Re: [political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
heh. well argments based on evidence and logic arent dialectical. - Original Message - From: RoadsEnd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com Cc: RoadsEnd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past And arguments are a dialectic dissension discussion. There is a reason that dialectics and rhetoric are not taught anymore. Peace, K On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Vigilius Haufniensis wrote: Again, I must ask Sean if Exxon's 40 billion dollar profit in a single quarter is evidence of the US government having failed the oil industry with its imperialistic middle east ambitions. VMANN: well, to be fair, they are printing a lot of those petrodollars out of nothing, if you'll recall. 40 bill aint what it used to be. of course, none of this addresses the actual question at hand. i think sean/ chip makes a good argument against big oil endorsement of the war. vigilius haufniensis Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links
[political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
Bullshit, VMANN, $40 billion is some serious goddamned kwon, even inflation adjusted. You are sophisticated enough to understand that although big oil might say they do not endorse war, it is war that is the means by which oil producing countries that do not want to play ball are brought to heel. If a business deal can't be worked out then the Jackals are let loose. remember the threat of a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs for the taliban in afghanistan regarding the pipeline? who the fuck was going to drop the bombs? Joseph Hazelton? NO!! Uncle SAM --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, Vigilius Haufniensis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, I must ask Sean if Exxon's 40 billion dollar profit in a single quarter is evidence of the US government having failed the oil industry with its imperialistic middle east ambitions. VMANN: well, to be fair, they are printing a lot of those petrodollars out of nothing, if you'll recall. 40 bill aint what it used to be. of course, none of this addresses the actual question at hand. i think sean/chip makes a good argument against big oil endorsement of the war. vigilius haufnien
Re: [political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
And arguments are a dialectic dissension discussion. There is a reason that dialectics and rhetoric are not taught anymore. Peace, K On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Vigilius Haufniensis wrote: Again, I must ask Sean if Exxon's 40 billion dollar profit in a single quarter is evidence of the US government having failed the oil industry with its imperialistic middle east ambitions. VMANN: well, to be fair, they are printing a lot of those petrodollars out of nothing, if you'll recall. 40 bill aint what it used to be. of course, none of this addresses the actual question at hand. i think sean/ chip makes a good argument against big oil endorsement of the war. vigilius haufniensis Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links
[political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
If you go back tom my first Blast from the past post, you will see that in the early 80's the oil companies through the US government were trying to have saddam build a pipeline through Iraq. He wanted to pay half of what the big boys wanted to charge, and he stalled the project. you can fill in the blanks by reading the the article i referred to in the first blast from the past posting. that was afghanistan. might even have been why they did 911. but then that got hijacked. even brzezinski was pissed off about it being hijacked into iraq. i couldnt find any articles about big oil supporting attack iraq. can you? - Original Message - From: mark urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:44 AM Subject: [political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past Bullshit, VMANN, $40 billion is some serious goddamned kwon, even inflation adjusted. You are sophisticated enough to understand that although big oil might say they do not endorse war, it is war that is the means by which oil producing countries that do not want to play ball are brought to heel. If a business deal can't be worked out then the Jackals are let loose. remember the threat of a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs for the taliban in afghanistan regarding the pipeline? who the fuck was going to drop the bombs? Joseph Hazelton? NO!! Uncle SAM --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, Vigilius Haufniensis thehatefulnerd@ wrote: Again, I must ask Sean if Exxon's 40 billion dollar profit in a single quarter is evidence of the US government having failed the oil industry with its imperialistic middle east ambitions. VMANN: well, to be fair, they are printing a lot of those petrodollars out of nothing, if you'll recall. 40 bill aint what it used to be. of course, none of this addresses the actual question at hand. i think sean/chip makes a good argument against big oil endorsement of the war. vigilius haufnien Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [political-research] Re: [cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
Again, I must ask Sean if Exxon's 40 billion dollar profit in a single quarter is evidence of the US government having failed the oil industry with its imperialistic middle east ambitions. VMANN: well, to be fair, they are printing a lot of those petrodollars out of nothing, if you'll recall. 40 bill aint what it used to be. of course, none of this addresses the actual question at hand. i think sean/chip makes a good argument against big oil endorsement of the war. vigilius haufniensis
[cia-drugs] for sean mcbride a blast from the past
Back in 03 after quig had died, i posted this in sean's yahoo group. It was an article that supported the middle east oil angle.:: and even a tie-in to CFR (George Schultz). My GOD!, I can die in peace now, for I have seen it all. http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc1510.html Crude Vision The Secret History of the Aqaba Pipeline In the early 1980's Iraq and America's newest enemy Iran were locked in a vicious conflict. The use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein was well-known. In fact, in November 1983, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz received an intelligence report describing how Saddam Hussein's troops were resorting to almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons] in their war against the Iranians. Undeterred by the reports, one month later, President Reagan dispatched a special envoy to Baghdad on a secret mission. On December 20, the envoy met with Saddam Hussein. He was not there to lecture the dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction or the fine print of the Geneva Conventions. He was there to talk business. The envoy informed the Iraqi leader that Washington is ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a recently declassified State Dept. report of the conversation, and that Washington would regard any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as extremely pleased with the visit. The envoy was Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle. The meeting is widely considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new era of U.S.-Iraq relations, one that opened the door to shipments of dual-use munitions, chemical, biological agents and other dubious technology transfers. But for years what exactly was discussed in that now infamous meeting has been shrouded in secrecy. Until now. In a recently released investigative report from the Institute for Policy Studies entitled Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured U.S. Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein, researchers Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann, and Daphne Wysham detail the real reason Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Baghdad: Rumsfeld, under direct instructions from the White House, was there to convince Saddam Hussein to approve a highly lucrative, and highly secret, oil pipeline project from Iraq to Jordan. Examining recently released government and corporate sources, the researchers document how a close-knit group of high-ranking U.S. officials worked in secrecy for two years attempting to secure the billion dollar pipeline scheme for the Bechtel corporation. The Bush/Cheney administration now eyes Bechtel as a primary contractor for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure. Bechtel's pipeline would have carried a million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day through Jordan to the Red Sea port of Aqaba. What happened to the pipeline deal? What trade-offs were made? Who were the players? How did Israel fit into the scheme? What impact did it have on current U.S. policy? For answers to these questions, and links to the original memos and declassified cables, read GNN's Cointel interview with the report's lead author Jim Vallette here: Crude Vision: While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them - not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the U.S. might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered. - Donald Rumsfeld, Robert McFarland, Judge William Clark, Open Letter to the President, Feb. 19, 1998 GNN: What are the origins of western involvement in Iraq's oil? Jim Vallette: The U.S. and the British have a history of intervention in Iraq for oil. It really goes back over seventy years to 1911 when the British, German and Turkish formed a pipeline consortium interest. After WWI, the U.K. took over Iraq and installed a king and took over this oil consortium. Herbert Hoover, the former U.S. president, forced the British to allow what is now Exxon Mobil into the consortium. So by the 1920's you had a king installed by the British and you had oil exploration and production controlled by the origins of British Petroleum (BP), Exxon, Mobil, TotalFinaElf of France and Shell. From the 20's through the 60's, starting with the British and then with the U.S., there was a considerable backlash among the Iraqi people against the control of their resources. There were interventions to get folks out of power who wanted to nationalize the oil company. In 1958, [Col.] Kassem took over in a coup and started nationalizing parts of the Iraq Petroleum Company. In 1963, the CIA assisted in a coup that wound up with an important deal and their oil interests somewhat protected. Then the Baath Party took over in 1968 and a few years
