Political troubles in Europe

[SLCPUNK]

It's great that you're passionate about your country, but a line has to be drawn between pride and self-righteousness.

This may be one of the best statements I have ever read on this board in any political thread. Brilliant!

[SLCPUNK]

Ill just ask one thing, you do realize that you we have used more oil in the war in Iraq than Iraq has pumped out of its wells since the war began?

Says whom?

Anyway, all that does is prove our complete dependency on oil.

Yea, it wasn't about oil at all...........

Taken from the Toronto Star:

Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. "Think of Iraq as virgin territory .... This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth." Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

There's something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn't show the kind of detail normally shown on maps cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq's oil. The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine "Exploration Blocks." Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It's like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts .... Block 1 might be the striploin, Block 2 and Block 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8 ? ahh, that could be the filet mignon.

The map might seem crass, but it was never meant for public consumption. It was one of the documents studied by the ultra-secretive task force on energy, headed by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, and it was only released under court order after a long legal battle waged by the public interest group Judicial Watch. Another interesting task force document, also released under court order over the opposition of the Bush administration, was a two-page chart titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields." It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company's negotiations with Saddam Hussein's regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had "agreed in principle" to the French company's plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French!

The documents have attracted surprisingly little attention, despite their possible relevance to the question of Washington's motives for its invasion of Iraq. In many ways the defining event of the post-9/11 world but one whose purpose remains shrouded in mystery. Even after the supposed motives for the invasion weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda have been thoroughly discredited, talk of oil as a motive is still greeted with derision. Certainly any suggestion that private oil interests were in any way involved is hooted down with charges of conspiracy theory. Yet the documents suggest that those who took part in the Cheney task force including senior oil company executives were very interested in Iraq's oil and specifically in the danger of it falling into the hands of eager foreign oil companies, rather than into the rightful hands of eager U.S. oil companies.

As the documents show, prior to the U.S. invasion, foreign oil companies were nicely positioned for future involvement in Iraq, while the major U.S. oil companies, after years of U.S.-Iraqi hostilities, were largely out of the picture. Indeed, the U.S. majors would have been the big losers if U.N. sanctions against Iraq had simply been lifted. "The U.S. majors stand to lose if Saddam makes a deal with the U.N. (on lifting sanctions)," noted a report by Germany's Deutsche Bank in October 2002. The disadvantaged position of U.S. oil companies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have presumably been on the minds of senior oil company executives when they met secretly with Cheney and his task force in early 2001. The administration refuses to divulge exactly who met with the task force, and continues to fight legal challenges to force disclosure. However a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the task force relied on advice from the oil industry, whose close ties to the Bush administration are legendary. (George W. Bush received more money from the oil and gas industry in 1999 and 2000 than any other U.S. federal candidate received over the previous decade.) ............................


(cut)

As CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, Cheney had been alert to the problem of securing new sources of oil. Speaking to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999, while still heading Halliburton, Cheney had focused on the difficulty of finding the 50 million extra barrels of oil per day that he said the world would need by 2010. "Where is it going to come from?" he asked, and then noted that "the Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies." Cheney's focus on the Middle East and its oil continued after he became Bush's powerful vice-president. Within weeks of the new administration taking office, Cheney was pushing forward plans for regime change in Iraq and also devising a new energy policy which included getting control of oil reserves in rogue states. His central role in these two apparently urgent initiatives is certainly suggestive of a possible connection between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and a desire for the country's ample oil reserves ? The very thing that is vehemently denied.................




The entire article can be found here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0920crude.htm

[Rain]

Europe is way to weak for the moment to exist "alone".

but doesnt that mean Europe needs an organization like the EU to become stronger?? Why did the French people vote against it?? Is it more economical reasons or that you dont like the political leaders of the EU??

My other question is what does good relationships with the US have to do with the existence of an EU?? Cant you have both??

Europeans will never agree all together (25 or 27 countries? WTF? how could so much countries agree on everything? It's impossible!)

well, 50 states dont always agree on everything either!

I'll try to answer the best I can ! That's a pretty compliated topic. I'm pro-european. And I voted NO on sunday. I can try to explain why I did. For eight months politicians kept telling us we were to vote for an European Constitution ... That's great I'm totally for a constitution. But when I tried to read the piece it wasn't a constitution at all ... It's a whole book :

Part I The Constitution's fundamental provisions
Part II Charter of Fundamental Rights
Part III The Union's policies
The final clauses
Protocols and Annexes I and II
Declarations

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm

I was ok for I & II when I began reading III it only deals with economic regulations ... I was for a constitution not for yet another economic treaty ! 

To answer your second question : good relations w/ the US have nothing to do w/ the EU. Well as long as the 25 countries that compose the EU now have a similar views on what the USA are doing at the worl level. And as you know since the beginning of the Iraq war EU foreign policy is inexistant.

And to end my post you cannot compare the 50 american states to the 25 countries that compose the EU. The USA are a federal state. The EU isn't. The EU is composed of 25 nations !

[D]

There are three reasons that I dont think we went to war in Iraq for the oil, (now Bush could have a hidden agenda, i dont know) but for one Bush is somewhat evil but I dont think he would cost the lives of innocent americans just to gain some oil, secondly Bush alone cannot declare war, congress has to vote as well and Im pretty sure democrats and republicans all were for it and thought it was a good idea at the time.

3rd and my biggest reason is, I dont think the U.N. would allow us to control that oil anyway. Other countries would have a huge objection to us invading Iraq and controlling their oil, I think the Iraqi people will get to control it and they will have a great export and will become a thriving country in a couple of decades.

I mean who ever thought Japan would be a world leader in exports?

Bush couldve had alterior motives, maybe he was trying to get back at Saddam and that was personal but I just dont see any possible way that we could take control of their oil even if we wanted too.

[GnRNightrain]

Actually I apologize to SLC, I misquoted him.? Here is his standard, written in response to the Newseek story:

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Innocent until proven guilty

In other words, he will believe anything that is printed until it is proven false.? An odd approach for such an independent thinker.  But it actually explains a lot.

I will actually vote for these statements as two of the best I have read in the political threads.? Glad to see that you figured out the argument in the Newseek thread.

[nesquick]

I
And to end my post you cannot compare the 50 american states to the 25 countries that compose the EU. The USA are a federal state. The EU isn't. The EU is composed of 25 nations !

Very true. that was my though too.

[Axls Locomotive]

Actually I apologize to SLC, I misquoted him.  Here is his standard, written in response to the Newseek story:

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Innocent until proven guilty

In other words, he will believe anything that is printed until it is proven false.  An odd approach for such an independent thinker.  But it actually explains a lot.

I will actually vote for these statements as two of the best I have read in the political threads.  Glad to see that you figured out the argument in the Newseek thread.

...thats the way the courts work...though only in civilised countries...

i doubt slc believes everything he reads as what he has posted here is only a miniscule amount of the information and sources available...and i doubt that you analyse every piece of information you post here either...the truth is, neither of you know the truth on most points

yet another person who cannot tell the difference between england and britain...your european history/geography lecturers dont teach very well do they...

ahhh come on England or Britain is barely the same for me. I think people understood. I spoke about the country of Tony Blair.

uhhh no its far from being the same...from my perspective its like calling Scandanavia Sweden or Guns N Roses = Axl Rose...and besides, even Wales is just as big as Belgium and Scotland is twice the size of Austria...im sure you know Austria and Belgium well enough hmmm

[nesquick]

alright IQ I'm not a specialist of britain, england or wales. I was taugh that when I was 12 in English class but I forgot it. I remember the teacher brang a map and explained us all the differencies.

[N.I.B]

Nightrain told a 14 yr old off? 

Good one! 

Journeys right, im 14. I dont feel unconfertable on this board.

I dont care if he is 14.  If he wants to discuss on this board and throw his opinion out there, then he should be willing to accept criticisms.

I can take criticism, dont worry.

I think it was a misinformed statement/opinion.

It's great that you're passionate about your country, but a line has to be drawn between pride and self-righteousness. ?I love my country too, but I know that other people don't. And that's probably, because they've never lived in it. So, negative comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

Not so much misinformed, but more like what i see myself
____________________________________________________________________________


I say that it's Americas fault because they have the power to puch other countries around without any apparant reason. I respect and understand that you are American, but heres my side: i live in Canada true, but im from Croatia, where we have suffered opression from the Serbs for a very long time. So when i see countries bombed like Iraq and Afganistan because they dont like one person, i cant help feel sorry for them. Afganistan, why? I know what Bin Laden did, but do you really have to kill innocentsto find him? And Iraq. Those weapons of mass destruction still wern't found, they just wanted an oil cut. Do you really want to see why i dont like how corrupt America's government is? Watch "Bowling for Columbine". Close to the beggining, there is a timeline of America's tretury and killing of innocence from the 1940's to 9/11. I appologize for offending any Americans on this board, but honestly, I call 'em as I see 'em. May not be right, but thats what I see.


P.S Who gives a fuck if im 14. Say what you want about me, i dont care 

[GnRNightrain]

Do you really want to see why i dont like how corrupt America's government is? Watch "Bowling for Columbine". Close to the beggining, there is a timeline of America's tretury and killing of innocence from the 1940's to 9/11. I appologize for offending any Americans on this board, but honestly, I call 'em as I see 'em. May not be right, but thats what I see.

The fact that Michael Moore is continuously the source of choice for those that hate America overseas is troubling.  Perhaps you should do some fact checking on the Moore's propoganda films instead of taking them as the truth.  Im sure you will find that not everything that you have been led to believe is the truth.

[GnRNightrain]

Actually I apologize to SLC, I misquoted him.? Here is his standard, written in response to the Newseek story:

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Innocent until proven guilty

In other words, he will believe anything that is printed until it is proven false.? An odd approach for such an independent thinker.?
But it actually explains a lot.

I will actually vote for these statements as two of the best I have read in the political threads.? Glad to see that you figured out the argument in the Newseek thread.

...thats the way the courts work...though only in civilised countries...

Certainly, and SLC is about as consistent using this standard as the Juries that apply it everyday at the court house.

i doubt slc believes everything he reads

Or what he writes hopefully   He does seem to be a bit selective in what he believes if you ask me.  Oddly, it all seems to be the stuff that implicates the Bush Administration and the United States.

as what he has posted here is only a miniscule amount of the information and sources available...and i doubt that you analyse every piece of information you post here either...the truth is, neither of you know the truth on most points

I absolutely agree.  The difference is this: I dont sit here and say that I apply a reasonable doubt standard (noting SLC's response to his lack of condemnation of the Newseek story) and then apply it only in situations that I choose. 

Tell me where I shown an inconsistency as apparent as SLC showed in the Newseek thread.

[nesquick]

Mickeal Moore is not a credible person in my opinion.

[Axls Locomotive]

Actually I apologize to SLC, I misquoted him.  Here is his standard, written in response to the Newseek story:

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Innocent until proven guilty

In other words, he will believe anything that is printed until it is proven false.  An odd approach for such an independent thinker. 
But it actually explains a lot.

I will actually vote for these statements as two of the best I have read in the political threads.  Glad to see that you figured out the argument in the Newseek thread.

...thats the way the courts work...though only in civilised countries...

Certainly, and SLC is about as consistent using this standard as the Juries that apply it everyday at the court house.

i doubt slc believes everything he reads

Or what he writes hopefully   He does seem to be a bit selective in what he believes if you ask me.  Oddly, it all seems to be the stuff that implicates the Bush Administration and the United States.

as what he has posted here is only a miniscule amount of the information and sources available...and i doubt that you analyse every piece of information you post here either...the truth is, neither of you know the truth on most points

I absolutely agree.  The difference is this: I dont sit here and say that I apply a reasonable doubt standard (noting SLC's response to his lack of condemnation of the Newseek story) and then apply it only in situations that I choose. 

Tell me where I shown an inconsistency as apparent as SLC showed in the Newseek thread.

im not going to debate what slc thinks, thats for him to say and not me...but from my perspective you are both biased...you believe something and you find information to ratify your own position, ive seen both of you do it, ive did it too...to say that you have a more balanced viewpoint is absurd from what ive heard you say in the past...thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

[MCT]

thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

That's a mouthful right there, my man, but heavyweight?

[jarmo]

What does USA in Iraq and Michael Moore have to do with the problems in the EU?

 



/jarmo

[GnRNightrain]

thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

That's a mouthful right there, my man, but heavyweight?

How is the job search going?

[GnRNightrain]

What does USA in Iraq and Michael Moore have to do with the problems in the EU?

 



/jarmo

Not sure, no matter what the topic is someone always decides to bring up the evil US.

[N.I.B]

What does USA in Iraq and Michael Moore have to do with the problems in the EU?

 



/jarmo

sorry. thats all my fault that i brought up why the EU should avoid america. Sorry.

[MCT]

thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

That's a mouthful right there, my man, but heavyweight?

How is the job search going?

You've picked a good time, I've been in a fairly good mood lately, being nice to people...

EDIT - One little mistake. Corrected...

[Axls Locomotive]

thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

That's a mouthful right there, my man, but heavyweight?

...yea as in slugging it out...how about fat-assed-heavyweight instead? which kind of gets back to the EU doesnt it hahaha