A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

NEW YORK - Oil futures shot back above $107 a barrel Thursday after the bombing of an Iraqi oil pipeline diverted investors’ attention away from a stabilizing U.S. dollar.

Retail gas prices, meanwhile, inched up overnight while diesel prices slipped.

The bombing of a key Iraqi oil pipeline Thursday morning appeared to cut oil exports from the southern oil city of Basra, despite oil officials’ statements to the contrary. Dow Jones Newswires reported that exports from southern Iraqi terminals have been reduced to about 1.2 million barrels a day from a normal rate of 1.56 million barrels a day.

“We’re going to be getting less oil because of the explosion,” said James Cordier, founder of OptionSellers.com, a Tampa, Fla., trading firm.

For traders, the big factor is that Iraqi oil supplies were cut by a deliberate act of terrorism, Cordier said. That raises the prospect of more attacks, and less oil.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

And without the presence of US Military in the Middle East, ........ those terrorist attacks on oil production infrastructure will exacerbate in Iraq ......... and then spread into Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and any other country that supplies crude oil for the US Market.

And anyone that is foolish enough to think or believe this will not occur .......... is in for a rude awakening.

And if President Bush had not ordered the US Military to invade Iraq and make its presence known, ........ those terrorist attacks on oil production infrastructure would have already spread into Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and any other country that supplies crude oil for the US Market.

And anyone that is foolish enough to think or believe that would not have occured .......... would now be crying "grief" from their rude awakening.

Only the sensible and concerned US citizens realize and understand that it is not necessary to "hit someone, .... to hurt them".

It is much easier and less costly to just "cut off" the goods and/or services that they dearly depend upon.

Just like the utility companies do: ............ they "cut off" your service (water, gas, electric) if you don't pay your bills.

.

SamCogar wrote:And if President Bush had not ordered the US Military to invade Iraq and make its presence known, ........ those terrorist attacks on oil production infrastructure would have already spread into Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and any other country that supplies crude oil for the US Market.

Then why wasn't this, instead of all the WMDs mumbo jumbo, the excuse offered for invading Iraq? Why does Cheney still deny that it was or is is about oil?

Seems I recall Bush talking about 'securing Iraq'. What in Iraq needs securing besides Oil?

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:And if President Bush had not ordered the US Military to invade Iraq and make its presence known, ........ those terrorist attacks on oil production infrastructure would have already spread into Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and any other country that supplies crude oil for the US Market.

Then why wasn't this, instead of all the WMDs mumbo jumbo, the excuse offered for invading Iraq? Why does Cheney still deny that it was or is is about oil?

And if Bush had told you his reason was to protect the US's supply of oil ......... then you would have agreed it was necessary to invade Iraq?

HORSEPUCKY, .........

And why do you ask about Cheny, ...... you could care less what he thinks, denies or claims.

You really don't give a shidt about much anything ......... except yourself.

.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the toppling of the Iraqi government lead to a dramatic increase in terrorist activity in Iraq. We opened the floodgates. You can't just say that a terrorist attack in Iraq now would have happened, or happened many times over, if our government hadn't attacked another sovereign nation.

I can't prove a negative. That is an impossible task. However, you can't prove that the Iraqi government wouldn't have continued to do a good job of preventing the spread of terrorism within its borders. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, let's see it. I haven't seen any so far.

Aaron wrote:Seems I recall Bush talking about 'securing Iraq'. What in Iraq needs securing besides Oil?

All those WMDs, of course. At least that's what Bush told us in 2002-2003!

I agree. It was our invasion of Iraq (which you, like Hillary, supported at the time) that allowed Al Qeada to enter into Iraq. Before, Sadaam killed anyone he perceived as competition including all terrorist.

But we did go in, vastly under prepared and we are responsible for creating the problems that exist today. To 'march out', allow civil war to erupt with the winning side controlling interest of nearly a quarter of the worlds ready oil reserves, give terrorist organizations such as Al Qeada and Hezbollah a fertile breeding ground and not protect vital interest (oil-is there any other interest in Iraq) would be stupid.

Every intelligence agency, including Iraq's allies, in the world believed Iraq had WMD's. Even the dums thought so.

Aaron wrote:Every intelligence agency, including Iraq's allies, in the world believed Iraq had WMD's. Even the dums thought so.

You do not know that. All you know is what someone or other said. And you don't know that they even believed what they said.

I just don't believe that "Every intelligence agency" in the world believed it- especially in the face of the repeated warnings from the people best in a position to know- the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq- that they were not finding evidence of WMDs and that a rush to "disarm Saddam of WMDs" was not warranted- Bush's "45 minutes to the east coast" hyperbole notwithstanding.

I suspect that more likely most "intelligence agencies" in the world didn't care, and hadn't really looked into it anyway.

ziggy wrote:
I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion.

Congress was allowed in the conversation. They had access to every single piece of intelligence that Bush and Cheney had access to. They made their decision to the tune of 70%+ supported our President.

America was involved in that our representatives, as provided by our Constitution, spoke for us and agreed as citizens agreed with our President at 70%+.

I don't know what else you can ask for.

Ziggy,

I don't know who else believed what, I do know that I believed he had WMD. He had used them in the past against his own people. I'm not convinced our intelligence agencies believed he had WMD, but they said he did and I believed them.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Every intelligence agency, including Iraq's allies, in the world believed Iraq had WMD's. Even the dums thought so.

You do not know that. All you know is what someone or other said. And you don't know that they even believed what they said.

Read the NIE's from 2002/2003. They all agreed that Sadaam Hussien either posessed or was attempting to possess WMD's. Unless of course you can provide NIE's from 2002/2003 that say otherwise.

Aaron wrote:I agree. It was our invasion of Iraq (which you, like Hillary, supported at the time) ..............

Bull sh!t. Ask Sam Cogar and Ohio county. They'll tell you that I did not support it at the time- that I told 'em then that it was all so bogus- that it was a tail told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Go ahead. Ask 'em. Chickensh!t.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I agree. It was our invasion of Iraq (which you, like Hillary, supported at the time) ..............

Bull sh!t. Ask Sam Cogar and Ohio county. They'll tell you that I did not support it at the time- that I told 'em then that it was all so bogus- that it was a tail told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Go ahead. Ask 'em. Chickensh!t.

I don't have to ask anyone anthing because I wasn't speaking to you.

Who supported the action and advocates marching out? You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

And you really should watch your language and try and control that temper dude. At your age, it'll cause a heart attack or a stroke for sure.

Cheers.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion.

Congress was allowed in the conversation.

The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion.

Congress was allowed in the conversation.

The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

I'm not digging anything deeper. Congress had the discussion about the invasion of Iraq and like it or not, oil was brought up. They supported the President and like it or not, they speak for you. Our constitutional republic does not call for a public debate or discussion by our Congress or President. If you do not like thier decisions, then you have the option to speak loud in clear on election day.

That is how we as Americans roll homey!!!

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I agree. It was our invasion of Iraq (which you, like Hillary, supported at the time) ..............

Bull sh!t. Ask Sam Cogar and Ohio county. They'll tell you that I did not support it at the time- that I told 'em then that it was all so bogus- that it was a tail told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Go ahead. Ask 'em. Chickensh!t.

I don't have to ask anyone anthing because I wasn't speaking to you.

Who supported the action and advocates marching out? You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

And you really should watch your language and try and control that temper dude. At your age, it'll cause a heart attack or a stroke for sure.

Cheers.

I gave up my "temper" about 30 years ago, friend. I don't get mad; I get even. Temper has nothing to do with answering b.s. with a challenge to put up or shut up.

You post was directly under mine. I do apologize, though. Stephanie had posted while I was writing, and so I did not realize that your reply was to her. So, as I was wrong in jumping to the wrong conclusion and chastized you about it, I apologize.

BTW, my blood pressure stays right around 122 / 74 or so. My father lived to be 87. So I'm not afraid that I'll kill myself here. On the contrary, this is mental recreation- which most everyone could use more of.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion.

Congress was allowed in the conversation.

The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

I'm not digging anything deeper. Congress had the discussion about the invasion of Iraq and like it or not, oil was brought up. They supported the President and like it or not, they speak for you. Our constitutional republic does not call for a public debate or discussion by our Congress or President. If you do not like thier decisions, then you have the option to speak loud in clear on election day.

That is how we as Americans roll homey!!!

So how are you privy to all this secret goings on in Congress? And again, why did both Cheney and Bush say repeatedly say that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil- as Cheney stilll says?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:And if President Bush had not ordered the US Military to invade Iraq and make its presence known, ........ those terrorist attacks on oil production infrastructure would have already spread into Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and any other country that supplies crude oil for the US Market.

Then why wasn't this, instead of all the WMDs mumbo jumbo, the excuse offered for invading Iraq? Why does Cheney still deny that it was or is is about oil?

And if Bush had told you his reason was to protect the US's supply of oil ......... then you would have agreed it was necessary to invade Iraq?

HORSEPUCKY, .........

And why do you ask about Cheny, ...... you could care less what he thinks, denies or claims.

I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion. Bush and Cheney repeatedly said that it was not about oil.

You seem to suggest that the excuses for going to war should be whatever people would agree to- and that the actual reason(s) should be secreted away somewhere- out of the reach of snoopy citizens.

You really don't give a shidt about much anything ......... except yourself.

Just about like you, SamCogar. So what do you care about?

And why do you ask about Cheny, ...... you could care less what he thinks, denies or claims.

Cheney presents himself as a spokesperson for the administration of President Bush. You might not think that it is important for such a high level spokesperson to speak truth about why go to war. And apparently Cheney would agree with you. But I don't.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I don't know. Congress and America were never allowed that discussion.

Congress was allowed in the conversation.

The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

I'm not digging anything deeper. Congress had the discussion about the invasion of Iraq and like it or not, oil was brought up. They supported the President and like it or not, they speak for you. Our constitutional republic does not call for a public debate or discussion by our Congress or President. If you do not like thier decisions, then you have the option to speak loud in clear on election day.

That is how we as Americans roll homey!!!

So how are you privy to all this secret goings on in Congress? And again, why did both Cheney and Bush say repeatedly say that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil- as Cheney stilll says?

I read and you'll have to ask Bush and Cheney. I also recall hearing Kerry say it wasn't about the oil in 2004. Maybe you should question why he said that as well or why he, along with 28 other prominant democratic Senators joined republicans in voting yes to giving power to President Bush to invade Iraq.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I agree. It was our invasion of Iraq (which you, like Hillary, supported at the time) ..............

Bull sh!t. Ask Sam Cogar and Ohio county. They'll tell you that I did not support it at the time- that I told 'em then that it was all so bogus- that it was a tail told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Go ahead. Ask 'em. Chickensh!t.

I don't have to ask anyone anthing because I wasn't speaking to you.

Who supported the action and advocates marching out? You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

And you really should watch your language and try and control that temper dude. At your age, it'll cause a heart attack or a stroke for sure.

Cheers.

I gave up my "temper" about 30 years ago, friend. I don't get mad; I get even. Temper has nothing to do with answering b.s. with a challenge to put up or shut up.

You post was directly under mine. I do apologize, though. Stephanie had posted while I was writing, and so I did not realize that your reply was to her. So, as I was wrong in jumping to the wrong conclusion and chastized you about it, I apologize.

BTW, my blood pressure stays right around 122 / 74 or so. My father lived to be 87. So I'm not afraid that I'll kill myself here. On the contrary, this is mental recreation- which most everyone could use more of.

Apology accepted.

ziggy wrote:The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, .....

Ziggy, you really shouldn't be getting all pissy faced and pierty just because the President, Members of his Cabinet, Members of Congress and/or the Generals and Admirals in charge of our Military ......... don't tell you every little thing about their plans, discussions and actions.

ziggy wrote:....... and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

And you keep acting like an irate pissyfaced wife who is not interested in "reasons or answers" .......... because their sole intent is to "get even" by punishing their spouse in any way that they can.

And DUMB ARSE, ...... to answer your question: for the same reason the President and Congress has been so tight lipped about the 9-11 WTC "terrorist attack" for the 6 years since then?

All great leaders when faced with making a critical decision often ponder whether or not to “err on the side of caution”. The “result” of their decision is a “Win vrs. Lose” for both them and the people they lead.

“if you err on the side of caution when you are deciding what to do, you do the thing that is safe instead of taking a risk.”

The decisions were made concerning the 9-11 hijackers and the invasion of Iraq ....... and it will do no one any good or change anything by explaining why said decisions were made.

Any explanation would only add to your pissyfaced attitude, Zigster, ...... and make you even more pierty.

.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:The conversation about oil? That's what Sam and I were talking about- oil.

When & Where did Congress have that discussion about the invasion of Iraq being about oil? If Congress did indeed have that disucssion, why was it not a public discussion, .....

Ziggy, you really shouldn't be getting all pissy faced and pierty just because the President, Members of his Cabinet, Members of Congress and/or the Generals and Admirals in charge of our Military ......... don't tell you every little thing about their plans, discussions and actions.

ziggy wrote:....... and why has Congress been so tight lipped about it for 5 years since then?

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

And you keep acting like an irate pissyfaced wife who is not interested in "reasons or answers" .......... because their sole intent is to "get even" by punishing their spouse in any way that they can.

And DUMB ARSE, ...... to answer your question: for the same reason the President and Congress has been so tight lipped about the 9-11 WTC "terrorist attack" for the 6 years since then?

All great leaders when faced with making a critical decision often ponder whether or not to “err on the side of caution”. The “result” of their decision is a “Win vrs. Lose” for both them and the people they lead.

“if you err on the side of caution when you are deciding what to do, you do the thing that is safe instead of taking a risk.”

The decisions were made concerning the 9-11 hijackers and the invasion of Iraq ....... and it will do no one any good or change anything by explaining why said decisions were made.

Any explanation would only add to your pissyfaced attitude, Zigster, ...... and make you even more pierty.

.

So Sam has finally learned a new word- "pierty". Hurray! He started using it earlier this week on someone else. Like a little boy who just discovered his penis, we can expect Sam to play with his new word often.

The decisions were made concerning the 9-11 hijackers and the invasion of Iraq ....... and it will do no one any good or change anything by explaining why said decisions were made.

Yeah, that is the same horse sh!t the Vietnam hawks' put forth about Vietnam- that those who questioned the mendacious underpennings of that war, too, were just piert asses to be ignored.

Only when those choppers frantically lifted off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon in 1975 did it dawn on most Americans that we were right- that Joihnson and McNamara and Nixon had lied to America about Vietnam for a whole goddamn decade.

And it will eventually happen about the same way in Iraq- maybe next year, or the year after, or ten years from now. But sooner or later Bush-Cheney will join the ranks of Johnson and McNamara- going down in history as the piertest of the piert, lying, jackass managers of an unnecessary war built on a foundation of bricks made of but paper mache, of but one goddamn lie after another.

Same old same old.

ziggy wrote:Only when those choppers frantically lifted off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon in 1975 did it dawn on most Americans that we were right- that Joihnson and McNamara and Nixon had lied to America about Vietnam for a whole goddamn decade.

And in 1989 when the cold war was finally won did Americans, at least the ones who had the sense to do so and realized exactly what Vietnam was, said thank you. At least Nixon lived long enough to see it.

ziggy wrote:And it will eventually happen about the same way in Iraq- maybe next year, or the year after, or ten years from now. But sooner or later Bush-Cheney will join the ranks of Johnson and McNamara- going down in history as the piertest of the piert, lying, jackass managers of an unnecessary war built on a foundation of bricks made of but paper mache, of but one goddamn lie after another.

Same old same old.

You mean next year or the year after or ten years from now we will go behind the Iraqi's backs and leave them hanging high and dry by breaking every promise we made to them as a nation. The sad part is, terrorism won't be defeated the way communism was in 1989.

Yeah, that's a legacy we can hang our hats on though, something we as Americans can be really proud of. And you guys wonder why our world standing is so poor. I would submit that it's more to do with our cut and run cowardly attitude forced by peaceniks and copperheads everytime it get's a little tough given that the last time we actually followed through on our word when it got really tough was the 1940's.

I won't be the least bit suprised when a year or two AFTER the peaceniks and copperheads force us out of Iraq and civil war is waged that the citizens of places like Qatar, the UAE and Jordan tell us thanks but no thanks if our help is offered.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:And it will eventually happen about the same way in Iraq- maybe next year, or the year after, or ten years from now. But sooner or later Bush-Cheney will join the ranks of Johnson and McNamara- going down in history as the piertest of the piert, lying, jackass managers of an unnecessary war built on a foundation of bricks made of but paper mache, of but one goddamn lie after another.

Same old same old.

You mean next year or the year after or ten years from now we will go behind the Iraqi's backs and leave them hanging high and dry by breaking every promise we made to them as a nation.

Which is more important- the "promises" made to Iraqis, or the lies Bush-Cheney told to the American people? If the "promises" made to Iraqis were as bankrupt of honestly as the excuses made to Americans for going to war in Iraq, then those "promises" should be broken- because they were deceptive from the get go.

Yeah, that's a legacy we can hang our hats on though, something we as Americans can be really proud of. And you guys wonder why our world standing is so poor. I would submit that it's more to do with our cut and run cowardly attitude forced by peaceniks and copperheads everytime it get's a little tough given that the last time we actually followed through on our word when it got really tough was the 1940's.

The problem with "following through on your word" is that often the "word" was wrong from the beginning- especially when it is based on underpennings of untruthful and sensationalized hype. What "promises", anyway? Don't you remember how we were going to be greeted as "liberators', not invaders?

I won't be the least bit suprised when a year or two AFTER the peaceniks and copperheads force us out of Iraq and civil war is waged that the citizens of places like Qatar, the UAE and Jordan tell us thanks but no thanks if our help is offered.

And that is exactly what they should tell us- for both their longer term benefit, and ours.