She is one tough cookie

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

Here I disagree. It is cheaper for the US to buy

ALL

of Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to invade and stay in the country afterwards. Considerably less cheaper both the human toll and cost after invasion stay over. And if the need for oil determined whether to invade other countries or not, why hasn't the US invaded: Canada, Russia, Britian, Venuzuala (spelling), Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait... all major oil producers. Why invade Iraq only; why even stop there!

 

Iraq invasion was a shot across the bows to the US's foes. Namely China and Bin Laden's people. It was demonstration,

a tour de force

, of US power and resolve. There is no better, more effective way to show what you're capable of then actual demostrate it. Everyone NOW knows what the US is capable of if tested. And no one will dare cross it's path.

 

 

The outcome of Iraq war was predictable -- US victory. The rout of Iraqi army and subsequent smashing into smithreens of remanant units was foreclosed fact. The only disappointment was how the promised

awe and shock

tranmuted into

aw shuked

... a cauldron of madness, heartwrenching mess. [/QB]

I don't know where the first point about buying all of Iraq's oil comes from, maybe you were engaging in hyperbole. Estimates put Iraq's oil at 150 Billion barrels plus. Thus, at at today's average price of $60 a barrel - that would run into the trillions.

 

I think the US invasion had a lot to do with oil. As non-OPEC oil runs out in the rest of the world - OPEC oil and the Middle East especially become even more vital than now. And after Sept 11 showed how much ordinary Arabs hate the US - they understood that their oil security relied on hated Arab regimes that could be toppled at any time. Thus - why not manufacture a friendly regime in the place of Sadaam - surely if they can turn Iraq into a friendly country with a popularly backed gov't in charge - US oil supplies become a lot more secure. They just didn't know that when the messenger has little credibility - the message tends to be dismissed quickly as well.

[Castro]

Socod_badne, here's my shot in the dark atheer. Buckle up.

 

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

Castro, muslims in general

are

prone to violence. Evidence for that is plentiful, refuting that charge is futile in this light. As well as be active participants in many ensuing conflicts. However, the reason is not just

because

they're muslim or Islam, that is pure unadultrated bigotry. Deprivation, illiteracy, gross underdevelopment, inequities and many other pernicious social ills are the causes,

NOT

Islam. Any time you hear someone blame a race, religion or culture for percieved or real social ills, note to yourself that such characterizations has very little support from supportable arguements.

So which is it, are they "prone" to violence because they're Muslim or because they're deprived, illiterate and grossly underdeveloped? If it's the former, then you and I agree bigotry is the reason this (undeserved) reputation is bestowed upon Muslims. But your stated reasons have no basis in facts. If poverty, deprivation, illiteracy and underdevelopment were what makes Muslims prone to violence, then black Africans should visibly have been the most violent people on earth. So in fact, it's not the reasons you mentioned but the fact that they're Muslim. But that's exactly the main argument. I contend Muslims are being given a disproportionately negative reputation of violence that the numbers (in comparison to followers of other faiths) just do not support. So what is the reason they're getting this reputation? Well I tried to answer that in my response above to Makalajabti.

 

Here I disagree. It is cheaper for the US to buy

ALL

of Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to invade and stay in the country afterwards. Considerably less cheaper both the human toll and cost after invasion stay over.

This is the classic right-wing talk radio argument. It's also a bloody ruse for anyone who cares to look any deeper. Why does the US need to invade when it can just buy the bloody (and bloody it is) oil? It's a very clever question on the surface and one most people don't bother to think about its implications. Saaxib do you know that Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world? In fact, these reserves are to the tune of 115 billion barrels. I don't know if they teach math at Mickey Mouse University but let me break it down for you like this. The US is spending almost $1 billion a week in Iraq. The war has been going on three years this week and the total cost so far is close to $500 billion. If this occupation lasts a decade (including the previous three years) it is estimated it will cost close to $1.5 trillion. With me so far? Now, forget the incalculable value in having full control of the largest and second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having uninterrupted flow of such oil. Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices. Still with me? Here comes the astonishing part no one ever thinks about when the talk radio hosts ask the same question you asked. The US consumes about 20 millions barrels per day (4 times the second closest consumer, Japan). So yearly, that comes out to about 7.3 billion a year. At that rate, Iraqi proven oil reserves will have been exhausted by the US alone in less than two decades. So, if they were to buy it at market rate and have to compete with other nations such as China , as you and Oreily claim, they would have to spend $5.5 trillion to purchase it (at a modest and unrealistic $50 a barrel). Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while competing with every Chinese and Indian out there and in Euros no less.

 

On the matter of human toll, well to whom is what I ask you. If it's for the Muslims, who cares? The US publicly stated that it "does not do body counts" so what remains, is their own soldiers. Having already come from disenfranchised backgrounds and being, per capita and in the lower ranks, predominantly non-white, the relatively (to Vietnam and WW2) low cost in lives and injuries to the US is a very small price to pay for its elites and corporations. Hegemony, my friend, is not perpetrated by the average American, who himself is a victim of US power, but by a powerful cabal of corporations and individuals at the upper echelons of power.

 

And if the need for oil determined whether to invade other countries or not, why hasn't the US invaded: Canada, Russia, Britian, Venuzuala (spelling), Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait... all major oil producers. Why invade Iraq only; why even stop there!

Nigeria and Kuwait need not be attacked for they're in with the program. The latter has completely succumbed to US hegemony and the former is putting up little (and futile) resistance via the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). Canada's oil is in the sands. Expensive to extract for now but when Iraq and Saudi Arabia run out, watch out atheer. Your nice comfy couch in Ottawa might receive a nice package delivered on a cruise missile from Uncle Sam. Don't even start with Venezuela. The war on Hugo Chavez began with his inauguration. Already overthrown once and in due time will be killed and the control of Venezuelan oil will return to Exxon. He's only a nuisance so far. Russia is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Try fcuking with that.

 

Iraq invasion was a shot across the bows to the US's foes. Namely China and Bin Laden's people. It was demonstration,

a tour de force

, of US power and resolve. There is no better, more effective way to show what you're capable of then actual demostrate it. Everyone NOW knows what the US is capable of if tested. And no one will dare cross it's path.

This I agree with you on.

 

The outcome of Iraq war was predictable -- US victory. The rout of Iraqi army and subsequent smashing into smithreens of remanant units was foreclosed fact. The only disappointment was how the promised

awe and shock

tranmuted into

aw shuked

... a cauldron of madness, heartwrenching mess.

I agree with this for the most part except to mention Iraq proved to be a bigger mess than the US expected. Instead of a show of force, the "tour de force" you mention along with talk-radio, it has shown how vulnerable the US is when stretched like it is. Even worse, the occupation has shown that the US is ill-equipped and lacks the stamina and the moral fortitude to fight long term protracted guerilla warfare. It is really going to suck (not to mention be extremely costly) having to steal all that oil while the insurgency is alive and well. This "insurgency", that clearly shows no signs of being pacified, could spell disaster in the long term for the US which may have to withdraw and still buy Iraqi oil on the market (at market rate) after having forked up the cost to invade and occupy.

 

It's a biaj spot (and indeed a humbling experience) to be in where the US is now and for you to argue otherwise tells me you're either misinformed, misled or just not too bright. But I do know you're bright so you're simply misinformed.

 

I await your response atheer.

[Azmaya]

Salaamz,

 

Haven't you guys ever heard of the statement that history is written by the winners. Well today America is the winner, and its telling public what to believe if your blind like the Scode then you good for you.

 

Castro my cuban warrior good job i agree w/ most of your points, however I think Iraq/and the future middle eastern/muslim countries that will be invaded are not only invaded for oil, but I think these dictarships they-West installed are getting weak, the masses had enough are craving for the return of islam, revival is rising among the muslims, so they can no longer control this growing trend from DC or London, Paris, or Tel viv, they need direct occupation. This is bigger then Iraq/Palestine or the rest of lands of sham, just read the ambitions of Zionism and their supporters. But what do I know I am just girl, Ill leave to you boys .

[Castro]

^ And a bright girl at that.

 

You raise excellent points that are really not in contradiction with the quest for hegemony over resources. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (and who knows how many more countries) is a multi-benefit endeavor. The issues you alluded to are clearly some long term goals for this quest but the immediate needs are oil.

[-Serenity-]

Hi Baashi,

 

Here is another clip (783) from the 'tough cookie'.

[nuune]

Transcript of Baash's link Transcript-english

[BOB]

Castro,

 

Did i ever tell you how much I LIKE YOU for your comments my brother?

 

Preach On my brother...people like you with healthy minds are very scarce these days it's like you belong to a dying breed...we are left with people with fake balls and dull minds.

 

PS. Baashi... Salams my Brother.

 

 

Peace,Love & Unity.

[Castro]

^ Saaxib, for those of us who have grown up elsewhere, it is easy to see through the propaganda specifically designed for the North American consumption. Much of the world has elementary understanding of hegemony and power for they have either witnessed it or their parents have. But nowadays with the ubiquitous access to (real) information via the internet, it behooves us to question the "official" line given by US corporate media or the State department.

 

At any rate, I suspect SB knew all of this and he was just playing the devil's advocate. He's had good practice with that lately.

 

On the (hijacked) topic, this little exchange I didn't like at all. The least the sheikh could have done is go past the ad hominem nonsense and attacked the seemingly open Sultan. Judge for yourself:

 

Wafa Sultan: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

 

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

 

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

 

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

 

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

 

And I'm afraid she's right. The good sheikh shouldn't care what she is but what she says. It's as if she's more credible and hence deserving a response if she were a believer. But she's not and that's exactly why she says what she says.

[Jacpher]

The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy.

Is she a fourth grade psychologist? She has a severe symptom of Islamaphobia. I would have her repeat that history course she missed.

[xiinfaniin]

In Baashi’s link, she is an eloquent orator who mercilessly punishes the poor sheikh with her brute words. But in Amelia’s link, brave Sultan, when confronted with unpleasant facts, gets a bit shifty. She is busted.

[Castro]

^ Though she was rattled in the second clip, she's still more dangerous than the non-Arabic speaking ones out there (Manji, Hirsi and Rushdie).

 

Baashi found a very good site with lots of interesting clips. The most chilling I've seen is "Fatima's fiancee" and this one by Al-Qaradhawi.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

So which is it, are they "prone" to violence because they're Muslim or because they're deprived, illiterate and grossly underdeveloped?

 

 

Without a doubt a combination of the two. If it is just poverty, underdevelopment, illiteracy etc, then any nonmuslim faced with similar conditions could be just as prone to violence as his/her muslim counterparts. But as you correctly pointed out, this is not what we actually see. Africans are just as desolate as most muslims if not worse and yet we hardly see any blowing themselves up buses, commuter trains and calling for violence all the while religiously justifying it.

 

There is a direct and irremediable link between poverty and proneness to violence. Take a look at Africa. Wars, simmering or full blown, internecine and diamond conflicts... you name it are raging across the continent. Make no mistake about it, poverty is pivotal cause albeit not the only one. Even in the developed world, the poorest regions/neighbourhoods bear the highest crime rates. Where ever there is poverty and underdevelopment it is accompanied by violence.

 

Where we muslims standout is our FAITH... or the misreading of it! Islam is said to be perfect, muslims take this and do a number on it when they equate themselves to perfection. Many would deny but also scold you when you criticise muslims! The result being people who genuinely believe they're impervious to human frailties. Geniunely believe among them can not arise pernicious characters capable of unspeakable horrors (hence why most muslism to this day deny Bin Laden was behind 9/11 because no muslim/s can commit such crimes).

 

So what happens when we muslims find ourselves in today's world, where nonmuslims seem to be doing as good if not most of the time much better in everything? There are only two options: 1. accept we're not perfect and have a lot to learn from nonmuslims or 2. close our eyes and hope it's all a bad dream. The first is hard pill to swallow, too painfull to accept. Regretably we've opted for the 2nd option resulting in not only skewed perception of the world but also unrealistic expectations. Like the expectation to be treated amiably when we extend nothing of the sort to ourselves let alone to others. Like the expectation to be treated fairly and respected in the West when we give the West NO reason/s to by either remaining silent/indifferent in the face of deplorable violence like 9/11 orchastrated by our brothers/sisters in faith or remain uncooperative with authorities in helping them fetch out our bad apples.

 

The disconnect between what we believe of ourselves and the reality around us is what fuels our propensity to reach for the sword at the slightest provacation or moan insult and slander at the mildest criticism. It's a problem of external percept unmitigated by reality or reasonable causes but rather urged by our unability to accept the truth: we are in urgent need of reform/modernization.

 

 

Now, forget the

incalculable value

in having

full

control of the largest

and

second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having

uninterrupted

flow of such oil.

 

 

So what? The US would still have to buy the oil at market price -- the same price everyone else will pay for. How is that advantageous to them alone? You're also not factoring in the cost to extract the oil, refine, store and transport. Considerable amount given the dire state of Iraq's oil industry due to so many years of under-investment and neglect. Further, the initial heavy investment needed to bring up Iraq's oil output to capacity levels is to be paid by American tax payers (to the best of my knowledge). And even if the US had full and unrestricted access to Iraq's oil, it would be private oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon mobile who WOULD sell to the US government at market prices, where is the benefit in that? Unless you're saying the US is stealing Iraqi oil at night, are you? Either way, it was cheaper for the US to let Iraq continue to sell its oil and buying it that way than it was to invade it. So far the cost of the invasion dwarfs the total monetary value of all of Iraq's proven oil reserves -- the hole 112 billion barrel of it.

 

 

Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices.

 

Oil price is set by the markets not by free market governments like the US. Free market Governments can influence oil prices via policies enacted (going to war, imposing embargos etc) but can't determine the price of oil. Hell, free market governments can't even determine inflation or interest rates in their economies... the market does.

 

 

Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while

competing

with every Chinese and Indian out there

and

in Euros no less.

 

It would still have been cheaper to keep buying Iraqi oil at market price, as in pre-war conditions, than it was to invade just to secure those oil fields. And what is this $1.5 trillion figure being compared to the total price of Iraq's proven oil reserves AT current market price? It costs money to put the oil in the market in USEABLE form... the bulk of oil production costs is taken up by refinery process. As you may recall during the Hurrican Katrina episode, which hit the hub of the US's oil refinery industry(the US is the biggest oil refiner in the world AS WELL as being the world's 3rd largest oil producers after Russia and S. Arabia), oil prices sharply rose. There was slight interruption but just the mere fear of interruptions was enough to send oil prices up shooting. Indicative, that was, of the importance of refinery in the oil production industry. Oil in the ground is mostly useless, it must be put in usefull form and that costs money. It must be extracted, properly stored and transported... all costing substantial dough. So in the grand scheme of things total cost of the war so far outweights the projected price of Iraq's proven oil reserves.

 

 

If it's for the Muslims, who cares? The US publicly stated that it "does not do body counts" so what remains, is their own soldiers.

 

 

Most, almost all, of the muslim victims of Iraq war were/are at the hands of other muslism, ex. Shias vs Sunnis, Insurgents vs Iraqi police/soldiers/civilians. On the balance of things, the US has far better record at avoiding and taking extraordinary measures to ensure civilian casualities remain as low as possible by not dileberately attacking civilians than muslim insurgents/terrorists. Sad but true!.

 

 

Hegemony, my friend, is not perpetrated by the average American, who himself is a victim of US power, but by a powerful cabal of corporations and individuals at the upper echelons of power.

 

Few things here. First the US, as anyone who closely observed it would note, has strong streak anti-establishement/intelligentsiarunning through it's political veins. In fact it is the only democracy in the world today where popular public discourse often determines political course of the day. In that sense it can be safely said it is true democracy, run by the people as opposed to by established and well connected few. Second, while US is guilty of many trespasses and excesses it has redeemed itself, at least in my eyes, by providing and being the vanguard of freedom to many people across the globe. During the Cold War it was the US that protected Western Europe from Communism, the resuscitated Japan, made S. Korea a possibility... by providing military, economic and political protection umbrella. Look around at the existing democracies, almost all are only possible BECAUSE of the US. Empires, sole super powers have always and prolly will always exercise their power... tell me ANY super power that has brought so much good to the world not to mention all the inventions in particular medicine and technology.

 

 

Instead of a show of force, the "tour de force" you mention along with talk-radio, it has shown how vulnerable the US is when stretched like it is. Even worse, the occupation has shown that the US is ill-equipped and lacks the stamina and the moral fortitude to fight long term protracted guerilla warfare.

 

 

But Castro, the US military objective was to defeat Saddam militarily and overtake Iraq. They did, so mission accomplished on that front. Iraq is firmly in the hands of the US and the insurgent's effectiveness is only proportional to US's restraint... if they were to unleash their full power, the insurgents would obliterated in nano second.

[Castro]

^ Waryaa ina Badne, let us stick to one motif here. We're talking on too many fronts: Muslims and (being prone to) violence, US global hegemony, the Iraq war and finally oil prices and what drives them. Pick one and we'll go down that path. My choice is the first one since that's what the topic is about. I like all four equally so I leave it to you lest you use this as an excuse later. I don't want to chase your stubborn head down four paths, atheer.

 

Each paragraph of yours above is dealing with one. Pick your strongest argument and we'll reconvene tomorrow.

 

But before I go, how on earth did you come up with this:

 

So in the grand scheme of things total cost of the war so far outweights the projected price of Iraq's proven oil reserves.

Did I not go out of my way to hold your hand through all the 12 digit math? Was it all for naught? How could you still say that $1 (or even $2) trillion is the same as $5.5 trillion? It's not even half atheer? And the first numbers do include reconstruction of Iraq's oil fields so that rehabilitation of the industry is not any extra cost. Alas, they don't teach any math in that Mickey Mouse University.

[Baashi]

So far so good. SB vs. "da" Man is a match we've been all waiting for Stick to the topic at hand and I don't have to tell you how we abhor the woblly, wishy-washy, nilly-willy, flip-floppers.

 

I totally disagree with the lady. I thought to refute her on the merits of her main argument is a piece of cake for a man with the credentials of Bin Sultaan. Amelia has done a good job in digging the other side of the equation and for that I say many thanks. Still he comes short in my estimation.

 

I would also like to remind both SB and "da" Man the value of having military basis in the most valuable real state in an age where energy security is top of the list of national security of the powers-that-be.

 

la durr-duriya

 

**waves back to BOB...**

[Valenteenah.]

It occurs to me that Islamophobia is a runaway train these days.

 

*To be continued*