Turning The Tables George Galloway

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Momus--
So, are you you contradicting my claim about the Saudi's cold war efforts to drive the price of crude down in the 1980's at the expense of the USSR? Yes or no will do.

Out of 6o years of US control over middle east oil, that's all you can come up with?

What will the evil US do next?

[Momus--]

Thank you you're too kind.

[GRUNHERZ]

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves with this argument.

First we have to realize that Momus' contention about control of oil being the #1 goal of the US for the past 60 years is simply flat out wrong.

Containing communism was the #1 goal after WW2.

And even Momus' example that thrawn apparently likes so much proves it, the oil angle he mentions was simply a means to defeat the soviets. You canmt say oil was the #1 goal, when oil was simply one of the tools used to contain/defeat communism whichj was the #1 goal.

Oil is obviously importnat but it was in no way the main goal of US foreign policy in the decades of WW2.

So momus statemnt of oils policy primacy in the pst war years is wrong nad really just a rather moronic tie in to hgis current obsession/hatred of US foreign policy.

Neither Momus or Nuke are very good at argiong their points here or in other threads. So I'm curious why Thrawn thinks momus is doing well, is it just fanboism or simply supporting a favorable pov even if the argument id weak?

[NUKE]

Grun, I take exception to your views on my argument style.  I was the only one to call Momus for his retarded idea of the US's number one goal for the past 60 years. He can't back up his claim. I was right.

But Thrawn has never been one to debate anything, ever. He just has his little mind made up that the US is evil and makes drive-by comments at best.

I will argue my points without fear, because I stand by my views and beliefs. Thrawn is just a lost simpleton.

[Torque]

tag team now?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Torque
tag team now?

you are another one. Make a "clever" comment, then move on. Why don't you jump right into the discussion and state your views?

I'm betting that you think the US, for the last 60 years, has been hellbent on controlling Persian Gulf resources.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Momus--

Now it is entirely your right to fly in the face of reality and in the face of sixty years of your own political history during which time successive US governments have made control of the resources of the persian gulf their number one strategic priority.

 

I still have not seen this statement backed up. Let's hear it Momus, Thrawn and Torque.

[Nash]

Momus - don't let these thugs get away it. Let me help you out here, I have tons experience with this kind of thuggery. It can take a little getting used to, but it's easy once you know what to look for.

You said:

 "Now it is entirely your right to fly in the face of reality and in the face of sixty years of your own political history during which time successive US governments have made control of the resources of the persian gulf their number one strategic priority.

Not goal.

If the number one goal was indeed the falling of communism, then having control of the oil can indeed be a strategic priority to that end. They're not mutually exclusive.

Further, you said "successive US governments have made control of the resources of the persian gulf their number one strategic priority. That also does not mean that their strategic priorities could be different for different regions. Just that in the Persian Gulf, the priority has been oil.

Now see how quickly they latch onto key phrases, mutilate them, and repeat them so much that ya kinda forget what you were trying to say in the first place? It's hard to avoid. But notice that in doing this, and repeatedly demanding clarification to one sentence, they conveniently avoid having to respond to everything else you've said?

Don't let the morons get away with it.

[Nash]

ps., if you want to take a stab at it jus to see what it's like, then ignore everything Nuke says and just reply with "But how do you know The US invasion of Iraq was a blessing from God?" over and over and over again.

[NUKE]

Nash, you are not helping poor Momus. The number one priority is somehow diferent than the number one goal?

Nash, if I recall, you have never explained why you believe the Iraq war was about oil.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves with this argument.

First we have to realize that Momus' contention about control of oil being the #1 goal of the US for the past 60 years is simply flat out wrong.

You are letting your prejudices run away with you. I argued that control of the resources of the persian gulf was the overriding strategic priority, not that it was a goal in itself. You start with a goal. You then establish a strategy to accomplish the goal. Is that simply enough put?

Containing communism was the #1 goal after WW2.

Exactly! And how were they to be contained? Via a combination of economic warfare and military might. Oh and by the way, you need to be able to fuel all those strategic bombers and main battle tanks. And maintain your domestic fuel supply at the same time.

And even Momus' example that thrawn apparently likes so much proves it, the oil angle he mentions was simply a means to defeat the soviets. You canmt say oil was the #1 goal, when oil was simply one of the tools used to contain/defeat communism whichj was the #1 goal.

Thanks, you are making my argument for me. I never claimed that it was a goal in itself.

So momus statemnt of oils policy primacy in the pst war years is wrong nad really just a rather moronic tie in to hgis current obsession/hatred of US foreign policy.

So fine, make a compelling argument against what I'm saying. So far you've either misrepresented my argument or just made arbitary statements coupled with ad hominem.

Neither Momus or Nuke are very good at argiong their points here or in other threads. So I'm curious why Thrawn thinks momus is doing well, is it just fanboism or simply supporting a favorable pov even if the argument id weak?

Says the resident master of the straw man argument and weak bellybutton sarcasm himself. I'll take that as a compliment as well.

Thanks, you're too kind.

[Nash]

There is the goal. And then there are the strategies used in achieving that goal. Then one strategy can be a priority among other strategeis in achieving that goal. Hence strategic priority. They are different things my friend.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Momus--
You are letting your prejudices run away with you. I argued that control of the resources of the persian gulf was the overriding strategic priority, not that it was a goal in itself. You start with a goal. You then establish a strategy to accomplish the goal. Is that simply enough put?


 

You said the for the last 60 years, the number one strategy of the US was to control Persian Gulf resources. You are a dipchit as well as being wrong.

[GRUNHERZ]

Nash, strategic goal sand strastegic priortity are the same thing. You know that.  And even if yiou disagrre, just review the thread and yoiu will see that momus has used both "goal" and "prority" to describe his oil therorty interchangably.

Dont get too cute with your words, there is no need.

Momus is wrong in his argument, simple as that.  Yet none of thst means that oil is still not an important strategic issue in the cold war, it just meand=s that the cold war battle against communism ewas the main goal/priority or whatever.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
You said the for the last 60 years, the number one strategy of the US was to control Persian Gulf resources. You are a dipchit as well as being wrong.

You can't even get this one quote right despite harping on it.