Friday, March 07, 2014

not that any IQ-75's and over were ever confused or in doubt about the underlying motive.....,


ken said...

Do your really consider Rachael's comparison worthy of consideration? I guess to expand her ideas, had North Korea been sitting on a massive pool of oil we would have gone right in there and occupied Korea, right? Does Rachael ponder why we haven't taken over Russia, they got oil. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Araba or Venezuela? I mean really Venezuela has double the reserves Iraq has. After all its only about are thirst for oil. And then with all that oil we could have we instead are instrumental in pushing for economic sanctions against Iraq for years making the terms that he comply to the agreements of the cease fire. Such irony.

Rachael is a partisan hack, and had Clinton did the deed who knew was the correct action, Rachael would have been singing a different tune.

Vic78 said...

Of all the countries you named Iraq was the most isolated and the weakest. The other countries have nukes, strong alliances, or they're playing ball with the USA. Iraq had none of the three things going for it and they were sitting on oil. The American public wasn't liable to put anything passed Hussein so there was that factor as well. So it was pretty easy to make an excuse to attack Iraq. Don't forget how 9/11 was used to make the lies easier to swallow.

Tom said...

A good working definition of a conservative is someone who believes in water wars but doesn't believe in oil wars.

(A good working definition of a liberal is someone who thinks the way to spark achievement in young people is to stop rewarding achievement. A pox on both their houses.)

Dale Asberry said...

And to add to Vic's argument, a military invasion destroys real wealth. In the case of oil, it destroys production capacity on the order of 10-20%. Iraq was worth that loss. I suspect no other country is (although it's apparently very tempting.) Hence the typical political solutions such as US sponsored coup-de-tat or resource theft through the World Bank, etc. etc.

CNu said...

lol, dayyum Ken, that was an almost Con.Feed on tequila level of incoherent political blubbering.

For the record, the lovely and razor-sharp Dr. Rachel Maddow is General Electric's primary public intellectual hitter. She's hardline GE-partisan, and in my occasionally humble estimation, may be the GOAT.

You think of anybody bringing even remotely as much heat as Dr. Maddow, please drop a link _____________________ ?

ken said...

You think of anybody bringing even remotely as much heat as Dr. Maddow, please drop a link

I am not sure what you are even talking about here. What can she say to her 300 or 400 thousand viewers that would cause any heat past when the show is over?

As for in-coherency, it was a pretty simple response, Rachel is arguing we only went to Iraq because they had oil. Its reasonable to ask, if North Korea had oil would have we attacked? We hope of course she has enough sense to understand there would be difficulty with China, and possible damage we would cause to South Korea. And if we accept Rachel's idea that we only invaded Iraq because of oil, why haven't we invaded Venezuela which has double the reserves Iraq does? And then if we get even more into her argument, why not one of the top oil producers like Russia?

And then when add the idea that the US pushed for sanctions and enforced them that would prevent Iraq from even trading oil, except later for the oil for food program, how silly and shallow Dr. Rachel Maddow's argument truly is. And finally because her partisanship overrides her intelligence, we all understand had Bill Clinton set out to accomplish what he stated to be the right long term action, Rachel would be talking much more different.

As for Mr. Vic's ideas on 9/11 making the "lies" easier to swallow. The idea Sadaam had WMD's was not an American fabricated idea, but one held around intelligence communities around the world. Even Sadaam wanted to make it look like he had WMD's because he wanted Iran to think he had them.

CNu said...

And if we accept Rachel's idea that we only invaded Iraq because of oil,
why haven't we invaded Venezuela which has double the reserves Iraq
does? And then if we get even more into her argument, why not one of the
top oil producers like Russia?

I thought Vic had helped you out of the ditch with the stupid antics, but if you insist..., Iraq vs. Venezuela is sweet light crude vs. sour tar. Look up the differences, do the math, and figure it out for yourself.

As for any satellite of nuclear China, or nuclear Russia, total non-starter because you don't attack, much less invade any country that can turn your major cities into fused glass fields in under an hour. I know 7 year olds with enough common sense to not pretend otherwise.

As for viewership, Dr. Maddow gets 325K in the 25-54 demographic alone, beating faux news presstitute Megan Kelly on the regular. The above said, I'm not gonna try to provoke an evolutionary leap in your basic comprehension. Your fully bought into the kayfabe. You're on record as an uncritical cheerleader for the epic fail invasion of Iraq. And evidently, pseudoanonymous Interweb bluster trumps factual correctness and reality groundedness in your peasant-partisan reference frame.

makheru bradley said...

I don’t watch MSNBC, but in this clip Maddow does not deal with what many analysts consider a major reason for the invasion of Iraq: “Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal ‘in the currency of the enemy.’” --Time 11/13/2000

[The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.]

We know why the oligarchic psychopathocracy did it. Why did the American body politic accept their rationalizations? For the White Supremacy Dynamic retaliatory violence in therapeutic. Inferior beings should not possess the intelligence to execute an attack like 9/11. It defies the logic of white supremacy. How could 19 Muslims attack the United States with such efficiency? Retaliatory violence is therapy for the psychological trauma caused by such atrocities. Basically, once 19 Muslims were accused of 9/11, Saddam Hussein may as well have been a Black man in Money, Mississippi when a white woman cried rape. Any and every Muslim was guilty, particularly one with power and resources.

makheru bradley said...

The Evil Triplets--Clinton, Bush, Obama, all of those bastards are killers of children and war criminals.

[During his presidency, Bill Clinton presided over the most devastating regime of economic sanctions in history that the UN estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of them children. In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was Clinton"s UN Ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that"s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?"]-- Democracy Now

ken said...

The world is better off without Sadaam and so is Iraq and so are we, and Iraq controls their own oil.

makheru bradley said...

The good Christians, Rev. Ken and Bush are smoking from the same crack pipe. One would have to be on crack to believe that a broke-ass country can spend trillions of tax dollars and kill millions of people and believe that is a good thing.

Israel Cannot Lie About Or Escape It's Conspicuous Kinetic Vulnerability

nakedcapitalism |   Israel has vowed to respond to Iran’s missile attack over the last weekend, despite many reports of US and its allies ...