PDA

View Full Version : Zeitgeist. The Movie.



OffspringHead
05-07-2008, 01:02 PM
Has anyone seen it? It's a fucking hell of a movie. Covers topics from Religion and Jesus all the way to the corruption of the Federal Reserve and 9/11.

Yes, it does include a 9/11 conspiracy theory but if you're open minded and have a chance, i say you give the movie a shot =D

(If you're gonna watch it make sure the time says 2:02:15 or else you'll only be watching a clip of the movie.)

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

RickyCrack
05-07-2008, 01:06 PM
I'll keep my mind open about zeitgeist when I stop respecting cold rational facts and common sense.

OffspringHead
05-07-2008, 01:11 PM
I'll keep my mind open about zeitgeist when I stop respecting cold rational facts and common sense.

Lmfao. I've ran into many people like you in my life. If you honestly think the Towers fell from a god damn plane, think again.

Imagine a car getting slammed into your house at full speed. Would it collapse in 45 minutes? I don't think so. Same concept but with a sky scraper and a Boeing 757.

nieh
05-07-2008, 01:21 PM
Same concept

No it isn't.

The shadow
05-07-2008, 02:24 PM
Lmfao. I've ran into many people like you in my life. If you honestly think the Towers fell from a god damn plane, think again.

Imagine a car getting slammed into your house at full speed. Would it collapse in 45 minutes? I don't think so. Same concept but with a sky scraper and a Boeing 757.

You're a clear example of why these theories exist in the first place. I'd guess you are not a civil or structural engineer and yet, you state that as if it was a self-evident, universal truth.

OffspringHead
05-07-2008, 07:15 PM
No it isn't.

How so? The Towers were built to withstand an attack of such proportions and MULTIPLE attacks of such.

The "Terrorists" are still alive, the building fell at free fall speed, in an old fashion example of a controlled demolition, and people felt explosives in the basement so strong they had to get constructive surgeries on their face cause they were bouncing off the walls.

If that's not suspicious, then I don't know what is.

That_Guy91
05-07-2008, 07:27 PM
The Towers were built to withstand an attack of such proportions and MULTIPLE attacks of such.

No, they weren't.

OffspringHead
05-07-2008, 07:59 PM
No, they weren't.
Do some research bro. Yes they were.

That_Guy91
05-07-2008, 09:06 PM
Do some research bro. Yes they were.

No, they weren't. They were built in a way that the temperature would make them collapse quickly.

EDIT: Unless I'm confusing this with some other tower.

p.s. Someone just used "bro" in a serious argument. End thread plz.

jacknife737
05-07-2008, 10:24 PM
The "Terrorists" are still alive, the building fell at free fall speed, in an old fashion example of a controlled demolition, and people felt explosives in the basement so strong they had to get constructive surgeries on their face cause they were bouncing off the walls.


Yes, because everything you've watched in Loose Change or Zeitgeist is an absolute fact.

Mota Boy
05-08-2008, 02:40 AM
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they're inherently unfalsifiable. Anything that doesn't vibe with a theorists story is easily explained away as something "they" want you to believe or just something the poor fool who can't see the "truth" wants to believe (or, worse, are a part of it, a la Popular Mechanics).

Also, you end up missing the forest for the trees. Conspiracy theorists will throw around the melting point of steel, or... uh, reconstructive surgery performed on people who were in the basement of the building(?) but they can't explain why on Earth the government would crash three airplanes while inexplicably making the fourth one disappear and replacing it with a missile which they then claimed was actually an airplane, then plant explosives to *really* bring down a target, housing some of the most powerful and best-connected individuals in the nation instead of just using the airplanes they went to the trouble of stealing and remotely-guiding into the towers (because, apparently, Americans wouldn't be outraged enough if terrorists "only" hijacked and crashed four airplanes and killed, say, two, two and a half thousand people [the fire would have climbed and burnt to death all those trapped above regardless of whether or not the towers collapsed]), THEN set it all up to frame a bunch of Saudi Arabians, who are our close allies, so that over a year later once everyone had begun to calm down, they could make a series of incredibly shoddy, circumspect or just transparently false claims to vaguely connect the people involved to Iraq, the invasion and subsequent occupation of which has demonstrated a cringe-worthy lack of foresight and organizational ability for people able to mastermind the murder of three thousand individuals in plain sight and manage to keep a secret from everyone except some French guy and a high-schooler on the internet.

Oh no, but puffs of air came out of a building when it collapsed on itself! And my explanations don't sound (to you) as convincing! Therefore you *must* be right. Forest for the trees, bro.

What I find really strange, however, is how over the years the conspiracy subculture, like the collapsing towers, has only falling deeper inward upon itself and billowed out from its original mission - it's no longer "just" 9/11, now it's the Federal Reserve and London and Madrid and... it's an alternate explanation for everything that's sucking some people in until they're trapped in their own version of reality, where the world is neat and explainable and controlled by a small group of people. It's comforting in a way - reality is big and messy and often hard to understand. Major fucking landmarks just don't disappear one morning along with everyone inside. It's weird and difficult to wrap your head around (in the immediate aftermath of the incident there was a collective shock, in the months afterward there were spontaneous bursts of fear as people assumed that this was the new way the world was going to work - a large-scale attack every month, or at Christmas, or on Ramadan or...), blaming it all on the careful orchestrations of a small group of people you can see and know folds all these events under a single, simpler narrative, gives us an enemy with whom we are familiar, makes everything smaller and easier to understand. And once you've committed yourself to that position, the more "facts" you accrue, the harder it is to break out from it. They all back each other up, and it's that much harder to shift your perspective on all of them. You become stuck in this explanation, and as it's all inherently unfalsifiable, it's very difficult to be shocked into getting out of it. Even al Qaeda, releasing an audiotape accusing Iran of spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories to undermine them, doesn't work at this point. Now al Qaeda's in on it too.

The truth is, in some ways, even scarier than the fiction - the world is messy and complicated and it's so damn big and interwoven at this point that nobody actually knows what's going on. Take the subprime mortgage crisis: an entire INDUSTRY, filled with the world's experts in finance and economics (though I think economics is a fundamentally flawed "science"), led itself into actions which have lost it vast amounts of wealth. Pretending that there are puppet-masters behind the scenes that secretly meant to destroy the Towers and the housing market is one way of making sense of it all... but it ain't the right one, just the easy one.

/The fun is when you get to have this conversation with a room full of French 9/11 deniers while drunk at four a.m.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 04:25 AM
No, they weren't. They were built in a way that the temperature would make them collapse quickly.

EDIT: Unless I'm confusing this with some other tower.

p.s. Someone just used "bro" in a serious argument. End thread plz.
You're definately confusing it with another tower... Cause I've definately would of heard that before and i never have. It was even in the news that the towers were built to withstand it.

And i used "bro" because i try not to get too fired up over these types of things. People have their opinions and I'm not gonna lose my cool and be a dick unless someones INCREDIBLY close-minded and shows major disrespect.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 05:17 AM
Also, you end up missing the forest for the trees. Conspiracy theorists will throw around the melting point of steel, or... uh, reconstructive surgery performed on people who were in the basement of the building(?) but they can't explain why on Earth the government would crash three airplanes while inexplicably making the fourth one disappear and replacing it with a missile which they then claimed was actually an airplane, then plant explosives to *really* bring down a target, housing some of the most powerful and best-connected individuals in the nation instead of just using the airplanes they went to the trouble of stealing and remotely-guiding into the towers (because, apparently, Americans wouldn't be outraged enough if terrorists "only" hijacked and crashed four airplanes and killed, say, two, two and a half thousand people [the fire would have climbed and burnt to death all those trapped above regardless of whether or not the towers collapsed]), THEN set it all up to frame a bunch of Saudi Arabians, who are our close allies, so that over a year later once everyone had begun to calm down, they could make a series of incredibly shoddy, circumspect or just transparently false claims to vaguely connect the people involved to Iraq, the invasion and subsequent occupation of which has demonstrated a cringe-worthy lack of foresight and organizational ability for people able to mastermind the murder of three thousand individuals in plain sight and manage to keep a secret from everyone except some French guy and a high-schooler on the internet.

Oh no, but puffs of air came out of a building when it collapsed on itself! And my explanations don't sound (to you) as convincing! Therefore you *must* be right. Forest for the trees, bro.
.

Ok. Every little thing in that paragraph I have an arguement with.

I believe that you are mistaking Zeitgeist for Loose Change 9/11 which was an incredibly bullshit movie on most aspects. They came up with completely ludacris theories which are what you included in that big post. Zeitgeist has a pretty fucking literal theory. I can tell just by that one paragraph, you've never even seen this movie and if you did see the movie, you watch it with a closed mind and said to yourself "this could never be true". What makes you think for one second everything the government tells us is true.

You say "Why would the government do this?" It's simply really. For the international bankers war means major profit. A perfect example would be WWII because that is a huge reason to why we got out of the great depression. The need for natural resources such as OIL is a big deal in this country. If you watched the moive, then you would of found this out.

WWI- The sinking of the Lucitania is what got America directly involved in the war. Did you know that the GERMAN GOVERNMENT posted warnings in the New York Times to the Americans that if you board the Lucitania, you're doing so at your own risk. Did we stop the Lucitania from going into German infested waters? No.

WWII- Pearl Harbor got us directly involved in the war. Every fucking idiot knows that we knew the Japs were coming to get us. We just did nothing to avoid it.

Vietnam- The Gulf of Tonkin Incident which was where the Vietnamesse deliberatly sank an American warship. It was later said that this NEVER HAPPENED and was a "mistake". Meanwhile thousands of Americans were killed and Millions of Vietnamesse. Thats a fucking "mistake" you don't want to run by your nose.

The War in Iraq- 9/11 was used to strike fear into the American economy to go into the middle east to make large amounts of profit and oil.

It's quite simple. Take the time to think about these things or actually give the movie a chance. And those "OH EM GEE PUFFS OF SMOKE" are a big deal. Remember the towers fell at freefall speed and how can it fall that quickly without explosives?

Jesus
05-08-2008, 06:21 AM
Seems like your average Ron Paul supporters movie, especially if they were able to include the gold standard in there somewhere!



The War in Iraq- 9/11 was used to strike fear into the American economy to go into the middle east to make large amounts of profit and oil.

Shame about the detour they had to do in Afghanistan then. And ofcourse the lack of Iraqi hijackers.

Mota Boy
05-08-2008, 07:25 AM
Ok. Every little thing in that paragraph I have an arguement with.*sigh* Of course you do.

I've seen bits of Zeitgeist and talked with people who've seen and believed it, but I was rather obviously responding to your 9/11 comments. I moved on to "Zeitgeist" in the next paragraph, where I talked about it more broadly, as I haven't seen it (nor will I for at least a month - my internet connection is too slow for YouTube - I had to wait an hour just to see half of the "Christianity" part). Again, however, you're using a very small, simple group - "international bankers" and a very simple motive "profit" to explain everything. It's not that easy, not by a long shot.


You say "Why would the government do this?" It's simply really. For the international bankers war means major profit....which is why the bankers chose to start the war by attacking their own base of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Trade_Center_tenants) and sending the US economy into a recession? You're being uncreative. If you were an evil, secretive international banking cabal, there are many ways you could go about your evil, secretive mission without, you know, offing your colleagues. "OK, everyone, draw straws... Oooooh, sorry Hank, looks like you'll have to take one for the team."


The War in Iraq- 9/11 was used to strike fear into the American economy to go into the middle east to make large amounts of profit and oil.

It's quite simple. Take the time to think about these things or actually give the movie a chance. And those "OH EM GEE PUFFS OF SMOKE" are a big deal. Remember the towers fell at freefall speed and how can it fall that quickly without explosives?Quickly, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was the claim that a North Vietnamese ship fired torpedoes at an American ship, not that it sank one. Secondly... again, you're placing far too much emphasis on the specific incidents. We were already moving towards War in both WWI and WWII and we already had men on the ground in Vietnam. Blaming the spark is, again, to focus on a tree at the expense of the forest. Check out "Fog of War" for an interesting perspective on Vietnam (though it stars Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of State and then head of the World Bank, so he's totally in on the conspiracy, so you may not be entirely receptive).

I like the fact that in the immediate aftermath of the direct attack against global banking interests that was 9/11, the US economy went into a recession, which tends to hurt banking interests. Since then, the dollar has been in a downward spiral and the price of oil has skyrocketed, benefiting Russia, Iran and Venezuela while we've barely managed to squeeze a trickle out of Iraq, and the US housing bubble has potentially erased a trillion dollars... these crafty bankers must have a real ace up their sleeve to be pretending to be such impotent fuck-ups.

Vera
05-08-2008, 08:14 AM
What a p.o.s movie. I watched the Christianity parts and turned it off. When everything about the first 20 mins if plain damn fiction, I am not going to see what they come up with next.

bighead384
05-08-2008, 08:40 AM
Quickly, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was the claim that a North Vietnamese ship fired torpedoes at an American ship, not that it sank one. Secondly... again, you're placing far too much emphasis on the specific incidents. We were already moving towards War in both WWI and WWII and we already had men on the ground in Vietnam.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/browse_thread/thread/f0693954edaa1ec5

According to this short article, there wasn't even ANY attack that day, whether it involves sinking or simply firing at American ships. My class actually went over that same article in college. Also, you make it seem silly to put much emphasis on this event, when in reality, it was a big part of the justification for increased military action.

IamSam
05-08-2008, 08:44 AM
WWI- The sinking of the Lucitania is what got America directly involved in the war. Did you know that the GERMAN GOVERNMENT posted warnings in the New York Times to the Americans that if you board the Lucitania, you're doing so at your own risk. Did we stop the Lucitania from going into German infested waters? No.

WWII- Pearl Harbor got us directly involved in the war. Every fucking idiot knows that we knew the Japs were coming to get us. We just did nothing to avoid it.

Vietnam- The Gulf of Tonkin Incident which was where the Vietnamesse deliberatly sank an American warship. It was later said that this NEVER HAPPENED and was a "mistake". Meanwhile thousands of Americans were killed and Millions of Vietnamesse. Thats a fucking "mistake" you don't want to run by your nose.

The War in Iraq- 9/11 was used to strike fear into the American economy to go into the middle east to make large amounts of profit and oil.

It's quite simple. Take the time to think about these things or actually give the movie a chance. And those "OH EM GEE PUFFS OF SMOKE" are a big deal. Remember the towers fell at freefall speed and how can it fall that quickly without explosives?

1. The Lusitania (if you're going to argue something, spell it right) was a British flagged ship. It was also common practice to ship weapons and military supplies on passenger liners. The US was getting money for said weapons and supplies, so why would they stop the ship?

2. I'm pretty sure that if "every fucking idiot" knew the Japanese were coming to Pearl Harbor our navy wouldn't have been sitting still. My "fucking idiot" of a great uncle wouldn't have been sitting in battleship row half asleep, he would have been in battle formation sailing away from Pearl.

3. Vietnam: The Maddox was having problems with radar and sonar on the 4th. In WWII an American battleship almost sunk an American destroyer at Lete Gulf because of faulty radar. Shit happens.

4. 9/11/Iraq: I'm not going to touch on the 9/11 issue as it is beneath me. I think that you have to be scum to pass over the truth and fabricate (or believe) a theory. However Iraq, I will take. We did not invade Iraq for oil. If we invaded Iraq for oil wouldn't you expect gas prices in the US to be lower because of a control on some of the market? As for the weapons of mass destruction issue, they did have them at one point in time. We have the receipt. The only thing I agree with about the Iraq war is that Saddam was a bad man and bad for that country. We could have done things a lot different, that is for sure.

IamSam
05-08-2008, 08:46 AM
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/browse_thread/thread/f0693954edaa1ec5

According to this short article, there wasn't even ANY attack that day, whether it involves sinking or simply firing at American ships. My class actually went over that same article in college. Also, you make it seem silly to put much emphasis on this event, when in reality, it was a big part of the justification for increased military action.

That's essentially what he was saying. He just didn't describe the event. In reality it played a very little part in America going to Vietnam. Why? Because we were going to on any little whim anyway.

bighead384
05-08-2008, 08:54 AM
That's essentially what he was saying. He just didn't describe the event. In reality it played a very little part in America going to Vietnam. Why? Because we were going to on any little whim anyway.

Oh ok, I see what you're saying...we were itching for it anyway, so we just made up something completely false to have an excuse...it's all good.

wheelchairman
05-08-2008, 09:19 AM
Not to mention that the Vietnam would have some effect on US international relations. International relations being key when it comes to these kinds of war. Already the eastern block was the block that was moving forward during the 60's, Africa, Asia, South America. "Capitalism" was pretty much facing a strategic retreat in all areas. (Actually I think Laos is still a socialist nation, even if only 26% of their roads are paved.)

As far as I remember I believe that the North Vietnamese were aligned with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure when the Sino-Soviet split happened but if it hadn't had happened by the beginning of the Vietnamese war it was building up. Soviet shipments were being searched and ransacked as they travelled through China (according to Khruschev's autobiography).

You see what you have there....? An invested soviet interest on the pacific (more or less.) A geo-political interest that is not only contradictory to yours (if you were the US president) but directly threatens yours. As a nation.

It doesn't take an international banker to start proxy wars.

Mota Boy
05-08-2008, 09:51 AM
As far as I remember I believe that the North Vietnamese were aligned with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure when the Sino-Soviet split happened but if it hadn't had happened by the beginning of the Vietnamese war it was building up. Soviet shipments were being searched and ransacked as they travelled through China (according to Khruschev's autobiography).

You see what you have there....? An invested soviet interest on the pacific (more or less.) A geo-political interest that is not only contradictory to yours (if you were the US president) but directly threatens yours. As a nation.

It doesn't take an international banker to start proxy wars.Oh yeah, the Sino-Soviet split was what helped the US open China. When we met the Chinese, we were a bit surprised to find them encouraging us to keep the war going.

And bighead384, no... I meant that they were inching to war and looking for an excuse, and they jumped at the first, flimsiest possible, report by a bunch of on-edge and fallible seamen (huh huh huh). I don't think that it was a premeditated action, I just think that the environment was ripe for overeagerness and self-deception.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 10:40 AM
1. The Lusitania (if you're going to argue something, spell it right) was a British flagged ship. It was also common practice to ship weapons and military supplies on passenger liners. The US was getting money for said weapons and supplies, so why would they stop the ship?

2. I'm pretty sure that if "every fucking idiot" knew the Japanese were coming to Pearl Harbor our navy wouldn't have been sitting still. My "fucking idiot" of a great uncle wouldn't have been sitting in battleship row half asleep, he would have been in battle formation sailing away from Pearl.

3. Vietnam: The Maddox was having problems with radar and sonar on the 4th. In WWII an American battleship almost sunk an American destroyer at Lete Gulf because of faulty radar. Shit happens.

4. 9/11/Iraq: I'm not going to touch on the 9/11 issue as it is beneath me. I think that you have to be scum to pass over the truth and fabricate (or believe) a theory. However Iraq, I will take. We did not invade Iraq for oil. If we invaded Iraq for oil wouldn't you expect gas prices in the US to be lower because of a control on some of the market? As for the weapons of mass destruction issue, they did have them at one point in time. We have the receipt. The only thing I agree with about the Iraq war is that Saddam was a bad man and bad for that country. We could have done things a lot different, that is for sure.

I know that the Lusitania was a British ship but what kind of fucking government ignores warnings and just lets it set sail. If the British want to take that risk then go the fuck ahead but there were over 100 american citizens on board that ship. They did a great job in helping our citizens.

And when i said "every fucking idiot" i meant nowadays. You can't try and tell me that there were numerous countries that warned us that the Japanesse fleet was on the move towards Pearl Harbor. We did an amazing job to stop that didn't we.

That "shit happens" statement actually is a significant statement considering it was a pretty large reason to why we entered in the war. If we it were such a mistake, we shouldn't of stayed there.

The bottom line is that I'm not saying the government is behind 9/11 or out to revoke our rights. I'm just saying that it's a fucking possiblity if you look at whats fucking presented to you.

Every fucking one of you admitted to not watching the movie. Some of you are extremely intelligent but why not try and give the fucking movie a chance? Especially if you watch the first part about religion and turn it off. If you people are so close minded and can't accept the fact that everything you've always been told can be a lie, then you're a pretty weak person.

I'll admit one thing, I KNOW Zeitgeist is left wing propaganda but some if it IS fact. Like how our money system is completely fucking worthless and has no value and how the Federal Reserve was not written by Congress but by international bankers that supported Woodrow Wilson in his campaign and when the Senate goes on leave for the Holidays, Wilson pushed the Federal Reserve Act through the govt' and made it law.

You work for taxes and loans that you don't even need to pay and goes into the hands of International Bankers. Have a little bit of an open mind. (That only goes to the un-intelligent people who replied to my posts)

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 10:47 AM
It doesn't take an international banker to start proxy wars.

You're absolutely right. It doesn't. But think of it in today standards. We could go to war with ANY country right now for any fucking reason. You're not looking it in a way that I'm presenting it to you.

The idea of Zeitgeist is that the government (who supports international bankers for their campaigns and business) does these things to strike fear and nationalism into a country. You can't fight a war without an enemy. Like after the Lusitania was sunk, over 1,000,000 signed up for the army. If i'm not mistaken, we wanted NOTHING to do with the war before that and then suddenly it was all we wanted to do.

You all think that everything the government tells us is the truth. If that were true, they would release a few things such as the videos that were taken by the FBI that showed what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The government is too shady. They work behind curtains and keep everything a secret but many many ignorant Americans accept everything that they're told.

jacknife737
05-08-2008, 10:54 AM
4. 9/11/Iraq: I'm not going to touch on the 9/11 issue as it is beneath me. I think that you have to be scum to pass over the truth and fabricate (or believe) a theory. However Iraq, I will take. We did not invade Iraq for oil. If we invaded Iraq for oil wouldn't you expect gas prices in the US to be lower because of a control on some of the market? As for the weapons of mass destruction issue, they did have them at one point in time. We have the receipt. The only thing I agree with about the Iraq war is that Saddam was a bad man and bad for that country. We could have done things a lot different, that is for sure.

Quoted for truth. I despise Bush, and the War as much as the next guy, it's pretty fucking obvious that when one takes the time to look at facts, Iraq was clearly not about oil. Iíd actually argue that one could make a case that the first Gulf war was more about oil production than the second.

IamSam
05-08-2008, 11:28 AM
I know that the Lusitania was a British ship but what kind of fucking government ignores warnings and just lets it set sail. If the British want to take that risk then go the fuck ahead but there were over 100 american citizens on board that ship. They did a great job in helping our citizens.

You missed my point, and in doing so proved you ignore facts and base your warped sense of what is right in a non-reality based dimension.


And when i said "every fucking idiot" i meant nowadays. You can't try and tell me that there were numerous countries that warned us that the Japanesse fleet was on the move towards Pearl Harbor. We did an amazing job to stop that didn't we.

Assume much? Please find me facts and don't make unfounded accusations or assumptions.

The fact is this: Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Spy satellites did not exist, neither did the underwater sonar stations that we have now. Have you looked at a political map of the Pacific Ocean? What countries would have warned us of the Japanese fleet sailing when there were no countries (or nations) around?


That "shit happens" statement actually is a significant statement considering it was a pretty large reason to why we entered in the war. If we it were such a mistake, we shouldn't of stayed there.

American foreign relations were in flux during the 1960s. People began questioning the Truman doctrine and reasons for the US to defend places were we technically didn't have a vested interest. However, old school, hard line politicians caused the debacle. Johnson thought it was a just cause. Nixon thought he could win by bending (and breaking) the rules. Both were mislead by advisors, mainly Johnson. Johnson was told that he had full support from America and South Vietnam. His advisors were mistaken.

Hindsight is always 20/20.


The bottom line is that I'm not saying the government is behind 9/11 or out to revoke our rights. I'm just saying that it's a fucking possiblity if you look at whats fucking presented to you.

It would take a lot of gullibility on my part to even start to think the government was behind killing 3,000 of our citizens in order to launch a war that would run up the national debt, kill many soldiers, and destroy a country so we could rebuild it. Where is the logic behind that one?


Every fucking one of you admitted to not watching the movie. Some of you are extremely intelligent but why not try and give the fucking movie a chance? Especially if you watch the first part about religion and turn it off. If you people are so close minded and can't accept the fact that everything you've always been told can be a lie, then you're a pretty weak person.

You're living in a dream, Neo.

Are the words 'logic' and 'common sense' anywhere in your vocabulary?

Jesus
05-08-2008, 12:10 PM
However Iraq, I will take. We did not invade Iraq for oil.
Sure you did, otherwise you wouldn't be there. It's the fundamental issue. There were probably people in the administration who had other reasons, whether that be revenge or if they actually believed saddam had wmds (which I seriously doubt of top ranking officials, given that democracies rarely attack countries that can defend themselves). All those other reasons would be pointless if it wasn't for the oil there.


If we invaded Iraq for oil wouldn't you expect gas prices in the US to be lower because of a control on some of the market?
No. Because then a couple of conditions would have to be fullfilled. 1) The oil exploitation would have to be in the interest of the US citizens (a rather naive concept of national interest). 2) The price of exported oil should have stopped being set at worldwide markets. 3) The US would have to be in stable control of Iraqi oil fields (which it isn't).
So none of those conditions are fullfilled.

Looking at how hard (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html)the Bush administration has tried to push through the iraqi oil law (http://web.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__20 07_03_09_h17m2s47.pdf), it's pretty hard to ignore oil. Although the oil law will probably never get passed because of internal division (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13298/iraqi_oil_law_dispute.html). It seems to me to be once again a dumb move by the Bush administration, although some say that Oil companies are going to invest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/iraq.oil) in Iraq once it's passed. I seriously doubt that (here i think a bunch of the left and the pro war folks are wrong). Looking already at the problems in Nigeria, which is only a small civil unrest compared to Iraq. No oil company is going to be willing to invest large amounts of money when there isn't a stable government (taking over exitsing infrastructure sure, but investing billions no way). No stable government will exist aslong as the occupation continues, while the oil law defenitely won't pass in it's current form when the occupation is over.

It probably seems rational to most of the Bush administration, just like it seemed rational to them that defeating the Iraqi army would be enough. Which obviously it wasn't. Just like passing the oil law won't be enough to let corporations control most of Iraq's oil fields.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Assume much? Please find me facts and don't make unfounded accusations or assumptions.

The fact is this: Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Spy satellites did not exist, neither did the underwater sonar stations that we have now. Have you looked at a political map of the Pacific Ocean? What countries would have warned us of the Japanese fleet sailing when there were no countries (or nations) around?

WARNINGS

* 27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
* 31 March 1941 - A Navy report by Bellinger and Martin predicted that if Japan made war on the US, they would strike Pearl Harbor without warning at dawn with aircraft from a maximum of 6 carriers. For years Navy planners had assumed that Japan, on the outbreak of war, would strike the American fleet wherever it was - it was the greatest danger from Japan. The fleet was the only threat to Japan's plans. The fleet at Pearl Harbor was the only High Value Target. Logically, Japan couldn't engage in any major operation with the American fleet on its flank. Initial seriously crippling attacks on the US fleet in Hawaii would be the only chance the Japanese military would have for eventual victory. The strategic options for the Japanese were not unlimited.
* 10 July - US Military Attache Smith-Hutton at Tokyo reported Japanese Navy secretly practicing aircraft torpedo attacks against capital ships in Ariake Bay. The bay closely resembles Pearl Harbor.
* July - The US Military Attache in Mexico forwarded a report that the Japanese were constructing special small submarines for attacking the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, and that a training program then under way included towing them from Japan to positions off the Hawaiian Islands, where they practiced surfacing and submerging.
* 10 August 1941, the top British agent, code named "Tricycle", Dusko Popov, told the FBI of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that it would be soon. The FBI told him that his information was "too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap." He also reported that a senior Japanese naval person had gone to Taranto to collect all secret data on the attack there and that it was of utmost importance to them. The info was given to Naval IQ.
* Early in the Fall, Kilsoo Haan, an agent for the Sino-Korean People's League, told Eric Severeid of CBS that the Korean underground in Korea and Japan had positive proof that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before Christmas. Among other things, one Korean had actually seen the plans. In late October, Haan finally convinced US Senator Guy Gillette that the Japanese were planning to attack. Gillette alerted the State Department, Army and Navy Intelligence and FDR personally.
* 24 September 1941, the "bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it prepared by Safford and others from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI. It was lack of information like this that lead to the exoneration of the Hawaii commanders and the blaming of Washington for unpreparedness for the attack by the Army Board and Navy Court. At no time did the Japanese ever ask for a similar bomb plot for any other American military installation. Why the Roosevelt administration allowed flagrant Japanese spying on PH has never been explained, but they blocked 2 Congressional investigations in the fall of 1941 to allow it to continue. The bomb plots were addressed to "Chief of 3rd Bureau, Naval General Staff", marked Secret Intelligence message, and given special serial numbers, so their significance couldn't be missed. There were about 95 ships in port. The text was:

"Strictly secret.

"Henceforth, we would like to have you make reports concerning vessels
along the following lines insofar as possible:

"1. The waters (of Pearl Harbor) are to be divided roughly into five
subareas (We have no objections to your abbreviating as much as you
like.)

"Area A. Waters between Ford Island and the Arsenal.
"Area B. Waters adjacent to the Island south and west of Ford Island.
(This area is on the opposite side of the Island from Area A.)
"Area C. East Loch.
"Area D. Middle Loch.
"Area E. West Loch and the communication water routes.

"2. With regard to warships and aircraft carriers, we would like to have
you report on those at anchor (these are not so important) tied up at
wharves, buoys and in docks. (Designate types and classes briefly. If
possible we would like to have you make mention of the fact when
there are two or more vessels along side the same wharf.)"

* Simple traffic analysis of the accelerated frequency of messages from various Japanese consuls gave a another identification of war preparations, from Aug-Dec there were 6 messages from Seattle, 18 from Panama, 55 from Manila and 68 from Hawaii.

(Continued in next post)

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 01:23 PM
Assume much? Please find me facts and don't make unfounded accusations or assumptions.

The fact is this: Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Spy satellites did not exist, neither did the underwater sonar stations that we have now. Have you looked at a political map of the Pacific Ocean? What countries would have warned us of the Japanese fleet sailing when there were no countries (or nations) around?

* Oct. - Soviet top spy Richard Sorge, the greatest spy in history, informed the Kremlin that Pearl Harbor would be attacked within 60 days. Moscow informed him that this was passed to the US. Interestingly, all references to Pearl Harbor in the War Department's copy of Sorge's 32,000 word confession to the Japanese were deleted. NY Daily News, 17 May 1951.
* 16 Oct. - FDR grossly humiliated Japan's Ambassador and refused to meet with Premier Konoye to engineer the war party, lead by General Tojo, into power in Japan.
* 1 Nov. - JN-25 Order to continue drills against anchored capital ships to prepare to "ambush and completely destroy the US enemy." The message included references to armor-piercing bombs and 'near surface torpedoes.'
* 13 Nov. - The German Ambassador to US Dr. Thomsen told US IQ that Pearl Harbor would be attacked.
* 14 Nov. - Japanese Merchant Marine was alerted that wartime recognition signals would be in effect Dec 1.
* 23 Nov. - JN25 order - "The first air attack has been set for 0330 hours on X-day." (Tokyo time or 8 A.M. Honolulu time)
* 25 Nov. - British decrypted the Winds setup message sent Nov. 19. The US decoded it Nov. 28. It was a J-19 Code message that there would be an attack and that the signal would come over Radio Tokyo as a weather report - rain meaning war, east (Higashi) meaning US.
* 25 Nov. - Yamamoto radioed this order in JN-25: " (a) The task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters and upon the very opening of hostilities, shall attack the main force of the United States Fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow. The raid is planned for dawn on X-day -- exact date to be given by later order. (b) Should the negotiations with the US prove successful, the task force shall hold itself in readiness forthwith to return and reassemble. (c) The task force will move out of Hitokappu Wan on the morning of 26 November and advance to the standing-by position on the afternoon of 4 December and speedily complete refueling." ( Order to sail - scan from the PHA Congressional Hearings Report, vol 1 p 180, transcript p 437-8) This was decoded by the British on November 25 and the Dutch on November 27. When it was decoded by the US is a national secret, however, on November 26 Naval Intelligence reported the concentration of units of the Japanese fleet at an unknown port ready for offensive action.
* 26 Nov. 3 A.M. - Churchill sent an urgent secret message to FDR, probably containing above message. This message caused the greatest agitation in DC. Stark testified under oath that "On November 26 there was received specific evidence of the Japanese intention to wage offensive war against Great Britain and the United States." C.I.A. Director William Casey, who was in the OSS in 1941, in his book The Secret War Against Hitler, p 7, wrote "The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii." Washington, in an order of Nov 26 as a result of the "first shot" meeting the day before, ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as practicable." This order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. In response to Churchill's message, FDR secretly cabled him that afternoon - "Negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks." Note that the only way FDR could have linked negotiations with service action, let alone have known the timing of the action, was if he had the message to sail. In other words, the only service action contingent on negotiations was Pearl Harbor..
* 4 Dec. - The Dutch invoked the ADB joint defense agreement when the Japanese crossed the magic line of 100 East and 10 North. The U.S. was at war with Japan 3 days before they were at war with us.
* 4 Dec - US General Thorpe at Java sent four messages warning of the PH attack. DC ordered him to stop sending warnings.
* 5 Dec. - All Japanese international shipping had returned to home port.
* 5 Dec. - At a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Knox said, "Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?" "Yes, I know" said FDR. " I think we ought to tell everybody just how ticklish the situation is. We have information as Knox just mentioned...Well, you tell them what it is, Frank." Knox became very excited and said, "Well, we have very secret information that the Japanese fleet is out at sea. Our information is..." and then a scowling FDR cut him off. (Infamy, Toland, 1982, ch 14 sec 5)
* 5 Dec. - Washington Star reporter Constantine Brown quotes a friend in his book The Coming of the Whirlwind p 291, "This is it! The Japs are ready to attack. We've broken their code, and we've read their ORDERS."
* 6 December - This 18 November J19 message was translated by the Army:
"1. The warships at anchor in the Harbor on the 15th were as I told you in my No.219 on that day. Area A -- A battleship of the Oklahoma class entered and one tanker left port. Area C -- 3 warships of the heavy cruiser class were at anchor.
2. On the 17th the Saratoga was not in harbor. The carrier Enterprise, or some other vessel was in Area C. Two heavy cruisers of the Chicago class, one of the Pensacola class were tied up at docks 'KS'. 4 merchant vessels were at anchor in area D.
3. At 10:00 A.M. on the morning of the 17th, 8 destroyers were observed entering the Harbor..." Of course this information was not passed to HI.
* 6 Dec. - A Dec 2 request from Tokyo to HI for information about the absence of barrage balloons, anti-torpedo nets and air recon was translated by the Army.
* 6 Dec. - at 9:30 P.M FDR read the first 13 parts of the decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said "This means war." What kind of President would do nothing? When he returned to his 34 dinner guests he said, "The war starts tomorrow."
* 6 Dec. - the war cabinet: FDR, top advisor Hopkins, Stimson, Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty "deliberately sat through the night of 6 December 1941 waiting for the Japs to strike." (Infamy ch 16 sec 2)
* 7 December - A message from the Japanese Consul in Budapest to Tokyo:
"On the 6th, the American Minister presented to the Government of this country a British Government communique to the effect that a state of war would break out on the 7th." The communique was the Dec 5th War Alert from the British Admiralty. It has disappeared. This triple priority alert was delivered to FDR personally Dec 5. The Mid-East British Air Marshall told Col. Bonner Fellers on Saturday that he had received a secret signal that America was coming into the war in 24 hours. Churchill summarized the message in GRAND ALLIANCE page 601 as listing the two fleets attacking British targets and "Other Japanese fleets...also at sea on other tasks." There only were three other fleets- for Guam, the Philippines and HI. 2 paragraphs of the alert, British targets only, are printed in At Dawn We Slept, Prange, p 464. There is no innocent purpose for our government to hide this document.
* 7 December 1941 very early Washington time, there were two Marines, an emergency special detail, stationed outside the Japanese Naval Attache's door. 9:30 AM Aides begged Stark to send a warning to Hawaii. He did not. 10 AM FDR read the 14th part of the Declaration of War, 11 A.M. FDR read the accompanying 15th part setting the time for the declaration of war to be delivered to the State Department at 1 PM, about dawn Pearl Harbor time, and did nothing. Navy Secretary Knox was given the 15th part at 11:15 A.M. with this note from the Office of Naval IQ: "This means a sunrise attack on Pearl Harbor today." Naval IQ also transmitted this prediction to Hull and about 8 others, including the White House (PHH 36:532). At 10:30 AM Bratton informed Marshall that he had a most important message (the 15th part) and would bring it to Marshall's quarters but Marshall said he would take it at his office. At 11:25 Marshall reached his office according to Bratton. Marshall testified that he had been riding horses that morning but he was contradicted by Harrison, McCollum, and Deane. Marshall who had read the first 13 parts by 10 PM the prior night, later perjured himself by denying that he had even received them. Marshall, in the face of his aides' urgent supplications that he warn Hawaii, made strange delays including reading and re-reading all of the 10 minute long 14 Part Message (and some parts several times) which took an hour and refused to use the scrambler phone on his desk, refused to send a warning by the fast, more secure Navy system but sent Bratton three times to inquire how long it would take to send his watered down warning - when informed it would take 30 or 40 minutes by Army radio, he was satisfied (that meant he had delayed enough so the warning wouldn't reach Pearl Harbor until after the 1 PM Washington time deadline). The warning was in fact sent commercial without priority identification and arrived 6 hours late. This message reached all other addressees, like the Philippines and Canal Zone, in a timely manner.


How much more proof would you like? I had to cut about 3/4 of other warnings because it was too big to post

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 01:28 PM
You missed my point, and in doing so proved you ignore facts and base your warped sense of what is right in a non-reality based dimension.



# The Cunarder Lusitania was a British merchant ship flying under the charter of the British Admiralty and, thus, flew the flag of Great Britain.

# On May 1, 1915, the day the Lusitania set sail from New York, the German Embassy in the United States published a warning in the newspapers of major cities warning Americans that a war zone in the seas surrounding Great Britain had been established by the Imperial German Government and that passengers sailing on ships flying the British flag did so at there own risk.

# Four months earlier, Germany had declared the North Atlantic a war zone and announced it's intention to use submarines to break through the British blockade of food to the mainland.

# The Lusitania sailed with a passenger list totaling 1,918 names of which 171 were Americans.

# Four months earlier, Germany had declared the North Atlantic a war zone and instituted a blockade of British ships believed to be shipping arms to the mainland.

# The sinking of the Lusitania was the third instance involving the sinking of a ship by German submarines that resulted in the death of American civilians. The first was the sinking of the British ship Falaba in March, in which an American citizen named Leon C. Thrasher was one of 111 deaths reported. On May 1, the day the Lusitania set sail, the American oil transport Gulflight was sunk on its way to France. Three members of the crew were killed including the Captain who died of heart failure sixteen hours after the sinking. The two others drowned.




It would take a lot of gullibility on my part to even start to think the government was behind killing 3,000 of our citizens in order to launch a war that would run up the national debt, kill many soldiers, and destroy a country so we could rebuild it. Where is the logic behind that one?


Watch the movie and get an idea. Idk how many times i have to tell you that one. If you have such strong opinions that oppose mine then just watch it.





Are the words 'logic' and 'common sense' anywhere in your vocabulary?

Logic and common sense is ignorance. There's always a lot more than what is thrown at you.

dip3
05-08-2008, 05:09 PM
I hope the OP realizes that Zeitgeist The Movie was not made to present facts and truths but to open people's minds to a different way of thinking. The author himself has stated this. I mean, please, go to the website and look at the sources the author used for the 9/11 part. The majority of them are conspiracy books. And the part on Christianity is just complete rubbish.

I suggest you do at least a little bit research next time or you'll come off looking like a complete fool and invalidating any original thoughts you might have had.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 06:02 PM
I hope the OP realizes that Zeitgeist The Movie was not made to present facts and truths but to open people's minds to a different way of thinking. The author himself has stated this. I mean, please, go to the website and look at the sources the author used for the 9/11 part. The majority of them are conspiracy books. And the part on Christianity is just complete rubbish.

I suggest you do at least a little bit research next time or you'll come off looking like a complete fool and invalidating any original thoughts you might have had.
Jesus Christ how many times do i need to say I don't believe in everything they say. Just aspects of it. And the part about religion is pretty logical. They use the fucking Zodiac as a reference. You can't tell me Jesus' life isn't astrological. If you have faith, so be it but the facts are right there.

Mota Boy
05-08-2008, 06:23 PM
Sure you did, otherwise you wouldn't be there. It's the fundamental issue. There were probably people in the administration who had other reasons, whether that be revenge or if they actually believed saddam had wmds (which I seriously doubt of top ranking officials, given that democracies rarely attack countries that can defend themselves). All those other reasons would be pointless if it wasn't for the oil there.
I'll quickly argue a couple points.

I think oil is the reason that entire region is important. It's not necessarily that the US went in because of oil, but that because of oil, the entire Middle East is a very important strategic area, which invites attention by global powers. I certainly believe that oil was part of the rationale to invade, but was not the primary motivation. I believe the primary motivation was the rather warped version of reality espoused by the neoconservative movement - that democracy and capitalism are such wonderful things that the mere introduction of them will spur a runaway development of economic growth. I think the idea was that we'd show up, "liberate" Iraq, causing the people to love us, then give them the marvelous, magical gift of democracy that would result in them creating a staunch, American ally in the Mid-East as a bulwark against radical Islam (a la Germany and Japan during the Cold War). It certainly didn't hurt that we were looking to move away from a reliance on Saudi Arabian oil. What I mean is... I think that the idea that the US was making a blatant power-grab for black gold has some grains of truth, but is greatly oversimplifying the matter. Plus, our initial plan was to gush out oil so that the reconstruction of the country would "pay for itself" and we wouldn't, you know, be throwing money into the endless pit that Iraq has become.

And, personally, while the idea of "letting corporations control Iraq's oil" sounds disturbingly like neocolonialism... allowing governments to control a nations oil industry also wrecks all sorts of havoc. Look at Mexico, whose national oil industry is utterly collapsing and is in actual need of foreign investment in order to revitalize it, but would rather (or, rather, leftists [dunno a better word] in the congress would rather) let the oil fields collapse than open 'em up to US companies.

IamSam
05-08-2008, 07:35 PM
First, thank you with providing proof of your accusations. It warms my heart when people provide fact for an argument.

Secondly, your point on the Lusitania is still completly wrong. The government isn't responsible for restricting the movement of citizens wishing to move abroad. They were given their warning and that was enough.


But this next statement made me balk:





Logic and common sense is ignorance. There's always a lot more than what is thrown at you.

Really? Ignorance? Common sense is telling you the coffee that just came out of the coffee pot is probably hot so you shouldn't drink it.

jacknife737
05-08-2008, 10:52 PM
Sure you did, otherwise you wouldn't be there. It's the fundamental issue. There were probably people in the administration who had other reasons, whether that be revenge or if they actually believed saddam had wmds (which I seriously doubt of top ranking officials, given that democracies rarely attack countries that can defend themselves). All those other reasons would be pointless if it wasn't for the oil there.

A couple of things, although I don’t really want to get into this too in-depth, because frankly, I don’t care all that much but some food for thought. 1) Iraq prior to the start of war only produced around 1/40 of the world’s daily oil production (about 2 million barrels); that’s not that much. Furthermore Iraq was nowhere near the top regarding oil production Top five oil producers are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US, Iran, China. 2) Iraq was willing to sell its oil, and the US was more than willing to buy 4) It was thus cheaper to simply purchase the oil, then to spend billions on an invasion and occupation. 6) There is the claim that “they thought that Iraqi oil could pay for the war” YES!! Its true, however all/ most of the profits have gone to the Iraqi people 7) It was only after the invasion, and it was discovered that there were no WMD’s did people begin looking for alternative theories

However, i'm not going to argue that oil did not play any role in the rational for invasion, or other geopolitical interests, however, OIL was not the primary reason for invasion.

Jesus
05-09-2008, 03:12 AM
I'll quickly argue a couple points.

I think oil is the reason that entire region is important. It's not necessarily that the US went in because of oil, but that because of oil, the entire Middle East is a very important strategic area, which invites attention by global powers. I certainly believe that oil was part of the rationale to invade, but was not the primary motivation. I believe the primary motivation was the rather warped version of reality espoused by the neoconservative movement - that democracy and capitalism are such wonderful things that the mere introduction of them will spur a runaway development of economic growth. I think the idea was that we'd show up, "liberate" Iraq, causing the people to love us, then give them the marvelous, magical gift of democracy that would result in them creating a staunch, American ally in the Mid-East as a bulwark against radical Islam (a la Germany and Japan during the Cold War). It certainly didn't hurt that we were looking to move away from a reliance on Saudi Arabian oil. What I mean is... I think that the idea that the US was making a blatant power-grab for black gold has some grains of truth, but is greatly oversimplifying the matter. Plus, our initial plan was to gush out oil so that the reconstruction of the country would "pay for itself" and we wouldn't, you know, be throwing money into the endless pit that Iraq has become.
Yes, but lets say it was about introducing democracy + capitalism = magic. If it wasn't for the second largest oil reserves (canadian oil sand lovers need to face reality) in Iraq no effort would have been undertaken. Even in your rational the building block is oil. Cause basically the end result of your scenario is a stable mostly secular oil democracy that would be friendly to the US. Shifting the balance from Saudi Arabia to Iraq in foreign oil reliance. All of this financed by the oil infrastructure/exports. The keyword is always oil.

There are problems with this scenario though. The neo-cons never strike me as people that make the connection with democracy and capitalism, besides maybe rhetorically. They appear to be more or less Hayek-ian thinkers. Economic liberalism without democracy, over democracy without economic liberalism. There love for democracy was nicely shown in the division between Old Europe (where the population opposed the iraq war and the government too) and New Europe (where the population opposed the war, but the governemtn not). Which is probably why the Iraqi democracy meme didn't really get much attention in the press Europe.

In Iraq the real push for democracy, after the 'Iraqi army' was 'beaten', came mostly from people like Ali al-Sistani. If it wasn't for him, the Bush administration would probably still be saying that it was too early for elections.

Finally, when hoping for a stable (democratic) secular Iraq the Bush administration would basically have to ignore Sunni-Shia-Kurdish problems. Hope the suppression of quite a lot of religious influence under Saddam would be continued (by whom?). Hope that bombing an Arab country and killing a bunch of muslims wouldn't increase radical islam.
For all of this to happen, they would have had to have more hope than Obama has expressed during his whole campaign.




And, personally, while the idea of "letting corporations control Iraq's oil" sounds disturbingly like neocolonialism... allowing governments to control a nations oil industry also wrecks all sorts of havoc. Look at Mexico, whose national oil industry is utterly collapsing and is in actual need of foreign investment in order to revitalize it, but would rather (or, rather, leftists [dunno a better word] in the congress would rather) let the oil fields collapse than open 'em up to US companies.
I have no problem with production sharing agreements (PSAs). Here I disagree with a bunch of the left. Most OPEC countries use'm, heck even Venezuela under Chavez uses them. It just makes economic sense. To get expertise and infrastructure into the country. So you make a contract with an oil company for like 30 years so they can write of their costs and the country and the company share the profits.

However what is different with the Iraqi oil law is that it would also transfer control (basically ownership) of most of the Iraqi the oil fields/reserves to corporations. This is different with most of the other agreements, in the standard agreements the oil reserves and fields are being kept under control of the respective governments while the exploitation is done by oil companies (who don't actually own or control most of the fields they exploit in the world) and then you share the profits as I already mentioned. That's what is so special about the iraqi oil law, the issue of control. And the insistence of the Bush administration, that this part of control is included. Instead of just the standard PSA part that is used almost everywhere else.

But what is really mind boggling to me, is that even if that law gets passed, no oil company is going to be willing to invest billions into Iraq. Because after the US leaves, what's there to stop Iraq falling apart into small autonomous parts, and the law becomes meaningless. Or if some populist leader gets elected and renders the law meaningless.
You could say this doesn't have to happen if the US doesn't leave, but that seems very unlikely under the current economic/popularity of the war conditions in the US.

Jesus
05-09-2008, 03:37 AM
A couple of things, although I don’t really want to get into this too in-depth, because frankly, I don’t care all that much but some food for thought. 1) Iraq prior to the start of war only produced around 1/40 of the world’s daily oil production (about 2 million barrels); that’s not that much. Furthermore Iraq was nowhere near the top regarding oil production Top five oil producers are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US, Iran, China. 2) Iraq was willing to sell its oil, and the US was more than willing to buy 4) It was thus cheaper to simply purchase the oil, then to spend billions on an invasion and occupation. 6) There is the claim that “they thought that Iraqi oil could pay for the war” YES!! Its true, however all/ most of the profits have gone to the Iraqi people 7) It was only after the invasion, and it was discovered that there were no WMD’s did people begin looking for alternative theories

However, i'm not going to argue that oil did not play any role in the rational for invasion, or other geopolitical interests, however, OIL was not the primary reason for invasion.
1-2)Well yes, but that was mostly the result of the sanctions (which killed probably over half a million people) which were lifted when the occupation started. Production isn't really that relevant, reserves are. Although Iraqi production would have probably increased a bit (not much though) in the years to come given that there were contacts and agreements between Total (hello France) and Iraq for the future, they would just have to find away around the sanction/oil for food with help of the French government.
3-6) You are confusing access with control. I'm talking about control.
7) Maybe in the US-UK mainstream media/political arena (with some exceptions) and foreign 'very serious people'. Outside of that close minded circle/groupthink, not many people took that seriously. The same with the housing bubble. If you'd just had read and listened to the mainstream media/political elites , it would have come as a total surpirse and shock. Which it obviously wasn't if you just had looked at statistics of house prices or read some good economists like Dean Baker. Paul Krugman was probably the most important exception in the mainstream.

OffspringHead
05-09-2008, 06:50 AM
.

Secondly, your point on the Lusitania is still completly wrong. The government isn't responsible for restricting the movement of citizens wishing to move abroad. They were given their warning and that was enough.

It still doesn't change the fact the government was aware that the Germans were "controlling" the waters.

Mota Boy
05-09-2008, 06:27 PM
Even in your rational the building block is oil. Cause basically the end result of your scenario is a stable mostly secular oil democracy that would be friendly to the US.Oh yes, and I readily admitted as much in my original post. My point, however, is that oil is the underlying reason the entire region is historically important. It's why the area is in the news more than, say, the horn of Africa. It is impossible to separate the Middle East from oil. However, why I do think the US interests in the invasion ran parallel to oil, it was not the underlying factor, it was not a crude grab for crude. My point is that while oil was a factor, it's a more nuanced one than a "No blood for oil" sign acknowledges.

For there always has and always will be blood for oil. The fact is, the West will always be tied to oil in the Middle East (at least, for the forseeable future). The countries that most vociferously opposed US invasion - France, Russia and China - coincidentally all had major dealings and investments with Saddam. We're cozy with Saudi Arabia, a state of draconian laws and institutionalized repression of women. Our collective need for energy draws us into some rather uncomfortable relationships with some pretty brutal dictators, a situation which breeds resentment towards the West (see: Iran).

But just sit back for a second and imagine, if you will, a democratic Iraq. Federalism, elections, a stock market, women moving about freely, working and participating in the government. A thriving, friendly nation that serves a beacon on the hill to all the other dictatorships and theocracies in the region, setting off a domino effect of democracy and opening them up to the West. That has been the image dancing around policy wonks' heads for over a decade now. It's a very powerful one - many liberal thinkers in the US were also sucked into it in the run-up to the war. People get so focused on the end dream that they tend to overlook all the messy reality getting in the way.

On the conservative end of neoconservatism, the foreign policy component that doesn't like engaging in messy entanglements, the whole idea was sold on the metaphor of "draining the swamp". The Middle East is a messy place, what with our dictator backing and a looping quagmire of poor education and religious intolerance. This creates an environment where terrorists can hide out, flourish and, in the "age" of globalism, attack us at home. By bringing about capitalism and democracy, we drain the swamp and bring the Middle East into the first world (hey, if it worked in East Asia...). In a sense, we transform the dynamics that have kept the Middle East a messy and nasty place for so many decades.

At least, of course, that's the thinking.


Finally, when hoping for a stable (democratic) secular Iraq the Bush administration would basically have to ignore Sunni-Shia-Kurdish problems. Hope the suppression of quite a lot of religious influence under Saddam would be continued (by whom?). Hope that bombing an Arab country and killing a bunch of muslims wouldn't increase radical islam.
For all of this to happen, they would have had to have more hope than Obama has expressed during his whole campaign.Not just hope, mind you - delusion.

But... didn't we do it this way? I mean, we went in with a fraction of the number of troops that were involved in the first Gulf War. We dismissed the army in place and pretended that it wasn't our concern. We declared "Mission Accomplished" in, what, two months after invading? We certainly didn't give the appearance of an occupying force that expected widespread opposition and unrest. And even if the "real" push for democracy came from al-Sistani... well, we gave it to 'em, didn't we? Yes, perhaps earlier than we would have liked, but I really think that's just quibbling over details (it was what, seven years before we wrote Japan's Constitution? Just because we drug our feet didn't mean we weren't going to do it, but rebuilding a nation takes central leadership). Again, a government that could in theory be elected by a populist leader who would kick us out of the country, seize "our" oil and set us back to square one. Had we really gone in without that hope, our methods would have been very different (and much more in tune with the reality of the situation).


The neo-cons never strike me as people that make the connection with democracy and capitalism, besides maybe rhetorically. They appear to be more or less Hayek-ian thinkers. Economic liberalism without democracy, over democracy without economic liberalism.Well, the neoconservative branch of thinking was birthed when a minority of liberals in the US broke with their colleagues over the Vietnam War because they liked the idea of the US military spreading democracy (again, these are academic thinkers here, so the *idea* is what's important, not the reality of US subversion of democracy in 'Nam).


There love for democracy was nicely shown in the division between Old Europe (where the population opposed the iraq war and the government too) and New Europe (where the population opposed the war, but the government not). Which is probably why the Iraqi democracy meme didn't really get much attention in the press Europe.Eh, I think you're confusing a couple different things here. The aim of the group is to spread democracy, because democracy is good. Because democratic nations don't go to war. Because once the world is composed of democracies, history will be over. Even if we must use military tactics to bring about this aim, the ends justify the means. If our allies don't have the full support of their people, well, that's not terribly important, because the ends justify the means. If the majority of US citizens don't support the war (which we didn't - the number only bumped up above 50% after we invaded) well, they'll come around when they see how well it works. Seriously, it's the way they think - this is such a good idea, and such an important idea, that the spread of democracy overshadowed the democratic process. And personally, I think it *is* a good idea, a wonderful little fantasy. But the thinkers have spent so much of their time convincing their rivals and themselves of the inherent wonderfulness of democracy and capitalism that they didn't have the necessary safeguards in place in case they were very, very wrong.


As for the specifics of the oil law, I admit my ignorance. I haven't paid much attention because, as you mentioned, I can't see anything in it coming to pass. Nobody in their right mind would invest now, and if it ever actually stabilizes, then Iraqis could just do a land grab.

Mota Boy
05-09-2008, 06:32 PM
It still doesn't change the fact the government was aware that the Germans were "controlling" the waters.So you're saying that the government should have halted all naval traffic to England, including passenger lines? When have we ever forcibly prevented a ship from sailing?

IamSam
05-09-2008, 07:04 PM
So you're saying that the government should have halted all naval traffic to England, including passenger lines? When have we ever forcibly prevented a ship from sailing?

Don't speak logic or common sense, Mota Boy. OffspringHead doesn't understand those concepts.

Mota Boy
05-09-2008, 08:16 PM
Oh, I'm not in it to win it. At this point I'm just curious to see what the explanation will be.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 09:20 AM
So you're saying that the government should have halted all naval traffic to England, including passenger lines? When have we ever forcibly prevented a ship from sailing?
Not quite. I'm saying they should of literally informed the passengers of this so they could go on at their own free will but the government didn't take any action.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 09:20 AM
Don't speak logic or common sense, Mota Boy. OffspringHead doesn't understand those concepts.

Lmfao. Sam we should just be friends =D

Komaschwarz
05-13-2008, 01:29 PM
Zeitgeist: A movie which relies on dubious sources to argue sensationalized, conspiratorially unreliable information in order to create dissent in the minds of other paranoid individuals.

No wonder it's so well received in North America, particularly among the youth of the nation.

Donít get me wrong, I'm all for dissent. I've been a general enemy of government and big business, and have gone to great lengths to make my voice heard. As part of ĎAnonymousí, I've been involved in civil disobedience, black faxes, shop dropping, culture jamming, ad busting, and other general acts that would qualify as civil unrest.

I tell you this, only to let you know that I am not a crusty old conservative trying to put down the film in order to secure my own interests. When films are backed by logic, reason, and purpose, Iím all for them. Zeitgeist fails on at least two of these accounts (and arguably all three), recycling delusions that have been floating around for decades. The end result is that true progress is pushed back - ideals and information actually worth circulating into the general public regresses and is ultimate swallowed by this derivative drivel.

It hurts the cause.

Nothing in this film is original. Rather, it just tries to tie together a bunch of unrelated points to make a fictionalized conspiracy tale worthy of Dan Brown.

Ockham's Razor, anyone? I think so.

Amusingly, anyone who disagrees with the subject matter or the sketchy resources which are cited in Zeitgeist is deemed as being an ignorant and close minded citizen.

I wonder if they note the inherent irony in that assumption?

Is the world shit? Yeah. Is it occupied by greedy multinational corporations which want to maximize its profits at the expense of the common worker? You betcha. Are religion and politics being used to control the public? Of course. But none of that should be a surprise. And this movie is shit.

/two cents

Vera
05-14-2008, 06:54 AM
I saw a Finnish rap artist recently refer to this film as his thoughts and views on religion. I lost every ounce of respect I ever had for that man.

He said: "After watching the film it is redundant to ask why divorcing church is so popular in this country."

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Well, not really. The movie itself was the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

Jebus
05-16-2008, 09:29 PM
Donít get me wrong, I'm all for dissent. I've been a general enemy of government and big business, and have gone to great lengths to make my voice heard. As part of ĎAnonymousí, I've been involved in civil disobedience, black faxes, shop dropping, culture jamming, ad busting, and other general

did anyone else lol?

HornyPope
05-16-2008, 10:02 PM
did anyone else lol?

Lol yessss.

Jebus
05-16-2008, 10:38 PM
oh no! black faxes! call the president! these terrorists mean serious business.

Komaschwarz
05-17-2008, 01:28 AM
did anyone else lol?

You don't know my actual name, or who I am ;)

There's nothing wrong with an alias stating they're anonymous, because an alias in itself is anonymous :p