l think the UN sold more oil for Saddam than what these insurgents are doing.. but any of it going into the wrong hands should be stopped. needs to be control over the oil supply by the US forces!

Posted by: Lulu at February 5, 2006 1:07 PM

control over the oil supply by the US forces!
- posted by Lulu

Any such move will initially be met with public outcry about the US "stealing Iraqi oil." No one will consider the alternative-- the fact that foreign terrorists are actually, currently stealing Iraqi oil-- until they notice they're safer, and there's an actual cashflow from the oil.

That is, if that were to happen. There's probably not the political will to withstand the initial cries of "Thief!"

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 5, 2006 2:24 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8442014088728649932

Posted by: Kemaste at February 5, 2006 2:30 PM

Afterthought:

Sunoco's been mentioned here recently on account of its partial ethanol content. Unfortunately, there are no Sunoco stations in my part of Texas.

However, if you're in one of the 7 or so states that has Fina stations, check this out: They're owned by Alon, an Israeli company.

http://www.alon.co.il/mainpagee.html

I initially looked into them out of curiosity as to whether it might be Mexican oil, but hey, this works for me, too. I dread having to spend money on gasoline, but when I have to, I know where I'm spending it in the future.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 5, 2006 2:39 PM

OT BUT IMPORTANT:

On "In the Money", an idiot newscaster on CNN just stated, "the Moslems are rioting because you are not allowed to depict the images of Ellijah Mohammed, and the Danes did."

No wonder if people in the US know anything about the religion of peace. Ellijah Mohammed is not the "prophet" except to those in the NOI!!!

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 5, 2006 3:09 PM

I saw Meshaan al-Juburi in North Iraq in the aftermath of the War. He actually came with United Sates troops from Kurdistan. He held court in the city of Mousel under the nose of American commanders and inelegance agents, declaring himself the de facto Governor of Mousel. He actually caused a riot by receiving tribal chiefs in the Mousel city hall, which infurateed the people who knew him only too well. The Marines had to open fire when the mop attacked Meshaan al-Juburi. The ended up pined-down in the building for over 24 hours.

So, the s.o.b, al-Juburi, who came under American protection, turned all elements that were opposed to Sadam against the Americans and caused a mealy that claimed the lives of the first civilians killed in Mousel, including a brain-dead little girl.

By no means he was not the only hated carpetbagger who came riding coattail of the U.S., only to stab us in the back. Nearly the entire al-Jubur tribe is active in the insurgency and working hand in hand with Syrian inelegance and Al-Qaeda so is the Bu-Nasser, Al-Bijat, and so many other Sunni tribes. Most of the chiefs of the police, the Mayors, the city councils, project directors, contractors are staunch insurgents. Our only strategy is giving them more contracts and projects to loot, giving them leading government posts, and showering them with cash, inviting them for tea, refreshments and photo ops all in the hope that they will leave our poor soldiers alone. Our poor soldiers who are dying protecting mosques instead of bellowing them up with the insurgents in them; building schools; providing electricity and clean water to a nest of vermin!

Posted by: have_mercy at February 5, 2006 3:42 PM

Thanks for the link Shinoliite!!! -

Note at the Alon Dor site it states:

"Alon purchased SCS, the biggest licensee of the 7-Eleven chain in North America."

I hope that means that the 7-ELeven gas stations are are included. I know where I'm going to get my fuel.

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 5, 2006 3:59 PM

the hope that they will leave our poor soldiers alone. Our poor soldiers who are dying protecting mosques instead of bellowing them up with the insurgents in them; building schools; providing electricity and clean water to a nest of vermin!
Posted by: have_mercy [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 03:42 PM

well it is because the freakin PC media, US military cannot fight like soldiers.. in WW2 Churchs were no sacred! l would bomb and blast every mosque that was suspected of harboring terrorist and firearms.. but you know who whould start complaining before the muslim insurgents terrorist.. yeah CNN, ABC, BBC.. we have to fight them as well!!! you got to fight a war to win it!

Posted by: Lulu at February 5, 2006 4:02 PM

Raising funds for terror i say!

Police investigating the shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky have charged three men with conspiracy to commit robbery.
The three men, all 24, were arrested in London on Wednesday and brought to West Yorkshire where they will appear before Leeds magistrates on Monday.

They are charged in connection with a robbery at Universal Express travel agents in Bradford which Pc Beshenivsky was investigating when she was shot.

A fourth man arrested in Leicestershire on Wednesday has been released.

Firearms arrests

Two men arrested in Birmingham on 12 January were released on bail after being questioned in connection with firearms offences.

The arrests came a day after hundreds of people paid tribute to Pc Beshenivsky as her funeral was held at Bradford Cathedral.

The 38-year-old was killed as she investigated an armed robbery at the travel agents in Morley Street, Bradford, on 18 November.

Her colleague Pc Teresa Milburn, 37, was also injured in the shooting.

Yusuf Jama, 19, and Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah, 24, have already been charged with murder and are awaiting trial in June.

Detectives are continuing to search for 25-year-old Mustaf Jama, who is wanted in connection with the shooting.

Posted by: Truth4u at February 5, 2006 4:16 PM

Every Mosque is a command-and-control bunker, propaganda and incitement center, a weapon depot, a bomb/I.E.D factory, and a military barrack for foreign insurgents… Just hit any of them and listen for secondary explosions… Sadam knew his business... In the first sign of an uprising, the Mosque was the first place to be hit and the religious leaders (albeit Shiites) targeted for elimination. He did not mind driving T-70 tanks into the holiest Shiite shrines and killing worshipers in mass. Another factor was destroying media access and communication.

If Israel was allowed to destroy all the incentive religious leaders, leaving a token of appeasers, destroy Muslim shrines where incitement and terror is plotted, close down all charities (terror fronts/ financiers of murder), close the Palestinians access to the outside world (jam Arab television broadcasts and close down inciting publications, disallow travel, control the borders with Egypt more effectively) the Intifda would have shriveled on the vines long ago.

Posted by: have_mercy at February 5, 2006 4:29 PM

What a Chancellor !
A new Maggie Thatcher

THE German chancellor, Angela Merkel, compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Adolf Hitler yesterday as Tehran vowed to resume the enrichment of uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Amid growing fears that the Iranians are intent on acquiring an “Islamic bomb”, Merkel warned that the world must not repeat the mistakes it made in appeasing the Nazis.

“Looking back to German history in the early 1930s when National Socialism was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said, ‘It’s only rhetoric — don’t get excited’,” Merkel told an international security conference in Munich.

“There were times when people could have reacted differently and, in my view, Germany is obliged to do something at the early stages,” she added. “We want to, we must prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme.”

Merkel issued a blunt warning to Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

“Iran has blatantly crossed the red line,” she said. “I say it as a German chancellor. A president who questions Israel’s right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany.”

The statement came as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, voted overwhelmingly in Vienna to report Iran to the UN Security Council, expressing doubts that the country’s nuclear programme “is exclusively for peaceful purposes”.

Iran responded by announcing that it would resume “commercial-scale” enrichment of uranium, the fuel for power plants or bombs, which was suspended in 2004. Ahmadinejad later ordered an end to spot checks by IAEA inspectors from today.

Tehran described as “dead” a compromise brokered by the Kremlin under which Russia would enrich uranium for Iran to the purity required for nuclear power but not weapons. Moscow insisted the deal was still on the table.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA described the vote — carried by 27 to three, with five abstentions — as a “historic mistake” and insisted his country would press on with its nuclear programme.

“We don’t want confrontation but we can tolerate some problems for the sake of principles that we are committed to,” he told The Sunday Times.

Soltanieh said it was not clear when enrichment would begin. In an apparent sign of confusion in Tehran an Iranian news agency which had said Ahmadinejad had given the order to start, immediately withdrew its report last night.

The escalation in the stand-off with Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, seemed certain to drive energy prices higher on the markets tomorrow.

It will also raise fears that Tehran might respond by increasing support for militant Islamic groups in the Middle East, of which it is already a major financial backer.

Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, backed the German leader’s call for tougher action and accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”.

Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, his Iranian counterpart, rejected the charges as “ridiculous”.
It nevertheless postponed discussion of the issue at the Security Council until next month to give Iran a last chance to climb down. But the vehemence of Tehran’s initial reaction made this look unlikely.

It will now be up to the Security Council to decide what further action to take. It is expected to start by making a so-called “presidential statement” reinforcing the IAEA’s demands.

Diplomats said any tougher action, such as sanctions, were further down the line and would depend on Iran’s behaviour. China, a permanent member of the Security Council, opposes sanctions.

Calls for stronger measures were growing last night, however. At the Munich conference, the influential American senator John McCain said the military option could not be ruled out if diplomatic efforts failed to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. “Every option must remain on the table,” he said. “There’s only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear armed Iran.”

Posted by: Truth4u at February 5, 2006 4:39 PM

http://www.exodus2006.com/2006.htm

Visit this site! Please. It opens amazing possiblilties to what is happening.

Posted by: Truth4u at February 5, 2006 4:43 PM

And look at these! In the bible.
http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/iran-bush.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/iran-dest-fire.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/Irandestroyed.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/L0rd%20kyr0N/5march2006.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/Attackschool.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/Islam-messengers.htm

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/Rafsanjani.htm

Posted by: Truth4u at February 5, 2006 4:53 PM

“Iran has blatantly crossed the red line,” she said. “I say it as a German chancellor. A president who questions Israel’s right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany.”
-- from a posting above

Perhaps the government and people of Germany should put it more strongly: that they consider the safety of Israel to be a moral imperative for the people and government of Germany, and will consider any attack on Israel to be an attack on Germany, subject to retaliation of every possible kind, including military.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2006 4:59 PM

Justamomof4 - are there 7-Eleven gas stations that exist out from under the umbrella of Citgo? Citgo, of course, is owned by the Venezuelan government-- just as crazy, if slightly more ineffectual, than Mideast governments.

Since Alon deals in food service, too, they may be just on the convenience store end of the business with 7-Eleven, unless they have non-Citgo stations.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 5, 2006 5:11 PM

ENOUGH already! With all this doom and gloom about our poor troops in Iraq. Our troops in Iraq say they are WINNING. Though you wouldnt know it by our or the world media. Just check this out.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-battle-for-mosul.htm

Posted by: frodnum at February 5, 2006 7:44 PM

"Our troops in Iraq say they are WINNING."
-- from a posting above

Define, please, winning.

Does winning mean training Iraqi units to Western standards, and insuring that Shi'a and Sunni troopos, and Arabs and Kurds, will all get along? A difficult job, an almost impossible job. But suppose the Americans, by a fantastic effort, at great expense in every sense, manage to create such units. Suppose further that they give these "Iraqi" army and police units lots and lots of American equipment -- beginning with all those vehicles apparently brought over to Iraq by National Guard units, but not brought home, leaving some of those units without adequate supplies.

Is that what you mean by "WINNING"?

Is an Iraq that permits the American soldiers and civilians to remain to build up their army, to ensure that compromises are made, and that somehow will also be made to stick, and that keeps that "reconstruction" going hither and yon, despite the corruption of the Iraqi non-producing contractors, despite the constant attacks and the delight, or at best indifference, to those attacks as long as they are on American soldiers and civlians, is that what you mean by "WINNING"?

Avoiding any ethnic or sectarian hostilities, making sure that all hostility is instead directed at the Americans, who will be kept around as the so-called "Iraqis" dither and dither, and then at some point, when they realize they can no longer squeeze any more money or useful training or equipment out of the Americans, will unceremoniously boot them out -- for whenever they leave, they will leave without any heartfelt gratitude by any Iraqis, or at least not by more than a handful, the very handful of smooth operators, who know just how to talk to the Americans and what to tell them to satisfy them, whom all the American bigshots in Iraq are most likely to meet, and from whose attitudes they draw such misleading conclusions.

Why is that "winning"? How does that promote Infidel interests? Wouldn't Infidel interests be promoted by leaving now, and leaving the sectarian and ethnic fissures to fester?

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2006 7:56 PM

frodnum linked to an article with the quote:

There are seventeen provinces in Iraq, and more than ten are quiet...I have endured many tedious meetings with agendas focused on roadside trash, local business development, or Iraqi police training.

It's nice that in many provinces the trash is being picked up, but does that really equate to "our troops are WINNING"? He highlights the democratic elections in Iraq, but neglects to mention who won the election in Iraq (hardline Shi'ites linked to Iran).

And the first couple of paragraphs tell us how it is just media distortions that make things look bad in Iraq, then the rest of the article details the violent history of Mosul and tells some pretty hair-raising stories about present life there. Sounds to me like the media is downplaying the instability and violence in Iraq if anything.

If the soldier thinks that things are going well in Iraq, more power to him; they need that kind of moral strength and fortitude to survive. And bless the troops there, no matter what they think about the geopolitics of it all. But when I read the story about the young soldier killed by a suicide bomber, I could only wonder why we're in Iraq, one of the nations in the ME with the fewest links to terrorism. Saddam was a murderous thug, but he was a murderous thug to his own Iraqi people and to the Iranian people. If we're going to get rid of every national leader who is a jerk, we're embarking on a rather large project.

Posted by: special_guest at February 5, 2006 8:21 PM

So did you read the link I provided? And whats happening in most of Iraq? We cant turn a blind eye on whats happening over there at the expense of the majority of the people who just want to live their lives and raise their families.
I was and still am against ever going over to Iraq. They didnt start this mess over there. Whats next bomb Iran.

"for whenever they leave, they will leave without any heartfelt gratitude by any Iraqis, or at least not by more than a handful, the very handful of smooth operators, who know just how to talk to the Americans and what to tell them to satisfy them,"

This statement is way out. Im sorry Hugh, it just doesnt fly.

Posted by: frodnum at February 5, 2006 8:28 PM

"Saddam was a murderous thug, but he was a murderous thug to his own Iraqi people and to the Iranian people."

That so? Explain to me why then Saddam paid the families of Palistinian suicide bombers 10,000
dollars. Those werent Iraqi's these bombers were killing. Or don't you think that wouldnt encourage anyone?

Posted by: frodnum at February 5, 2006 8:35 PM

"We cant turn a blind eye on whats happening over there at the expense of the majority of the people who just want to live their lives and raise their families"
-- from a posting abov

Who's turning a "blind eye"? As for all these wonderful people who are our natural allies, who "just wnat to live their lives and raise their families," I'm not buying. All over the Muslim world there are people who want to "live their lives" and "raise their (enormous) families" and have plenty of time left over to be affected by the teachings of Islam -- which from the point of view of Infidels makes them enemies. Not enemies because of anything the Infidels have done to harm them. But because the Infidels you see, are -- Infidels. And it is the duty of good Mulsims to spread Islam, and to regard non-Muslims with hostility, often murderous in its consequences. This "Family of Man" appeal cuts no ice with me.

As for your statement about opposing the initial invasion -- I beg to differ there as well. The initial invasion was at least rational. It made sense, based on what was known or reasonably believed, about the regime and its aims. What is irrational, what makes the opposite of sense, is to stick around for this ridiculous Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations.
That's the crazy part.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2006 8:46 PM

Whetever happened to 'Oil supply will pay for the war'?

Posted by: Alert at February 5, 2006 9:06 PM

Is anyone surprised>>>>>

Posted by: Texican at February 5, 2006 9:15 PM

frodnum said

Saddam paid the families of Palistinian suicide bombers 10,000
dollars

Okay, Saddam helped finance terrorists in Israel, agreed. But do you think there might be other ME governments that offer financial and other support to the terrorists that make the Iraqi donations look like chicken-feed? Like say, oh, I don't know, maybe Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? Or Iran? Or Pakistan?

How many of those terrorist financiers are we told are our "allies" in the "global war against terror"?

Posted by: special_guest at February 5, 2006 9:41 PM

Thanks frodnum:

Regardless of the Iraq Debate, I want to thank you for this link. I have to say......I love our American Military! What mature young men....I love their dedication. Have to say....my father was in the Navy 20 years and 10 years reserve. Faught during WWII, Korean War...and was in Reserves during Vietnam. He passed away in January 2001.....I miss him much! Anyway folks....these young soldiers and airforce men, could be fighting in Iran in the near future.

Anyway, thanks for the link....I made a bookmark of it for future reading.

Posted by: rumoret at February 5, 2006 10:10 PM

frodnum said

We made a big mess over there and I think we should do our best to clean it up.

I hesitate to respond to this, frodnum has simply given a link to an excellent blog from a U.S. serviceman in Iraq, and then said some things that are commonly said about the war in Iraq. But this is another one of those fingernail-on-the-blackboard phrases like "small minority of extremists" or "hijacked a peaceful religion".

We got rid of Saddam who everyone agrees was a grade-A psychopath. If the vast majority of Iraqis were yearning for a life like ours, then this was their chance to grasp it. With the Baathists gone, now they were free to make a society built on freedom, peace, security, equality, civil rights, prosperity. How is that making a "big mess over there"? We gave them the chance of a lifetime, at the expense of too many U.S. soldiers' lives.

But if they instead chose to build a society based on a dogmatic theocracy with a legal system that is literally straight out of the 6th century and rekindle internecine warfare between the various ethnic groups who have fought with each other for over a thousand years, how is that any of our fault, or any of our business?

If our goal is to stay in Iraq until they have a society that looks like ours, or has values anywhere similar to ours, then we're going to be there for a very long time, several generations. And all the while we'll be pouring vast quantities of our resources into building up a nation that is no more friendly towards the U.S. after Saddam's reign than it was during Saddam's reign.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2006 12:47 AM

frodnum said

Agreed, so what do we do about it?

I knew it! Reading your earlier posts, I thought you might be GWB, but now it's obvious. I bet you told Dick and Scooter that you had to go check on some Nascar collector mugs that you bid on on eBay, but you've been sneaking off and reading JW, am I right?

Anyways, for "what do we do?" questions, I can only point to many of Hugh's posts that go into a great deal of detail on the subject. Things like:
- get our troops the h*ll out of Iraq
- halt immigration of those hostile to the U.S.
- start a "Manhattan Project" to develop alternative energy sources

In this specific case, we should not trust an Islamic nation to prosecute the terrorists, or we'll get the usual results.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2006 1:17 AM

frodnum, I was making a joke that GWB would come to JW to learn what the strategy should be in the "war on extremist peaceful religion hijackers", or whatever it's called these days. You were saying that things are going well in Iraq, which is also a common theme in his speeches. If it was a joke at anybody's expense, it was at GWB's expense, and I think he can live with the pain; or if he can't, there's always alcohol and cocaine. And who said I was smart? (I'll challenge anybody who makes that outrageous claim) Who said you weren't smart? Oh, I see what you're saying, by comparing you to GWB...

Anyways, I never said or implied or thought anything negative about you or about our troops in Iraq or about the job they are doing there. No jokes there, that's the straight up truth.

If you actualy read Micheal Yons blog you would know he is NOT a US service man but a imbeded independent reporter

Huh? I did read it, and I didn't understand that (I told you I was not smart). He was complaining about how "the media" showed up later after the troops did all kinds of heroics to save each other, and then they just took photos to make it look like a U.S. military failure. Why was he criticizing reporters for slanting their story if he is a reporter? I'll have to go back and re-read it.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2006 3:00 AM