Moral and Political Morass

http://index1.biolop.com >crf 100f
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.biolop.com >crf 100f
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >vinyl fencing with clear panles

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >vinyl fencing with clear panles

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >vinyl fencing with clear panles

http://index1.niopil.com >tidecharts for ocean city
http://index1.oiloin.com >the march on versailles

http://index1.niopil.com >tidecharts for ocean city
http://index1.oiloin.com >the march on versailles

http://index1.ntdphb.com >geogrphy
http://index1.vitiup.com >moundville alabama

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.napoir.com >faust thoughts on confederate nationalism
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >faust thoughts on confederate nationalism
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >faust thoughts on confederate nationalism
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >faust thoughts on confederate nationalism
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >faust thoughts on confederate nationalism
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.ariopr.com >suze orman sex and the single wallet
http://index1.quikop.com >9&10news

http://index1.ariopr.com >suze orman sex and the single wallet
http://index1.quikop.com >9&10news

http://index1.ariopr.com >suze orman sex and the single wallet
http://index1.quikop.com >9&10news

http://index1.9poilo.com >adult sex stores in virginia
http://index1.stityg.com >psychopharmocolgy courses online

http://index1.9poilo.com >adult sex stores in virginia
http://index1.stityg.com >psychopharmocolgy courses online

http://index2.sinimi.com >daycare food assistance programs http://index1.sinimi.com >limit two girls clothing http://index3.sinimi.com >babcock ladders

http://index2.sinimi.com >daycare food assistance programs http://index1.sinimi.com >limit two girls clothing http://index3.sinimi.com >babcock ladders

http://index2.sinimi.com >daycare food assistance programs http://index1.sinimi.com >limit two girls clothing http://index3.sinimi.com >babcock ladders

http://index2.sinimi.com >daycare food assistance programs http://index1.sinimi.com >limit two girls clothing http://index3.sinimi.com >babcock ladders

http://index1.xoyits.com >classic tube dresses http://index3.xoyits.com >postal offices to obtain passport http://index2.xoyits.com >mega bass crankbaits

http://index2.zinimi.com >female haircut styles wearing glasses http://index3.zinimi.com >roos for girls http://index1.zinimi.com >free nude teen girl picture gallery in panties

http://index3.aritiv.com >fibromyalgia massages http://index1.aritiv.com >u.k. solicitors association free legal help http://index2.aritiv.com >european asses

http://index3.aritiv.com >fibromyalgia massages http://index1.aritiv.com >u.k. solicitors association free legal help http://index2.aritiv.com >european asses

http://index3.aritiv.com >fibromyalgia massages http://index1.aritiv.com >u.k. solicitors association free legal help http://index2.aritiv.com >european asses

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.weviru.com >self winding mechanical benrus patriot 25j

http://index1.weviru.com >self winding mechanical benrus patriot 25j

http://index1.weviru.com >self winding mechanical benrus patriot 25j

http://index1.weviru.com >self winding mechanical benrus patriot 25j

http://index1.weviru.com >self winding mechanical benrus patriot 25j

http://index1.pristu.com >americas test kitchen

http://index1.pristu.com >americas test kitchen

http://index1.pristu.com >americas test kitchen

http://index1.pristu.com >americas test kitchen

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://pemise.com >ass trip http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham

http://pemise.com >ass trip http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham

http://pemise.com >ass trip http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.puxuna.com >unc charlotte

http://juguze.com >metal cockrings [url=http://juguze.com]metal cockrings[/url]

atdgukix qxiek ejfugxr iptzxf yjmv wqlfs kuifpyx

I have to laugh, Victoria.

Looks like Joseph and I work for mining companies and actually have professional experience with PSAs while you don't. If the PSAs are really as bad as you claim, and that they are counter to the country's sovereignty, then how come it has been working fine for 40 years in Muslim countries like:

Indonesia
Libya
Syria
Qatar
Abu Dhabi
Jordan
Tanzania
Tajikistan
Khazakstan
Uzbekistan
Yemen
United Arab Emirates

All you believe are those idiots from PLATFORM and other blatantly anti-American haters who don't understand what PSAs are for. They are merely contracts issued by the oil countries to their miners. Miners are obliged to sign them if they want to mine. In most cases, it is a 'take it or leave it' situation. Usually the state issuing the PSAs are the ones calling the shots, not the foreign companies.

None of those Muslim countries lost sovereignty over the PSAs or 'mortgaged' their oil to the evil foreigners or any of the perceived evils your article mentioned. PSAs are merely a contractual agreement whereby the foreign company agrees to:

1. take all the risk
2. provide all the development, exploration, remediation, employment costs

for a share of the oil production. It is a "Production Sharing Agreement". The oil/gas production is shared between the foreigners (for taking all the risks and putting in all the money) and the state.

In other words, the State has agreed to share the production with the foreign company who provides the money and expertise and effort to find and develop and exploit mineral deposits.

In effect, the state is a free-carried silent partner. Hence you continue to betray your complete lack of understanding of PSAs.

Victoria,
You're trying to defend the indefensible. When your article was exposed as the garbage that it was you try other things.

The reason why only "12%" of the world's reserves are under PSAs is because the big three producers - Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran are not using it at the present. Saudi doesn't use it because the oil is state owned by Saudi Aramco which prefers to use other means of regulating its miners. Iran - for obvious reason and Iraq also for obvious reasons.

The fact that most oil producing countries use PSAs show that they are nothing to be afraid of - and your article is nothing but an anti-American beat-up.

The fact that PSAs were invented by a Muslim country should tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

The reason why Russia doesn't use PSAs is because for a different issue - the Duma (i.e. the congress) of the Russian federation does not agree with the Presidency on the terms of the PSAs - it is an internal dispute about what the PSA should cover and on what terms the miners should governed by. In other words - it is Russian politics - and has nothing whatsoever to do with PSAs per se. They are arguing about what should be in the PSAs and not whether the PSAs are good or bad.

But most free-market oil producing country would use PSAs. There is nothing magical about the PSA - it is merely a contract that the oil producing state has with its miners. It details among other things how much money has to be spent by when, the remedial costs involved, the equipment allowed, the conduct of the miner etc.

In essence - it is the state's attempt to regulate its miners using contractual law.

I suggest it is always bad to argue with technocrats since they will always know more than you. I suggest you think carefully about why Egypt, Libya, Syria, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Qatar etc. (all Muslim countries by the way) regulate their miners using PSAs.

Have you read a PSA? I suggest you read one.

to your points- only 12% of the worlds oil reserves are under psa contract.
yes, russia IS one of them, however it is trying to faze out and not renewing any contracts under this agreement.

12% does not constitute "standard practice".

PSA's are not a reasonable alternative for iraq.

one of the benefits for the 12% who DO have these contracts is the prohibitive exploration costs, if no oil is found then the corporation absorbs the cost.

as for your contention that the contract in syria is only a 4 year contract-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dublin International Petroleum is expected to drill about 55 new wells over the 20-25 year development phase of the field in the oil-rich northeastern Kameshli area. The development cost is estimated at $230 million. The 20-year-old field produces crude oil from reservoirs that are between 1,500-2,500 meters deep."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article is extracted from International Oil Letter, Vol 22 issue 19 published 2006-05-15.

Marathon awarded two development contracts - Syria
In the same week that US President George Bush signed an executive order extending for one year sanctions against Syria that wer first issued in May 2004, Marathon Oil signed a US$ 125 million Production and Sharing Agreement (PSA). This agreement relates to the 812 sq km Ash Shaer development area and the 510 sq km Cherrife development area between Homs and Palmyra, central Syria. The agreement is valid for 25 years with a possible five-year extension, starting from preliminary commercial production, which is expected to be around 70 MMcfg/d, 5,000 b/d of oil and condensate and 100 tons of LPG for domestic use. According to Marathon spokesman, Paul Weeditz, Marathon has the right to sell a large portion or all its interest to a third party under the terms of the new contract. Marathon will spend US$ 50,000 per year during the entire contract period training Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC) and Syrian Gas Company (SGC) employees."

i guess youre mistaken- so well ignore your 25-40 year nonsense comment as incorrect.

iraq is already known to be bursting with oil-
the third largest reserves in the world, right?

not applicable

also kuwait is not under psa- nor is the UAE, saudi arabia, venezuela, iran...

oalso joseph- that study you posted was so oneffective- i think you just closed your eyes and googled anything.

its not a study but a PAPER written by one woman and the bulk of it is hypothetical SCENARIOS.

there are enough real secnarios to be drawn upon.

PSA's also take the legislative rights out of the hands of the governments, treating them as any other company, any future disputes held in a united states or paris court.

there is also no provisions made for actual profit sharing- but the contracts are strictly delineated and any future conflict will be decided by an "international" (read US) court.

and of course both of you conveniently ignored the most important issue-

who gets the profits?

so, almost EVERY OIL EXPORTING COUNTRY USES PSA's?

false

12% and falling as russia will not sign any future agreements.

the biggest opec's will not touch it.

so to recap-

there are only disadvantages for iraq to sign onto a psa.
there are many other alternatives-

despite both of your false claims that most oil producing comapnies are under PSA- in the middle east, most are under the nationalization with accompanying technical or risk service contracts.

for being oil men you surely have a limited knowledge of your businesses, or are misrepresening thefacts on purpose.

how is investigating the fact anti-american?

and finally, what does any of this have to do with the moral issue of the us invasion and pre-emptive strike on iraq?

you know when its just humans, we call a pre-emptive strike a sucker punch- and real men dont do that. only bullies.

do either of you have a relevant comment on topic?

iraq is in a weakened state, that is why the US is tryiung to force this agreement through.

I also worked in the oil industry. The PSAs are standard exploration/production lease agreements all over the world. They are 'NOT' difficult to negotiate, despite what the article says. It's usually a "take it or leave it" decision. You want to buy an exploration/production license you go to the relevant Department of Mines and fill in a form and pay your dues. Then you sign the PSA. Either you agree with the PSA or you don't get the license.

PSAs do not threaten a country's sovereignty - it is merely the contract by which a country regulates its mining leasees. It is not foised on the country by the miners but the other way around - it is a contract provided by the country to its miners. Sign it or don't mine.

PSAs also have clauses to allow 'rights to modify' and 'rights to break' - nothing precludes a country from exercising its sovereignty - including nationalisation.

There is also nothing to say that PSAs have to be 25-40 years. Those I have come across are typically far shorter in duration. The ones I worked on in Syria was only for an initial period of 4 years with the right to an additional period. Certainly not the 25-40 years nonsense.

A bit of anti-America scare-mongering I suppose. If PSA work for Libya, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar (to name a few), why not Iraq? After all, it's standard business practise in the oil industry.

The US did not invent PSAs. It was invented by Indonesia in 1966. By 1998 74 oil producing countries were using PSAs.

It is merely one of three ways a government can share in the economic profits of its oil.

I think you've definitely fallen for the half-truths and outright lies by anti-American propagandists. Such things sound plausible because you don't know the truth. But it's laughable to an old oil-man like men who drilled for oil in many parts of the world, including Indonesia and Abu Dhabi.

PSA's were invented in INDONESIA in 1966. They have now spread to almost all oil producing countries that allow foreign corporates to drill and sell their oil. It is a means for the country to share in the oil prosperity - and is merely a cost of producing oil.

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/WPM25.pdf

By 1998 74 countries had PSA regimes. It is nothing new.

The problem is that you've fallen for the half-truths by people with clear anti-American agenda. I don't care who these people are - they are talking nonsense. Pure unadulterated garbage to people in the know.

I used to calculate the PSAs for my company when we pumped oil in Indonesia. Every barrel we took we had to pay a certain "escalating" amount to the Indonesian government - depending on the oil price.

In other words the PSA allowed the government to remain as a free-carried silent partner who took part of the revenues but none of the risks.

There are actually three ways a country can issue production licences:

1. concession
2. PSAs
3. Joint venture / pure service agreements.

Whichever way a country decides to go it still takes a cut of the action - PSAs is merely one way and is the most widely used today.

I don't see anything sinister in the USA proposing Iraq utilize PSAs which almost every oil producing country uses.

I think people don't understand what privatization means - you can do it the Soviet style which is selling the assets to your friends at vastly reduced prices or you can privatize by selling the assets at realistic prices.

What is the difference between selling a piece of oil producing asset in one go (i.e. privatization) or selling the oil barrel by barrel? It makes no economic difference. The only thing different is when you get the money - either up front or in bits over years.

People also think that foreign companies take the profits out - what profits? When a foreign company buys an oil field - it pays up front. The 'Profit' has already been paid. Then the foreign company pumps the oil and sells it out. But what it sells - it has already paid for.

Oh... and you're talking to an oil-man here. Please look up what PSAs are. Every country has PSAs. Even Indonesia (where I worked and drilled for oil) has Production Sharing Agreements. It's nothing more than a tax on foreign companies. The money raised in the PSA goes to the government. It's part of the price of the oil business. The US government did not invent PSAs for Iraq - go to any oil producing country - sign an oil drilling lease - and you'll see the PSA regime.

Please, please, Victoria - don't fall for the half-truths and lies. Do some research first.

"are they the beverly hillbillies?"

victoria, you've watched way way too much TV.. maybe you need to consult your other little TV friend from southpark before you waste time posting things you know nothing about.

maybe youd give us your version of PSA"s?
(PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENTS)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#rethinking

PRIVATIZATION LIKE THIS JOSEPH?

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45190/

I DONT EXPECT YOU TO READ THESE- BUT THEY ARE PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE AND SELF EXPLANATORY-

THEY ALSO COMPLETELY NEGATE YOUR ASSERTION THAT ONLY "HALF THE STORY" IS BEING TOLD

THE WHOLE STORY IS ACTUALLY WORSE

AND YOUR REBUTTAL IS THAT ANY WHO SPEAK OF THIS HATES AMERICA?

this isnt by any means the whole article-

by Heather Wokusch

The Bush administration's covert plan to help energy companies steal Iraq's oil could be just weeks away from fruition, and the implications are staggering: continued price-gouging by Big Oil, increased subjugation of the Iraqi people, more US troops in Iraq, and a greater likelihood for a US invasion of Iran.

That's just for starters.

The administration's challenge has been how to transfer Iraq's oil assets to private companies under the cloak of legitimacy, yet simultaneously keep prices inflated.

But Bush & Co. and their Big Oil cronies might have found a simple yet devious solution: production sharing agreements (PSAs).

Here's how PSAs work. In return for investment in areas where fields are small and results are uncertain, governments occasionally grant oil companies sweetheart deals guaranteeing high profit margins and protection from exploration risks. The country officially retains ownership of its oil resources, but the contractual agreements are often so rigid and severe that in practical terms, it can be the equivalent of giving away the deed to the farm.

Since Iraq sits on the world's third largest oil reserves, the PSA model makes little sense in the first place; Iraq's fields are enormous and the exploration risks are accordingly miniscule, so direct national investment or more equitable forms of foreign investment would be in order. But as a comprehensive new report by the London-based advocacy group PLATFORM details, the PSA model "is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost."

PLATFORM's "Crude Designs: The Rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth" points out that the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people:

"At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget."
"Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment."

Of course, given the current political chaos, Iraqi citizens have little power over whether their politicians sign the proposed PSA agreements. That critical decision could be left to con-men like the former Interim Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi, who recently met with no less than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice during his red-carpet visit to the White House. One can assume the topic of Iraq's proposed PSAs came up more than once.

Chalabi's successor as Oil Minister, Ibrahim Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, is expected to toe the corporate line, and Iraq's former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi issued post-invasion guidelines stating: "The Iraqi authorities should not spend time negotiating the best possible deals with the oil companies; instead they should proceed quickly, agreeing to whatever terms the companies will accept, with a possibility of renegotiation later."

But PSAs are notoriously hard to renegotiate. According to PLATFORM, "under PSAs future Iraqi governments would be prevented from changing tax rates or introducing stricter laws or regulations relating to labour standards, workplace safety, community relations, environment or other issues." The Iraqi people would be locked into inflexible agreements spanning 25-40 years with disputes solved by corporate-friendly international arbitration tribunals, rather than by national courts.

Is that really the same thing as liberation?

According to Greg Muttitt, co-author and lead researcher of the "Crude Designs" report, "for all the US administration's talk of creating a democracy in Iraq, in fact, their heavy pushing of PSAs stands to deprive Iraq of democratic control of its most important natural resource. I would even go further: the USA, Britain and the oil companies seem to be taking advantage of the weakness of Iraq's new institutions of government, and of the terrible violence in the country, by pushing Iraq to sign deals in this weak state, whose terms would last for decades. The chances of Iraq getting a good deal for its people in these circumstances are minimal; the prospect of mega-profitable deals for multinational oil companies is fairly assured."

Of course, ongoing oil exploration in Iraq by administration-friendly companies would require permanent US bases, a massive ongoing troop presence and billions more in taxpayer-dollar subsidies to sleazy outfits like Halliburton.

The implications of all of this for domestic oil prices is unclear. While neo-conservatives initially pushed for privatizing Iraq's oil reserves as a way of destroying OPEC (they wanted to boost production and flood world markets with cheap oil) the administration seems to have taken a more corporate-friendly stance. After all, the last thing oil executives want is to break OPEC's stranglehold on pricing, because keeping supply low has delivered record profits.

But the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" which Bush released this week as part of his pro-occupation PR blitz lists a surprising goal: "facilitating investment in Iraq's oil sector to increase production from the current 2.1 million barrels per day to more than 5 million per day." OPEC's quota for Iraq currently sits at around 4 million barrels per day, so the administration's goal is not only significantly higher, but (at "more than 5 million") a little too open-ended for the cartel's comfort. Could be that Bush & Co. want to have their cake and eat it too: tighten the screws on OPEC, yet continue to rip off consumers through elevated prices.

The whole PSA affair may also stoke the fires for a US invasion of Iran, which sits on oil reserves even greater than those of Iraq.

its a bill in congress joseph-

dividing up the oil ownership to who?

how is it up to us compnies to decide the where the revenue of a sovereign nations assets go?

it took 2 seconds to google this-

the issue, again, is the morality of the war.

denis kucinich just hates america??

i would say that exposing secret deals (if its so up and up why is it kept from public disclosure?)
is the definition of loving truth and america.

you criticize what is published here- but have no counter.

claiming that one hates america is the dullest and cheesiest argument there is.

if you can explain in understandable language what is incorrect- and back it up with confirming links-

put up or you know what.

Not all the info is in the article, Victoria.

That's why it's only telling half the truth. If you had followed the issue you'd know the America oil companies were against it because it specifically excluded them from owning the oil assets.

You claimed it's an attempt to 'steal the oil' - how does privatization steal the oil when the American oil companies were excluded?

I suggest you don't know the whole issue and just fallen for the same old half-truths put out by people who just hate America.

you didnt read the article, did you?

the issue isnt privatization.

there is no stated intention whatsoever to pass the oil assets to the iraqi people.

and you dont "reform" people by killing them.

and it isnt an "attempt" to steal it, it is thievery.

and are we to believe that passing corrupt government ownership in iraq is morally superior when it is american corrupt government?

WHAT HYPOCRISY- in one sentence you claim we are passing ownership from the gov't to iraqi people-

in the next you state iraqis arent sophisticated or resourceful enough to manage their own resources!

are they the beverly hillbillies?

and most of all-

(you didnt read the article)
i wasnt telling the story

june caldwell relayed denis kucinich's words.

the only candidate who voted against this war, and really the only one in a morally believable position to speak- well- morally.

and american companies feared being excluded???

FROM PROPERTY THAT ISNT THEIRS???

AND THATS YOUR REASONING FOR KILLING INNOCENTS??

Victoria,
You're only telling half the story. You will find that the American oil companies were against the privatization of Iraq's oil because they feared they would be EXCLUDED.

There is nothing sinister about privatization. We Americans are filthy capitalists who love privatization - we prefer that oil companies are privatized instead of belonging to the government. This is true in the United States of America where the US Government does not own a single oil well.

We tried to reform the Iraqi economy and government ownership of oil assets did not work for Iraq since the State used the oil revenues not for the good of the people but to oppress them and threaten their neighbours.

Thus, you seem to think that our 'privatization' of Iraqi oil was an attempt to steal it. No - it was to pass the ownership of the Iraqi oil assets from their corrupt and incompetent government to the Iraqi people.

However, I do think privatization is wrong for Iraq because, like Russia, the people are not economically sophisticated nor resourceful to successfully effect privatization.

Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

June Caldwell
May 6, 2007

In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).

The clause that Iraq must privatize ownership of its oil was in the original Bill presented by Congress, although it was not mentioned publicly. It was stated as a benchmark to be met by Iraq, and if it was not met, the US would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. That means the Iraqis would not own their own oil, but instead International oil companies, primarily US oil companies, would instead divide ownership of the oil.

This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil. These same oil companies are still resolute about keeping the oil prices high at the pumps for US citizens (while refraining refinery capacity), so that they alone retain record-breaking profits. Kucinich explained he requested on the Congress floor that clause be removed from the Bill, and was finally assured it would be. He found it was not, and again demanded it be removed, and was then accused of ‘not being a loyal Democrat’.

Kucinich went on to explain that last November, the citizens of the US voted for a ‘change of direction in Iraq’ but as of yet have only gotten a bait and switch.

American Chronicle | California Chronicle | Los Angeles Chronicle | World Sentinel

Pamela wrote:
For decades the U.S. supported and armed Saddam, turning a blind eye to atrocities he committed.

Major Terry responds:
Please check the Iraqi order of battle. You'd find that Saddam had very little if any US military equipment.

Saddam was armed by the Soviets, French and Germans. The US was not, I repeat: was not, a supplier of military equipment to Iraq.

Please don't believe the furphy about the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological weapons. That is untrue. The suppliers of chemical precursors were Singapore, Germany and Japan - i.e. major chemical exporters.

The biological agents sent to Iraq were ordinary biological research material sent to Iraqi universities. The US military does not need export licences to send biological agents abroad. The fact that some conspiracy-theorists point to those export licences disproves their point because the US military is not governed by the export regimes of the US Government.

If you look at the conduct of the First and Second Gulf Wars you'd see the Iraqis fighting with non-US weapons.

Please correct your misconception instead of propagating this untruth against the United States of America.

Yours sincerely,
Major Terry Bartell

Ahmed,

To reiterate the truth about "Islamics": You were bred, born and brainwashed into Islam. By the rules of the koran, you cannot escape. Trying to do so is punishable by death. Any anti-Islam rhetoric from you would also be punishable by death. Your comments about world affairs and/or religion therefore fall on deaf ears.

Most Christian are similarly bred, born and brainwashed in orthodox Christianity but we can unlike "Islamics" easily escape to the world of Reality or wherever without the fear of death squads or discrimination. Praise be to Zeus!!!!!!

I've read Frank's posts for a long time. He wants to inform the readers here. He may sometime be abrasive -but his message is certainly getting out. I'm sure many readers (like me) are verifying the Koran quotes and videos and then sharing them with their communities. I sincerely wonder why you Muslims of all shades and colors do not condemn the violence that seems inspired by the verses Frank keeps posting. I'd love to say the Muslims in my community were openly speaking against violence. They are not. When confronted they only complain of being denied their rights. So I can say reading Frank's post has informed me. Thanks Frank.

Frank 'you know who'!

again you wrote:
"any discussion on islam should end with this from the koran:" (followed by more cut and paste)

Which proves that you would love to have the final say. But Muslims come in all shades and colours. What you copy and paste is one view. Have you considered my view on 'takkiyeh' first?

Clearly not. So, HL is right about you wanting to bait and antagonise Muslims. It is a cheap trick man. Grow up. This is a culture of thousands of years where civilisation happened. You want to eradicate it with your laptop mentality.

It ain't happening. Wake up and smell the roses. Or smile if you can??

Victoria and sympathizers,

Again, please address the foundations of Islam. Islam as with all religions has significant "pillar" issues. Be leaders and cut them down with the "hatchets and saws" of Reality, Rationale and History.

Again, you show no support of global freedom of religion. Why is that???

yes, thanks jihadist, you clarified the issue for me. and using the qu'ran to do so shook my poor lapsed memory- further illustrating how it has been accepted in history is a bonus.

when something gnaws at my conscience, and my inclination is to not judge or be lenient- i dont find it to be the case that islam is in contradiction to heartfelt instincts.

its wrong to oppress and judge any human- even the goofy ones (who shall remain nameless)
i really find this egalitarianism confirmed over and over again in islam-

not the wishy washy love everyone of some loosely knit feel good new agey type credos-

its possible to love everyone with understanding and discernment- and if someones behavior is destructive to them self or others that can be addressed also.

trans gender issues seem like the most victimless of crimes- there was always a great disconnect in christianity between the theology and the judaic laws from which it springs.

really god knows what s/he is doing, and we really are connected and belong to each other.

even liberated.

henry james im glad youre still with us in spirit here.

a salaamu alaikum wa rahmatulahi wa barakatu sister jee

(shes REALLY OG isnt she?)

Concerned,

I never said you have to read the Quran in its original language to understand it. It definitely helps, but if you start discussing terms and words that can change the meaning of a verse depending on the translation, I say you have to be familiar with the meaning of the word in its original language.

As far as Iraq is concerned, I really don’t like to talk politics because everyone has an opinion like everyone has you know what. On the subject of butchery, I think actions speak louder than words. The Iraqis were living in relative peace before the Christian invaders and butchers came to town. Seven hundred thousand people dead already and four million people displaced by the war are ample and enough evidence to show beyond the shadow of a doubt the brutality of the Christian invaders and their greed and disrespect for the sanctity of the human life. So, please don’t get me started on that subject by pointing out the behavior of some people demonstrating on the streets. Maybe you are still suffering from Agent Orange and other chemicals the Christians used on the Vietnamese knowing that you served in the Vietnam War; an unjust and horrific war that resulted in the death of more than five million Vietnamese. So, history tells me that death and destruction follows the Christians wherever they go or so it seems.

Well I see the Jihadist has taken time from her supposed job of analyzing economic data etc. to make some more "wishy-wash Islam is great" commentary and/or those cross dressers in our midst notations.

Where is the commentary about the foundations of Islam i.e. the illiterate, hallucinating-"I saw Gabriel and she said", Mohammed and his Arabic female-hating, militaristic scribes and their "death to all unbeliever" agenda ?????

And again and again, where is the support for global freedom of religion??????

As with most Christians and Muslims, we were bred, born and brainwashed to our religions. Christians can now escape via a "Crossanization" process or a whole group of like-thinking historical reviews of the OT and NT. Muslims unfortunately are prevented from escaping the "brainwash" because of the "koranic" no escape clauses.

Gaza : Alan Johnston; 100 Days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-efSkupopkA

Why didn't his kidnappers ask him about his political views? He is being held by the very terrorists he so loved. A message to fellow journalists: it doesn't matter.

"A video recording released Monday shows kidnapped British journalist Alan Johnston wearing an apparent explosives belt of the type suicide bombers use and warning it will be detonated if an attempt is made to free him by force."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401319.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Confucious he say; When wape is inewobol er er..inewaboble.er.inewitable.welax and enjoy it.
Get them mosques built Fwank baby. you're going to need them. Islam is the fastest gwowing weligion,and Muslims are the fastest gwowing population by far.
By the end of the century Euwope will be mostly Muslim and North Amewica won't be far behind.
Islam has demography on its side.
One day we'll all be Muslim my fwend.
It's infwebabel inefablwl inewtable.
in 1950 there were 3 times as may people in the uk
as there were in Iran.By 1995 the population of Iran passed the UK.
By 2050 Iran's population could be 50%greater.This according to "War of The World",by Niall Ferguson,published by penguin press.
Populations in France,Italy,Portugal and Spain are declining too.
So Fwank why dont you just suwender? Take a bwake.

Again and again we hear/read that you have to read the "book of death" in Arabic to understand it. Again and again, no we don't. We just have to turn on the news and see the latest butchery carried out by Sunnis and Shiites against each other as they raise the "koranic"/Arabic operating manuals yelling "Allah is great" as they stand on the mutilated bodies of their enemies. Then there is always the daily videos of suicide bombers making their suicide rantings covered in koranic garb with Arabic korans in their hands yelling "Allah is Great" in Arabic. What are we not to understand???

These "nut cases" are simply carrying out the Arabic discourses made by the illiterate, hallucinating Mohammed and his Arabic scribes with their militaristic agenda to conquer and pillage the lands of the unbelievers all in the Arabic language. Until the Arabic (or any language) koran is cleansed of these significantly stupid, hallucinated-based agendas, the world will never be at peace.

Jihadist

thanks for your comments on sex change operations.

i totallhy understand that this is a "very touchy" topic for virtually all cultures and religions, so I would not condemn Islam or Judaism or Hinduism for their confusions and ambiguities in coming to terms with it.

In other words, I don't mean to say you (Muslims/Catbolics/Jains/Secular Humaists) are bad because you are ambivalent about this proceudre.

That said, I do think it is a signal test of our ability to "love our neighbor as ourself" when our neighbor is a transsexual. I have only had one friend who went through the procedure. I have been able to maintain my love and affection for her, but i certainly had my confusing feelings about her process.

Jihadist, you consistently give the human and loving and wise response to tough questions. Thank you for that.

Henry

Ahmed,

"Your rant about 'takkeya' is twisted at best..."

He was not ranting in the true sense of the word. The words are not his; You can find the whole article in islamreview. It's not as if he read the Quran and he has all these objections that he raises. He just copies and pastes them here on this thread. My bet is he never read a chapter of the Quran let alone know the intricacies of the Arabic language and the reasons of revelation of the different chapters in the Quran. He just copies the articles without knowing that most of the "said objections' have been addressed by other people sometimes simply by listing the verses in question in context of the verses before and after them. This guy is not intrested in finding or learning the truth, his objective is merely to smear and attack the Muslims because of some personal vandetta. So, without a doubt he is just a braying 'himar.'

Frank Collins

Your rant about 'takkeya' is twisted at best. Firstly this principle is not accepted by Wahabi Sunnis and that is why most Al-Qaeda are fighting your soldiers. It is a principle accepted mostly by Shiites. The reason is that during Islamic history Shiites were and are minority. So, they had to keep a low profile amongst majorities. God in his wisdom allows for this so as to avoid one subjecting oneself and one's family to annihilation. To save skin!

Consider the words of Jesus when he told a devoted disciple that before the cock's crow that he would deny Christ 3 times. That is takkeyeh. And God allows it to save life for it is futile to subject oneself to destruction when we know we can not win. This does not mean take revenge when you are strong. Far from it, then we are no better than those who inflict injustice upon another. It means when in dire trouble do not subject yourself to suicide but rely on ME and I will give you another day in which you may have an upper hand and even then you will be tested.

Similarly the number of early Muslims were small and they had to pretend they were not Muslims for fear of their homes and families being ransacked. Such is God's wisdom and love, provided that we remain faithful and just.

The Jews and early Christians went through similar experiences. Many Jews changed their names and could not practice their faith openly in your European societies. Even today we have Jews with German names. These are all forms of takkiyeh.

On a secular level, people may be forced to renounce their allegiances if their lives are in danger. There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity and God does not want us to be brave if it means saving a life. For all life is given for a higher purpose.

But in today's world where we profess to promote democracy and freedom, there is no need to hide and one should be able to practice one's faith openly provided it does not conflict with human values and respect for others who do not share one's faith.

I know that I can not convince you for your mind is made up. I had to respond so that others can see an alternative viewpoint as to what takkiyeh truly means.

..and Victoria :)

In case you misunderstood, the said para in my last post actually meant:

"Anyone who read reams of political and economic reports everyday as part of their job would know that your (Concerned's) political and economic summations posted here and there in On Faith threads are specific to you (Concerned's).

Regards

As for Iraq, I have nothing more, nothing else to say to add to what Imam Pamela Taylor has said in her essay.

Only that the US government, in spite of expressed reservations and concerns of many Muslim countries on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, went in anyway. Then, seek the assistance of Muslim governments in the rebuiding of Iraq's infrastruture after it was thrashed subsequently. And belatedly ask the views of Muslim governments to assist in resolving the armed conflicts in Iraq.

Henry James,

The Qur'an alluded to "men" who are not quite men and are accepted as it is not their fault. Islamic history is full of eunuchs taking care of the caliphs' harems. Many rise to important and trusted position in Muslim caliphates was in imperial China.

Some Muslim countries' religious authorities, including in Indonesia and Malaysia, do allow for sex-change operations, but the measure is considered a bit drastic and tempering of nature by some.

Doctors' verifications and recommendations after looking at the male instrument of a person intending on a sex-change operation is usually accepted by the religious authorities. If fully formed and fully functional, they expressed reservations, in case the person subsequently regret having the operation.

Then, there is the civil law requirements and process of legal paperwork for statistical, tax and other purposes.

Cuba is quite reputable on sex change operations, not to mention Thailand. Indonesians and Malaysians seeking sex-change operations usually go to Japan. Malaysian and Indonesian surgeons/plastic surgeons seem leery of performing it, just in case, the customer change his mind subsequently or for whatever other reason.

Victoria

Assalam mualaikum:)

As for Concerned the Christian Now Liberated
or is it Crossanized Christian, or Catholic of Reality? Why would any Muslim want to respond to him?

He is obviously quite mistaken in many of his political and economic assertions. Anyone who read reams of political and economic reports everyday as part of their job would know that your political and economic summations posted here and there in On Faith threads are specific to you. Certainly, if one is to go along his analyses, one would crash in the marketplace of enonomics.

As for Concerned's religious assertions, the issues were raised and decided by the Jesus Seminar since its inception in 1985, and which Concerned only seem to get into, but which I am already familiar with.

I have no interest in discussing what the Jesus Seminar decide on Jesus and the Christian faith by their grey, or black etc bead, or belt of whatever vote.

The thought of less than a hundred people at the Jesus Seminar determining beliefs and faith by voting based on their scholarship, is laudable. But it seems too similar like what was done at the Councils of Niceae - deciding and voting on dogma/belief/faith, and then to impose them on the public. Even many Catholics and some other Christian denominations are questioning the premises and methodology of the Jesus Seminar.

Faith and beliefs is personal and cannot be imposed. If what the Jesus Seminar/Concerned promote is persuasive, Christians will come around to what the Jesus Seminar advocate and promote.

Salam

Victorian and sympathizers,

We keep restoring the electric grid in Baghdad and the "koranic" Muslims keep destroying it.

Ditto for the rest of the Baghdad rebuilding efforts.

Build a wall around Baghdad. Let the Sunnis (Saudis) and the Shiites (Iranians) have at it and then let the winners rebuild Baghdad. It will be our money anyway i.e. oil profits from US consumers.

And as usual, Victoria et al, you fail to come to grips with the historic illiterate, hallucinating Mohammed and his scribes with their militaristic and anti-female agenda of pillaging and conquering the lands of the unbelievers.

And your support for global freedom of religion?

I mean, *heck* *powers of memory and discernment* would be nice right about now, while you're defining the world.

How's that for 'powers.'

Phhhhbt.

Frank.

"pagan the islamic defender:
so it would be better if 60,000 iraqis die every year than 25,000? "

Certainly not.

But I will not kill 25000 for four years after the '60,000,' supposedly stopped dying.

In fact, something *constructive* might have been done about the 60,000 that somehow before the false connection to 9/11, neither *a conservative Congress nor President saw fit do address* if the *religious conservatives were willing to talk about anything *but* Clinton *getting a little something.*

"Oh, it was about the lies."

Unless it's Republican lies with clear corruption and a big body count, of course.

Then it's merely 'anti-Christian, anti-American partisan attacks.'

You seem worried about 'powers,' Frank.

How about *powers of observation?*

I know deduction is a bit much to ask right now.

From what I've been reading Islam will rule Europe ny the end of this century. and one day will probably be the majority in North America.
It's more to do with population growth,and Muslims
have the greatest population growth of all other groups by far.Its just no contest.
Just have to accept reality,and get over it.

In the 2008 elections, I would like to see which other candidate (except Tom Tancredo) takes a very balanced stand against Islamic radicalism and immigration.

Fareed Zakaria has written in Newsweek that Islamic terrorism is 10% of the Muslim population. But, in my view, that's still to be reckoned with. Zakaria suggests/implies, naively, that populating USA with more Muslims from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, UAE etc., would enlighten USA's image.

But, while that liberal view just draws hand-clapping and cheers, what would be the answer if even 1% of the Muslims who were welcomed to USA per Zakaria's prescription, started something like the Fort Dix Albanian Muslims ? If the incidence of homegrown Islamic terrorism rises with this mad influx of Muslims into USA, how does that mend ties between Islam and USA (West) ?

" this idea is based on the premise that us presence is a GOOD thing for iraqi.

"clearly it is not.
wouldntit be better to take those energies and resources and expend them in some rebuilding of the infrastructure of iraq?"

I think, Victoria, that it's typical right-wing defamation of liberals and dissenters to claim the only options are 'Follow Bush' or 'Abandon The Iraqi people.'

America can do better than provide targets.

I think what has to happen is that the UN must intervene, and organize peacekeeping forces that the Iraqi people *can* greet as friends.

Maybe even agree on. This is not to say that we, or any other Americans are "cowards," because things have in fact been screwed up as we warned they would, however brave the troops.

Simple fact is that the 'greeted as liberators' thing is a ship that sailed a long time ago.

Doesn't matter how brave we are: it can't be our troops there, if we want good to come of it.

I think where we must show *courage* is to step up and admit our mistakes, and appeal to the world whose opinions and interests we scorned in the name of a lie, to help make it right.

Certainly, that can't be more expensive than what we're doing now.

If you're confused about the PBS situation, guess who put someone new in charge, there?

Kind of like the NASA chief he brought in to tell us 'global warming might be a good thing,' and make it go away by *stopping climate observations.*

As for the link with the Ayatollah showing more respect and support toward transsexuals than, say, the Pope and others, well, isn't that just interesting. :)

i appreciate your intentions, but "abandon the iraqis and let whatever come what may?"

isnt there a possibilty that further military strategy and thinking is what has created this mess and to continue with that mentality will only continue to harm the iraqi people?

this idea is based on the premise that us presence is a GOOD thing for iraqi.

clearly it is not.
wouldntit be better to take those energies and resources and expend them in some rebuilding of the infrastructure of iraq?

roads, schools, hospitals, utilities.
wouldnt having electricity all the time have more of a stabilizing effect?

imagine 2 billion dollars a week going to create instead of destroy.

at this point, all of these theories seem just to appease bad consciences.

it makes it APPEAR as though we actually care about the welfare of the iraqis- when in fact and deed we have no from day one.

to try and ineptly staple good intentions at the very end of this fiasco (by pretending to care how it is left, not from goodwill but from a point of view of how america appears to the rest of the world) we didnt care while we were destroying it did we?

how about the 10s of 1000's of miliary men who were already IN iraq at the start of this war?

we just let them go, into the streets, jobless and penniless and angry.

and where did they go?
did they put down their weapons and become bricklayers?

give the iraqis resources to build their own infrastructure back up.

theres a power vacuum the US is trying to fill, but they will remain strangers in a strange land, have no comprehension of the people they are trying to govern(just ask the prime minister where he gets his marching orders- hes been stating publicly for 2 years he just wants to quit and wished he never got that job).

continued military presence?
how is that an approach in the middle?
it is more of the same.

I recently heard a speaker say that the calls to withdraw from Iraq are usually as little thought out as the rush to war was. My initial reaction was to balk as pulling out seems so far better than this mess. He then, however, discussed an option that seems to have been completely left out of this debate - the U.S. drastically reducing the size of the force there and remaining in a truly (not in name only) supportive role for the Iraqi military and police, with enough troops ready on quick standby if things spiral completely out of control. I have come to agree -- before we completely abandon the Iraqis and let whatever come what may, leaving things to be determined only after a total withdrawal, I feel an approach somewhere in the middle must be attempted. We owe it to the Iraqi people (and to ourselves) to try to make this right, and there are not just two options available.

Victoria and sympathizers,

Give me a break ! Iran keeps the terror going to keep the price of oil high so they can sponsor more terror with their profits. That and to continue to spread their Shiite version of Islam to include all of Iraq.

And all based on what group has the true descendent of the "angel talking", illiterate Arab named Mohammed!!!!! Significant stupidity abounds in global Islam and the global community continues to feel its effects.

And again I see no condemnation from you of the militaristic and anti-female passages of your book of death. Nor do I see any support for global freedom of religion. And why is that???????????

And what have the Syrians done recently to promote world peace? Assassinated another anti-Syrian Lebanese leader!!!!!!!!!!

well, i waited and waited, but fox news didnt air the special they renamed "muslims against jihad".

is anyone else as disturbed as i am by the fact that frank here thinks the nazis kept "cop out jews" in storage in case the nazi thing didnt pan out?

ive been watching the entire pbs 'america at a crossroads' series.

i am really saddened and a little freaked at how negatively it portrays muslim-

honestly i havent seen a positive portrayal at all.

theres alot of inflammatory images and rah-rah americanism on it- but if i werent a muslim- and didnt know where it was ignoring obvious positives to offset it-

actually i think it would frighten and discourage me about islam.

i did call pbs and ask why they have no banner or greeting or recognition of any kind of ramadan during its 30 days-

but was put on hold indefinitely.

ive always been a big fan of pbs

Shill Detector wrote:

"The whole 9-11 event was a zionist/neocon plan to involve America in the Middle East."

Obviously, then the neocons inside US Whitehouse had plans to kill 3000 Americans to get involved in the middle-east.

Hey shill, chill out ! You sound worse than Ward Churchill in Colorado !

Typical Islamic rubbish-speak !

anon:

to correct your post:

So you get education from PBS:Congratulations!!!

"PBS has blocked the broadcast of Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. This new documentary — funded with a $675,000 Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) grant — contrasts the ubiquitous bearded, burka-covered Muslim radicals with others seldom seen: men and women who wear Western attire, shave daily, show their female faces, and prosper without slaughtering “infidels.”

While moderate Muslims may appear elsewhere on PBS, Uncle Sam’s TV channel declines to air this compelling, even-handed, and surprisingly tame film that explores the struggle between modern Muslims and their backward brethren. Produced by Canadian filmmaker Martyn Burke and the Center for Security Policy’s (CSP) Alex Alexiev and Frank Gaffney, Islam vs. Islamists is no fire-breathing, Islamophobic screed. While it sympathizes with mellow Muslims targeted by their hotheaded co-religionists, it simply lets individual Muslims speak for themselves, with limited commentary — none of it inflammatory.

Capital HQ — a New York-based public-affairs organization — quickly arranged a sold-out screening of Islam last Tuesday night (after CRC Public Relations had done the same in Washington, D.C,. the week before). Even after benches and folding chairs were dragged in from the Union Square 14-plex’s lobby, guests still clogged the aisles.

The film showcases brave, moderate Muslims like Naser Khader, a Syrian-born Danish legislator who preaches the separation of mosque and state. The mere fact that he votes in Copenhagen’s parliament enrages Muslim zealots.

“To make laws — only a god does that. And there is only one god in Islam, and that is Allah,” says Slimane Abderrahmane, an Algerian-Danish alumnus of al Qaeda’s terror camps and, later, Guantanamo. “So you’re saying, ‘I’m just like Allah.’ And you can’t do that.”

Rather than submit to such Muslim crackpots, Khader fled Copenhagen for a small Danish town. He also requires 24-hour police protection. This is hardly paranoid. During the deadly Muslim overreaction to those newspaper images of Mohammed in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, Danish Muslim fanatic Ahmed Akkari said, “If Khader becomes minister of integration, shouldn’t someone dispatch two guys to blow up him and his ministry?”

The man who videotaped Akkari’s words also appears in “Islam.”

Mohamed Sifaoui, a peaceful Algerian-French journalist, infiltrated a Parisian band of Muslim extremists. Some appeared via hidden camera. Others hammed it up, thinking Sifaoui was shooting an Islamist propaganda and training movie.

Since French TV showed his film, bodyguards have surrounded Sifaoui.

It is highly newsworthy that moderates such as Khader and Sifaoui need security agents to shield them from Allah’s potentially homicidal followers. Nonetheless, PBS has nixed this film.

“Islam vs. Islamists had not completed the production and review process for PBS,” says presenting station WETA’s statement. “They [sic] program still has not.” Despite minor audio glitches, the screened film appeared complete.

The documentary “was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn’t fair,” WETA executive Jeff Bieber has complained. (Full disclosure: I was a panelist on WETA’s Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered.)

Islam is abundantly fair. Those in it, all Muslim, represent themselves. They range from thoroughly relaxed, perfectly patriotic Arizona physician Dr. Zuhdi Jasser to Canadian imam Aly Hindy, who embraces the fatal stoning of adulterers. “It’s not controversial,” he laughs, waving a Koran. “This is Islam.”

Burke claims PBS executives told him to fire his conservative production partners, which he refused to do. WETA’s statement disputes this, adding:

While PBS and CPB were concerned about Mr. Gaffney’s office [sic] role with the CSP a decision was made early on to judge the film on its merits rather than excluding Mr. Gaffney because he runs this conservative advocacy group.

WETA’s communiqué calls the CSP “a right-wing think tank.”

Tariq Fatah also appears in Islam. This Toronto-based TV host calls himself “a 9-to-5 Muslim.” He wears suits and wields no rocket-propelled grenades. Like other Muslims in this picture, he has endured violent attacks from Islamists who detest his joviality.

“These people are opposed to happiness,” he told his Manhattan audience. “And a constitution that mentions the pursuit of happiness is a problem for them.”

Fatah argues that politically correct PBS executives “believe you are a genuine Muslim only if you look like a Muslim.” Sans beards, burqas, and blood in their eyes, Fatah says, PBS officials regard Muslims like him as inauthentic and thus unworthy of consideration.

Gaffney, one of Islam’s executive producers, wants Americans to “raise some hell,” until PBS either shows the film or lets another channel broadcast it. He hopes citizens will call PBS at 703-739-5000 and urge them to air the documentary. FreeTheFilm.net suggests other ways to promote this movie.

“Everyone whose tax dollars went into making this film should have the chance to see it for themselves and make up their own minds,” Frank Gaffney says. “That’s all we ask"

The Moderate:
No such Hadiths-Anonymous is a cousin of Frank C and Cncrnd the Xtian:more of the same recycled lies to deflect our attention from Bush's crusade on Iraq for OIL and Joe Liberman.

fyi:
So you get education from Fox News:Congratulations!!!

Pamela,
Excellent,coherent and balanced analysis-wish the idiots in the white house understand it.

The US invasion,destruction and occupation of Iraq is a historical blunder:"Great Empires and little Minds Go ill Together."

US should withdraw from Iraq,the sooner the better-it has no other choice.What is fuelling violence is American occupation between those who naturally resist it and those who are precieved to support or appease it. The water will eventually take its level:in the short run the violence will increase when the US withdraws-but in the medium/long term,Iraqis will come together because they will have no excuse for continued conflict-it will not be worse than the American civil war;Iraq has no history of civil or secerian strife-as western so called ME experts claim. Iraqis are Arab in their majority-sunni and Shia-and about equal as sunnis(Arabs and Kurds total about 45%-the Kurds are sunnis) and Shia who are about 55%.

The big loosers of this conflict are the Iraqi people and the US; the big winner is no other than Israel/AIPAC who has its wars fought by American blood and treasure.

Janet, thanks for the book suggestion, I will check it out.

As for what makes the difference between a progressive Muslim and a conservative Muslims -- some basic stances -- one of which is that all human beings are deserving of the same respect, love, rights and civil liberties. While conservative Muslims may say they believe in this, in practice they will not support the rights and liberties of glbt Muslim, and will justify discriminatory practices against women. Progressive Muslims, on the other hand, try to actualize the notion that God loves all parts of his creation.

Where on Earth are the moderate Muslims? Thanks to PBS, they’re not on public television.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYxYzlmOTk5MTdmZGZlYmRiZWQ1MTUzZjJmZjVkMTE=

WATCH TONITE AT 9:00 ET ON FOX:

"Tune in this weekend, as FOX News Channel presents the documentary the Public Broadcasting System didn’t want you to see.

It’s a film about the difference between moderate Muslims and the radicals who want to kill us. It asks where are the moderate Muslims and why aren’t they speaking out against the jihadists? And it was financed with $675,000 of taxpayers’ money.

It was commissioned as part of the PBS series “America at the Crossroads” about the post 9/11 world, but PBS executives rejected it.

PBS claims the filmmakers were “alarmist, overreaching and unfair.”

The filmmakers say they were censored because of liberal bias at PBS.

On a topic this important, we think you have the right to decide for yourself."

Henry,

There is nothing explicit in the Quran about sex change. However, if you would like to learn more about the subject, please check this article at this link or google 'sex change in Iran.'

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/Maryam/Maryam.html

Henry,

There is nothing explicit in the Quran about sex change. However, if you would like to learn more about the subject, please check this article at this link or google 'sex change in Iran.'

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/Maryam/Maryam.html

Probably, given the Islamic stance on Homosexuality - they still stone them whne they catch them when they get off that lightly - They don't like the idea.

And further read some history. Islam has been at war with the West since it was founded.

Victoria

I hesitate to ask this in a context that includes FrankC and Concerned's relentless battering of Islam (which I don't intend by this question, I am truly only curious)

does the Koran have anything to say about Allah's view of Sex Change operations?

Love and Admiration
Henry

Vote RON PAUL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

PS - that was YoYo the yoyo who provided that bit of Jewish theology and veiled critique of Christianity.

To ANON and A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God:

"My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

What an astonising piece of work considering the author is JEWISH!

Oh course they do not believe in the Church or a personal God or even sin.

What enthnocentric crap! "my God...." is better than your God.

The work and thinking of children!

The Moderate,

That is not Anonymous. That is the illustrious Dr. Frank Collins PhD.!

Dear Anonymous:

The theology discussion on the previous thread about a Creator (the Uncaused Cause) is indeed not tied to any religious scripture, or particular sectarian point of view.

It is not particularly Christian, nor Jewish, nor Moslem, nor Buddhist, nor Shinto, nor Druid, nor is it the Classical Pantheon.

Einstein and the Poet, eh? Sounds like an interesting book. I'll look that one up. Thanks for the cite.

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.12

Dear Anonymous:

It is dangerous to go back to the religious documents that were of a time, place, and mode of living, and of dying quite alien to us, and hang them on the people of today.

Most Muslims today don't believe in killin the idolaters...

Most Jews of today don't believe in stoning the homosexuals...

Most secularists of today don't believe in lining the highways with crucified slaves...

Most Christians of today don't believe in loving their enemies as themselves...

Ouch... Sorry about that last one. ;-)

YO-YO:

Your rants do not hold up to the historical facts.

So sorry about the hundred and hundred million or so murders that the Twentieth Century Commmunist Atheist regimes committed in the name of creating the new Athiest/Socialist man purified of religion.

The only thing more dangerous than Mankind with Religion is Mankind without it.

TJ,

I see we have another sufferer of "Goritis".

Fear not, Fred Thompson is on his way.

yoyo - what a perfect name you have picked for yourself!

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated wrote: "Iraq is all about the War on Terror."

Your stupidity is truly staggering.

Religion is amazing.Its power is awesome.
To think that on September 11 2001,nineteen intelligent,college educated,religious young men,some with PHD's,
could believe so strongly in a god and paradise, up there in the sky somewhere, that they died horrible deaths and killed thousands just to get in.
These were not morons.
They were just seriously religious.
For years supernatural ideas had been drilled into their brains almost hypnotically through groupthink and belief in every word of their ever studied Holy Book. Surely,once one accepts the existence of the supernatural as natural or real,then ones reason must suffer,and one is set up to believe almost anything.
Despite their PHD's, religion turned these men into deranged and murderous idiots.
Lets stop treating religious thinking as something wise and wonderful.It's not. It's ridiculous,irrational and the most dangerous force out there.

Hey YoYo,

Dont forget the Judaism! Neo cons are primarily Jewish and the movement was started by Jewish intellectuals (just like Bolshevikism) in the 70s and 80s.

And why not throw "enlightened" atheists into the mix by pointing out the 100 million killed in the last 80 years by rational atheist communism.

Has rational athesism lost it license to kill and torture those who do not fit into its plan for the perfect human society?

When will you lose your license to misconstrue and slander entire groups of people while selectively leaving other groups (who are just as bad and worse) out of the critque???

Religion got us into this mess,and religion is why we can't get out.
It's not just Islam. The Christian religion is equally irrational;just not so violent these days.
There was a time,however,when Christianity ran amok in the world,torturing and killing;burning people and drowning others for one reason or another.
It is only since The Enlightenment that Christianity
has lost it's license to kill and torture.
Islam missed out on an enlightenment,and is as brutal as ever.
The only hope for the survival of civilization in this mad mad world is that belief in the supernatural be seen as ridiculous and without foundation,and that reason,logic and just plain common sense be promoted as the virtues they are.
But,unfortunately religion is in the ascendancy,
and the future's looking grim.

"Finally, for reasons that remain largely unexplained, we decided Saddam had to go,"

If you want to understand the thinking and background to the invasion, read Thomas Rick's Fiasco. He has an excellent account of the debates within the government pre-911, including the Clinton years, about what to do about Iraq, and then what happened post-911 to those debates. You will have a much clearer understanding of how and why those decisions were made after reading that book.

"The whole 9-11 event was a zionist/neocon plan to involve America in the Middle East."

Riiigghhhhttt....

And the US secretly told Saddam to invade Kuwait so that we would have an excuse to have our military stationed there...

And the US secretly told the Iranian Ayatollah to invade the embassy there to justify a build-up of the US's military in the region...

And the US secretly told the Lebanese to bomb our facilities there so that we could further focus our attention on the Middle East...

And the US is currently secretly telling Hizbollah and Fatah to increase their fighting so that the US can have an excuse to increase involvement there...

I'm pretty sure all of these were discussed and voted on by the trilateral commission in consultation with the Greys [though I believe Queen Elizabeth and Elvis both abstained from the vote].

Just so that I understand the argument here...

First the US was willing to engage with the Iraqi regime and placed no prohibitions on the trade [i.e., allowed military sales].

Result: Immoral -- the US was turning a blind eye.

Then, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US took a policy of defending Kuwait and forcing Iraq back to its borders without invading Iraq.

Result: Immoral -- the US left interanl Iraqi minorities to suffer as Saddam clamped down on them.

Then, the United States implemented a no-fly zone coupled with UN sanctions to reduce Saddam's ability to slaughter his own population.

Result: Immoral -- impacted the common Iraqi more than the Iraqi leadership.

Then, given the choice of continuing the immoral sanctions, returning to an immoral blind eye of allowing Saddam to arm his country, and the immoral option of invading to remove Saddam, the US chose the immoral option [the invasion moral option, not the other two immoral options].

So what exactly is the moral option again?

Concerned Christian now Liberated.

You are obviously liberated.

Liberated from rational thought.

The whole 9-11 event was a zionist/neocon plan to involve America in the Middle East.

Kinda like USS Liberty and the Gulf of Tonkin event (perhaps your too stupid and dumb to have learned of these incidents).

You make me ill.

Dear Anonymous,

You did not really read my post. You actually are just giving a recitation of a certain propaganda point of view.

The question is not whether UNICEF's data are correct. The question is who caused the deaths? Saddam and company had plenty of money for palaces, weapons, and wars. They left their own children to starve rather than use some of that money for humanitarian purposes. Also, UN corruption by Kofi Anon, his family, and the whole organization undermined the effectiveness of sanctions anyway, while enriching themselves. There was plenty of money.

You have a dictator who was expert in causing people to die who starved the children of his country while living in splendor. No question that he did that.

To blame that on the US is what makes it a canard.

Victoria,

Again some questions to answer as a representative of Islam:

Exactly where were you on 9/11?

And how goes your contributions to the Global Freedom of Religion Foundation?

And have you come to grips with the real, historic Mohammed? See any "angelic" visions lately?

the above post was mine-

so henry james, the battle of the sexes still rages even after weve shuffled off this mortal coil?
interesting...

http://www.childinfo.org/cmr/cmrirq.html

it will take about 3 seconds to read this graph by unicef

the mortality rate of children under 5 doubled after sanctions-

more than half a million up to 1999- (still leaving 4 years-

im not sure how you define canard-
the precious children of iraq might disagree

the question is asking about the moral culpability of the US

to say that people would have died without our intervention doesnt speak to the very tangible actions of america

at this point trying to reap good fruit from this rotten tree is a day late and a dollar short

if we were to do any good wed have already done it

spend 2 billion a week on infrastructures instead of death?

did you not notice pamelas last 2 paragraphs?

'Also to consider is the suffering of the average Iraqi, and the phenomenal cost of the ongoing military operations. Not only does the cost of the war strain our ability to provided needed social services at home, but it impedes our ability to help rebuild Iraq. I can't help but wonder, if we were spending $120 million every day to rebuild Iraqi hospitals and schools, roads and airports, water processing plants, factories, generators, etc, instead of spending that money on military operations, how quickly would the situation improve?

Getting our military out, as I said above, is only a midpoint, the rebuilding of Iraq is the endpoint. The way things currently stand, American corporations are not going to be able to participate in that rebuilding safely. Whether the UN can help deliver that aid, or whether it will have to be under the auspices of Arab nations, is something that will have to be determined. Either way, it is clearly our responsibility to help Iraq return to the economic level it was at before we invaded."

these are not actual thoughts?

Pamela

Once more a wise and humane perspective.

I love the men on this site, but the women columnists are consistently wiser and more humane,
esp the non Christian ones like Pamela and Starhawk and Ms Jacoby.

i think I will finally have that sex change operation. It will much easier now that I have shed my earthly body

Dear Pamela,

Your tag line about if we stay people die, and if we go people die is all too true. To that I would add if we didn't go there people would have died, and in large numbers, too.

The US has been accused of supporting dictators when it does not topple them. When we topple one, we are accused of wanting to steal Oil. But being too stupid and confused, we failed to make off with any. I am not sure that we should have gone there, but I seem to remember a large manifest of missing WMD that UNSCOM compiled after Gulf War I. That seems to have been lost, and is probably deteriorated past the point of being useful, or was poured into the sands long ago. There is no question that it was used for a time, though. Ask any Kurd. Ask the Iranians.

The sanctions thing is a canard. Oil For Food offered plenty of revenue for the Dictator to buy anything the people needed. The money was reprogrammed to renewed weapons acquisition. Some of it went into the pockets of the Kofi Anon and his son. Most of it went into the weapons programs of Saddam.

As for rebuilding after we have gone, great payments will only end up in Swiss banks. It seems that billions have been poured into the desert sands to no effect while we are there, too.

This is pretty bleak. But the tired old recitations of what not to do will not get us, or the precious children of Iraq anywhere. What to do? How can good be called up out of this? Any actual new thoughts?

And where was Anon on 9/11???????

Suprise, suprise - Concerned and Frank on this thread.

You couldn't keep these two small-minded, backward bigots away from a column written by a Muslim woman if you tried.

Pamela and Victoria,

Again you missed the point. Iraq is all about the War on Terror. Exactly where were you on 9/11?

And how goes your contributions to the Global Freedom of Religion Foundation?

And have you come to grips with the real, historic Mohammed? See any "angelic" visions lately?

War
you say,
will buy us Peace
A piece of What?

I say.

A piece of honor as we turn our back on principles
we trumpet for ourselves but not for other,
democracy,national sovereignty,compassionate capitalism?

from the poem 'War'

i think pamela reasonably calls attention to the fact that- while the majority express concern for the iraqi people (a concern considerably lacking during sanctions that killed and crippled 100s of 1000s of the weakest members of iraqi society for 13 long years) to justify our presence- this concern doesnt extend to the ability to consider the viewpoint of those we supposedly are there to help. (wouldnt that be the first perspective one takes when helping?)

and as john also points out most succinctly- the self serving agenda of the neocons to protect israel using american lives blended nicely with the self serving agenda of the current administrations to grab the oil under any means necessary.

in hindsight (and forsight) it is transparently obvious who standed to benefit from this war.

and its not the american people or the iraqis.

Sorry, not only was there not huge public sentiment against the invasion of Iraq there was, if I recall correctly, great enthusiasm for the enterprise on the part of the majority. Some people though, including myself and I'm hardly an expert on the Middle East, predicted quagmire and civil war, with no possible exit as well, because of the danger that without our military's presence the strife would spread and threaten oil supplies elsewhere. In fact, oil in Iraq's undeveloped western fields was the primary reason for the war - google "cheney peak oil". The VP was talking about the need to get at it way back in the 90's. Besides oil, it was a misguided attempt to make the region safer for Israel. Throw an uneducated easily manipulated fool of a President into the mix, desperate for an accomplishment, having botched everything he ever got near all his life, an accomplishment with the bonus that it would show up his father, an uncritical public and cable news desperate for a really big money-making career-advancing war and voila - Shock and Awe.