What are you? Eight years old?

He is the resident crazy, he brings joy to my life through his ridicolous ramblings.

“Redbaiter (8219) Says:

December 21st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
“The US is a bully.”

What’s your favourite country then?

Vote: 5 8″

What are you? Eight years old?

What an idiotic and a stupid comment.

Does Microsoft think that it is entitle to the market that is competing in? Nope. Market power speaks. Microsoft doesn’t wait for a government to give it some favorable contracts, they get in there and compete against others and if they win, it is because of their market power and excellent marketing.

What makes you think that Google is entitled to expect you to use their search engine while there are free other similar services to use? Did the NZ or some other governments make it favourable for Google to allow its search engine to be used by the majority of the populations but not others? Nope. Market power. The market power that enables scums and anti-capitalists like you to enjoy for free.

Redbaiter (8203) Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 11:54 pm

“Sometimes, I even read bits out for other people in the room, and we laugh.”

Yeah well, weaving baskets all day in a room full of similar retards would make laughs pretty hard to come by.

Does it make you feel better to think that a room full of retards find you a complete and utter joke?

Yeah well, weaving baskets all day in a room full of similar retards would make laughs pretty hard to come by.

The point of the reference to the BBC article was not to convince anyone that Saddam had WMD’s but to give an example of how widespread the belief was you dull witted loon.

Of course the Iraq invasion was about securing a strategic supply of oil for the US and her allies, always was always will be.

The announcement that Iraq has the 3rd largest reserves on the planet bears this out.

Redbaiter (8202) Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm

” WOW. You have me convinced.”

When you develop enough intelligence to grasp the real point, have another go. Time wasting extreme left idiot.

” and the subsequent use of the resources gained:”

Obviously you didn’t even read the initial post by Mr. Farrar. Go away you ranting bereft of fact simpleton loon.

As for the nut with the Julian Borger bullshit, what is it with you dumbfuck leftists that you are always trying to draw people’s attention to the rantings of bigoted left wing journalists we have long ago discounted as reliable sources of information? This is a right wing blog you loser. Post your worthless crap over at the Standard where they’ll welcome it in moondog delerium.

The original post by DPF was about a Time article which was shown to be lacking in both information and proper assessment of that information. As I posted up there, American companies have been deeply involved in extraction and transportation of Iraqi oil from the outset, and as Paul Buchanan has noted – and as I linked to Peter Dale Scott – the economic reasons for access to oil go above and beyond mere reductionist notions of American companies needing to be the ones buying the contracts for America to benefit.

But, as I pointed out above, and which you conveniently ignore because you’re a bulletheaded idiot, ExxonMobil and Occidental have both been involved in consortiums to extract oil, and Shell Oil is a wholly owned subsiduary of Royal Dutch Shell – so American listed companies have the foot in. (Oil) well in. Oh, and not raised before – the UK was the largest coalition partner, and BP and Royal Dutch Shell are both British owned and FTSE listed. In fact, BP has business links to Tony Blair’s cabinet – Google “Sir David Simon” and “Lord Brown”.

So thank you for showing, once again, that you don’t have the wherewithall or the intelligence to either process or act on information received, and that you can’t argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks that presuppose a particular political position. Which I don’t hold, but knock yourself out if you want to carry on, because frankly, it’s fucking hilarious. Sometimes, I even read bits out for other people in the room, and we laugh.

What’s your favourite country then?

When you develop enough intelligence to grasp the real point, have another go. Time wasting extreme left idiot.

” and the subsequent use of the resources gained:”

Obviously you didn’t even read the initial post by Mr. Farrar. Go away you ranting bereft of fact simpleton loon.

As for the nut with the Julian Borger bullshit, what is it with you dumbfuck leftists that you are always trying to draw people’s attention to the rantings of bigoted left wing journalists we have long ago discounted as reliable sources of information? This is a right wing blog you loser. Post your worthless crap over at the Standard where they’ll welcome it in moondog delerium.

The problem was that lifting sanctions alone could not guarantee Saddam’s agreement to open up the oil spigot. His strategy was to keep enough oil flowing to arm himself and prop his regime, not satisfy market demand (I will not here go into his logic for invading Kuwait in Gulf War 1, but that had an oil-based geopolitical logic all of its own). Thus, for the oil-based geopolitical play to happen, he needed to go.

Your water-focused scenario is interesting, but that is of regional, not global import.

The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

“In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”
(from an article published in 1982 by the World Zionist Organisation’s publication Kivunim)

http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html

Redbaiter (8200) Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pm

More same old same old extreme left propaganda cloaked in academic language. No deliberate deception has ever been proven, and in fact long before the war began it was widely accepted in global academic, political and media circles that Saddam was attempting to or had succeeded in manufacturing WMD. Here’s a link wherein your favourite propaganda outfit the BBC claims in 2001 that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm

WOW. You have me convinced. A sketchy documentary that explores allegations from exiled Iraqis that say that, despite no evidence to support it, let alone from the US government or any other Western government – which would have been fucking brilliant as a casus belli, by the way – Saddam actually managed to set off a nuclear bomb. Without anyone knowing. At all. And they bought the materials from South Africa!

Completely, totally and utterly convincing. You should do stand-up. Especially if the “global academic, political and media circles” you’re talking about was related to the completely and utterly debunked claims of either yellow cake uranium from Niger, or the dodgy dossier.

I mean, this is notwithstanding that for six years no-one has found anything. But that’s okay, you just keep on with the reality in your head. Don’t let what we’re all doing out here distract you.

Or are you talking about the mustard gas that Rumsfeld sold to them in the 1980s and they subsequently dropped on the Kurds? Because that actually happened. Or the pre-1991 nuclear technology that the West helped them acquire? Because that happened too. But I’ll tell you what, we certainly heard about it when they found a fly farting, so it’s beyond me how your revelations – which you should relate to the intelligence services immediately – escaped everyone else.

Here’s a whole ream of documents, reports and papers from The Project for the New American Century dating back to the end of the first Gulf War that say that the stated principle of key figures in the Bush administration and their backers is to assert America’s dominance on the world by military means and the subsequent use of the resources gained:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

And just in case you want updates from the same people that ran the PNAC, here’s the sequel, the Foreign Policy Initiative:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

Oh, and just to leave you with a quote from PJ O’Rourke, who supported the invasion, but not for the straw reasons you’ve put forward…

“As a casus belli, WMDs did seem like a pair of pants cut to fit North Korea into which Iraq was being stuffed.”

There is no basis at all to the claim that these three men see the world geopolitically through any prism. This is pure speculation driven by the authors anti Bush administration political prejudices.

” would free up enough oil (with international sanctions lifted once Saddam was ousted), to seriously erode Saudi monopoly over oil pricing. ”

More wild speculation. Whether the oil embargo in Iraq was in place or not would in fact have every little impact on oil prices and definitely not enough to warrant the expenditure that underwrote the conflict.

” The savings accrued from lower oil prices could then be spent on any number of alternatives, from conspicuous consumption in malls to increased R&D in firms. ‘

Utterly crazy. We’ve moved in a few sentences (that should be paragraphed) from an ‘oil driven geopolitical view’ to sending American soldiers to die to allow “conspicuous consumption in malls”. Savings? What about the cost of the war for fuck’s sake?? (estimated at around $3 trillion) Just pure extreme left bullshit.

” For some reason, rather than present this logic, realpolitik as it was, to the American public ad world community as a rationale for invading, the US and UK chose to falsify claims of WMD and al-Qaeda connections.”

More same old same old extreme left propaganda cloaked in academic language. No deliberate deception has ever been proven, and in fact long before the war began it was widely accepted in global academic, political and media circles that Saddam was attempting to or had succeeded in manufacturing WMD. Here’s a link wherein your favourite propaganda outfit the BBC claims in 2001 that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm

To think NZ universities are full of this ingrained and bigoted anti-US anti Bush bullshit. (Well, I’m thankful at least that students are now spared the ravings of the above lunatic.)

Umm if it was about oil lift the sanctions bring the RAF & USAF home and let the oil flow. Anyway half the oil is in northern Iraq / Kurdistan which was free of Hussein anyway.

Besides which Iraqi oil production was only 10% of what comes out of Saudi. And from early in Bush’s first term he stepped up R&D in alternative fuel which good ole Obama has been more than happy to continue.

It was never about oil.

Though The Tigris and The Euphrates are a more valuable resource than the oil fields.

No blood for water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIFMkmhDY0

For some reason, rather than present this logic, realpolitik as it was, to the American public ad world community as a rationale for invading, the US and UK chose to falsify claims of WMD and al-Qaeda connections. Perhaps the Bush/Blair alliance did not trust their own people to accept the oil-based geopolitical argument on its merits. Perhaps they thought it better to justify the invasion and occupation on imminent threat and humanitarian (democratization) grounds rather than on resource-based ones. Whatever the reasons, it was this deception that helped contribute to the emergence of vulgar oil-for-blood theories.

Although there was much wrong with the idea that Iraq would somehow turn into a pro-US client once Saddam was removed, the oil-based geopolitical logic was essentially sound, and could in fact prove true, albeit in delayed fashion, now that the reconstruction of Iraqi oil production is underway. Given the state of world economic affairs, the impact of fully on-line Iraq oil production can only be a good thing except, perhaps, for the Saudis and more importantly, the Iranians (which is why the cross-border raid was staged as a type of warning about how the Iranians could respond to any potential aggression).

Yeah, and how is WW2, where Japan directly attacked the US, at all related to the US invasion of Iraq? Seriously?

In much the same way the invasion of Iran in WW2 was related to Pearl Harbor I guess.

Of course back then they didn’t piss about and Iran fell over tout suit