And if the criminal Bush administration, along with any insane Republicans or idiot Democrats, want to continue fighting Bush and Cheney’s war for Iraq’s oil, then have Bush and Cheney’s private contractor mercenary company pals go fight it.

Oh, wait, if our troops withdraw from Iraq and there’s a “surge” in private contractor security personnel policing Iraq, then the cost to U.S. taxpayers would “surge” as well, since a private contractor security person makes 10 times what it costs U.S. taxpayers for someone serving bravely in our nation’s military.

This would be a major financial boon for all the Republican-owned Bush-crony private security companies, but would end up screwing the American taxpayer by even more than they are currently getting screwed by the astronomical cost of Bush’s insane, and totally unnecessary, war in Iraq.

The only acceptable answer is for Congress to ban the spending of any U.S. taxpayer money in Iraq, except in very limited instances of humanitarian assistance. And this means no more throwing money away on the gargantuan U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The daily mortar attacks against the Green Zone have proven that the U.S. embassy will never be secure, and any U.S. personnel stationed there will be just more U.S. citizens being used for target practice by either side in Iraq’s sectarian civil war.

We know that Bush is flat-out nuts, as well as Cheney, but I still hope that members of Congress will come to their senses, and stop this senseless, jihadist-generating misadventure in Iraq…NOW.

We need to pull our troops from the civil war between the Shiias and the Sunnis. The Iraqi military should be doing what we are doing. We will never make any progress as long as we are seen as an occupying and invading force. Our presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency who like a majority of the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Our presence has made us less safe.

Our presence is used as a recruiting tool by insurgents. The only thing we can do for the Iraqis now is to push political and diplomatic progress. We can’t fight this civil war, and we won’t win it if we only approach it in a military sense. There can be no compromise on withdrawal of troops. Our only option now is to remove them from this danger. They are in harm’s way.

How many more soldiers have to be lost to IED attacks before Bush acknowledges that the policy has been wrong? It is clear there is no centrist option when it comes to Iraq. Congress must set a date to withdraw all combat forces. It must be a binding date that Bush can’t waive. As far as fighting al Qaeda goes, that fight is not in Iraq it is in Afghanistan. Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11.

And he could use some zit medicine.

Keep them distracted while the grown folks talk business!

This is absolutely the correct argument. Every Dem should be saying, “either have a draft and put in 200k more troops or pull out.” This is a winning argument and shows Bush to be the incompetent Commander and Chief he is.

Something lost to Ringo is that, with his line of reasoning, Americans are doing the dying so the Chinese and the Vietnamese can get a piece of Iraq’s vast oil reserves.

And if Ringo’s premise is true, it is another reason to oppose the occupation and to bring the troops back home.

it’s funny. Even his quote supported our argument, that this was indeed a ‘Resource Grab Occupation” of a sovereign nation. but I thought that baker and his firm were involved in the writing of the Hydrocarbon Law. heard anything about that.

I’ve been following the developments in Iraq with interest. Iraq’s constitution was re-written by Paul Bremer, in a move that was widely criticised (outside the US, of course). Several of the targeted portions of the constitution had to deal with (what else?) oil.

I knew foreign firms had been granted access to exploration, and exploitation of Iraq’s oil field, that the law had been “seen” (read approved) by the Bush administration before Iraq’s lawmakers had the chance to even touch the document, and was curious to find out if Ringo’s article mentioned that fact. Lo and behold, there it was, at the very end. I suspect Ringo didn’t get that far -short attention span, and all.

Granting contracts to non-American firms is a sham, much like the “Coalition of the Willing”. The bulk of the contracts will go to American and British companies, if Iraq can be “pacified”, no doubt about that. I’d he hard-pressed to believe the Bush administration -not known for its charitable nature- invaded Iraq, changed Iraq’s constitution to benefit the Chinese.

I have a post-graduate degree in Econ from UCLA [...] What’s your point?

Later — Ringo

Coward.

Comment by willyloman
———————————————————–

The Left has never been good at dealing with dissent.

Right, off to the kiddie table then.

Later

I have a post-graduate degree in Econ from UCLA. It’s very conservative department.

What’s your point? Other than the one on yer dunce cap, I mean.

You’re slogans hold no ground here, ringo. Go sit at the kiddy table

Great post. it was “seen” by them becasue it’s too hard to write with your eyes closed.

“Giving out a few crumbs to the Chinese and Indians is one thing,” said Kretzmann, who noted the draft law was seen by both the Bush administration and the International Monetary Fund before it was given to Iraq’s parliament. “But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the [Western oil companies] are biding their time.

Since when a country’s law is first seen by a foreign government before being sent to that country’s parliament?

Does that sound like a sovereign government to anyone here?

Plus the article repeats what was said to Ringo: The problem with Iraq’s oil law is that allows long-term contracts to go to foreign firms something that was not the case before the invasion.

Again, does that sound like a sovereign country to anyone here?

Yeah, credible reference there, Ringo. try Fox News next time

Comment by willyloman
—————————————————

What?….Do I have to quote Mother Jones or Noam Chomsky before you’ll believe it?

Fools.

Which means 1. They are argueing about who controls the contracts i.e. CEOs from Shell,BP,Mobil…ect (same thing I said)

and 2. they are arguing about the revenues and who will take the PORFITS out of the country.

Even your quote makes my point!

CNN, huh? Same guys who tried to do the hatchet job on Moore?

Yeah, credible reference there, Ringo. try Fox News next time

Comment by Ringo

Basic ecconomics doesn’t suggest that a country comes in BY FORCE and then dictates who will control another counties OIL FIELDS.

That IS MARXISM. simpleton. got anything better?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00241

No : http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq’s new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein’s government.
————————————————-

“…there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.”
———————————————————-

So oil comapniaes should remove the oil from the ground for free?

I don’t think you understand basic economics, which would make sense since most of the people who post here seem to have undergone a Marxist indoctrination rather than having been given a proper education.