Boycotting BP/Arco and other British products

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,
Here is a weird assertion on a blog. Since you have German ties and seem to understand the culture, what do you think of this:

http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/09/protestant-group-predicts-rise-of-new.html

Kind of an interesting theory to me. What do you make of it?[/quote]

Zeit: I had a Jesuit buddy of mine send me that same article very recently. The magazine, The Trumpet, is a party organ for the Philadelphia Church of God, which is, as I understand it, a funky offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. This article is a mish-mash of convoluted prophecy and entirely consistent with some of the apocalyptic pronouncements of groups like the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are famous for calling the date of the end of the world, only to have to recant and come up with a new date when the old one passes without incident).

Farcical as it is, I’d be hard pressed to imagine modern Germany as anything like it’s predecessors in either 1914 or 1939 (or 1870, for that matter). The German Army of today, the Bundeswehr, is primarily defensive in nature and I would imagine that the French or British would soundly thrash them in about a week or so, if it came to that.

But, ceteris paribus, I could be wrong and we’ll all be speaking German by next year. Good news there is a still retain a little bit of the mother tongue and am Catholic, so perhaps I can ingratiate myself with our new masters.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.[/quote]

Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process and, when pressed for a name, you offered up Halliburton (the Simon Legree of the Iraqi War), which is not an oil company at all, but an oil and gas services company. That you don’t know the difference is somewhat excusable; most people don’t.

However, you then tried to bolster your non-existent claim by throwing out a crappily researched and written piece of leftist apocrypha that ostensibly supports your contention. Further down the rabbit hole we go, and, as we traipse along this meandering flight of fancy, we notice something is missing: EVIDENCE.

If you plan on making the case, bring evidence. Simple as that. Otherwise, the claim and the case are bullshit. Simple as that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.[/quote]

Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process and, when pressed for a name, you offered up Halliburton (the Simon Legree of the Iraqi War), which is not an oil company at all, but an oil and gas services company. That you don’t know the difference is somewhat excusable; most people don’t.

However, you then tried to bolster your non-existent claim by throwing out a crappily researched and written piece of leftist apocrypha that ostensibly supports your contention. Further down the rabbit hole we go, and, as we traipse along this meandering flight of fancy, we notice something is missing: EVIDENCE.

If you plan on making the case, bring evidence. Simple as that. Otherwise, the claim and the case are bullshit. Simple as that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.[/quote]

Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process and, when pressed for a name, you offered up Halliburton (the Simon Legree of the Iraqi War), which is not an oil company at all, but an oil and gas services company. That you don’t know the difference is somewhat excusable; most people don’t.

However, you then tried to bolster your non-existent claim by throwing out a crappily researched and written piece of leftist apocrypha that ostensibly supports your contention. Further down the rabbit hole we go, and, as we traipse along this meandering flight of fancy, we notice something is missing: EVIDENCE.

If you plan on making the case, bring evidence. Simple as that. Otherwise, the claim and the case are bullshit. Simple as that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.[/quote]

Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process and, when pressed for a name, you offered up Halliburton (the Simon Legree of the Iraqi War), which is not an oil company at all, but an oil and gas services company. That you don’t know the difference is somewhat excusable; most people don’t.

However, you then tried to bolster your non-existent claim by throwing out a crappily researched and written piece of leftist apocrypha that ostensibly supports your contention. Further down the rabbit hole we go, and, as we traipse along this meandering flight of fancy, we notice something is missing: EVIDENCE.

If you plan on making the case, bring evidence. Simple as that. Otherwise, the claim and the case are bullshit. Simple as that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.[/quote]

Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process and, when pressed for a name, you offered up Halliburton (the Simon Legree of the Iraqi War), which is not an oil company at all, but an oil and gas services company. That you don’t know the difference is somewhat excusable; most people don’t.

However, you then tried to bolster your non-existent claim by throwing out a crappily researched and written piece of leftist apocrypha that ostensibly supports your contention. Further down the rabbit hole we go, and, as we traipse along this meandering flight of fancy, we notice something is missing: EVIDENCE.

If you plan on making the case, bring evidence. Simple as that. Otherwise, the claim and the case are bullshit. Simple as that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dupe.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dupe.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dupe.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dupe.

[Author]

Posts