Jimmy Carters Christmas message to the troops

[웃 910]

What is so ironic is we do the exact opposite of what Why Me is saying!

There were reports years ago on the cost of the war in Iraq ,and the complaint was that we let Iraq keep their oil profits. They have so much oil they could have helped contribute to the costs of war. But we didn't take a dime from them or a barrel of oil. Why Me, another conspiracy FAIL.

If we wanted other nations oil we would invade Venezuela, s. Sudan, Nigeria, or Saudi arabia. They have lots of oil. Why aren't we at war and taking over these countries?

We have enough oil in the united states to be a major world supplier. If we were willing to start wars with other countries over precious oil then why do we not give 2 sh!ts about our own oil?

FAIL!!!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

What is so ironic is we do the exact opposite of what Why Me is saying!

There were reports years ago on the cost of the war in Iraq ,and the complaint was that we let Iraq keep their oil profits. They have so much oil they could have helped contribute to the costs of war. But we didn't take a dime from them or a barrel of oil. Why Me, another conspiracy FAIL.

If we wanted other nations oil we would invade Venezuela, s. Sudan, Nigeria, or Saudi arabia. They have lots of oil. Why aren't we at war and taking over these countries?

We have enough oil in the united states to be a major world supplier. If we were willing to start wars with other countries over precious oil then why do we not give 2 sh!ts about our own oil?

FAIL!!!

Your a sharp one LI, there's no pulling the wool over your eyes is there ?

Western oil company's that I know of off hand with contracts in Iraq; BP, Exxon, ENI, and Campsa. Oil support company's that I know of are Haliburton, Brown & Roote (subsidiary of Haliburton), and RSK with lots more sub contracting for them.

Seeing how you mentioned "Nigeria", let's take a look at the western oil company's doing business there shall we....

This is from wikipedia....

Royal Dutch Shell (British/Dutch)

Chevron (American)

Exxon-Mobil (American)

Agip (Italian)

Total (French)

Texaco (now merged with Chevron)

*Before you decide to post on this thread LI, pack a lunch.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Why_Me

[웃 910]

I found an article that disputes your conspiracy "theory", I'll post it for your reading pleasure. And again, if we start wars over oil oceans away from the United States then why again do we not give 2 sh!ts about our own oil?

Oil Companies Making Moves In Iraq

A popular conspiracy theory about the American invasion of Iraq that made the rounds on the internet was that the war is being fought to secure oil supplies and benefit U.S. oil companies. (For a primer on the oil and gas industry, refer to our Oil and Gas Industry Primer.)

The theory states that President Bush was a tool of "Big Oil," and these multinationalcompanies pressed his administration into war for this purpose.

Who Benefits?

Yet the results of bids for licenses to explore and develop Iraqi oil fields shows very little benefit for U.S.-based integrated oil companies. The Iraqi Oil Ministry has awarded licenses to a broad range ofinternational companies, many of which are based in nations that opposed the war and refused to participate. Only two U.S.-based oil companies have been awarded contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields.

The government has held several bidding rounds for the right to develop Iraq's prolific reserves of oil. The first round was held in June 2009, and only one contract was awarded initially. BP, Inc. (NYSE:BP) and the China National Petroleum Corp. were awarded the development rights to the Rumaila oil field.

The two companies and their Iraqi partners will invest $15 billion over the next 20 years in an attempt to boost production from 1 million to 2.85 million barrels per day.

International Involvement

In October 2009, a group led by Eni SpA (NYSE:E), an Italian oil company, was awarded the contract for the Zubair Oil Field. Occidental Petroleum (NYSE:OXY), an American company was part of this bid.

A month later, Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A,RDS.B) were given the right to develop Phase one of the West Qurna oil field.

Another round was held in mid December 2009, and concessions were awarded on seven of the 10 fields offered. No American-based companies bid during this round.

Sonangol, the Angolan National Oil Company, also called the Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola, won the right to develop the Qaiyarah and Najmah oil fields in the northern part of Iraq.

Russian company Lukoil and Statoil ASA (NYSE:STO) won the right to develop Phase two of the West Qurna oil field. This field holds 12.8 billion in proved reserves, and is in the southern part of Iraq, near Basra.

A consortium led by Gazprom, another Russian oil company, won the right to develop the Badra Field near the border with Iran. Members of this group include Petronas, the National Oil Company of Malaysia. Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas also won the concession for the Majnoon field, another one of Iraq's giant oil fields.

Iraq has a multi-year plan to boost production from its fields and these leases are only part of the plan. Iraq plans on drilling 150 wells in 2010 on its own without foreign assistance, and hopes this will add 250,000 barrels per day to its production.

Bottom Line

The perception that American oil companies would receive preferential treatment in a post-war Iraq have been proven false so far, with only two U.S.-based companies receiving contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields. This is a sharp slap in the face to conspiracy theorists everywhere.

BTW,

Have you ever heard of the Iraq National Oil Company. They made Forbes 2010s #4 position in top 10 oil companies in the world.

4. Iraq National Oil Company

2.5 million bpd

Though Iraq technically has three state oil companies--North, South and Missan--they are all nominally under the control of the central oil ministry. Iraq almost certainly has 50% more recoverable crude than the official estimates of 115 billion barrels. Recent bidding rounds have led to contracts with the likes of Shell, BP and CNPC to develop or rehab fields with 41 billion barrels. With enough money and peace and time, Iraq's output could easily top 6 million bpd. peace and time, Iraq's output could easily top 6 million bpd.

YOU FAIL!!!!

Edited December 12, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I found an article that disputes your conspiracy "theory", I'll post it for your reading pleasure. And again, if we start wars over oil oceans away from the United States then why again do we not give 2 sh!ts about our own oil?

BTW,

Have you ever heard of the Iraq National Oil Company. They made Forbes 2010s #4 position in top 10 oil companies in the world.

4. Iraq National Oil Company

2.5 million bpd

Though Iraq technically has three state oil companies--North, South and Missan--they are all nominally under the control of the central oil ministry. Iraq almost certainly has 50% more recoverable crude than the official estimates of 115 billion barrels. Recent bidding rounds have led to contracts with the likes of Shell, BP and CNPC to develop or rehab fields with 41 billion barrels. With enough money and peace and time, Iraq's output could easily top 6 million bpd. peace and time, Iraq's output could easily top 6 million bpd.

YOU FAIL!!!!

Good going LI, that post of yours just further proves the point as to why we are in Iraq. I mean where do you think BP, Exxon, Shell, ENI, etc... are based from ?

Now you take Haliburton, Brown & Roote, and RSK and connect the dots. Here's a clue for you... do a search on oil related company's based in "Houston, Texas", and then look at the ties with Cheney and Co in regards to Browne & Roote and Haliburton. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure it out. As far as Gazprom in the mix...why didn't Tsar Putin finish off BP, Shell and Conoco Phillips in Russia when he had the chance ? That's another clue for ya LI.

*Anyone that thinks we are in Iraq for anything other than to make a few fat ####### rich f**ks even richer needs their head examined.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Why_Me

[Fandango 1,440]

Yes I served as well.

You don't seem to care how this statement, regardless of its validity isn't what you want to say to our troops at the holidays. Carter is a pinhead for saying this at this time.

QFT

[Captain Oates 911]

QFT

TTFN

[Dan and Judy 614]

You guys have an impressive knowledge of oil companies.

I believe the big money plays a major role but personalities also play a major role in decisions to go to war.

I'd like to start by saying that Bush Sr did an impressive job with Irag one, once he got started.

Bush Sr wrote a book with Connie Rice and I believe Brett Scocroft after they left office.

the name of the book slips my mind but the thing that sticks in my mind from that book is

Bush saying part of the reason he didnt go in and take over the country was that it would be a quagmire.

He also mentioned that Cheney was advocating "finishing the Job" but was overruled.

I believe the reason "we" felt the first war was necessary was that kuwait had oil and we didnt want Sadam to be in charge of that much oil, especialy since he had the abilitity to do the same to Saudia Arabia which would then give him way to much control over

(our) oil.

Our excuse for this war was to liberate Kuwaities, but our reason was oil.

More specifically to keep Sadam from controlling it.

After the war that we "won", Sadam was thumbing his nose at us,we kept rubbing his nose in the dirt, but it is really anoying if you

are rubbing someones nose in the dirt and they are still laughing at you.

sometime after that Sadam put a hit out on Bush Sr. I believe when he was visiting Saudi Arabia.

fast forward to 911

The master mind was apparently in Afganistan

All money aside, we went in to punish and teach a lesson / defend ourselves.

I think very few Americans have a problem with that.

I believe the controversy arises over going into Irag.

Sadam thumbing his nose at us was annoying to most of us. Bush had the additional incentive that Sadam put the hit out on his dad.

The fact that we attemped to kill Sadam during the first war would be irrelevent

Cheney was chomping at the bit to go in and do what he had advocated during the first war.

The country was already wound up for war and mobilized.

The opportunity to strike was here.

the WMD could have even been what they wanted to see but I lean more towards fabrication. at exactly what level would be more speculation

While Haliburton, a company that Cheny had been CEO of was well set to profit from the wars, I dont believe that was Chenys primary motivating factor. He had been Advocating going into Iraq for more than a decade.

Bush would most likely be holding a grudge against Sadam for putting out the hit on his dad.

Not to mention that Sadam sure was annoying.

I think in this case , the personalities (including Sadams) played a major role in us starting the war.

[tmma 467]

.....I served, how many on this thread also served ?

I did.

[tmma 467]

Yes I served as well.

You don't seem to care how this statement, regardless of its validity isn't what you want to say to our troops at the holidays. Carter is a pinhead for saying this at this time.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yes it's Christmas season so Carter should have blew smoke up everyones ####### for the sake of the troops. BS. It wasn't waving the flag and singing Christmas songs that got us out of Vietnam (another BIG LIE FOR PROFIT), it was a variety of factors including Cronkite blowing the lid off of make believe body counts, the Pentagon Papers, and the realization that unless we murdered just about everyone in North and South Vietnam that war wasn't win-able.

Anger shouldn't be directed at Carter for telling it like it is, it should be directed at Bush, Cheney, Rove and Co. for being the criminal pr*cks that they are and getting tens of thousands of people killed. But then again this is the day and age of reality TV, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and apple pie...

Since when did being ignorant become a requirement for someone to be considered patriotic ?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes it's Christmas season so Carter should have blew smoke up everyones ####### for the sake of the troops. BS. It wasn't waving the flag and singing Christmas songs that got us out of Vietnam (another BIG LIE FOR PROFIT), it was a variety of factors including Cronkite blowing the lid off of make believe body counts, the Pentagon Papers, and the realization that unless we murdered just about everyone in North and South Vietnam that war wasn't win-able.

Anger shouldn't be directed at Carter for telling it like it is, it should be directed at Bush, Cheney, Rove and Co. for being the criminal pr*cks that they are and getting tens of thousands of people killed. But then again this is the day and age of reality TV, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and apple pie...

Since when did being ignorant become a requirement for someone to be considered patriotic ?

Yeah we get it, the war was wrong and Bush, Cheney and the gang all should be in jail. Jimmy Carter is pointing out that we are all lost in Afghanistan. NONE of that is the point here. The point is that, like it or not, we have men and women in harms way. The last thing they need 2 weeks before the holidays, when they are missing their families, giving the ultimate gift to the American people by doing their duty to hear a former president and Commander in Chief tell them that all they are doing is for nothing and that they cannot win. If you are a vet like you claim you should worry more about the troop morale and their needs rather than the 10 year old game of how bad Bush is. Who gives a damn who is at fault? This is about a pin head ex-president showing a total lack of sympathy for the very troops he used to command.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yeah we get it, the war was wrong and Bush, Cheney and the gang all should be in jail. Jimmy Carter is pointing out that we are all lost in Afghanistan. NONE of that is the point here. The point is that, like it or not, we have men and women in harms way. The last thing they need 2 weeks before the holidays, when they are missing their families, giving the ultimate gift to the American people by doing their duty to hear a former president and Commander in Chief tell them that all they are doing is for nothing and that they cannot win. If you are a vet like you claim you should worry more about the troop morale and their needs rather than the 10 year old game of how bad Bush is. Who gives a damn who is at fault? This is about a pin head ex-president showing a total lack of sympathy for the very troops he used to command.

Better yet how many US troops will die before and after Christmas ? I think that would be a bigger issue than Carter telling what him and a lot of us believe is the truth. Morale ? How many of those troops do you think actually watched Carter on PBS News Hour ? Better yet what's more important .... Carter telling it like it is, or more human lives getting thrown away for ...what ? To fight the Taliban and prevent more 9-11 scenarios ? LOL ???

Human life vs troop morale two weeks before Christmas ... Can I get a duh!

Edited December 13, 2010 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Better yet how many US troops will die before and after Christmas ? I think that would be a bigger issue than Carter telling what him and a lot of us believe is the truth. Morale ? How many of those troops do you think actually watched Carter on PBS News Hour ? Better yet what's more important .... Carter telling it like it is, or more human lives getting thrown away for ...what ? To fight the Taliban and prevent more 9-11 scenarios ? LOL ???

Human life vs troop morale two weeks before Christmas ... Can I get a duh!

Uh, yeah. Have a nice life.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes it's Christmas season so Carter should have blew smoke up everyones ####### for the sake of the troops. BS. It wasn't waving the flag and singing Christmas songs that got us out of Vietnam (another BIG LIE FOR PROFIT), it was a variety of factors including Cronkite blowing the lid off of make believe body counts, the Pentagon Papers, and the realization that unless we murdered just about everyone in North and South Vietnam that war wasn't win-able.

Anger shouldn't be directed at Carter for telling it like it is, it should be directed at Bush, Cheney, Rove and Co. for being the criminal pr*cks that they are and getting tens of thousands of people killed. But then again this is the day and age of reality TV, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and apple pie...

Since when did being ignorant become a requirement for someone to be considered patriotic ?

Spot on. This is just nitpicking partisan hackery. Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian and human being. He also happens to be loathed by Right Wingers who jump on every word he says like he's committed treason. They can't see past their partisan hatred of him to recognize and acknowledge his great contributions to this country and the world, which is pretty sad.

[scandal 951]

Spot on. This is just nitpicking partisan hackery. Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian and human being. He also happens to be loathed by Right Wingers who jump on every word he says like he's committed treason. They can't see past their partisan hatred of him to recognize and acknowledge his great contributions to this country and the world, which is pretty sad.

I don't think nearly as highly of Carter as you do Steven. I think his record in office was disappointing, and I think his statements and efforts out of office are frequently baffling and outrageous, particularly regarding the Middle East.

I'm commenting in this thread for one reason only. There's a suggestion that only those who have served in the military have earned a right to comment on our foreign policy, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't agree with that (no, I have not served in the US military). I note however that Jimmy Carter did serve in the US Navy for 6 years post WWII on surface ships and submarines. If that's the criterion for being eligible to comment, then Carter holds it.