I'll have to watch this little movie later, but if that's who I think it is, I'll have a comment to make about him also. Neither we nor the Israelis are stupid, that's why they didn't attack Iran. But were going to start beating a dead horse pretty soon. I'm not aware of any Canadian or British citizens that are spending life sentences in prison for espionage here, nor revered as a hero in their country for it. I also don't recall the Canadians or British attacking one of our ships and killing our sailors since over 200 years ago. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject or we will end up boring everybody to death.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Middle East
- Thread starter kawilt
- Start date
I believe the correct spelling is Isr[oi]l?
___Don't think there's any oil in Israel.
And? Really!
I do not think you are being serious, are you?
I'm being serious in that Israel is not an oil exporter, but an importer. I know they are developing natural gas and oil fields offshore (that stuff is everywhere) and are rumored to have vast quantities of "oil shale" (which no one in the world has extracted commercially yet). But as far as I know, what little light crude they produce is for their own use.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=IS
I am talking about a base of operations!
For US military operations to secure oil in the Middle East? The US already had the ultimate base of operations in Iraq and gave it up.
___
For the entire region. And, you point out precisely why a "stable" place for operations is of import. By base, it is also meant those that will act in concert.
[Iraq was never the ultimate base of operations. Now, I know you are joking.]
Iraq, as the ultimate base of operations, was not permitted to come to fruition. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that it was indeed the intention of the of the US government for Iraq to be just that.
- In a report issued in 2000 (Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America 's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (September 2000), the Project insisted on the need for a "substantial US force presence in the Gulf" to protect oil supplies and deter potential adversaries. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn31 ([31]) At a time when the United States was abandoning major bases in Saudi Arabia , it was clear that the authors of the report were proposing new basing arrangements in other countries. But the location remained unspecified. By 2002, as the invasion of Iraq loomed, key members of the Project were holding high office.
- On April 19, 2003 , soon after US troops took control of Baghdad , reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt wrote a front-page article for the New York Times pointing to Pentagon plans to "maintain" four bases in Iraq for the long haul. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn32 ([32]) Rather than speak of "permanent bases," the military preferred then to talk about "permanent access" to Iraq . http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn33 ([33]) At about the same time, senior administration officials told the New York Times that the US was planning "a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq , one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the region."
- Army Brigadier General Robert Pollman told a reporter in 2005: "Is this a swap for the Saudi bases? I don't know. When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense." http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn38 ([38]) General John Abizaid, commanding US General in Iraq , commented to the press on March 14, 2006 that the US may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster pro-US "moderates" and to "protect the flow of oil in the region."
- James Glanz of the New York Times notes that in the absence of a fully-functional Iraqi air force, the United States will be "responsible for air defenses" in Iraq "for some time to come." http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn40 ([40]) And GlobalSecurity comments that the giant new communications tower at al-Balad base is "another sign of permanency."
- A military funding bill drawn up in the Pentagon and passed by Congress in May 2005 said directly that some base construction projects in unnamed countries would be "permanent." It said the funding would cover "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities" that would "include barracks, administrative space, vehicle maintenance facilities, aviation facilities, mobilization-demobilization barracks, and community support facilities," in short, just about everything that is going into the major bases now being constructed in Iraq.
- The US "New Embassy Compound," under construction in the Green Zone in the center of Baghdad , will occupy 104 acres – ten times the size of the average US embassy and six times the size of the UN compound in New York. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn55 ([55]) It will be composed of 21 major buildings and many smaller ones.
- Cost estimates, including all the perimeter security, self-contained utilities and other amenities, come to over $1 billion. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html#_edn56 ([56]) The primary contract, totaling $592 million, was funded by Congress in the spring of 2005.
- In spite of growing opposition within the US Congress and within the Iraqi government, the Bush administration is pushing rapidly ahead with its construction programs for the long-term bases and the massive embassy. Those who conceived these projects clearly had little sensitivity as to how Iraqis might react and little awareness of the powerful imagery and symbolism the US was creating. Such mammoth construction projects, costing billions of dollars, strongly suggest that their authors see Iraq as a US client state and as a base for US military operations in the Middle East region. As US Congress Member Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas , observed: "This [embassy] structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37142-war-and-occupation-in-iraq-chapter-10-english.html
Sure sounds like somebody thought Iraq was the ultimate base for Middle Eastern operations to me. And that ain't no joke!
But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
To a Mouse
BY ROBERT BURNS
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173072
John Steinbeck took the title of his 1937 novel Of Mice and Men from a line contained in the penultimate stanza: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley" (often paraphrased in English as "The best-laid plans of mice and men / Often go awry").
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
To a Mouse
BY ROBERT BURNS
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173072
John Steinbeck took the title of his 1937 novel Of Mice and Men from a line contained in the penultimate stanza: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley" (often paraphrased in English as "The best-laid plans of mice and men / Often go awry").
“Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
dper726
Member
Iraq and many other middle east countries tyrants had/have to be dealt with. Most promote terrorism hand in hand with what order they instill within they're land. Sure, it might of been more peaceful without the invasion or at least it seemed simply because control was maintained by the government, the control of slaughtering everyone against the rule. So I don't know how much better a country is from that stance. Lets take a look at cuba... same shit different region. Fidel castro practices no differently then any dictator in the past in preserving control of the land. But how did he improve on the ideology? he secluded the territory from the rest of the world unlike all other tyrants who wanted power within they're borders and at the same time stand tall as a worldwide figure. He also had a lot more going for him, he used the cold war to his advantage due to his proximity to US border in order to maximize his strength as a long standing dictator. And nonetheless there isn't any real potential for a cause of invasion in cuba other then if anyone wanted to exploit its tourism economy. Which is bad business from a war standpoint.
Can't argue there, and a lot do promote terrorism and export it, Hussein's terrorism was his own brand inside his own country, and that's bad enough, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. Castro kept a tight grip on that Island, we'll see what happens now that he's gone. We did try to invade Cuba, sort of, I guess you remember the bay of Pigs? I can imagine how those boy's on that beach felt when all that promised air support didn't show up. I know I was really pissed.
The Iraqi Friends We Abandoned by Kirk Johnson - http://kirkwjohnson.com/about/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/opinion/the-iraqi-friends-we-abandoned.html
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/opinion/the-iraqi-friends-we-abandoned.html
dper726
Member
We might of never had a real good reason to had entered Iraq during the bush administration but we sure as hell didn't have one neither to leave the way we did during the Obama reign. It was a flawed plan from the start. One thing is selling the idea which he had every right to swing things in his favor. But how could anyone believe it would simply be that easy as calling a date for a full withdrawal of military operations and the problem being solved.
Voltrader
New Member
military-industrial-complex....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-25/isis-holds-parade-captured-us-military-vehicles
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-25/isis-holds-parade-captured-us-military-vehicles
I guess ISIS went out on their own after the CIA stopped paying them. Blow-back is a bitch..
Obama: US arms could help defeat Assad is 'fantasy'
21 June 2014 Last updated at 08:40 BST http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27953343
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27953343
President Obama has dismissed the idea that supplying US arms to Syrian rebels would have toppled President Assad, calling it a "fantasy".
His comments came in a CBS interview when he was asked if a power vacuum had been created in the Middle East which was fuelling violence in Iraq.
He said there was no "ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat Assad".
[5 days later]
Syria crisis: Obama asks Congress for $500m for rebels
26 June 2014 Last updated at 16:41 ET
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28042309
President Barack Obama has asked the US Congress to approve $500m (£294m) to train and equip what he described as "moderate" Syrian opposition forces.
The funds would help Syrians defend against forces aligned with President Bashar al-Assad, the White House said.
The aid would also counter Islamist militants such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), it added.
Isis's advance in neighbouring Iraq has led some in Congress to press Mr Obama to take action.
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria, as rebels fight troops loyal to Mr Assad.
'Increase our support'
"This funding request would build on the administration's longstanding efforts to empower the moderate Syrian opposition, both civilian and armed," the White House said.
It will also "enable the Department of Defense to increase our support to vetted elements of the armed opposition".
The money will help stabilise areas under opposition control and counter terrorist threats, the White House said.
The rebels that would receive the funds would be vetted beforehand in order to alleviate concerns of equipment falling into the hands of militants hostile to the US and its allies, the White House said.
Mr Obama has been under strong pressure from some members of Congress to increase assistance in the area, although it is unclear whether and when Congress would act on his request.
Last month Mr Obama hinted at increased help for the Syrian opposition in a speech at the military academy at West Point.
He said he would work with Congress to "ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and a brutal dictator".
21 June 2014 Last updated at 08:40 BST http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27953343
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27953343
President Obama has dismissed the idea that supplying US arms to Syrian rebels would have toppled President Assad, calling it a "fantasy".
His comments came in a CBS interview when he was asked if a power vacuum had been created in the Middle East which was fuelling violence in Iraq.
He said there was no "ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat Assad".
[5 days later]
Syria crisis: Obama asks Congress for $500m for rebels
26 June 2014 Last updated at 16:41 ET
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28042309
President Barack Obama has asked the US Congress to approve $500m (£294m) to train and equip what he described as "moderate" Syrian opposition forces.
The funds would help Syrians defend against forces aligned with President Bashar al-Assad, the White House said.
The aid would also counter Islamist militants such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), it added.
Isis's advance in neighbouring Iraq has led some in Congress to press Mr Obama to take action.
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria, as rebels fight troops loyal to Mr Assad.
'Increase our support'
"This funding request would build on the administration's longstanding efforts to empower the moderate Syrian opposition, both civilian and armed," the White House said.
It will also "enable the Department of Defense to increase our support to vetted elements of the armed opposition".
The money will help stabilise areas under opposition control and counter terrorist threats, the White House said.
The rebels that would receive the funds would be vetted beforehand in order to alleviate concerns of equipment falling into the hands of militants hostile to the US and its allies, the White House said.
Mr Obama has been under strong pressure from some members of Congress to increase assistance in the area, although it is unclear whether and when Congress would act on his request.
Last month Mr Obama hinted at increased help for the Syrian opposition in a speech at the military academy at West Point.
He said he would work with Congress to "ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and a brutal dictator".
http://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-calls-supporting-kurdish-independence-170706840.html
Doorkeepers frequently write versions of events that minimize the impact of their patrons. Which is why most missed the real reason ISIL was encouraged. To those who recall my recent article “Iraq: The Real Plan is about to Succeed”—the “cat” is now out of the bag. Israel wants Kurdish oil and is going to get it. (Kurds aspirations, after all, are no less than those of the Palestinians, which Israel tramples on almost daily!) All fighting against ISIL will be to protect Israel’s interests in Kurdistan. ISIL will continue in its role against the Iraqi government, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
Tom Mysiewicz
Similar threads
