OR: 1) US troops invade and make quick progress. Certain Iraqis defect. Some remain loyal. 2) US forces encircle Baghdad. 3) Saddam threatens use of WMD against forces as his clock is ticking. He unleashes chemical attacks. US retaliates and strikes Tikrit, causing medium damage, but threatening complete destruction. 4) Saddam then reveals Iraqi agents are in place covertly in 6 American cities with wmd, biological and chemical. He demands immediate US withdrawal and a no invasion pledge from Bush, within 24 hours or his agents will unleash wmd in US cities. 5) Missiles are fired into Haifa and Tel Aviv carrying biological and chemical agents, as well from Al-Queda controlled freighters in the Haifa harbor, as Saddam proves his mettle to Bush. 6) Bush cannot dismiss threat and orders US troops to cease movements. He then issues his own ultimatum to Saddam. Surrender, withdraw your agents from US soil immediately, or face nuclear attack. Saddam gives his order to his agents, as Bush has refused his demands. Anthrax agents are dispersed in NY, Washington Chicago, a dirty nuke goes off in LA, water supply in Orlando is tainted with toxins (not that it can taste any worse), and an unknown virus is released in Boston, rapidly infecting 1/3 of the population. Government re-locates. 7)Bush obliterates Baghdad, and tikrit. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi forces move toward Israel in joint attack, joined by Lebanese and Al-Queda fighters from 20 different nations. A vicious ground war ensues in Palestinian areas. And Israel unleashes unconventional weapons on the invaders. 8) North Korean troops go into high alert and mass for invasion, as US is pre-occupied and despite Rumsfelds rumblings, Bush cannot focus on a second front. 9) Riots occur in major European and Muslim-Arab cities. Musharraf is assassinated and Pakistan's new leaders pledge solidarity with muslim combatants. 11) India masses troops on border as unstability in Pakistan power centers widens, skirmishes in Kashmir region threaten to go nuclear. 10) Chavez gov't. in Venezuela is toppled and a revolution is threatened. Military units defect. 12) Russian troops move further into adjacent muslim countries. Skirmishes breaks out. 13) Cheney suffers coronary, Bush is hospitalized for exhaustion and nervous breakdown. Hastert (is he the Speaker?) assumes Commander in Chief, but Rumsfeld calls the shots. Allright, the above seems unconceivable, but I'm praying for your scenario Agin.
A matter of life, death - and oil Weapons of mass destruction are cited as the spur for action. Perhaps the real motive is something just as urgent? ... It is not just wild-eyed western peaceniks that believe oil is at the centre - or close to the centre - of the pending conflict. It is quite a commonly held view even in the conservative business world but few are willing to express such things publicly. ... US administration's foot on the gas George W Bush Unsuccessful Texas oilman. His prospecting company, Arbusto, was on the point of going bankrupt when it was bought out by another company, Spectrum, which in turn was bought out by another oil firm, Harken, which kept Bush on the board for his contacts, primarily with his father. Dick Cheney Before becoming vice-president, Cheney, below, was the chief executive of Halliburton, the world's largest oilfield services company. Halliburton does not drill for oil but it sells everything to the corporations that do the drilling. It also provides housing and services for the US military. Condoleezza Rice Before coming to the White House the national security adviser sat on the board of Chevron. They were clearly happy with her strategic advice and Bush family contacts as they named an oil tanker after her. Don Evans Old Bush friend from Texas oil days. Evans stayed in the oil business. Before becoming commerce secretary, he was the chairman of Tom Brown Inc, a $1.2bn oil and gas company based in Denver, and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation. Gale Norton Environmentalists objected to her appointment as interior secretary because of her oil links. As a lawyer she had represented Delta Petroleum. She also ran an organisation called the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, co-funded by BP Amoco. full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880443,00.html regards wild
Of course, the interview with the "British" energy expert Mamdouh Salameh does not justify that conclusion: It rather takes as its premise the idea that the sole purpose of a prospective "British-American invasion" is the direct appropriation of Iraqi oil assets. I'd respond in more detail except that I don't believe very many participants here read German, and wild has proven over and over that he's incapable of or not interested in meaningful dialogue - by refusing to take responsibility for the material he posts, to recognize and deal with responses to it, or to express himself beyond vapid pronouncements. I suspect that even his ideological allies will assume, in my opinion correctly, that the article is just more salami from the same slicer. It is somewhat useful though to look at pieces like this, or the editorials from the UK Guardian, or that TIME-Europe internet poll which wild seemed to be so proud of, if only to get an idea just how slanted the European media's perspective on the situation is. It almost does make FOX News look "fair and balanced" in comparison, and I never thought I'd be saying anything in favor of FOX News.
How about proof, rather that speculation and innuendo? You know proof....evidence.....argument from evidence to conclusion, not reprints or reposts from leftist agenda authors in an attempt to create the illusion that you have demonstrated any causal relationship between your theory and actuality. The great thing about the very best conspiracy theories, is that they can neither be proven nor disproven....unless you have a bain, that is.... Since all you ever do is offer up "strawman arguments*" this must be what you sing to yourself and you copy and paste away the hours: I could while away the hours Conferring with the flowers Consulting with the rain. And my head I'd be a-scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain. I'd unravel every riddle For any individdle In trouble or in pain With the thoughts I'd be a-thinkin' I could be another Lincoln If I only had a brain. Oh I could tell you why The ocean's near the shore I could think of things I'd never thunk before And then I'd sit, and think some more. I would not be just a nothin' My head all full of stuffin' My heart all full of pain I would laugh and I'd be merry Life would be a dinglederry If I only had brain. *Strawman Arguments: "When an argument misrepresents an opponent's views in order to make them easier to criticize, it is called a Straw-man argument. Now, the idea behind the name is that instead of doing real rhetorical battle with a real opponent, one sets up a straw-man---a ridiculous view that your opponent does not hold--then proceed to triumphantly demolish it. The argument may or may not be logically strong, but in either case it should be faulted for falsehood and logical irrelevance." I am considering trying to copyright the new term I have coined: "Wildman Arguments" "Wildman arguments" consist of the copying of information from unreliable sources written by bias agenda based socialist leftists found on the internet and then posting it as some form of an "argument." The "Wildman Argument" is obviously a non responsive attempt by the one using it to create the impression that since someone is being quoted, the quote has meaning and value and should be taken seriously or as proof. "Wildman arguments" are illogical, and employed by those who lack the sufficient foundation and ability to speak reasonably for themselves on issues.
Still more salami from that same slicer. In this case, the writers set up a typical straw man argument before rehearsing their familiar song: Does anyone believe that Iraq would excite this much attention if it did not a) possess substantial oil reserves, and, at least as important, b) wasn't geographically situated at the center of the world's current major oil-producing region? The only reason anyone would be unwilling "to express such things publicly" is that they are so obvious they hardly bear discussion. Unfortunately, some observers appear incapable of drawing a distinction between a critical element in the geopolitical calculus - potential danger to industrialized economies - and some greedy plot to appropriate another nation's natural resources. Even hostile or outlaw regimes that possess oil reserves keep pumping: When they repeatedly exhibit a propensity for aggression and adventurism, they begin to attract special attention. The only country that has recently sought to seize another country's land or oil production through military action is Iraq. Hussein invaded Iran, took over Kuwait and set its oil facilities on fire when denied permanent possession of them, and directly threatened the Saudis. The best chance for $60/barrel oil, as prophesied by Salameh, would be to leave a strengthened Hussein to his own devices for some extended period of time after a failed attempt to curb him and his appetite for conquest.
And you guys thought I was just joking: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=188001#post188001 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=188243#post188243
I have never denied that the US has supported totalitarian regimes for geopolitical reasons, especially during the Cold War. What you fail to recognize is that we also sent food, relief workers, and built hospitals, learning centers, etc., etc. to help the populace. Much of that aid, i.e. in Haiti, was pocketed by the corrupt leaders (you know the feeling). Yes they are "investments," investments that do a lot for the citizens of countries like yours. And boy, judging by the lack of gratitude we receive, they are bad investments in many cases, ones we should have taken a stop-loss on a long time ago. But Fairplay, let me fill you in on a simple fact: If what you say is true, and the US simply gave out aid for the sole purpose of receiving international support for its various foreign policy issues, would you not then expect that those countries would indeed support the US most of the time? Well, guess what? The US gives out about $14 billion in foreign aid to more than 150 countries every year, yet 100 of those countries vote AGAINST US policies in the UN more than half the time!! Egypt, for example, is our 2nd largest aid recipient at more than $2.1 billion per year, yet votes against us in the UN more than 60% of the time! India, the 5th largest aid recipient, votes against the US as often as Cuba and more often than Iran! Obviously we continue to give aid although 2/3 of the countries we give aid to go against us on most foreign policy issues. So Fairplay, for the last time, and I hope you slowly get it and remember:we have indeed GIVEN AWAY BILLIONS (2 trillion in fact since 1945), so you can take your The-US-only-uses-foreign-aid-because-they're-buying-support theory and throw it out the window along with most of what you post and definitely all of your swami/master/guru/Sith Lord/ Wild's garbage. Maybe what's really bugging you is the GUILT that such a terrible country like America actually does good things for your fellow Indonesians and doesn't really expect your support. And be honest now, if we stopped giving aid, you would then cry out "Selfish America! Why aren't you sharing your wealth?!?" Nice way to avoid the subject matter...but since I've offended you, let me put it another way: The Lord Jesus Christ could appear at your door offering you help, and you would raise your eyebrows and ask what He wanted in return. When I mention death and destruction never happening again, I am referring to never again allowing another megalomaniac like Hitler plunge the world into chaos. I am not so naive as many others on this thread that the world's problems are going to be solved by holding hands and listening to "Give Peace A Chance" over and over and over..... And, um, when is your Master Wild going to answer the question? Maybe he can't find any links yet to refute that Germany sanctioned and helped finance the war. Good grief....if anyone needs to learn anything, it's you. You need to learn to say a very basic thing: Thank You.
hi fairplay, any suggestion for the new Bush cabinet position of Imperial American Propagandaminister ? ... To help get its message out around the world, the White House announced today that Mr. Bush had established an Office of Global Communications to guide United States government agencies in how to "disseminate truthful, accurate and effective messages about the American people and their government" to audiences around the world. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/international/21CND_PREX.html best regards wild btw: i´m wondering how these truthful, accurate and effective messages about the American government read in your Indonesian language ... or in my cleaning lady´s Old Anglo-Saxon dialect for that matter: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." "Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me." "I understand small business growth. I was one." "When it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make." "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/