U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-22-2006, 02:54 AM
 
Location: Port St. Lucie and Okeechobee, FL
1,305 posts, read 4,935,176 times
Reputation: 1069

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
We cut off Russia and France's proceeds from the Oil for food program in Iraq. They lost a lot of dirty money on our invasion.
That's not true. There probably was corruption and dirty money in the Oil for Food program, but it went to Iraqis and individuals who were willing to make kckbacks to the Iraqi regime.

France, Germany and Russia had legitimate contracts with Iraqi oil, in which companies from those countries invested in Iraqi oil production in return for a share of the profit. This is the method that is used by mnost companies, including American companies, in many oil-producing regions of the world. The Russians, Germans and French had the contracts in Iraq because the Iraqis were not willing to grant the contracts to American or British companies.

Before the invasion, Paul Wofowitz, one of the neocons in the Bush administration, testified to Congress that the invasion of Iraq would not cost taxpayers much money. He acknowledged that damage would be done and reconstruction would have to take place, but he assured Congress that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for their own repairs.

Based on this, it was obvious to the Russians, Germans and French that the United States and Britain were intending to cancel all the outstanding oil contracts after the invasion. They would have been the big losers, because they would have lost their investment in Iraq. That is the primary reason why the Russians, Germans and French did not support our invasion.

After the invasion, it was announced by the Administration that there would be no oil revenues to pay for the reconstruction, and the American taxpayers would have to pay the bill. We have spent tens of billions since then, rebuilding Iraq. Where did the oil money go? Well, the administration announced it was needed to "pay outstanding obligations of the Iraqi government." In other words, it went to the Russions, Germans and French.

There is nothing wrong with this money going to those countires; they had made legitimate investments and had legal contracts. The interesting question is what changed between the time that Wolfowitz said the oil money would be available to rebuild, and the announcement that it was going to pay previous oblgations.

I believe that the Russians, Germans and French not only refused to support us, they threatened WWIII against us if we tried to steal their oil contracts. I believe the administration had every intention of breaking those contracts and using the oil for our own puposes after the reconstruction of Iraq. I believe the other countries forced us to back down, abandon the effort to steal the oil contracts, and pay for the reconstruction out of our own taxes. I believe this is the most colossal, and possibly criminal, mistake ever made by any administration and the facts, if they ever come out, will dirty the name of the Bush administration forever.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2006, 04:04 AM
 
Location: Coral Springs
12 posts, read 32,022 times
Reputation: 18
Default Reinstating The Draft???

Well. I thought the democrats understood the vote of Novemeber 7th. Obviously they still do not get the message from the American People. Charles Rangel is now in a position of power because we the people have made him who he is. We the people can also decide in future elections who he will be in the coming years.

He can go ahead reinstating the draft and we the people will reinstate our rights through the coming elections by choosing who will be in charge of the "Ways and Means" committee.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 03:23 PM
 
3,020 posts, read 23,094,064 times
Reputation: 2686
Default How to solve the problem

The answer to the problem is very simple.

Draft only women. Get them hot young babes in uniform.

Guess what, all the hot young males, so desirable to the military will quickly follow as "volunteers. About like bees and honey.

So the answer to Mr. Rangel is simple. Use the babes, they get the call ups, the guys will follow. Don't even need no gays. Test them babes, only those with hot straight hormones need apply.

Romans understood the recipe. Babes, Glory, Blood, Beer, Sex, Money, Adventure, did I say more babes. Hey we will even go to Gall or where ever the girls are.

No red blooded male can resist the right call to arms.

Is Mr. Rangel messing with page boys or what?????
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 04:45 PM
 
112 posts, read 51,250 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pslOldTimer View Post
That's not true. There probably was corruption and dirty money in the Oil for Food program, but it went to Iraqis and individuals who were willing to make kckbacks to the Iraqi regime.

France, Germany and Russia had legitimate contracts with Iraqi oil, in which companies from those countries invested in Iraqi oil production in return for a share of the profit. This is the method that is used by mnost companies, including American companies, in many oil-producing regions of the world. The Russians, Germans and French had the contracts in Iraq because the Iraqis were not willing to grant the contracts to American or British companies.

Before the invasion, Paul Wofowitz, one of the neocons in the Bush administration, testified to Congress that the invasion of Iraq would not cost taxpayers much money. He acknowledged that damage would be done and reconstruction would have to take place, but he assured Congress that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for their own repairs.

Based on this, it was obvious to the Russians, Germans and French that the United States and Britain were intending to cancel all the outstanding oil contracts after the invasion. They would have been the big losers, because they would have lost their investment in Iraq. That is the primary reason why the Russians, Germans and French did not support our invasion.

After the invasion, it was announced by the Administration that there would be no oil revenues to pay for the reconstruction, and the American taxpayers would have to pay the bill. We have spent tens of billions since then, rebuilding Iraq. Where did the oil money go? Well, the administration announced it was needed to "pay outstanding obligations of the Iraqi government." In other words, it went to the Russions, Germans and French.

There is nothing wrong with this money going to those countires; they had made legitimate investments and had legal contracts. The interesting question is what changed between the time that Wolfowitz said the oil money would be available to rebuild, and the announcement that it was going to pay previous oblgations.

I believe that the Russians, Germans and French not only refused to support us, they threatened WWIII against us if we tried to steal their oil contracts. I believe the administration had every intention of breaking those contracts and using the oil for our own puposes after the reconstruction of Iraq. I believe the other countries forced us to back down, abandon the effort to steal the oil contracts, and pay for the reconstruction out of our own taxes. I believe this is the most colossal, and possibly criminal, mistake ever made by any administration and the facts, if they ever come out, will dirty the name of the Bush administration forever.
I don't understand you! This has been a great explanation on how Russia, Germany and France has had there hand in the cookie jar. But yet you accept it by blaming President Bush instead of them that supported Saddam and his regime. Not only did those countries do business with them legally but illegally as well. They where trading intelligence and arming them, but thatís OK with you. These countries that have intentions of harming us should be stopped before itís too late. How? I donít have that answer but we can not wait till they become a North Korea or Iran of today? These are dangerous times and you dems donít want to admit it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 04:50 PM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,953,309 times
Reputation: 3315
China could squash us in about 2 months max -- without ever using any weapons. All China needs to do is quit buying our debt. Our monetary system would collapse with that.

Remember when Russia declared bankruptcy?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Springfield, Missouri
2,814 posts, read 11,901,655 times
Reputation: 2000001281
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
China could squash us in about 2 months max -- (really? examples to support that?) without ever using any weapons. All China needs to do is quit buying our debt (ever heard of the Chinese trade surplus and what supports it or how it has transformed the Chinese economy and elevated hundreds of millions of Chinese? So, the Chinese would shoot themselves economically in the foot...?) . Our monetary system would collapse with that. (explain the collapse? And Russia defaulted on its foreign debt in 1998, but that was because it opened its capital markets and money flowed out of the country while the prices of oil and gas declined (their main source of foreign currency earnings) with the Asian crisis happening at the same time. Where do you think that money went? Remember the Stock Market frenzy in the U.S. gaining speed then? Their Ruble fell while their earnings fell. But in two years it had repaid most of the foreign debt, negotiated some debt cancellations for debt accumulated under the Soviet regime, and repaid most of the loans owed to the IMF. I don't see how you connect Russia's financial crisis in 1998 to China's owning of American debt in the form of Treasury bills? You don't explain it and the connection certainly isn't obvious.Remember when Russia declared bankruptcy?
Have you ever noticed that your statements are almost always, like the above, just unsupported statements and generalizations? I don't know if that's intentional or not, but I don't enjoy reading your statements because they're often glib without substance. It would be nice and helpful if you'd lower the quips and put some meat with thought-out conclusions in your arguments, then you'd be contributing instead of just lighting matches. The statements refering to the debt China holds in the form of treasury bills aren't even 5% as simplistic as you make it out to be. There's a whole monetary cycle that goes with it and if you're going to make such a claim/statement, then address all the facets and show you understand the issue enough to judge it as well as help others to see a rational point as well. That's my two cents.

Last edited by MoMark; 11-22-2006 at 05:58 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 05:47 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,375 times
Reputation: 66
There is nothing wrong with this money going to those countires; they had made legitimate investments and had legal contracts. The interesting question is what changed between the time that Wolfowitz said the oil money would be available to rebuild, and the announcement that it was going to pay previous oblgations.


How about Kofi cup Anans son?
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.p...&ID=60107&HC=2
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,776 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
China could squash us in about 2 months max -- without ever using any weapons. All China needs to do is quit buying our debt. Our monetary system would collapse with that.

Remember when Russia declared bankruptcy?
Hi,

If China stopped buying our debt, someone else would. They would perhaps demand a higher yield on their bills, that's about it. And last I read Japan is still the US's biggest debt holder.

And China would never diversify itself away from US holdings in currency and debt, which is what I think you're suggesting in your post. First, the flood of US debt onto the market would send the value of its Treasuries through the floor. Second, the dollar would dip to the point that the Yuan would be comparatively expensive, thus killing their export trade to the US. So either way China shoots itself in the foot.

Long run, the Uncle Sam will keep the debt needle in his arm, Hu "Huggy Bear" Jintao will keep selling him his doses, the war will go on, and the cheap plastic crap will fill our store shelves.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 11-22-2006 at 07:46 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Port St. Lucie and Okeechobee, FL
1,305 posts, read 4,935,176 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecuban View Post
I don't understand you! This has been a great explanation on how Russia, Germany and France has had there hand in the cookie jar. But yet you accept it by blaming President Bush instead of them that supported Saddam and his regime. Not only did those countries do business with them legally but illegally as well. They where trading intelligence and arming them, but thatís OK with you. These countries that have intentions of harming us should be stopped before itís too late. How? I donít have that answer but we can not wait till they become a North Korea or Iran of today? These are dangerous times and you dems donít want to admit it.
I can't let this stand. The facts are that their contracts were legitimate; how is this a "hand in the cookie jar"? Provide evidence.

Now, on to something much more disturbing. Several times in that rant, you put words in my mouth or tried to tell me how I think.

"...But yet you accept it..."
"...but thatís OK with you..."
"...you dems donít want to admit it...
"

HOW DARE YOU! You have no idea who I am, how I think, what I accept or not, and you have NO RIGHT to put words in my mouth.

Next, let's consider where you're wrong. You said (about the Russians, Germans and French), "...by blaming President Bush instead of them that supported Saddam and his regime." I guess you're not aware of history. It was the United States who supported and propped up Saddam back when it was convenient for us to ignore the fact that he was a tyrant, because he was against Iran.

You said, "...but illegally as well. They where trading intelligence and arming them..." Do you know why the Bush folks were so convinced that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Because the United States supplied them to him. They couldn't believe he got rid of them.

You said, "These countries that have intentions of harming us should be stopped before itís too late. How? I donít have that answer but we can not wait till they become a North Korea or Iran of today?"

I guess I just don't understand that one. Neither North Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons, yet; Russia and France both do. None of those countries would have any intentions to harm us as long as we didn't steal their legitimate oli contracts. Stopping them is easy; don't steal the oil, they won't harm us. And, according to my theory, that's exactly what happened. It was the United States who was caught with their hand in the cookie jar, trying to take over the oil. In my opinion, that's the ONLY reason we attacked Iraq. There were no terrorists in Iraq. Saddam was a secular ruler, not an Islamic fundamentalist. Saddam was completely controlled by our overflights and no-fly zones, and posed no danger to us.

Are you aware that the Bush neo-cons were discussing how to attack Iraq even before they took office, during the transition?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2006, 10:08 PM
 
Location: N.H.
1,022 posts, read 3,149,590 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by pslOldTimer View Post
I can't let this stand. The facts are that their contracts were legitimate; how is this a "hand in the cookie jar"? Provide evidence.

Now, on to something much more disturbing. Several times in that rant, you put words in my mouth or tried to tell me how I think.

"...But yet you accept it..."
"...but that’s OK with you..."
"...you dems don’t want to admit it...
"

HOW DARE YOU! You have no idea who I am, how I think, what I accept or not, and you have NO RIGHT to put words in my mouth.

Next, let's consider where you're wrong. You said (about the Russians, Germans and French), "...by blaming President Bush instead of them that supported Saddam and his regime." I guess you're not aware of history. It was the United States who supported and propped up Saddam back when it was convenient for us to ignore the fact that he was a tyrant, because he was against Iran.

You said, "...but illegally as well. They where trading intelligence and arming them..." Do you know why the Bush folks were so convinced that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Because the United States supplied them to him. They couldn't believe he got rid of them.

You said, "These countries that have intentions of harming us should be stopped before it’s too late. How? I don’t have that answer but we can not wait till they become a North Korea or Iran of today?"

I guess I just don't understand that one. Neither North Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons, yet; Russia and France both do. None of those countries would have any intentions to harm us as long as we didn't steal their legitimate oli contracts. Stopping them is easy; don't steal the oil, they won't harm us. And, according to my theory, that's exactly what happened. It was the United States who was caught with their hand in the cookie jar, trying to take over the oil. In my opinion, that's the ONLY reason we attacked Iraq. There were no terrorists in Iraq. Saddam was a secular ruler, not an Islamic fundamentalist. Saddam was completely controlled by our overflights and no-fly zones, and posed no danger to us.

Are you aware that the Bush neo-cons were discussing how to attack Iraq even before they took office, during the transition?

It wasn't the Bushes that gave them The weapons, But yes it was us to some degree But not 100%. And both North Korea and Iran are about to become nuclear countries. We couldn't beleive he got ride of them Because he didn't. They found them but that wasn't on the news, except for a sound bite. And the ones the found where not given By the USA. Surprise the libs got it wrong again!!!! Sadam was a threat to countries friendly to us like Kuwait. He also put a hit on Bush SR because we tossed him out of Kuwait. Which he invaded as it was a Sovereign nation. And we had oil contracts with, and his intent was to give those contract to other countries. So yes he was a threat to the USA. He also gassed his own ppl. as a super power it is our job to intervene when Dictators abuse their power. The Libs never seem to get that, yes we do hold some blame but they continue to read from the same play book and the play book just isn't accurate. All that I have stated is true and Verifiable. Just like what you said is, unfortunately your facts are only half fact. there is more to them if you read the whole story but the liberals just like to read what they want to hear. And very rarely pay attention to the whole truth. They just like enough to make themselves look right. When in actuality they are VERY WRONG 90% of the time and refuse to admit it. It is easier to point the finger and find false truths in the other party than admit they have faults of there own.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top