georgeacasta2 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone sorry I miss read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by cintron killing 4 civilians and "bombing" an oil well... wow i guess we should run away with our tails between our legs, hanging our heads in shame.I bet you don't give a rats ass how many innocent civilians get killed do you?we've created a massacre. a whopping four civilians, dear God how can we as a nation live with the agony of such a brutal mass murder.Are you proud? maybe we should all lock ourselves in our closets and wallow in our SELF PITY at our inability to transform war into a black and white game where only the bad guys get hurt and instead of violence, we have a dandy Disney sing-along to teach the enemy the immorality of their position.You are ignorant.who gives a fuck what the UN thinks.Not you! Since when does an ignoramus care? they want their hands in Iraq and they'll have it, when we're done.Done slaughtering innocent lives, the way you like it to be.Do you think any of us give a fuck what Khofi Annan is going to say about an oil well?Obviously you dont! You love seeing innocents getting killed do you? Especially when they are of arab blood. YOU ARE A RACIST!!do you think he's going to say anything at all?Yes he will and I hope he does!!grow a pair. I got a pair and it a gutless pairless coward to kill civilians and a gutless pairless ignorant coward like you to savour the moment.Proud of your ignorant self? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises killing 4 civilians and "bombing" an oil well... wow i guess we should run away with our tails between our legs, hanging our heads in shame.I bet you don;t give a rats ass how many innocent civilians get killed do you?we've created a massacre. a whopping four civilians, dear God how can we as a nation live with the agony of such a brutal mass murder.Are you proud? maybe we should all lock ourselves in our closets and wallow in our SELF PITY at our inability to transform war into a black and white game where only the bad guys get hurt and instead of violence, we have a dandy Disney sing-along to teach the enemy the immorality of their position.You are racially ignorant.who gives a fuck what the UN thinks.You! they want their hands in Iraq and they'll have it, when we're done.Done slaughtering innocent lives, the way you like it to be.Do you think any of us give a fuck what Khofi Annan is going to say about an oil well?Obviously you dont! You love seeing innocents getting killed do you? Especially when they are of arab blood. YOU ARE A RACIST!!do you think he's going to say anything at all?Yes he will and I hope he does!!grow a pair. I got a pair and it a gutless pairless coward to kill civilians and a gutless pairless racist coward like you to savour the moment. why don't you two pullyour pants down and beat your cocks together until one falls off then declare the other one the winner.. stick to the issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone why don't you two pullyour pants down and beat your cocks together until one falls off then declare the other one the winner.. stick to the issue so this is how you counter with the issue? this is how you prove me wrong, with insults? GROW THE FUCK UP!!! How can I stick with the issue when you run away from it? Especially when you obviously cannot prove to me that this war is not for oil? You haven't done that yet and based on what you just said tells me alot about you. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT BIGOT!!!NOW PROVE TO ME THIS WAR IS NOT FOR OIL BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN IT IS!!IMPRESS ME!!YOU ARE LOSING THIS ARGUEMENT REAL BAD!!!P R O V E M E W R O N G!!(which I know you cant)*looking foreward to bush's war crimes tribunal AND I HOPE IT COMES* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises so this is how you counter with the issue? this is how you prove me wrong, with insults? GROW THE FUCK UP!!! How can I stick with the issue when you run away from it? Especially when you obviously cannot prove to me that this war is not for oil? You haven't done that yet and based on what you just said tells me alot about you. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT BIGOT!!!NOW PROVE TO ME THIS WAR IS NOT FOR OIL BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN IT IS!!IMPRESS ME!!YOU ARE LOSING THIS ARGUEMENT REAL BAD!!!P R O V E M E W R O N G!!(which I know you cant) I already addressed the issue it would have been cheaper for The US to lift the Oil sanctions and have iraq increase its production to 600+ million barrels a day!! I have said it over and over again... THIS IS A FACT !! that's my proof now lets see yours... all you have is opinion and speculation.chill out man, take the red pill.by the way what did I say that was bigoted ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone I already addressed the issue it would have been cheaper for The US to lift the Oil sanctions and have iraq increase its production to 600 million barrels a day!! I have said it over and over again... chill out man, take the red pill. that still does not prove that this war is not for oil. I want hard evidence from you.It would be a peaceful solution if the US lifted ALL sanctions against Iraq, not only oil sanctions but medical aid so the civilians can have access to medicines so they can be treated. Millions have dies from Saddam's poisonous bombs as well as biological ones. Let the UN stay there and remove WMDS. Have the UN run an election monitored and sanctioned by the UN to remove saddam from power and bring him to justice for genocide in a tribunal. Good enough, or should we compound the problem by murdering more innocent lives with our bombs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises that still does not prove that this war is not for oil. I want hard evidence from you.It would be a peaceful solution if the US lifted ALL sanctions against Iraq, not only oil sanctions but medical aid so the civilians can have access to medicines so they can be treated. Millions have dies from Saddam's poisonous bombs as well as biological ones. Let the UN stay there and remove WMDS. Have the UN run an election monitored and sanctioned by the UN to remove saddam from power and bring him to justice for genocide in a tribunal. Good enough, or should we compound the problem by murdering more innocent lives with our bombs? The UN has been trying for 12 years toremove them and haven't succeded and it helps when UN members are proliferating equipment to Iraq against sanctions.. I mean how much longer do you need to know that inspections dont work 13 years 14 years? 15? what do you need? do you know how saddam came to power? he kidnapped his opponents families and threatened them with death if they didn't drop out. there was an election recently HE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE... how can there be fair election when opposition is threathened with death... being an Idealist is ok and great and is a great reminds us of where our actions should be leading us.but some times our Ideal wants and Realistic needs don't match..The UN couldn't Back up 16 resolutions.. I wouldn't trust them to run anything.. the UN has turnined into a debatiing club all talk no action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone The UN has been trying for 12 years toremove them and haven't succeded and it helps when UN members are proliferating equipment to Iraq against sanctions.. I mean how much longer do you need to know that inspections dont work 13 years 14 years? 15? what do you need? For the US to lift all economic sanctions against them. That would've been a real good start. That would bring a peaceful solution but did Bush want that? Noooooooope! He's got to appease his oil rich buddies, his dad and himself. Nice President!do you know how saddam came to power? he kidnapped his opponents families and threatened them with death if they didn't drop out. No shit! Another good reason to have him removed and didn't you know we once supplied him with weapons to fight the Iranians because they were our enemy at one time?there was an election recently HE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE... how can there be fair election when opposition is threathened with death...There can't be a fair election that way and being forced to vote is wrong, especially when it's one sided, like it was in Flori-duh with Bush and his cronies at work fixing the election so he gets appointed. Not voted. That's why a UN monitored election would've been the answer in Iraq to get rid of him so the people can enjoy a democracy free from an oppressive military dictatorship. Has it occured to you the Iraqis don't want us there either? being an Idealist is ok and great and is a great reminds us of where our actions should be leading us.War is not my way of being idealist.but some times our Ideal wants and Realistic needs don't match.. Of course. Getting rid of a killer and the US killing more of their people certainly does not match. where is the logic in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 dude you can't stick to the issue at all. first of all. second of all all your points hinge on the Hope that Saddam would play fair.. WHICH HE HASN'T and WONT what's the matter with you !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycmuzik Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises there was an election recently HE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE... how can there be fair election when opposition is threathened with death...There can't be a fair election that way and being forced to vote is wrong, especially when it's one sided, like it was in Flori-duh with Bush and his cronies at work fixing the election so he gets appointed. Not voted. That's why a UN monitored election would've been the answer in Iraq to get rid of him so the people can enjoy a democracy free from an oppressive military dictatorship. Has it occured to you the Iraqis don't want us there either? A UN monitored election in Iraq??....You have got to be kidding me....Saddam would slaughter any UN peacekeepers that tryed to assert any type of authority in Iraq...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises that still does not prove that this war is not for oil. I want hard evidence from you. I've posted this once before. The economics of a "war for oil" make absolutely zero sense. Take it from a Nobel Laureate. . . Originally posted by Drunk Put the conspiracy theories to rest. ---------------------------------------------BusinessweekMARCH 17, 2003 Why War with Iraq Is Not about the Oil By Gary S. Becker**Gary S. Becker is the 1992 Nobel Laureate in Economics A number of leaders of the antiwar movement have been loudly proclaiming that a war with Iraq would be all about America's desire to gain control of oil supplies there and elsewhere in the Middle East. In a recent BusinessWeek story, a German Green Party opponent of war was quoted as saying: "Saddam is no saint, but to me the whole thing smells of...oil." This economic argument, popular in Europe, makes little sense. If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration's hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy. Iraq, along with other important producers, must export its oil to gain the resources to buy goods, including weapons. Since oil is sold in a fluid world market, any nation, including the U.S., can get pretty much all the oil it wants by paying world prices. So the U.S. would be better off if it encouraged Iraq to export more, not less, oil because that would lower oil prices. Yet America has not done this. Since the Persian Gulf War, it has led the international community in restricting Iraqi production as a means of pressuring Saddam Hussein to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction.Outbreak of a war in Iraq would cost the U.S., not save it, large sums of money. Already the runup to war has sent oil prices spiraling upward, imposing, in effect, a large tax on all energy consumers. War would initially cause prices to escalate further, as happened in the early days of the Gulf War. The largest estimates of the cost of a conflict with Iraq--estimates above $150 billion, or 1 1/2% of U.S. gross domestic product--are based on the assumption that oil production facilities in Iraq, and possibly elsewhere in the Middle East, would be destroyed or put out of commission for a considerable period of time.Even if all Iraqi production capacity were to be destroyed, world oil output for a year would fall by less than 4%. Such a cutback in supply for that year, it is estimated, could raise oil prices by as much as 40%. That would mean a jump in price from about $35 a barrel now to a little less than $50 a barrel--a significant increase but still far smaller than the tripling of prices after the first oil shock in 1973. Oil might spike temporarily to $50 a barrel. I should add, however, that a price very far above $50 a barrel is highly unlikely.Moreover, in the event of a war, oil is likely to remain below $50 a barrel since much of the war premium has already been priced in. Also, other producers could be expected to expand output to take advantage of the higher prices, and America should use some of its strategic oil reserves to get more oil into the marketplace.The developed economies are also considerably less dependent on oil today than after previous oil price shocks--when OPEC was formed in the 1970s and when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980s. These economies have learned to economize on oil and other fossil fuels by developing new technologies, including more efficient automobiles and airplanes. As a result, the share of income spent on oil has declined by more than half in the U.S. and other rich economies. So an upward boost of oil prices of even 50% would have a significantly less disastrous effect on the U.S., Europe, and Japan than similar price jumps have had in previous decades.Today, Middle Eastern nations are far less important to world oil production than they were immediately after the formation of OPEC. Their share of world oil production has fallen from almost 40% then to less than 30% now. In order to raise the global price of oil, the OPEC cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had to restrict its members' production. This raised prices, encouraging non-OPEC nations, including Russia, to expand production. Also, oil companies have made greater efforts to find new deposits deep in ocean waters, in the frozen tundra of Siberia, and in China and elsewhere.Saudi Arabia tries to create the impression that it produces more oil than it would like in order to keep world prices from rising further, and in this way, it curries favor with America and Europe. Indeed, there may be an element of political accommodation. But mainly the Saudis are helping themselves. They know that forcing prices still higher with additional cuts in their production and that of neighboring Persian Gulf states would accelerate the erosion of demand for Mideast oil as other producers expand output and industrial nations further economize on the use of oil.Consequently, if the major driver of American policy toward Iraq were concern about oil and its cost, it would be best to avoid a Middle East conflict and the risk of much higher prices. A war with Iraq is not about oil. It is about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses to his neighbors, his people, and to nations around the world. Critics might argue against that position, but they only confuse the issue by once again trotting out the oil card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard23 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by normalnoises Can you prove this? I like for you to do so, then I will take you seriously. That article I posted proves that this war is for oil. Can you counter it? I hope you can. Can you please point me in the direction of this article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ou812 Posted April 1 Author Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone If you do something after the fact you're not being proactive you're being reactive.. so you can't be pro-active if you do things after they happen.. so if a country doesn't attack you and you attack it that's being pro-active if you attack after they attack that's being reactive. Hmmm, that's interesting............going along with that school of thought then, why don't we just proactively invade every nation on the face of the earth on the pretense that they might pose a threat to us some day. Personally I say we start by invading our two bordering neighbors: Mexico and Canada. I don't have any proof or any type of lucid agruement to support it, but what they hell, they could be stockpiling nuclear weapons right now as we speak, and I for one feel that we as Americans have a responsibility to not take that chance, BOMBS AWAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Well, if Mexico and Canada were known for USING chemical weaponry against their neighbors AND their own people, and Mexico and Canada invaded someone, lost miserably, then spent 12 years flaunting the demands of surrender documents that THEY signed... then yeah i'd say someone has to do something.I'm not about to watch someone give the finger to the international community for 12 years, only to have diplomacy win out so that they can give the finger to the UN for 12 more years while the diplomats try to develop the spine enough to get something accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ou812 Posted April 1 Author Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by cintron Well, if Mexico and Canada were known for USING chemical weaponry against their neighbors AND their own people, and Mexico and Canada invaded someone, lost miserably, then spent 12 years flaunting the demands of surrender documents that THEY signed... But they mightLETS INVADE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by ou812 But they might Stick to talking about Jersey clubs, because when it comes to discussing politics, you're awful. What you can't seem to understand is that might is a function of what a country has done in the past, as Cintron alluded to. Mexico and Canada don't have a history of harboring terrorists and proliferating chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If they did, it would be a different story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 you know, it's amazing.all the stress and unrest in the world could have been solved by the cost of a plane ticket to baghdad, a winchester .303 rifle with a 30x scope and a box of ammo.No more Saddam, no more Aday and Qusay or whatever his other son's name is, no more "yes-men" generals wearing his mustache to curry favor and bowing to his every whim.Bam, he'd be gone, just like that. Considering how he's treated people who have not followed his every whim, it would have been the perfect justice, to treat him as he's treated others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ou812 Posted April 1 Author Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by Drunk Stick to talking about Jersey clubs, because when it comes to discussing politics, you're awful. What you can't seem to understand is that might is a function of what a country has done in the past, as Cintron alluded to. Mexico and Canada don't have a history of harboring terrorists and proliferating chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If they did, it would be a different story Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence, by the way, I haven't seen you provide any meaningful feedback, so.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by cintron you know, it's amazing.all the stress and unrest in the world could have been solved by the cost of a plane ticket to baghdad, a winchester .303 rifle with a 30x scope and a box of ammo.No more Saddam, no more Aday and Qusay or whatever his other son's name is, no more "yes-men" generals wearing his mustache to curry favor and bowing to his every whim.Bam, he'd be gone, just like that. Considering how he's treated people who have not followed his every whim, it would have been the perfect justice, to treat him as he's treated others. I heard that around the time of the Gulf War, a US Sniper had Saddam in his crosshairs, but was not given the green light. I was looking for more information on this, but was unable to find anything on it.. anyone else hear of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by ou812 Hmmm, that's interesting............going along with that school of thought then, why don't we just proactively invade every nation on the face of the earth on the pretense that they might pose a threat to us some day. Personally I say we start by invading our two bordering neighbors: Mexico and Canada. I don't have any proof or any type of lucid agruement to support it, but what they hell, they could be stockpiling nuclear weapons right now as we speak, and I for one feel that we as Americans have a responsibility to not take that chance, BOMBS AWAY!!! seriously stick to talking about jersey clubs man We have tons of proof on Iraq that they have and will use chemical weapons, including but not limited to european and asian countries selling him weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ou812 Posted April 1 Author Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by siceone seriously stick to talking about jersey clubs man We have tons of proof on Iraq that they have and will use chemical weapons, including but not limited to european and asian countries selling him weapons. Well, duh.............if you attack a country that has an underpowered military force of course they're going to use anything they have to retaliate against you. So what do you expect them to do but fire our own checimal weapons back at us (how ironic). Needless to say, they wouldn't be firing them if we weren't there in the 1st place.And I don't appreciate your condescension either because, frankly, you haven't convinced half the people in this forum with the "tons of proof" you speak of because it's circumstantial at best, and at the same time the US has not convinced the rest of the world either so don't act all surprised when somone takes your rhetoric with a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by ou812 Well, duh.............if you attack a country that has an underpowered military force of course they're going to use anything they have to retaliate against you. So what do you expect them to do but fire our own checimal weapons back at us (how ironic). Needless to say, they wouldn't be firing them if we weren't there in the 1st place.And I don't appreciate your condescension either because, frankly, you haven't convinced half the people in this forum with the "tons of proof" you speak of because it's circumstantial at best, and at the same time the US has not convinced the rest of the world either so don't act all surprised when somone takes your rhetoric with a grain of salt. you act like we didn't ask saddam to give them up, you act like one day we woke up and said oh whoops there is iraq lets go.. just because it's not in the news doesn't mean shits not happeningso the numerous iraqi expatriots including saddams son in law telling of his weapon stock piles, executions and the like, are lying. you forgot the Entire UN Agrees he has these weapons. The disagreement is on how to deal with him. After 12 years mind you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard23 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by chrishaolin I heard that around the time of the Gulf War, a US Sniper had Saddam in his crosshairs, but was not given the green light. I was looking for more information on this, but was unable to find anything on it.. anyone else hear of this? Yes, it's against UN sanctions, rules, regulations, etc. to just go in and assassinate another country's leader (even though he's a monster and we should've taken his ass out 12 years ago.) I'm not sure that there were actually attempts made during the Gulf War, but I know that that is why he was not allowed to be killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeacasta2 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by Drunk Stick to talking about Jersey clubs, because when it comes to discussing politics, you're awful. He's been on point IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeacasta2 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 Originally posted by ou812 Well, duh.............if you attack a country that has an underpowered military force of course they're going to use anything they have to retaliate against you. So what do you expect them to do but fire our own checimal weapons back at us (how ironic). Needless to say, they wouldn't be firing them if we weren't there in the 1st place.And I don't appreciate your condescension either because, frankly, you haven't convinced half the people in this forum with the "tons of proof" you speak of because it's circumstantial at best, and at the same time the US has not convinced the rest of the world either so don't act all surprised when somone takes your rhetoric with a grain of salt. Siceone - don't turn this into a spitting contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.