COMMENTS: 72
Claiming the Prize: War Escalation Aimed at Securing Iraqi Oil
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in Iraq is not because he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised.
No, it's that his definition of "victory" is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and on-line. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand.
At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by the Bush Administration and its U.K. lackey, the Independent on Sunday reports.
The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," say the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.
As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come.
This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion -- indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise "contingency plans" for divvying up Iraq's oil after the attack.
Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American "advisory committee" overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.org has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq's oil: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil.
According to senior Bush minions talking up the plan for what is not a surge but a long-term escalation of urban warfare that the U.S. ground commander in Iraq says will likely last for years, Bush's new "stratergery" includes "benchmarks" that the natives must meet to keep in favor with their colonial master. One of the most prominent of these is the demand that Iraq "finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue." As we can see by the Independent stories quoted here, that benchmark should be done and dusted within weeks.
From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush Administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry -- while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits -- more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.
Of course, at the moment, the "security situation" -- i.e., the living hell of death and suffering that Bush's "war of choice" has wrought in Iraq -- prevents the Oil Barons from setting up shop in the looted fields. Hence Bush's overwhelming urge to "surge" despite the fierce opposition to his plans from Congress, the Pentagon and some members of his own party.
Bush and his inner circle, including his chief adviser, old oilman Dick Cheney, believe that a bigger dose of blood and iron in Iraq will produce a sufficient level of stability to allow the oil majors to cash in the PSA chips that more than 3,000 American soldiers have purchased for them with their lives.
The American "surge" will be blended into the new draconian effort announced over the weekend by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: an all-out war by the government's Shiite militia-riddled "security forces" on Sunni enclaves in Baghdad, as the Washington Post reports.
American troops will "support" the "pacification effort" with what Maliki says calls "house-to-house" sweeps of Sunni areas. There is of course another phrase for this kind of operation: "ethnic cleansing."
The "surged" troops -- mostly long-serving, overstrained units dragooned into extended duty -- are to be thrown into this maelstrom of urban warfare and ethnic murder, temporarily taking sides with one faction in Iraq's hydra-headed, multi-sided civil war.
As the conflict goes on -- and it will go on and on -- the Bush Administration will continue to side with whatever faction promises uphold the "hydrocarbon law" and those profitable PSAs. If "Al Qaeda in Iraq" vowed to open the nation's oil spigots for Exxon, Fluor and Halliburton, they would suddenly find themselves transformed from "terrorists" into "moderates" -- as indeed has Maliki and his violent, sectarian Dawa Party, which once killed Americans in terrorist actions but are now hailed as freedom's champions.
So Bush will surge with Maliki and his ethnic cleansing for now. If the effort flames out in a disastrous crash that makes the situation worse -- as it almost certainly will -- Bush will simply back another horse. What he seeks in Iraq is not freedom or democracy but "stability" -- a government of any shape or form that will deliver the goods.
As the Independent wryly noted in its Sunday story, Dick Cheney himself revealed the true goal of the war back in 1999, in a speech he gave when he was still CEO of Halliburton. "Where is the oil going to come from" to slake the world's ever-growing thirst, asked Cheney, then answered his own question. "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
And therein lies another hidden layer of the war. For Iraq not only has the world's second largest oil reserves; it also has the world's most easily retrievable oil. As the Independent succinctly notes: "The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere -- witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."
This is precisely what Cheney was getting at in his 1999 talk to the Institute of Petroleum. In a world of dwindling petroleum resources, those who control large reserves of cheaply-produced oil will reap unimaginable profits -- and command the heights of the global economy.
It's not just about profit, of course; control of such resources would offer tremendous strategic advantages to anyone who was interested in "full spectrum domination" of world affairs, which the Bush-Cheney faction and their outriders among the neocons and the "national greatness" fanatics have openly sought for years. With its twin engines of corporate greed and military empire, the war in Iraq is a marriage made in Valhalla.
II. The Win-Win Scenario
And this unholy union is what Bush is really talking about when he talks about "victory." This is the reason for so much of the drift and dithering and chaos and incompetence of the occupation: Bush and his cohorts don't really care what happens on the ground in Iraq -- they care about what comes out of the ground.
The end -- profit and dominion -- justifies any means. What happens to the human beings caught up in the war is of no ultimate importance; the game is worth any number of broken candles.
And in plain point of fact, the Bush-Cheney faction -- and the elite interests they represent -- has already won the war in Iraq. I've touched on this theme before elsewhere, but it is a reality of the war that is very often overlooked, and is worth examining again. This ultimate victory was clear as long ago as June 2004, when I first set down the original version of some of the updated observations below.
Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation -- indeed, the world -- as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption.
Democracy means nothing to them -- not even in their own country, as we saw in the 2000 election. Laws are just whips to keep the common herd in line; they don't apply to the elite, as Bush's own lawyers and minions have openly asserted in the memos, signing statements, court cases and presidential decrees asserting the "inherent power" of the "unitary executive" to override any law he pleases.
The Iraq war has been immensely profitable for these Bush-linked power factions (and their tributary industries, such as construction); billions of dollars in public money have already poured into their coffers. Halliburton has been catapulted from the edge of bankruptcy to the heights of no-bid, open-ended, guaranteed profit.
The Carlyle Group is gorging on war contracts. Individual Bush family members are making out like bandits from war-related investments, while dozens of Bush minions -- like Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Joe Allbaugh -- have cashed in their insider chips for blood money.
The aftermath of the war promises equal if not greater riches. Even if the new Iraqi government maintains nominal state control of its oil industry, there are still untold billions to be made in PSAs for drilling, refining, distributing, servicing and securing oilfields and pipelines.
Likewise, the new Iraqi military and police forces will require billions more in weapons, equipment and training, bought from the U.S. arms industry -- and from the fast-expanding "private security" industry, the politically hard-wired mercenary forces that are the power elite's latest lucrative spin-off. And as with Saudi Arabia, oil money from the new Iraq will pump untold billions into American banks and investment houses.
But that's not all. For even in the worst-case scenario, if the Americans had to pull out tomorrow, abandoning everything -- their bases, their contracts, their collaborators -- the Bush power factions would still come out ahead. For not only has their already-incalculable wealth been vastly augmented (with any potential losses indemnified by U.S. taxpayers), but their deeply-entrenched sway over American society has also increased by several magnitudes.
No matter which party controls the government, the militarization of America is so far gone now it's impossible to imagine any major rollback in the gargantuan U.S. war machine -- 725 bases in 132 countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion, a planned $1 trillion in new weapons systems already moving through the pipeline. Indeed, the Democratic "opposition" has promised to expand the military.
Nor will either party conceivably challenge the dominance of the energy behemoths -- or stand against the American public's demand for cheap gas, big vehicles and unlimited consumption of a vast disproportion of the world's oil.
As for Wall Street -- both parties have long been the eager courtesans of the investment elite, dispatching armies all over the world to protect their financial interests. The power factions whose influence has been so magnified by Bush's war will maintain their supremacy regardless of the electoral outcome.
[By the way, to think that all of this has happened because a small band of extremist ideologues -- the neocons -- somehow "hijacked" U.S. foreign policy to push their radical dreams of "liberating" the Middle East by force and destroying Israel's enemies is absurd. The Bush power factions were already determined on an aggressive foreign policy; they used the neocons and their bag of tricks -- their inflated rhetoric, their conspiratorial zeal, their murky Middle East contacts, their ideology of brute force in the name of "higher" causes -- as tools (and PR cover) to help bring about a long-planned war that had nothing to do with democracy or security or any coherent ideology whatsoever beyond the remorseless pursuit of wealth and power, the blind urge to be top dog.]
As I noted earlier this year:
Bush and his cohorts have won even if the surge fails and Iraq lapses into perpetual anarchy, or becomes an extremist religious state; they've won even if the whole region goes up in flames, and terrorism flares to unprecedented heights - because this will just mean more war-profiteering, more fear-profiteering.
And yes, they've won even though they've lost their Congressional majority and could well lose the presidency in 2008, because war and fear will continue to fill their coffers, buying them continuing influence and power as they bide their time through another interregnum of a Democratic "centrist" -- who will, at best, only nibble at the edges of the militarist state -- until they are back in the saddle again. The only way they can lose the Iraq War is if they are actually arrested and imprisoned for their war crimes. And we all know that's not going to happen.
So Bush's confident strut, his incessant upbeat pronouncements about the war, his complacent smirks, his callous indifference to the unspeakable horror he has unleashed in Iraq -- these are not the hallmarks of self-delusion, or willful ignorance, or a disassociation from reality. He and his accomplices know full well what the reality is -- and they like it.
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Jan 12, 2007 2:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So there it is. The oil money will also provide enough slush to buy off more Shia politicians, perhaps even Sadr. Then what I call 'Reverse Sadaam' begins-an effective well-funded Shia dictatorship that cleanses Bagdad and key areas of troublesome Sunnis who don't want US payoffs. Those people and their neighorhoods will indeed be targeted for "cleansing" with the help of additional US forces. ( Some deal must be in the works with the "moderate" Sunni states to allow this reallocation of "human resources"- my term. ) Is an attack on Iran the quid pro quo for Sunni state agreement for the US and the organized Shia to run Iraq?
Money talks louder than guns, and it makes sense that this extortion scheme (production agreements) really is Bush's "peace plan. But whether Iraq should have been created orginally or not, these sects live side by side for the most part in Iraq's crowded urban areas, and protracted urban struggle, not peace, is the likely outcome.
Bush's hope that Shia goons will come over to the US side and then prevail against skilled Sunni urban fighters is just another pathetic "W" fantasy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bingo
Posted by: willymack
» Does Nancy Want to Play Bingo?
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 12, 2007 5:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it may be absurd that Neocons, The Israel Lobby, and foreign Isralis agents control our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, it is happening nonetheless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: mat38
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: bttl
» Insisting That OIL Was the Only Motive For The War In Iraq Is Also Hallucinatory And Absurd
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: RWA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons...
Posted by: yellow
» RE: WA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons... TennShut!!!!
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: WA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons... TennShut!!!!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call this what it is: an occupaton of imperial domination.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not only that but it doens't meet the legal definition of a war. The dems could easily....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
allowed to happen so the demolition of the towers would happen,
or the TWC attack was under the direct control of the military/industrial complex so Iraq could be invaded.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: willymack
» Tin-foil hats and anti-Arab racism
Posted by: brunowe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 12, 2007 6:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CMaciolek on Jan 12, 2007 7:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are in the final phase of the corporate takeover of the U.S. They will attack Iran and Syria during the month of Muharram (the first month of the Islamic calendar which begin on January 20) without permission or remorse; and they will not even try to explain it to us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is more than oil, it is this USofA being manipulated, by, guess who!
Posted by: symcokid
» If Israel attacks Iran, they better never whine again about why no one likes them...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: michaelo on Jan 12, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Michael O'McCarthy
An obviously dysfunctional President Bush disingenuously threatened on Wednesday night (01-10-07) to go to war against Iran: to "interrupt the flow of support" from Iraq's two key neighbors and to "seek out and destroy" networks providing weapons and training to U.S. enemies in Iraq. Today US troops invaded an Iranian consul in Iraq and kidnapped consul personnel.
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity, and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria," he said. This has to be seen as both a warning to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his government and to the Iranian people and a promise to his allies, most notably, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Bush announced that the US will deploy Patriot air defense systems and the deployment of a major strike group of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast and to expand intelligence sharing "to reassure our friends and allies."
The "allies" in mention are Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial monarchies in the Bush camp.
The Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defense system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. This weapon would be used by the US to defend against Iranian counter attack following US strikes at the "networks." Following the Iranian counter attack aimed at Iraq, the Kurds, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan ... Bush would order an all out air attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran, not requiring, arguably, Congressional approval to extend the current war.
DEMAND A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING NOW ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS CUT OFF FUNDS NOW. ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
Michael O'McCarthy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A "DEMAND THAT"!!! PAGE
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Fabulous, this explains sooo verymuch.... Thanks for the link
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Fabulous, this explains sooo verymuch.... Thanks for the link
Posted by: willymack
» RE: For an explanation of this madness ...
Posted by: hopeseeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darby1936 on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There always has to be "some enemy" for us to fight, first the nazi's, then the commies, now...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drblack on Jan 12, 2007 8:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how all the bush wags say "If we lose Iraq it will strength terrorists in various ways" . They never can add any specifics backed up by facts.
This whole Bush thing will ruin our country and we have only a few years of freedom left if Americans do not rise up in anger.
Divide and conquer. This is why Rove invented the whole Liberal-neoCon thing. If we fight in America with no regard to facts then the power can do what it wants.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Its just more of the division they need to control us.... there has to always be an enemy somewhere!
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere - witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."
First off, they misinform. The cost of lifting Iraqi crude is close to $1000/barrel if you factor in the cost of occupation as given by Joseph Stiglitz in the Guardian last Saturday. I wonder why anybody, much less yourself, would assume that this cost can be reduced? Furthermore, while the oil profits may be privatized, the U.S. government would still have to come up with the ongoing cost of occupation, currently borrowed from international sources. How long do you forsee this credit being extended?
My rough calculation would suggest that if the funds spent on the war on Iraq had gone to development of non-conventional resources, it would have covered the difference between light and heavy oil production cost for U.S. consumption for a period of many decades.
Surely with raiding pensions, medicare, S&Ls, pentagon budget blackholes, big oil incentives, etc... Cheney could have come up with a less nonsensical way of transferring funds from the treasury to corporate coffers. I think that The Independent (which is on record stating that it stands by Israel) ran this piece with the intention of providing a rationale for ongoing occupation. I also see the "war for oil" explanations for U.S. policy, as being a distraction from the fact that U.S. policy serves the interests of zionism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with your argument...
Posted by: brunowe
» Bingo
Posted by: Coleman
» Think Nigerian delta...
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Bingo
Posted by: rwa
» Cheney could have come up with a better way, but remember, he is a practicing alcoholic..
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Cheney could have come up with a better way, but remember, he is a practicing alcoholic..
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Dear Chris Floyd
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sooner or later a break between Wall Street and the militarists will occur. The additional costs of an escalating wars, the continual ballooning debt payments, huge imbalances in the balance of payments and decreasing inflows of capital as multi-national repatriate profits and overseas central banks diversify their currency reserves will force the issue. The enormous and growing inequalities, the massive concentration of wealth and capital at a time of declining living standards and stagnant income for the vast majority, gives the financial ruling class little political capital or credibility if and when an economic and financial crisis breaks.
With foreign investors owning 47% of all marketable US Treasury bonds in 2006 compared to 33% in 2001 and foreign holdings of US corporate debt up to 30% today, from 23% just 5 years ago, a rapid sell-off would totally destabilize US financial markets and the economic system as well as the world economy. A rapid sell-off of dollars with catastrophic consequences cannot be ruled out if US-Zionist militarism continues to run amuck, creating conditions of extended and prolonged warfare.
The paradox is that some of the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the ascendancy of finance capital are precisely the same class of people who are financing their own self-destruction. While cheap finance fueling multi-billion dollar mergers, acquisitions, commissions and executive payoffs, heightened militarism operates on a budget plagued by tax reductions, exemptions and evasions for the financial ruling class and ever greater squeezing of the overburdened wage and salary classes. Something has to break the cohabitation between ruling class financiers and political militarists. They are running in opposite directions. One is investing capital abroad and the other spending borrowed funds at home. For the moment there are no signs of any serious clashes at the top, and in the middle and working classes there are no signs of any political break with the two Wall Street parties or any challenge to the militarist-Zionist stranglehold on Congress. Likely it will take a catastrophe, like a White House-back Israeli nuclear attack on Iran to detonate the kind of crisis which will provoke a deep and widespread popular backlash of all things military, financial and made in Israel. "
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/115078
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Who Rules America? The Petras analysis should be REQUIRED reading fo anyone....
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Who Rules America?.......Jooooooz , but of course!!!! ;o)
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: Who Rules America?.......Jooooooz , but of course!!!! ;o)
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hopeseeker on Jan 12, 2007 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm wondering how closely this research runs alongside the work of David Icke's 'Illuminati' thoughts.
Be interesting to read the psychological profiles if the Carlyle group members for starters!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thought-provoking assessment
Posted by: hopeseeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush's invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?
It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.
Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare "their intention to destroy our way of life." To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.
The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course."
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10311
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The 'Surge' Is A Red Herring
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Jan 12, 2007 3:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would disagree with the minimization of the Zionist influence on US policy in Iraq. Breaking up the Muslim nations into disorganized ethnic and tribal areas is a long held MOSSAD plan. The idea originated in Israel, and has been a staple of right wing Israeli strategy for decades.
To imply that US middle east policy is not shaped at all by the many Likudnik Zionists in positions of influence would be flat wrong. The record shows otherwise.
Policy is a confluence of interests, and not singularly determined by any one faction or party. When these interests coincide, a tipping point is reached, and we get war, no matter if the reasons are bogus, no matter if it is the "supreme international crime," no matter that the US Constitution and UN Charter forbid it. When enough of the elites agree on something, the job of their politicos is to make it happen.
The "Israel firsters" are an entrenched faction and a powerful part of the elite in this country. That is undeniable.
Crimes of the State Blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good article: Who Rules America? by James Petras
Posted by: rwa
» Chris Floyd Called It "Absurd" To Blame Zionist Influence on US Foreign Policy For The Iraq War!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 5:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good Comment on the Israeli Factor
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: The Israeli Factor
Posted by: rwa
» Sofla100 Did Not Say It Is "All About Oil"
Posted by: Douglas
» Bushes Ideaology
Posted by: sofla100
» Christian Zionism Also Plays A Major Part In Bush's Ideology
Posted by: Douglas
» Bush Superficially Resembles Mussolini, But He Promotes Stalinism!
Posted by: Douglas
» Totalitarianism it is, market fundamentalism it isn't
Posted by: rwa
» RE:OIL pure and simple.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 13, 2007 11:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just the latest version of what the head of GM meant when he said "What's good for business is good for America." That identifies the GOP better than anything else.
But it fails to distinguish between general interests and special interests, which are rarely ever the same. No, the special interests of business are not ALWAYS good for America. No, the special interests of Bush & Co are not ALWAYS good for America.
No wonder Americans feel ripped off. We have been ripped off and are being ripped off. Our public treasury has been raped by Bush & Co.
It began in earnest again with Reagan. Amazing how Americans love our oppressors. Floyd's similie of the abused wife is also spot on. We are not victims; we are suckers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joedw on Jan 13, 2007 9:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nise52 on Jan 15, 2007 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Jan 16, 2007 11:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can this information get out to everyone?
Does anyone in the US or Britain Care that we kill people to steal oil???
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hirnlego on Jan 16, 2007 5:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2shane on Jan 18, 2007 11:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's whie he, he, he, um ah talks funni.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Jan 12, 2007 2:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So there it is. The oil money will also provide enough slush to buy off more Shia politicians, perhaps even Sadr. Then what I call 'Reverse Sadaam' begins-an effective well-funded Shia dictatorship that cleanses Bagdad and key areas of troublesome Sunnis who don't want US payoffs. Those people and their neighorhoods will indeed be targeted for "cleansing" with the help of additional US forces. ( Some deal must be in the works with the "moderate" Sunni states to allow this reallocation of "human resources"- my term. ) Is an attack on Iran the quid pro quo for Sunni state agreement for the US and the organized Shia to run Iraq?
Money talks louder than guns, and it makes sense that this extortion scheme (production agreements) really is Bush's "peace plan. But whether Iraq should have been created orginally or not, these sects live side by side for the most part in Iraq's crowded urban areas, and protracted urban struggle, not peace, is the likely outcome.
Bush's hope that Shia goons will come over to the US side and then prevail against skilled Sunni urban fighters is just another pathetic "W" fantasy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bingo
Posted by: willymack
» Does Nancy Want to Play Bingo?
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 12, 2007 5:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it may be absurd that Neocons, The Israel Lobby, and foreign Isralis agents control our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, it is happening nonetheless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: mat38
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Ignoring The Destruction Of Israel's Enemies As A Motive For The War Is Also Absurd
Posted by: bttl
» Insisting That OIL Was the Only Motive For The War In Iraq Is Also Hallucinatory And Absurd
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: RWA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons...
Posted by: yellow
» RE: WA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons... TennShut!!!!
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: WA, DOUGLAS, EDITH, and a few other morons... TennShut!!!!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call this what it is: an occupaton of imperial domination.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not only that but it doens't meet the legal definition of a war. The dems could easily....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
allowed to happen so the demolition of the towers would happen,
or the TWC attack was under the direct control of the military/industrial complex so Iraq could be invaded.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: willymack
» Tin-foil hats and anti-Arab racism
Posted by: brunowe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 12, 2007 6:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CMaciolek on Jan 12, 2007 7:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are in the final phase of the corporate takeover of the U.S. They will attack Iran and Syria during the month of Muharram (the first month of the Islamic calendar which begin on January 20) without permission or remorse; and they will not even try to explain it to us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is more than oil, it is this USofA being manipulated, by, guess who!
Posted by: symcokid
» If Israel attacks Iran, they better never whine again about why no one likes them...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: michaelo on Jan 12, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Michael O'McCarthy
An obviously dysfunctional President Bush disingenuously threatened on Wednesday night (01-10-07) to go to war against Iran: to "interrupt the flow of support" from Iraq's two key neighbors and to "seek out and destroy" networks providing weapons and training to U.S. enemies in Iraq. Today US troops invaded an Iranian consul in Iraq and kidnapped consul personnel.
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity, and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria," he said. This has to be seen as both a warning to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his government and to the Iranian people and a promise to his allies, most notably, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Bush announced that the US will deploy Patriot air defense systems and the deployment of a major strike group of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast and to expand intelligence sharing "to reassure our friends and allies."
The "allies" in mention are Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial monarchies in the Bush camp.
The Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defense system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. This weapon would be used by the US to defend against Iranian counter attack following US strikes at the "networks." Following the Iranian counter attack aimed at Iraq, the Kurds, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan ... Bush would order an all out air attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran, not requiring, arguably, Congressional approval to extend the current war.
DEMAND A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING NOW ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS CUT OFF FUNDS NOW. ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
Michael O'McCarthy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A "DEMAND THAT"!!! PAGE
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Fabulous, this explains sooo verymuch.... Thanks for the link
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Fabulous, this explains sooo verymuch.... Thanks for the link
Posted by: willymack
» RE: For an explanation of this madness ...
Posted by: hopeseeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darby1936 on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There always has to be "some enemy" for us to fight, first the nazi's, then the commies, now...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drblack on Jan 12, 2007 8:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how all the bush wags say "If we lose Iraq it will strength terrorists in various ways" . They never can add any specifics backed up by facts.
This whole Bush thing will ruin our country and we have only a few years of freedom left if Americans do not rise up in anger.
Divide and conquer. This is why Rove invented the whole Liberal-neoCon thing. If we fight in America with no regard to facts then the power can do what it wants.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Its just more of the division they need to control us.... there has to always be an enemy somewhere!
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere - witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."
First off, they misinform. The cost of lifting Iraqi crude is close to $1000/barrel if you factor in the cost of occupation as given by Joseph Stiglitz in the Guardian last Saturday. I wonder why anybody, much less yourself, would assume that this cost can be reduced? Furthermore, while the oil profits may be privatized, the U.S. government would still have to come up with the ongoing cost of occupation, currently borrowed from international sources. How long do you forsee this credit being extended?
My rough calculation would suggest that if the funds spent on the war on Iraq had gone to development of non-conventional resources, it would have covered the difference between light and heavy oil production cost for U.S. consumption for a period of many decades.
Surely with raiding pensions, medicare, S&Ls, pentagon budget blackholes, big oil incentives, etc... Cheney could have come up with a less nonsensical way of transferring funds from the treasury to corporate coffers. I think that The Independent (which is on record stating that it stands by Israel) ran this piece with the intention of providing a rationale for ongoing occupation. I also see the "war for oil" explanations for U.S. policy, as being a distraction from the fact that U.S. policy serves the interests of zionism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with your argument...
Posted by: brunowe
» Bingo
Posted by: Coleman
» Think Nigerian delta...
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Bingo
Posted by: rwa
» Cheney could have come up with a better way, but remember, he is a practicing alcoholic..
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Cheney could have come up with a better way, but remember, he is a practicing alcoholic..
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Dear Chris Floyd
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sooner or later a break between Wall Street and the militarists will occur. The additional costs of an escalating wars, the continual ballooning debt payments, huge imbalances in the balance of payments and decreasing inflows of capital as multi-national repatriate profits and overseas central banks diversify their currency reserves will force the issue. The enormous and growing inequalities, the massive concentration of wealth and capital at a time of declining living standards and stagnant income for the vast majority, gives the financial ruling class little political capital or credibility if and when an economic and financial crisis breaks.
With foreign investors owning 47% of all marketable US Treasury bonds in 2006 compared to 33% in 2001 and foreign holdings of US corporate debt up to 30% today, from 23% just 5 years ago, a rapid sell-off would totally destabilize US financial markets and the economic system as well as the world economy. A rapid sell-off of dollars with catastrophic consequences cannot be ruled out if US-Zionist militarism continues to run amuck, creating conditions of extended and prolonged warfare.
The paradox is that some of the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the ascendancy of finance capital are precisely the same class of people who are financing their own self-destruction. While cheap finance fueling multi-billion dollar mergers, acquisitions, commissions and executive payoffs, heightened militarism operates on a budget plagued by tax reductions, exemptions and evasions for the financial ruling class and ever greater squeezing of the overburdened wage and salary classes. Something has to break the cohabitation between ruling class financiers and political militarists. They are running in opposite directions. One is investing capital abroad and the other spending borrowed funds at home. For the moment there are no signs of any serious clashes at the top, and in the middle and working classes there are no signs of any political break with the two Wall Street parties or any challenge to the militarist-Zionist stranglehold on Congress. Likely it will take a catastrophe, like a White House-back Israeli nuclear attack on Iran to detonate the kind of crisis which will provoke a deep and widespread popular backlash of all things military, financial and made in Israel. "
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/115078
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Who Rules America? The Petras analysis should be REQUIRED reading fo anyone....
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: Who Rules America?
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Who Rules America?.......Jooooooz , but of course!!!! ;o)
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: Who Rules America?.......Jooooooz , but of course!!!! ;o)
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hopeseeker on Jan 12, 2007 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm wondering how closely this research runs alongside the work of David Icke's 'Illuminati' thoughts.
Be interesting to read the psychological profiles if the Carlyle group members for starters!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thought-provoking assessment
Posted by: hopeseeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush's invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?
It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.
Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare "their intention to destroy our way of life." To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.
The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course."
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10311
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The 'Surge' Is A Red Herring
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Jan 12, 2007 3:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would disagree with the minimization of the Zionist influence on US policy in Iraq. Breaking up the Muslim nations into disorganized ethnic and tribal areas is a long held MOSSAD plan. The idea originated in Israel, and has been a staple of right wing Israeli strategy for decades.
To imply that US middle east policy is not shaped at all by the many Likudnik Zionists in positions of influence would be flat wrong. The record shows otherwise.
Policy is a confluence of interests, and not singularly determined by any one faction or party. When these interests coincide, a tipping point is reached, and we get war, no matter if the reasons are bogus, no matter if it is the "supreme international crime," no matter that the US Constitution and UN Charter forbid it. When enough of the elites agree on something, the job of their politicos is to make it happen.
The "Israel firsters" are an entrenched faction and a powerful part of the elite in this country. That is undeniable.
Crimes of the State Blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good article: Who Rules America? by James Petras
Posted by: rwa
» Chris Floyd Called It "Absurd" To Blame Zionist Influence on US Foreign Policy For The Iraq War!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 5:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good Comment on the Israeli Factor
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: The Israeli Factor
Posted by: rwa
» Sofla100 Did Not Say It Is "All About Oil"
Posted by: Douglas
» Bushes Ideaology
Posted by: sofla100
» Christian Zionism Also Plays A Major Part In Bush's Ideology
Posted by: Douglas
» Bush Superficially Resembles Mussolini, But He Promotes Stalinism!
Posted by: Douglas
» Totalitarianism it is, market fundamentalism it isn't
Posted by: rwa
» RE:OIL pure and simple.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 13, 2007 11:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just the latest version of what the head of GM meant when he said "What's good for business is good for America." That identifies the GOP better than anything else.
But it fails to distinguish between general interests and special interests, which are rarely ever the same. No, the special interests of business are not ALWAYS good for America. No, the special interests of Bush & Co are not ALWAYS good for America.
No wonder Americans feel ripped off. We have been ripped off and are being ripped off. Our public treasury has been raped by Bush & Co.
It began in earnest again with Reagan. Amazing how Americans love our oppressors. Floyd's similie of the abused wife is also spot on. We are not victims; we are suckers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joedw on Jan 13, 2007 9:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nise52 on Jan 15, 2007 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Jan 16, 2007 11:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can this information get out to everyone?
Does anyone in the US or Britain Care that we kill people to steal oil???
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hirnlego on Jan 16, 2007 5:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2shane on Jan 18, 2007 11:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's whie he, he, he, um ah talks funni.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant
White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
Don't Call It a "Defense" Budget




