View Full Version : US Army launches new Iraq offensive.
Heibges
06-16-07, 12:20 PM
The US Army, supported by various other ash and trash, has launched a new offensive in Iraq. SITREP to follow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283280,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6759409.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19259106/
It's funny that Fox News and MSNBC carry the same AP Story. No word on CBS, ABC, or CNN.
Skybird
06-16-07, 12:33 PM
How...hm, how - usual?
How many offensives and major operations have there been in the past? I lost track, sorry.
AntEater
06-16-07, 12:44 PM
"Offensive" isnt really the right word if you're fighting for control in a country you allready conquered.
No hills to be taken here.
"Major security operation" would be more to the point.
Heibges
06-16-07, 12:45 PM
"Offensive" isnt really the right word if you're fighting for control in a country you allready conquered.
No hills to be taken here.
"Major security operation" would be more to the point.
But that doesn't make for a very good talking point, does it?:D
Ishmael
06-16-07, 01:26 PM
"Offensive" isnt really the right word if you're fighting for control in a country you allready conquered.
No hills to be taken here.
"Major security operation" would be more to the point.
How about,"Continuing Occupation of a Foreign Country for Oil" ?
How 'bout we keep the fightin' over there????
That way we can live our lives oblivious to what true Muslims want ...:smug:
Just keep yer head in the sand...
Don't worry over the fact that people are being dragged out of their homes and work places into the streets --- Just to receive a bullet in the brain for not practising the Muslim religion... As I understand it , this way of converting new members is highly effective... That is to say not on the person receiving the bullet but on the people who watch...
Ok ... now strap on yer bombs!
:roll:
Don't worry over the fact that people are being dragged out of their homes and work places into the streets --- Just to receive a bullet in the brain for not practising the Muslim religion...
As far as I understand, the offensive operation means a lot of people receiving bullets for totally different reasons. Or are those bullets somehow different? :hmm:
Don't worry over the fact that people are being dragged out of their homes and work places into the streets --- Just to receive a bullet in the brain for not practising the Muslim religion...
As far as I understand, the offensive operation means a lot of people receiving bullets for totally different reasons. Or are those bullets somehow different? :hmm:
Of what bullets do you ask?
1:The ones the Muslims are using to terrorise people into submission.
2:The ones being used to stop the Muslim Terrorist.
Lemme ask ya dis??
Which side do you prefer?
A:Muslim Terrorist
B:People trying to stop the Muslim Terrorist
Is there any other kind or bullet or side?
This isn't chess. I think it's naive, or at least convenient, to see the situation as black and white. And bullets aren't only colorblind.
Anyway, just making the point that it would be awfully convenient if we had only good and bad bullets out there. Ask an Iraqi civilian if they have any bullet preferences; they're the ones that catch the most of them anyway, whichever direction they come from. :hmm:
A:Muslim Terrorist
B:People trying to stop the Muslim Terrorist
Give a break mate, and save these propaganda speeches for other ocasions. :down:
This isn't chess. I think it's naive, or at least convenient, to see the situation as black and white. And bullets aren't only colorblind.
Anyway, just making the point that it would be awfully convenient if we had only good and bad bullets out there. Ask an Iraqi civilian if they have any bullet preferences; they're the ones that catch the most of them anyway, whichever direction they come from. :hmm:
Best description I've heard in a long long time.
Lemme ask ya dis??
Which side do you prefer?
A:Muslim Terrorist
B:People trying to stop the Muslim Terrorist
Is there any other kind or bullet or side?
In keeping with my recent policy of fallacy busting, I'm going to let loose another one.
That is called the fallacy of the false dilemma. The 'with us or a'gin us' idea is one of absolutism and something that ignores the real nature of reality. Nothing is so cut and dried. You therefore can't use it as some kind of trump card in an argument as it has no logical merit.
And more young men die for a goal that will never be achieved. :nope:
Lemme ask ya dis??
Which side do you prefer?
A:Muslim Terrorist
B:People trying to stop the Muslim Terrorist
Is there any other kind or bullet or side?
In keeping with my recent policy of fallacy busting, I'm going to let loose another one.
That is called the fallacy of the false dilemma. The 'with us or a'gin us' idea is one of absolutism and something that ignores the real nature of reality. Nothing is so cut and dried. You therefore can't use it as some kind of trump card in an argument as it has no logical merit.
WOW!
When it's put that way...That there is no absolutism and something that ignores the real nature of reality...whew!
I guess that all of this ,The earth , moon, stars, Gravity, Time and events ,YOU, and ME...we are but a dream of gods dreamed by many gods that dream they are gods
wow...
So your stating that there is no right or wrong ...just what is best at the time?
So that means that Muslims that execute people are not really executing them?
Your really saying that Muslims are helping people along the way to paradise?
wow... talk about fallacy of the false dilemma
Just what are you on about?
:stare: :stare: :stare:
And just who's side are you on anyway?
If you haven't stopped reading this by now.
Just one more question...if you please.
If you go to your local store to purchase what you need and several Muslim Terrorist with bombs and weapons of various sort came in to the same store while you are still shopping...
Would you wish that these terrorist would have been killed in their country or would you wish them killed in yours?
Remember now there is no wrong or right ....
Also remember these Terrorist are gonna kill you and themselves so they can get to their paradise...
If you can't answer this ... then I shall give you the magic power of " Ostiridge " and maybe I'll throw in a pile of sand.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :sunny:
:roll:
And more young men die for a goal that will never be achieved. :nope:
Sadly...
but so shall it be for as long as it is...
So your stating that there is no right or wrong ...just what is best at the time?
So that means that Muslims that execute people are not really executing them?
Your really saying that Muslims are helping people along the way to paradise?
And just who's side are you on anyway?
Are you aware of the idea behind the false dilemma? Its where you oversimplify things and use a false sense of one or the other to force someone to make an erroneous choice, in place of actual argument. You effectively make any criticism of your established mode of thought into a form of treason.
Im not invalidating your point of view, I'm invalidating your method of argument. But something about your reaction tells me that this post will be as grotesquely misconstrued as the last.
Now now, let's play nice shall we? Everyone has their opinion and we should respect that. ;)
I think a poem by a favorite Russian singer of mine sums up the whole thing nicely...
Yuri Shevchuk - Plohie (The Bad Guys)
The Bad Guys! The Bad Guys! The Bad Guys!
The Bad Guys, without water or light
Under fire they curse and pray just for one thing
That those bad guys are not killed in vain
The Bad Guys amuse
The Good Guys! The Good Guys! The Good Guys!
That write about the Bad Guys nothing
But sh*t....
Ah, to gather this tragedy
In one heavy armored burden
And repent, all of us
Both the Bad and the Good Guys.
:hmm:
Sea Demon
06-18-07, 09:36 AM
*sigh* If only Saddam Hussein lived up to his part of the cease fire agreement......
SUBMAN1
06-18-07, 01:18 PM
How about,"Continuing Occupation of a Foreign Country for Oil" ?
That doesn't quite apply - All oil contracts were given to China and India. The US of A gets no oil from this deal. The decision was reached to honor the old contracts that were in place prior to the reactivation of the Gulf war.
:nope:
Well... no matter.
How ever you wish to twist to accommodate your choice of how you prefer to recognise your view of reality is no skin off my nose.
Red is Red and Green is Green
Black is Black and White is White
You are You and Me be Me
Reason will Reason
Treason is Treason
In the end but one Judge will say.
Oh... and sorry for misspellin' "Ostrich"
Here ya go...
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:jvwa1bqo9ZzYHM:http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/ostrich.jpg
The View may be better on the otherside
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:E6l4nx4ApLnSjM:http://www.dongettyphoto.com/kenya/images/Ostrich.jpg
Your next " POWER UP " will be " Ostrich Vampire "
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RniRRm-GkBMrqM:http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/assets/ostrich_head.jpg
Takeda Shingen
06-18-07, 03:38 PM
Everyone play nice.
Thanks,
The Management
Skybird
06-18-07, 03:50 PM
Before the war, Iraqi daily oil production was around 2 million barrels per day.
Now the Chinese are allowed to get a deal on producing 70.000 barrels maximum per day. Vietnam gets another 60.000 maximum, India i think 40.ooo at daily maximum, but I could be wrong on that last number.
So China is allowed to produce 3.5% of the former daily production, Vietnam is allowed to produce 3% of the former daily production, and India is allowed to produce 2% of the former daily production.
Priority was and is to bring Iraq's oil production back to pre-war values. If that is reached, the current contracts make sure that china and India will remain dwarfs in Iraq's oil business. So I wonder who the US is planning to get into place to take care of the lion's share of the remaining 91.5% of the former daily production - oil that obviously is available for production? It is neither China, nor India, nor Vietnam. Could it be - could it be American companies...? Hardly. "All" oil contracts went to China and India, we just learned. The US "get's no oil from this deal", we get taught. It was about "honouring oil contracts that were in place before the war". Agreed - and removing Saddam from power was considered to be an act of politeness, sure... :lol:
How could anyone think that the war last but not least was about cleaning the opposition in oil production off the field and taking over their shares of the cake, while deceiving people about this by launching PR stunts like this story about China's "leading" role in future oil production in Iraq?
How about,"Continuing Occupation of a Foreign Country for Oil" ?
That doesn't quite apply - All oil contracts were given to China and India. The US of A gets no oil from this deal. The decision was reached to honor the old contracts that were in place prior to the reactivation of the Gulf war.
Its still a powerplay. Control of the oil fields is just as significant. Its like with the northwest passage in Canada. The US wants to be the caretaker of it so as to ensure its "safe for world trade". Thats why american submarines continue to violate Canadian waters. One made a submerged run of the passage a few years ago and more recently one just sat inside Canadian waters basically to indicate that the US doesn't care about Canadian sovereignty and to demonstrate that we can't stop them.
Theres also the fact that the US is trying to force Iraq to denationalize its oil fields thus opening up the market.
SUBMAN1
06-18-07, 04:05 PM
Before the war, Iraqi daily oil production was around 2 million barrels per day.
Now the Chinese are allowed to get a deal on producing 70.000 barrels maximum per day. Vietnam gets another 60.000 maximum, India i think 40.ooo at daily maximum, but I could be wrong on that last number.
So China is allowed to produce 3.5% of the former daily production, Vietnam is allowed to produce 3% of the former daily production, and India is allowed to produce 2% of the former daily production.
Priority was and is to bring Iraq's oil production back to pre-war values. If that is reached, the current contracts make sure that china and India will remain dwarfs in Iraq's oil business. So I wonder who the US is planning to get into place to take care of the lion's share of the remaining 91.5% of the former daily production - oil that obviously is available for production? It is neither China, nor India, nor Vietnam. Could it be - could it be American companies...? Hardly. "All" oil contracts went to China and India, we just learned. The US "get's no oil from this deal", we get taught. It was about "honouring oil contracts that were in place before the war". Agreed - and removing Saddam from power was considered to be an act of politeness, sure... :lol:
How could anyone think that the war last but not least was about cleaning the opposition in oil production off the field and taking over their shares of the cake, while deceiving people about this by launching PR stunts like this story about China's "leading" role in future oil production in Iraq?
Be nice Skybird.
Besides - everything you are mentioning is pure speculation. I'm sure the rest of the world would not miss the facts if how you present them are true, and so far we have no evidence to support your claim. As it stands right now - the US gets nothing unless the Iraqi government chnages that.
-S
Before the war, Iraqi daily oil production was around 2 million barrels per day.
Now the Chinese are allowed to get a deal on producing 70.000 barrels maximum per day. Vietnam gets another 60.000 maximum, India i think 40.ooo at daily maximum, but I could be wrong on that last number.
So China is allowed to produce 3.5% of the former daily production, Vietnam is allowed to produce 3% of the former daily production, and India is allowed to produce 2% of the former daily production.
Priority was and is to bring Iraq's oil production back to pre-war values. If that is reached, the current contracts make sure that china and India will remain dwarfs in Iraq's oil business. So I wonder who the US is planning to get into place to take care of the lion's share of the remaining 91.5% of the former daily production - oil that obviously is available for production? It is neither China, nor India, nor Vietnam. Could it be - could it be American companies...? Hardly. "All" oil contracts went to China and India, we just learned. The US "get's no oil from this deal", we get taught. It was about "honouring oil contracts that were in place before the war". Agreed - and removing Saddam from power was considered to be an act of politeness, sure... :lol:
How could anyone think that the war last but not least was about cleaning the opposition in oil production off the field and taking over their shares of the cake, while deceiving people about this by launching PR stunts like this story about China's "leading" role in future oil production in Iraq?
Well now .. we cant have China and India and (Is that North or South ) Vietnam... nor anyone else jumpin' on the Global Warming band wagon now can we?
==============================:huh: =============================
OMG!
Did I just say that?
:huh:
-------------------
:rotfl: :arrgh!:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.