Perhaps we've already answered your questions - over and over again - numerous times.

No you did not. Please show a quote that I do not like American people

Please show a Quote that I support the USSR regime UG..

Failing to do so will render your quotes null and void, do you understand what that means?

OK. This thread is descending into an argument and that's not going to happen. Posters can be anti anything, but bashing isn't permitted. Baiting them isn't permitted either.

If you want to discuss something related to the OP, and that's a pretty much wide open field, you are free to do so, otherwise, the thread will have to be closed.

OTB is meant to be a civil discussion.

Thanks.

And that is one of the things I think Pilger is trying to tell us. Dig deep and dig deeper and you might be surprised what you will find.

"Digging deeper" works both ways. Dig deep into the background of these anti-Americans on the left and you usually find they were supporters of the ol' USSR. Just don't get confused thinking that they are "searching for the truth" or "trying to help mankind". Sound familiar?

1. Please show any quote from me that shows I do not like American people.

2. Please show any quote that I support the USSR regime.

By asking those questions in reply to my statement aren't you putting yourself into the category of anti-Americans on the left who supported the USSR? Anyway, you are probably too young to have supported the USSR which fell apart 20 years ago. However, look at the background of those who taught you and led you to where you are now and you'll see.

My original question was that if you could provide evidence that if some things presented in the VDO were lies or not correct, please do so.

The same counts for the evidence I provided.

I wonder why any of you three refuses to answer my question on the illegal economic take over of Iraq and the immunity provided to those mercenaries.

Ore am I perhaps asking to many questions for you to comprehend?

Your questions are based on a false premise. There was no illegal economic takeover of Iraq. If so, why were the first oil contracts awarded by the new Iraqi gov't given to China? And why is the US PAYING for the oil? As for the immunity question, private security firms are not mercs.

Now answer a question of mine, equally based on a false premise - why are the Dutch people so racist? If you answer with anything other than giving an explanation why the Dutch people are racist, I will assume you are refusing to answer the question or it was simply too difficult for you to comprehend.

What do the Dutch have to do with this topic? I must have missed something.

You plainly did not get the gist of what I wrote.....

Actually, I did. As you have admitted "anti' can be placed in front of almost anything. As to why some words using "anti" become more popular than others, I would say that is because the subject that they represent is more widely discussed.

Your questions are based on a false premise. There was no illegal economic takeover of Iraq. If so, why were the first oil contracts awarded by the new Iraqi gov't given to China? And why is the US PAYING for the oil? As for the immunity question, private security firms are not mercs.

You might have missed what Bremer did during his short stint there Kohee.

Snip:

He is also one of two journalists who obtained a document from the administration of US President George Bush titled “Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth,” a confidential report of 101 pages from inside the US State Department and written prior to the invasion of Iraq. It outlines the plan for what it terms “the post conflict economy” and involves the mass privatization of virtually every Iraqi government asset.

The document does not only indicate that US is planning to privatize every economically beneficial asset, but also the very backbone of Iraq, its laws.

http://www.baghdadbulletin.com/pageArticle.php?article_id=146

Snip:

She highlights the web of corporate interests from the oil, oil engineering and military sectors of the U.S. economy that have combined with government to the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Many of the corporate players - Chevron, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton - have corporate leaders who went into and out of government over the years, influencing the direction of U.S. policy and then ensuring that their corporations profited mightily from the policies they put in place.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/9276

There is plenty more info on this not so well known little secret of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

The mercanaries and alleged Dutch racism will follow in another post.

You can try to confront yourself with above reality first.

But I expect you will try to use the "Illegal" route.

The war destroyed Iraq. There was no real economy. It was the US's responsibility to get it going again.

It is a very recogniable pattern Kohee.

Similar stuff was done in South America a few decades ago. It's coming from the handbook of The Chicago School of Economics.

By the way the Chinese are doing great in Afghanistan while the coalition walks on a roof, blindfolded...

It is a very recogniable pattern Kohee.

Similar stuff was done in South America a few decades ago. It's coming from the handbook of The Chicago School of Economics.

By the way the Chinese are doing great in Afghanistan while the coalition walks on a roof, blindfolded...

It was also done in Germany and Japan in 1946. How did that little experiment turn out?

You may not quote articles in full. Under the policy of fair use, you can quote 3 sentences and then provide a link to the article. Any more of that runs the risk of legal liability and will be deleted.

It is a very recogniable pattern Kohee.

Similar stuff was done in South America a few decades ago. It's coming from the handbook of The Chicago School of Economics.

By the way the Chinese are doing great in Afghanistan while the coalition walks on a roof, blindfolded...

It was also done in Germany and Japan in 1946. How did that little experiment turn out?

The German's and Japanese were traditionally (and still are) among the hardest working ethnic groups on the planet and they had centuries of experience in working together as a nation, Iraq is a relatively new country with a history of tribal divisions.

In each case the US wanted both countries rebuilt quickly as buffer states against a rampant USSR and China.

I think most observers will be watching to see what does happen in Iraq (most having already drawn their conclusions on Afghanistan), I personally think that a populist strongman is required to unite the country, hopefully some one who is pro-west, otherwise it will break up amidst tribal and ethnic violence.

I think that is one of the things why there has not been the result that was expected in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I mentioned already the tribe culture and that is one of the reasons of the failure in Somalia as well. Our dear leaders and policy inventors do not understand that culture. You can flatten the whole country but that culture will not disappear (quickly).

The comment of Chuck says it all (no pun intended). How can you compare the situation in Europe after the war with a still occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least you are not denying the economic take over, the question is who you thinks/know is benefiting the most from it.

The comment of Chuck says it all (no pun intended). How can you compare the situation in Europe after the war with a still occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least you are not denying the economic take over, the question is who you thinks/know is benefiting the most from it.

Are you now claiming Germany and Japan were not occupied after WWII?

Who do I think will benefit? Probably the local politicians and Imams.

You really can"t see it dear Chuck?

Are you saying the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same as Germany and Japan after WW2?

You really can"t see it dear Chuck?

Are you saying the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same as Germany and Japan after WW2?

After having spent over 30 years living with these people, I probably see it about as well as you do.

You're simply trying to concoct another conspiracy theory that will go on for post after post.

That is something I do not wish to deal with, so let's agree to disagree.

You really can"t see it dear Chuck?

Are you saying the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same as Germany and Japan after WW2?

After having spent over 30 years living with these people, I probably see it about as well as you do.

You're simply trying to concoct another conspiracy theory that will go on for post after post.

That is something I do not wish to deal with, so let's agree to disagree.

Chuck, you know as well as I do that these situations are very different.

There is no conspiracy theory I present, just facts.

We cannot do anything about it.

What we can do is to expose these things and think about it.

Thats all.

You really can"t see it dear Chuck?

Are you saying the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same as Germany and Japan after WW2?

After having spent over 30 years living with these people, I probably see it about as well as you do.

You're simply trying to concoct another conspiracy theory that will go on for post after post.

That is something I do not wish to deal with, so let's agree to disagree.

Chuck, you know as well as I do that these situations are very different.

There is no conspiracy theory I present, just facts.

We cannot do anything about it.

What we can do is to expose these things and think about it.

Thats all.

Keep in mind these 3 words whenever you present facts Alex and other people walk away: Ostrich, head, sand.

What "facts"? Conspiracy theories and opinions are not facts, no matter how much someone insists that they are.

What "facts"? Conspiracy theories and opinions are not facts, no matter how much someone insists that they are.

I have not seen any facts either so simply decided to call it a day.

Just for the record, and so Harcourt will know, I am not responding to any more of Harcourt's troll posts. I don't believe in the ignore feature so I will henceforth use will power to keep from biting at his baits.

His very childish "Ostrich, head, sand" is a prime example of why he doesn't deserve to receive any responses.

People complain that they have no rights on forums, their posts can be deleted or edited and their right to post taken away temporarily or permanently.

But they are wrong, we have one right that cannot be taken away, and unfortunately so few people use it.

That is the right not to post, the right not to respond.

How much better is it to ignore someone you disagree with if you know you are going to be insulted or abused if you reply?

I never put anyone on ThaiVisa ignore, I have my own built in mental ignore.

People complain that they have no rights on forums, their posts can be deleted or edited and their right to post taken away temporarily or permanently.

But they are wrong, we have one right that cannot be taken away, and unfortunately so few people use it.

That is the right not to post, the right not to respond.

How much better is it to ignore someone you disagree with if you know you are going to be insulted or abused if you reply?

I never put anyone on ThaiVisa ignore, I have my own built in mental ignore.

Agreed...hence my post.

What "facts"? Conspiracy theories and opinions are not facts, no matter how much someone insists that they are.

Straight from the CFR:

What is covered by the Bremer orders?

They apply to broad areas of Iraqi law and governance. Among them are edicts that granted foreign soldiers and contractors immunity from Iraqi law, opened Iraq’s economy to foreign investment

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7639/iraq.html

Are you and Chuck saying these are not facts?

There are facts in the report, but it is not our responsibility to search through the whole thing looking for items to support your posts.

I suggest that you provide quotes that you think prove your points and then others can research them to see how accurate or inaccurate they are.

What "facts"? Conspiracy theories and opinions are not facts, no matter how much someone insists that they are.

Straight from the CFR:

What is covered by the Bremer orders?

They apply to broad areas of Iraqi law and governance. Among them are edicts that granted foreign soldiers and contractors immunity from Iraqi law, opened Iraq’s economy to foreign investment

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7639/iraq.html

Are you and Chuck saying these are not facts?

Alex:

When you post a link, you should read it to insure the link itself does not make your post redundant.

Found in your link:

"What is likely to happen to the orders?

Some are likely to be changed, or, perhaps more likely, not enforced. “A lot will simply happen through non-obedience. The orders won’t be formally overturned, they will just be ignored,” says Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle East affairs at the Congressional Research Service. Brown says he expects Iraqis to draft new legislation slowly, “piece by piece,” instead of rejecting all CPA laws wholesale. “Many, many of the edicts passed by the CPA have been very important for Iraq’s progress towards democracy,” Rend al-Rahim, Iraq’s ambassador-designate to the United States, said June 29 at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). But, she added, “the incoming government will work in the light of the exigencies that it finds itself in ... so I would not be surprised ... if the interim government does a U-turn on some of those edicts.”

In short, this is all "much ado about nothing". Bremer's edicts became OBE many moons ago.

I understand both of you and your points made and it is very much appreciated by me.

Nevertheless due to the "edicts" implemented by Bremer, the Iraq oil industry has now been privatized and these companies can transfer all of their profits outside of Iraq.

I quote:

"This is an opportunity without precedent anywhere else in the world. The scale of reserves available for development and exploitation is without equal," Peter Kemp from Energy Intelligence told BBC News.

"That is something that no oil company... can ignore."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407274.stm

You see my point is that state owned oil companies that could provide the country with revenues and rebuild the country have been given away to private companies made possible by the Bremer rules/edicts.

That rule says that none of the profits made from the oil trade have to be invested in Iraq.

I will come back to your reply Chuck and show that some of those crazy rules have not been changed yet due to legal difficulties.

Please understand I was not against removing Saddam, just looking for the legal justifications of all these actions and some of the propaganda that was feed into our brains.

Take care!

Alex

Was the government oil industry sold off or handed out to private business?

I understand both of you and your points made and it is very much appreciated by me.

Nevertheless due to the "edicts" implemented by Bremer, the Iraq oil industry has now been privatized and these companies can transfer all of their profits outside of Iraq.

I quote:

"This is an opportunity without precedent anywhere else in the world. The scale of reserves available for development and exploitation is without equal," Peter Kemp from Energy Intelligence told BBC News.

"That is something that no oil company... can ignore."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407274.stm

You see my point is that state owned oil companies that could provide the country with revenues and rebuild the country have been given away to private companies made possible by the Bremer rules/edicts.

That rule says that none of the profits made from the oil trade have to be invested in Iraq.

I will come back to your reply Chuck and show that some of those crazy rules have not been changed yet due to legal difficulties.

Please understand I was not against removing Saddam, just looking for the legal justifications of all these actions and some of the propaganda that was feed into our brains.

Take care!

Alex

It would appear your own link, again, exonerates Bremer and the US of planning to steal all the oil revenue from Iraq.

It says...

_______________________________________________________

"A joint venture between the UK's Shell and Malaysia's Petronas oil companies has won the right to develop Iraq's giant Majnoon oil field.

A total of 44 companies took part in a bid for 10 fields in the second such auction since the invasion in 2003.

Shell and Petronas beat a rival bid from France's Total and China's CNPC."

________________________________________________________

The companies mentioned in your article (none of which are US based) will pay the Iraqi government for every barrel of oil they pump out of the ground. The profits go to the companies involved since they are the ones that are bankrolling the drilling operations and taking the financial risks. That's the way these thing usually work.

As far as the privatization of the oil industry is concerned, following are a few select items from the Republic of Iraq Ministry of Oil. Iraq's oil has hardly been handed over to private investors or other nations, and certainly not the US.

_________________________________________________________

No. (64) Of 2007

Law of Private Investment in Crude Oil Refining

Article -1

This Law aims to encourage the private sector to participate in the economic development in Iraq and to take part in building the industrial infrastructure through engagement in the activity of crude oil refining.

Article -2

2.1 The private sector may establish refineries for refining crude oil and possess their facilities and operate and manage them and market their products but may not possess the land.

2.2 For the purposes of this Law, the private sector shall mean any Iraqi company set up according to the provisions of Companies Law No. (21) Of 1997or foreign company or group of companies, individually or in association with each other, which possess financial and technical capability to establish refineries to refine crude oil to the best international standards.

Article -3

Iraqi personnel shall constitute a minimum of (75%) seventy-five percent of the number of employees of the investing company in accordance with this Law.

http://www.oil.gov.iq/Law-of-Private%20Investment-in-Crude-Oil-Refining.pdf

________________________________________________________

If you are so intent on blaming Bremer, then blame him for dissolving the Iraqi army after being defeated by the coalition. That put an instant 2 million soldiers on the street with no income and no way to make any money, thereby feeding any insurgency with armed soldiers. That was a big mistake by Bremer.

The rest, as I said earlier, has become OBE.

If you are so intent on blaming Bremer, then blame him for dissolving the Iraqi army after being defeated by the coalition. That put an instant 2 million soldiers on the street with no income and no way to make any money, thereby feeding any insurgency with armed soldiers. That was a big mistake by Bremer.

The rest, as I said earlier, has become OBE.

How much of the Iraqi army dissolved itself? I remember seeing the video of all those soldiers just walking home, going awol after the invasion. Not like most of them wanted to be there in the first place.

If you are so intent on blaming Bremer, then blame him for dissolving the Iraqi army after being defeated by the coalition. That put an instant 2 million soldiers on the street with no income and no way to make any money, thereby feeding any insurgency with armed soldiers. That was a big mistake by Bremer.

The rest, as I said earlier, has become OBE.

How much of the Iraqi army dissolved itself? I remember seeing the video of all those soldiers just walking home, going awol after the invasion. Not like most of them wanted to be there in the first place.

Most of those guys walking towards Baghdad were cannon fodder conscripts. Bremer prohibited any former Baathist party members and officers from participating in the newly developing Iraqi Army.

Many Republican Guard members then signed up with the insurgency for cash. Things went downhill from there.

I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that a stragic interest for the US, rather than (more importantly than) an economic one, may have been at play in securing a source of oil.

The US would have been a bit perturbed if China had won the majority of contracts, but would not mind if companies that will sell to them (in future possible troubled times) won.

It was all about securing the source, not neccessarily getting direct control.