it has and never will be about DEMOCRACY ... it's a tag line used to sell what amounts to a "looting" of a country ... at the expense of mass suffering and death ...
we hear daily about insurgents and terrorists but no one is reporting in the main stream media the true story of these wars ... privatization of the military; the forced privatization of all big companies in iraq to multi-national companies; the so called "treaty" for protection in exchange for iraq's resources ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we pay for Iraq's oil. I dont' think we are stealing it, as you refer to it "looting".
Even so, if there is corruption, aren't you glad that a democracy is in place that has the means to deal with it? If not now, then maybe in 15 -20 years? Seriously, isn't a US occupation better than 15 more years of Saddam, and the 20 years of civil war after he's gone?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we pay for Iraq's oil. I dont' think we are stealing it, as you refer to it "looting".
Even so, if there is corruption, aren't you glad that a democracy is in place that has the means to deal with it? If not now, then maybe in 15 -20 years? Seriously, isn't a US occupation better than 15 more years of Saddam, and the 20 years of civil war after he's gone?
dude ... who's making the money on that oil ... it isn't about getting cheap oil for you and me ... it's about the companies that make the money off that oil ... it's your haliburtons and blackwaters of the world that are doing the looting ...
again - democracy is a tag line akin to Fat Free ... it's complete BS ... there is no democracy there ... the iraqi people have no say in anything ... if things were bad under Saddam - it's worse now ... how can a place that used to be the jewel of the middle east get sent back a century - where water and electricy are rationed? ... Saddam's fault? ... convenient i say ...
it has and never will be about DEMOCRACY ... it's a tag line used to sell what amounts to a "looting" of a country ... at the expense of mass suffering and death ...
we hear daily about insurgents and terrorists but no one is reporting in the main stream media the true story of these wars ... privatization of the military; the forced privatization of all big companies in iraq to multi-national companies; the so called "treaty" for protection in exchange for iraq's resources ...
it really is sad...
the worst thing is that it is being done with our $ via federal tax dollars... we are funding it down here. real fucking sad. i am not very proud of my country right now, unfortunately
I believe that in time all people will gravitate towards a peacefull democratic society, my concern is what happens in the interm. I agree that change on it's own would not have happened in Iraq because of the decades long oppression, as you mentioned, but we could have supported change in other countries. Afghanistan is a country that we left half built, for a second time. Had we finished what we started and support the Karzai government there with more troops in order to secure the country we could have created one of the first true democractic societies in that region. Follow this with democratic reform in Pakistan, continued support of the Lebonese government, and maybe a few years down the road started flexing a little influence in the Arab Sheikdoms. It would have been a much slower process but little by little the oppressive regimes of the Middle East would have started collapsing like dominoes till all that was left was countries like Iraq and Iran who in time would of had no choice but to follow suit. I know that sounds like some utopian dream but I honestly feel that it would have been the better road to follow.
I don't really disagree. That probably would have been a better road to follow honestly. The monkey wrench in the hole thing though is Saddam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the last "true" dictator in the Middle East, and certainly the most brutal towards his neighbors and especially his own citizens.
I agree all day long that BushCo cooked the intel and manipulated our country into war. Truce on that. But I can't see where I was wrong to support the war becuase Saddam was one twisted fuck who hated the US and everything about Western democracy - save the money he got from us to subjigate his people and pamper himself. There is not doubt in my mind that any plans a terrorist group had against the US, would recieve Saddams blessing - regardless if he liked them or had ties to them.
It sucks that it all went down like it did, it has certainly hurt our nation. And I'm glad Bush is leaving. I don't like the guy - but I'm taking him out of the equation. Plain and simple the shit storm we've witnessed in Iraq has been brewing for 30 years. I can only believe that it would have been much, much worst and lasted much, much longer and had a much, much better chance of not turning out as good as it seems to be had the US not gone in.
So in hindsight, in my view, we were wrong for going in. But now that we are there, it's probably better than what would have happened had we not got involved in Iraq. I beleive Iraq as a country has progressed 30 years ahead of where it would be had we not gone in.
dude ... who's making the money on that oil ... it isn't about getting cheap oil for you and me ... it's about the companies that make the money off that oil ... it's your haliburtons and blackwaters of the world that are doing the looting ...
again - democracy is a tag line akin to Fat Free ... it's complete BS ... there is no democracy there ... the iraqi people have no say in anything ... if things were bad under Saddam - it's worse now ... how can a place that used to be the jewel of the middle east get sent back a century - where water and electricy are rationed? ... Saddam's fault? ... convenient i say ...
Actually Iraq recently reinstated a huge oil deal that they had with China to develope oil fields. If the US was really interested in stealing Iraq's oil why would they allow the government to let China, of all countries, develope a huge swath of oil fields. While I agree that democracy was not the primary, or even one of the primary, reasons why we invaded Iraq I don't believe we did it to "loot" their oil. I am more inclined to believe that we did so to a) sure up the US dollar's hold as petro currency b) to help ween us off Saudi oil so we can begin to distance ourselves from that fucked up regime and c) to have a permenant base of operation to soldify our influence in the Middle East.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
dude ... who's making the money on that oil ... it isn't about getting cheap oil for you and me ... it's about the companies that make the money off that oil ... it's your haliburtons and blackwaters of the world that are doing the looting ...
again - democracy is a tag line akin to Fat Free ... it's complete BS ... there is no democracy there ... the iraqi people have no say in anything ... if things were bad under Saddam - it's worse now ... how can a place that used to be the jewel of the middle east get sent back a century - where water and electricy are rationed? ... Saddam's fault? ... convenient i say ...
OMG, yeah US oil companies are profiting, but where is the crime in that I ask? The real winner here is Iraq in case you can't connect the dots. Oil is selling near $100 a barrell. They are making more money now from oil revenue than they were under Saddam.
So again, please explain to me how Haliburton and Blackwater are "looting" Iraq? They are making the Iraqi's rich beyond their fucking dreams. Please explain this to me.
Actually, the oil money that Iraq is getting now is going to it's citizens and the country's infastructure as opposed to Saddam's Republican Guard and his gold plated toilet seats. You can thank the US military for that, but I'm sure you'd rather not.
Actually Iraq recently reinstated a huge oil deal that they had with China to develope oil fields. If the US was really interested in stealing Iraq's oil why would they allow the government to let China, of all countries, develope a huge swath of oil fields. While I agree that democracy was not the primary, or even one of the primary, reasons why we invaded Iraq I don't believe we did it to "loot" their oil. I am more inclined to believe that we did so to a) sure up the US dollar's hold as petro currency b) to help ween us off Saudi oil so we can begin to distance ourselves from that fucked up regime and c) to have a permenant base of operation to soldify our influence in the Middle East.
if the US bows to anyone - it's gonna be China right now ...
a) they could shore up the US dollar by not making oil so valuable with political instability
b) the US and saudi arabia are like Bert and Ernie - they're inseparable and bed mates
c) yes ... definitely ...
check out the little video of naomi klein - it's in the thread about shock doctrine
it's not only oil ... it's everything of value ...
I don't really disagree. That probably would have been a better road to follow honestly. The monkey wrench in the hole thing though is Saddam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the last "true" dictator in the Middle East, and certainly the most brutal towards his neighbors and especially his own citizens.
I agree all day long that BushCo cooked the intel and manipulated our country into war. Truce on that. But I can't see where I was wrong to support the war becuase Saddam was one twisted fuck who hated the US and everything about Western democracy - save the money he got from us to subjigate his people and pamper himself. There is not doubt in my mind that any plans a terrorist group had against the US, would recieve Saddams blessing - regardless if he liked them or had ties to them.
It sucks that it all went down like it did, it has certainly hurt our nation. And I'm glad Bush is leaving. I don't like the guy - but I'm taking him out of the equation. Plain and simple the shit storm we've witnessed in Iraq has been brewing for 30 years. I can only believe that it would have been much, much worst and lasted much, much longer and had a much, much better chance of not turning out as good as it seems to be had the US not gone in.
So in hindsight, in my view, we were wrong for going in. But now that we are there, it's probably better than what would have happened had we not got involved in Iraq. I beleive Iraq as a country has progressed 30 years ahead of where it would be had we not gone in.
I agree with everything you said, but how is the world or even Iraqies for that fact going to take us on our word when we simultaniously support a corrupt oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. If our government where truely intent on establishing a democratic society in the Middle East, which I fully support, why not start will our allies. By supporting the Al Sa'ud it just taints any honest attempt we may undertake to bring democracy to that region. It leaves on us a stench of hypocracy and I understand the delicate nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but we allowed corporate interests to place us in the eye of this shit storm. We knew back in the 1970's that our relationship with the Saudies and our dependence on them for cheap oil was going to be a very dangerious relationship but for some unknown and unexplained reason we just brushed it aside. It has always, and will always, be my belief that it is this relationship that is at the core of all that ails us in that region.
I agree that the only way to have brought democracy to Iraq would probably have to be by force, but had we waited, planted the seeds in some of the surrounding nations, and waited for a democratic society to take shape in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, etc..., bringing down saddam and establishing a safe free society in Iraq, and hopefully followed by Iran, would not have been such a bloody and costly venture.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
if the US bows to anyone - it's gonna be China right now ...
a) they could shore up the US dollar by not making oil so valuable with political instability
b) the US and saudi arabia are like Bert and Ernie - they're inseparable and bed mates
c) yes ... definitely ...
check out the little video of naomi klein - it's in the thread about shock doctrine
it's not only oil ... it's everything of value ...
What difference does any of this make if the US can steal $80 billion worth of Iraqi oil every year? And since when does political instability equal cheaper oil?
OMG, yeah US oil companies are profiting, but where is the crime in that I ask? The real winner here is Iraq in case you can't connect the dots. Oil is selling near $100 a barrell. They are making more money now from oil revenue than they were under Saddam.
So again, please explain to me how Haliburton and Blackwater are "looting" Iraq? They are making the Iraqi's rich beyond their fucking dreams. Please explain this to me.
Actually, the oil money that Iraq is getting now is actually going to it's citizens as opposed to Saddam's army and his hold plated toilet seats. You can thank the US military for that, but I'm sure you'd rather not.
seriously, do you believe that? ... does anyone see any money going to the iraqi people? ... why do you think companies like exxon-mobil are reporting record profits? ... it's because oil is selling so high ...
i would rather see what you seem to see - but what evidence do you have of that? ... look at the country man ... it's in absolute ruins ... nothing is what you want it to be ...
this is how it used to work: oil belonged to iraq ... profit made went to iraqi coffers ... now, oil is given to multi-nationals to procure and sell ... gov't gets portions of revenues either thru taxation or thru lease deals ... it's like if youhad an apple tree and i said i'd give u 5 cents on a 50 cent apple ... why would you do that when you can sell it yourself for the whole lot? ...
but i will digress on blackwater ... they aren't really looting iraq as they are the american taxpayer ...
What difference does any of this make if the US can steal $80 billion worth of Iraqi oil every year? And since when does political instability equal cheaper oil?
i didn't say political instability equal cheaper oil ... i said the opposite ...
if the US bows to anyone - it's gonna be China right now ...
a) they could shore up the US dollar by not making oil so valuable with political instability
b) the US and saudi arabia are like Bert and Ernie - they're inseparable and bed mates
c) yes ... definitely ...
check out the little video of naomi klein - it's in the thread about shock doctrine
it's not only oil ... it's everything of value ...
The US has no control over the cost of oil. That is determined by the market and as of right now oil is still at $90 a barrel and there is no major problems brewing. In fact it is the opposite. Violence in Iraq is at a low point and the tense situation between us and Iran seems to be quiet right now after the US intel report. The US dollar is in danger of loosing it's decades long grip as the petro currency because of it's declining value compared to the Euro. It has nothing to do with our adventures in the Middle East. Secondly the US and the saudies are butt buddies, for a lack of a better term, but we are the one's who have been taking it in the ass from the Al Sa'uds for years. They have cost us more than we can ever imagine and people are starting to realize this. The American public, and slowly but surely some politicians, are tired of our relationship with the Saudies. Unfortunetly, much like a crack head, we need our dealer no matter how much of a douche bag he may be. We can ill afford to severe ties with the Saudies right now until we ween ourselves off of their oil. The invasion of Iraq was an attempt to do so. By developing Iraqi oil fields we can purchuse our oil directly from them without having to deal with the Saudies.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I agree with everything you said, but how is the world or even Iraqies for that fact going to take us on our word when we simultaniously support a corrupt oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. If our government where truely intent on establishing a democratic society in the Middle East, which I fully support, why not start will our allies. By supporting the Al Sa'ud it just taints any honest attempt we may undertake to bring democracy to that region. It leaves on us a stench of hypocracy and I understand the delicate nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but we allowed corporate interests to place us in the eye of this shit storm. We knew back in the 1970's that our relationship with the Saudies and our dependence on them for cheap oil was going to be a very dangerious relationship but for some unknown and unexplained reason we just brushed it aside. It has always, and will always, be my belief that it is this relationship that is at the core of all that ails us in that region.
I agree that the only way to have brought democracy to Iraq would probably have to be by force, but had we waited, planted the seeds in some of the surrounding nations, and waited for a democratic society to take shape in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, etc..., bringing down saddam and establishing a safe free society in Iraq, and hopefully followed by Iran, would not have been such a bloody and costly venture.
Hey, this is just food for thought here. Don't want you to think I'm arguing with you cause I respect and agree with just about everyting you say.
But I doubt that any policy inacted by any government could ever stop what has happened in Iraq. Imagine Saddam lived another 25 years, and therefore ruled during that time...
Not only would the sectarian tension and atrocities continued and deepend, but younger generations would have been infected with it too. Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years.
Those types of personal vendetas could have only been setteled one way, sadly. I think that by going in now, we have saved hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi's from suffering the same fate as their parents and grandparents.
We have saved a new generation, and when these children grow up and become the ruling class of Iraq, I bet they will respect and thank the United States.
The US has no control over the cost of oil. That is determined by the market and as of right now oil is still at $90 a barrel and there is no major problems brewing. In fact it is the opposite. Violence in Iraq is at a low point and the tense situation between us and Iran seems to be quiet right now after the US intel report. The US dollar is in danger of loosing it's decades long grip as the petro currency because of it's declining value compared to the Euro. It has nothing to do with our adventures in the Middle East. Secondly the US and the saudies are butt buddies, for a lack of a better term, but we are the one's who have been taking it in the ass from the Al Sa'uds for years. They have cost us more than we can ever imagine and people are starting to realize this. The American public, and slowly but surely some politicians, are tired of our relationship with the Saudies. Unfortunetly, much like a crack head, we need our dealer no matter how much of a douche bag he may be. We can ill afford to severe ties with the Saudies right now until we ween ourselves off of their oil. The invasion of Iraq was an attempt to do so. By developing Iraqi oil fields we can purchuse our oil directly from them without having to deal with the Saudies.
uhh ... look at the events that caused oil to surge over the last few years - much of it stems from the actions in iraq - a war that was manufactured ...
the dollar sucks ass for obvious reasons - the policies of the bush admin - they inherited a strong economy and proceeded to fuck it over ...
and again - the goal has never been to democratize and stabilize iraq nor the middle east ... i know it's hard to believe but the US needs dictators and hard-liners ... that is why they have covert operations against countries that are trying to legitimately be democratic ... it has been shown in history and it continues today ... most democratic countries have opposing views of the US right now ...
look at the UN and all the various treaties - who are the US always siding with? ... the Saudi Arabias and Pakistans of the world - that should be an indication to you ...
Hey, this is just food for thought here. Don't want you to think I'm arguing with you cause I respect and agree with just about everyting you say.
But I doubt that any policy inacted by any government could ever stop what has happened in Iraq. Imagine Saddam lived another 25 years, and therefore ruled during that time...
Not only would the sectarian tension and atrocities continued and deepend, but younger generations would have been infected with it too. Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years.
Those types of personal vendetas could have only been setteled one way, sadly. I think that by going in now, we have saved hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi's from suffering the same fate as their parents and grandparents.
We have saved a new generation, and when these children grow up and become the ruling class of Iraq, I bet they will respect and thank the United States.
I agree that the sectarian violence would have occurred regardless of what path we took. I was referring more to the outside influence and support from countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia on the different waring sects and militias. I probably should have clarified that.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
uhh ... look at the events that caused oil to surge over the last few years - much of it stems from the actions in iraq - a war that was manufactured ...
the dollar sucks ass for obvious reasons - the policies of the bush admin - they inherited a strong economy and proceeded to fuck it over ...
and again - the goal has never been to democratize and stabilize iraq nor the middle east ... i know it's hard to believe but the US needs dictators and hard-liners ... that is why they have covert operations against countries that are trying to legitimately be democratic ... it has been shown in history and it continues today ... most democratic countries have opposing views of the US right now ...
look at the UN and all the various treaties - who are the US always siding with? ... the Saudi Arabias and Pakistans of the world - that should be an indication to you ...
Yes the invasion of Iraq did play a part in the surge of oil but the price is still going up even though some sense of stability is emerging in the region. Second the Bush administration did not fuck up our economy. We the American public fucked our economy by purchasing houses we could not afford and then defaulting on our loans. This crippled our banking industry causing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rate which in turn devalued our dollar. It has nothing to do with Bush's economic policies and everything to do with the sheer stupidity of the American public believing that they could afford a $600,000 home while only making $35,000 a year.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Yes the invasion of Iraq did play a part in the surge of oil but the price is still going up even though some sense of stability is emerging in the region. Second the Bush administration did not fuck up our economy. We the American public fucked our economy by purchasing houses we could not afford and then defaulting on our loans. This crippled our banking industry causing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rate which in turn devalued our dollar. It has nothing to do with Bush's economic policies and everything to do with the sheer stupidity of the American public believing that they could afford a $600,000 home while only making $35,000 a year.
i'm no economist but don't you think your rising debt and defecit have something to do with it as well?? ... continued spending in iraq and afghanistan ... investing in more nuclear weapons ... this administration has done nothing on the domestic front in 7 years ...
there is no stability over there ... the only thing saving everyone is that its winter down there ... where fighting typically subsides because of the poor weather ...
seriously, do you believe that? ... does anyone see any money going to the iraqi people? ... why do you think companies like exxon-mobil are reporting record profits? ... it's because oil is selling so high ...
i would rather see what you seem to see - but what evidence do you have of that? ... look at the country man ... it's in absolute ruins ... nothing is what you want it to be ...
this is how it used to work: oil belonged to iraq ... profit made went to iraqi coffers ... now, oil is given to multi-nationals to procure and sell ... gov't gets portions of revenues either thru taxation or thru lease deals ... it's like if youhad an apple tree and i said i'd give u 5 cents on a 50 cent apple ... why would you do that when you can sell it yourself for the whole lot? ...
but i will digress on blackwater ... they aren't really looting iraq as they are the american taxpayer ...
Alright, I'm about done trading posts with you becuase you seem to be ignorant on the issues, but mostly becuase you are unwilling to see anything other than your own agenda.
Never-the-less. Over $100 billion has been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq. Over $45 billion from the US and $40 billion from Iraq (which has come mostly from oil revenue). You can fact check if you want. Iraqi oil profits are at an all-time high, even above when Saddam was in power.
I can't make a connection between oil companies posting record profits and them stealing Iraqi oil. Every educated person knows that all oil compaines are making these profits, not just the ones who are in Iraq "looting" their oil, as you would say. They are making these profits becuase oil is trading near $100 a barrell, - file that under "Duh".
The information below is 2 years old so who knows how much better the statistics are now. But The United States has helped Iraqis...
- conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools
- train more than 30,000 teachers
-distribute more than 8 million textbooks
-rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.
- Helped Iraqis introduce a new currency
- Reopen their stock exchange
- Extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans.
- As a result of these efforts and Iraq's newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation,
- according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the economy over the next two years.
- Help negotiate significant debt relief and completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund - a signal that Iraqis are serious about reform.
The statistics go on and on. It's just unfiar and totally a lie for you to say and act as if the US doesn't give a shit about Iraq and we are just there so our companies can steal their natural resources.
i'm no economist but don't you think your rising debt and defecit have something to do with it as well?? ... continued spending in iraq and afghanistan ... investing in more nuclear weapons ... this administration has done nothing on the domestic front in 7 years ...
there is no stability over there ... the only thing saving everyone is that its winter down there ... where fighting typically subsides because of the poor weather ...
Actually none of that has had any significant impact on the dollars value. Also there is some sense of stability wether it is temperary or permanent is not relavent to today's market. As long as the oil is flowing freely today the price wil not go up. Tomorrow the process repeats itself and so on. So even if the stability is only a bi-product of the winter season the market will adjust to the temporary stability and the prices should go down but guess what they continue to rise because the supply does not meet the demand.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I think Polaris is pointing to the right direction, binding the rise of oil prices and the Iraq war.
I don't believe that oil prices rised so high because the demand is far too greater than the supply. Oil demand was always on the rise since the invention of combustion engines .
The increase rate could have accelerated in the past 10 years since China became a giant but still the increase from 40-50 USD to 90 USD cannot be explained by the consumption. And there is no visible shortage on oil supply at the moment but still the prices go up. If it was purely of supply-demand chain, one would expect a softer incline in the prices, not something like this.
Although I cannot provide the statistics for these ideas, I strongly believe them to be true.
"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." Robert Pirsig
"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."
"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."
thats hilarious.
I just read that article myself. Oh boy..never say die eh? Bush is on a new campaign in his last year to save as much face as possible in order to clean up his legacy.. It's going to be a very bumpy ride for him. I wish him much luck.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Hey, this is just food for thought here. Don't want you to think I'm arguing with you cause I respect and agree with just about everyting you say.
But I doubt that any policy inacted by any government could ever stop what has happened in Iraq. Imagine Saddam lived another 25 years, and therefore ruled during that time...
Not only would the sectarian tension and atrocities continued and deepend, but younger generations would have been infected with it too. Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years.
Those types of personal vendetas could have only been setteled one way, sadly. I think that by going in now, we have saved hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi's from suffering the same fate as their parents and grandparents.
We have saved a new generation, and when these children grow up and become the ruling class of Iraq, I bet they will respect and thank the United States.
...
Just a correction here... regarding this:
"... Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years. "
...
The conflict is deeply rooted in religion. This thing is about 1400 year old and the only way it is going to go away is when they (Muslims) want it to go away. It's their call to make... not ours.
"There was a dispute in the community of Muslims in present-day Saudi Arabia over the question of succession," says Augustus Norton, author of Hezbollah: A Short History. "That is to say, who is the rightful successor to the Prophet?"
Most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favored Ali, who was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah.
"Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the Prophet," notes Gregory Gause, professor of Middle East politics at the University of Vermont. "And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."
The Sunnis prevailed and chose a successor to be the first caliph.
Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered. War erupted when Ali became caliph, and he too was killed in fighting in the year 661 near the town of Kufa, now in present-day Iraq.
The violence and war split the small community of Muslims into two branches that would never reunite. "
Alright, I'm about done trading posts with you becuase you seem to be ignorant on the issues, but mostly becuase you are unwilling to see anything other than your own agenda.
Never-the-less. Over $100 billion has been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq. Over $45 billion from the US and $40 billion from Iraq (which has come mostly from oil revenue). You can fact check if you want. Iraqi oil profits are at an all-time high, even above when Saddam was in power.
I can't make a connection between oil companies posting record profits and them stealing Iraqi oil. Every educated person knows that all oil compaines are making these profits, not just the ones who are in Iraq "looting" their oil, as you would say. They are making these profits becuase oil is trading near $100 a barrell, - file that under "Duh".
The information below is 2 years old so who knows how much better the statistics are now. But The United States has helped Iraqis...
- conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools
- train more than 30,000 teachers
-distribute more than 8 million textbooks
-rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.
- Helped Iraqis introduce a new currency
- Reopen their stock exchange
- Extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans.
- As a result of these efforts and Iraq's newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation,
- according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the economy over the next two years.
- Help negotiate significant debt relief and completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund - a signal that Iraqis are serious about reform.
The statistics go on and on. It's just unfiar and totally a lie for you to say and act as if the US doesn't give a shit about Iraq and we are just there so our companies can steal their natural resources.
it's fine if you don't want to trade posts - but i can easily copy and past your sentiment to you ... just because i'm not agreeing with your belief that all is fine and dandy in iraq - i'm ingorant?? ...
in any case - you said it yourself ... the US has spent billions - who are they paying?? ... they are paying those companies that want this war - the haliburtons and blackwater ... that's my point!! ... again - do you have any evidence of any benefit to the iraqi people ... every day they are asked to give up more!
post all the stats you'd like but your first place you should look is the actual country ... it's a disaster there - over 1 million dead ... they have power only portions of the day ... everything is rationed ... what kind of better place are you seeing?
did my apple analogy help you understand what is going on with the oil? ... do you fail to make the connection because u choose not to? ... let me try again - if you are an oil company and oil is at record highs - what do you want most? ... answer: more oil!! ... they didn't have access to that with Saddam in power ... now they have it ...
"And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."
The Sunnis prevailed and chose a successor to be the first caliph.
Let me tell you how this is wrong. First, there was no such thing as Sunni or Shia' at the time of the first khalifa or "caliph". The prophet himself assigned Abu Bakr as the first khalifa which affected many who thought Ali should have been chosen. The Shia' disagree because they believe the prophet did not assign anyone before his death. I don't think such a thing as Sunni or Shia' was created until about 200 years later but I'm not 100% sure on this point. I'll get back to you on that one.
it's fine if you don't want to trade posts - but i can easily copy and past your sentiment to you ... just because i'm not agreeing with your belief that all is fine and dandy in iraq - i'm ingorant?? ...
in any case - you said it yourself ... the US has spent billions - who are they paying?? ... they are paying those companies that want this war - the haliburtons and blackwater ... that's my point!! ... again - do you have any evidence of any benefit to the iraqi people ... every day they are asked to give up more!
post all the stats you'd like but your first place you should look is the actual country ... it's a disaster there - over 1 million dead ... they have power only portions of the day ... everything is rationed ... what kind of better place are you seeing?
did my apple analogy help you understand what is going on with the oil? ... do you fail to make the connection because u choose not to? ... let me try again - if you are an oil company and oil is at record highs - what do you want most? ... answer: more oil!! ... they didn't have access to that with Saddam in power ... now they have it ...
No, you are ignorant becuase you believe the US has no vested interest in Iraq, save what we can steal and expliot. That is total bullshit and you know it! Beucase you won't acknowledge any of the positive changes and reconstruction taking place in Iraq, it's clear you have some sort of axe to grind here. I'm hardly pretending that its all roses over there because its not. But there ARE many positives going on in Iraq right now, and the US is heavily involved in rebuilding the infastructure of that country.
This totally separate from the question of if we will succeed or not. The fact remains that we are trying, and it chaps my ass that you won't acknowledge it.
I'm not disagreeing that the US government is paying US companies to help rebuild Iraq. Will you please respond to this point: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? Would you rather Iraqi's go without power than have Haliburton profit from building them a power plant? Am I happy they got a no-bid contract? No, that's probably not cool. But in the long run I don't really care about that as much as the fact that Iraqi's are getting more power!!!!
You are so wrapped up in conspiracy that you can't take in the big picture.
You asked if I had any evidence that the US is helping to build Iraq, and I responded that we have invested $45 billion in that effort.
Your next question is if I have any evidence that this is actually helping the Iraqi people. I gave you plenty of stats that indcate it is. What more do you want?
You say that everyday the Iraqi people are asked to give up more.... what the fuck are you talking about? Please show some evidence or clarify that.
What the hell are you trying to say when you write "you can post all the stats you want but i should look at what's happening in the country".
The stats are taken from what is happening in Iraq. Its the same Godamned thing. If we built 800 miles of roads, trained 30,000 school teachers and distributed 8 million school books - then how is that not valid??? How is that not proof that we are helping more than our bottom line????
No, your apple analogy is retarded. We are not giving Iraq a small fraction of what their oil is actually worth. Please give me some evidence that we are fleecing Iraq in this regard.
No, you are ignorant becuase you believe the US has no vested interest in Iraq, save what we can steal and expliot. That is total bullshit and you know it! Beucase you won't acknowledge any of the positive changes and reconstruction taking place in Iraq, it's clear you have some sort of axe to grind here. I'm hardly pretending that its all roses over there because its not. But there ARE many positives going on in Iraq right now, and the US is heavily involved in rebuilding the infastructure of that country.
This totally separate from the question of if we will succeed or not. The fact remains that we are trying, and it chaps my ass that you won't acknowledge it.
I'm not disagreeing that the US government is paying US companies to help rebuild Iraq. Will you please respond to this point: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? Would you rather Iraqi's go without power than have Haliburton profit from building them a power plant? Am I happy they got a no-bid contract? No, that's probably not cool. But in the long run I don't really care about that as much as the fact that Iraqi's are getting more power!!!!
You are so wrapped up in conspiracy that you can't take in the big picture.
You asked if I had any evidence that the US is helping to build Iraq, and I responded that we have invested $45 billion in that effort.
Your next question is if I have any evidence that this is actually helping the Iraqi people. I gave you plenty of stats that indcate it is. What more do you want?
You say that everyday the Iraqi people are asked to give up more.... what the fuck are you talking about? Please show some evidence or clarify that.
What the hell are you trying to say when you write "you can post all the stats you want but i should look at what's happening in the country".
The stats are taken from what is happening in Iraq. Its the same Godamned thing. If we built 800 miles of roads, trained 30,000 school teachers and distributed 8 million school books - then how is that not valid??? How is that not proof that we are helping more than our bottom line????
No, your apple analogy is retarded. We are not giving Iraq a small fraction of what their oil is actually worth. Please give me some evidence that we are fleecing Iraq in this regard.
your entire theory is founded on the amount of money the US spends in iraq ... to me - that is false because that was the point ...
this war in iraq was manufactured simply so they could line the pockets of these companies ... how is blackwater (private military) gonna make money without a conflict?? ... so, while you may seek solace in a $300 million contract for a road - the reality is that you guys destroyed that road on a false war ... it's been 4 years and can you really say life is better now? ... and at what point does anyone foresee that they will be?
i'm sorry you don't understand the analogy ... you are able to figure out that the oil companies make money because oil is selling high ... yet you can't put together that they now sell iraqi oil? ... if the profits from oil used to goto the state - how is having a multi-national selling it gonna be better? ... i shouldn't have to provide any link - it should be obvious ...
you may think i have an axe to grind but honestly, i would like nothing more than to see what you hope to see ... i would love if the US was the beacon of democracy and that they are doing more good then harm in the middle east ... it simply just not the case ...
look at all the money that has been spent on afghanistan and iraq in the last 6 years ... with nothing really to show for it ... all based on false wars ...
I know our government keeps speculating on what Iran is doing but at the sametime this issue would be put to bed if Iran would just be completely transparent about their nuclear program. That way the US government would have absolutely no way of pushing for a war/invasion of Iran.
Comments
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we pay for Iraq's oil. I dont' think we are stealing it, as you refer to it "looting".
Even so, if there is corruption, aren't you glad that a democracy is in place that has the means to deal with it? If not now, then maybe in 15 -20 years? Seriously, isn't a US occupation better than 15 more years of Saddam, and the 20 years of civil war after he's gone?
adj rag head huh?
racist? or just trying to be funny? i bet the first
dude ... who's making the money on that oil ... it isn't about getting cheap oil for you and me ... it's about the companies that make the money off that oil ... it's your haliburtons and blackwaters of the world that are doing the looting ...
again - democracy is a tag line akin to Fat Free ... it's complete BS ... there is no democracy there ... the iraqi people have no say in anything ... if things were bad under Saddam - it's worse now ... how can a place that used to be the jewel of the middle east get sent back a century - where water and electricy are rationed? ... Saddam's fault? ... convenient i say ...
it really is sad...
the worst thing is that it is being done with our $ via federal tax dollars... we are funding it down here. real fucking sad. i am not very proud of my country right now, unfortunately
I don't really disagree. That probably would have been a better road to follow honestly. The monkey wrench in the hole thing though is Saddam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the last "true" dictator in the Middle East, and certainly the most brutal towards his neighbors and especially his own citizens.
I agree all day long that BushCo cooked the intel and manipulated our country into war. Truce on that. But I can't see where I was wrong to support the war becuase Saddam was one twisted fuck who hated the US and everything about Western democracy - save the money he got from us to subjigate his people and pamper himself. There is not doubt in my mind that any plans a terrorist group had against the US, would recieve Saddams blessing - regardless if he liked them or had ties to them.
It sucks that it all went down like it did, it has certainly hurt our nation. And I'm glad Bush is leaving. I don't like the guy - but I'm taking him out of the equation. Plain and simple the shit storm we've witnessed in Iraq has been brewing for 30 years. I can only believe that it would have been much, much worst and lasted much, much longer and had a much, much better chance of not turning out as good as it seems to be had the US not gone in.
So in hindsight, in my view, we were wrong for going in. But now that we are there, it's probably better than what would have happened had we not got involved in Iraq. I beleive Iraq as a country has progressed 30 years ahead of where it would be had we not gone in.
Actually Iraq recently reinstated a huge oil deal that they had with China to develope oil fields. If the US was really interested in stealing Iraq's oil why would they allow the government to let China, of all countries, develope a huge swath of oil fields. While I agree that democracy was not the primary, or even one of the primary, reasons why we invaded Iraq I don't believe we did it to "loot" their oil. I am more inclined to believe that we did so to a) sure up the US dollar's hold as petro currency b) to help ween us off Saudi oil so we can begin to distance ourselves from that fucked up regime and c) to have a permenant base of operation to soldify our influence in the Middle East.
OMG, yeah US oil companies are profiting, but where is the crime in that I ask? The real winner here is Iraq in case you can't connect the dots. Oil is selling near $100 a barrell. They are making more money now from oil revenue than they were under Saddam.
So again, please explain to me how Haliburton and Blackwater are "looting" Iraq? They are making the Iraqi's rich beyond their fucking dreams. Please explain this to me.
Actually, the oil money that Iraq is getting now is going to it's citizens and the country's infastructure as opposed to Saddam's Republican Guard and his gold plated toilet seats. You can thank the US military for that, but I'm sure you'd rather not.
you bet whatever you want
if the US bows to anyone - it's gonna be China right now ...
a) they could shore up the US dollar by not making oil so valuable with political instability
b) the US and saudi arabia are like Bert and Ernie - they're inseparable and bed mates
c) yes ... definitely ...
check out the little video of naomi klein - it's in the thread about shock doctrine
it's not only oil ... it's everything of value ...
I agree with everything you said, but how is the world or even Iraqies for that fact going to take us on our word when we simultaniously support a corrupt oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. If our government where truely intent on establishing a democratic society in the Middle East, which I fully support, why not start will our allies. By supporting the Al Sa'ud it just taints any honest attempt we may undertake to bring democracy to that region. It leaves on us a stench of hypocracy and I understand the delicate nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but we allowed corporate interests to place us in the eye of this shit storm. We knew back in the 1970's that our relationship with the Saudies and our dependence on them for cheap oil was going to be a very dangerious relationship but for some unknown and unexplained reason we just brushed it aside. It has always, and will always, be my belief that it is this relationship that is at the core of all that ails us in that region.
I agree that the only way to have brought democracy to Iraq would probably have to be by force, but had we waited, planted the seeds in some of the surrounding nations, and waited for a democratic society to take shape in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, etc..., bringing down saddam and establishing a safe free society in Iraq, and hopefully followed by Iran, would not have been such a bloody and costly venture.
What difference does any of this make if the US can steal $80 billion worth of Iraqi oil every year? And since when does political instability equal cheaper oil?
seriously, do you believe that? ... does anyone see any money going to the iraqi people? ... why do you think companies like exxon-mobil are reporting record profits? ... it's because oil is selling so high ...
i would rather see what you seem to see - but what evidence do you have of that? ... look at the country man ... it's in absolute ruins ... nothing is what you want it to be ...
this is how it used to work: oil belonged to iraq ... profit made went to iraqi coffers ... now, oil is given to multi-nationals to procure and sell ... gov't gets portions of revenues either thru taxation or thru lease deals ... it's like if youhad an apple tree and i said i'd give u 5 cents on a 50 cent apple ... why would you do that when you can sell it yourself for the whole lot? ...
but i will digress on blackwater ... they aren't really looting iraq as they are the american taxpayer ...
i didn't say political instability equal cheaper oil ... i said the opposite ...
The US has no control over the cost of oil. That is determined by the market and as of right now oil is still at $90 a barrel and there is no major problems brewing. In fact it is the opposite. Violence in Iraq is at a low point and the tense situation between us and Iran seems to be quiet right now after the US intel report. The US dollar is in danger of loosing it's decades long grip as the petro currency because of it's declining value compared to the Euro. It has nothing to do with our adventures in the Middle East. Secondly the US and the saudies are butt buddies, for a lack of a better term, but we are the one's who have been taking it in the ass from the Al Sa'uds for years. They have cost us more than we can ever imagine and people are starting to realize this. The American public, and slowly but surely some politicians, are tired of our relationship with the Saudies. Unfortunetly, much like a crack head, we need our dealer no matter how much of a douche bag he may be. We can ill afford to severe ties with the Saudies right now until we ween ourselves off of their oil. The invasion of Iraq was an attempt to do so. By developing Iraqi oil fields we can purchuse our oil directly from them without having to deal with the Saudies.
Hey, this is just food for thought here. Don't want you to think I'm arguing with you cause I respect and agree with just about everyting you say.
But I doubt that any policy inacted by any government could ever stop what has happened in Iraq. Imagine Saddam lived another 25 years, and therefore ruled during that time...
Not only would the sectarian tension and atrocities continued and deepend, but younger generations would have been infected with it too. Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years.
Those types of personal vendetas could have only been setteled one way, sadly. I think that by going in now, we have saved hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi's from suffering the same fate as their parents and grandparents.
We have saved a new generation, and when these children grow up and become the ruling class of Iraq, I bet they will respect and thank the United States.
uhh ... look at the events that caused oil to surge over the last few years - much of it stems from the actions in iraq - a war that was manufactured ...
the dollar sucks ass for obvious reasons - the policies of the bush admin - they inherited a strong economy and proceeded to fuck it over ...
and again - the goal has never been to democratize and stabilize iraq nor the middle east ... i know it's hard to believe but the US needs dictators and hard-liners ... that is why they have covert operations against countries that are trying to legitimately be democratic ... it has been shown in history and it continues today ... most democratic countries have opposing views of the US right now ...
look at the UN and all the various treaties - who are the US always siding with? ... the Saudi Arabias and Pakistans of the world - that should be an indication to you ...
I agree that the sectarian violence would have occurred regardless of what path we took. I was referring more to the outside influence and support from countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia on the different waring sects and militias. I probably should have clarified that.
Yes the invasion of Iraq did play a part in the surge of oil but the price is still going up even though some sense of stability is emerging in the region. Second the Bush administration did not fuck up our economy. We the American public fucked our economy by purchasing houses we could not afford and then defaulting on our loans. This crippled our banking industry causing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rate which in turn devalued our dollar. It has nothing to do with Bush's economic policies and everything to do with the sheer stupidity of the American public believing that they could afford a $600,000 home while only making $35,000 a year.
i'm no economist but don't you think your rising debt and defecit have something to do with it as well?? ... continued spending in iraq and afghanistan ... investing in more nuclear weapons ... this administration has done nothing on the domestic front in 7 years ...
there is no stability over there ... the only thing saving everyone is that its winter down there ... where fighting typically subsides because of the poor weather ...
Alright, I'm about done trading posts with you becuase you seem to be ignorant on the issues, but mostly becuase you are unwilling to see anything other than your own agenda.
Never-the-less. Over $100 billion has been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq. Over $45 billion from the US and $40 billion from Iraq (which has come mostly from oil revenue). You can fact check if you want. Iraqi oil profits are at an all-time high, even above when Saddam was in power.
I can't make a connection between oil companies posting record profits and them stealing Iraqi oil. Every educated person knows that all oil compaines are making these profits, not just the ones who are in Iraq "looting" their oil, as you would say. They are making these profits becuase oil is trading near $100 a barrell, - file that under "Duh".
The information below is 2 years old so who knows how much better the statistics are now. But The United States has helped Iraqis...
- conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools
- train more than 30,000 teachers
-distribute more than 8 million textbooks
-rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.
- Helped Iraqis introduce a new currency
- Reopen their stock exchange
- Extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans.
- As a result of these efforts and Iraq's newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation,
- according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the economy over the next two years.
- Help negotiate significant debt relief and completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund - a signal that Iraqis are serious about reform.
The statistics go on and on. It's just unfiar and totally a lie for you to say and act as if the US doesn't give a shit about Iraq and we are just there so our companies can steal their natural resources.
Actually none of that has had any significant impact on the dollars value. Also there is some sense of stability wether it is temperary or permanent is not relavent to today's market. As long as the oil is flowing freely today the price wil not go up. Tomorrow the process repeats itself and so on. So even if the stability is only a bi-product of the winter season the market will adjust to the temporary stability and the prices should go down but guess what they continue to rise because the supply does not meet the demand.
I don't believe that oil prices rised so high because the demand is far too greater than the supply. Oil demand was always on the rise since the invention of combustion engines
The increase rate could have accelerated in the past 10 years since China became a giant but still the increase from 40-50 USD to 90 USD cannot be explained by the consumption. And there is no visible shortage on oil supply at the moment but still the prices go up. If it was purely of supply-demand chain, one would expect a softer incline in the prices, not something like this.
Although I cannot provide the statistics for these ideas, I strongly believe them to be true.
"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."
thats hilarious.
I just read that article myself. Oh boy..never say die eh? Bush is on a new campaign in his last year to save as much face as possible in order to clean up his legacy.. It's going to be a very bumpy ride for him. I wish him much luck.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Just a correction here... regarding this:
"... Shites and Sunnis in Iraq don't hate each other becuase of their religion. They hate each other because of Saddam and how he ruled and oppressed the Shia majority for 30 years. "
...
The conflict is deeply rooted in religion. This thing is about 1400 year old and the only way it is going to go away is when they (Muslims) want it to go away. It's their call to make... not ours.
"There was a dispute in the community of Muslims in present-day Saudi Arabia over the question of succession," says Augustus Norton, author of Hezbollah: A Short History. "That is to say, who is the rightful successor to the Prophet?"
Most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favored Ali, who was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah.
"Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the Prophet," notes Gregory Gause, professor of Middle East politics at the University of Vermont. "And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."
The Sunnis prevailed and chose a successor to be the first caliph.
Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered. War erupted when Ali became caliph, and he too was killed in fighting in the year 661 near the town of Kufa, now in present-day Iraq.
The violence and war split the small community of Muslims into two branches that would never reunite. "
(ref. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7332087 )
Hail, Hail!!!
it's fine if you don't want to trade posts - but i can easily copy and past your sentiment to you ... just because i'm not agreeing with your belief that all is fine and dandy in iraq - i'm ingorant?? ...
in any case - you said it yourself ... the US has spent billions - who are they paying?? ... they are paying those companies that want this war - the haliburtons and blackwater ... that's my point!! ... again - do you have any evidence of any benefit to the iraqi people ... every day they are asked to give up more!
post all the stats you'd like but your first place you should look is the actual country ... it's a disaster there - over 1 million dead ... they have power only portions of the day ... everything is rationed ... what kind of better place are you seeing?
did my apple analogy help you understand what is going on with the oil? ... do you fail to make the connection because u choose not to? ... let me try again - if you are an oil company and oil is at record highs - what do you want most? ... answer: more oil!! ... they didn't have access to that with Saddam in power ... now they have it ...
Let me tell you how this is wrong. First, there was no such thing as Sunni or Shia' at the time of the first khalifa or "caliph". The prophet himself assigned Abu Bakr as the first khalifa which affected many who thought Ali should have been chosen. The Shia' disagree because they believe the prophet did not assign anyone before his death. I don't think such a thing as Sunni or Shia' was created until about 200 years later but I'm not 100% sure on this point. I'll get back to you on that one.
Edit: Not 200 years, a couple of decades later.
No, you are ignorant becuase you believe the US has no vested interest in Iraq, save what we can steal and expliot. That is total bullshit and you know it! Beucase you won't acknowledge any of the positive changes and reconstruction taking place in Iraq, it's clear you have some sort of axe to grind here. I'm hardly pretending that its all roses over there because its not. But there ARE many positives going on in Iraq right now, and the US is heavily involved in rebuilding the infastructure of that country.
This totally separate from the question of if we will succeed or not. The fact remains that we are trying, and it chaps my ass that you won't acknowledge it.
I'm not disagreeing that the US government is paying US companies to help rebuild Iraq. Will you please respond to this point: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? Would you rather Iraqi's go without power than have Haliburton profit from building them a power plant? Am I happy they got a no-bid contract? No, that's probably not cool. But in the long run I don't really care about that as much as the fact that Iraqi's are getting more power!!!!
You are so wrapped up in conspiracy that you can't take in the big picture.
You asked if I had any evidence that the US is helping to build Iraq, and I responded that we have invested $45 billion in that effort.
Your next question is if I have any evidence that this is actually helping the Iraqi people. I gave you plenty of stats that indcate it is. What more do you want?
You say that everyday the Iraqi people are asked to give up more.... what the fuck are you talking about? Please show some evidence or clarify that.
What the hell are you trying to say when you write "you can post all the stats you want but i should look at what's happening in the country".
The stats are taken from what is happening in Iraq. Its the same Godamned thing. If we built 800 miles of roads, trained 30,000 school teachers and distributed 8 million school books - then how is that not valid??? How is that not proof that we are helping more than our bottom line????
No, your apple analogy is retarded. We are not giving Iraq a small fraction of what their oil is actually worth. Please give me some evidence that we are fleecing Iraq in this regard.
your entire theory is founded on the amount of money the US spends in iraq ... to me - that is false because that was the point ...
this war in iraq was manufactured simply so they could line the pockets of these companies ... how is blackwater (private military) gonna make money without a conflict?? ... so, while you may seek solace in a $300 million contract for a road - the reality is that you guys destroyed that road on a false war ... it's been 4 years and can you really say life is better now? ... and at what point does anyone foresee that they will be?
i'm sorry you don't understand the analogy ... you are able to figure out that the oil companies make money because oil is selling high ... yet you can't put together that they now sell iraqi oil? ... if the profits from oil used to goto the state - how is having a multi-national selling it gonna be better? ... i shouldn't have to provide any link - it should be obvious ...
you may think i have an axe to grind but honestly, i would like nothing more than to see what you hope to see ... i would love if the US was the beacon of democracy and that they are doing more good then harm in the middle east ... it simply just not the case ...
look at all the money that has been spent on afghanistan and iraq in the last 6 years ... with nothing really to show for it ... all based on false wars ...
so its irans fault... your mind is great