Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Satellite Provides Sharper Picture of Shrinking Ice Sheet




Living on a Dollar a Day


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Putting the Squeeze on Iranian Oil

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 31, 2012
Lee Cannon (CC-BY)

In a move rife with political risk, President Obama gave the go-ahead for robust sanctions to take hold in June aimed at choking off Iran’s oil exports.

AFP via Yahoo News:

With just hours to go before a deadline to decide, Obama determined the United States could punish banks and other financial institutions for buying oil from Iran, without causing a global oil shock.

The step could have major implications for Tehran and its customers, forcing firms and countries to choose between trade with the United States and Iranian oil.

China, South Korea, India, Japan and the European Union are major buyers of crude from Tehran.

The measures call on countries to “significantly reduce” oil imports from Iran—although not stop them all together—or face being frozen out of the US financial system.

Many countries have spent months scrambling to reduce dependence on Iranian oil before the sanctions go into effect in June.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: British Political Rebel Makes Triumphant Return

Next item: Cellphone Tracking Has a Friend Down at Headquarters



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 10, 2012 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Abusive piecework troll IGNORED.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 10, 2012 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

keep opening your yap and nothing else then.


have a nice time.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 10, 2012 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

piecework poster heteronym:

I do not open links from government-salaried trolls in internet.

I am not wrong about you—how could anyone be wrong about yo when you have thousands of abusive and di9sruptive posts in the truthdig archives as evidence?

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 9, 2012 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

you’re confused, goatboy and trying to spread your
confusing by continuing your devious switch ing of
terms.

you don’t have the facts on your side, so you’ll go
for the glib lie…...

illiteracy and   functional illiteracy are just not
the same thing.

but you’ll not stop being confused. it would be more
sanity than you can muster to admit to being wrong.


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

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 8, 2012 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Another personal attack against me by heteronym.

I am not confused.

I have never been confused.

I grew up north of the border and I post from Latin America.

I am not illiterate.

Millions of gringos are—as evidenced by the incoherent posts on this site.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 8, 2012 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

what you are is a very confused person….previously you’ve said that you grew
North of the Border.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 8, 2012 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

I refuted what you said.

No point is trying to weasel out of it.

Functional illiteracy is illiteracy, and the fact remains that illiteracy is not dominantly present in Gringoville because folks migrated there from South of the Border.

It was there to welcome them.

And there are several folks posting on this site who present illiteracy in all its blaring obvious.

And they are not folks from South of the Border.

In fact, so far as I know, I am the only person posting here from Latin America, and I am clearly not illiterate, nor am I white.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 8, 2012 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

you refuted nothing….. you took the definition of illiteracy and tried to substitute
“functional illiteracy”

that’s not refutation it’s a mistake.


it’s as dumb as taking the US definition of poverty used to calculate benefit
eligibility and claiming that it’s the same as the definition used to calculate the
poverty level in the world population

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 8, 2012 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

I LIVE—and have lived in Latin America for 20 years and am a specialist on this region.

In this region, the darker the skin the more one is a target of racism.

And the folks that look white all claim to be puyre white and from Spain—or Portugal.

As usual, it’s the white european invaders who are dominant and practice every form of genocide available against non-whites.

What is your point?

Ah, I know—getting paid by the post.

Your claim that illiteracy in Gringolandia is attributable to the immigrants from Mexico and Central America—what happened to that howler that I refuted rotundly?

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 8, 2012 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

moonie——you want to consider the black population of South America and the
Caribbean and the level of racism displayed by the population of those countries
against the black folks?


you ever noice how people have been scrutinized and judged shade by shade
throughout Laitin America?

I tend to think that one of the two of us really doesn’t know what they’re talking
about

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 8, 2012 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Heteronym:

You have never been South of the Border, nor have you any idea of the demographics of immigration from that region.

1.  Yes, there are blacks.  Especially in Brazil, which accounts for almost none of the immigration to the US from South of the Border.  There are mixed race folks in the Colombia and Venezuela—black, white and indigenous mix.  They are also not large numbers in the immigration to the US.  There are mixed race and some afromexicanos (from the Gulf Coast of Veracrguz and the Costa Grande of Guerrero and Oaxaca) and they constitute most of the folks you COULD have referenced if you knew anything.

2.  Hispanic blacks are a very small percentage of the immigration stats in Gringolandia.

3.  Your post was just another infantile personal attack.

4.  Moreover, the TOPIC of this thread is not illiteracy, but IRAN. YOU and your sockpuppet were the ones to take it off-topic.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

there aren’t black people to the south of the US in this hemisphere?

you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve changed from a discussion of
illiteracy to sneaking in a term term for a different thing.

your dishonesty and racism coupled with your baseless tone of superiority marks
you as less than one-dimensional….


you’re one detemtial and sinking into your own tired old cant.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Forty percent of the prison population is black.  And that population has a 60% functional illiteracy rate (reads below 4th grade level).

To the best of my knowledge, hettie the hatespeecher, blacks are a small percentage of the immigrants from South of the Border.

Illiteracy is a product of racism by whites in the US—which includes providing low-quality public education. 

Most illiterate folks are poor.  They are neither by choice.

And that includes a whole passle of white folks in Gringolandia.

The Gini of the US is now just over 5.00—the same as that of Mexico.  And that is not due to immigration from south of the border, but to the transference of wealth over the past decade to the 1% (who are almost all white).

Venezuela, on the other hand, has a Gini down there with the Scandinavian countries, at just below 4.00.  And that has happened in the past 10 years.

So, there are choices.  When there is a real democracy, folks are happier and better-educated and welath is more equally distributed.

Meanwhile, gringos are duking it out with Zimbawbwe for quality of life.

Congratulations!  Keep on voting, suckers!

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 6, 2012 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

illiteracy in the US is mostly due to immigration , particularly from south of the
border.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 6, 2012 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Imax:

You are a shameless liar.  Over and over and over again you post your fatuous disinformation and invoice your US government goon employer.

If illiteracy in poor countries was halved, how come only a few countries have met the Millenium Goals to HALVE illiteracy and poverty?

Venezuela comes to mind as one which has.

The US, of course, has not met its goals—poverty and illiteracy are both on the upswing in Gringolandia.

In fact, both illiteracy and poverty are on the upswing worldwide in poor countries—Mexico, where I live, is a good example:  not only has it not met any Millenium Goals, it is well on its way to DOUBLING both illiteracy and poverty rates.

Pull someone else’s leg with your pointless prevarications.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 6, 2012 at 5:43 am Link to this comment

And you’ve done it yet again.  Grossly and horrendously confusing facts against opinions.

“some countries are going to have to get invaded and quite a lot of brown people are going to have to die? And believe me as long as the American people allow it, and the Pentagon has weapons of mass destruction that is precisely what will continue to happen.” - Opinion. - Good Grief!

-

-The adult illiteracy rate in the poor world was halved between 1970 and 2000.
- Since 1980 the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen by about 200 million even as the world’s population has expanded rapidly. - Quantifiable, verifiable, facts which can be replicated by others.

You said it yourself.  If 2+2 represents your opinions, if any set of facts differ from your opinions, you have no interest in pursuing the matter further.  You were very clear on this.

How many times was KSM water-boarded?  I’m not interested in your opinion.  Only the facts.

Report this

By diamond, April 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

“You’re a strong and diligent follower who will never allow the facts to dissuade your unbending beliefs.”

Those are the facts. I doubt you would find anyone who doesn’t work for Fox News to dispute them. But, as I said, you have no interest in facts or the truth. Your field of expertise is lying, after all.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Imax:  You are, apparently, incapable of shame.

Your cynical position and your bellicose actions are shameful, whether or not you accept them as such.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 5, 2012 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

diamond, - “Hasn’t it ever crossed your mind, Imax, that in order for this state of affairs to continue some countries are going to have to get invaded and quite a lot of brown people are going to have to die?

-

Good grief.

You’re a strong and diligent follower who will never allow the facts to dissuade your unbending beliefs.

Report this

By diamond, April 5, 2012 at 12:47 am Link to this comment

“Americans, while making up only four percent of the worlds population, operate one third of its automobiles. U.S. citizens consume one quarter of the worlds global energy supply.”

Hasn’t it ever crossed your mind, Imax, that in order for this state of affairs to continue some countries are going to have to get invaded and quite a lot of brown people are going to have to die? And believe me as long as the American people allow it, and the Pentagon has weapons of mass destruction that is precisely what will continue to happen.

Report this

By diamond, April 5, 2012 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

“Who’s book did you read which outlines an opposite or different view from that of John Perkins?  How did that book impact your views? - More on this in a following post.”

Let’s put it this way: if someone writes a book that claims two and two is four and I have, from my own wide reading and my own knowledge of history concluded that two and two is indeed four why would I go looking for a book that told me two and two was five? You don’t grasp what a fact is, you think the truth is something that depends on what kind of ideology you want any given fact to support. You think that the truth is only the truth if it’s politically useful to the right. That’s not how it works.

I recognize that the facts contained in Perkins book prove that everything you believe about America and American history is crap but that’s not my problem: that’s your problem. I know everything Perkins wrote is true because I’ve had the same facts from many other writers, and commentators some on the left, some on the right and that’s the beauty of having an open mind and not being tied to an ideology. You can look at the facts and reach your own conclusions, free of ideological blinkers. You have no idea how to do this. With you it’s all about what you believe but you could believe that you’re Jesus or Napoleon: that wouldn’t make it true. The story about Kermit Roosevelt and Mossadegh is in any case a matter of historical fact, not opinion, so nothing can be done to alter it - because that’s just how it happened. And the same goes for every other fact, statistic and historical event Perkins refers to. He was there. He was part of it. Who should I believe? You? Not going to happen.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

How pathetic.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!  he’she cried in some moment of secret glee.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 4, 2012 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Hettie/Imax:

Why has this thread become nothing but your personal attacks against me?

You are, as usual, OFF TOPIC.  This article is about IRAN.

Diamond, don’t even bother posting facts in response to this sockpuppet lowroller.

His only interest is getting paid by the post.  He has no interest in facts or information.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 4, 2012 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

IMax—- “the perception that the U.S. goes about the globe stealing the world’s
resources.”
——-


the perception lingers past the reality.

we no longer are about that and our economy is longer based to produce the
need for direct exploitation.


however, as the main support for the world economy, we still benefit from it…..
but in a more indirect manner. our allies and business partners and the
multinationals do the bulk of the exploiting and we purchase the results.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 4, 2012 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

hetero, - “I didn’t go to enslaving.”

Great, because I never suggested you had. wink

I agree with you on Panama.  But, upon closer look, that’s a far cry from the perception that the U.S. goes about the globe stealing the world’s resources.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 4, 2012 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

IMax—- I didn’t go to “enslaving” I’m with exploiting ......


and I think that it will stand up to quite close scrutiny in the history of our
relations with Latin America.


you can start with the history of Panama.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 4, 2012 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

hetero, - “I don’t agree that Iraq was all about the oil, but it’s not all that unreasonable a suspicion if you don’t take a closer look.”

-

I believe the same holds true in regards to the U.S. stealing resources and enslaving humans about the globe.  I believe that’s a suspicion not supportable after a closer, more sober, look.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 4, 2012 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

IMax——-if diamond insists that we’re out to exploit or “steal” other people’s
resources,, it’s not ALL THAT far-fetched as the US has a bunch of just such action
in its past.


I don’t agree that Iraq was all about the oil, but it’s not all that unreasonable a
suspicion if you don’t take a closer look.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 4, 2012 at 6:23 am Link to this comment

Oops.  The following should have read: You insist (that others) also act as mere followers.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 4, 2012 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

diamond,

You’ve done it yet again.  You regurgitate what you’ve seen someone else write and insist you’re presenting facts.  Answer me this:  Who’s book did you read which outlines an opposite or different view from that of John Perkins?  How did that book impact your views? - More on this in a following post.

Look, if I want to know how the United Nations handled the issue of oil after the fall of Saddam I look at the machinations and votes of the United Nations.  I then follow those machinations as events progress.  This is commonly referred to as “going to the source”.  First-hand information.

You live in another world.  If you want to know how the United Nations handled the issue of oil after the fall of Saddam you go about choosing to have other people, in spoon fed fashion, tell you how the United Nations handled the situation.  This is commonly referred to as “following the bouncing ball”.

You busy yourself following what other people believe in and convince yourself you have a good bead on world events.  You insist you have all the facts you need.  You insist by also act as followers.

FACTS, diamond, whether you choose to myopically look the other way or not, are different from opinions.

-

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 4, 2012 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

John Perkins and a study of facts vs opinion.

Perkins, the author of “The World Is as You Dream It”, likes to invoke Indonesia, the scene of his first hit-man assignment. The way he tells it, the development economists who persuaded Indonesia to borrow money around 1970 were peddling a ludicrous idea—that Indonesia’s economy could spring from the dark age to the modern age in a mere generation. Well, Indonesia’s infant mortality and adult illiteracy rates, ‘in fact’, each fell by two-thirds over the next three decades, and life expectancy, ‘in fact’, shot up by 19 years. If the corporatocracy was trying to lay Indonesia low, this was an odd way of doing it.

The same point holds for the developing world generally. The adult illiteracy rate in the poor world, ‘in fact’, was halved between 1970 and 2000, and since 1980 the number of people living on less than $1 a day, ‘in fact’, has fallen by about 200 million, even as the world’s population has expanded rapidly. That is a stunning achievement given that the ranks of the poor had previously been swelling steadily, at least since 1820.

The poor have made these gains because Perkins’s second contention is equally wrong: The corporatocracy is neither evil nor omnipotent. Survey after survey has shown that the multinational companies vilified by Perkins, ‘in fact’, pay better wages than their local rivals in poor countries: One study of 20,000 Indonesian manufacturing plants found that the average pay in foreign-owned factories, ‘in fact’, was 50 percent higher than in local ones—and also that foreign competition, ‘in fact’, pushed local wages upward. As Martin Wolf remarks in his book, “Why Globalization Works,” multinational firms induce a race to the top more than a race to the bottom.

Perkins likes to say that of the world’s 100 biggest economies, 51 are companies. This old chestnut is based on a fallacious comparison of companies’ sales to countries’ gross domestic product: Whereas, ‘in fact’, GDP measures the amount of value added in an economy, sales lump together a firm’s value-added with inputs brought in from suppliers. According to an apples-to-apples comparison done by the United Nations, just two of the world’s top 50 economies were companies in the year 2000. Of the top 100 economies, 29 were companies.

That may still sound like a lot, but remember that companies, ‘in fact’, compete against each other. In the world as Perkins dreams it, the top 100 or so firms are joined in a shadowy conspiracy. But the reality is that Exxon Mobil, ‘in fact’, schemes to undermine BP and Shell, and General Electric, ‘in fact’, plot against Siemens and Hitachi. Countries don’t face a united corporatocracy.  ‘In fact’, they play firms off against each other.

We do live in different worlds, diamond.  I often check the facts after hearing someone speak or after reading a book.

Report this

By diamond, April 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

“No, I do not believe the U.S. goes about it’s business stealing resources and enslaving people.  You and I live in completely different worlds.”

No, we don’t. We live in the same world it’s just that my eyes are open and yours are shut. Facts are what matter, not what you believe.

John Perkins wrote ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’ to expose how America goes about its ‘business:

1. John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, describes how debt is deliberately created in third world countries. And he knows exactly what he is talking about because he was an economic hit man himself for years. He worked for a company called Chas. T. Main Inc., an international consulting firm. His task was explained to him when he joined the firm: ‘Claudine told me that there were two primary objectives of my work. First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back to Main and other U.S. companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, Brown & Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans (after they had paid Main and other U.S. contractors of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors and so they would present easy targets when we needed favors, including military bases, UN votes or access to oil and other natural resources’.

2.  The CIA then sent one of their agents, Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy), in to Iran to turn people against Mossedegh using payoffs and threats. He then used these people to organize street riots and violent demonstrations which created the impression that Mossadegh was unpopular and inept. Mossadegh lost office and spent the rest of his life under house arrest and was replaced by the American puppet, Mohammed Reza Shah.  Since Roosevelt was a CIA operative if any of this had come to light at the time it would have been disastrous: to avoid this problem the EHMs were created. They would not be government employees but would nominally be employed by international corporations. The corporations that hired them were paid by government agencies and their multi-national banking counterparts (with taxpayer money) but the entire program was shielded from all scrutiny and accountability by ‘legal initiatives’ –trademark, international trade and freedom of information laws. The debt which is deliberately created is achieved by encouraging corrupt politicians to consolidate their own position by ‘bringing industrial parks, power plants and airports to their people. The owners of U.S. engineering and production companies become fabulously wealthy’.

3. ‘This is what EHMs do best: we build a global empire. We are an elite group of men and women who utilize international financial organizations to foment conditions that make other nations subservient to the corporatocracy running our biggest corporations, our government and our banks.  These take the form of loans to develop infrastructure – electric generating plants, highways, ports, airports or industrial parks. A condition of such loans is that engineering and construction companies from our own country (USA) must build all these projects. In essence most of the money never leaves the United States, it is simply transferred from banking offices in Washington to engineering offices in New York, Houston or San Francisco’.

And he doesn’t shy away from naming this system for what it is:

‘We are being exploited by the economic engine that creates an insatiable appetite for the world’s resources and results in systems that foster slavery’.

Facts, Imax. Whether you like them or not.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

IMax—- if you’re correct, that would be awfully sad.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

hetero,

I really only know this.  Moon is agonizing over a sense of helplessness at being unappreciated (note the shout at the start of his comments on nearly every thread on how NO ONE gets it).  He’s lying in significant ways in an attempt to bolster, what he perceives, is his social and intellectual credibility within an anonymous group.

The things people say are rarely more important than why they say them.  How they same them.  Listen carefully and you will know that Moon is no more than a child.  Likely Caucasian and raised in Mid-West United States.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

IMax——if you know better, and that I shouldn’t believe what moonie claims as
identity, fine with me.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

-

Hetero,

I can only ask you to trust me on this.  MoonRage is a very young “WHITE” male.  Likely a truly typical teen who a. believes he has a good bead on things (don’t you wish you were 15 and new everything?) and b. has not yet learned that one does not have to be confrontational to be heard.  He has also not yet learned that he is quickly developing the characteristics of a bigot and racist. - Far too much hatred.

Lastly.  He believes you and I are one in the same.  This is not a “seasoned” observer of people or events.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

diamond,

I must have missed the facts you shared, choking or otherwise.  Point them out and I will reevaluate.

No, I do not believe the U.S. goes about it’s business stealing resources and enslaving people.  You and I live in completely different worlds. 

In my world there is a China competing with Russia, competing with the U.S., competing with Germany, competing with France, competing with Turkey etc., etc..  In your world their is only the United States acting in a vacuum.  And I don’t say that haphazardly.  I say it because it’s the United States which receives all your attention.  I have personally never seen you talk about anything else.

Point out those facts if you care to.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

dia———I guess that you can’t see that there’s all that space between us
agreeing that the Iraq war was bullshit and us agreeing that oil was the motivation
for that bullshit.


and I would appreciate you not placing my handle right up against that of IMax….
we are separate and not of the same mind.

Report this

By diamond, April 2, 2012 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Since you’re so keen to talk about Iran, Imaxhetero, talk about this:

“A report published in The Sunday Times on March 25 suggests that “Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find ‘smoking gun’ evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead.” (Israeli spies scour Iran in nuclear hunt, The Sunday Times, March 25, 2012)

Western sources told the Times Israel was monitoring “radioactivity and magnitude of explosives tests” and that “special forces used Black Hawk helicopters to carry commandos disguised as members of the Iranian military and using Iranian military vehicles”. The sources believe “Iranians are trying to hide evidence of warhead tests in preparation for a possible IAEA visit”. (Cited in Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for nukes, Ynet, March 25, 2012)

The number of Israeli intelligence missions at the Parchin military base in Iran has increased in the past few months, according to the article. During that period, Tehran has been negotiating with the IAEA which had requested to visit Parchin. According to Iran’s permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, both parties had agreed in early February that the visit would take place in March. (Gareth Porter, Details of Talks with IAEA Belie Charge Iran Refused Cooperation, IPS, March 21, 2012)

The IAEA requested to visit Parchin in late January and late February, after having agreed to a visit in March. The IAEA thus requested to visit the military complex exactly at the same time Israel was intensifying its secret operations to allegedly search for a “smoking gun”.

A few years ago it has been suggested that Israel was the source of fake intelligence, a stolen laptop, related to Iran’s alleged nuclear program. The New York Times reported in 2005 on what was presented as “the strongest evidence” Iran was building nuclear weapons:

American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East. (William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005)

In 2010, an investigative report suggested that those documents were fake:

The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar “dunce cap” shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s [...]

The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned [...]

The origin of the laptop documents may never be proven conclusively, but the accumulated evidence points to Israel as the source.

The fact that Israeli intelligence officers were on a secret mission in Parchin, dressed up as Iranians and driving Iranian military vehicles, while the IAEA was pressuring Tehran to visit that precise location, raises serious questions. The stated goal of those secret missions is the search for a smoking gun. The smoking gun allegations regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have proven that such evidence can be fabricated and used to launch so-called pre-emptive wars.”

Talk about deja vu.

Report this

By diamond, April 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

“This is not worth time spent arguing over.  If you can share some tangible facts, of any kind, you may begin to persuade.  There is no arguing with a person who offers only other’s like-minded opinions and insist the facts are settled.”

I gave you enough facts to choke an elephant. You are not interested in facts. You are interested in denying that America has been invading other countries to get their resources and to enslave the inhabitants with debt since at least 1890. You also insist the facts are settled: the difference is your facts are not facts, they are prejudices and a re-writing of history. An opinion is not a fact. You have opinions and when you see a fact your opinion doesn’t agree with, you reject the fact. This is not how you find the truth but you are not interested in the truth either. Only in preserving and propagandizing the illusion that America went into Iraq to save the world from ‘weapons of mass destruction’, to deliver ‘democracy’ to Iraq and to protect ‘world peace’. All of which is horse shit.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

IMax…..moonie describes herself as a large aging woman….......I can’t be sure that
she’s correct in this assumption, as she’s not all that rational or reliable…but think
it best that she be considered as more of less correct in her self-perception.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

moonie—- your assertions grow more and more irrational…. God does not speak
especially to me, has not told me anything about Iraq’s oil…....


and your claim that God is not white and therefore ignored by me is simply
insane…..in every way.


you should stop posting this racist claptrap in this site or should be made to
cease, by God!


please, talk sensibly while you still have the ability to do so.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 2, 2012 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities…”

-

moonragin, you hold a profound hatred of people you perceive as “WHITE”.  You’re making yourself sick with this hate you labor on.  It’s like holding onto a scalding rock, waiting to throw it at someone.

Drop the hate, young man.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 2, 2012 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

God DID tell you it was all about oil, but because God is not white you chose to disregard the message.

One of the few actions more venal and foolish than promoting genocide to rip off resources is denying that you are doing it.

And what’s even more foolish is that whites, though a minority on the planet who have started their voyage through the sewers of oblivion, continue to promote genocide against the majority.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 2, 2012 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

diamond,

This is not worth time spent arguing over.  If you can share some tangible facts, of any kind, you may begin to persuade.  There is no arguing with a person who offers only other’s like-minded opinions and insist the facts are settled.

I offered several sets of facts that others can evaluate.  Can you offer anything, anything at all, which supports your unbending opinions?

-

As an aside:  How easy would it be for me to insist you’re an idiot because you fail to agree with me?  Would it persuade you to change your mind?  If nothing else you may want to seriously reevaluate how you present yourself.  I shudder to think you go about your day talking to people like you do here on these threads.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

if God tells me it was about oil, I’ll strongly consider the utter lack of any earthly
evidence to have been trumped (last).

Report this

By diamond, April 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

“I’m sorry but, believing now that “Gulf War II” was largely or mainly about oil takes the entire globe and events, in fact the entire bumbling Bush Administration, out of all meaningful context.  And unless diamond can offer something tangible, something other than another like-minded opinion, this would be a good time to stay on topic and talk about sanctions on Iran.”

Oh, yes. Sanctions on Iran. Like the sanctions on Iraq that were the foreplay before the fucking. So, let me get this straight: I can only quote opinions that agree with you and not me and I cannot put forward any facts which also do not agree with your strange, bizarre view of the world and the Middle East? You are deluded if you think I intend to stick to your rules that mean I can only ever agree with your infantile and inaccurate assessment of the War in Iraq and can never bring up any facts which don’t support your silly, historically false views on Iraq and Iran.

It didn’t go well, Hetero? You noticed that did you? And the fact that it didn’t go well either proves that it was about oil or does not? How could it? When you’ve wasted $2 trillion and killed a million Iraqis you should have something more to show for it than an embassy the size of the Vatican - but that is all America got out of this war. The best description of the war in Iraq and the planned war in Iran is this:

‘The dog goes back to his vomit and the sow goes back to her mire and the fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire’.

Even if God came down and sat down next to either of you and said, ‘It was about oil’ you wouldn’t believe God either and would claim God was not to be trusted on the War in Iraq. I don’t say this to claim God exists: I say it to demonstrate how both of you always argue from a fixed belief and build the facts of history around your false belief. This is not how you investigate anything, including a war. It is the thinking of the Inquisition where you proceed from a foregone conclusion and ignore any facts that prove it isn’t true. I don’t know why you’re pushing the alternative so hard because the alternative is that they did it for Israel. I don’t see how that improves the idiocy that is American foreign policy one bit. Either way it was the blind leading the blind over a precipice. The only difference with Iran is that the precipice is much, much higher.

You say you’re sorry, Imax, but you’re not. You will be though, I can assure you of that, if Iran is attacked. Or at least the American taxpayer will be.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

Diamond - “This is how it turned out, not what they planned…it’s a fact.”

-

You have offered several other’s opinions on this matter and insist you’ve given us facts.  In your first writing you were certain - the U.S., as was always the plan, is stealing Iraq’s oil resources. 

We here can discuss whether or not Hussein was a threat.  We can discuss the wisdom of the “Bush Doctrine” and preemption.  We can discuss whether or not attempting to foster a representative government in Iraq was pure folly.  This narrative about oil is well worn-out.  I honestly cannot think of anyone credible who is not years past that conversational theory.  Simply put, none of the known facts bear it out.

As it turned out it was the the U.S., the U.K., and Spain who devised and put up for vote the resolution demanding complete transparency of Iraq’s oil and oil revenue only days after Saddam’s departure from control.  It was the United Nations (Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. all opposed the war) who oversaw the issue of Iraqi oil.  All in the light of day.  All out of the hands of the resolution’s sponsors.

I’m sorry but, believing now that “Gulf War II” was largely or mainly about oil takes the entire globe and events, in fact the entire bumbling Bush Administration, out of all meaningful context.  And unless diamond can offer something tangible, something other than another like-minded opinion, this would be a good time to stay on topic and talk about sanctions on Iran.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

dia—- sure it didn’t turn out well… but that isn’t
proof that it was about the oil…...

(Pepe isn’t someone upon whom to rely for straight
info)

Report this

By diamond, April 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

“History will record no such thing.  Although I hold little doubt that many people will continue to believe it to be true.  Even in light of the fact that Iraqis control all of Iraq’s oil today (some grand conspiracy theories linger for decades).”

It’s not a conspiracy theory to say that the neo cons were full of hubris, ignorance and greed when they went into Iraq and it’s certainly not a theory of any kind that they wanted the oil: it’s a fact.

“THE ROVING EYE
Iraq’s oil auction hits the jackpot
By Pepe Escobar

BEIJING - Former United States vice president Dick Cheney, ex-defense minister Donald Rumsfeld and assorted US neo-cons will have plenty of time to nurse their apoplexy. One of their key reasons to unleash the war on Iraq in 2003 was to seize control of its precious oilfields and thus shape a great deal of the new great game in Eurasia - the energy front - by restricting the access of Europe and Asia to Iraq’s staggering 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

After at least US$2 trillion spent by Washington and arguably more than a million dead Iraqis, it has come to this: a pipe dream definitely buried this past weekend in Baghdad with round two of bids to exploit a number of vast and immensely profitable oil fields.”

That’s what’s known as war reparations. And saying this was what the neo cons planned is like saying that Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to end up committing suicide in his bunker. That is not what they planned: their motivation was anything but altruistic. This is how it turned out, not what they planned when they lied, cheated, sent letters full of weaponized anthrax etc. to justify their illegal invasion. You can’t now use what eventuated as proof that it was their plan all along. That is absolute nonsense, not to mention irrational. History has already recorded that the neo cons invaded Iraq illegally to steal its resources. It’s true that the victors write the history but America lost this war.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

yes, moonie, i really am sorry for you. somehow I think that you were once much
more than you show here.


have a nice outing.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

I was hoping that you were soused, not just unable to understand the very clear
words of the Convention that you posted.


if you’re sober and so far from understanding , I’m sorry for you.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

That should be too BUSY PIMPING

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

Personal attacks against my integrity are not a refutation of what I posted.

Nor is your implication that I cannot be right because I am a drunk, old, a woman and not white.

(FYI I am very close to being a tee-totaler.)

Your hero George W. Bush IS a drunk.  So is the rightwing president of Mexico. 

Their drinking is NOT the problem—the problem is that they are mass murderers.  Calderon has been denounced in The Hague.  By the leading intellectuals and experts in law of Mexico—some of whom may even be drunks. 

You gringos are too cowardly and too cynical to denounce your leaders—because to date they have only massively murdered non-whites (committed genocide).

Sooner rather than later you gringos will be perceived as being too many mouths to feed, and the sights will be turned on you.

Capitalilsm, in its essence, is cannibalism.

Too bad you are too blind to see that, too bust primping for patriotism to see that you are very close to becoming a hot dog for the whites that have more money and power than you do.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

sorry, moonie, but you’re quite fulla slurrified shite.

the Convention discusses attacks WITH INTENT to commit genocide against the
group, not just any and every attack on people who might belong to some
group and are attacked for other reasons.

RIF.

a
n
d

s
o

i
s
 

sobriety.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 1, 2012 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

vector:

hettie and imax are the same person, a lowroller “agent” pimping for patriotism herge.

It doesn’t matter whether he is being paid in pennies or payday candy bars.

He disrupts every thread here with infantile personal attacks and doublespeak and that’s what he is paid to do.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Iran’s Green Party is a front for the CIA.

As for the fatuously laughable claim by the sockpuppet hettie/imax that the US invaded Iraq to bring peace and payday c andy bars and that they had no interest in oil, the deal cut before the invasion was that the UK’s petroleum pigs would get control of the lion’s share of the oil based on their “special relationshiip” with the US as well as their historical colonial influence in Iraq.

Genocide by any other name smells just as bad.

When the gringos and the brits invade Holland, please let me know.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

hettie/imax:

Go to the UN website. 

The guidelines for genocide are posted there.

And moreover, I and other posters have posted the links several times on this site.

Next you’ll ask me to feed you with a (silver) spoon.

Report this

By c.d.embrey, April 1, 2012 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If China continues to buy Iranian oil, will they be punished by not allowing them to buy US Treasury Bonds ???

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 1, 2012 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

vector56, - IMax has CIA check stubs in her back pockets?

-

LOL….Good Grief.  The one person on this entire site speaking up for Iranian liberals is a suspected CIA employee.  How incredibly odd is that?

This is just more evidence of what I’ve been saying here for months.  No matter the subject, no matter where in the world, if you’re not talking about the United States you’re “off-topic” on these threads.  It makes me wonder why the TruthDig community is so small and we see nearly no diversity here.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, April 1, 2012 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

diamond, - “History will record that it was for oil and that the neo cons were prepared to do anything to get that (Iraqi) oil.”

-

History will record no such thing.  Although I hold little doubt that many people will continue to believe it to be true.  Even in light of the fact that Iraqis control all of Iraq’s oil today (some grand conspiracy theories linger for decades).

The first order of business of the United Nations Security Council after the removal of Saddam Hussein was to adopt Resolution 1472, adopted unanimously on March 28, 2003. - Sponsored by Spain, the U.K. and U.S. all Iraqi oil revenue would be made completely transparent to the entire United Nations General Assembly.

Fast forward:

November 24, 2003 - Resolution 1518 Adopted by the Security Council
April 7, 2004 - Observations on the Oil for FoodProgram
December 18, 2007 Resolution 1790
December 12, 2009 - No boon for U.S. firms in Iraq oil deal auction
July 01, 2011 - Iraq takes over billions in oil revenue set aside by U.N.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, April 1, 2012 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

At the core of why the West is trying to starve Iran (before we move in for the kill) are two things; oil, oil, oil and the need for a insecure, obsessive religious Apartheid (racist) state to control the region. Obama is nothing more than a “tool” for Big Oil and AIPAC.

What was done to Iraq (12 years of sanctions) was not an act of nature. What we are now doing to Iran is being pushed by the same groups (Big Oil and AIPAC). Prove me wrong?

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, April 1, 2012 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

“Iran’s Green Party applauds President Obama’s latest decision geared toward increased pressure on Ultra-Conservative Theocratic Iranian leadership. “

Ever the feeling IMax and heterochromatic have CIA check stubs in their back pockets?

Report this

By balkas, April 1, 2012 at 3:19 am Link to this comment

i often said late ‘02 that the coming war against iraq was not about oil but for permament [or for long time]
occupation of iraq and its dismemberment. [at that time i was a member of StopWar.ca—a vancouver peace
movement]
oil at that time flowed in sufficient quantities. no country complained about not getting its share.
if we wld consider the profits from that aggression, then, that’s an entirely diff matter.
obviously, the alliance waging the war, wld s’mhow profit from control of the oil fields more than nonparticipants
in that aggression.
and if iraq wld have refused to sell oil in desired quantities to any land, that might have constituted a casus belli.
so why wage war for oil [in libya also] if it freely flowed? thanks bozhidar b.

Report this

By diamond, April 1, 2012 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

“and the theories that it was for oil remain speculation.”

That is a claim that is as incredible as it is false and lazy. History will record that it was for oil and that the neo cons were prepared to do anything to get that oil. That at least has been proven, even in your universe.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 31, 2012 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

Iran’s Green Party applauds President Obama’s latest decision geared toward increased pressure on Ultra-Conservative Theocratic Iranian leadership.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

dia—- i do believe you took literally what was meant facetiously

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

dia—- the invasion was illegal, immoral and incredibly stupid.


and the theories that it was for oil remain speculation.

but pointing out that there’s no proof must mean that I’m incredibly stupid.


(BTW Vidal was far better a novelist than political sage.  I finished re-reading 1876
a couple or days back…..noticed that he had experts proof his work)

Report this

By diamond, March 31, 2012 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

“Neo-Con Iranian leadership.”

Do you really think anyone will be silly enough to conflate the Iranian regime with the neo cons? Such things might get a run on Fox News but this isn’t Fox News and claiming a thing like that only makes you look like a complete fool. The neo cons who were behind the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are by and large joint US/Israeli citizens and not Muslims.

These are the neo cons that made up the Bush administration:

Dick Cheney – Vice-President

Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Defense Secretary

Donald Rumsfeld – Defense Secretary

Scooter Libby – Cheney’s Chief of Staff

Eliot Abrams – in charge of Middle East policy at   the National Security Council

Dov Zakheim – Comptroller for the Defense Department (Pentagon). He ‘lost’ $2.3 trillion of the Pentagon’s money before the 9/11 attacks.

John Bolton – Undersecretary of State

Richard Perle – chair of the Defense Policy advisory board (Pentagon)

Former CIA Director James Woolsey was put on that board as well.

Surprisingly, not one of them is Iranian, or a Muslim.

Report this

By diamond, March 31, 2012 at 9:47 pm Link to this comment

“there are a couple of other reasons for wanting to
take out Saddam, dia, and you can’t simply say “it’s
the oil”..... you ain’t got evidance to really show
that as motivation ....and there ain’t any evidence
that we ever took any oil….:

Either you are incredibly stupid or you’re pretending to be obtuse. My guess is the latter. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and was done for profit. What you are saying is that YOU would have invaded Iraq for other reasons, because Saddam Hussein had fired rockets into Israel during Gulf War I or because he was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but that certainly cannot change facts of history such as the neo cons planning the invasion and dismemberment of Iraq long before 9/11 was anything but a gleam in Dick Cheney’s eye and for the express purpose of getting control of Iraq’s oil. And not only Iraq’s oil.

“As far back as 1992, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense. It was written by Paul Wolfowitz, who was Under-secretary of Defense for Policy.  In it, Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq to ensure, ‘access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil’ and to stop the spread of ‘weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism’ (‘How we got into this Imperial Pickle’, The Crisis Papers’,Bernard Weiner, 26.5.2003, p.5). This report called for pre-emptive attacks, and the establishment of a new world order that would only take account of the other industrialized nations in terms of intimidating them just enough so that they would never challenge America’s sole superpower status. This report was leaked and led to Senator Robert Byrd, well-known Democratic Party firebrand, speaking out against it. He called it ‘myopic, shallow and disappointing’ and concluded that the ‘basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so’ (Weiner, p. 5).

Bush Senior rejected this DOD document at the time, but as Weiner points out that was probably only because the political situation hadn’t yet reached a point where these extreme and dangerous ideas could or would be publicly supported. For that they needed something special. Something that would shock and awe the public and the politicians and make the neo cons’ plans and vision for the future of the world possible. Helpfully, they spelled it out. Zalmay M. Khalilzad wrote “From Containment to Global Leadership: America and the World after the Cold War” in 1995. Its aim was to put forward a strategy by which America could move aggressively to ‘exert effective control over the planet’s natural resources’ (Weiner, p.5).

And if you think oil politics had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan, you would be wrong:

‘As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil to lay the pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush Junta’

(Gore Vidal in “Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta”).

On his feet, in the Parliament just before the invasion of Iraq began, Tony Blair said this:
‘Our actions have nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward.’ (‘Dreaming War, Vidal, p. 64)

But conspiracy theories are often true and clearly none was ever truer than that one.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 31, 2012 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Iran’s Green Party applauds President Obama’s latest decision geared toward increased pressure on Neo-Con Iranian leadership.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

dia—- I’m living in this world and sure I know that
the bush admin wanted to oust Saddam, but that
doesn’t prove that it was because they planned to
take Iraq’s oil,,,,  1 =1 don’t equal 5….

anybody planning to invade and occupy Iraq would
think about the oil…and that’s that you show…....


there are a couple of other reasons for wanting to
take out Saddam, dia, and you can’t simply say “it’s
the oil”..... you ain’t got evidance to really show
that as motivation ....and there ain’t any evidence
that we ever took any oil…....there is quite a bit
of evidence that we spent a couple of trillion
bucks,though, and people determined to take profit
probably would have made an attempt on the oil that
would be rather public and obvious.

in the real world, anyone who went to the trouble to
defy the world and conquer Iraq for oil….would have
taken oil.

Report this

By diamond, March 31, 2012 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Sometimes Hetero, I just don’t know what planet you live on.

“February 2001
In Armed Madhouse, Greg Palast describes what he calls Plan A.
A month after Bush’s ‘election’ to the White House a meeting is held in Walnut, California.  The National Security Council and the State Department plan the invasion of Iraq. They even interview a replacement for Saddam.  According to Falah Aljibury, who hosted the meeting, (Aljibury was a top U.S. oil industry advisor on Iraq) the original plan was for an invasion that had the characteristics of a coup ‘…shut everything down for two or three days… then everything ‘as is’, (‘Armed Madhouse’, Greg Palast). Under this plan the ministry would retain the government oil monopoly.

December 2001 –March 2001
In March 2001 Baker, CFR Group member Ken Lay (remember Enron?) and other industry chiefs have a secret meeting with Dick Cheney in order to cast their eyes over a map of Iraq’s oil fields.

October 2001 – February 2003
Fired up by 9/11 and their easy victory in Afghanistan the neo-cons draw up a counter plan, Plan B. This involves a year long occupation in order to turn Iraq into a free market poster child. The 101 page secret document becomes a grab bag of goodies for insider lobbyists who fill it with corporate benefits such as copyright protections for Microscoft and Sanyo at the same time as they draw up the CPP (Comprehensive Privatization Program) to sell off all Iraqi state assets,‘especially the oil’ (op. cit. p. 52).

September 2002
In Plan B, the purpose of privatizing Iraq’s oil is set out in the ‘Economy Plan’ spelled out by Ari Cohen of the Heritage Foundation for neo-cons at the Pentagon. The purpose is simple: destroy OPEC and the Saudis. Privatizing the oil is the key, which requires abolishing Iraq’s state oil monopoly and selling their oil fields, bumping up production over and above the OPEC quota thereby destroying OPEC, forcing oil prices down and ending Saudi Arabia’s stranglehold on America. Plan B is heavily promoted by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Harold Rhode all members of The Project for a New American Century.

March 17
Bush II broadcasts this message to the Iraqis: ‘Do not destroy oil wells,’ (op.cit. p.54). This signals the beginning, as announced by Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, of Operation Iraqi Liberation which is an acronym for OIL. This is quickly changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

April 21 2003
Bush has appointed a three star general, Jay Garner, as occupation chief in Iraq. He is fired by Rumsfeld for trying to hold elections and refusing to sell Iraq’s oil fields. The neo-cons are still obsessed with Plan B.

November 2003-January 2004
A 323 page document Options for Iraq, which sets out the details of Plan A is secretly written up by Amy Jaffe of the James Baker III Institute, along with oil industry experts. It sets out only one option: a state oil company that will privatize all of Iraq’s oil assets.

May 2004-March 2005
Jerry Bremer gets the boot and John Negroponte, a firm friend of Big Oil replaces him. There is much rejoicing at the Council on Foreign Relations: ‘The realists have defeated the fantasists,’ (op. cit. p. 55) they bleat.  Baathists fired by Bremer and Chalabi return to run the oil ministry and establish a state oil monopoly. They are Pro-OPEC and the Saudis are saved. Oil prices break all records reaching $50 a barrel and the oil reserves of the top five oil companies increase their value by over $2 trillion.”

“The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S”. Sibel Edmonds in ‘The Conservative American’.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

grokker—- I agree that the uS is the most dangerous nation. we’re certainly the
one with the greatest military power and the most terrible weapons.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

moonie—-perhaps you might try to back up your insane blather about all attacks
against non-whites being defined as genocidal by the UN…


or simply cease squawking such bullshit.


you finally offered some that easily verifiable…....and I’m calling you out as an
idiot…..verify your comment….or admit to having offered idiocy.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

Jeff—-glad to discuss further with you and not holding you to anything previously
said.


ig you want to regroup and rephrase, feel free.

Report this

By grokker, March 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

If one were to informally ask (as has been done) the people of the world (not governments) who the most dangerous nation is, the answer would be resoundingly the U.S. If you ask the U.S. and Israel who the most dangerous nation is, Iran is the answer. Speaks volumes on the overwhelming shitload of anti-Muslim progaganda foisted upon the lost people of this country. Listen to the interview with Vijay Prashad on the latest Counterspin program. Check this out as well: http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/03/iran-bashing-terrorism-and-who-chose-the-chosen-people-anyway/#more-43750  Expect immediate response from the pro-Zionist commenters Hetero and IMax.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 31, 2012 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

If your comment to diamond had been correct about the US not benefitting from its invasions for resources, which of course it was NOT—just one more lie/error under your handle posted here—it would mean that gringos are even more stupid than I thought they were.

You can’t have it both ways.

Report this

By Jeff N., March 31, 2012 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

hetero- perhaps my original attempt at a good turn of phrase was a bit sensational and premature at the current juncture.. I will presently regroup and reevaluate.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

dia—- you can assert that the wars are about oil, but you can’t show that we’ve
reaped any from them.

that sorta puts a large crimp in the assertion that oil is what we’re after.

the evidence can be made to show that we’re aiding OTHER countries in pursuit of
energy, but not our own country.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

UUUUUFFFFF!

What a loadabaloney, hettie.

You are the Loather par excellence—you loathe everybody you have never met in all those countries you have never visited and cannot even find on a world map.  So long as they aren’t white they are on your hit and shit list.

Mean little gringos are so silly as they pimp for patriotism.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

moonie——All attacks, whether they be invasions to rip off land and resources
or sanctions or carpetbombings for the hell of it, against non-whites are
phyical genocide even under the limited terms of the UN Genocide definitions.

Period.——-
that one is pretty absurdly stupid, even for a bifot such as yourself.


if the Pakistani Sunnis blow up another Shi’a congregation at prayer….

If the Pakistan Taliban blow up some more girls schools ......

if the US refuses to allow US banks to participate in the commercial transactions
concerning the sale of Iranian crude…..


——


damn blatherous of you, my dear.

Report this

By diamond, March 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

And yet there are still those who try to claim that none of these wars and planned wars are about oil. The fact is, the United States has become an oil vampire now that peak oil is here and will attack anyone for any trumped up reason to get their oil. The US lusts after Iran’s oil the same way it lusted after Iraq’s.

It would make a lot more sense to begin moving away from oil to sustainable energy but when did the United States ever do anything remotely sensible? I think the last time was when, in a moment of giddy idealism, the Civil Rights Act passed into law, but that’s one shining moment in a long history of dark and evil acts against their own citizens and foreign nationals most unable to defend themselves. Third world, peasant societies like Vietnam’s for example.

Blaming Obama is futile: he doesn’t have the power to stop the Pentagon and the CIA. If he commenced open hostilities with them, how long do you think he would be president? All he can do is play for time. Not allowing open hostilities to begin with Iran and hoping he can curb this lunacy in a second term. As long as the mania for oil persists, so will the wars. And if it wasn’t oil it would be something else because America is addicted to both oil and war.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

jeff- I think that the US noted what the sanctions produced in Iraq and is going
about things quite differently this time….

as well, much as I loathe the Iranian regime, I don;t think that they would be as
inhuman as saddam was and allow the babies of the citizens that his govt didn’t
represent and considered enemies (Shi’a and Kurds) starve for the publicity
value of it.

the Iranians aren’t quite that bad.


and even further, this time to date there are no sanctions against civilian-use
imports akin to the ban of chemicals which were needed for water purification
..... that one was a gross and killing mistake on the part of the US and UN.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 31, 2012 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Let me point out the obvious:  That once again hettie el hediondo is WRONG.

All attacks, whether they be invasions to rip off land and resources or sanctions or carpetbombings for the hell of it, against non-whites are phyical genocide even under the limited terms of the UN Genocide definitions.

Period.

And, for those of you who think all that dirty stuff was in the past in gringolandia, the ongoing system of bantustans and protectorate institutions such as the BIA are genocide.  When Sarte said All colonialism is genocide, he was not just referring to the situation in Algeria.

Which reminds me, It’s time for those of you who haven’t seen the two most important films of the past century, Pontecorvo’s Battle of Algiers and Burn!, it’s time for you to watch them over and over and over and over until you start to understand a few of the basics of geopolitics.

PS:  Battle of Algiers is required viewing for all Pentagon officials, who are required to watch it over and over and over until they get it—but from the other perspective.

You should at LEAST try to be as aware and informed as your enemy.

Report this

By Jeff N., March 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

hetero, can’t argue with that.. as we see in the US though, the government doesn’t generally make a habit out of allocating resources in the most “central” ways, so the passing on of the sanctions’ effects to the everyday citizens of Iran isn’t all that surprising.  I don’t see that sanctions have had any success so far, and given the current public aversion (if that matters) to yet another military occupation, I can only assume this is all just election year tough talk by the white house, at least until China steps into the ring. 

In the meantime, we happen to be slowly destroying the economy of a foreign nation, the effects of which are always felt hardest by the common man, in pursuit of an impossible objective.  I suspect this discussion would lead to us arguing over whether iran should be ‘allowed’ to have nukes though, which is probably a dead end.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, March 31, 2012 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

It’s ironic that Obama defends and protects the Wall Street banks that destroyed the economy as his chief priority, but is ready to go to war to defend the petrodollar from the BRICS.

He even gets an opportunity to give his sponsors in the oil bidness a rationalization to spike gas prices in the process.  Win-win from his point of view.

As for the effect of sanctions on civilians, has Obama ever shown any compunction about killing non-combatants for personal political gain?

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

jeff—when the citizens end up suffering because their
government chooses not to allocate resources to them
and spends what sgould be adequate resources in other,
less central ways….then I have to think that its the
government’s refusing its central duty to its
citizens…and that’s where the bulk of responsibility
rests.

Report this

By Jeff N., March 31, 2012 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

hetero, who ends up suffering from sanctions?  sure as hell won’t be the regime.  sanctions against iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people.. what word would you use to describe that?

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 31, 2012 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Jeff- that genocide through sanctions thing is quite
dopey.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Is there any country with more foolish leadership (sic) than the US?

Not even Mexico….

Report this

By Jeff N., March 31, 2012 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Revving up the old genocide-through-sanctions engine again is a bit pointless when you don’t have China and India on board..

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook