Claw:

The context of my statement clearly indicated I was speaking of nations arrayed in opposition to the US or in sympathy with those identifying themselves as enemies of the US. However, if military strength of ALL those in the Region is to be considered, then the joke is on you, as the region's strongest military is now that of the United States, which is my original point anyway.

Not plain and simple, Just Plain Wrong. Venzuela is a major oil producer and there are vast reserves of oil elsewhere in our hemisphere,



Further, I stated that the matter was about oil, the oil that we are buying from our trading partners, and the oil that an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein armed with WMD would threaten. All threats are not as overt as Pearl Harbor, nor should we wait for a Pearl Harbor if it can be prevented. This is the context of WMD and the Oil, not invading a country to haul out loot like the Iraqi's did to Kuwait. If you truly believe this whole thing was a ruse to "steal" Iraq's oil I believe your better judgement is being influenced by a personal dislike of GWB.

Bullys always leave their victims for further play, because they enjoy tormenting them. I dont think Saddam is going to be left. The rhetoric about self determination assumes that Saddam's Iraq had a right to choose for themselves, and that this is a matter of mere political choice. Sure Iraq has a right to self determination, and they are closer to it today than ever, but had they been a Greecian Democracy, it does not change the facts that
1. Saddam Hussein possessed and used WMD
2. Saddam Hussein promised to get rid of them in exchange for a cease fire only when he was being overrun.
3. After the cease fire, he refused to allow free access for verification and therefore violated the ceasefire.
4. Saddam Hussein followed a policy of encourageing a belief that he possessed (or would) further WMD.

I remember after 9-11 there was a hue and cry about what "should have been known" and what "should have been done to prevent it". It is always easy to heckle and ascribe scurrilous motives to those who lead. It is also easy to stick your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens, but that is a sure fire way to get your Butt Kicked while you are bent over.

i know. especially not evidence. righteous indignation is too fun to pass up.

go tigers!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because there is nothing that will make me think otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i know. especially not evidence. righteous indignation is too fun to pass up.


......Give me a break, dude. Post a reply to one of my points like Shadeauxcaster did, don't just take pot shots like that. I was really hoping to inspire some deep thought concerning this, not to prompt some hack to shit in my corn flakes. It is really insulting to both of our intellegence.....especially seeing the very well thought out post you made prior.

Ok, Shadeauxcaster, back to you now.....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Iraq was a military juggernaut then? After 11 years on UN sanctions, a previous war that seriously diminished their fighting capability, you still think that Iraq was the regions' strongest military? That is laughable, my friend. The regions strongest military is Israel, bar none. Fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The context of my statement clearly indicated I was speaking of nations arrayed in opposition to the US or in sympathy with those identifying themselves as enemies of the US. However, if military strength of ALL those in the Region is to be considered, then the joke is on you, as the region's strongest military is now that of the United States, which is my original point anyway.

I honestly thought you meant of the indigenous armies of the region...regardless of whether they like us or not...and no, you were NOT clear about the stance of said armies.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said we would buy Iraqi oil, did I? Our military is there, why BUY it when it is there for the TAKING? You really think that this isn't about oil? Right. Then why aren't we kicking dictators out in our own hemisphere? Because there isn't any oil in those places. Plain and simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not plain and simple, Just Plain Wrong. Venzuela is a major oil producer and there are vast reserves of oil elsewhere in our hemisphere,

"Major" OIL reserves in our hemisphere? You are talking about a CONTINENT with 9%, right??? and there are 7 continents....I bet Antartica has more than 9%. Iraq alone has over 20%. Still see no correlation???? I seem to remember a major turmoil in Venezuela here recently but since the government in Venezuela is conducive to US "lean", we didn't even send them a "warning". Exactly what my point is going to be here in a second....

Further, I stated that the matter was about oil, the oil that we are buying from our trading partners, and the oil that an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein armed with WMD would threaten. All threats are not as overt as Pearl Harbor, nor should we wait for a Pearl Harbor if it can be prevented. This is the context of WMD and the Oil, not invading a country to haul out loot like the Iraqi's did to Kuwait. If you truly believe this whole thing was a ruse to "steal" Iraq's oil I believe your better judgement is being influenced by a personal dislike of GWB.

Let us just sit down and THINK for ONE GODDAMN minute about where GW's life was before public office. I seem to remember him being majority owner of the Texas Rangers at one point...when he was ALSO A CEO or something or another of a F@#%ing OIL COMPANY??? You like OIL COMPANIES? I despise them. I don't hate GW, nor do I have an anal love interest in him as some do. "Steal" IS too harsh of a term. "Control" is more what I was after.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not support any action that sees the US take on the role of bully. We're big, we're bad, so better do as we say or else we'll invade your country, too? What ever happened to a country's right to choose for themselves? Have we forgotten that OUR country was founded on the belief that WE have the RIGHT to self-determination and WE went to war because some foreign power was basically bullying us? I do not think that I wished the US to fail, I just believe in using BRAINS over BRAWN. Reminds me of a bully picking on a weak kid in a schoolyard....or Marty the Bookie's "muscle" collecting on a debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bullys always leave their victims for further play, because they enjoy tormenting them. I dont think Saddam is going to be left. The rhetoric about self determination assumes that Saddam's Iraq had a right to choose for themselves, and that this is a matter of mere political choice. Sure Iraq has a right to self determination, and they are closer to it today than ever, but had they been a Greecian Democracy, it does not change the facts that
1. Saddam Hussein possessed and used WMD
2. Saddam Hussein promised to get rid of them in exchange for a cease fire only when he was being overrun.
3. After the cease fire, he refused to allow free access for verification and therefore violated the ceasefire.
4. Saddam Hussein followed a policy of encourageing a belief that he possessed (or would) further WMD.

I remember after 9-11 there was a hue and cry about what "should have been known" and what "should have been done to prevent it". It is always easy to heckle and ascribe scurrilous motives to those who lead. It is also easy to stick your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens, but that is a sure fire way to get your Butt Kicked while you are bent over.

The Iraqi people always had the choice to overthrow Hussien...hell, we were even going to actively support it at one point until some former president got cold feet and left the Iraqi people standing at the altar. Any wonder we aren't liked, much less trusted there?

Greecian Democracy and WMD? A simple pocket knife is a WMD under this philosophy because it holds the potential for killing large numbers of people in the "right" hands.

Saddam encouraged a 'belief' that he possessed WMD? How? He openly stated "We have no WMD". So he stuck his finger under his shirt and said "stick 'em up" at an international level? What kind of crap is that? You are telling me with all the technology we have available that we couldn't "find" these "weapons" after we went in? That is a complete and total whitewash of the truth. It wouldn't piss you off for the cop to pull you over and swear you were drunk even if you hadn't had a drink in years??? Get real. He was excersizing public defiance to the son of the person that whipped his ass earlier. WMD my ass. This was a pissing contest from the word "go"....and yes, it IS about OIL....one way or the other...either directly or "our trading partners".

Also, believing that Iraq is "free" to choose their own government at this point, it would be just as sarcastic to say that Romania had democratic elections back when they were under the Soviet thumb. There IS NO democracy whenever another is DICTATING the outcome.

No, I said nothing of "pearl harbor" or "9-11"....and neither has any of our leaders in concerning this, have they? Pearl Harbor was "ambushed" because the lines of communication failed. Bagdhad was just "Bushed". Iraq, it's leadership and its people, never attacked the US, nor did they want to. Were they pissed off at the US? More than likely so....but so what? Are we to invade every country that dislikes us for some reason or another?

This is HARDLY heckling, but it does suscribe to scurrilous motives...it is the truth that is so glaring that you miss it for the shine. I am impressed by your vocabulary and your arguments, by the way, and also that you haven't used personal attacks. Kudos.

well, i apologize for being so quick to condemn your views, but i think i know why people with opinions like yours think the way they do.

i think you are in a purpetual state of applauding yourself for opposing war. you refuse to recognize a necessary and difficult political decision. you think its more politically expedient to take the mindless and emotional view.

to me the cheapest political viewpoint is the one that refuses to take a stance that results in something undeniably awful but necessary. politicians often exploit this. they say to themselves "hmm, what do americans hate? sending thier children to die? ok then lets repeat how terrible it is and claim we would have avoided it. then people will cast votes for me while they cry over their losses". to me its the most reprehensible thing politicians can do.

definition of demagogue: "A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace"

liberals are champions of demagoguery, and howard dean is their current king. the republicans only care about money and their oil cronies, thats the fashionable thing to say. its perfectly obvious that the war is not about oil.

the war is about credibility. its very simple. you cant make demands of someone and not follow through, and expect them to listen to you the next time.

lets assume for arguments sake that behind the scenes the bush administration has been leaning pretty hard on libya to stop harboring terrorists. lets also say that people like you got their way and politicians were afraid to do anything because voters will cry about oil money or croneyism. now dont you think libya notices? why would they care at all about stamping out their terrorists if they were sure that you and a plurality of americans will vote for wimpy candidates who will never follow through for fear of your kind?

thankfully this is not the case. libya is realizing that we are not joking when we say something.


if you are a fan of logic i can put it more simply with a 3 part syllogism.

premise 1. the 1991 war ended because of a cease fire that was dependent on promises made by iraq.
premise 2. the promises were broken.
conclusion: the war resumes.

Claw: Just curious? While you were watching the WTC towers collapse, what was going through your mind? I'll bet it was something along the lines of "Oh shit! Somebody please save my ass from whoever did this."

Sorry Claw, I check my facts before I post them. 9% of WORLD reserves is a beaucoup.

Claw

As far as production, here are the facts from the UK Oil Ministry, I will post the url if necessary but this is cut and pasted:

For sweet oil, here are the figures from gasandoil.com:

Venezuela's Proven Reserves at 78 billion barrells
Iraq's Proven Reserves at 113 billion barrells

This is Venezuela alone! On this point, you lose.

I got this from a quick google search btw, I have zero connection to any oil company. I am also not wed in any way to W, and if he screws up I will give him credit for that too. I refer you back to my "hot button rhetoric" comment here, and would submit to you that just because it feels good to say something does not make it true.

That brings up the "Bush Lied" rhetoric as well. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support this proposition. It may be that Bush was mistaken, misled by intelligence or whatever, and if that is so then an evaluation of his judgment could be in order. Call him a dumbass if you want or whatever. But I don't see it in that way at all, and would call him steadfast and principled instead. We know for a fact that Saddam gassed villages, and used gas against the Iranians, killing thousands. It is an established fact that his regime developed anthrax and had mortar shells to deliver it. Then when faced with defeat he secured a cease fire upon his promise to come clean. Then he reneged when the pressure was off thinking we wouldnt do anything about it.

It is not enough that this stuff is not there any longer and cant be found. If that is so, Saddam was obligated to reveal where it went. Syria? Wherever. To just say, "oh well who cares what happened to it", would be deriliction of duty IMO. If some of it showed up in the hands of a terrorist who did harm to any of my children with it, I would want to kill the one responsible for shirking his duty and allowing it to happen myself. We can use diplomacy in negotiations in good faith with Canada, with Brazil, even with France! But Saddam Hussein proved that he had no good faith and diplomacy was utterly useless BEFORE our country resorted to force.

I have real doubts about our ability to forge a democracy in Iraq. But this is real world stuff, with real enemies, who pose a real demonstrated threat to us. I prefer to fight them and pursue them where they would otherwise feel safe. I think this is the correct policy and LIbya's recent capitulation seems to confirm that it is the correct course that is paying dividends in PEACE. Because of what has been done in Iraq, we wont have to repeat it in Libya and elsewhere with that ilk. Cursing, rearing and pitching wont change that no matter how badly you dont like it.

Before we go casting stones in glass houses, would it not be wise to make sure the one whom you are casting the stones towards is not a disabled veteran of the US armed forces....would this not be a correct assumption?

"Oh shit" was correct. I did say that....as did the whole country while watching the repeated coverage of the 9/11 attacks. We went after the ones responsible for this act, i.e., the invasion of Afghanastan. Osama is still "at large", right? Instead of following that through until every last cave in every last nook of Afghanastan was plod-stakingly turned out, leaving no stone unturned looking for this crazed lunatic who would cowardly attack innocent people, we instead get, first, heated rhetoric....sabre-rattling, as it were.... towards Iraq for disobeying UN resolutions and then a full-fledged invasion of said Iraq.....all this while the fire was still smoking in Afghanastan. Why? WMD? No....as I have said before, GW KNEW Iraq had no WMD. Ousting Saddam? No...this is what happened, but is only a secondary result of what the reason was for invading.
Did we have irrefutable proof that Saddam was linked to aiding and abedding Osama bin Laden and Al Queda? No...unless you count 20 degrees of separation, in which using this logic, I'm sure we can make links to the US government and Al Queda.
For the good of the Iraqi people? Yes, it is good for the Iraqi people for Hussien to be gone, but that alone isn't the reasoning. There are, as I have said before, deplorable and tragically demented tyrants who torture, maime, and kill their own people all over the world and many right close to home. To assume we are going to go after all of them is preposterous.

All that being said, it leads me to some different conclusions. We invaded Iraq, not because of some UN resolutions that were being ignored by Saddam, but because of the personal 'history' between GW and Saddam....and it was oh, so very convienient that Iraq sits squarely upon much of the world's oil reserves? GW can talk a good game, but he has yet to show me any "substance". All this crap about "showing the world we mean business" is just that....crap. Anyone who thinks we are scaring those to do as we say is just plain wrong. All one has to do is look at history and judge by it....or be doomed to repeating it. Now, I am comparing the US to an "empire" as it were...but only in the military aspect. All of the strength and might in the world will not stop people from fighting wars....and I can cite many examples from a historical perspective....Roman Empire and the Vandols and other "European tribes"....British Empire and France, Spain, and yes, and upstart country that became known as the United States of America. Let us not be ignorant to history, and therefore, be doomed to repeat it.

GW....show me some substance and I may change my opinion, but when the Commander-in-Chief goes and does photo op's with "his troops", and then turns around and proposes cuts in the VA's budget (See: 2003 Bush Budget Proposal), it says something to me and it should say something to all those serving, past and present. Thanksgiving in Iraq was a good thing to do....Giving thanks to those who serve and taking care of them in their future, is devine. Thank you Bob Dole and John McCain and all of the other members of Congress who are also Veterans of the US Armed Forces for not letting this proposal by GW even THINK about passing Congress. Put up, or shut up. "Support Our Troops" means more than hanging a yellow ribbon or putting a flag on your car's radio antenna.


I don't consider myself a passifist or weak towards those who do us harm...just that the focus of our resolve took a major hit whenever we started with this Iraq shit and it will never be the same as towards Osama....the real crook in all this shit.

I'll summarize your entire diatribe in one sentence:

Saddam sucks but I hate Bush.

"Saddam sucks but I hate Bush"? That's a pretty short summary of my statements. I have never said "I hate Bush". I am very suspect of ANYONE in power....especially those who use this power for personal gains. I do think him wrong with his reasoning in several cases, and a down-right hypocrite in others (See: My rant on the VA).

I forget the author, otherwise I would give credit, I think it was a founding father of our country, but can't remember if it was Ben Franklin or not:

Power corrupts, but ABSOLUTE power corrupts ABSOLUTELY.

There is more to this that what meets the eye. I'm not a big "conspiracy theory" guy, but I do not buy into whatever GW throws out to us via his cabinet or through his own mouth. Historians will decide this.