I recall Germany mentioned in relation to one date. Most of the predictions were American. It is relevant to point it out because it is America making that same prediction today....if not in so many words, in inference.

As best as I recall, the list included only America and Germany.

It seems like I touched a nerve. I didn't mean to, hence the winks. I thought you'd be realistic and take it in stride. Never mind.

From my perspective, Bush and his administration knew full well the chances of WOMD existing in Iraq; Slim to none. WOMD were the only excuse that the international community would support. Chadors or gassed Kurds was not enough to get the electorate AND the international community behind the invasion. WOMD was a pretext in my view.

You mean you might have touched the tired-of-America-bashing nerve? Really? Why would that be a touchy nerve around here?

From your perspective the Bush admin knew there were probably no WMDs in Iraq. From my perspective if that were the case then they would have made sure to plant some so that they would be found. I expect you to fall back on the lame excuse of "well, Bush is an idiot so what do you expect?".

WMDs the only excuse the int'l community would support? Huh? The int'l community also said WMDs were there, not just the USA. France, Russia, UK, Jordan, and others weren't using the CIA as their source of info either. Of course, it was later proven that France, Germany, Russia, the UN and others were being paid by Saddam in the oil-for-food scandal so it's no wonder they didn't take part in the invasion itself (France that is, not Russia).

The only people today who "knew then" that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003 are Saddam and, to put it bluntly but accurately, LIARS.

[

For the record, I never made the claim you were being belligerent at all. Yet you, again, have made another presumption which is wrong. Where have I ever said I am pessimistic?

Also for the record, I posted these two additional links in an earlier post about Ahmadinejad.

You earlier said you did not read my link. Do you even open them to find out the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

and another one:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post number 1505.

In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle, you are implying that I am being beligerant: Not a presumption, but a reasonable conclusion.

Having reached that conclusion, it can be further concluded that in thinking I am beligerant, you are being pessimistic. You don't have to claim pessimism, just show it, for the accusation to be made.

In answer to your question about your links; no I have not read any of your links since you posted one that was plainly biased and unbalanced as if it was an offer of evidence.

Mea culpa in that neglect of mine. I should be more open minded, and I will make a point to read your links, time permitting, in the future.

Again, you address me instead of the pertinant subject. I will respond to each "attack" (note inverted commas), thereby perpetuating the irrelevant to-and-froing..... ad infinitum.

In this latest episode, I made a non-beligerant post, to which you responded as if I had. And here we are again.

Your choice.

I never asked you if you were trying to distress me and trying to start another verbal battle.

I am not implying you are being beligerant (sic) and, even if I were implying it, why would that cause me to be pessimistic? Perhaps an argument with you would make me happy, which would then tend to make me optimistic, rather than pessimistic.

You are wrong in your "conclusions" concerning both your belligerency and my so-called pessimism.

Being wrong seems to be what your days are filled with lately.

I addressed the topic by giving you the same links I gave you on post number 1505, which you state you never opened or looked at. Did you expect more?

I want to thank you for being honest and admitting you have not been open-minded.

Now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

Here is a little more recent take on the Iraqi oil situation.

Thanks!

Seeing all this data makes me wonder just how much of the US is tied into Supra-National Companies, rather than serving the American people? Seems like they are a rent-a-mob.

Not that the average Brit is going to see a bit of difference from the adventures of "British Petroleum".

Maybe us Brits are the real baddies, and the Yanks just gullible dupes?

--------------------------------

THEN

--------------------------------

On Oct. 29, 1954 contracts in Iraq

40% BP,

14% Shell,

7% Exxon,

7% Gulf Oil,

7% Mobil,

7% Standard Oil of California (now Chevron which in the 1980s bought most of Gulf Oil),

7% Texaco (now part of Chevron),

6% Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (now Total),

5% Iricon Agency Ltd.

----------------------

1,000,000 dead Iraqi's later

----------------------

BUSINESSMARCH 31, 2010

BP Begins Big Push to Revive Iraq's Oil

These contracts are the first of what is expected to be a wave of oil-field-service related work led by

BP,

Exxon, (inc Mobil)

Royal Dutch Shell PLC,

Eni,

Lukoil OAO and

China National Petroleum Corp.

just missing: Total and Chevron?

ahh here they are:

Total, Chevron Preparing Joint Bid for Iraq Oil Field Rights April 6 2009

(Bloomberg) --Total SA and Chevron Corp. will bid together for oil development rights in Iraq as firms search for new crude supplies

koheesti: Are you a viking?

Yes, I am a Rurikid, and a Tartar, and second in line for a 'commandership' of some wierd order, called The Sovereign Order of Malta.

But as I'm not Christian, it doesn't thrill me so much, and not much glory in Crusading these days... Plus it doesn't pay!

Chuck thanks for the links but even the BBC does not check the fact's about the wipe of the map mis translation.

What he says about "The myth" is that he would like to investigate the claim of 6 Million but that it cannot be investigated as you are then labeled anti Semite and the files are apparently sealed off.

For those of you that still don't get it when some of us mention government policies as a possible reason that people might be persuaded to attack us. Here is an explanation from your very own general.

Quote:

General David Petraeus, who is the head of the Central Command of the US army and one of the most influential military strategists in the US. He sent a communication to the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he warned of: “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR (Area of Responsibility – the Muslim world) and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.” His implication was that the policies of the State of Israel are putting the lives of US troops at risk.

The guy is apparently ranked as 8th on the list of top 100 global thinkers and clearly has an open (outside the box) mind, I guess......

How about the role of David Headley in the Mumbai attacks?

The guy is apparently ranked as 8th on the list of top 100 global thinkers and clearly has an open (outside the box) mind, I guess......

You might just be right about that:

The general said that it was "unhelpful" that "bloggers" had "picked … up" what he had said and "spun it." He noted that, aside from Israel's actions, there are many other important factors standing in the way of peace, including "a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which by the way deny Israel's right to exist. There's a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place. So again we have all these factors in there. This [israel] is just one."

Please confirm the statement of General David Petraeus as I posted earlier.

And please provide a link to your quote.

I will provide a link to the earlier statement, if are you willing to accept.

Speaking in New Hampshire this week, Gen. Petraeus addressed the controversy, beginning with the point that some statements attributed to him personally were, in fact, sentences lifted out of context from a 56-page CENTCOM Strategy Document.

"There's... a statement in [the document] that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate and among those we listed the Mideast peace process. We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean that is a perception; it is there, I don't think that's disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly." He noted other factors listed in the same section of the report, including "a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which, by the way, deny Israel's right to exist. There's a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place...So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all."

In response to a question, Gen. Petraeus said he had called Gen. Ashkenazi, the IDF Chief of Staff, and assured him that the web reports were inaccurate. http://rickscafamerican.blogspot.com/2010/...traeus-and.html

The video is on YouTube.

There was that one former inspector who kept repeating it

Oh there was much more than one named Inspector & the news came from more than one source/country....But I find your claim about an inspector accepting bribes interesting as I never heard it before.

Do you have a link to that? Is he in jail now? I think I remember those stories all being just that....stories

BTW .....The 3rd article down is written by Blix ..

Here is a piece of it...

Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants

There are many more but they are easy to find....Yes may have been weapons previously *MAY HAVE* but the kicker is there were none when the declaration was made & all knew it.

No WMD in Iraq, source claims

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

A war of utter follyResponsibility for this spectacular tragedy must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago

US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMDBlair comes under pressure as Americans admit it was widely known that Saddam had no chemical arsenal

There was that one former inspector who kept repeating it

Oh there was much more than one named Inspector & the news came from more than one source/country....But I find your claim about an inspector accepting bribes interesting as I never heard it before.

Do you have a link to that? Is he in jail now? I think I remember those stories all being just that....stories

Scott Ritter. Name ring a bell?

http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20000728/10061_story.asp

In his own words:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,351165,00.html

and of course, Wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

[

For the record, I never made the claim you were being belligerent at all. Yet you, again, have made another presumption which is wrong. Where have I ever said I am pessimistic?

Also for the record, I posted these two additional links in an earlier post about Ahmadinejad.

You earlier said you did not read my link. Do you even open them to find out the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

and another one:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post number 1505.

In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle, you are implying that I am being beligerant: Not a presumption, but a reasonable conclusion.

Having reached that conclusion, it can be further concluded that in thinking I am beligerant, you are being pessimistic. You don't have to claim pessimism, just show it, for the accusation to be made.

In answer to your question about your links; no I have not read any of your links since you posted one that was plainly biased and unbalanced as if it was an offer of evidence.

Mea culpa in that neglect of mine. I should be more open minded, and I will make a point to read your links, time permitting, in the future.

Again, you address me instead of the pertinant subject. I will respond to each "attack" (note inverted commas), thereby perpetuating the irrelevant to-and-froing..... ad infinitum.

In this latest episode, I made a non-beligerant post, to which you responded as if I had. And here we are again.

Your choice.

I never asked you if you were trying to distress me and trying to start another verbal battle.

Now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

You asked, "Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?"

You mean you might have touched the tired-of-America-bashing nerve? Really? Why would that be a touchy nerve around here?

So, in the interests of peace and harmony, all non-Americans have to avoid any truths that might put America in a poor light.

Lets just tiptoe around any factual information that might upset the sensitivities of the American right?

There was that one former inspector who kept repeating it

Oh there was much more than one named Inspector & the news came from more than one source/country....But I find your claim about an inspector accepting bribes interesting as I never heard it before.

Do you have a link to that? Is he in jail now? I think I remember those stories all being just that....stories

BTW .....The 3rd article down is written by Blix ..

Here is a piece of it...

Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants

There are many more but they are easy to find....Yes may have been weapons previously *MAY HAVE* but the kicker is there were none when the declaration was made & all knew it.

No WMD in Iraq, source claims

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

A war of utter follyResponsibility for this spectacular tragedy must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago

US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMDBlair comes under pressure as Americans admit it was widely known that Saddam had no chemical arsenal

I recall something about aluminium tubes.

Is Table Tennis in the Olympics in 2012?

Lets just tiptoe around any factual information that might upset the sensitivities of the American right?

How much of the mudslinging is actually factual? I find that with a little research almost everything the socialists post on here turns out to be lies, spin or greatly exaggerated - almost none of it is true. The nonsense quote from General Petraeus is just one of the latest examples.

On top of that, if the lefties have paid any attention, at all, they have to know that what they are posting is far from the truth, but they post it anyway. What is up with that?

The general said that it was "unhelpful" that "bloggers" had "picked … up" what he had said and "spun it."

[

For the record, I never made the claim you were being belligerent at all. Yet you, again, have made another presumption which is wrong. Where have I ever said I am pessimistic?

Also for the record, I posted these two additional links in an earlier post about Ahmadinejad.

You earlier said you did not read my link. Do you even open them to find out the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

and another one:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post number 1505.

In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle, you are implying that I am being beligerant: Not a presumption, but a reasonable conclusion.

Having reached that conclusion, it can be further concluded that in thinking I am beligerant, you are being pessimistic. You don't have to claim pessimism, just show it, for the accusation to be made.

In answer to your question about your links; no I have not read any of your links since you posted one that was plainly biased and unbalanced as if it was an offer of evidence.

Mea culpa in that neglect of mine. I should be more open minded, and I will make a point to read your links, time permitting, in the future.

Again, you address me instead of the pertinant subject. I will respond to each "attack" (note inverted commas), thereby perpetuating the irrelevant to-and-froing..... ad infinitum.

In this latest episode, I made a non-beligerant post, to which you responded as if I had. And here we are again.

Your choice.

I never asked you if you were trying to distress me and trying to start another verbal battle.

Now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

You asked, "Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?"

Harcourt:

There is a very large difference between "or" and "and".

For instance, if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "or" white, you would come up with two entirely different people.

However if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "and" white, your answer might conceivably include only one name, and it would be no one from the other list.

Perhaps this is one reason your presumptive skills have gone amiss lately. You simply don't read what I write.

I ask again, now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

............

Harcourt:

There is a very large difference between "or" and "and".

For instance, if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "or" white, you would come up with two entirely different people.

However if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "and" white, your answer might conceivably include only one name, and it would be no one from the other list.

Perhaps this is one reason your presumptive skills have gone amiss lately. You simply don't read what I write.

I ask again, now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

That is a BS reply that is not even worthy of the accusation of "trying to wheedle out of it". Perhaps it's not deliberate BS but a symptom of senility, in which case I can make allowances. I have been making a few allowances towards you lately.

We could put this silly little discussion behind us when you admit that you did ask me that question, and then admit that you were incorrect when you said that you didn't ask it.

Furthermore, as you continue to make your snide remarks such as "presumptive skills have gone amiss lately", "You simply don't read what I write." etc, I will continue to react.

Again I say, it's your choice.

............

Harcourt:

There is a very large difference between "or" and "and".

For instance, if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "or" white, you would come up with two entirely different people.

However if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "and" white, your answer might conceivably include only one name, and it would be no one from the other list.

Perhaps this is one reason your presumptive skills have gone amiss lately. You simply don't read what I write.

I ask again, now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

That is a BS reply that is not even worthy of the accusation of "trying to wheedle out of it". Perhaps it's not deliberate BS but a symptom of senility, in which case I can make allowances. I have been making a few allowances towards you lately.

We could put this silly little discussion behind us when you admit that you did ask me that question, and then admit that you were incorrect when you said that you didn't ask it.

Furthermore, as you continue to make your snide remarks such as "presumptive skills have gone amiss lately", "You simply don't read what I write." etc, I will continue to react.

Again I say, it's your choice.

Harcourt:

If you really believe I asked you this question, " In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle...", then so be it.

I said I did not ask you that question because I didn't. You changed the one word and the meaning of my question by doing so.

However, for the sake of good will and harmony and in an attempt to give you some peace of mind, if you want me to say I didn't say what I did say, then I will admit I never said this..."Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?"

Notice to any readers, post number 1577 is a figment of your imagination and does not contain the above words.

There...I have admitted it.

............

Harcourt:

There is a very large difference between "or" and "and".

For instance, if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "or" white, you would come up with two entirely different people.

However if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "and" white, your answer might conceivably include only one name, and it would be no one from the other list.

Perhaps this is one reason your presumptive skills have gone amiss lately. You simply don't read what I write.

I ask again, now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

That is a BS reply that is not even worthy of the accusation of "trying to wheedle out of it". Perhaps it's not deliberate BS but a symptom of senility, in which case I can make allowances. I have been making a few allowances towards you lately.

We could put this silly little discussion behind us when you admit that you did ask me that question, and then admit that you were incorrect when you said that you didn't ask it.

Furthermore, as you continue to make your snide remarks such as "presumptive skills have gone amiss lately", "You simply don't read what I write." etc, I will continue to react.

Again I say, it's your choice.

Harcourt:

If you really believe I asked you this question, " In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle...", then so be it.

I said I did not ask you that question because I didn't. You changed the one word and the meaning of my question by doing so.

However, for the sake of good will and harmony and in an attempt to give you some peace of mind, if you want me to say I didn't say what I did say, then I will admit I never said this..."Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?"

Notice to any readers, post number 1577 is a figment of your imagination and does not contain the above words.

There...I have admitted it.

Beside being hollow, I don't want you to say you didn't say something when you did....you denied saying it, so I want you to say that you did say what you did.

"And" or "or" makes no difference to the question, in the context of me accusing you of accusing me of being belligerant.

Hollow, insincere confessions mean nothing.

Just to reassure you....I have no intention of saying that you lied, as I would accept it was a mistake.

............

Harcourt:

There is a very large difference between "or" and "and".

For instance, if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "or" white, you would come up with two entirely different people.

However if I were to ask if you knew of a politician that is black "and" white, your answer might conceivably include only one name, and it would be no one from the other list.

Perhaps this is one reason your presumptive skills have gone amiss lately. You simply don't read what I write.

I ask again, now can we put this silly little discussion behind us?

That is a BS reply that is not even worthy of the accusation of "trying to wheedle out of it". Perhaps it's not deliberate BS but a symptom of senility, in which case I can make allowances. I have been making a few allowances towards you lately.

We could put this silly little discussion behind us when you admit that you did ask me that question, and then admit that you were incorrect when you said that you didn't ask it.

Furthermore, as you continue to make your snide remarks such as "presumptive skills have gone amiss lately", "You simply don't read what I write." etc, I will continue to react.

Again I say, it's your choice.

Harcourt:

If you really believe I asked you this question, " In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle...", then so be it.

I said I did not ask you that question because I didn't. You changed the one word and the meaning of my question by doing so.

However, for the sake of good will and harmony and in an attempt to give you some peace of mind, if you want me to say I didn't say what I did say, then I will admit I never said this..."Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?"

Notice to any readers, post number 1577 is a figment of your imagination and does not contain the above words.

There...I have admitted it.

Beside being hollow, I don't want you to say you didn't say something when you did....you denied saying it, so I want you to say that you did say what you did.

"And" or "or" makes no difference to the question, in the context of me accusing you of accusing me of being belligerant.

Hollow, insincere confessions mean nothing.

Just to reassure you....I have no intention of saying that you lied, as I would accept it was a mistake.

This sums it all up..."in the context of me accusing you of accusing me of being belligerant."

Now I am through with this silly discussion with you. You are infantile and clueless and, frankly, this is not worthy of my time. I will predict at least one more post with you beating your chest in mock protest however.

I will now watch a Thai soap opera and get much more from it than reading your inane posts.

I will continue to react.

I will continue to react.

Until he is backed into a corner, then he runs and hides. Really pitiful - and certainly not worthy of anyone's time.

Speaking in New Hampshire this week, Gen. Petraeus addressed the controversy, beginning with the point that some statements attributed to him personally were, in fact, sentences lifted out of context from a 56-page CENTCOM Strategy Document.

"There's... a statement in [the document] that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate and among those we listed the Mideast peace process. We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean that is a perception; it is there, I don't think that's disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly." He noted other factors listed in the same section of the report, including "a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which, by the way, deny Israel's right to exist. There's a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place...So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all."

In response to a question, Gen. Petraeus said he had called Gen. Ashkenazi, the IDF Chief of Staff, and assured him that the web reports were inaccurate. http://rickscafamerican.blogspot.com/2010/...traeus-and.html

The video is on YouTube.

I find it a bit strange as I cannot find the video on YT (see attached snap) but I can also not find the document were portions where copied and then presented incorrrectly.

I'll keep searching for a while.

I found it.

I found two clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVJz1AUNcPY...feature=related

Is the person that claims to know about what was said in the briefing.

And here a CNN news clip.

UG if you found a clip or a link to the actual document please post as it is relevant. I know there are the clips where he says it was taken out of context but that could be because of the sensitivity of the subject.

OK, found a link to the document and his statement was twisted but I believe there is no doubt on what he was trying to say.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/...%2003-16-10.pdf

What he was trying to say had little to do with Israel and a lot more to do with terrorist groups and the countries that support them. Read section "B".

Petraeus Sets Record Straight on Israel

You mean you might have touched the tired-of-America-bashing nerve? Really? Why would that be a touchy nerve around here?

So, in the interests of peace and harmony, all non-Americans have to avoid any truths that might put America in a poor light.

Lets just tiptoe around any factual information that might upset the sensitivities of the American right?

You like to cherry-pick information highlighting what makes America (or Israel) look bad while skipping over anything that involves other countries. As UG said, you like to mislead.

Here's the best advice you'll ever get - IF you actually make it to Afghanistan, DO NOT let on to the people likely responsible for your security and life that you despise America so much. Being the invaders, rapists, baby killers and general all-around murders you believe them to be they might not treat you with the love & respect you probably believe you deserve. On the other hand, show some courage and go ahead and tell them exactly what you think.

Alex, have you seen "Green Zone" yet? I saw it tonight. I think you'll like it. I did, even if it is all just fantasy.