For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #21326
View in linear mode

Subject: "After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..." Previous topic | Next topic
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 08:43 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."


          

The war with Iraq is just the beginning. Iran and Syria are next on the Bush Administration's list. Israel has wanted the US to take on Iran for years.


"U.S. official says Syria, Iran will be dealt with after Iraq war

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards. Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon said. Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky...."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/263923.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
1
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
2
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
3
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
4
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
5
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
7
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
8
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
11
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
12
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
9
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
10
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
13
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
14
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
15
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
26
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
6
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
16
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
17
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
18
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
42
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
43
                     RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
                          RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
47
                               RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
49
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
May 22nd 2003
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
19
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 22nd 2003
20
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
21
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
22
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
32
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
23
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
25
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
24
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
27
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
28
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
29
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
30
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
31
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
33
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
34
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
May 22nd 2003
                     RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
35
                     RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
36
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
37
                     RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
38
                          RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
39
                               RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
40
                               RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
41
                               RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
44
                                    RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
45
                                         RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
46
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
May 22nd 2003
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
May 22nd 2003
59
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
48
RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 23rd 2003
50
      RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 24th 2003
51
           RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 25th 2003
52
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 25th 2003
53
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 25th 2003
54
                RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 25th 2003
55
                     RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 27th 2003
56
                          RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next...
Feb 27th 2003
57
Got the Troll a'rollin'
Feb 28th 2003
58

labyrinthSat Feb-22-03 09:09 AM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 0)


          

Hal do you really believe that this Presidency is going to be able to deal with Iraq and anything else before the next election? These guys can't even get NATO in-line for Iraq. How are they possibly going to get the world in-line for Iran or Syria? And don't even go to North Korea........the South Korean's are more afraid of Bush then they are of North Korea.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

ShellySat Feb-22-03 09:35 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#2. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 0)


  

          

"U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."

Since that is the only sentence in that whole article that applies, I can only assume that it is what you based your hysterical subject line upon. Where does it say we are going to war with any of these countries after Iraq?

You are truly delusional.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
JohnnySat Feb-22-03 09:44 AM
Charter member
1895 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 2)


  

          

We will probably go after France way before Iran!

Johnny


Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
old dudeSat Feb-22-03 10:41 AM
Charter member
7641 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#4. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Johnny (Reply # 3)


          

I tried to reinlist the other day.....there ought to be something I could do....

I cleaned up the old Springfield and got my old ribbons out.

Couldn't find my chest to pin them on so I lined them up across my stomach which is actually where my chest used to be anyway......


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 11:39 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 2)
Sat Feb-22-03 11:41 AM

          

How many people are talking about Afghanistan? Afghanistan's run by warlords and gangsters again and who's writing about it? It's part of the overall plan for geopolitical dominance of the reigon. They don't just want access to the oil, they want to control it. By controlling the energy supply to other countries, you have veto power over them.

The war with Iran is probably already underway. It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey. They're there because they're preparing for the war against Iran. They don't care about Iraq. Iraq they figure's a pushover, but Iran has always been a problem for Israel. The Israeli airforce is now flying at the Iranian border for intelligence. The Israeli airforce is bigger than the British airforce, bigger than any NATO power other than the US.

There are efforts to stir up Azeri separatism. It's what the Russians tried to do in 1946, and that would separate Iran, or what's left of Iran, from the Caspian oil producing centers. Then you could partition it. That will probably be underway at the time and then there'll be a story about how Iran's going to kill us tomorrow, so we need to get rid of them today.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
EthanSat Feb-22-03 12:31 PM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
#7. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 5)


  

          

It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey

Who knows that other then you and the others who heard it from Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky may be a great Linguist but I don't think he is a great intelligence source.



Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 01:03 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 7)


          

"But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam Hussein, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush Administration's national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional mentors in Israel's rightwing Likud Party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip American into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of US troops into Mesopotamia.

Israeli defense officials have long dismissed demolished Iraq as a minor threat, even though it likely has 6-18 old Scud missiles hidden away. Saddam Hussein did not use chemical weapons in 1991 for fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation. Israel now has the world's most advanced anti-missile system, Arrow, with two batteries operational, and numerous batteries of the latest US Patriot missiles. The prevailing view in the Israeli military is that Iraq will be quickly defeated by US forces, and then likely split into two or three cantons. Israel's North American supporters, however, are still being given the party line that Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq...."

full article:

http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/next_target.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
EthanSat Feb-22-03 01:33 PM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
#11. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 8)


  

          

It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey
Who knows that other then you and the others who heard it from Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky may be a great Linguist but I don't think he is a great intelligence source.


Ethan


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 02:22 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#12. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 11)


          

JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY

Potential Threats To Israel: Iran

Iran has concluded agreements with Russia and China to obtain nuclear facilities. Russia's $1 billion deal to help rebuild Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor will give valuable training to Iranian technicians and engineers, and expand the regime's nuclear infrastructure. In 1990, China signed a 10-year nuclear cooperation agreement that allowed Iranian nuclear engineers to obtain training in China. In addition, China has already built a nuclear research reactor in Iran that became operational in 1994.

Iran may soon acquire a new intermediate-range missile from North Korea, known as the Nodong1. The system will be able to hit Israel with unconventional weapons from within Iran's borders — a distance of 800 miles. Iran is also believed to have the capability to produce a variety of biological and chemical weapons.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 01:08 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#9. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 7)


          

"TEL AVIV, Feb. 6, 2002 -- The future of the free world is in jeopardy. The United States is the only major world power with the ability to stop the terror that threatens our very existence. But will the United States act?

To stop the spread of terror two countries, Iran and Iraq, must be dealt with, harshly and quickly. This is not hyperbole. Iran and Iraq are both racing to develop nuclear weapons and both are capable of producing biological and chemical weapons. There is no doubt in my mind that, if ever the opportunity arose, or if ever either of these nations felt provoked, they would let loose the most deadly of all weapons against their target...."

Full article"

http://www.gvnewsnet.com/html/Opinion/opin137.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 01:22 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 7)


          

Nov 8, 2002

"In the US, Pentagon hardliners are drawing up plans to invade Iran once Iraq and its oil are `liberated.' They hope civil war will erupt in Iran, which is riven by bitterly hostile factions, after which a pro-US regime will take power. If this does not occur, then Iraq-based US forces will be ideally positioned to attack Iran. Or, they could just as well move west and invade Syria, another of Israel's most bitter enemies. Israel's Likudniks thirst for revenge against Syria - and also Iran - for supporting Lebanon's Hizbullah movement, which drove Israeli forces from Lebanon. The unofficial leader of what some call `the American Likud Party,' Pentagon super hawk, Richard Perle, told our TV program, `Diplomatic Immunity,' that the US was prepared to attack Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

By February or March, the US media will likely be flooded with dire warnings about the threat to the world from Iran. Israel's American lobby will turn its guns from Iraq to Iran. `Links' will surely be `discovered' between Iran and al-Qaida. The cookie-cutter pattern that worked for whipping up war psychosis against Iraq should work just as well against Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia - and win the next national election...."

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 02:23 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#13. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 7)


          

"In June 1981, the Israeli air force bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor just before it was due to come into operation, despite a lack of evidence of any intended military use. If it had bombed even a few weeks later, the entire area would have been exposed to deadly nuclear radiation.

That bombing was carried out with US F-16s, supplied on the condition that they be used for defensive purposes only. At that time, US President Ronald Reagan issued a statement condemning the attack. Deliveries of further F-16s were halted, only to be quietly resumed a few months later..."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/189/189p10b.htm

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 02:32 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#14. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 7)


          

Chicago Tribune February 8, 2002 Israel: Iran could have nuclear arms in 5 years
By John Diamond

WASHINGTON -- Iran could have a nuclear weapon within three to five years, Israel's defense minister said Thursday, a message the Israeli government has carried to senior Bush administration officials in talks this week.

U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers, meanwhile, that Iran would be in a position to field a nuclear warhead by the end of the decade, a slightly less alarmist position than Israel's. But the CIA cautions that if Iran gets substantial technical help from Russia, or, worse yet, acquires fissile material on the black market, the time window could narrow considerably.

"By the year 2005 they will be ready to produce to the world for the first time an Iranian nuclear bomb," Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer said. "Some of us think it could come earlier."

Ben Eliezer appeared interested in convincing the Bush administration that Iran poses a threat equal to that of Iraq. "I know the name of the game is Iraq," Ben Eliezer said. But he said of the two countries, "They are twins."

And as to the possibility that Iran may soon acquire nuclear capability, "Who's going to guarantee that they're not going to use it?" he said.

Israel was ready to support the U.S. against Iraq, even if that meant a full-blown U.S. military offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime. But Ben Eliezer said the key beneficial result would relate to Iran. "To get into Iraq means to get in between Syria and Iran," he said. "This can be a very good move."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020208-iran01.htm

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
EdGreeneSat Feb-22-03 08:43 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#15. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 5)


          

>How many people are talking about Afghanistan? Afghanistan's
>run by warlords and gangsters again and who's writing about
>it? It's part of the overall plan for geopolitical dominance
>of the reigon. They don't just want access to the oil, they
>want to control it. By controlling the energy supply to
>other countries, you have veto power over them.
________________________________________
I'm only going to ask you this question one time Hal: how in the hell is the US going to "control" the oil if we won't have (don't have) enough troops to guard the oil wells?
That is: can we (the US and Europe)(what there is left of those sorry suckers) "control" the oil without occupying the lands the wells are on?

Make me understand /how/ and I'll stand with you.
If not, shut the... flibbing flubbers up!

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 01:37 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#26. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 15)


          

Ed,

This is somewhat of a long post, but I consider you to be a very clear thinker and I hope after reading this you'll consider the validity of the logic with respect to the geopolitical strategy. Regarding Iran, the US and Israel both have an interest in Iran but for slightly different reasons. Israel is understandably concerned over Iran's growing nuclear threat in the region. The US is concerned about that also but is just as well concerned about the control of Iraq's oil, the second largest proven oil supply on the planet. The US and Israel have a symbiotic relationship. The U.S. policy toward the Middle East has long relied on building up proxy forces in the region and generously supplying them with arms. After the Shah of Iran, US regional control was toppled and Iraq became the new surrogate when it invaded Iran. We all know Washington aided Iraq in doing that.

The Bush administration's ties to the oil and gas industry are extensive. Bush grew up in Texas oil exploration. Second-in-command is Cheney who came to office with a multi-million dollar retirement package from his job as CEO of Halliburton Oil. He developed an energy policy under the guidance of oil company executives whose identities he has gone to great lengths to withhold from public view.

Since taking office, Bush and Cheney have assembled a government with representatives from the oil business. These include Secretary of the Army Thomas White, a former vice president of Enron, and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, former president of the oil exploration company Tom Brown, Inc., whose major stake in the company was worth $13 million by the time he took office and Condoleeza Rice, who before she became National Security Advisor, was on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation. Chevron named an oil tanker after her. There’s an oil tanker named the Condoleeza Rice. It’s a 136,000 ton oil tanker that carries oil around the world. Why would the Bush Administration's goals regarding the control of oil be so difficult for anyone to put together? Come on! It's staring you right in the face! They plan to expand production in the Caspian area, Nigeria, Chad, Angola, and deep offshore areas in the Atlantic basin. But they also look to suppliers like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. West Africa is expected to account for as much as a quarter of U.S. oil imports a decade from now.

To secure transportation routes: "The U.S. based AMBO pipeline consortium is directly linked to the seat of political and military power in the United States and Vice President Dick Cheney's firm Halliburton Energy. The feasibility study for AMBO's Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline, conducted by the international engineering company of Brown & Root Ltd. (Halliburton's British subsidiary) determined that this pipeline will become a part of the region's critical East-West corridor infrastructure which includes highway, railway, gas and fibre optic telecommunications lines. And upon completion of the feasibility study by Halliburton, a senior executive of Halliburton was appointed CEO of AMBO. Halliburton was also granted a contract to service U.S. troops in the Balkans and build "Bondsteel" in Kosovo, which now constitutes "the largest American foreign military base constructed since Vietnam".

Beginning in the 1970s, but especially after the Gulf War, the US supplied Saudi Arabia and allied Persian Gulf states with massive amounts of weapons. After the Gulf War, US forces never left the region completely. By prepositioning military equipment and acquiring access to military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, the US prepared the ground for future direct intervention in Iraq.

"In the Persian Gulf and adjacent regions, access to oil is usually secured by a pervasive U.S. military presence. From Pakistan to Central Asia to the Caucasus and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa, a dense network of U.S. military facilities has emerged with many bases established in the name of the war on terror."

At this moment, the Persian Gulf is the worlds prime oil province, for the U.S. and for other importers. The Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security. A massive flow of Iraqi oil would limit any influence that other suppliers, such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela, have over the oil market. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets single-handedly. The US would no longer have to cow down to the Saudis as much as before. So any increased dissention (fundamentalist movement) within their own regime would be less of a factor for control and access to oil.

Currently Iraq's outdated methods used to raise output from existing fields may have been damaged and some of the reservoirs could actually trigger a decline in output in the short run. But once the facilities are rocketed up--a job that Halliburton can do, the spigots could be opened wide

Critical in understanding the current strategy of Bush is this: "Prior to the OPEC revolution in the early 1970s, a small number of companies--referred to as the majors or Seven Sisters--called the shots in the industry, controlling activities from exploration and production to refining and product sales. But they lost much of their reserve base, as nationalization spread through the Middle East and OPEC nations. Today, state oil companies own the vast majority of the worlds oil resources. Even though private companies still do much of the exploring, drilling, and pumping, in many countries they have access to the oil only under prices and conditions set by the host government. Although oil companies have managed to adjust to this situation, a directly owned concession would offer them far greater flexibility and profitability."

A Regime change in Iraq would give U.S. and British companies direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time in 30 years. This would be a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars! Think about that! Human lives become secondary when your dealing with that kind of money, especially Iraqi human lives! US companies and those that have ties to the Bush Administration will to do anything to get involved in this! And oil interests were a crucial behind-the-scenes factor in the UN Security Council wording of Resolution 1441.

Oil company executives have been meeting with US backed Iraqi opposition leaders. According to Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, "The future democratic government in Iraq will be grateful to the United States for helping the Iraqi people liberate themselves and getting rid of Saddam." And he added that "American companies, we expect, will play an important and leading role in the future oil situation in Iraq."

I'm sure the US expects to be able to guard the oil in Iraq with a US and British military presence. After the second world war, and after the US secured access to oil in Saudi Arabia, all the European countries converted from coal to oil as an energy source. That was no accident! Can't you see what's happening? You can control a country without military occupation by controlling the country's economy through their energy supply! Then you control it all!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 11:52 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 2)


          

Remember, the same people declared a war on terror in 1981 and that was the focus of US foreign policy and they carried out a war on terror in central America where they ended up killing about 200,000 people.

If you keep recent history in focus, none of this is nearly as far fetched as you think it is. You're living in Rome Pal--an ever expanding empire.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
AlSat Feb-22-03 08:49 PM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#16. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 6)


  

          

You know HAL, you keep making allegations that are more than slightly offensive.

Do you have ANY proof of American troops killing anyone in Central America outside of the invasion of Panama? The casualties in that operation were pretty low, so where are you coming up with 200,000?

You really need to visit a mental health professional. You need help.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
EdGreeneSat Feb-22-03 09:03 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#17. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Al (Reply # 16)


          

>You know HAL, you keep making allegations that are more than
>slightly offensive.
>
>Do you have ANY proof of American troops killing anyone in
>Central America outside of the invasion of Panama? The
Al said: >casualties in that operation were pretty low, so where are
>you coming up with 200,000?
>
>You really need to visit a mental health professional. You
>need help.
______________________________________
Al, you of all people know, with the same certainty you know your Mother loves you, that we have killed more than few people in South America since 1960.
*You being Special Ops and all, you ought to quit lying about what you guys did and do... in the corner... in the dark.

You're so used to using "plausible denial" as a cover, you can't even tell the truth anymore.

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 09:13 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 17)


          

You're so used to using "plausible denial" as a cover, you
can't even tell the truth anymore.


I wished I'd said that.

Here's how Orwell explains it:

The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies--all this is indispensably necessary.

--George Orwell, 1984

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
AlSun Feb-23-03 10:09 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#42. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 17)


  

          

South America? Central America? Which is it?

And the fact is, that I know no such thing. Been there, run operations, didn't murder anybody. And neither did any of the people I know. Strange, huh?

Noam Chomsky and crew can make all the claims they want. It doesn't make it fact, just more bullshit laid to cover to give excuses for the complete failure of their socialist causes.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 10:13 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#43. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Al (Reply # 42)


          

Yeah now when you think about it, I'll bet Jesus would have been a socialist. Humm...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
AlSun Feb-23-03 10:26 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."


  

          

"My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.”

“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”

Don't think so, HAL.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 10:36 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#47. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Al (Reply # 0)


          

"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s."

Clearly a denouncement of both violence and things material. He made water into wine and provided food to the mutlititudes. If you had to guess, what politcal system do you think he would be a part of if he were forced to make a choice?

Communism, socialism or capitalism?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
AlSun Feb-23-03 06:36 PM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#49. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 47)


  

          

Guess you should reread your Bible, assuming you have one. Jesus was rather clear in stating that his was not a kingdom of Earth.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
EthanThu May-22-03 01:53 AM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
"RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."


  

          

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/



Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

Attachment #1, (gif file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

quintSat Feb-22-03 09:40 PM
Member since Sep 06th 2002
117 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#19. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 0)


  

          

To all the ultra left-wing liberal factions of this forum, who constantly quote/cite ONLY articles, websites, opinions, that agree with their point of view:

"From the news capitol of the world, live to homes around the globe, this is your news FAIR and BALANCED":

http://www.foxnews.com

If any of you have a single open-minded brain cell remaining, read and learn; or watch on the Fox News network.

Over the many decades of my life, I've seen what has happened, and is still happening...sad.


quint

quint

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
hal9000Sat Feb-22-03 10:22 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#20. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 19)


          

Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all media in the United States are owned by corporations that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. Maximizing profits is obviously in conflict with responsible journalism. And FOX NEWS is one of the worst offenders. Not only are most major media owned by corporations, they are becoming larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of media ownership puts great power in the hands of a few companies.

The quoted material that I and some others post here is from web sites that have an alternative view to mainstream, corporate owned media. The information gleaned from these alternative web sites is gathered in the true spirit of journalism with no vested interest in distorting or omitting the events in the news. Their funding is obtained from donations, such as Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio, an independent broadcast news organization born as the result censorship restrictions on media. Mainstream corporate owned news agencies serve merely as White House stenographers for the current administration. They rarely question what officials tell them, they repeat it almost word for word which is evident by phrases such as "officials said."

Rupert Murdoch, speaking for Fox regarding the White House, promised: "We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty." CNN said, "In deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate authorities."

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
ShellySun Feb-23-03 12:07 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#21. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 20)


  

          

"The quoted material that I and some others post here is from web sites that have an alternative view to mainstream, corporate owned media. The information gleaned from these alternative web sites is gathered in the true spirit of journalism with no vested interest in distorting or omitting the events in the news. Their funding is obtained from donations, such as Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio, an independent broadcast news organization born as the result censorship restrictions on media. Mainstream corporate owned news agencies serve merely as White House stenographers for the current administration."

You really live in a fantasy of your own construction. I don't know you, but you strike me as being an unreconstructed hippy that has been influenced by more than his fair share of illegal substances.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 12:20 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#22. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 21)
Sun Feb-23-03 12:21 AM

          

LOL!

The substances you speak of are more likely legal, like pesticides, chemical foods additives, GM food, ground water contamination and a host of tacitly legalized environmental toxins.

But I must say Shelly, I truly do admire your writing style. You really have an enjoyable flair for writing. It's always a pleasure disagreeing with you.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
mlangdnSun Feb-23-03 04:58 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#32. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 20)


          

Hal, no one is unbiased. No matter the source (even ourselves), there will always be some form of bias creeping in. Even the best intentions will not stop our own feelings from getting in the way. A story told from one will change drastically as it is told to twenty others in succession. This is not necessarily bad reporting, but we are required to "filter the noise", so to speak. We all know that eyewitness acounts are notoriously biased in almost all cases. With that in mind, we must gather our information from several sources, then assimilate and interpret all data. Not easy to do, but the most valid way.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ShellySun Feb-23-03 12:23 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#23. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 19)


  

          

>"From the news capitol of the world, live to homes around
>the globe, this is your news FAIR and BALANCED"

Surely you jest with us! Fox News is nothing but tabloid journalism, totally reflecting the reactionary views of owner Rupert Murdock, the king of yellow journalism. The constant, deliberate use of pejorative language in their "news" reporting should be sufficient to warn any intelligent person of their biased reporting.

My local newspaper, one of the worst I have ever encountered is owned by Morris Communications. Morris makes the John Birch Society look like a bunch of liberals, but at least they manage to confine their vitriol to the editorial pages.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
labyrinthSun Feb-23-03 12:59 AM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#25. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 23)


          

Shelley you are as level-headed as a pool table is level...keep telling it like it is.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
EthanSun Feb-23-03 12:41 AM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
#24. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 19)


  

          

I haven't really seen any left-wing views expressed for a long time. Maybe you can remind me what left-wing means.
Hal has been swamping us with a great deal of information and misinformation together, without pausing to separate between them.
A great deal of what Hal has been feeding us is material that I would use to show the danger that states that support terrorism pose to the rest of the world. He seems to think that these nuclear, biological and chemical weapons need high tech delivery systems. Hal seems to forget about delivery in such ways as crashing jets into buildings, mailing toxic spores, human and other hidden bombs that can be and have been used to deliver all of these horrors.
I have never been able to figure out what Hal wants other then to argue about how awful everything is and tell us about his wonderful news sources. I don't remember an apology for the blood libels he republished about the "holocaust" in Jenin and in this thread he refuses to respond to my challenge about an uncomfirmed "truth" of his.
If Hal were "left-wing" I would have an easier time understanding his heartburn. Maybe he can give us a hint of his agenda.

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 01:59 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#27. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 24)
Sun Feb-23-03 02:01 AM

          



What ghastly arrogance on your part! What Israel is doing the the Palestinians is beyond anything an apology could come close to--it's reprehensible and it's still happening. And my agenda is simple: I strive to know the truth!

Monday, 4 November, 2002, 05:48 GMT

Amnesty says Jenin operation 'war crime'

By Ian MacWilliam
BBC News

The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, has accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes during its incursions into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus earlier this year. In a new report, the London-based organisation says that some of the actions carried out by Israeli forces during their military operations between April and June breached the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Amnesty report, some details of which were released in April shortly after their investigation, is also critical of an earlier United Nations report on the Israeli incursions.
The group calls upon Israel and the international community to investigate those responsible.
Women and children killed

Israel sent its forces into Jenin in April after a series of suicide bombings, saying the attacks were being planned there.

Amnesty says the army killed civilians, tortured prisoners, destroyed houses and prevented the arrival of humanitarian aid in the Palestinian towns.

While early Palestinian claims that hundreds of people were massacred have now been discounted, Amnesty believes that over 50 Palestinians were killed in the fighting in Jenin, and at least another 80 in Nablus, many of them civilians. Women and children were among the dead.

The United Nations earlier issued a report into the Israeli incursions, which concluded that no widespread killings had occurred. But Amnesty points out that as UN officials did not actually visit Jenin, the report was no substitute for a thorough and impartial investigation.

Last month Amnesty strongly condemned a suicide bombing which killed 14 people in northern Israel, and called on all Palestinian armed groups to end attacks on civilians immediately.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2396071.stm

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
EthanSun Feb-23-03 02:20 AM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
#28. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 27)


  

          

Why do you continue avoiding addressing your misinformation?




It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey

Who knows that other then you and the others who heard it from Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky may be a great Linguist but I don't think he is a great intelligence source.

Ethan




How many people are talking about Afghanistan? Afghanistan's run by warlords and gangsters again and who's writing about it? It's part of the overall plan for geopolitical dominance of the reigon. They don't just want access to the oil, they want to control it. By controlling the energy supply to other countries, you have veto power over them.
The war with Iran is probably already underway. It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey. They're there because they're preparing for the war against Iran. They don't care about Iraq. Iraq they figure's a pushover, but Iran has always been a problem for Israel. The Israeli airforce is now flying at the Iranian border for intelligence. The Israeli airforce is bigger than the British airforce, bigger than any NATO power other than the US.

There are efforts to stir up Azeri separatism. It's what the Russians tried to do in 1946, and that would separate Iran, or what's left of Iran, from the Caspian oil producing centers. Then you could partition it. That will probably be underway at the time and then there'll be a story about how Iran's going to kill us tomorrow, so we need to get rid of them today.



Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 03:05 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#29. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Ethan (Reply # 28)


          

Flashpoints Radio:
2/21/2003

Anne Gwynn member of ISM in Nablus eyewitnessed the execution of a ten year old boy in Nablus by an Israeli Sniper.

In the beseiged city of Nablus, in the occupied West Bank, at 3:23AM Anne: another day of terror here.. we had to run.. a tank.. Druze.. enormous amount of shooting.. demolished more houeses.. three jeeps surround our ambulance.. 3:27 This is the sound of two tank two feet from us.. the tank cannon pointed directly at us.. followed by two hummers.. .. here a peaceful city square.. they just torched a car.. the sound of children throwing small stones at a jeep..

3:33: yet more tanks, more hummers, more armored cars.. this is terrorism gone mad.. now they have started shooting, someone else calling for an ambulance.. none left.. just children here throwing stones.. just one side attacking, totally unarmed people.. an APC approaching down the sidewalk, no way we can get away from them, especially when you see the Druze.. killer carriers.. three jeeps, two APCs.. unbelievable.. I don't know how many tax dollars we are being menaced with.. later: we are trying to escort three people home.. they are really menacing us now.. the gun swivel..

3:54am: the tank up opposite, swiveled its 80mm cannon at us, 20 feet away.. it is very very scarey.. now the APC come back, rifles.. 3:58am: we are a small group of people standing on the corner with our hands up.. being menaced by rifles.. terrorism inflicted daily on the people of Nablus.. now w Anne.. all of us in Nablus are not doing well.. although the Israelis left for a couple hours today.. home demolitions continue.. Dennis: an ongoing onslaught, correct?.. Anne: yes, since Sunday, except for one small break.. I heard the Israeli commander address arrested people in a school (what he said to them).. about the father and son walking holding hands.. the child was shot, the father not shot, but as he leaned over his child he had a massive heart attack, and fell over his child.. they refused to let us pick up the bodies until ten oclock this morning.. a ten year old boy..

IT IS JUST TOO MUCH, TOO MUCH.. HOW MUCH MORE OF THIS TERROR CAN WE TAKE?.. The ambulance driver has been working everyday for two months.. takes 70 people or corpses to the hospital every day..

Dennis: why did you get involved?

Anne: I found KPFA and got involved with Palestine.. I am in the most determined city in the whole West Bank.. the freedom fighters here have only old rifles.. no match for armored weapons.. but the fighters all left Sunday, and the last six days the Israelis have been attacking children.. the name of the ten year old who was killed was Akmed.. the hospital full of wounded people, no one complaints, not the doctors or the wounded.. almost unimaginable, their strength..

Listen with RealPlayer:

http://www.flashpoints.net/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
ShellySun Feb-23-03 03:09 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#30. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 27)


  

          

" And my agenda is simple: I strive to know the truth!"

Were it only so! Hal, at least acknowledge that what you seek is the "truth" as you wish it to be. Anyone can come to any conclusion they wish to, just by accepting the reports they favor, and ignoring the reports that threaten their beliefs. No human being is capable of total objectivity, but you could try harder. There is so much truly wrong in this world, why do you insist on cheapening your intellectual currency with specious arguments that draw enmity from those you would seek to convince?

When I enter the laboratory I must leave my preconceptions behind, and accept the results of my data, then I must test it repeatedly, and allow others to challenge it, to insure that I have glimpsed the truth. The scientific method can be applied to all research, if you really want to discover the truth.

I am not the smartest man in this world, or even the smartest I personally know, but I can recognize snake oil salesmen when I see them.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 04:00 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#31. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 30)
Sun Feb-23-03 04:08 AM

          

Be specific Shelly. Tell me what conclusions I've drawn that are inaccurate and misrepresentations of the truth. Without addressing specifically what issues you think I should "try harder" to comprehend, you're claims have no foundation. Is it because I have chosen to believe in a different world view and that my world view simply differs from your own? And in so believing in what you choose to accept as having "occurred" around you, are you not guilty of what you accuse me of simply by making a choice to believe what you've been told occurred regarding events in which you were not present?

Just because I have dissenting views, you suggest those views are cheap and draw enmity from those I seek to convince? Well, well, what else is new? That has historically always been the case. Those I seek to convince have a choice: They can consider what I have to say, if they resent me for what I have to say, that's their decision. This isn't a controlled laboratory experiment we're speaking of. It is the on-going dissemination of propaganda and a deliberate attempt by others to distort the truth. It truly is a dangerous time when because of my opposition I am attacked so scandalously just for holding a contrary opinion.

Why is it that those holding minority views have always been scandalized, criticized and branded with demeaning labels and been the target of constant direct assaults and innuendos? I have disagreed with you often, but would never consider for a moment accusing you of anything but being asleep.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
ShellySun Feb-23-03 05:35 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#33. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 31)


  

          

No Hal, it is not my job to refute your positions, I am not responsible for them. It is rather for you to offer convincing proof for your beliefs, you must take ownership for them. I don't claim that all of your beliefs are wrong, some I agree with and others are just overstated to the point of disbelief.

Those supporting a minority opinion are often scandalized, as you say, but many of these people have changed the world. Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Moses, Christ, the list is endless. These people did not use smoke and mirrors. Find real sources for your beliefs without telling us that you are privy to the thoughts of leaders, and the opinions expressed during closed testimony. The reason the off the wall websites you love to quote survive is because they need not offer any proof for their words. By embracing them you embrace their irresponsibility. It's a package deal.

I prefer to avoid discussing politics with people whose beliefs are cast in stone, and are incapable of original thought. Before you can claim to speak the truth, you must be prepared to question all your ingrained beliefs. My beliefs have been honed over a long time. They have been cherished, examined, often discarded, sometimes reclaimed. I have experienced things many could not imagine, done things no one should be asked to do. In the end I have developed a very pragmatic outlook. I'm very hard to fool.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 06:51 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#34. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 33)
Sun Feb-23-03 06:58 AM

          

The endless list of people you provided that changed the world were accused of everything from smoke and mirrors to blasphemy to heresy and insanity at the time they voiced their opinion and were often chastised during their entire lifetime for their views.

I never claimed to be privy to the thoughts of leaders, and the opinions expressed during closed testimony. That's absurd! I claim to speak the truth as I see it based on the selective information I have chosen to believe as a reliable source of news regarding world events and interpret mainstream news by reading between the lines and by utilizing history as a guide in my interpretations.

Corporate Media bias does not occur in random fashion, it moves in the same overall direction again and again, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over inner-city poor, officialdom over protesters, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market "reforms" over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change, nation-security policy over critics of that policy, and conservative commentators and columnists like Rush Limbaugh and George Will over progressive or populist ones like Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader--not to mention more radical ones.

The built-in biases of corporate mainstream media reflect the dominant ideology, seldom deviating from views that might threaten those who hold political and economic power, including those who own the media or advertise in it. What follows is an incomplete sketch of the methods by which those biases are packaged and presented.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
quintThu May-22-03 01:53 AM
Member since Sep 06th 2002
117 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."


  

          

If you have an open mind, you really should listen to what this man has to say; if you disagree with him, call his show and debate him...but I beg you to let me know when you do.


quint

quint

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 07:50 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#35. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 0)


          

Quint,

I have listened to Rush and I have found some of the things he's said insightful. But he blames democrats for the ills of the world which is ludicrous because when you get past all the rhetoric, there's virtually no difference between the two parties except grass roots differences. Both parties are corporate owned.

Only one woman stood against Bush on invading Afghanistan and his "War On Terror" nonsense: A little old lady; a Congress-woman from Oakland named Barbara Lee. She is a member of the House subcommittee on Aids, she sponsored an education bill for young kids from the ghettos. She stood alone against the biggest Congressional majority in modern history. She was the only one.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
ShellySun Feb-23-03 07:53 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#36. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 0)


  

          

Debate is not possible. He hangs up on anyone who disagrees with him.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 08:12 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#37. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 33)


          

I prefer to avoid discussing politics with people whose beliefs are cast in stone, and are incapable of original thought. Before you can claim to speak the truth, you must be prepared to question all your ingrained beliefs.

You teach best what you need to learn the most.

Speaking of beliefs cast in stone, aren't you one those people who believes you can WIN an all out nuclear war? If so, you may want to review beliefs cast in stone such as those that are based in absolute sheer insanity.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
ShellySun Feb-23-03 08:47 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#38. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 37)


  

          

Any all out nuclear war will result in the destruction of all human life, and I never have represented any other view. There is however, a difference between a nuclear holocaust, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons under certain limited conditions. Only two nations on earth could launch an all out nuclear war, and they have demonstrated for over half a century, that they are too smart to do it. That is why it is so important to keep these weapons out of the hands of insane petty dictators, like Saddam.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 09:17 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#39. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 38)


          

Well China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel also have nuclear weapons and as time goes so on so will Iran, Lybia, Syria, and Taiwan. Since the US is bent on expanding its empire, many countries who have not got sizable armed forces feel nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent to a US invasion. I seriously doubt that the US would be throwing their weight around in the Middle East if Russia was what it once was. And even limited use of nuclear weapons, as is being considered by the US in Iraq and depleted uranium is still insanity.

To think grown men must resort to depending on weapons capable of such annihilation to achieve lasting peace is beyond reason. It's only a matter of time before something goes wrong. India and Pakistan is almost always on the threshold of war.

The men who hold everyone's future in the palm of their hands are raving lunatics whom you and others characterize as reasonable and pragmatic and I suppose also "Original Thinkers."

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
ShellySun Feb-23-03 09:44 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#40. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 39)


  

          

The US has no empire, the only one I see exhibiting any degree of lunacy here is you. I'm sorry, but I will waste no more time on your delusions.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 09:53 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#41. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 40)


          

LOL!

You've said that before. Tomorrow's another day or maybe next month. This is the Fringe Element signing off...till next time Shelly.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
AlSun Feb-23-03 10:17 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#44. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 39)


  

          

"as time goes so on so will Iran, Lybia, Syria, and Taiwan"

Another example of HAL jumping to conclusions that are unsupported by fact.

"Will"? "May" would be accurate. But accuracy isn't in your vocabulary, is it?



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 10:26 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#45. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Al (Reply # 44)


          

Well, start with Iran, have you bothered to read anything posted on this thread regarding Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
AlSun Feb-23-03 10:31 AM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#46. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 45)


  

          

Iran is working up a reactor. Most reactors do not have the ability to produce weapons grade material. UN inspectors have been invited in.

Do you actually bother to think about the crap you post?



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
scaramoucheThu May-22-03 01:53 AM
Charter member
5094 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
Sun Feb-23-03 03:58 AM

  

          

You are a conspiracy buff, Hal.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
waldoThu May-22-03 01:53 AM
Charter member
2547 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#59. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 19)


  

          

"Here's to swimming with bow-legged women!" Thanks Quint.......WALDO


Walter A Robertson

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

golouisSun Feb-23-03 01:14 PM
Charter member
1326 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#48. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 0)


          

I wonder why in the whole of the long thread following the original post no-one included Saudia Arabia in the list of nations harbouring terror that need to be related to after Iraq (or have people forgotten where the 9/11 terrorists cam from)?

Louis

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
hal9000Sun Feb-23-03 09:49 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#50. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to golouis (Reply # 48)


          

LOL! Good point.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
labyrinthMon Feb-24-03 11:09 PM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#51. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 50)


          




Hal: I believe these statements make Shelley's point. You talk about Corporate media bias, but to make your point you have become just as biased on the other side of the fence. You have become the yang of corporate media's yin. When you start 'reading between the lines', that's when you start inserting your own bias. Shelley's point is; 'that bias screws up objective observation.' Take a big step back....and look again.

Your words:
('selective information' I have chosen to believe as a reliable source of news regarding world events)

(and interpret mainstream news by reading between the lines}






  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Tue Feb-25-03 02:48 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#52. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to labyrinth (Reply # 51)
Tue Feb-25-03 02:49 AM

          

Nonsense! All information one chooses to accept as credible becomes selective information by virtue of your selection and decision to accept that information as valid. You have a choice who to believe when reading about events in which you were not personally present.

What you are saying is that any non-corporate owned news source I choose to accept as a valid and objective account of events in which I was not personally present makes me the yang of corporate media's yin. You have set strict "either or" parameters within your analogy which is not at all what I would have expected of you.

As I've said before, mainstream news reflects the same overall direction again and again, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over inner-city poor, officialdom over protesters, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market "reforms" over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change and nation-security policy over critics of that policy. Knowing this, it's not too difficult to read between the lines.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
AlTue Feb-25-03 06:34 PM
Charter member
11790 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#53. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 52)


  

          

HAL,

Since the sources you choose have consistently lied on subjects in which I have personal experience, I'm afraid that you have illustrated just how poor your choices are.

Have a nice day. But please get some professional mental care.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
EthanTue Feb-25-03 06:49 PM
Charter member
3274 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via ICQ
#54. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to Al (Reply # 53)


  

          

Al

Didn't anyone ever teach you that repeating anything over and over again makes it true.
The more outrageous the better, eventually someone will believe you.

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
quintTue Feb-25-03 09:15 PM
Member since Sep 06th 2002
117 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#55. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 52)


  

          

If there is a war with Iraq, there will be many journalists on or near the front lines. Most likely from CBS, NBC, al Jazeera, etc. Will you still rely on what you glean from "the Guerilla News"? Do you honestly believe that all the reporters that take place in this will be censored or pre-rehearsed? Including al Jazeera? Somehow, I think not.


quint

quint

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
EdGreeneThu Feb-27-03 12:17 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#56. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to quint (Reply # 55)


          

>If there is a war with Iraq, there will be many journalists
>on or near the front lines. Most likely from CBS, NBC, al
>Jazeera, etc. Will you still rely on what you glean from
>"the Guerilla News"? Do you honestly believe that all the
>reporters that take place in this will be censored or
>pre-rehearsed? Including al Jazeera? Somehow, I think not.
>
>
>quint
________________________________________________
The news from the "War zone" will be so "strained" for its content that you or I could write the news every day just by watching CNN... or listening to shortwave.

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
PointmanThu Feb-27-03 09:06 PM
Charter member
1084 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#57. "RE: After Iraq, Iran and Syria are next..."
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 56)


          

If they really wanted to control the media, wouldn't they just leave all the reporters back at the starting line? The reporters the troops take with them aren't likely to forget what they see or hear. So, let them see and hear most everything and be free to write and report whatever they want --- AFTER all the shooting stops.

Pointman

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

cascaFri Feb-28-03 04:03 AM
Charter member
5759 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#58. "Got the Troll a'rollin'"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 0)


  

          

And ya'll thought I was whacked out, we won't invade Cuba we will get oil directly from them once we cut out Mexico and Venuszela who front as middle men. Then spend the money on the beaches.

As far as the middle east, we can fight now or later, real issue (obsured by oil) is secular control or religous control over law.

Under Construction

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #21326 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.