nickelshrink wrote:
> FurPaw wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/14/iraq.military.ap/index.html
>>
>> But he forgets, if the US troops leave, they leave all that oil
>> unguarded!
>>
>> I don't understand it... why don't the folks in the media point this
>> out in every single story? Why don't our Congressfolk mention OIL
>> when they are arguing the merits of staying, leaving and by when?
>> Nothing about the occupation makes sense - especially building the US
>> bases and the US embassy - until you factor in OIL, and the B.AD.'s
>> patent desire to gain control of the Iraqi supply.
>>
>> OIL is the dead skunk in the middle of the table that few seem willing
>> to mention. And that makes the B.AD. very happy!
>>
>> [Who first used B.AD.? I just saw it here a few days ago, and I LOVE
>> it!]
>>
>> FurPaw
>>
>
> Thank you, thank you... I started using B.AD a few years back but
> it's hard to believe that such an obvious acronym hasn't occurred
> spontaneously all over the place! To appear unprejudiced i started
> using C.AD. for the Clinton administration too.
Perfect! The old-fashioned definition of "Cad" usually had a
connotation of womanizing.
> As for the failure to mention the oil angle, i tend toward
> paranoid conspiracy stuff, but i can't help but think it's a sign
> that big oil controls everything, including the media, at least
indirectly.
> What media entity isn't owned by a huge conglomerate, and
> what industry isn't dependent on what oil does?
New York Times, Washington Post and WSJ are still privately owned
(though WSJ looks to be in imminent danger of becoming
assimilated into the Murdoch.borg), but they do rely on lots of
big businesses for advertising.
FurPaw
--
It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they
need and the Army has to hold a bake sale to buy a tank.
To reply, unleash the dog.
|
