THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I was only referring to your last post, Bill. If you don't think there is a problem with killing innocent Iraqis, then there is a real difference in moral opinion?

Yet another idiotic insult. If you don't think there is a problem with beating your wife then there is a real difference in moral opinion. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I mean, 20k dead innocent Iraqis is a big deal. The responsibility lies with someone.

His name is Saddam Hussein... and he's actually responsible for hundreds of thousands of of dead innocent Iraqis. Idea

This fact must be inconvenient for you though, so you pretend it isn't there.

You compare over zealous rogue soldier's actions at Abu Ghraib (who are being prosecuted for their crimes, btw) to Saddam's state policy of systematic torture for dissent. Saddam's government leaders even tortured their failed Olympians for crying outside... but in your rabidly hyper partisan zeal you can't make the distinction between the two crimes. Rolling Eyes

And you think I have trouble recognizing human rights violations outside of our borders?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A man who lies for profit, even during war, is a criminal. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a significant amount of evidence that Bush did just that. Therefore, there is a case to be made against him.

You're sounding sillier by the minute. By your definition, Michael Moore is the most heinous "war criminal" alive today. Laughing

Get a grip and then show me one legal entity charging a verifiable link between this war and Bush's finances. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't think Bush or Blair give a goddamn about the lives of Iraqi people. At all.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion about Bush and Blair... But don't paint me with your rabidly partisan BS brush. Btw; have you heard the clip I've been advertising in my sig line, practically since I joined the site? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
ican711nm wrote:

Provide just one piece other than hearsay opinion!

... the PNAC ... include Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, DeLay, and other top neo-cons. The project's stated goal is: 'Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.'

Sounds pretty benign. But, let's look at the articles they have from 1997-2000, up to four years BEFORE 9/11:

The UN Rewards Saddam

Congress Vs. Iraq

Speaking of Iraq

Bombing Iraq isn't enough

A way to Oust Saddam

and my favorite

How to Attack Iraq

Clearly, the goal of these neocons was to attack Iraq.

That's clearly a non-sequitur! These folks published a great many articles during this period that did not even mention Iraq. Clearly some of these folks were genuinely alarmed about the danger they perceived Iraq to be. So they discussed what they thought at the time ought to be done about Iraq.

The 9-11 Commission Report [my emphasis is added] makes it plain that George Bush's goal was to punish terrorists and all those that harbor them.

Quote:

10.2 PLANNING FOR WAR
...
10.2 PLANNING FOR WAR
...
By late in the evening of September 11, the President had addressed the nation on the terrible events of the day. Vice President Cheney described the President's mood as somber.32The long day was not yet over. When the larger meeting that included his domestic department heads broke up, President Bush chaired a smaller meeting of top advisers, a group he would later call his "war council."33This group usually included Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, General Hugh Shelton, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (later to become chairman) General Myers, DCI Tenet, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. From the White House staff, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Card were part of the core group, often joined by their deputies, Stephen Hadley and Joshua Bolten.

In this restricted National Security Council meeting, the President said it was a time for self-defense. The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them. Secretary Powell said the United States had to make it clear to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab states that the time to act was now. He said we would need to build a coalition. The President noted that the attacks provided a great opportunity to engage Russia and China. Secretary Rumsfeld urged the President and the principals to think broadly about who might have harbored the attackers, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. He wondered aloud how much evidence the United States would need in order to deal with these countries, pointing out that major strikes could take up to 60 days to assemble.34

Please review speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record. I guess this speech is perhaps what Kerry thought at the time.

Foxfyre wrote:

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:39 pm Post: 948009 - our forum's page 202

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record. ...

The US did not invade Iraq until 17 months after it invaded Afghanistan which it invaded approximately one month after 9-11.

0 Replies

Personally I don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. If they want to continue to live under a tyrannical leader and continue to abuse and kill each other so be it. What I do care about and resent the loss of American lives and treasury to gain their freedom. I should note that I do not believe, for even one moment, that is the reason for our involvement in Iraq. We are there expending American lives for three reasons. Oil, Oil and Oil.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Personally I don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. .

Your often inhuman views aren't that new.

0 Replies

Coming from you that is a joke. Herr Walter

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Personally I don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. If they want to continue to live under a tyrannical leader and continue to abuse and kill each other so be it.

So that's what you believe they want! Shocked

You don't think it's in your own self-interest for the US to prevent nations from harboring terrorists?

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Quote:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

Note: For example, in 2002, Zarqawi led al Qaeda were discovered in a northern Iraq training camp. In 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, they were killed, incarcerated or allegedly scattered.

au1929 wrote:

... the reason for our involvement in Iraq. We are there expending American lives for three reasons. Oil, Oil and Oil.

Ok, if you believe that falsification, then why not recommend we boycott Iraqi oil. Yeah the price of oil may double and gasoline likewise, but you don't care because? ....... you walk?

0 Replies

Remember a few months ago when John Kerry was suggesting the President was collaboring with the Saudis to keep oil prices low and this was 100% unacceptable? Then this week, he is blasting the President for not persuading the Saudis and other OPEC countries to bring the price down. Meanwhile the issue of a free and democratic Iraq and how that would affect the national oil reserves just gets lost in the mix.

If a side effect of the Iraq War is a dependable trading partner who has huge oil reserves, who can say that is a bad thing?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Coming from you that is a joke. Herr Walter

Walter, au1929 may be suffering from a personal depression of his own making. Perhaps we should show him some compassion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If a side effect of the Iraq War is a dependable trading partner who has huge oil reserves, who can say that is a bad thing?

au1929 can say that's a bad thing. Laughing

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Personally I don't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

I appreciate your candor. While I don't consider this a prerequisite of any position, I suspect it is a whole lot more prevalent than anyone cares to admit.

au1929 wrote:

If they want to continue to live under a tyrannical leader and continue to abuse and kill each other so be it.

No one wants to live under a tyrannical leader, be abused or killed. It remains to be seen if they'll adapt to our alternative but rejecting one doesn't mean they like the other.

au1929 wrote:

What I do care about and resent the loss of American lives and treasury to gain their freedom.

That being your dominant consideration, you have better reason to oppose the war than anyone else I've talked to.

au1929 wrote:

I should note that I do not believe, for even one moment, that is the reason for our involvement in Iraq. We are there expending American lives for three reasons. Oil, Oil and Oil.

You may be closer to truth than most on my side care to admit; but I can say without reservation that oil has little to with why my personal reasons for advocating the effort. Personally, I think it's high time we stop burning so damn much oil anyway and look forward to the price going up.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Coming from you that is a joke. Herr Walter

au1929, that remark is totally out of line. You should apologise.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Personally, I think it’s high time we stop burning so damn much oil anyway and look forward to the price going up.

Bill, India and China are rapidly increasing their demand for oil. If we buy less they'll buy more at a lower price. :wink:

I wonder what John Galt alias Ayn Rand (if she were still alive) would have to say about all this.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Coming from you that is a joke. Herr Walter

Well, I know, I really better should follow that old advice and sleep over it before I answer.

Nut after having taken some deep breaths of fresh air, au, I just will make you the compliment that I've never been more insulted in all my 55 years here on this earth.

Bye.

0 Replies

Obill writes

Quote:

You may be closer to truth than most on my side care to admit; but I can say without reservation that oil has little to with why my personal reasons for advocating the effort. Personally, I think it's high time we stop burning so damn much oil anyway and look forward to the price going up.

No doubt the Middle East turmoil is creating uncertainty of supply and, along with our current hurricane season, is affecting the oil price. My son, however, is an engineer with Conoco Phillips and states that all U.S. refineries are operating at full capacity now; if one goes down for repairs or whatever, the others can't make up the shortage and the price goes up. He says if everybody could agree on two or three formulations for gasoline, that would help a lot to bring the price down but there are dozens and dozens of formulations required by different states, different communities, different environmentalists. California for instance has forumulations nobody else makes and is depenedent on their one refinery.

Meanwhile the environmentalists block every effort to build new refineries and none have been built in 20 years. We hit the saturation point this summer for existing capacity and as things are, there is no relief in sight. We need more refineries and more supply.

On the bright side, This past week I heard of a new experimental prototype of a car that currently only goes 15 mph but gets 1000+ miles per gallon. We'll work it all out.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Personally, I think it's high time we stop burning so damn much oil anyway and look forward to the price going up.

Bill, India and China are rapidly increasing their demand for oil. If we buy less they'll buy more at a lower price. :wink:

I'm not following you here, Ican... Why should that effect my opinion?

ican711nm wrote:

I wonder what John Galt alias Ayn Rand (if she were still alive) would have to say about all this.

He/she seemed pretty apathetic about the suffering of foreigners, and only seemed concerned that we shouldn't follow them down the wrong roads. However, her characters did kick in to help one of their own without consideration of risk or cost when they deemed action was called for. I suspect I have a much broader definition of "our own" than he/she did. :wink:

0 Replies

I know of a popular vehicle that goes 15 mph at a comfortable pedal rate and burns about 100 calories per mile.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... Why should that effect my opinion?

It shouldn't affect your opinion. I was just observing in my own wiseass fashion, that if we don't consume it, someone else will at a lower price than you alleged you look forward to. Crying or Very sad

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I suspect I have a much broader definition of "our own" than he/she did. :wink:

I suspect you do too. I'm guessing it's at least the innocent members of the human race.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

au1929, that remark is totally out of line. You should apologize.

Interesting stuff, Foxy... and meanwhile you can hardly find a new car with less than 200HP. I vote we tax the hell out of fossil fuels until alternative energy becomes an irresistible bargain. Idea

0 Replies

Bill
I knew full well I would be attacked for that statement. However, consider for 20 or so years Saddam has been abusing and killing Iraqi's. Did anyone come to their aid No because no one cared. Did Bush say he was invading Iraq because Saddam was killing Iraqi's? No, the story was weapons of mass destruction. It only became for humanitarian reasons when no WMD's were found. Would the American people or congress have authorized Bush to invade if his reason to invade was to protect the Iraqi's from Saddam? Hell no. Why is the anti war crowd against the war in Iraq do you suppose? It must be the loss of American lives and treasury since if it were for humanitarian reasons they would be shoulder to shoulder with Bush.
Instead of being offended by what I said I think a little soul searching and they will find that their reasons for opposing the war are the same as mine. The loss of American lives and treasury.
And Bush's reason for invading was Oil,Oil Oil.

0 Replies

I vote we lower all taxes so entrepreneurs can afford to develop alternate fuels or alternate power generating and alternate energy consuming mechanisms, or both.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know