Turning The Tables George Galloway

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Momus--
I would argue that one of the main keys to containing and so far as possible combating the USSR was to maintain the gulf region within the US sphere of influence. The behaviour of the Saudis in the 1980s was consistent with the relationship that the US had sought to develop since the end of WW2. The effect that the depression in the oil price had on the USSR's economy is a matter of record.

 

Yes, it's for the same reason that every other great power has taken an interest in the place.

Then we basically agree on both points, sorry about the misunderstanding and i appreciate your clarification.

[Steve]

Steve, it is relevant because you seem to persist in falling back on claims of an humantitarian motivation for invading Iraq

Momus, you and I were discussing the fact that I called Gixer a liar.  You  went off, foaming at the mouth, at how pathetic I am for calling Gixer a liar.  You incorrectly assumed that I called Gixer a liar about 10's of 1000's of Iraqis dying and you have been insulting me based on that pretense ever since.  In fact, I called Gixer a liar because he said "Bush's lies...."    
I believe that Bush did not lie.  If Bush lied, so did most of the rest of the interested parties as they were spouting the same WMD rhetoric.  


I have no idea where you get the "falling back on claims..." crap from. I never once said that oil was NOT a factor.  I have no idea where you are drumming up I "fall back" on anything.  Perhaps you have posts mixed up....dunno.

Likewise it is foolish of you to say that the humanitarian part of it played no factor.  It is equally foolish to assume that we saved Kuwait strictly because they had oil and for no other reason.  In fact, I do not believe you truly feel this way.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
From a couple of pages ago,



Hey Torque, I hope you don't take all what Ritter says to the bank.  

In a Frontline interview , Richard Butler, Ritter's boss in UNSCOM said,

not all but he was a marine and a patriot, butler is a politician and a foreigner. i can understand ritter's frustration tho, he was there to do a job.

from the same interview.

frontline:

"Do you feel that the balance shifted in the last year or so this agreement that was working? That in the last year or two, the CIA overstepped its bounds"

butler:

"I don't know. You can't know what you don't know. I know what I approved of. I approved of gifts to us, of persons and technology,"

that interview was conducted before june, it was only after butler left unscom later in july that the stories broke, about how the cia was in fact piggy backing off of unscom.

he (butler) also opposed the US-led invasion and Australian participation in it.

not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, as i have a lawn to mow.

[Momus--]

Ok Steve, whatever you say bud. I guess I just imagined this bit:

the lives of 10,000's

Liar

If that is not what you meant then fine, but are you saying that you weren't addressing the figure of the bodycount although changing the subject slightly when you went on to say:

Based on estimates, far less people have died than would have if Hussein was left in power.

Now, if your issue was as you now claim with whether Bush lied, why continue to address the theoretical bodycount after your initial remark?

Likewise it is foolish of you to say that the humanitarian part of it played no factor. It is equally foolish to assume that we saved Kuwait strictly because they had oil and for no other reason. In fact, I do not believe you truly feel this way.

There are many other trouble spots that don't get anywhere near the level attention that the gulf region gets for example Sudan, Congo, Uganda, Burundi etc. Likewise there are any number of oppresive regimes comparable to Iraq under Saddam, i.e. Zimbabwe, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Tin pot dictatorships regularly invade each other and it barely makes the news. What else is so special about the gulf region that it warrants the level of attention that it gets? If it isn't that the major oil reserves of the planet are concentrated there with all the strategic significance, past present and future that that concetration implies, then what else explains the importance attached to the region? Tell me please.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Momus--
Steve, it is relevant because you seem to persist in falling back on claims of an humantitarian motivation for invading Iraq when anyone with half a clue knows that western Governments as a rule don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars out of altruism.

 

Anybody who really belives that the US is in afghanistan and/or Iraq for any other reason than control of the oil is an idiot.
Dont argue with idiots or liars and you will fond yourself in good company.

[culero]

Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, even though you can't spell and are an ignorant American heter,  you still seem stupid.

Ya gotta love it when simpletons hoist themselves on their own petards

culero (LMAO at NUKE-leton)

[Steve]

What else is so special about the gulf region that it warrants the level of attention that it gets?

Momus,

I just don't get it.  I'm unable to make myself any clearer.

I'm going to try one more time.  Oil was a consideration, it was not the sole consideration.  This is what I've been saying all along.  I haven't changed.  If you cannot agree to this fine.  If oil is the sole consideration, why help tsunami victims?  It makes sense to me that we would send aid first to areas  we considered strategically important, given similar circumstances.  This seems a matter of prudence to me and I simply cannot grasp why people take affront to this.

Finally, I'm not disputing Gixer's bodycount although I doubt he did any research, just spouted numbers. I simply think that the administration did not lie.  If they did lie, France,  the UN, Russia, Germany, Britain, et. al all lied too since they were saying the same thing re: WMD......  quite a conspiracy.
 In another thread I extrapolated how many people would have died under Hussein's regime had he been left in power.  It clearly showed that the death toll would have been greater albeit only Iraqis would have been dying(mostly).  I ask you:  motives aside, do you feel we should have left Hussein in power?



Have a nice day.



Whitehawk,   You're beneath me.  This comment is all you get.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Steve
Finally, I'm not disputing Gixer's bodycount although I doubt he did any research, just spouted numbers.

Steve,

There's been 1811 coalition military fatalities to date. Do you dispute that number? No one knows the civilian casualties because it's not recorded obviously because it's not a good look for the US. But even the small percentage that are recorded/reported in some way add up to some 28,000 dead to date. Most guess that the actually figure is somewhere around 100,000.


...-Gixer

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Anybody who really belives that the US is in afghanistan and/or Iraq for any other reason than control of the oil is an idiot.
 

While you can certainly make taht argument about Iarq I think its outrageus that you make it about afgahnistan.

But then again, i forget, you are one of those freaks who thinks 911 was done by the CIA and not Bin Laden.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
While you can certainly make taht argument about Iarq I think its outrageus that you make it about afgahnistan.

Afgahnistan was the base for terrorism against the west...It was justified to invade and squash the islamic leaders there...GWB was too slow in making his move though and Osama still makes videos.

Iraq was not a base for Osama,had no WMD and was no threat to US security.

Big difference indeed.

[john9001]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Afgahnistan was the base for terrorism against the west...It was justified to invade and squash the islamic leaders there...GWB was too slow in making his move though and Osama still makes videos.

Iraq was not a base for Osama,had no WMD and was no threat to US security.

Big difference indeed.

after the attack on tora bora, osama has only made audio tapes,he has not made any videos, perhaps he lost his sony video cam or he is dead.

[Steve]

Do you dispute that number?

What part of

I'm not disputing Gixer's bodycount

did you not understand?

[Steve]

. But even the small percentage that are recorded/reported in some way add up to some 28,000 dead to date. Most guess that the actually figure is somewhere around 100,000.

Most also guess that the deaths would have been much higher had Hussein been left in power.  Maybe you could start a movement to restore him.

No one knows the civilian casualties because it's not recorded obviously because it's not a good look for the US

Screw you.  You happily assume this because you have super power envy.   No more free passes for tiny dicked foreigners  like you on here who spout their jealousy uncontrollably.  We are the most powerful nation in the world and it's eating away at you.  All you can do is spread your lies here... impotence must be frustrating.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Steve
Screw you.  You happily assume this because you have super power envy.   No more free passes for tiny dicked foreigners  like you on here who spout their jealousy uncontrollably.  We are the most powerful nation in the world and it's eating away at you.  All you can do is spread your lies here... impotence must be frustrating.

No Steve, that is what you wish to believe.  Makes it easier to not deal with the arguement when you can just say, "U R TEH JEALIOUS!".

[Steve]

Thraawn, what else would explain why Gixer would type insulting, inflammatory things that have no basis in fact?

It is not what I wish to believe.... it's self evident to me.


What arugement?  The hateful salamander was spouting insults and nothing else.