The Iraq Thread

[PitViper 0]

I'm sorry if I'm interrupting all the euros' "America is evil" ranting, but here is a good piece on how the Iraqi economy can be rebuilt.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/910122.asp?0dm=C12RO

I like the Oil trust idea.  It works well in Alaska.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 08 May 2003,16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sorry if I'm interrupting all the euros' "America is evil" ranting, but here is a good piece on how the Iraqi economy can be rebuilt.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/910122.asp?0dm=C12RO

I like the Oil trust idea.  It works well in Alaska.<span id='postcolor'>

A bit too "big-broterish" for my taste. Too easy to abuse also. Who would manage the trust funds, Bush?

That oil belongs to Iraq. They should have the right to do whatever they wish with it. For the Iraqi leadership I would suggest the “Publish What You Pay†principle. It's however their decision to make, not USA's, not the UN's.

[Blaegis 0]

Nice of you to edit your original "eurotrash" out, PitViper...

Anyway, regarding your article above, the dictatorship is still a dictatorship, even if it's benevolent. You claim US went to Iraq to give it back to its people, so do it.

Besides, what in the world makes you think that any of those ideas will actually be implemented in Iraq?

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the bright side they did get rid of Saddam. The final solution for Iraq might not be good at all but it will still be better than Saddams rule.

That is assuming that things work out as planned, something that's far from sure.

On the other hand it is a bit of a circular argument considering that the Iraqis were most miserable from the sanctions that we, the west imposed on them...  <span id='postcolor'>

Please Denoir, let's not use the words "Final Solution" to describe any of the U.S. efforts in Iraq, even you can't feel we're that bad!

[Guest]

Aha, ok, I understand. No, it was not a reference to Hitler's "final solution". You can exchange it for "end result" or something similar..

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A bit too "big-broterish" for my taste. Too easy to abuse also. Who would manage the trust funds, Bush?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I bet it would be Cheeney`s company...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,10:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's funny how people are living in denial. It is so obvious what is happening now in Iraq. It's not like they are trying to hide it!

It's very educational to see how completely blind people are because the obvious truth is not compatible with their wishful thinking.

Iraq is getting exploited in a big way and yet some people refuse to believe it. It's not like it's something sensational: spoils of war - old as war itself.<span id='postcolor'>

The denial is very real and is born of a racist mentality that Rudyard Kipling exemplified when he wrote of the "white man's burden."  In this case, it is not the Brits' justifying the subjugation of India's natives for tea and spice, but the Americans' subjugation of Arabs for oil.

The other day, the Whitehouse made two comments to the press:

1.  The Halliburton oil services contract decision was made by contracting committees.

2.  The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people now.

If that's true then why were there no Iraqi people on those contracting committees?

A democratically elected Iraqi government should eventually be able to pass a constitutional edict that would allow the government to tear up any contracts that were signed by unelected administrations (like the present one).  This would be a victory for democracy and would theoretically even allow the Iraqis to throw out Halliburton in exchange for French, German and Russian firms, right?.

Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."

[Akira 0]

Read adn saw on the news that TBA will be making an draft for the lifting of UN sanctions. In that draft will also be provisions for an international committe to handle Iraq's oil money until a government is in place.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 08 May 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."<span id='postcolor'>

which is not a good idea since prolonged chaos would lead to anger towards americans from general population, which will backfire.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 09 May 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 08 May 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."<span id='postcolor'>

which is not a good idea since prolonged chaos would lead to anger towards americans from general population, which will backfire.<span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily.  Just think Palestine with oil.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 09 May 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 09 May 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 08 May 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."<span id='postcolor'>

which is not a good idea since prolonged chaos would lead to anger towards americans from general population, which will backfire.<span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily.  Just think Palestine with oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah...Isreal's occupation of Palestine hasn't "backfired" or caused anger towards them....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 09 May 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 09 May 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 08 May 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."<span id='postcolor'>

which is not a good idea since prolonged chaos would lead to anger towards americans from general population, which will backfire.<span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily.  Just think Palestine with oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we'd definitely invest large amounts of money into creating a regular oilflow from Iraqi petroleum fields, only to jeapordize that same flow by perpetuating disorder and chaos? Come on, get serious. Once again, you have to pick what TBA is: are they dumb but harmless? Or are they intelligent and evil? Because they most definitely can't be dumb and evil; this ain't a Disney cartoon, folks. Also, how would an oil derrick look to a suicide bomber? A whole lot more appealing than a nightclub or a pizza restauraunt.

No. This is simply too stupid a conspiracy theory to be given respect. If the Bush Administration was the evil, corporate morass that you people think it is, then it would be much easier to create an atmosphere of law and order via US Dollars and US Tanks, 'democratically' elect a US-friendly (or at least US-obedient) Iraqi government, and then invest in the Iraqi people colonial-style. That is, train them as petroleum techs, and in general turn Iraq's entire economy to the purpose of being America's gas station. There are simply too many easier (and smarter) alternatives to being evil state-rapers that TBA could pursue for your half-cocked theory to hold water.

Finally, I just want to repeat the choice many of you have to make. What is TBA? A cynically intelligent and evil oligarchy, bent on US (or at least corporate US) hegemony, or is it a dysfunctional hodgepodge of idealogues, with a hopelessly clueless and inept president at the helm. It simply defies all evidence and logic that TBA can simultaneously be moronic, and yet somehow continue to be victorious in its foreign policy and geopolitical ventures.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, make a choice between your "Bush is an idiot" jokes, and your "Bush is a Nazi" rhetoric, as they simply don't mesh.

[Longinius 1]

"What is TBA? A cynically intelligent and evil oligarchy, bent on US (or at least corporate US) hegemony, or is it a dysfunctional hodgepodge of idealogues, with a hopelessly clueless and inept president at the helm. It simply defies all evidence and logic that TBA can simultaneously be moronic, and yet somehow continue to be victorious in its foreign policy and geopolitical ventures."

My opinion on TBA: A cynically intelligent and evil oligarchy, bent on US (or at least corporate US) hegemony with a hopelessly clueless and inept president.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess what I'm trying to say is, make a choice between your "Bush is an idiot" jokes, and your "Bush is a Nazi" rhetoric, as they simply don't mesh.<span id='postcolor'>

Good point, Tex, but Bush himself does not equal TBA. It's a classic of court intrigues: if you have a gloriously grotesque and incompetent person as your figurehead, that usually just means that there are smarter and manipulative people with an agenda behind him. And the figurehead can conveniently take a fall if and when it is necessary. So I think we can actually call Bush cluless and accuse TBA of brutal realpolitik without countradiction.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess what I'm trying to say is, make a choice between your "Bush is an idiot" jokes, and your "Bush is a Nazi" rhetoric, as they simply don't mesh.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with you completely. First of all the Bush administration is not the same thing as the individual George W. Bush. You have the thinking scary elements like Paul Wolfowitz and his American Reich vision. You have diplomats like Powell etc.

So even if Bush could not tie his own shoes his administration could be smart and evil.

Secondly, evil and stupid do mix. These two things are not correlated. I think Bush is indeed stupid and when I think of all those death warrents he has signed and the war he has started then I come to the conclusion that he is evil too. Certainly not a "good guy".

The sum of TBA, including the wider ambitions of the Pentagon and the State Department is "Quite evil and adequately smart". (Evil is a silly word, but I'll use it because you brought it up.)

They're "evil" because of the things they are doing to Iraq now and they are adequately smart because their intentions are very transparent but obviously not transparent enough for the 70% of the US population. (See my "living in denial" post)..

[FallenPaladin 0]

You have to differ between the hawks around Paul Wolfowitz who are trying to pull Bush`s marionette strings and George W. Bush as person.

Geeze, denoir, you were faster and more detailed.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, we'd definitely invest large amounts of money into creating a regular oilflow from Iraqi petroleum fields, only to jeapordize that same flow by perpetuating disorder and chaos? Come on, get serious.<span id='postcolor'>

Since when have political and social disorder ever seriously disrupted oil flow, especially when you've got a massive military clamp on every element of the nations petroleum infrastructure?  And nobody is arguing that the average Iraqi will not be much better off under US admin than under Hussein rule so it's not very clever of you to extrapolate from "unrest and turmoil" to suicide attacks when nothing like that ever occurred under Hussein.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once again, you have to pick what TBA is: are they dumb but harmless? Or are they intelligent and evil? Because they most definitely can't be dumb and evil; this ain't a Disney cartoon, folks.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, never heard of TBA.  And why do "they" all have to fall into any of the convenient categories that you've described.  Why does the state dept have to have the same intelligence level as the defence dept as the president... etc?  Talk about oversimplification!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, how would an oil derrick look to a suicide bomber? A whole lot more appealing than a nightclub or a pizza restauraunt.<span id='postcolor'>

Oil derrick fittings easily withstand operational pressure spikes of 400 - 800 atmospheres.  Explosive charges many times more powerful than what a suicide bomber can muster are used routinely to blow out fires without damaging the heads.  Petroleum depots and refineries are much more vulnerable.  Now I'd like you to get some sleep and then think of why no Hamas terrorist has ever successfully torched any of Israel's fuel depots.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. This is simply too stupid a conspiracy theory to be given respect.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you always address stupid conspiracies that you can't respect with 500 word essays?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Bush Administration was the evil, corporate morass that you people think it is, then it would be much easier to create an atmosphere of law and order via US Dollars and US Tanks, 'democratically' elect a US-friendly (or at least US-obedient) Iraqi government, and then invest in the Iraqi people colonial-style.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like the democratically elected Saudi leaders?  You make it sound like the entire Iraqi nation are ready and willing to put off indefinitely competitive bidding processes in exchange for hot apple pie.  I guess they must be real dumb or sometin', right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is, train them as petroleum techs, and in general turn Iraq's entire economy to the purpose of being America's gas station.<span id='postcolor'>

And what do you think the Iraqi people have been up to for all these years - pickin' cotton, while a bunch of white guys run their oil infrastructure?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are simply too many easier (and smarter) alternatives to being evil state-rapers that TBA could pursue for your half-cocked theory to hold water.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you honestly believe that a competitive bidding process will be introduced in Iraq any time soon?  If not, then how do you suppose "they" will allow the Iraqi people a conditional democracy, that denies them a competitive bidding process?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finally, I just want to repeat the choice many of you have to make. What is TBA? A cynically intelligent and evil oligarchy, bent on US (or at least corporate US) hegemony, or is it a dysfunctional hodgepodge of idealogues, with a hopelessly clueless and inept president at the helm. It simply defies all evidence and logic that TBA can simultaneously be moronic, and yet somehow continue to be victorious in its foreign policy and geopolitical ventures.<span id='postcolor'>

In terms you might understand, the playground bully never needed to have brains to be victorious.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree with you completely. First of all the Bush administration is not the same thing as the individual George W. Bush. You have the thinking scary elements like Paul Wolfowitz and his American Reich vision. You have diplomats like Powell etc.

So even if Bush could not tie his own shoes his administration could be smart and evil.

<span id='postcolor'>

So now George Bush is a puppet? I'm confused.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Secondly, evil and stupid do mix. These two things are not correlated. I think Bush is indeed stupid and when I think of all those death warrents he has signed and the war he has started then I come to the conclusion that he is evil too. Certainly not a "good guy".<span id='postcolor'>

Oh sure, they mix, but almost never successfully. And I see where you're coming from, even if I don't necessarily see it the same way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The sum of TBA, including the wider ambitions of the Pentagon and the State Department is "Quite evil and adequately smart". (Evil is a silly word, but I'll use it because you brought it up.)

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it is kind of a dumb word, but it is awful convenient for the discussion at hand, is it not? Certainly easier then trying to find a metaphysically satisfactory way to say 'thoroughly unpleasant from the standpoint of the modern Western Judeo/Christian ethos'  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're "evil" because of the things they are doing to Iraq now and they are adequately smart because their intentions are very transparent but obviously not transparent enough for the 70% of the US population. (See my "living in denial" post)..<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose I'm just playing a bit of the devil's advocate. My main point (I might have over-extended just a bit) is that while some people (stress on the 'some' ) discount TBA as an inept group led by an inept leader, they simultaneously lay vast and intricate conspiracies at the White House door. Or vice-versa. I find it a bit baffling myself, as it puts people like Bernadotte in the awkward position of accusing TBA of a conspiracy that, were TBA an evil/smart organization, they would never even seriously consider. Is my transmission being garbled by my completely inept writing, or is anyone out there understanding me? Heh, it's a little late here (0330-ish), and I cannot be completely sure that what I'm typing or what I'm thinking is 100% rational.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since when have political and social disorder ever seriously disrupted oil flow, especially when you've got a massive military clamp on every element of the nations petroleum infrastructure?  And nobody is arguing that the average Iraqi will not be much better off under US admin than under Hussein rule so it's not very clever of you to extrapolate from "unrest and turmoil" to suicide attacks when nothing like that ever occurred under Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

Venezuala springs to mind... besides, you're the one who made the Palestine comparison, I simply expanded on it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you always address stupid conspiracies that you can't respect with 500 word essays?

<span id='postcolor'>

In a word? Yes. Of course, I tend to respond to almost everything in 500 word essay form.  

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ 09 May 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 09 May 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 09 May 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 08 May 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prediction:

The US knows this and will prevent it by keeping free elections from happening for a long time.  How?  One way is by keeping the nation in a state of perpetual unrest and turmoil.

"Sure we'll allow elections, just as soon as there's stability."<span id='postcolor'>

which is not a good idea since prolonged chaos would lead to anger towards americans from general population, which will backfire.<span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily.  Just think Palestine with oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah...Isreal's occupation of Palestine hasn't "backfired" or caused anger towards them....

<span id='postcolor'>

Anger yes.  Backfire no.

Anger, unrest, turmoil, instability and possible associated terrorism always allows an excuse to suspend or postpone democratic processes.

Or maybe you are one of the very few who can see some logic in a policy of "no peace talks until there's peace."

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since when have political and social disorder ever seriously disrupted oil flow, especially when you've got a massive military clamp on every element of the nations petroleum infrastructure?  And nobody is arguing that the average Iraqi will not be much better off under US admin than under Hussein rule so it's not very clever of you to extrapolate from "unrest and turmoil" to suicide attacks when nothing like that ever occurred under Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

Venezuala springs to mind...<span id='postcolor'>

You're not seriously comparing Venezuela's military presence in their oil industry with that of the USA's in Iraq, are you?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 09 May 2003,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since when have political and social disorder ever seriously disrupted oil flow, especially when you've got a massive military clamp on every element of the nations petroleum infrastructure?  And nobody is arguing that the average Iraqi will not be much better off under US admin than under Hussein rule so it's not very clever of you to extrapolate from "unrest and turmoil" to suicide attacks when nothing like that ever occurred under Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

Venezuala springs to mind...<span id='postcolor'>

You're not seriously comparing Venezuela's military presence in their oil industry with that of the USA's in Iraq, are you?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but I sure as hell am comparing their social disorder and unrest with the current situation in Iraq. In case you haven't noticed, there's only about 160,000 Coalition troops in Iraq atm, and they have to be the government, the police, and a combat force all simultaneously throughout the country. With that kind of ground to cover, the US military can only hold onto so many things at once.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 09 May 2003,10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suppose I'm just playing a bit of the devil's advocate. My main point (I might have over-extended just a bit) is that while some people (stress on the 'some' ) discount TBA as an inept group led by an inept leader, they simultaneously lay vast and intricate conspiracies at the White House door. Or vice-versa. I find it a bit baffling myself, as it puts people like Bernadotte in the awkward position of accusing TBA of a conspiracy that, were TBA an evil/smart organization, they would never even seriously consider. Is my transmission being garbled by my completely inept writing, or is anyone out there understanding me?<span id='postcolor'>

It's perfectly understandable but the "being stupid" is more or less exclusivly directed at Bush, not at the rest of his administration. They're more evil than stupid

And another point is that there are no vast evil conspiracies. It's all happening in broad daylight - they're not bothering to hide it. Iraq is being ripped off and it is not being hidden in any way.

I've already stated these, but here are the highlights again:

[*] All rebuilding and oil contracts have been given to US corporations

[*] The Bush administration advocates the lifting of sanctions, but not for general Iraqi export for which a special permission from the US would be required

[*] The Bush administration insist that they and not the UN should run the country for "as long as it takes"

They've made it very clear: "We conquered it, we put our soldier's life on the line, why should you get a piece of the spoils?"

And of course, who do you think finances the non-market prices for rebuilding Iraq?

The Iraqi people with their oil.

[Longinius 1]

What TBA are actually doing is a classic. If you want to pull something off, do it in broad daylight in plain view of the public and most people expect it to be legite. Otherwise you wouldnt be doing it in public.

Thats how many succesful robberies and break-ins have been carried out.

So just because its obvious doesnt mean its OK.

[bn880 5]

Yeah I mean, first day after Baghdad falls, Bush comes out yapping about Syria (threatening it will be next), in the background some families of soldiers are shaking their heads in disbelief, but hey, it's obvious so it must be OK.