I had to smile when I saw this headline in the New York Times today: ‘Iraq’s insurgency is running on stolen oil profits’.
Well, why not? It makes sweet sense. After all, didn’t Paul Wolfowitz tell the world that the invasion and occupation of Iraq could be paid for by stolen oil profits?
I’d say the Iraqis are putting the ‘profits’ to good use.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
7 comments:
Just to clarify your comment, are you saying that the targeting of Australian and other Coalition troops by insurgents funded by stolen oil profits is "good use" of funds?
Are you suggesting that the alternative, the killing of Iraqis, is better use of the funds? I'd say, from the Iraqi's point of view, that the Iraqi's use of the funds is preferable to the alternative suggested by Wolfowitz.
The Coalition and Australian troops are the invaders. The Iraqis are merely using their resources. From the Iraqi's point of view, it clearly is being put to 'good use' - far better than having it used against them.
G'day Damian,
a 'next step' in the US theft of Iraqi oil occurred in Jan'08 (because I was away, it escaped my notice until recently), perhaps you can tell me if it's 'news?'
Sorry to do this by links, but it's probably the easiest way: see oil-theft progress report on my blog here; and on another matter, this.
On the matter of the oil Phil, you've got about right at your blog. On the other matter, more to come I think.
Something terribly wrong at Webdiary where Bob gets banned and the liar and fraudster Ramsey is allowed back to continue peddling his abnoxious propaganda to distract from proper debate.
Sorry, I must disagree with you Damian, in regards to Bob's ban from WD.
As one Web Diarist said to Bob:
If I do have a prayer from God on behalf of another it might be that you might find the way to conduct a discussion sans the resort to the Thatcher method. You know: "Who are these people who disagree." Can you name them?
It is a pointless gambit with no answer and it is not meant to garner one.
It is meant to stymie the debate.
I'am afraid Bob hates to be challenged.. He can dish it out but not take it.
So, why should the moderators side with him? Bob has only himself to blame. Had he not haggled with the moderators over such trivialities, he would not have been banned.
While I'm here, how is the flying going? Been anywhere exciting lately? Reckon it would be just great to hop in a plane on the weekend and take off to anywhere you want to go, like you do.
I'm extremely jealous!!!
Kathy, it’s not a matter of coping with the thrust and parry of proper debate which Bob is more than capable of handling; it’s a question of fairness, integrity, honesty, transparency, ethics and accountability, all values which Webdiary seems to have thrown away as they allow propaganda and rhetoric from liars and fraudsters like Morella, Ramsey, Kissane, Warton, et al, liars and frauds all, to distract from proper debate of geopolitical realities. I left WD because of the way the right-wing dominated and dictated what subjects could or could not be discussed there. The hypocrisy of Kingston, the liar Hamish Alcorn and the intolerably arrogant Roffey have ruined an otherwise great opportunity to get a truly popular current affairs discussion blog on to the world stage.
They’ve caved in to the right-wing again.
The flying’s great but the views over the parched lower Murraylands where the Murray flows (barely) into Lake Alexandrina and the Coorong is a disheartening sight.
G'day KF,
Haw, haw haw! Bob gets banned for complaining about the demented ravings of a pissed priest - yair, orr-right!
Pull the other one... Ooops! Did I say pissed? Or was that pissant, or even paysan/ne?
Post a Comment