PIERRE WOODMAN wrote:Sadly true ...

PW

I forgot one more thing. 3 years ago they raise oil price because of shortage, china and india usage, now we have oil surplus but they still find an excuse to not lower the price. They always find excuse to raise oil. I love bush. Bush bankrupt 4 companies and this is his payback.

Hahaha!! I didn't think anyone was still making some of these comments! Read the news much?!

Top Ten countries we import oil from:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


Furthermore, if you think an increase of oil supply from Iraq or any nation will influence the price, then it's a clear sign you have no grasp on basic economics or even how the price per barrel is determined. You think Bush "stole" this oil??? Then why is Iraq not higher on the list?

Bush weakened us, and he tripled our governments spending, he's an idiot, I'm not defending his presidency, and if you want to set up a "bash bush" forum, I'll be your number one contributor. However, to think the president, or even congress, has any ability to effect the price of oil is just asinine.

Of course we did not go to Iraq for 9/11... there is another country called AFGHANISTAN - we went there instead (also a mistake since we not plan to abandon this mission) to chase Bin Laden. Of course it was not for weapons of mass destruction. Of course it was largely political, but not because the US is strong-arming another nation and taking it's oil like some school bully stealing everyone's lunch money. This war put us in DEBT! The true gain came to other nations.... Saudi for one.... and truly the majority people in Iraq. Saddam did not have WMD's, but he was a war criminal, and committed genocide. Really, I WISH we would take the oil.... HALF of it, at least, until what we have spent is repaid in full! Saudi wanted this, the faction in Iraq wanted this, so pay up!

To blame Saddams removal on any upheaval in this country shows a lack of historical knowledge of the indigenous peoples. They have been warring since before Biblical time, not because we took out their madman leader. Also, other than ISRAEL, Iraq is, sadly, one of the more stable countries not affected by this "Arab Spring"...

I can't comment from experience on Iraq as far as personal safety - I have been only as close as Kuwait - however, I read extensively the news from this area of the world, and there is actually LESS terrorism and crimes against humanity now than in the past. Perhaps some of you are more well-travelled in this area, and know something I do not.

Despite all this, of course I do not think we should have gone to Iraq. We have a history of taking on the world's villains and for it we get nothing but lost lives and a lot of lip from the weaklings we have to defend (FRANCE). If it were up to me, we would worry about our own boarders and the few nations that ARE spawning serious risk (Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Algeria) and let everyone else save their own skins.

I like also united states, I live 2 years here and i find its very good.Just little bit hard for finding a wife. The american girls are easy to take off the clothes but they are easy also to maek some big mistake against their husband so i try find girl like this who is good for the bed and serious girl will not make any mistake against me.

also why you did not come here all day molly? i wait you!

Khalid last warning !!!
Rafale please don't see the top of the iceberg only, you know better than anyone that Canada is NOT the first oil import for USA but they must do it like that for keep world opinion quiet. You are an intelligent girl, the statistics are something so easy to make lie with ! As an ex cops myself I can tell about France where number are always far from the truth, so I can imagine in USA it's even ten times easier !!!
Don't forget I was working 5 years with Larry Flynt and he is a friend of Clinton and many others, I learned a lot at that time about this country !!!

PW

Of course I agree the statistics can be altered, but there are not many that will argue that Canada is not our leading producer. It's a faulty assumption that all the oil comes from the middle east. There are regions of the North American tundra that have still not been fully explored with seismic vibrators (I don't mean the vibrators you might think of!).

Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida and Georgia, Texas.... we have plenty of potential just on our own backyard to produce. But, that is a whole other discussion topic, as to the reasons we do not take advantage of this. Georgia, South Carolina and parts of Florida were once every bit the desert that you see in Saudi.

PLEASE don't think of the information you have from the Clinton era as accurate - I doubt he was fully aware of any fact during his terms. He was busy playing.

Thanks to wikileaks we know that Saudi Arabia planned with USA to attack Iran.
And also that George Bush sr and jr are very closed friends to the royal family.

If wikileaks did not give this information maybe the american and the arabian secrets services would have find an excuse to attack Iran, like they did, to attack Iraq.

The only contry in the middle-est and maybe the only country in the world,
that was extremely happy about the death of Saddam Hussein was Saudi Arabia.

Bill Clinton is also friend with some members of the royal family of Saudi Arabia,
and I am sure that he still have sexual relationship with Monica, even today.

About Monica I don't know but about Iran in the US plan, it was already something I said in 2003 ...
The only plane who has flew over the USA the september 11 was ... the plane of the Saudi Arabia royal family of course !!!
Funny no !!!

PW

Mark Marcus wrote:Thanks to wikileaks we know that Saudi Arabia planned with USA to attack Iran.And also that George Bush sr and jr are very closed friends to the royal family.

First, we do know "know" this thanks to wikileaks - never did they uncover a detailed plan or solid proof of this... please, be mindful how you state these things... wikileaks simply added kindling to the fire of the conspiracy theorist's kitchen with information on discussions about Bin Laden. Nothing more.

Frankly, I would be downright *ALARMED* if wikileaks discovered NO discussion on what to do about Bin Laden between the Saudis and the US... I mean it is there job, after all, to discuss individuals like him. Do not forget the terrorist actions against the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia, a November 1995 attack in Riyadh and the June 1996 Khobar Towers attack... he bombed two US embassies in East Africa, and of course the USS Cole in 2000. Not to mention he DECLARED WAR against the US in 1996. So, yeah, I bet they did talk about how to deal with him.

If it took Wikileaks for someone to know the Bush and Clinton families are close with the Saudi's then I suggest there is a lack interest on the part of that individual in every day common news. This is no big secret, and the Bush family has visited many times with the Saudis.

I agree, no one benefitted more than the Saudis. I never disputed that point. Fact also shows us that the money for the attack came from the Saudis. Again, I do not dispute this. However, through all these pages of posts, I have yet to see one iota of EVIDENCE against the United States Government. Theorize to your hearts’ content, but there is a difference between starting a statement with "I think” as opposed to "We know".

Of course I mean nothing negative toward you, Mark. I know you are well spoken, and I am tickled by many of your posts. No matter the opinion; our common ground is our strength of resolve to defend our position...

I want to add also, I agree with the statement on Iran. We are looking for a reason - which I find humorous, as I see a very good one called Ahmadinejad. This man has lived years with his finger on the trigger of Israel's destruction. Are we to wait until he pulls it?

With the situation in Lebanon and now Egypt being as it is, the hour glass is slowing draining, and I do not like this particular waiting game. There will be WWIII if this unfolds as I foresee it. Chavez is chomping at the bit in Venezuela, and all too happy to crawl into the proverbial bed with Ahmadinejad. I prefer to remove Ahmadinejad prior to this and send them all a clear message.

Pierre, you stated you are former military. You know then, that sometimes you have to make these sort of "unpopular" decisions for tactical reasons with regard to the bigger picture. The problem, we are so worried about the rest of the sniveling word, we are playing a politics game while Iran tests it's missiles and flexes it's military arm.

The sad thing in all of this, we missed our best chance just recently. You see, the Iranians - the citizens - LOVE the west, they love the Americans, and when they began the short-lived protests a few months ago, they were in the streets chanting for our support. But we turned our backs to them and let France lead us into Libya instead. This is very poor leadership from Obama - the Commander in Chief of the US military.

Hum I think Obama has no choice ! it's different !
Today the american are so upset by the crisis that they don't want some milliard of dollars to be spended in any war and this is what has save Iran of the US army in their streets ... plus the fact they have also understood that they are not good at war the americans !!! The fact they don't really control, Afghanistan and Iraq, bring the shadow of Vietnam over their head, and the white house understand now, it's time to play "the good boys" ! That's why they have change the tactic, they push the strong old distator out of their seats, helping the extremist to take the power with the appearences of democratie, and in few years that will be the chaos and they will come back ...
When you see that the guy who leads the CNT in Lybia is ...from Al Quaida branch and the french help him to defeat Khadafi, you understand easily in which world of shit we are living !!!
Next step Syria ...

PW

When it comes to tactics and equipment, we are fantastic at war (training is a problem in the regular army and air force). The reason we do not control these countries is political, not a matter of being "good" at war.

I agree Obama felt he could not make the decision on Iran at the time. He is more concerned with being re-elected than making a wise military decision.

I agree 100% on Libya. I have said before, it's a mistake to follow the French into anything - if you want to talk about being weak... how many times are we going to have to come over there? If not for her allies, the French will be speaking German now, as they all roll over at first sign of trouble... Surrender in just over a month??? I don't think any army can take this country in that time...I do not think they can take even one state in this time. OK, Maybe California. And South Dakota, because there are only like 30 people living there anyway...

The French didn't do too well in Algeria, either, if you want to speak in even more modern terms (French=Weak, Algerian=STRONG <3). No wonder they did not DARE touch Libya alone.

If you want to discuss Vietnam, we can start another topic. It's my hobby to discuss military history. Though we will probably agree on many points with that one, so I do not think it will be of as much interest. Thus, I will not comment regarding that engagement.