Thread: Bush's Good Ideas

Originally Posted by durianfan

1993 - World Trade Center Bombings

exactly 1993.....approx 7 or 8 years before 9/11.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by britmaveric

-Idea to spread democracy to the middle east, work in progress with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The official policy of the US government is to support dictatorships in the Middle East. This has been the policy for the last 80 years, and continues to the policy.

Saud family in KSA, #2 most aid in the world from the US goes to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, doing the oil deal with Qaddafi, Kuwait, and other Gulf States.

Elections that are free and fair int he Middle East, is the last thing the US government wants.

OIL - is the reason.

And, democracy is not looked upon the same in the M.E. as it is in Euro-Centric nations.

The entire notion reveals the cultural arrogance and the ignorance of the United States government and public.

Hit the nail right on the head there.

Originally Posted by durianfan

I'm sure there are many MANY terrorist attacks that were attempted but were never carried out because Homeland Security/NSA/CIA/FBI thwarted them. We just never hear about it.

I am sure it would be all over the news, to celebrate the success. But there has been silence.

Originally Posted by stroller

But there has been silence.

there have been a few incidents over the years...but they generally consisted of posers, and a few knuckleheads in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They do a pretty good job of killing each other without the need for terrorists.

Originally Posted by stroller

I am sure it would be all over the news, to celebrate the success. But there has been silence.

Given the number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 in Europe, there "likely" have been several thwarted in the US. Silence maybe justified.

Originally Posted by Norton

Silence maybe justified.

Sorry, I do not follow. Justified in what way? Why would one keep silent about successfully preventing terrorist attacks?

They caught the guy at the Canadian border with a carload of explosives. The disrupted the plan to bomb LAX airport.


On another note if it's all about oil how come:

China and Iraq could soon sign a US$1.2 billion oil deal that was cancelled after the 2003 US invasion, AP reported. The government of Saddam Hussein made an agreement with China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) to develop the al-Ahdab oil field, in violation of UN sanctions, which bar direct business with the Iraqi oil industry. Iraq and China began talks on reviving the deal in October 2006, because the Chinese were waiting for sanctions to be lifted after the US removed Saddam. An anonymous official told AP that the final round of negotiations will be held in April. The oil field could produce 115,000 barrels a day. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said it had no information about the discussions, while CNPC executives could not be reached for comment.

China close to oil deal with Iraq - MarketAvenue

How come:
DNO strikes oil in Iraq

Shares in Norwegian oil company DNO jumped nearly 11 percent on Monday, after the company confirmed that it had struck oil in Northern Iraq.


DNO strikes oil in Iraq - Aftenposten.no


We aren't keeping it all to ourselves. So what do people mean by saying "we are there for the oil"?

Originally Posted by attaboy

We aren't keeping it all to ourselves. So what do people mean by saying "we are there for the oil"?

Well, for a start there was certainly no other reason for the invasion and occupation.

But on to the oil issue. The Chinese deal is only a proposal at this stage as far as I am aware.

All the Middle East oil producing countries (including Iraq) nationalized their oil industries in the 1970s to stop exploitation by multinational oil companies.

Despite having massive oil reserves, Iraq's oil industry didn't fare well due to successive wars and later the sanctions placed on it by the west in the 90s.

Bush has been pushing the new Iraqi government to scrap the nationalized oil industry and open it up to privatization by the multinationals once again. There has been great debate about this and the idea is opposed by most Iraqis as it will mean the big international oil countries will make nearly all the profit while paying the Iraqi people a pittance of a royalty around 10%. This is a case of blatant exploitation, but little the Iraqi people can do about it with their country in ruins and occupied by a foreign army. No other ME oil producing country would allow such a law.

See the Wikipedia script below.
"
Iraq oil law (2007)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •

Jump to: navigation, search
The Iraq oil law, also referred to as the Iraq hydrocarbon law,[1] is a proposed piece of legislation submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in May 2007.[2]
The Bush administration hired the consulting firm BearingPoint to help write the law in 2004.[3][4] The bill was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007.[5] The Bush administration considers the passage of the law a benchmark for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.[6][7]
The new law would authorise production share agreements (PSAs) which guarantees a profit for foreign oil companies.[2] The industry had been completely nationalized by 1972.[8][2] The government in the 1990s, under the presidency of Saddam Hussein, gave PSAs to Russian and Chinese companies which gave a profit percentage of less than 10 percent.[2]
The central government would distribute remaining oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis.[1] The draft law would allow Iraq's provinces freedom from the central government in giving exploration and production contracts.[2] Iraq's constitution allows governorates to form a semi-independent regions, fully controlling their own natural resources.[2]
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive operational control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields. Normally countries do not have the type of exclusivity that would leave two-thirds of known and unknown fields open to foreign control. However, operational control of the fields does not mean control of the money made from them, and a percentage of the profits will be going into Iraqi tax revenue.[1][9] Iraq’s oil reserves are believed to be the second largest in the world[1] after Saudi Arabia.[10]
Journalist Pepe Escobar points to the destiny of the Iraq oil law as the crucial point determining the will of the American administrations to withdraw from the Iraq war.[11]"

Some more discussion on the subject here---


ZNet - Iraqi oil law

"The draft oil law is no doubt "re-privatizing" Iraqi oil wealth and will return Iraq to the era prior to Law 80 of 1961. Law 80 nationalized 99.5% of the Iraqi land from the IOCs and returned it to the Iraqi nation."

How come this thread isn't blank?

He has made a lot of us laugh at his stupidity.......but unfortunately, more have cried as well.

Originally Posted by Panda

Well, for a start there was certainly no other reason for the invasion and occupation.

Oh yes, there were. Establishing a military presence and strategic advantages in the ME to start with.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Panda

Well, for a start there was certainly no other reason for the invasion and occupation.

Oh yes, there were. Establishing a military presence and strategic advantages in the ME to start with.

Well why do you think they would want to be there if it wasn't for the oil?
There's plenty of other US allies in the ME where they could set up bases to protect USA from whoever.

Well if it that were the case the yanks aren't benefiting from any oil. They should be taking oil profits from Iraq govt, paying for yank presence there. However as always yanks get stuck in the arse for helping out and not taking a single cent.

Originally Posted by Panda

Well why do you think they would want to be there if it wasn't for the oil? There's plenty of other US allies in the ME where they could set up bases to protect USA from whoever.

Such as?

Plenty of material on the motives for invading Iraq, the now defunct PNAC was a good one to get it all from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Yes, oil/resources are key factors, not in the narrow sense of short-term exploitation of Iraqi reserves, though.

Originally Posted by britmaveric

Well if it that were the case the yanks aren't benefiting from any oil. They should be taking oil profits from Iraq govt, paying for yank presence there. However as always yanks get stuck in the arse for helping out and not taking a single cent.

Yea, they sure fucked it up there. But still, they forced the Iraqi government to sign over the nationalized oil fields and open it up to private multinationals.
Not doing much at the moment though due to time lag between exploration and production plus the Iraqi resistance fighters keep blowing things up to keep the big oil companies from sucking Iraq's greatest natural resource out from under them.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Panda

Well why do you think they would want to be there if it wasn't for the oil? There's plenty of other US allies in the ME where they could set up bases to protect USA from whoever.

Such as?

Plenty of material on the motives for invading Iraq, the now defunct PNAC was a good one to get it all from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Yes, oil/resources are key factors, not in the narrow sense of short-term exploitation of Iraqi reserves, though.

Sorry Stroller, I am not on the same intellectual plane as you. Could you dumb it down a bit so I can understand what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by attaboy

Although not a particular reason for invading Iraq, Communist Chinese military officers who were getting full of themselves have witnessed what the US is capable of doing to a conventional army with a conventional army. I'm pretty sure the Chinese are less full of themselves these days. They might even reconsider wasting billions of yuan on useless military projects.

you got to be joking, the only thing that the Iraq war has shown the world is how vulnerable and incompetent is the US army, despite all the expensive toys. This has become all clear to the Chinese who will proceed with the invasion of Tawain when the moment comes, with the US so battered and tired of the Iraq war, the Pentagon will just sit there and watch,

Our military has shown the Chinese military that our troops will fight for years and are still willing to fight. They fight willingly. I wonder if the Chinese military could say the same for their troops; that they would continue on and not without intimidation. As far as vulnerable is concerned, the US military has shown itself to be very adaptive in Iraq. Incompetent? That statement is nothing more than a wind up. The rest of your post is only passing gas.

Dont think so - Yanks could easily stop the Chinese with Air Power alone. This should be blatantly obvious from the Iraq War.

Besides why would the mainland take Taiwan by force? The new Taiwan president is looking for stronger economic ties. The mainland can wait it out for generations. Eventually the romanticism of youth coupled with mainland sponsored propaganda will bring about a longing for union with their mainland 'brothers'.

Butterfly works off a Talking Points sheet. It's only one page long and written in green crayon. Half the page is a stick picture of his new bicycle and dog, George.

Don't confuse him.