Author Topic: Very Sad Story  (Read 10914 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #75 on: February 28, 2008, 05:22:27 PM »
Are you willing to go on the record as officically saying we DID NOT go into Iraq for oil and the the protection of the dollar?

I'm willing to go on record as asking you exactly how we "took" Iraq's oil, as you claimed.  

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #76 on: February 28, 2008, 05:28:13 PM »
By forcing them into decades long revenue sharing agreements to the detriment of the Iraqi people and to the benefit of foreign oil companies.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/03/iraqi_oil_agreement.html

From your link:

"The proposed law not only opens the door to the big international oil companies, but offers them lucrative contract deals, and even a place on the national oil board that will run the industry."

So this law, assuming it passed (the article is a year old), would offer contracts to multinational oil companies and this gives the United States government control of Iraq's oil?   


Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #77 on: February 28, 2008, 05:33:01 PM »
Beach Bum still believes it's not about the oil.

Even as Bush admitted 15 months ago - it was about the oil.

And the dollar, don't forget the dollar...

Yeah, I was talking to an American coworker of mine the other night and I told him how surprised I was that people actually believe that we are in Iraq for 'democracy'...STILL....but he put it right when he said that when some has an untarnished view that the USA can do no wrong as is the 'good guy' of the earth...well you end up with a Beach Bum...

I hate the State.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #78 on: February 28, 2008, 05:42:50 PM »
I believe there was about 100 reasons we went.

oil, pipeline, bases, surround Iraq, religious, the dollar, keep military spending up, make cheney's company rich, revenge for saddam's actions the last 20 years, and probably many more that we cannot comprehend- advanced longterm geopolitical stuff that I sure as hell wouldn't understand.

Beach bum is stupid.  Decker and deicide, you guys are eloquent writers and make good points.  I'll be blunt.  he's stupid and refuses to face facts or ever accept that he's wrong.  2 years ago, i was on here yelling about 911 inside job and iraq being a stall war for oil and bases.  I think maybe 2 ppl here DIDN'T call me crazy.  2 years later, it's the opposite.  joelocal and BB are the only ones who still believe official stories.  Worse yet, when Bush admits somthing, they still can't face it.  bush said in Dec of 2006 that the war was partially about controlling their oil.  BB can't accept that.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #79 on: February 28, 2008, 05:52:46 PM »
No, I'm pointing out what ostensibly looks like a capricious attempt to avoid the question at hand. 

Decker - that's classic BB strategy - avoid the question, start parsing words and arguing semantics, skew off on a tangent until you eventually just get tired or too bored to continue.


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #80 on: February 28, 2008, 06:16:20 PM »
That's exactly what you're saying:  rewrite history. 

My belief that the war was justified is my opinion, but everything I stated in support of my opinion is fact. 

Get real.  Does Japan even have a military anymore? 


Yeah, they do.  And they are growing.   Whether have a military capable is not the point and you know that. 

When did i say rewrite history?  I simply said your reasoning is insignificant.  I can draw comparisons all day long....   You have regressed to using something that already happened and was already dealt with as a reason for an invasion.  An invasion that without those "reasons" isn't poorly supported.  how is that rewriting history?  where have i changed anything?  explain it to me.

Did we not already fight a war in response to Saddam and what he did in the first gulf war?

It is a very weak position (combined with using political blabber) that you have to resort to that to justify invading.

That's why i ask, are you going to use Pearl harbor as a reason if Japan does something wrong?  Or Germany and Ardennes?  Or Mexico 1840's?  Or American Indians 1870's?

It's crap and you know it or maybe you don't, i donno, maybe you really believe it.

If you want to make yourself feel better about invading iraq by bringing up the first gulf war good for you.  And if you want to just say "it's your opinion and that's how you support it"  then fine, but don't for a second think anyone doesn't see that as a bunch of BS and you know it is too.  You might as well say "Saddam's Beard" is a something that supports you opinion becuase it's just as relevant to your way of thinking. 

We were in a fear based war frenzy in 2003.  Many joined in and it was a mistake and it was unjustified.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #81 on: February 28, 2008, 06:51:15 PM »
Yeah, they do.  And they are growing.   Whether have a military capable is not the point and you know that. 

When did i say rewrite history?  I simply said your reasoning is insignificant.  I can draw comparisons all day long....   You have regressed to using something that already happened and was already dealt with as a reason for an invasion.  An invasion that without those "reasons" isn't poorly supported.  how is that rewriting history?  where have i changed anything?  explain it to me.

Did we not already fight a war in response to Saddam and what he did in the first gulf war?

It is a very weak position (combined with using political blabber) that you have to resort to that to justify invading.

That's why i ask, are you going to use Pearl harbor as a reason if Japan does something wrong?  Or Germany and Ardennes?  Or Mexico 1840's?  Or American Indians 1870's?

It's crap and you know it or maybe you don't, i donno, maybe you really believe it.

If you want to make yourself feel better about invading iraq by bringing up the first gulf war good for you.  And if you want to just say "it's your opinion and that's how you support it"  then fine, but don't for a second think anyone doesn't see that as a bunch of BS and you know it is too.  You might as well say "Saddam's Beard" is a something that supports you opinion becuase it's just as relevant to your way of thinking. 

We were in a fear based war frenzy in 2003.  Many joined in and it was a mistake and it was unjustified.

Not everything I mentioned was remote in time.  You figure out which ones were either close in time or ongoing at the time of the invasion:

Quote
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm.  The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed.  There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia)  before we stopped him.  He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked.  He tortured and murdered his own people.  He used WMDs on his own people.  He pillaged his country's resources.  He repeatedly threatened the United States.  He sponsored terrorism.  He had unlimited resources.  He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors.  Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion.  Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea.  Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war.  Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war.  The UN has never said the war is illegal. 

And regarding whether or not he was a threat, you can ridicule it all you want, but you are in fact just attempting to rewrite history.  Unbroken chain of warnings, concern, and fear that Saddam was a threat both before and after Bush took office.  Here is what our legislators had to say about Saddam from about 98 into 2003:

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

John Kerry > January 23, 2003“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”

John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 “There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”

Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”

Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”

Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Al Gore > December 16, 1998“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”


http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=196736.0


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #82 on: February 28, 2008, 07:00:43 PM »
thus you feel justified that thousandd of innocent children (and adults) have been killed?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #83 on: February 28, 2008, 07:04:34 PM »
BB,

can you find some quotes that were made AFTER the UN inspectors found no WMD in iraq - late Feb 03?

I notice all your quotes stop right about the time the UN inspectors found nada.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2008, 07:08:12 PM »
I believe there was about 100 reasons we went.

oil, pipeline, bases, surround Iraq, religious, the dollar, keep military spending up, make cheney's company rich, revenge for saddam's actions the last 20 years, and probably many more that we cannot comprehend- advanced longterm geopolitical stuff that I sure as hell wouldn't understand.

Beach bum is stupid.  Decker and deicide, you guys are eloquent writers and make good points.  I'll be blunt.  he's stupid and refuses to face facts or ever accept that he's wrong.  2 years ago, i was on here yelling about 911 inside job and iraq being a stall war for oil and bases.  I think maybe 2 ppl here DIDN'T call me crazy.  2 years later, it's the opposite.  joelocal and BB are the only ones who still believe official stories.  Worse yet, when Bush admits somthing, they still can't face it.  bush said in Dec of 2006 that the war was partially about controlling their oil.  BB can't accept that.

Interesting. Is there a youtube clip of Bush admitting that or a speech? Not that I doubt you but I would like to look at it.
I hate the State.

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2008, 07:14:50 PM »
Okay, Sadam met UN regulations and was obnoxious a few times on investigations. So we went in and bombed the hell out of his country, killed his sons, dragged him to the US, and hung him by the neck.........Well done, bravo, now get the hell out.


Its no wonder that there are more Terrorists now than then.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2008, 07:22:05 PM »
dec 14th 2006, rose garden speech.  bush admitted it was about oil control.  first time he ever said it.  i respected him for the honestly, i really did.  gave people the reality.  we let them control it, they can mess with our standard of living.  that moment was probably the moment i began to accept and understand the neocon agenda... oil and standard of living, which I hypocritically support.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2008, 07:24:09 PM »
I'm not rewriting history, I'm putting your assertions into perspective.

Let take a look at your reasoning:

Quote
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm.

Exactly which ones?  Does this violation justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people?  The billions spent?  the permanently maimed and wounded?  The invasion of a country?

Have other countries ever violated UN resolutions or directives?  did the UN support our invasion?

Quote
The entire world.

Really?  did you speak to the entire world?   did the entire world state there opinion?  Was there a poll on this?   a vote?  A world outcry?  Was Bolivia petitioning the UN to do something about Saddam becuase he was a threat to their country?

And when it came to show this support how many countreis got behind us with military and finacial support in this invasion?  was it the ENTIRE world?

Quote
including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed.

Would they say the same about N. Korea?  Of course, it would stupid both politically and practically to say otherwise.  But was it needed?  Was Saddam a real threat in terms of him having the ability to gain from acts of violence against the USA?  NO.  One wrong move and the US is all over him like hair on a gorilla and he's smart enough, and been int he game long enough to realize that, hence, he wasn't about to jepordize his nice little cozy power base and multiple palaces. 

So what was all the "quotes" you just posted?  nothing but political blabber,the same political blabber Hilary Clinton uses when she goes to Ohio and speaks about the evils of NFTA when it was partially her husband's admin who put it there causing some of the economic fall out we see today.  But she's wise to it, and speaks out against it and People eat it up, just like you eating up those quotes as if they legitimize our mistake.

Quote
There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia)  before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. 
 

All of which was dealt with and in the past and maintained with sanctions.   As i said before would be justified invading Germany again for what they did in ww2?  That line of reasoning is just as ridiculous.

Quote
He tortured and murdered his own people.  He used WMDs on his own people.

And when he did it, we sat by and did nothing about it until 12 years later and it wasn't even the reason we invaded.  Becuase the fact of the matter was, when he gassed the kurds our government and our people didn't a crap.

Quote
He pillaged his country's resources.

what, he profited from the oil?  so what.  I don't hear about the average Iraqi getting oil kick backs since we came.  so nothing has changed, except the faces of who gets the profits which isn't the Iraqi people.

Quote
He repeatedly threatened the United States.

Shame shame.  I would think we'd be wise enough to know a real threat from a blew hard.  But tell that to those have sacrifice for it.

Quote
He sponsored terrorism.

He gave families of suicides bombers 25K   that's pretty weak really to invade a country for even considering everything else.  Find evidence of him supplying AQ with money and arms then we might have something.  Even then, there would have been better ways to deal with it.

Quote
He had unlimited resources.

yeah ok.  what do mean by that?  He had unlimited resources to build a army that was second to none?

did he have tungsten?  did he have unlimited resources of tungsten?

Quote
Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion.  Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea.  Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war.  Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war.  The UN has never said the war is illegal.

None of this, NONE!  makes it right.  just becuase it was voted, doesn't make it right.  It's still wrong, just like Japanese internment.  WRONG. 

And don't forget the support from other countries in the first war was totally different than support fo this one.  like night and day.  So very weak argument.











Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2008, 07:29:22 PM »
dec 14th 2006, rose garden speech.  bush admitted it was about oil control.  first time he ever said it.  i respected him for the honestly, i really did.  gave people the reality.  we let them control it, they can mess with our standard of living.  that moment was probably the moment i began to accept and understand the neocon agenda... oil and standard of living, which I hypocritically support.

I don't and I am proud of it.  :)
I hate the State.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2008, 07:37:26 PM »
He had unlimited resources.

beach bum, you are fucking ignorant.

we crippled iraq with sanctions from 94 til 2003.  millions of people starved.  their military was in shambled.

i'm embarassed for you.  oz spent a lot of time owning the shit out of you above, and instead of conceding points and actually learning something, you'll roll your eyes.   Dumbfvck.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2008, 07:38:48 PM »
The entire world.

God, you are so stupid.  You really are.  I suppose that's why our coalition of the willing was waaaay smaller than it was in Gulf War I.   

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2008, 07:43:37 PM »
The entire world.

God, you are so stupid.  You really are.  I suppose that's why our coalition of the willing was waaaay smaller than it was in Gulf War I.   

You don't get it 240. Beach Bum  is a relgious nutcase who believes in the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark...literally! Is it any wonder he thinks the the things he does about Iraq and refuses to concede that he is wrong?! Once again, talking snakes and magic apples...
I hate the State.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2008, 07:50:10 PM »
For someone so religious, he lie a lot.

he was a high school dropout when he started here and the conversation was about overcoming obstacles.

When I tried explaining statistical anomaly of 2004 Ohio election to him and he didn't understand stats of a 1 in 50,000 likelihood and the chance of it happening twice, I recommended he dig up a high school stats book.  So he informed us he teaches at a university and knows advanced stats, but doesn't have time to break it down.

When we talked about polls showing 67% of america want 911 investigated, beach bum had magically had a class meeting on it, and all of his students mocked the idea.  That very day.

He lies a lot. 

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2008, 07:56:17 PM »
For someone so religious, he lie a lot.

he was a high school dropout when he started here and the conversation was about overcoming obstacles.

When I tried explaining statistical anomaly of 2004 Ohio election to him and he didn't understand stats of a 1 in 50,000 likelihood and the chance of it happening twice, I recommended he dig up a high school stats book.  So he informed us he teaches at a university and knows advanced stats, but doesn't have time to break it down.

When we talked about polls showing 67% of america want 911 investigated, beach bum had magically had a class meeting on it, and all of his students mocked the idea.  That very day.

He lies a lot. 

A highschool dropout eh? That's funny, he recently claimed I lacked education....the bitter irony...I usually just assume everyone has a B.A. or a B.S. but I guess I shouldn't do that...well, that would explain the Garden of Eden bit.

Didn't you know 240? Religious folk lie a lot: to themselves, to others and to the world.
I hate the State.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2008, 07:59:30 PM »
yeah, i grew up catholic and spent a lot of time in denial. 

you learn later that religion is useful but it's a business like everything else in life.

the religious zealots are the people in the world i trust least.  most criminals will at least shoot ya straight.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2008, 08:13:43 PM »
I'm not rewriting history, I'm putting your assertions into perspective.

Let take a look at your reasoning:

Exactly which ones?  Does this violation justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people?  The billions spent?  the permanently maimed and wounded?  The invasion of a country?

Have other countries ever violated UN resolutions or directives?  did the UN support our invasion?

Really?  did you speak to the entire world?   did the entire world state there opinion?  Was there a poll on this?   a vote?  A world outcry?  Was Bolivia petitioning the UN to do something about Saddam becuase he was a threat to their country?

And when it came to show this support how many countreis got behind us with military and finacial support in this invasion?  was it the ENTIRE world?

Would they say the same about N. Korea?  Of course, it would stupid both politically and practically to say otherwise.  But was it needed?  Was Saddam a real threat in terms of him having the ability to gain from acts of violence against the USA?  NO.  One wrong move and the US is all over him like hair on a gorilla and he's smart enough, and been int he game long enough to realize that, hence, he wasn't about to jepordize his nice little cozy power base and multiple palaces. 

So what was all the "quotes" you just posted?  nothing but political blabber,the same political blabber Hilary Clinton uses when she goes to Ohio and speaks about the evils of NFTA when it was partially her husband's admin who put it there causing some of the economic fall out we see today.  But she's wise to it, and speaks out against it and People eat it up, just like you eating up those quotes as if they legitimize our mistake.
 

All of which was dealt with and in the past and maintained with sanctions.   As i said before would be justified invading Germany again for what they did in ww2?  That line of reasoning is just as ridiculous.

And when he did it, we sat by and did nothing about it until 12 years later and it wasn't even the reason we invaded.  Becuase the fact of the matter was, when he gassed the kurds our government and our people didn't a crap.

what, he profited from the oil?  so what.  I don't hear about the average Iraqi getting oil kick backs since we came.  so nothing has changed, except the faces of who gets the profits which isn't the Iraqi people.

Shame shame.  I would think we'd be wise enough to know a real threat from a blew hard.  But tell that to those have sacrifice for it.

He gave families of suicides bombers 25K   that's pretty weak really to invade a country for even considering everything else.  Find evidence of him supplying AQ with money and arms then we might have something.  Even then, there would have been better ways to deal with it.

yeah ok.  what do mean by that?  He had unlimited resources to build a army that was second to none?

did he have tungsten?  did he have unlimited resources of tungsten?

None of this, NONE!  makes it right.  just becuase it was voted, doesn't make it right.  It's still wrong, just like Japanese internment.  WRONG. 

And don't forget the support from other countries in the first war was totally different than support fo this one.  like night and day.  So very weak argument.












So let me get this straight:  you ridicule the contention that Saddam was a threat and when I give you numerous comments from members of Congress who considered him a threat you dismiss all of them as "political blabber"?  That's just a pure copout Ozmo.  Why were they calling him a threat?  And why did Congress give Bush the authority to invade if they didn’t view him as a threat?

I could see arguably dismissing comments if they were partisan, but when they come from both sides of the aisle, spanning two presidential administrations, and they're all saying the same thing, you can only dismiss them as "political blabber" if you are wearing blinders.

Regarding the reasons I listed for my support for the war, I did say that I don’t view one factor alone.  Viewing the totality of what I listed, I think he was clearly a threat, consistent with numerous quotes from members of Congress I posted (that you refuse to even read).  

I can't do the quote thing, but regarding your specific points:

He never complied with the UN resolutions that ended Desert Storm.

The entire world did have an opinion, through the UN and a substantial part of the world expressed their opinion by supporting the war with troops and/or money.  

North Korea isn't Iraq, for the all reasons I've already listed.  Saddam was a unique dictator.  

The fact he invaded a sovereign nation, bombed another in the recent past, had previously used WMDs, and was currently sponsoring terrorism only heightened the threat he posed.

Unlimited resources for a man like Saddam made him an enormous threat.  Pretty much the entire Congress believed a man was in control of a country, an army, and unlimited resources and was trying to obtain WMDs.  That obviously makes him even more dangerous.  We found nearly a billion dollars in cash under the guy's mattress.  That kind of money isn't used for legitimate purposes.  

You can't simply ignore the fact that Congress authorized the use of force, endorsed the use of force after the war started, and has repeatedly funded the war.

And the fact a number of countries supported and continue to support the war means nothing?  Oh come on.  What that should tell you is this isn't some black and white issue.  If it were, they wouldn't be by our side.    


    

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2008, 08:22:02 PM »

Give it a rest, 240, you're not going to get anywhere with the willfully blind.

Judging from the way he writes, BB definitely has a college degree of some sort.  But it's probably from a school one step above a degree mill, UNLV or some place where critical thinking does n't exist (Ok, I'm being totally unfair to UNLV here, as I have no idea of what goes on there.... it's just one of those schools that I know is out there, somewhere in the backwoods of America :D

He might even be a teacher as he claims.  Does not take much to teach at some schools.  Probably got an MA in ed psych or an MBA from a degree mill.  

He also probably watched a bunch of Court TV & Fox.... which leads him to come on here and drop terms like "Due Process" and then say, "doesn't matter what the law says."  On the one hand, the law makes it ok to kill, and so he gives it porps, and on the other, the law doesn't know wtf it's doing.

Never mind that the "due process" accorded to most death row inmates has been shown by study after study to be little more than a joke.  But hey, when you graduate from UNLV  :D and when Jesus is your personal "blesser", you don't care about shit like that.


Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2008, 08:25:59 PM »
Give it a rest, 240, you're not going to get anywhere with the willfully blind.

Judging from the way he writes, BB definitely has a college degree of some sort.  But it's probably from a school one step above a degree mill, UNLV or some place where critical thinking does n't exist (Ok, I'm being totally unfair to UNLV here, as I have no idea of what goes on there.... it's just one of those schools that I know is out there, somewhere in the backwoods of America :D

He might even be a teacher as he claims.  Does not take much to teach at some schools.  Probably got an MA in ed psych or an MBA from a degree mill.  

He also probably watched a bunch of Court TV & Fox.... which leads him to come on here and drop terms like "Due Process" and then say, "doesn't matter what the law says."  On the one hand, the law makes it ok to kill, and so he gives it porps, and on the other, the law doesn't know wtf it's doing.

Never mind that the "due process" accorded to most death row inmates has been shown by study after study to be little more than a joke.  But hey, when you graduate from UNLV  :D and when Jesus is your personal "blesser", you don't care about shit like that.



It's all about Jebus.
I hate the State.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2008, 09:20:09 PM »
So let me get this straight:  you ridicule the contention that Saddam was a threat and when I give you numerous comments from members of Congress who considered him a threat you dismiss all of them as "political blabber"?  That's just a pure copout Ozmo.  Why were they calling him a threat?  And why did Congress give Bush the authority to invade if they didn’t view him as a threat?
   

BB, it's a pure cop-out to think most anything politicians say is a good reason for something.  Politician say things for one reason and one reason only...to get votes. 

Aside from that idea about politicians which is arguable, granted, however, the "chess pieces" show he wasn't a threat. And I've already explain why to you. 
 
Tactically he's a threat becuase he had the ability to enact violence against the USA.   So does every other country in the world.  They have the same ability.  But they are not threats until they can strategically threaten us.  Strategically meaning they can strike the US and not receive grave repercussions which would include invasion and removal from power.  So strategically if he  moves against us it means he is done with.  Saddam was a thug, he'd do what ever he needed to stay in power and striking the USA would mean a sure end to his power. 

Hence he is not a threat anymore then anyone else is.

Now if Russia tried that, it might be a different story so, skipping all the Political blabber, becuase that's exactly what it is, Russia in reality is a far greater threat. 

Quote
I could see arguably dismissing comments if they were partisan, but when they come from both sides of the aisle, spanning two presidential administrations, and they're all saying the same thing, you can only dismiss them as "political blabber" if you are wearing blinders.

If someone takes the idea that 2 sides agree and inturn that makes what they think right then that person is the one with blinders.  It wouldn't matter how many voted or who or who did not.  wrong is wrong, it doesn't just make it right because our congress said so.  Hell, how long did it take us to figure out slavery was wrong?

Quote
Regarding the reasons I listed for my support for the war, I did say that I don’t view one factor alone.  Viewing the totality of what I listed, I think he was clearly a threat, consistent with numerous quotes from members of Congress I posted (that you refuse to even read). 

You play chess bb?

Play it out BB.  what does Saddam do that threatens the USA?  What does do that doesn't lead invasion and a quick removal from power?

What those politicians were saying was is what people wanted to hear and to say anything other than that would have been a political masochism.

Quote
The entire world did have an opinion, through the UN and a substantial part of the world expressed their opinion by supporting the war with troops and/or money. 

Substantial as compared to what?  the total countries involve in financial backing and troop backing versus the total amount of countries in the world or compared to the amount in the first war?  In the case of the 2003 invasion, world opinion was against us, Many governments didn't support us. .

So i don't know what world you are living in when you say a substantial.  Did the UN support it like in 1991?

Quote
North Korea isn't Iraq, for the all reasons I've already listed.  Saddam was a unique dictator. 

Maybe so, but the situation is exactly the same.  attacking anyone for both would me losing power and both those leaders don't want that.  So they are not different form each other.

Quote
The fact he invaded a sovereign nation, bombed another in the recent past, had previously used WMDs, and was currently sponsoring terrorism only heightened the threat he posed.

Again he knew very well, especially after 9/11 anything of the sort would mean his death.   He knew it, our leaders knew it, anyone with sense pass one move knew it. 

 
Quote
Unlimited resources for a man like Saddam made him an enormous threat.  Pretty much the entire Congress believed a man was in control of a country, an army, and unlimited resources and was trying to obtain WMDs.  That obviously makes him even more dangerous.  We found nearly a billion dollars in cash under the guy's mattress.  That kind of money isn't used for legitimate purposes. 

Unlimited. wow, still on that...... Being previously in the Army, you should at least know that he barely could defend his country with the resources he had and that proven in 3 weeks of fighting.  Further more, a billion isn't much BB, all it gets you is a football stadium these days, it runs out fast.  Heck we've thrown 500 billion at iraq and we still have problems.

Quote
You can't simply ignore the fact that Congress authorized the use of force, endorsed the use of force after the war started, and has repeatedly funded the war.

I'm not ignoring it at all, i haven't denied it, i haven't disputed it..etc...'

Acts of congress don't make things right.  And they certainly don't make things justified.

Quote
And the fact a number of countries supported and continue to support the war means nothing?  Oh come on.  What that should tell you is this isn't some black and white issue.  If it were, they wouldn't be by our side.

Nothing about countries is black and white, at least capitalistic countries, they are all related to green in the end.


I'm really surprised in all of this, you are swayed this much by political rhetoric and don't see it for what it is.


BTW.  it kind of funny to me how some people can criticize democrats for saying anything to get votes, then on the other hand use what they say to justify something else.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Very Sad Story
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2008, 11:06:59 PM »
BB, it's a pure cop-out to think most anything politicians say is a good reason for something.  Politician say things for one reason and one reason only...to get votes. 

Aside from that idea about politicians which is arguable, granted, however, the "chess pieces" show he wasn't a threat. And I've already explain why to you. 
 
Tactically he's a threat becuase he had the ability to enact violence against the USA.   So does every other country in the world.  They have the same ability.  But they are not threats until they can strategically threaten us.  Strategically meaning they can strike the US and not receive grave repercussions which would include invasion and removal from power.  So strategically if he  moves against us it means he is done with.  Saddam was a thug, he'd do what ever he needed to stay in power and striking the USA would mean a sure end to his power. 

Hence he is not a threat anymore then anyone else is.

Now if Russia tried that, it might be a different story so, skipping all the Political blabber, becuase that's exactly what it is, Russia in reality is a far greater threat. 

If someone takes the idea that 2 sides agree and inturn that makes what they think right then that person is the one with blinders.  It wouldn't matter how many voted or who or who did not.  wrong is wrong, it doesn't just make it right because our congress said so.  Hell, how long did it take us to figure out slavery was wrong?

You play chess bb?

Play it out BB.  what does Saddam do that threatens the USA?  What does do that doesn't lead invasion and a quick removal from power?

What those politicians were saying was is what people wanted to hear and to say anything other than that would have been a political masochism.

Substantial as compared to what?  the total countries involve in financial backing and troop backing versus the total amount of countries in the world or compared to the amount in the first war?  In the case of the 2003 invasion, world opinion was against us, Many governments didn't support us. .

So i don't know what world you are living in when you say a substantial.  Did the UN support it like in 1991?

Maybe so, but the situation is exactly the same.  attacking anyone for both would me losing power and both those leaders don't want that.  So they are not different form each other.

Again he knew very well, especially after 9/11 anything of the sort would mean his death.   He knew it, our leaders knew it, anyone with sense pass one move knew it. 

 
Unlimited. wow, still on that...... Being previously in the Army, you should at least know that he barely could defend his country with the resources he had and that proven in 3 weeks of fighting.  Further more, a billion isn't much BB, all it gets you is a football stadium these days, it runs out fast.  Heck we've thrown 500 billion at iraq and we still have problems.

I'm not ignoring it at all, i haven't denied it, i haven't disputed it..etc...'

Acts of congress don't make things right.  And they certainly don't make things justified.

Nothing about countries is black and white, at least capitalistic countries, they are all related to green in the end.


I'm really surprised in all of this, you are swayed this much by political rhetoric and don't see it for what it is.


BTW.  it kind of funny to me how some people can criticize democrats for saying anything to get votes, then on the other hand use what they say to justify something else.

I'm cynical of what politicians say too and I agree they pander to voters all the time.  They're often disingenuous. 

This is a little different though.  They're all making some very strong statements, like this one from Nancy Pelosi on 10 Oct. 02:  "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."  If it were only Pelosi, only Democrats, or only Republicans, I'd be more inclined to believe that they were pandering.  I guess it is possible that all of them were putting on act and really didn't believe Saddam was a threat, but I doubt that's the case.   

Regarding the (approximately) billion in cash, no it's not enough to move mountains, but the point was you don't keep that kind of cash hanging around for legitimate reasons.  He was probably using that to fund terrorism in Israel.  I doubt he had beneficent designs for money.  And he had access to/control of billions more.