Massive anti-war demo in Italy.

[Bereta_Eder]

no Ming. yopu are wrong. it 9s about pilitics AND economics.

why ou ar so relunctant to admit it idint know.

again i offerd you your state department assessemtns. thank god im drunk (would never affec t me in seriosu matters ) and tyhqnk godmore it is now published.



opec, no matter who it will try to control prises will not get in the way of tha fact that:

againm



US companeis will aget the ep[loration/eploitation rights under an pro US regime in iraq.


and yes proices wiol fall, who said anything different? after one year. for all

US copmanies will be in an advantageous position o profit.


it is this Ming. internal US Politics like you say but also amnd MORE erconomics.

[Ming]

I can say the same... I don't understand how you can keep to your one trick troll. You refuse to look at reality, even as it hits you across the back of the head.

But that's ok, we are used to that from you

[Bereta_Eder]

Ming. dont get cheap on me.

You havent refuted any of myu "arguments"

because they are not arguments they are your and euro assessemnts.

Dont go low, plase

[Lord Merciless]

A friendly Iraq can also serve as a base to put more pressure on Iran and Saudi Arabia. Given that Turkey is bordering Iraq, we can have potential NATO expansion all the way down to the Persian Gulf.

BTW, Europeans and Japanese are more dependent on ME oil than the US. They probably can reap even bigger profits if Iraq is brought under US control.

As Iran, we will have a far easier time to set up infiltrations or propagandas against the current ruling theocratic oligarchs(who have become highly unpopular nowadays).

Finally, getting cheap Iraqi oil will finally give us some leverage against those back-stabbing Saudis. If they don't stop funding the terrorists, we can either stop paying them at all or have an easy invasion into their oil fields.

[Az]

hmm, lots of typos. Ming, Paiktis is drunk. leave him alone.

In any case, what's the buff. If the US gets to put it's puppet regime in Baghdad, Americans will get cheap gas, Iraq will be rich from oil , and EVERYONE WINS! what's the problem?

[Bereta_Eder]

in vinoi veritas


two things Ming will not acceot:


1) US will have losses fro m war - refuted by their own state deprtment,. in mediuk term - huigely beneficial .


2) US weil buy oil like veryone else.

yes true. and oil porices will fall.


but US companies wilkl get eploration adn expolitation rights magniufigning their profits to infinitum,.


thats it.

Ming you can understand what im saying cant you?

i amy be drunk but it is simply company leitourgics (sorry for going to greek to explain )

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Azazel
In any case, what's the buff. If the US gets to put it's puppet regime in Baghdad, Americans will get cheap gas, Iraq will be rich from oil , and EVERYONE WINS! what's the problem?

The problem lies that someone will die before everything is happy again.

[Bereta_Eder]

this and also that ireaqi poeople will suffer under the new regime ore than with sadam


also that the US poewr will be left uncontrolled.

who next?

you get the idea.

[Ming]

No paiktis22... you are using the "assesments" (and that's all they are, they may not even be correct) and saying that is the rational for Bush's war on Iraq. You seem to think that the assesments are the driving force.
And that's where you are wrong... Whether the assesments are correct or not, NONE of them claim that they are the rational for attacking Iraq. They are only stating that they may be the results of attacking and winning...

So again... it's all about politics. IF (and that's a big if) everything goes perfectly, and nothing goes wrong, it MAY mean lower oil prices for the US (again, no guarantees here). You are trying to link the two, where no link actually exists. So quote your "assesements" all you want... they aren't relevent.

[Az]

But they would die sooner or later anyway, who cares?

[Bereta_Eder]

Politics are driven by asssessments Ming. Particularly your own assessments and that of top euortw@ats.

it is about interna politics but also about ecnomics whcih are gguided by top assessemnts .

it is smiply that


IMNO economiocs go first or close by with politics internal.


you can disagree. but is this the poiiunt?


i think no.

[Giancarlo]

Ming, arguing with paiktis is like trying to argue with a brick wall. If you provide a link he will ignore it.

[Az]

we have a smiley for this , fez.

[Giancarlo]

Thanks...

[Bereta_Eder]

provide whatever you want.

what i said makjes sense, the assessments make sence both american and europen and Ming is free to decide on this:

1) internal politics are #1
2) economics are #1


i say they both are both that this is not the point .



whatever Ming