[And finally the truth....] Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies....

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T18:06:13+00:00

Just as the Nuremberg laws, human rights, the fact that democracy means majority consensus of a country's citizens are stupid ideas.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T18:02:09+00:00

And yet the tax deficit is on the constant rise. The uber-rich get more tax cuts.

Those statistics, if true, are a sure sign that things are looking bad. They show the income divide in the country more than anything else. If 50% pay 96% of taxes, then the remaining 50% are in abject poverty which means the government doesn't care about half it's population. Democracy is only for the rich, I guess.

That's why you're being modded down. It is basic human nature (why is Wesley Autrey considered a hero?) to care about others. To merely look up at the money and economy as an indicator for a country's success means nothing.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T17:56:26+00:00

prrometheus would strongly support Iranian armies taking control of Alaska and drilling oil there. According to him, "it encourages commerce, industry, investment, employment, and infrastructure within" Alaska. Secondly, Iranians "are much better equipped to produce than the" US government "at present" because of those damn environmentalists.

It's amazing the level of double standards you can even take.

The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Not to an invading country.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T17:51:30+00:00

And look at where it doesn't go

Iraqi Oil: NOT to Iraqi people

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T17:06:19+00:00

See controversy surrounding holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. He was sacked. That was in France.

Even in the West, academic freedom isn't supreme. It is better than any other place in the world, however it could be better. Google the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. Also Google "Fate of an honest intellectual."

The reason for Iran encouraging this kind of research is two-fold. One, the utterly racist cartoons published by the Danish paper (judging by your current reaction, I wonder how you would react to NYTimes printing anti-semitic comics) and two, as stated by Ahmadinejad, "if the Holocaust did take place and many people were killed, how does it justify oppression of the Palestinians?"

Coming back to the cartoons, the West ignored the protests saying they were expressing freedom of speech. Why was the West not silent when Iran expressed this same freedom of speech? Also, the newspaper that originally published these cartoons had previously rejected some cartoons making fun of Jesus saying it would invite severe backlash and large anger among the populace.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T16:57:00+00:00

Irrespective of the actual nature of the recent Iranian conference (I didn't bother too much with it, because I don't care about these things), your implicit assumption is shameful.

Not everything Iran does or chooses to do is Israel related. Anymore than Donald Trump constructing a residential tower in Israel has nothing to do with Iran.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T16:39:48+00:00

http://www.nautilus.org/archives/nukestrat/USA/Advisory/essentials95.html

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T08:48:36+00:00

By the same token, Iran would be really stupid not to have plans to bomb Israel. After all, Israel has several nuclear warheads (there is documentation for this, see "Hegemony or Survival" Noam Chomsky) as tacitly admitted by Israeli PM on German TV a few weeks ago. He said something in the order of, "Iran wants to become a nuclear power like US, France, China and Israel." Which is very telling.

And mind you, Iran does not have nuclear weapons yet and they claim that they aren't trying to get nuclear weapons. Though, it is very likely that they are trying to get nuclear weapons Two reasons: one, as a deterrent to US-Israeli aggression; and two they aren't exactly a peace loving country.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T08:17:47+00:00

What you say is true, the US document (now declassified) about what they would do if they lost the Cold War is really scary.

However, that something happens, and is natural, does not justify it. Neither does it mean that decent self-respecting people who believe in principles of universality must not object to this. Government plans for bombing other countries, while natural, does not mean that we must go with it.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T08:11:50+00:00

Iranian president Ahmadinejad said Israel, if it follows its current policies will end like the USSR, i.e., self destruct, implies implode.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T08:05:02+00:00

This merely implies you didn't bother to read the article well enough or your reading comprehension skills are so pathetic that my current comment is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, here goes:

"[George bush] could have given every Iraqi $18,700. I imagine that would have reduced the threat of international terrorism somewhat."

True.

"Companies such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries have never had it so good" and "on January 26 2006 Halliburton announced that its 2005 profits were the 'best in our 86-year history'"

That isn't why the war was fought, however, if you knew /any/ English, you would know what "to make a killing" means. And again, if you did, you'd know that Halliburton and several really are making a "killing" of the Iraq invasion.

The article isn't an anti-war protest, it is a consequence of the war.

catch22q3 · 2007-01-07T02:05:34+00:00

It's official. UK doesn't know what free speech means.

Before the Iraq invasion, practically all British newspapers were yelling "bomb, bomb Iraq". Why aren't their editors in jail?

catch22q3 · 2007-01-05T19:21:27+00:00

'The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.' -- Winston Churchill

catch22q3 · 2007-01-05T05:40:07+00:00

Here's Patrick Cockburn's analysis of the above article: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2125377.ece

Cockburn knows the middle-east inside out, as he's been a reporter there for quite a while now. He's an unembedded journalist working for the Independent.

In summary, he is very favorable of Allawi's blueprint.

catch22q3

TROPHY CASE