Re: U.S. preparations for invading Iran are complete [Archive]

AirRaid

February 18th 07, 12:23 AM

On Feb 17, 5:38 am, "Freeman" > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:15 pm, "AirRaid Mach 2.5" > wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/23rcp3
>
> > US preparations for invading Iran are complete: Report
> > Rashmee Roshan Lal
> > [ 16 Feb, 2007 2050hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
>
> The original article appears to be ...
> Dan Plesch, "Iran - Ready to attack", New Statesman, cover date of 19
> Feb. 2007http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014

thanks for that, interesting,.

AirRaid

February 18th 07, 01:23 AM

Freeman

February 19th 07, 03:40 PM

On Feb 17, 5:23 pm, "AirRaid" > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:38 am, "Freeman" > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:15 pm, "AirRaid Mach 2.5" > wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/23rcp3
>
> > > US preparations for invading Iran are complete: Report
> > > Rashmee Roshan Lal
> > > [ 16 Feb, 2007 2050hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
>
> > The original article appears to be ...
> > Dan Plesch, "Iran - Ready to attack", New Statesman, cover date of 19
> > Feb. 2007http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
>
> thanks for that, interesting,.

The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
"guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
empire project.

And potential trial, etc, for treason and mass-murder if they don't.
Tehran, Riyadh, police-state -- or bust.

Mark Test

February 19th 07, 06:52 PM

"Freeman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 17, 5:23 pm, "AirRaid" > wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 5:38 am, "Freeman" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 11:15 pm, "AirRaid Mach 2.5" > wrote:
> >
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/23rcp3
> >
> > > > US preparations for invading Iran are complete: Report
> > > > Rashmee Roshan Lal
> > > > [ 16 Feb, 2007 2050hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
> >
> > > The original article appears to be ...
> > > Dan Plesch, "Iran - Ready to attack", New Statesman, cover date of 19
> > > Feb. 2007http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
> >
> > thanks for that, interesting,.
>
> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
> empire project.
>
Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I suppose
you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?

Mark

February 19th 07, 07:13 PM

"Mark Test" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
>> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
>> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
>> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
>> empire project.
>>
> Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I suppose
> you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?

Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we still
don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
will...

Mark Test

February 19th 07, 09:58 PM

"T3" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
> >> empire project.
> >>
> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
suppose
> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
>
> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
still
> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> will...
>
So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
about the oil...

February 19th 07, 10:10 PM

"Mark Test" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "T3" > wrote in message
>> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> still
>> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
>> will...
>>
> So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> about the oil...

It *is/was* about oil and really nothing else, unless of course you think
it's sand, or something like that, 'cause it damn sure wasn't about 9/11,
WMD's, or for that matter democracy...

Jack Linthicum

February 19th 07, 10:18 PM

On Feb 19, 5:10 pm, "T3" > wrote:
> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>
> ink.net...
>
> > "T3" > wrote in message
> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> > still
> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> >> will...
>
> > So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> > about the oil...
>
> It *is/was* about oil and really nothing else, unless of course you think
> it's sand, or something like that, 'cause it damn sure wasn't about 9/11,
> WMD's, or for that matter democracy...

The building with the greatest number of armed guards during the
invasion of Baghdad was the Oil Ministry.

Oil ministry an untouched building in ravaged Baghdad

April 16 2003, 4:26 PM

Since US forces rolled into central Baghdad a week ago, one of the
sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil
ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops.

The imposing building in the Al-Mustarisiya quarter is guarded by
around 50 US tanks which block every entrance, while sharpshooters are
positioned on the roof and in the windows.

The curious onlooker is clearly unwelcome. Any motorist who drifts
within a few metres of the main entrance is told to leave immediately.

Baghdad residents have complained that US troops should do more to
protect against the looters, most of them Shi'ite Muslims repressed by
Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime who live in the vast slum
known as Saddam City on the northern outskirts.

But while museums, banks, hotels and libraries have been ransacked,
the oil ministry remains secure.

The symbolism is loaded, considering how vehemently the United States
and Britain denied war opponents' accusations that the campaign to
oust Saddam was driven by oil lust. <more>
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

Peter Skelton

February 20th 07, 01:55 AM

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
> wrote:

>"T3" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
>> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
>> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
>> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
>> >> empire project.
>> >>
>> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
>suppose
>> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
>>
>> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
>still
>> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
>> will...
>>
>So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
>about the oil...
>
Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
isn't it?

Peter Skelton

Mark Test

February 20th 07, 02:38 AM

"T3" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "T3" > wrote in message
> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> > still
> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> >> will...
> >>
> > So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> > about the oil...
>
> It *is/was* about oil and really nothing else, unless of course you think
> it's sand, or something like that, 'cause it damn sure wasn't about 9/11,
> WMD's, or for that matter democracy...
>
>
All about oil?.....oil that the US never needed. The US gets only 16%
of its oil from the mid-east..(Saudi).

Mark

Mark Test

February 20th 07, 02:43 AM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
> > wrote:
>
> >"T3" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
> >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
more-or-
> >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
> >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
> >> >> empire project.
> >> >>
> >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
> >suppose
> >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
> >>
> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> >still
> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> >> will...
> >>
> >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> >about the oil...
> >
> Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
> isn't it?
>
Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's disruption
would affect the price of oil on the world market.

That whole Bush "Persian oil empire" crack is what I was commenting
on.

Mark

Peter Skelton

February 20th 07, 02:54 AM

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:43:06 GMT, "Mark Test"
> wrote:

>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"T3" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
>> >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
>more-or-
>> >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
>> >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
>> >> >> empire project.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
>> >suppose
>> >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
>> >>
>> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
>> >still
>> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
>> >> will...
>> >>
>> >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
>> >about the oil...
>> >
>> Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
>> isn't it?
>>
>Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
>does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's disruption
>would affect the price of oil on the world market.
>
I haven't implied anyting like that at all

>That whole Bush "Persian oil empire" crack is what I was commenting
>on.
>
Well you chose to do so by saying that the left always say it's
about the oil, an obviously fallacious crack.

Peter Skelton

Mark Test

February 21st 07, 01:59 AM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:43:06 GMT, "Mark Test"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"T3" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> >> >> ink.net...
> >> >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about
potential
> >> >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
> >more-or-
> >> >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more
years
> >> >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf
oil-
> >> >> >> empire project.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
> >> >suppose
> >> >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough,
we
> >> >still
> >> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China
prolly
> >> >> will...
> >> >>
> >> >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> >> >about the oil...
> >> >
> >> Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
> >> isn't it?
> >>
> >Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
> >does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's disruption
> >would affect the price of oil on the world market.
> >
> I haven't implied anyting like that at all
>
> >That whole Bush "Persian oil empire" crack is what I was commenting
> >on.
> >
> Well you chose to do so by saying that the left always say it's
> about the oil, an obviously fallacious crack.
>
So, "Persian oil empire" is a right-wing crack?

Peter Skelton

February 21st 07, 02:37 AM

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:59:36 GMT, "Mark Test" >
wrote:

>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:43:06 GMT, "Mark Test"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"T3" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ink.net...
>> >> >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about
>potential
>> >> >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
>> >more-or-
>> >> >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more
>years
>> >> >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf
>oil-
>> >> >> >> empire project.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
>> >> >suppose
>> >> >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough,
>we
>> >> >still
>> >> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China
>prolly
>> >> >> will...
>> >> >>
>> >> >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
>> >> >about the oil...
>> >> >
>> >> Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
>> >> isn't it?
>> >>
>> >Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
>> >does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's disruption
>> >would affect the price of oil on the world market.
>> >
>> I haven't implied anyting like that at all
>>
>> >That whole Bush "Persian oil empire" crack is what I was commenting
>> >on.
>> >
>> Well you chose to do so by saying that the left always say it's
>> about the oil, an obviously fallacious crack.
>>
>So, "Persian oil empire" is a right-wing crack?
>

I have said nothing like that.

Mark Test

February 21st 07, 08:44 AM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:59:36 GMT, "Mark Test" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:43:06 GMT, "Mark Test"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"T3" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ink.net...
> >> >> >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about
> >potential
> >> >> >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
> >> >more-or-
> >> >> >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more
> >years
> >> >> >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf
> >oil-
> >> >> >> >> empire project.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian
oil.....I
> >> >> >suppose
> >> >> >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly
enough,
> >we
> >> >> >still
> >> >> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China
> >prolly
> >> >> >> will...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> >> >> >about the oil...
> >> >> >
> >> >> Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
> >> >> isn't it?
> >> >>
> >> >Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
> >> >does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's
disruption
> >> >would affect the price of oil on the world market.
> >> >
> >> I haven't implied anyting like that at all
> >>
> >> >That whole Bush "Persian oil empire" crack is what I was commenting
> >> >on.
> >> >
> >> Well you chose to do so by saying that the left always say it's
> >> about the oil, an obviously fallacious crack.
> >>
> >So, "Persian oil empire" is a right-wing crack?
> >
>
> I have said nothing like that.

Didn't say you did.....that's the crack I was replying to though....
And I've yet to hear reasons like, to promote democracy, to
maintain stability, to remove a dictator.....from the left.

Only it's about the oil.....is what the majority on the left spew.

Mark

Freeman

February 21st 07, 02:56 PM

On Feb 19, 10:52 am, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> "Freeman" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:23 pm, "AirRaid" > wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 5:38 am, "Freeman" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 11:15 pm, "AirRaid Mach 2.5" > wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/23rcp3
>
> > > > > US preparations for invading Iran are complete: Report
> > > > > Rashmee Roshan Lal
> > > > > [ 16 Feb, 2007 2050hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
>
> > > > The original article appears to be ...
> > > > Dan Plesch, "Iran - Ready to attack", New Statesman, cover date of 19
> > > > Feb. 2007http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
>
> > > thanks for that, interesting,.
>
> > The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
> > preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is more-or-
> > less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
> > "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
> > empire project.
>
> Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I suppose
> you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?

Hardly suddenly.

Freeman

February 21st 07, 02:59 PM

On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> "T3" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > "T3" > wrote in message
> > >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> > > still
> > >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> > >> will...
>
> > > So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> > > about the oil...
>
> > It *is/was* about oil and really nothing else, unless of course you think
> > it's sand, or something like that, 'cause it damn sure wasn't about 9/11,
> > WMD's, or for that matter democracy...
>
> All about oil?.....oil that the US never needed. The US gets only 16%
> of its oil from the mid-east..(Saudi).

The petro-imperialists are *aiming* to get a lot more. Or at least
have Europe and China by the ********.

Freeman

February 21st 07, 03:03 PM

On Feb 19, 6:43 pm, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> "Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:58:48 GMT, "Mark Test"
> > > wrote:
>
> > >"T3" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >> >> The article contains rather speculative generalities about potential
> > >> >> preparations over the last four years. But I agree, this is
> more-or-
> > >> >> less the last ditch for the petro-imperialists: only two more years
> > >> >> "guaranteed" Bush-time in which to complete their Persian-Gulf oil-
> > >> >> empire project.
>
> > >> > Well, since the US does not get a single drop of Iranian oil.....I
> > >suppose
> > >> > you are suggesting the US suddenly has decided to steal it?
>
> > >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
> > >still
> > >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
> > >> will...
>
> > >So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
> > >about the oil...
>
> > Interesting that a bright boy like yu can be so obviously wrong,
> > isn't it?
>
> Don't imply that it's the US that wants or needs mid-east oil. The US
> does however fight to preserve the flow of oil.....since it's disruption
> would affect the price of oil on the world market.

Oil-as-power is another real possibility. To be gatekeeper of the
supplies ...
http://us.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/kissex.html

[email protected]

February 21st 07, 07:08 PM

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:38:39 GMT, "Mark Test" >
wrote:

>"T3" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> > "T3" > wrote in message
>> >> Heh, that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it? Oddly enough, we
>> > still
>> >> don't get any of it, though when the dust finally settles, China prolly
>> >> will...
>> >>
>> > So true....my point of course is that the left always say it's
>> > about the oil...
>>
>> It *is/was* about oil and really nothing else, unless of course you think
>> it's sand, or something like that, 'cause it damn sure wasn't about 9/11,
>> WMD's, or for that matter democracy...
>>
>>
>All about oil?.....oil that the US never needed. The US gets only 16%
>of its oil from the mid-east..(Saudi).

I like to ask the proponents of the "petro-imperialist" theory to tell
me, specifically, which oil companies have delivered how much "stolen"
oil to the U.S. This question generally causes them to be very
flumoxxed and to drool upon themselves as they try for an answer.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Defendario

February 21st 07, 11:39 PM

Mark Test wrote:

> And I've yet to hear reasons like, to promote democracy

Which isn't happening. The neighborhoods of Basra which have been
controlled by militant gangs mostly live under Sharia law now.

> maintain stability

You think we have created stability in Iraq?
LOL

> to remove a dictator

He was *our* guy. A moderate Arab with whom we can do business.

Isn't that what gladhanding Don Rumsfailed said?

>from the left

What Left? You want to talk to the Left -- c'est moi!

>
> Only it's about the oil.....is what the majority on the left spew.
>

It is about the oil, fool.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/09/bush-turns-to-fear-mongering-creation.html

Be sure to take note of the image:
http://www.juancole.com/graphics/reserves2.jpg

> Mark
>
>
>