At no time did I say or imply that the US govt was physically getting the oil and giving it to corps. I said that the plan I heard about back then (on the news...not some huge secret) was that we wouldn't give the Iraqi govt the money it needed to function until the oil deal was signed. Since we did eventually give them the money, I'd say the deals were signed. That was possibly for 12 wells (which the link provided claimed would cost the Iraqi gov't $74-$194 billion in profit). I then provided a link to a story claiming that deals were signed in 2009 and 2010 and made it clear that I didn't know if those were the deals being planned in 2005 or if they were new deals. Am I presenting this info in such a confusing way to everyone else or is it just Oden not getting my point?
Obama announces 275 troops to deploy to Iraq for embassy security in Baghdad http://rt.com/news/166364-special-forces-us-iraq/
When I read “This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property ... " I thought of the Iraqi people as being U.S. citizens and Iraq as U.S. property. Then I laughed. Who knows what goes through that man's mind. I'm more curious about why Russia flew over California, and why Obama played follow the leader, heading over to California for Father's Day weekend.
I have read they were 50 miles away from California. Has the US ever flew 50 miles away from Russia? (not commercial planes etc)
odon We were discussing the early occupation and what I see as the mistakes made – your reply has nothing on that. Then why were you replying to my discussion if you were not discussing it – sorry but that just doesn’t make sense. No - you went on off about Afghanistan and the troop withdrawal from Iraq with no context or rational as to why you were doing that. You seem to argue that people are ignoring the events after the occupation but that doesn’t seem to be the case, I’ve read, listened to and seen many reports about post occupation Iraq But again that doesn’t mean that the occupation didn’t have an effect on later events you cannot say - this bit of history stops there and a new history starts here - that’s just plain silly. If you want to present a coherent argument that the occupation didn’t have an effect then please do so because you haven’t so far. Odon you seem to be nit-picking because you are peeved about something rather than because you have a real point to make, please calm down and argue with you head rather than your gut. To repeat [my bold]- I think I as a British citizen hold some responsibility for the state of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the collective even though I didn’t vote for the government that did it and actively campaigned against it. To me that is part and parcel of the democratic process. There is the individual and the community – the I and the us – I might disagree with the us but I’m still part of the us. You might have another view if so please present it?
Odon But as pointed out ‘we’ as in the Bush Admin fucked up badly the invasion and subsequent occupation, this had consequences – in Iraq it caused long lasting resentment and division amongst the population – In the USA is caused a war weariness and backlash against such interventions. As I and many others said at the time - many Iraqis wanted the coalition troops to stay because they feared what might come after. But the pressure was on in the US to get the troops home. Of a system that was very much coloured and compromised by the occupation. Which ‘they’ are you talking about - I’m not a supporter of the Maliki lead government and think them to blame for this present uprising. What - you need to clarify – also what actions that can be taken have to take into account that many people will use the fuck up of the Iraqi occupation as a reason not to do it, especially boots on ground. Its not about ‘owing’ but about responsibility – anyway give us a coherent argument – because it seems to be lacking so far.
odon Life in Iraq has not been ‘normal’ for some time (basically not since the occupation) This from 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/29/baghdad-car-bombs-kill-dozens More than 4,000 people have died in such attacks this year. A further 9,865 have been injured so far in 2013, with Baghdad province the worst hit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23590938 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22682400 From 2012 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201261695010638386.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/16/world/meast/iraq-violence/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/world/middleeast/baghdad-car-bombings-kill-dozens.html?_r=0 from 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sts-kill-69-just-5-days-US-withdrew-Iraq.html
'Ambulances rushed...' 'Ali Khalil, 36, a taxi driver, said he was passing nearby' 'Isam Mohammed, the owner of a pharmacy' 'Many of the victims of Tuesday's attacks had been shopping' 'busy commercial area of Sadoun Street in central Baghdad' 'A used car dealer' 'Along with the security forces, the Shia majority in Iraq has been a main target of Sunni Arab armed groups since the fall of Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime.' It goes on... That is 'normal'
Odon LOL – So normality to you is when over 4000 people die in terrorist attacks and car bombs are a normal occurrence – hell man where do you live? Come on man you really must be desperate to present that as a rational argument.
My point is, there is normality. Normal things occur. As shown above. I did not say when abnormal things occur - as you highlight - that is 'normal'. Both occur side by side.
Murder. Rape. Sexual abuse. Etc. Occur in the UK every single day. Is that 'normal'? Do you want me to show e.g's of 'normal' life in the UK?