U.S. plans for Iraq?

MayDay Malone

brianlux wrote:

Oil.

Oh ya? How's that working out for ya?

Got a bunch of free gas did we? Try the highest January gas prices in History- and you think this is bad?

Just wait until Summer....


Ya- OIL. Its a silly refuge argument that holds no water- IMHO.

Drowned Out

MayDay Malone wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Oil.

Oh ya? How's that working out for ya?

Got a bunch of free gas did we? Try the highest January gas prices in History- and you think this is bad?

Just wait until Summer....


Ya- OIL. Its a silly refuge argument that holds no water- IMHO.

You mock his comment as a silly argument that holds no water.... yet when someone challenges your argument, and it fails the water test, you respond with 'whatever you say'?
weak.
Where did Brianlux say anything about cheap gas? Western involvement in the Iraqi oil fields was never meant to secure cheap gas for Americans. It was meant to provide higher profits to western oil and construction companies

MayDay Malone

Drowned Out wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Oil.

Oh ya? How's that working out for ya?

Got a bunch of free gas did we? Try the highest January gas prices in History- and you think this is bad?

Just wait until Summer....


Ya- OIL. Its a silly refuge argument that holds no water- IMHO.

You mock his comment as a silly argument that holds no water.... yet when someone challenges your argument, and it fails the water test, you respond with 'whatever you say'?
weak.
Where did Brianlux say anything about cheap gas? Western involvement in the Iraqi oil fields was never meant to secure cheap gas for Americans. It was meant to provide higher profits to western oil and construction companies

sigh...

I simply meant that it isn't translating into any tangible oil/gas benefit for average Americans.

Looks like we agree on that, even if only that...

I know the simple mention of "companies" and evil "profit" gets your blood boiling.... so relax.

Drowned Out

My blood is hardly boiling....
You didn't say that...you made assumptions based on one word, then made mocking comments toward the poster.
I'm asking you to clarify your argument, or clarify why you think it's ok to mock someone's comment while failing to back up your own.....
you basically just did it again.

Jason P

Yes, Iraq has oil.

No, the country is not secure.

Yes, Obama had to pull out troops before the 2012 campaign.

No, the US is not going to leave control to a weak government.

Yes, the US is going to leave forces in tact to preserve stability of both civil and monetary interests ... although we can't call them US military, cause that would hurt Obama in a few months. So he did the smart thing and is letting the CIA and contractors take over. Do you think it was coincidence that four-star general David Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Obama?

The troops were just moved across the border to Kuwait. Hopefully they will no longer be needed, but anyone who thought the US was just going to up and leave has been smoking too much of the pipe weed.

Random_Wookie

I thought the current war in Iraq was to finish the job the should have done in the 90's, as the should have forced regime change then. Now that has been done it should be up to the people of that country to choose the future direction of the country.

Uninformed response I know.

MayDay Malone

Drowned Out wrote:

My blood is hardly boiling....
You didn't say that...you made assumptions based on one word, then made mocking comments toward the poster.
I'm asking you to clarify your argument, or clarify why you think it's ok to mock someone's comment while failing to back up your own.....
you basically just did it again.

Relax, man... Brianlux and I are just fine... it wasn't mocking, I don't know where you see that. Been here a long time, I'm aware of your positions, and the abusive way you follow people around on here- all worked up.

Simmer, man... it's all just opinions. Have a coke and a smile, and-.....

Drowned Out

MayDay Malone wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

My blood is hardly boiling....
You didn't say that...you made assumptions based on one word, then made mocking comments toward the poster.
I'm asking you to clarify your argument, or clarify why you think it's ok to mock someone's comment while failing to back up your own.....
you basically just did it again.

Relax, man... Brianlux and I are just fine... it wasn't mocking, I don't know where you see that. Been here a long time, I'm aware of your positions, and the abusive way you follow people around on here- all worked up.

Simmer, man... it's all just opinions. Have a coke and a smile, and-.....

and what?
more assumptions. I'm not worked up at all, why do you keep inferring that I am?
I don't follow anyone around, I just tend to disagree with some people more than others. If you find it abusive to be proven wrong....oh well.
I know you and Brianlux are 'true blue' man, I have been here a while too....

mock: object of scorn. somebody or something ridiculed by others.

Your post:
Oh ya? How's that working out for ya?
Got a bunch of free gas did we? Try the highest January gas prices in History- and you think this is bad?
Just wait until Summer....
Ya- OIL. Its a silly refuge argument that holds no water- IMHO.

Sounds like scorn and ridicule to me. Guess I'm wrong. Or is it abused? hmmmm....

Anyway....on topic. Care to address any of the points I made re: Iranians killing Americans? Or those cosmo made about government stability? Or would you rather just keep trying to bait me like in your last three posts?

DriftingByTheStorm

Jason P wrote:

Do you think it was coincidence that four-star general David Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Obama?

Never thought of that angle right there, man.
Ingenious!

Jason P wrote:

anyone who thought the US was just going to up and leave has been smoking too much of the pipe weed.

Hey, bro. Like to be fair, man, you should include ALL types of weed, pipe or no pipe!

MayDay Malone

Drowned Out wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

My blood is hardly boiling....
You didn't say that...you made assumptions based on one word, then made mocking comments toward the poster.
I'm asking you to clarify your argument, or clarify why you think it's ok to mock someone's comment while failing to back up your own.....
you basically just did it again.

Relax, man... Brianlux and I are just fine... it wasn't mocking, I don't know where you see that. Been here a long time, I'm aware of your positions, and the abusive way you follow people around on here- all worked up.

Simmer, man... it's all just opinions. Have a coke and a smile, and-.....

and what?
more assumptions. I'm not worked up at all, why do you keep inferring that I am?
I don't follow anyone around, I just tend to disagree with some people more than others. If you find it abusive to be proven wrong....oh well.
I know you and Brianlux are 'true blue' man, I have been here a while too....

mock: object of scorn. somebody or something ridiculed by others.

Your post:
Oh ya? How's that working out for ya?
Got a bunch of free gas did we? Try the highest January gas prices in History- and you think this is bad?
Just wait until Summer....
Ya- OIL. Its a silly refuge argument that holds no water- IMHO.

Sounds like scorn and ridicule to me. Guess I'm wrong. Or is it abused? hmmmm....

Anyway....on topic. Care to address any of the points I made re: Iranians killing Americans? Or those cosmo made about government stability? Or would you rather just keep trying to bait me like in your last three posts?

If you failed to see how Iranians supplying weapons to virtually every enemy our troops are currently engaged with, how the vacuum created by our politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq has allowed that free flow to increase to such countries as Syria (see 7000 dead), or how our coordinated cyber-warfare and assasination campaigns inside Iran constitutes a real war, then son, I just can't help you.

Put down the Huffpo and the hippie lettuce, and get serious.

I wish you the best, but you're starting to creep... Foe button engaged.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

Yes, Iraq has oil.

No, the country is not secure.

Yes, Obama had to pull out troops before the 2012 campaign.

No, the US is not going to leave control to a weak government.

Yes, the US is going to leave forces in tact to preserve stability of both civil and monetary interests ... although we can't call them US military, cause that would hurt Obama in a few months. So he did the smart thing and is letting the CIA and contractors take over. Do you think it was coincidence that four-star general David Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Obama?

The troops were just moved across the border to Kuwait. Hopefully they will no longer be needed, but anyone who thought the US was just going to up and leave has been smoking too much of the pipe weed.

...
In other words... Iraq has no say in this situation.

Drowned Out

MayDay Malone wrote:

If you failed to see how Iranians supplying weapons to virtually every enemy our troops are currently engaged with, how the vacuum created by our politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq has allowed that free flow to increase to such countries as Syria (see 7000 dead), or how our coordinated cyber-warfare and assasination campaigns inside Iran constitutes a real war, then son, I just can't help you. .

That vacuum was part of the plan, as was explained to you in this thread.
I admitted that Iran is supplying weapons to your enemies, and I addressed that with my opinion on the matter.
I have not debated 'real war' with you at all, and never asked for any help. But thanks for the condescension.

MayDay Malone wrote:

Put down the Huffpo and the hippie lettuce, and get serious.

I wish you the best, but you're starting to creep... Foe button engaged.

I don't read huffpo....
hippie lettuce? get serious? more baiting.
Foe button engaged?..... we'll see. I guess to you, replying to your posts and not allowing your off-topic, patronizing comments to be the last word, constitutes 'abuse' and 'following people around'.

Idris

Idris wrote:

Speaking about funding groups and weapons Let's see how this goes.
-
With a decision due within weeks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former US four-star generals, intelligence chiefs, governors, and political heavyweights are calling for the US government to take the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK/MKO) off the terror list it shares with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

A high-powered array of former top American officials is advocating removal from the US terrorist list of a controversial Iranian opposition group with a long anti-American history.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

From Wiki-

During the Iraq war, U.S. troops disarmed the PMOI and posted guards at its bases. The U.S. military also protected and gave logistical support to the MEK as U.S. officials viewed the group as a high value source of intelligence on Iran. The PMOI is credited with revealing Iran's nuclear program in 2003 and alerting Americans to Iranian advancements in nuclear technology.

The same year that the French police raided the PMOI's properties in France (2003), Tehran attempted to negotiate with Washington. Iranian officials offered to withdraw military backing for Hamas and Hezbollah, and to give open access to their nuclear facilities in return for Western action in disbanding the PMOI, which was revealed by Newsnight, a BBC current affairs program, in 2007.

The BBC uncovered a letter written after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 where Tehran made this offer The proposition was done in a secret letter to Washington via Switzerland. According to the BBC, the U.S. State Department received the letter from the highest levels of the Iranian government.

According to Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed by the BBC, the State Department initially considered the offer, but it was ultimately rejected by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
-

(Thu Feb 9, 2012 )

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News


The Mujahedeen e-Khalq is being trained, armed, and funded by Israel to cary out terrorist attacks on Iran

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
-
and of course we have the major push to get 'MEK' off the official Terrorist list. All according to plan. 'The System' at work.

Idris

Jason P wrote:

No, the US is not going to leave control to a weak government.

Yes, the US is going to leave forces in tact to preserve stability of both civil and monetary interests ... although we can't call them US military, cause that would hurt Obama in a few months. So he did the smart thing and is letting the CIA and contractors take over. Do you think it was coincidence that four-star general David Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Obama?

The troops were just moved across the border to Kuwait. Hopefully they will no longer be needed.

The U.S will not leave control to any government that's not it's puppet. When a strong puppet government is established (as per the case of Iran in 1953 and the CIA Coup of Mossedeq) Then, and only then will the US feel alright leaving Iraq.

But you don't build a billion dollar embassy in the middle of a foreign country unless you plan on staying a long time Or have some really big plans, like keeping a known terrorist group (MEK) around and refusing Iran's 2003 offer to fully open it's nuclear facilities to the U.S...Then accuse the same Iranians of "secretive nuclear activities". This was all planned.

This is not about Nukes, or "wiping Israel off the map" propaganda..It's not about peace, freedom or democracy. This is about expanding the U.S. empire and going to War for the Zionist banks with American tanks.

Like many wars of past, World War 2 (for example), the backbone of the U.S. was funding Hitler and the Nazis. Vietnam? The first Gulf war? etc. These are not random conflicts/wars. These are by and large calculated moves by the Oligarchs, the rulers, the elite fools, who do foolish things, playing with and destroying lives for their own greedy gain, Those are some of the people/groups where attention needs to be brought towards. Look who's pulling the strings.

and All this happens while the liberal intelligentsia/neo/super cons or whatever/whoever else continues to vote and help the War Machine. The Military Industrial Complex, The Federal Reserve. Perpetual War and conflict.

So what are the US plans for Iraq? Well Obama has NOT ended the Iraq war, he's just made it into a more 'secretive' war, a new era of war, a new phase of the war/wars.

The 'plutocracy' will end when our 'hypocrisy' does. We have our brains, information, resources, a vote, a voice.

Be a good idea to use them wisely, WW3 does not seem far away.

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

...
In other words... Iraq has no say in this situation.

Not until they prove they have the country under control. My opinion on the situation matters not.

Jason P

Idris wrote:

This is not about Nukes, or "wiping Israel off the map" propaganda..It's not about peace, freedom or democracy. This is about expanding the U.S. empire and going to War for the Zionist banks with American tanks.

Everything has to be tied back to the Jews ... let's take it a few more steps and link it to Kevin Bacon as well.

The biggest problem Iraq faces in gaining stability is that the two main religious groups, Sunni and Shia, don't like each other to the point the have to convince themselves the other group isn't really Muslim so they can kill each other. I wonder if they believe each group is also linked to the Zionist movement as well?

The US is interested in preserving control of the Oil as well as the logistics of the country in relation to Iran. If they completely pull out, full scale civil war breaks out with the Shia getting a strong backing from Iran.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
In other words... Iraq has no say in this situation.

Not until they prove they have the country under control. My opinion on the situation matters not.

...
I know that none of our opinions matter, regarding U.S. Foriegn Policy. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of our Foriegn Policy.
For instance... prove to whom? The U.S? Why? Because if we don't approve, we'll go back in for another round of ass kicking? Who's best interests matter here... theirs or ours? I was told that the reason why we went in there was to liberate them from an oppressive dictatorship, to give them Democracy to choose how they govern and live... yet, there are strings attached to their democracy. Main point being, they had better choose what WE think is best for THEM... or else.
It's not recent news that the Shi'ites of the Middle East are a minority in a Sunni dominated region. The Shi'ites have been split between Iran and Iraq. Saddam Hussein was oppressive to the Shi'ia majority in Iraq for several decades. His Sunni neighbors may not have approved of him in general, but, they knew he was a barrier to a greater Shi'ite presence in the larger picture. Given the right to choose... most people would surmize that the Shi'ite Majority in Iraq would elect Shi'ite leaders and give their majority a greater voice, than in the past. An Iraq/Iran alliance would provide a greater Shi'ite presence/influence in the region. Ironically, our (U.S.) involvement in Iraq ushered in this probable outcome by removing the greatest obstacle that was in place... the oppressive Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein.
We pretty much are getting what we were asking for... because we went in there, with guns blazing, in Shock And Awe... to Spread Democracy. Maybe, we should have stepped back and thought a little harder about the probable outcomes instead of hoping for the ever so slight possibility that Iraq would end up looking more like Nebraska. We really shoulda known.

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

Ironically, our (U.S.) involvement in Iraq ushered in this probable outcome by removing the greatest obstacle that was in place... the oppressive Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein.
We pretty much are getting what we were asking for... because we went in there, with guns blazing, in Shock And Awe... to Spread Democracy. Maybe, we should have stepped back and thought a little harder about the probable outcomes instead of hoping for the ever so slight possibility that Iraq would end up looking more like Nebraska. We really shoulda known.

Yup, we took out the one fucker that was crazy enough to keep them in line. But Pandora's box has been opened, so what now?

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Ironically, our (U.S.) involvement in Iraq ushered in this probable outcome by removing the greatest obstacle that was in place... the oppressive Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein.
We pretty much are getting what we were asking for... because we went in there, with guns blazing, in Shock And Awe... to Spread Democracy. Maybe, we should have stepped back and thought a little harder about the probable outcomes instead of hoping for the ever so slight possibility that Iraq would end up looking more like Nebraska. We really shoulda known.

Yup, we took out the one fucker that was crazy enough to keep them in line. But Pandora's box has been opened, so what now?

...
What can we do? Let THEM decide their future.
If they decide the path of Civil War... who's to say it hasn't always been in their cards for 100 years... except oppressive Sunni minorities such as Hussein and recent military actions and occupation of the US have been keeping them from duking it out. Maybe we're just sitting in a barrel of gun powder with a lit fuse and is going to blow up, no matter how hard we try to suppress it.
If they decide that a Shi'ite Bloc with Iran is in their best interests for greater bargaining power of the Middle Eastern oil... shouldn't THEY get to decide, not us? It's THEIR home... it's THEIR oil, not ours.
Yeah... their decisions may not be in our best interests, but do we allow other nations to impose their bests interest on us?
If we claim to be the beacon of Democracy and Freedom... yet, we impose our will upon them... what does that say about us?

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

[
What can we do? Let THEM decide their future.
If they decide the path of Civil War... who's to say it hasn't always been in their cards for 100 years... except oppressive Sunni minorities such as Hussein and recent military actions and occupation of the US have been keeping them from duking it out. Maybe we're just sitting in a barrel of gun powder with a lit fuse and is going to blow up, no matter how hard we try to suppress it.
If they decide that a Shi'ite Bloc with Iran is in their best interests for greater bargaining power of the Middle Eastern oil... shouldn't THEY get to decide, not us? It's THEIR home... it's THEIR oil, not ours.
Yeah... their decisions may not be in our best interests, but do we allow other nations to impose their bests interest on us?
If we claim to be the beacon of Democracy and Freedom... yet, we impose our will upon them... what does that say about us?

You know that is out of the question until they can be trusted.

And yes, the US does let other countries impose their will upon us. Why do you think there is still a North Korea? And the US is constantly in a battle of wills with Russia ... why do you think Iran has a nuclear program?