug? These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources. While the majority of 'terrorists' may be from Iraq, almost all of the suicide bombers are from other countries (mostly Saudi). Without the suicide attacks, the other terrorists would be meaningless and quickly disposed of. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Unnamed sources, eh Doug? ??? The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'? You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army and CIA? ... These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources He's also a politician, and likely to say a lot of things that aren't quite strictly true... possibly he's been misinformed himself, possibly trying to put a spin things, possibly trying to curry favor with the Bush/Cheney Administration. So, are you going to address the question here? What sources did Vice President Cheney use to gather his info that the insurgency is on it's last legs? Perhaps he asked the Prime Minister. Do you agree with his statement? Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to get the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely different group. What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S. military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll be there forever? Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop presence in the major cities. And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again? I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden, A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties to terrorists. I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now. since he remains uncaptured and since it's now public knowledge that Bush pulled troops off the hunt so as to invade Iraq. I was also surprised to hear him say that the Army didn't want more troops. If that's true, then why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more troops? Which generals? Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need more? They don't need more in Iraq. These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush & Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain? I already did. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army and CIA? Which generals? This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he just said, but you're assuming one or more things: 1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard in the news. Not likely. 2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This, of course, is bull****. 3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar. Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names, but those names are not important at the moment. |
Terry Spragg wrote:
Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in refineries or new wells, YET! You figure it out. Terry K Keep that quiet...if George B finds out, he'll be invading us. |
|
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army and CIA? Which generals? This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he just said, but you're assuming one or more things: 1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard in the news. Not likely. 2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This, of course, is bull****. 3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar. Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names, but those names are not important at the moment. Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the generals even exist. And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who go "on the record" vs. those who don't. As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency has all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists from other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the evening news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots at our President. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Terry Spragg wrote: Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in refineries or new wells, YET! You figure it out. Terry K Keep that quiet...if George B finds out, he'll be invading us. Not "if", Don. *When*. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army and CIA? Which generals? This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he just said, but you're assuming one or more things: 1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard in the news. Not likely. 2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This, of course, is bull****. 3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar. Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names, but those names are not important at the moment. Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the generals even exist. How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to grind. Would knowing a general's name tell you this? And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who go "on the record" vs. those who don't. There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on whether a person gives his name or not. As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency has all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists from other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the evening news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots at our President. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions. Meanwhile, "some general" (whose name I've forgotten since I heard the broadcast a month ago) said that the fighters he was encountering were mostly locals. You will now say that yes, they could be locals, but hidden somewhere in a dark basement is their boss, who's Syrian. Blah blah blah..... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com