Blackrock and the Vanguard Group

[Rambunctious]

The CIA lied. But Bush would have known they were lying.

He may have frigidweirdo...I don't know and I have no love for the Bush men....I think they have been very bad for America...but the CIA is due for a severe house cleaning and so is the DOJ and the FBI...IMO

 

[frigidweirdo]

The CIA lied. But Bush would have known they were lying.

He may have frigidweirdo...I don't know and I have no love for the Bush men....I think they have been very bad for America...but the CIA is due for a severe house cleaning and so is the DOJ and the FBI...IMO

So your argument is "he may have". I thought you KNEW.

It's funny that you think the CIA, DOJ and FBI are in for severe house cleaning.

The whole of the damn USA is in need of severe house cleaning.

If you have a rats' nest it doesn't matter if you clean the living room out of rats, they'll still come back, because you didn't get rid of the nest.

Until you get rid of FPTP voting that keeps everything the same, nothing will change no matter how many people you kick out of high end positions. Because you still need to replace them with people, who if they're successful they'll be playing the game, and that game is corrupt.

 

[Rambunctious]

So your argument is "he may have". I thought you KNEW.

Who could know for sure?...certainly not you....he was lied to obviously...if he knew they were lying than he should be very ashamed...Remember where our minds were after 9-11...we thought WMD's could be given or sold to people that would use them against us...he may have seriously feared that prospect....that's kind of his job to expect and be ready for the worst case scenario...hell they flew two jet liners into two buildings during the morning rush....what was next?...

 

[frigidweirdo]

So your argument is "he may have". I thought you KNEW.

Who could know for sure?...certainly not you....he was lied to obviously...if he knew they were lying than he should be very ashamed...Remember where our minds were after 9-11...we thought WMD's could be given or sold to people that would use them against us...he may have seriously feared that prospect....that's kind of his job to expect and be ready for the worst case scenario...hell they flew two jet liners into two buildings during the morning rush....what was next?...

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

 

[Rambunctious]

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

Your theory is without any evidence just speculation....take the web with a grain of salt...especially these days....

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

Your theory is without any evidence just speculation....take the web with a grain of salt...especially these days....

But I'm backing it up with things that actually happened.

OPEC getting stronger due to Hugo Chavez.

Here's my evidence that this happened.

Venezuela's Chavez Takes the Lead in OPEC

"The nationalist president is also trying to grab a lead role in OPEC. If he succeeds on both fronts, he may restore the feeble cartel to some of its previous glory, when it could dictate much of the world's oil production and price."

This from August 31st 1999.

Coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. US involvement

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established."

"One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair."

This one was from a week after the coup. Later on we knew more.

Why would the US go after Hugo Chavez? Because US interests were at stake. If OPEC became a successful cartel, the US would have higher oil prices and the economy would stutter. Not good for the US.

This coup happened a year before the Iraq War.

Why take out Iraq? Saddam Hussein a threat to the world? He wasn't. At least he wasn't with WMDs. We know this to be true, and the US administration would have known this too.

So how did he pose a threat?

Hugo Chavez didn't die until 2013. So in 2003 you still had Hugo Chavez because the coup failed. You still had Iran, Iraq and Libya. The Saudis might go along with OPEC if these four were still around.

Take out Iraq, and you hurt OPEC's abilities. Replace Saddam with a puppet government that will privatize the oil industry, meaning they can't decide how much oil they pump out, and you hurt OPEC even more.

OPEC countries with nationalized oil.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia. These alone are enough to change world oil prices.

Then we can move on to the Saudi v. Iranian issue. They hate each other. Really. Sunni v. Shia. What does the US care? Even during the Iraq post war period, there was talk of taking out Iran. Iran is always vilified in the press, while the Saudis do much worse things and come off lightly.

The only reason is, is that the Iranians aren't easy to manipulated when it comes to oil.

Everything comes down to oil. I could keep going, presenting more and more arguments on this until I have thousands and thousands of words you won't even read.

 

[Rambunctious]

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

Your theory is without any evidence just speculation....take the web with a grain of salt...especially these days....

But I'm backing it up with things that actually happened.

OPEC getting stronger due to Hugo Chavez.

Here's my evidence that this happened.

Venezuela's Chavez Takes the Lead in OPEC

"The nationalist president is also trying to grab a lead role in OPEC. If he succeeds on both fronts, he may restore the feeble cartel to some of its previous glory, when it could dictate much of the world's oil production and price."

This from August 31st 1999.

Coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. US involvement

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established."

"One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair."

This one was from a week after the coup. Later on we knew more.

Why would the US go after Hugo Chavez? Because US interests were at stake. If OPEC became a successful cartel, the US would have higher oil prices and the economy would stutter. Not good for the US.

This coup happened a year before the Iraq War.

Why take out Iraq? Saddam Hussein a threat to the world? He wasn't. At least he wasn't with WMDs. We know this to be true, and the US administration would have known this too.

So how did he pose a threat?

Hugo Chavez didn't die until 2013. So in 2003 you still had Hugo Chavez because the coup failed. You still had Iran, Iraq and Libya. The Saudis might go along with OPEC if these four were still around.

Take out Iraq, and you hurt OPEC's abilities. Replace Saddam with a puppet government that will privatize the oil industry, meaning they can't decide how much oil they pump out, and you hurt OPEC even more.

OPEC countries with nationalized oil.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia. These alone are enough to change world oil prices.

Then we can move on to the Saudi v. Iranian issue. They hate each other. Really. Sunni v. Shia. What does the US care? Even during the Iraq post war period, there was talk of taking out Iran. Iran is always vilified in the press, while the Saudis do much worse things and come off lightly.

The only reason is, is that the Iranians aren't easy to manipulated when it comes to oil.

Everything comes down to oil. I could keep going, presenting more and more arguments on this until I have thousands and thousands of words you won't even read.

No....what you are doing is what the MSM does today...speculate and make news from it...

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

Your theory is without any evidence just speculation....take the web with a grain of salt...especially these days....

But I'm backing it up with things that actually happened.

OPEC getting stronger due to Hugo Chavez.

Here's my evidence that this happened.

Venezuela's Chavez Takes the Lead in OPEC

"The nationalist president is also trying to grab a lead role in OPEC. If he succeeds on both fronts, he may restore the feeble cartel to some of its previous glory, when it could dictate much of the world's oil production and price."

This from August 31st 1999.

Coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. US involvement

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established."

"One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair."

This one was from a week after the coup. Later on we knew more.

Why would the US go after Hugo Chavez? Because US interests were at stake. If OPEC became a successful cartel, the US would have higher oil prices and the economy would stutter. Not good for the US.

This coup happened a year before the Iraq War.

Why take out Iraq? Saddam Hussein a threat to the world? He wasn't. At least he wasn't with WMDs. We know this to be true, and the US administration would have known this too.

So how did he pose a threat?

Hugo Chavez didn't die until 2013. So in 2003 you still had Hugo Chavez because the coup failed. You still had Iran, Iraq and Libya. The Saudis might go along with OPEC if these four were still around.

Take out Iraq, and you hurt OPEC's abilities. Replace Saddam with a puppet government that will privatize the oil industry, meaning they can't decide how much oil they pump out, and you hurt OPEC even more.

OPEC countries with nationalized oil.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia. These alone are enough to change world oil prices.

Then we can move on to the Saudi v. Iranian issue. They hate each other. Really. Sunni v. Shia. What does the US care? Even during the Iraq post war period, there was talk of taking out Iran. Iran is always vilified in the press, while the Saudis do much worse things and come off lightly.

The only reason is, is that the Iranians aren't easy to manipulated when it comes to oil.

Everything comes down to oil. I could keep going, presenting more and more arguments on this until I have thousands and thousands of words you won't even read.

No....what you are doing is what the MSM does today...speculate and make news from it...

Speculate?

Not really.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Powell was a part of Bush's team, remember?

Before war is taken, the US govt usually follows this:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

Let's look at Iraq.

1) US vital national security interests threatened? Well, since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam had been contained. There was no new threat.

So what were the US's vital national security interests then?

OPEC getting stronger?

2) Clear objectives?

Take out Saddam was probably the only clear objective that normal folk could see.
They didn't seem to have a post war plan. But maybe they did. Maybe chaos in Iraq served their purpose.

On a larger scale were the objectives to stop Saddam having WMDs that the US govt felt no threat from, or were the objectives to take down OPEC?

Now, seeing that the US tried to take out Chavez, took out Iraq, took out Libya in 2011 but DID NOT take out Syria (why not?) a few months later, and had sanctions against Iran and Venezuela that have destroyed their economies. Do you think that the US had clear objectives from 2001 onwards that involved no only Iraq, but all OPEC countries that opposed the US?

3) The costs. Clearly they must have seen the costs. Taking out Saddam when containment was working on a much, MUCH cheaper level must have meant that they saw the investment in Iraq as being worth something.

Worth what? What did the US gain from Iraq?

4) Non-violent policies? Like a coup in Venezuela that FAILED? Then yes, it failed, war was now the only option. Only war in Venezuela, jungle territory, reminders of Vietnam, not going to happen. But Iraq....

7 and 8) support of the people, support internationally.

Well, you needed something. You couldn't go in saying "we want to take down OPEC." It'd piss the Saudis off, and the other 7 OPEC countries not officially opposed to the US.

WMDs were something the simple minded people could get behind and something foreign countries couldn't criticize. It was something they could get from the UN. The perfect cover.

The Powell Doctrine suggests a lot about how the US govt was working at the time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is you're supposed to be making an argument. But you're not.

The point here, going back to Blackrock and Vanguard is that these same companies keep appearing all over the companies that benefited from the invasion of Iraq.

The US doesn't go to war unless "US INTERESTS" are being served. US interests are MONEY.

Oil is money. OPEC was threatening oil prices and oil supply.

The US took OPEC out.

Your argument doesn't suggest much in the way of US interests. WMDs? Well so what? Other countries have such things. There wasn't much to suggest that Iraq was arming anyone.
There was a lot to suggest Saudi Arabia was attacking the US and US interests meant the US did nothing.

Your theory is without any evidence just speculation....take the web with a grain of salt...especially these days....

But I'm backing it up with things that actually happened.

OPEC getting stronger due to Hugo Chavez.

Here's my evidence that this happened.

Venezuela's Chavez Takes the Lead in OPEC

"The nationalist president is also trying to grab a lead role in OPEC. If he succeeds on both fronts, he may restore the feeble cartel to some of its previous glory, when it could dictate much of the world's oil production and price."

This from August 31st 1999.

Coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. US involvement

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established."

"One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair."

This one was from a week after the coup. Later on we knew more.

Why would the US go after Hugo Chavez? Because US interests were at stake. If OPEC became a successful cartel, the US would have higher oil prices and the economy would stutter. Not good for the US.

This coup happened a year before the Iraq War.

Why take out Iraq? Saddam Hussein a threat to the world? He wasn't. At least he wasn't with WMDs. We know this to be true, and the US administration would have known this too.

So how did he pose a threat?

Hugo Chavez didn't die until 2013. So in 2003 you still had Hugo Chavez because the coup failed. You still had Iran, Iraq and Libya. The Saudis might go along with OPEC if these four were still around.

Take out Iraq, and you hurt OPEC's abilities. Replace Saddam with a puppet government that will privatize the oil industry, meaning they can't decide how much oil they pump out, and you hurt OPEC even more.

OPEC countries with nationalized oil.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia. These alone are enough to change world oil prices.

Then we can move on to the Saudi v. Iranian issue. They hate each other. Really. Sunni v. Shia. What does the US care? Even during the Iraq post war period, there was talk of taking out Iran. Iran is always vilified in the press, while the Saudis do much worse things and come off lightly.

The only reason is, is that the Iranians aren't easy to manipulated when it comes to oil.

Everything comes down to oil. I could keep going, presenting more and more arguments on this until I have thousands and thousands of words you won't even read.

No....what you are doing is what the MSM does today...speculate and make news from it...

Speculate?

Not really.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Powell was a part of Bush's team, remember?

Before war is taken, the US govt usually follows this:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

Let's look at Iraq.

1) US vital national security interests threatened? Well, since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam had been contained. There was no new threat.

So what were the US's vital national security interests then?

OPEC getting stronger?

2) Clear objectives?

Take out Saddam was probably the only clear objective that normal folk could see.
They didn't seem to have a post war plan. But maybe they did. Maybe chaos in Iraq served their purpose.

On a larger scale were the objectives to stop Saddam having WMDs that the US govt felt no threat from, or were the objectives to take down OPEC?

Now, seeing that the US tried to take out Chavez, took out Iraq, took out Libya in 2011 but DID NOT take out Syria (why not?) a few months later, and had sanctions against Iran and Venezuela that have destroyed their economies. Do you think that the US had clear objectives from 2001 onwards that involved no only Iraq, but all OPEC countries that opposed the US?

3) The costs. Clearly they must have seen the costs. Taking out Saddam when containment was working on a much, MUCH cheaper level must have meant that they saw the investment in Iraq as being worth something.

Worth what? What did the US gain from Iraq?

4) Non-violent policies? Like a coup in Venezuela that FAILED? Then yes, it failed, war was now the only option. Only war in Venezuela, jungle territory, reminders of Vietnam, not going to happen. But Iraq....

7 and 8) support of the people, support internationally.

Well, you needed something. You couldn't go in saying "we want to take down OPEC." It'd piss the Saudis off, and the other 7 OPEC countries not officially opposed to the US.

WMDs were something the simple minded people could get behind and something foreign countries couldn't criticize. It was something they could get from the UN. The perfect cover.

The Powell Doctrine suggests a lot about how the US govt was working at the time.

Who mailed the anthrax after 9/11?