Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on May 18, 2005, 02:33:45 PM
-
"British politician George Galloway belittled as "utterly preposterous" a Senate panel's allegations that he secretly profited from Iraq's oil-for-food program."
Now that was hilarious to watch. Only wish I got to see more coverage of it before Fox pulled it. Obviously not a good look for the pro Bush network. :lol
...-Gixer
-
I have read the transcript and it is brilliant. I hope it is available online in video form soon.
Fox News can suck dirt.
-
hahah you little linguine spinend liberals will take what you can and RUNNN with it..Like newsweek..ect ect...
Ya ..lord knows the rest of the news networks..hate America...I hope you all get affected by the terrorist scum who dotn give a crap if you are a liberal"lack of morals" or whatever politcal party u are ....muslim terrorits scum dotn give a crap about you..But they sure love it when you help them..
And all the guys ---running like roaches when the Ligth of Oil for Deaths in IRaq come out.!!!LOLOLOOL DIRTY DIRTY..lieng bastrds who took money whiel Iraqi civilians died...
HAHAH caugth you now...dirtbags
turning the tables..lmfao..grasping .grasping.....
-
Ummmm........Wha? :confused:
-
Galloway certainly looked believable. He's either an incredibly excellent liar or he really is telling the truth.
-
The only thing he needs to add to his public comments is occasionally calling everyone who disagrees with him a 'crypto-fascist' once in a while.
Oh Vyvyan, you could teach these modern brit politiks something about pulling off believable indignation....
This calls for a delicate blend of psychology and extreme violence.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
hahah you little linguine spinend liberals will take what you can and RUNNN with it..Like newsweek..ect ect...
Ya ..lord knows the rest of the news networks..hate America...I hope you all get affected by the terrorist scum who dotn give a crap if you are a liberal"lack of morals" or whatever politcal party u are ....muslim terrorits scum dotn give a crap about you..But they sure love it when you help them..
And all the guys ---running like roaches when the Ligth of Oil for Deaths in IRaq come out.!!!LOLOLOOL DIRTY DIRTY..lieng bastrds who took money whiel Iraqi civilians died...
HAHAH caugth you now...dirtbags
turning the tables..lmfao..grasping .grasping.....
Rumsfeld's got it right....
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1116452478_bs_edited.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Galloway certainly looked believable. He's either an incredibly excellent liar or he really is telling the truth.
Bill Clinton was a good liar....
waving his finger at the camera... "I did not have sexual relations with that women... "
Then they pulled out a stained dress....
As long as they don't have direct evidence I don't see anything happening to this guy..
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I have read the transcript and it is brilliant. I hope it is available online in video form soon.
Here you go. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm)
-
Originally posted by soda72
Bill Clinton was a good liar....
waving his finger at the camera... "I did not have sexual relations with that women... "
You left out the rest of the story. Prior to the question, the lawyers asked for a definition of sexual relations and it was defined as sexual intercourse (penetration), but not oral sex. Within the definition of the term given, Clinton did not lie. Yeah, you and I and probably most everyone we know consider oral sex to be sexual relations, but this is lawyer speak we're talking about.
-
Oh good grief what EVAR!! lol.
He denies it, therefore it's true ROFL!!
You guys crack me up.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You left out the rest of the story. Prior to the question, the lawyers asked for a definition of sexual relations and it was defined as sexual intercourse (penetration), but not oral sex. Within the definition of the term given, Clinton did not lie. Yeah, you and I and probably most everyone we know consider oral sex to be sexual relations, but this is lawyer speak we're talking about.
Ok.. who made the distinction "but not oral sex"? And what kinda retard thinks oral is not sex? Matter of fact, why tap dance around the subject? He'd have come out allot better had he said "Your damn right I did"... Hell even I'd have respected him for that but NOOOooo... [whiney voice]oral sex isn't really sex[/whiney voice]... c'mon dude, be a man.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Ok.. who made the distinction "but not oral sex"? And what kinda retard thinks oral is not sex?
You would be amazed at the number of people that engage in oral sex and at the same time consider themselves to be virgins.
-
Where can i find a "Virgin" ?
-
Originally posted by soda72
Bill Clinton was a good liar....
waving his finger at the camera... "I did not have sexual relations with that women... "
Then they pulled out a stained dress....
As long as they don't have direct evidence I don't see anything happening to this guy..
All politicans are good liars otherwise they wouldn't be politicians. Where as Clinton getting caught out by a dress cost him his credibility and embarassment to himself and family.
Bush's lies in comparisson have cost the creditibility of a nation,the lives of 10,000's and billions and billions of dolllars.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Ummmm........Wha? :confused:
I know it's quite funny, his little rants remind me of another well known child.
(http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/ssp68.gif)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Sandman
He's either an incredibly excellent liar or he really is telling the truth.
Excellent liar ------- career politician any questions?
Career politician telling the truth..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
But alot of his statements were blunt and correct when asked stupid questions. No liaing required.
Galloway conceded he had met with Saddam Hussein twice, "exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him.
"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps, the better to target ... those guns," Galloway said. "I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war."
I think it was at about this time that Fox cut the coverage. LOL
The Senate panel looked way out of it's league. Only to be left mumbling a few words to the media at the end. They don't realise that British politicans have to do that kind of debating every day. Even Clinton would of been eaten alive in British Parliment. Let alone Bush. LOL
...-Gixer
-
galloway showed them what they're, morally bankrupt hypocites.
no surprise al-foxeera pulled the plug.
-
Originally posted by Torque
galloway showed them what they're, morally bankrupt hypocites.
really? Who's "they" ?
I think Galloway is a hypocrite.
-
Galloway was a vocal opponent to UN sanctions on Iraq, yet he never uttered a word about Saddam's murdering and lawlessness.
Galloway never objected to Iraq's "illegal" war on Kuwait. Galloway is a real treat.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
really? Who's "they" ?
I think Galloway is a hypocrite.
Care to expand on that one as to why you think he's a hypocrite? As the Senate certinly couldn't come up with anything during the debate interesting to know your reasoning and facts.
You really should read the transcript before just slagging him off as a hypocrite as a parting shot.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Care to expand on that one as to why you think he's a hypocrite? As the Senate certinly couldn't come up with anything during the debate interesting to know your reasoning and facts.
You really should read the transcript before just slagging him off as a hypocrite as a parting shot.
...-Gixer
He's a hypocrite because he labeled the UN sanctions as murderous, yet supported Saddam and his his murderous dictatorship.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
He's a hypocrite because he labeled the UN sanctions as murderous, yet supported Saddam and his his murderous dictatorship.
How did he support Sadam? You seem to always forget that the US was a strong supporter of Sadam for many years during his reign. So isn't that being hypocritical?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
How did he support Sadam? You seem to always forget that the US was a strong supporter of Sadam for many years during his reign. So isn't that being hypocritical?
...-Gixer
The US supported Saddam at one time, we have not supported Saddam for a long time. How is that being hypocritical?
A hypocrite is someone like Galloway, who condemns UN sactions as murderous while siding with Saddam.
Gixer, I thought you liked the UN?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US supported Saddam at one time, we have not supported Saddam for a long time. How is that being hypocritical?
A hypocrite is someone like Galloway, who condemns UN sactions as murderous while siding with Saddam.
Gixer, I thought you liked the UN?
So the US supported Sadam at one time when he was or wasn't a muderous dictator? As I thought he was a murderous dictator during all of his reign? Or do you only like to think of the US as supporting Sadam when he was a good dictator fighting those nasty Iranians.
So in that case it's hypocritical to call Galloway a supporter of a muderous dictator and the US not since we are talking about the same dictator aren't we?
Alot of people do see the UN sanctions as muderous to the Iraqi people. And that those UN sanctions were mainly proposed,implimented,supported and enforced by the US.
But the argument you started wasn't about the rights and wrongs of those sanctions but of calling Galloway a hypocrite. Which he may or might not be but it's hilarious to try and claim the morale high ground for the US government at the same time. Really is the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?
...-Gixer
-
Oh yea!!kL?? ;Well yoou stoopiod consertbvatives will jusst never larn the truf I tell ya what!
All yoouo got is CVlinton Oh yae but Cluintoon well thats all you gat!!!
The preceding message has been brought to you by GeenCloud's evil liberal twin.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh yea!!kL?? ;Well yoou stoopiod consertbvatives will jusst never larn the truf I tell ya what!
All yoouo got is CVlinton Oh yae but Cluintoon well thats all you gat!!!
The preceding message has been brought to you by GeenCloud's evil liberal twin.
:rofl
...-Gixer
-
First off....Fox news is no more or less evil than any of the other networks...you watch the one that says what you like to hear..and of course the one you watch won't be biased in your mind.
2nd who the F cares about this Oil for food? Hasn't affected my life in anyway..or any other Americans as far as I know, or the rest of the world except maybe the Iraqi people themselves. But since they show their appreciation for what we did for them on a daily basis, who the F cares about them?
-
In the video Galloway did say he did not support saddams regime. In fact he protested against Saddam outside the Iraq embassy around the time certain govt's were supplying him with weapons.
The opening 15-20 mins of Galloways speech was very good.
-
Bush's lies in comparisson have cost the creditibility of a nation,....
Only to whiny fairies like you. anyone with balls really doesn't care what your kind thinks.
the lives of 10,000's
Liar.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Liar.
Why is he a liar? The estimates range from 20,000 all the way to 100,000. Since your own forces aren't actually keeping an offical tally I would question how you can be so sure. Of course, given your administration's proclivity for playing fast and loose with the facts, I fully understand your confusion.
-
That was a funny interview. No, it was hilarious.
Kind of makes our select committee parliamentary gaffs look like strokes of genius. I can see why politicians are so despised in the US - are they all as deeply stupid as the senators in this hearing?
I don't particularly like Galloway or his politics, but that doesn't make him a crook.
-
Galloway did not want to take the money, saddam forced him to take it.
-
Galloway blasting the senate commity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/05/17/VI2005051700710.html
-
Why is he a liar?
Based on estimates, far less people have died than would have if Hussein was left in power.
I fully understand your confusion.
I'm not confused. It takes a leftist nutjob to consider our removal of Hussein to be anything but a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Steve
I'm not confused. It takes a leftist nutjob to consider our removal of Hussein to be anything but a good thing.
I consider the removal of a planter wart to be a good thing too. But if it means having to shell out a couple billion dollars to do it, I might have to think about it - know what I mean?
-
But if it means having to shell out a couple billion dollars to do it, I might have to think about it - know what I mean?
Not really, I fail to see the similarity between a small growth on your body and a murderous dictator. Unless your growth is a conjoined twin who is hellbent on murder and mayhem. If that's the case, come south of the border and get medical attention.
:)
-
Galoway strikes me as a faily run of ther mill charismatic sociopath, it's trhis quality that makes him so convincing if you are pre disposed to his line of thought.
-
Originally posted by Steve
"...I fail to see the similarity between a small growth on your body and a murderous dictator."
Well in this case, lets consider that the body is the world, and that Hussein was the wart.
Now we know that the wart didn't pose a real threat to the body right? That should be clear now, right? The wart had zero ability to rise up from the foot and punch the world in the face, for example. It could not suck the brain down through a leg and devour it. It was just a pain in the foot.
So okay... We've got a soreness in the foot of this body. It is at this point that the body needs to consider its options. "This pain is annoying," the body might say. The body will then consider its options.
We could try and precision bomb it with Compound W, for example. Or, we could Shock & Awe it with an amputation of the leg. In fact there are several options, including the option to do nothing.
A cost/benefit analysis is needed at this point. A few questions immediately surface:
1) What cost is worth the removal of the pain? One range will be acceptable, and another range will be unacceptable.
2) Are all options of removal on the table? Or is one set of options acceptable, and another set unacceptable?
3) Is there a confluence of acceptable costs and acceptable options relative to the importance of removing the pain?
Keep in mind that the body experiences many different forms of pain. So you might just decide to ignore the wart and get rid of your back pain by drinking more water, for example. Not everything needs immediate and focused attention, just because it happens to be a source of pain.
Ridding yourself of pain in one area by any means available is not always the best move. And ridding yourself of pain does not inherently justify every possible way with which to rid yourself of the pain simply because it is pain. Just ask any vicodin addict.
In this analogy, having carte blanche in removing a wart by any means, with no regard to your entire health, with no regard to your bank account, and with no regard to the raised eyebrows it would cause, seems the act of a nutjob.
Not justification.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Galoway strikes me as a faily run of ther mill charismatic sociopath, it's trhis quality that makes him so convincing if you are pre disposed to his line of thought.
I have to agree with grun here. He was highly carismatic and an excelent public speaker.....but as you all have pointed out too many times to count...so was EDIT: irrelevent to current discussion.
Not to jump on that tangent though, I had to chuckle at his references to UN sanctions and that through them the US managed to kill a million Iraqi babies.
The fact that Sadam built a few Billion dollar palaces just goes unknown to these people that th "US led Oil for food UN sanctions" is ultimatly responsible for the poor conditions of the Iraqi people.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I have to agree with grun here. He was highly carismatic and an excelent public speaker.....but as you all have pointed out too many times to count...so was hitler.
Tom Cruise is Hitler?!!! :(
-
Originally posted by Nash
Tom Cruise is Hitler?!!! :(
:confused:
Thaught we were talking about that "brit dude";)
-
Me too! But it turned out that the "brit dude" spoke well, so now all of a sudden we are talking about Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Me too! But it turned out that the "brit dude" spoke well, so now all of a sudden we are talking about Hitler.
ok just for you and the sake of discussion I edited it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well in this case, lets consider that the body is the world, and that Hitler was the wart.
Now we know that the wart didn't pose a real threat to the body right? That should be clear now, right? The wart had zero ability to rise up from the foot and punch the world in the face, for example. It could not suck the brain down through a leg and devour it. It was just a pain in the foot.
A cost/benefit analysis is needed at this point. A few questions immediately surface:
1) What cost is worth the removal of the pain? One range will be acceptable, and another range will be unacceptable.
2) Are all options of removal on the table? Or is one set of options acceptable, and another set unacceptable?
3) Is there a confluence of acceptable costs and acceptable options relative to the importance of removing the pain?
Keep in mind that the body experiences many different forms of pain. So you might just decide to ignore the wart and get rid of your back pain by drinking more water, for example. Not everything needs immediate and focused attention, just because it happens to be a source of pain.
Ridding yourself of pain in one area by any means available is not always the best move. And ridding yourself of pain does not inherently justify every possible way with which to rid yourself of the pain simply because it is pain. Just ask any vicodin addict.
In this analogy, having carte blanche in removing a wart by any means, with no regard to your entire health, with no regard to your bank account, and with no regard to the raised eyebrows it would cause, seems the act of a nutjob.
Not justification.
nash is right , the USA should have never attacked france and germany in WW2, they were no threat to the USA
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ok just for you and the sake of discussion I edited it.
You're such a p***y! :)
-
nash, we know what you are.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"...the USA should have never attacked france and germany..."
But France fricken DESERVED the beating that the US gave them.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You're such a p***y! :)
didn't want to upset the balance here but thanks for the insult
-
Ok Nash you want analogies? 2 billion represents just .00004 of our gross domestic product for just 1 year. Let's say we've been in Iraq for around two years. That means we've spent approximately .00002 of one years GDP on Iraq. Let's say you make 60k a year. By your comparison, it would cost you .00002 of your annual income to get rid of your plantars wart, that's $1.20.
That's right, about one dollar and twenty cents.
Sounds like it would be money well spent by you.
Take it!
-
didn't want to upset the balance here but thanks for the insult
Balance?
Equating being well spoken with being evil (or more precisely, Hitler) didn't upset any balance here. Lets not kid ourselves. In the world known as the AH BBS, the integrity of any balance was not challenged. Just more grist for the mill.
And you take offence to me calling you a p**sy?
I'll let you and y'all draw yer own conclusions.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ok Nash you want analogies? 2 billion represents just .00004 of our gross domestic product for just 1 year. Let's say we've been in Iraq for around two years. That means we've spent approximately .00002 of one years GDP on Iraq. Let's say you make 60k a year. By your comparison, it would cost you .00002 of your annual income to get rid of your plantars wart, that's $1.20.
That's right, about one dollar and twenty cents.
Sounds like it would be money well spent by you.
Take it!
I assume by this that you think you are the ones bankrolling your war?
Ah yes, Steve from the great state of Arizona. "Ditat Deus." God Enriches.
Indeed. Arizona is ponying up about two and a half billion dollars for the war - so far, today. More tomorrow.
Or on second thought.... make that two and a half billion dollars more in debt.
Either way - pretend that you are the Governor of Arizona with that kind of scratch to do with what needs doing. Are you guys without problems?
I hope for your sake that God really does enrich. You might need the extra cash.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nash is right , the USA should have never attacked france and germany in WW2, they were no threat to the USA
:rofl
"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!"
[runs out, alone; then returns]
"What the f*k happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my prettythang from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Galloway, he's a dead man! Al-Zarqawi, dead! Hussein..."
-
I hope for your sake that God really does enrich. You might need the extra cash.
Nah, I've got plenty of cash and live in the most powerful, most benevolent nation to ever grace the face of this planet. you don't.
Take it!
-
Take it?
I'm doing just swimmingly thank you very much.
-
Excellent Nash. I'm glad to hear it!
so many people are jealous of how well us Americans do and relish when we fall on our face; they can't pass up an opportunity to criticize us. Yet the bulk of us simply wish and hope that everyone succeeds.
One of the curses of being an American.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ok Nash you want analogies? 2 billion represents just .00004 of our gross domestic product for just 1 year. Let's say we've been in Iraq for around two years. That means we've spent approximately .00002 of one years GDP on Iraq. Let's say you make 60k a year. By your comparison, it would cost you .00002 of your annual income to get rid of your plantars wart, that's $1.20.
That's right, about one dollar and twenty cents.
Sounds like it would be money well spent by you.
Take it!
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm
GDP for 2004 11,735 billions
cost of iraq war 2 years = 207.5 billion
That equals .018 of One years national GDP
not .00002 or whatever # you got.
207 billion is no small number no matter what analogy you compare it to. And that wart would cost a 60ker 1080 to remove not 1.20.
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
The first included approximately $54.4 billion for the Iraq War (enacted in April 2003); the second $70.6 billion (enacted November 2003), and the third $21.5 billion (passed as part of regular appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005). The Administration made a fourth request in February 2005 for $81.9 billion of which $61 billion is related to the Iraq War.
-
Well Steve, I can tell you a bit about being an American and not being an American because I've been both.
Know what it means? Pretty much dick all.
Spare me any jealousy rant because guess what? Most folks aren't jealous. Ask..... Nilsen, for example, if when he looks out from his beachfront house in Norway that he feels like he's missing out by not living in Arizona. Give me a break.
There will be a puzzled look on his face, and then he will tell you to go pound sand. That goes for just about anyone.
So okay? High horse? Step down.
What any of this has to do with your incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq eludes me. The invasion was right because people are (not) jealous?
What goes on in minds like yours?
-
Funny, never in my life have I heard someone say they are jealous of Americans. Yet I hear that from Americans all the time.
You should remember that a person might come from the poorest,smallest country in the world and of a poor up-bringing or life yet they will always think of it as "home" and have the same level of patriotism towards it as you do for yours.
...-Gixer
-
I don't think the invasion of Iraq was stupid. I also think that people are being incredibly short sighted on the subject.
I could list all the reasons why I feel the decision to invade Iraq was the correct action, if anyone cares to hear it.
As a by product of our invasion, Iraq may very welll turn out to be a watershed event for the good in the Middle East and the world. It's not all doom and gloom you know.
Iraq has a very good chance of coming out of this as a model for other oppressed people to look up too. I beleive that Iraq will make it and be far better off for the effort.
-
Unless you're psychic, nobody knows how Iraq will turn out. If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd put money on civil war within months of our pull out.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Unless you're psychic, nobody knows how Iraq will turn out. If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd put money on civil war within months of our pull out.
Agreed. Also If I were a betting man I would bet that we are not gonna pull out for a lonnnggg time, if ever.
-
Funny, never in my life have I heard someone say they are jealous of Americans. Yet I hear that from Americans all the time.
Then how come you stick your noses on our business so much? You raptly watch our presidential elections, spouting endless opinions from the cheap, no the free seats, based on little or no information. Tell you what, stay out of American businees, stop ranting on here about our actions for say a year or 6; then maybe, just MAYBE, I'll start believing you don't have super power envy. Uuntil then, all this BS about not being jealous over your country's world impotence means dick to me.
-
I'd put money on civil war within months of our pull out.
I think you're right... only maybe before we pull out. It is a possibility that there is finally a willingness for Iraqis to fight for their freedom. I believe, in my simplistic mind, that a country held under the boot of a tyrant cannot be free unless its' people are willing to fight for that freedom. How valuable if the freedom if it is handed to them?
I do not think the Iraqis, as a whole, are yet to the point that they are wiling to fight and die for their freedom. I think many of them are pefectly willing to play the role of oppressed victim to whomever is willing to step up and take control. I believe that democracy in Iraq can only happen if a strong Iraqi leader(s) steps up to the plate. unfortunately, the Iraqis are so corrupt, and their religious beliefs so tied to politics, that this may not be possible.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Then how come you stick your noses on our business so much?
Simple.
I don't give a stuff what you country does to itself. Only when it sticks it's nose in the business of others on the world stage. Which effects us or others directly or indirectly in some small or large way.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Steve
Then how come you stick your noses on our business so much? You raptly watch our presidential elections, spouting endless opinions from the cheap, no the free seats, based on little or no information. Tell you what, stay out of American businees, stop ranting on here about our actions for say a year or 6; then maybe, just MAYBE, I'll start believing you don't have super power envy. Uuntil then, all this BS about not being jealous over your country's world impotence means dick to me.
Steve, It's the same reason we stick our nose into their business so much. We are a military superpower. Meanwhile, China is quietly taking control of our economy. Remember when we laughed at "Made in Japan"? Then Japan slowly took control of our automotive and electronics industries. We are so focused on our oil supply that we are ignoring China taking control of our remaining industries. China has become a space nation as well. The future is not bright and sunny. It's 1970 all over again.
-
RPM,
Off topic but a interesting bit of info to chew on.
Walmart has some 5000 suppliers. 4000 of them are from China.
...-Gixer
-
My point exactly.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Then how come you stick your noses on our business so much?
That's like you walking into my house in the middle of the night and saying "what you lookin' at?"
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Walmart has some 5000 suppliers. 4000 of them are from China.
(http://www.wxgr.org/InDepthPages/Walmart/WalmartImages/ChinaAmericaMap.gif)
Something to think about when shopping there.
-
Meanwhile, China is quietly taking control of our economy.
Ya, I was heartened to finally see the administration looking at this.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Based on estimates, far less people have died than would have if Hussein was left in power.
Pathetic.
You called Gixer a liar for claiming that tens of thousands had died post invasion. When called on this you change the subject. Nice work Ace! Based on what estimates? Estimates you just pulled out of your stunninghunk? Let's see the reasoning to support that contention.
I'm not confused. It takes a leftist nutjob to consider our removal of Hussein to be anything but a good thing.
There are plenty of "conservatives" who have either a problem with the invasion itself or with the way it was sold to the public. That you have to label anyone who disagrees with the current mass orthodoxy a "leftist" just shows what a mental midget you are. I think I'd have more respect for the lot of you if you'd just accept the real reasons for the invasion rather than spouting this "but it was for the Iraqi people, think of the poor Iraqi people" hypocrisy. You didn't give a crap about them in 1980 and you don't give a crap about them now, other than to "liberate" that big pool of black gold that they're sat on top of; that natural wealth without which their country would just be another third world rat hole that you'd never have heard of. That you have neither the intellectual honesty or capacity to admit this, even to yourself, surprises me not one jot.
-
The US invasion of Iraq was a blessing from God.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US invasion of Iraq was a blessing from God.
God is a US taxpayer?
-
I think he means GWB is God?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US invasion of Iraq was a blessing from God.
A Blessing from God? Who's god are you refering to yours or theirs? LOL
I sure do hope Bush dosn't get his ideas from God but sometimes I really do wonder if he's just on some sort of religious crusade.
...-Gixer
-
This is a very entertaining read, and includes lots of Galloway's comments that Fox didn't cover:
Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8884.htm)
btw, he's right about Coleman. He absolutely can be bought and sold as a politician. He used to be a Democrat, but saw greener pastures as a Republican. He's an embarrassment to Minnesota.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
A Blessing from God? Who's god are you refering to yours or theirs? LOL
Both are the God of Abraham.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
You should remember that a person might come from the poorest,smallest country in the world and of a poor up-bringing or life yet they will always think of it as "home" and have the same level of patriotism towards it as you do for yours.
...-Gixer
:)
-
gixer said....
"Funny, never in my life have I heard someone say they are jealous of Americans. Yet I hear that from Americans all the time. "
you are either really stupid or terminaly naive or simply blinded by your hate for America... My guess is pretty much all three.
I have heard lot's of tourists over the year say they were jealous of this or that aspect of America or it's law's or lifestyle etc... That does not mean they were gonna pack up and leave sheepfoot NZ... American tourists telling you they were jealous of your scenmery or scuba diving or whatever does not mean they are gonna move in.
I mean seriously.... you didn't wait at the dock for em to come back did ya?
lazs
-
galloway should sue for libel and slander, the american firms that received the bulk of the bribes from saddam, should pay the damages.
irony is, he had the balls to appear under oath in a foreign country to clear his name. something the host country's top politician lack the integrity to do themselves, even at home.
what's kissinger up to these days?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
RPM,
Off topic but a interesting bit of info to chew on.
Walmart has some 5000 suppliers. 4000 of them are from China.
...-Gixer
Have you read The Bear and The Dragon? Clancy's plot is actually pretty plausible. A major human rights violation in China makes it on CNN, followed by basically a major "Not Made in China" marketing blitz by their competitor countries (us Americans are pretty good at jumping on bandwagons) that puts a significant dent in China's economy really quickly. Can't say that it will happen, but would be interesting if it did.
-
You called Gixer a liar for claiming that tens of thousands had died post invasion
No, I didn't. If you're having trouble w/ comprehension, ask one of us adults to 'splain it to you.
There are plenty of "conservatives" who have either a problem with the invasion itself or with the way it was sold to the public.
Good thing you put conservatives in quotes. It shows how broadly you are trying to define the word. I bet you think McCain is a conservative. I don't know any conservatives who had a problem w/ the invasion and I doubt you know any conservatives very well at all.
blah blah blah mental midget . insane rambling blah blah surprises me not one jot.
Here again you pretend to know what I feel the reasons for the invasion were. If the sole reason was to secure oil, why invade now? Why Iraq? So you think that the Bush administration literally got together and said "Hey, Iraq has lots of oil let's invade them!"
I find it ironic that you would call someone else a mental midget when you believe such a singular factor was what induced us to oust Hussein.
Momus, you're on tilt, again. go back to your therapist and get your valium presciption refilled. Take a few pills, get a therapy session or 12, then come back when your therapist says it's ok for you to talk to sane people. Do yourself a favor, bring someone along w/ the capacity to comprehend things beyond the simplistic, jaded view your atrophied little mind allows.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US supported Saddam at one time, we have not supported Saddam for a long time. How is that being hypocritical?
Well as history has taught us, it's not "America" that supported Saddam, it was a fairly elected government of America. That does not mean it was smart, or backed by the public of america. Every scholar that studied Iraqi politics knew that saddam was a murdering, cutthroat, gangster long before he actually came to power. That brings us to the big difference. Why was the American govt. in power at the time interested in supporting Saddam? To fight Iran? Sounds legitimate. That type of politics will always leave egg on the face of the naive! We did the same exact thing with Bin Laden in Afgahnistan in the 80's. Again in Panama with noriega. Befriending and supporting the devil, so that we may defeat the devil. It is a very stupid way to lead the world!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US invasion of Iraq was a blessing from God.
God has never blessed the burning body of a child.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Where can i find a "Virgin" ?
Brittany Spears?
:D
-
Originally posted by Gixer
RPM,
Off topic but a interesting bit of info to chew on.
Walmart has some 5000 suppliers. 4000 of them are from China.
...-Gixer
Actually its 4800 out of 6000 but that doesnt say anything about the amounts supplied by said Chinese suppliers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/#rest
"Wal-Mart estimates it imports $15 billion of Chinese goods every year and concedes that the figure could be higher -- some estimates range as high as $20 or $30 billion."
Only thing that will tell you anything is if you find Walmarts total expenditure on goods and compare it to that 15 billion, 20, and 30 billion. I could care less if 80% of their suppliers are chinese if more than half is american made.(which would be a surprise)
-
Originally posted by Steve
If the sole reason was to secure oil, why invade now? Why Iraq?
Cough Cough, 9/11, cough cough, failure to capture Osama, cough cough, Someone ran out of targets in Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Steve
"was what induced us to oust Hussein."
The American people were told that Saddam was a threat because of stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. I think the idea of ousting Saddam would have never been taken seriously without the evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", and the "grave threat to America" slogan campaigns that were crammed down our throat like there was a race to go to war. What most wars really always boil down to is "the rich get richer, while the poor die fighting". I just get very irritated at stupid leaders that embarrass the best and most brave military in the world, by leading them into stupid and greedy battles. Reminds me of Gen. Mark Clark and the battle of Monte Cassino, they still honor that arrogant jerk.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Originally posted by Steve
The American people were told that Saddam was a threat because of stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. I think the idea of ousting Saddam would have never been taken seriously without the evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", and the "grave threat to America" slogan campaigns that were crammed down our throat like there was a race to go to war. [/B]
Anyone who doesn't think Saddam was a threat is just living in fairy-land.
Bin Ladden was/is a threat and he does not have any known WMD...... all it takes is the money and the desire, both of which Saddam had, Get it?
Saddam was in charge of a country known to have had WMD, known to hate America, known to have used WMD, known to have invaded Kuwait, known to be in violation of the cease fire agreement, known to have attempted to assisinate President Bush, known to have NEVER accounted for tons of VX nerve gas.....and on and on. Does it really need to be spelled out for you people?
Rush to war my ass. 14 years of ignored UN resolutions.
GWB placed forces on the ground, that's the ONLY reason why inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Still Saddam did not comply. Do you think we should be expected to spend all the time and money assebling a huge army near Iraq every few years just to watch Saddam?
Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD. We did the right thing at the exact right time.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gixer said....
"I have heard lot's of tourists over the year say they were jealous of this or that aspect of America or it's law's or lifestyle etc... lazs
Silly me I should of said Happy Holidaying Tourists aside. Just for the really stupid naive Americans out there. Of course they are going to say, nice weather,nice scenery,good shopping, we are so jealous of your fun parks,resturants,casinos,life style,gun ranges. They are TOURISTS.
:rolleyes:
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Anyone who doesn't think Saddam was a threat is just living in fairy-land.
Saddam was in charge of a country known to have had WMD, known to hate America, known to have used WMD, known to have invaded Kuwait, known to be in violation of the cease fire agreement, known to have attempted to assisinate President Bush, known to have NEVER accounted for tons of VX nerve gas.....and on and on. Does it really need to be spelled out for you people?
Yes Nuke it does,
Because if your going on all the above then why wasn't this guy taken out first as he's far bigger threat to the US and the region the Sadam ever was or with sanctions ever capapble of.
Your the one that seems to need it spelled out.
(http://img.slate.msn.com/media/35/021025_KimJongIl.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Yes Nuke it does,
Because if your going on all the above then why wasn't this guy taken out first as he's far bigger threat to the US and the region the Sadam ever was or with sanctions ever capapble of.
Your the one that seems to need it spelled out.
...-Gixer
Sorry, I don't know what North Korea has to do with Iraq. And how exactly do you know that NK is a threat to the US?
The UN doesn't seem to have any resolutions requiring NK to give up any of it's weapons.
On the other hand, Iraq invaded Kuwait, was kicked out and agreed to a cease fire. They were required to account for all of it's WMD and destroy all banned weapons, neither of which they did. But I guess it's just all about oil regardless of any other known factors leading up to the US military even being there in the first place.
Just ignore everything Iraq has done, then say the war was all about the oil. Like I said, simpletons.
-
Cough Cough, 9/11, cough cough, failure to capture Osama, cough cough, Someone ran out of targets in Afghanistan.
OK, then you are saying oil wasn't the sole reason.
-
It's all about the oil, regardless of anything Iraq did. In the simpleton's brain, he was told it's about oil because the US is evil and there is nothing that's going to change the simpleton's simple view.
Don't bother asking for any evidence that the US is getting any oil out of the deal. Heck, the US is only spending billions of dollars so we can pay higher oil prices. Makes perfect sense.....invade Iraq, spend billions and drive the cost of oil up for Americans. It was the perfect crime!
I still can't get over how much oil we got from Kuwait and Iraq since the first war....it's just mind boggling. And we didn't even have to spend more than a few billion dollars for all that oil. What a deal!
Nevermind whatever Iraq's role might have been in their own demise, because it's just about oil and the US.
-
gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?
-
gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?
:lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?
:rofl
Well we all know Americans aren't the best when it comes to geography but that comment is hilarious.
ZKPY is Pyongyang International. So think of a ICBM taking off instead of a 747.
ZKPY-NZAA (Auckland,NZ) 5320 nm
ZKPY-KLAX 5580 nm
ZKPY-KSFO 4985 nm
ZXPY-PANC 3380 nm
So unless you don't consider Alaska,San Francisco or pretty much most of the NW of the US as part of the USA. Then how about the Mighty USA do something about it! As actually you are closer! :lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
God is a US taxpayer?
Hmmm maybe he is going to pay for the war too?
-
Originally posted by Steve
OK, then you are saying oil wasn't the sole reason.
Yep, but it was a factor.
-
Yep, but it was a factor.
I agree.
I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.
-
Originally posted by Steve
I agree.
I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.
So how do feel if china moves on Taiwan?
-
Originally posted by Steve
I agree.
I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.
huh?
You see nothing wrong with a country doing what it wants wrt that country's best interest? Was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait okay, then?
Or are there varying degrees as to what a country can do? As in, it's okay to do this, but not okay to do that? If so, what you said all of a sudden means very little. It becomes "I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest" as long as certain criteria are met.
You don't say what the criteria is, so either anything goes, or it's a meaningless thing to say. It didn't even hint at sounding enlightened.
So I'll see your "I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest." and raise you a polka dot poodle.
-
I'll see the polka dot poodle and raise yah a duck with a stretched rectum.
-
Originally posted by Steve
lots of the usual ad-hominem missing any real substance.
I'll repeat what I said ealier, if Iraq was a resource-poor rat-hole, you probably wouldn't even be able to find it on a map, not that I think you could anyway.
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.
It is a fact that US hegemony is based largely on the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency in which oil sales are denominated.
How do you think the US will contain the threat of the Euro as an alternative global reserve currency and at the same time send a message to Opec that it will not tolerate the move to redenominate oil sales in euros and the subsequent undermining of the dollar's reserve status.? By ensuring that Iraqi oil is paid for in dollars and by sending a clear signal to the rest of Opec that military action will be used to maintain US hegemony.
How does the US contain the growing competition of China and in particular counter it's economic exposure due to dependance on China's dollar consumption? By ensuring that it controls the oil upon which China will be increasingly dependant for its economic growth and thus ensuring that China continues hold dollars and not dump them.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, this is not an ideological view of the situation, it is a realpolitik view. There may be other subsidiary motives for the invasion; no doubt the powerful pro-Israel lobby supported it for their own reasons, but the ostensible pretexts for war are just to flimsy on their own. Take oil out of the equation and an invasion would basically make no sense, despite your and other's passionate attachment to defending whichever spurious rationalisations are current.
-
Momus, none of your ladt post is the least bit relevent to what you and I were discussing. You can scream at the top of your lungs all day that the invasion was the wrong thing to do; I don't care. We weren't discussing that.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Momus, none of your ladt post is the least bit relevent to what you and I were discussing.
Oh shocker!
Welcome to internet BBS' (the actual validity of your claim aside).
It's kinda rare to get a guy here who knows wtf he's talking about, and you gonna dismiss him with "Gee it's not what I was talking about?"
Hows about you do what we all do, and roll with the punches?
........ Although I think you're wrong, and what Momus has been saying is highly relevant.
-
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.
What it boils down to is that the reasons given for invading Iraq were spurious or made little sense.
The WMD issue is increasingly viewed as defunct and irrelevant, as numerous people predicted it would be three years ago.
The invasion hasn't helped counter Islamic terrorism; in the last year attacks around the world have increased ninefold.
The invasion has specifically fostered a potentially dangerous union between Ba'athists and fundamentalists in the region where none existed previously.
The invasion has reinforced the primary contention of the radical islamists such as Bin Laden that the Islamic nations of the world are under occupation by the west who covet their resources and has thus enabled the radicalisation of yet another generation of Arabs.
This all is furthermore highly relevant to this thread because it is exactly the argument that George Galloway has been making for the last five years. I am no fan of his extreme marxist politics but his knowledge of the persian gulf and of the arab people is second to none, and most if not all of his arguments have so far been proved right.
-
Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998; his new book, Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, will be published this summer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1489174,00.html
-
In Scott Ritter's 1998 testimony before the US Congress he also said that, absent UNSCOM, Iraq could reconstruct its chemical and biological weapons programs in six months, as well as its missile program. He said that Iraq had a plan for achieving a missile breakout within six months of receiving the signal from Saddam.
-
"The most important issue here is salvaging a failed policy. Now, the U.S. Government has committed itself towards this failed policy, and there's a lot of people whose reputations are at stake there. And if Scott Ritter's going to go out and try and change that failed policy, there's going to be some ruffled feathers.
When I resigned, I put the U.S. Government on notice that I'm going to stick to policy issues, that I have no intention of going out and blowing the cover off of the intelligence operations, that those are truly sensitive and they should not be exposed. But I also said a couple of things. One, if you attack my integrity, I will defend myself. If you attack my patriotism, I will defend myself. If you come after my family, I will counter-attack viciously, I will destroy you. Don't push those buttons, and we've got a good relationship. Stick on policy. I say you're wrong, you say you're right, let's have it out."
he also said this.
-
Yes, but it appears he said that after he developed his 20/20 hindsight.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Galoway strikes me as a faily run of ther mill charismatic sociopath, it's trhis quality that makes him so convincing if you are pre disposed to his line of thought.
If you want sociopaths apparently the place to look is in America's armed forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1489001,00.html
So just explain to me what exactly the difference between you lot and Saddam Hussein actually is.....it's a little confusing....and no we're not jealous of you, we think of you as petulant, un - educated bullies.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I'll repeat what I said ealier, if Iraq was a resource-poor rat-hole, you probably wouldn't even be able to find it on a map, not that I think you could anyway.
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.
It is a fact that US hegemony is based largely on the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency in which oil sales are denominated.
How do you think the US will contain the threat of the Euro as an alternative global reserve currency and at the same time send a message to Opec that it will not tolerate the move to redenominate oil sales in euros and the subsequent undermining of the dollar's reserve status.? By ensuring that Iraqi oil is paid for in dollars and by sending a clear signal to the rest of Opec that military action will be used to maintain US hegemony.
How does the US contain the growing competition of China and in particular counter it's economic exposure due to dependance on China's dollar consumption? By ensuring that it controls the oil upon which China will be increasingly dependant for its economic growth and thus ensuring that China continues hold dollars and not dump them.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, this is not an ideological view of the situation, it is a realpolitik view. There may be other subsidiary motives for the invasion; no doubt the powerful pro-Israel lobby supported it for their own reasons, but the ostensible pretexts for war are just to flimsy on their own. Take oil out of the equation and an invasion would basically make no sense, despite your and other's passionate attachment to defending whichever spurious rationalisations are current.
Of course you ignore the fact that the only reason the US is in Iraq is
1. because Iraq invaded Kuwait
2. Iraq refused to allow inspectors to do their job
Also, you ignore the fact that the US never once has invaded a country for it's resources.
Why don't you give ONE example of the US controling any middle east oil? You should have many examples, as you claim that is the number one US goal for 60 years.
And the "pro Israel" lobby :lol . It's not a true conspiracy without throwing that one in there!
The first war on Iraq was to make sure that Iraq didn't threaten the world's oil supplies in the middle east. We didn't go there to take any oil. In fact, we did not take any oil or take control of any oil.
Can you give even one example of the US controiling any country's oil supply? Look at all the oil the US is controlling and then get back to me.
Of course, you ignore Iraq's actions completely. No, Iraq did nothing wrong and could no way be even remotely considered the catalyst for what ended up happening to themselves.
I guess you have blinders on and ignore any Iraqi involvement leading up to BOTH gulf wars. Just go ahead and be a simpleton and say it's about the oil, despite one shred of evidence. That's what you simpleton's do best.
-
face it... we probly didn't give a crap about the iraquis at first till we got conned by the media showing us the way the sadman tortured and murdered what? a lousy couple hundred thousand or so of his own people and his arrogance.
we didn't give a **** about the froggies or the poles or the english in the 40's either till we got conned by the media into thinking hitler was a monster. Hell... the germans allways treated us fine and they made some neat stuff and... heck... we even had realtives back there.
We woulda never cared about a crapload of asians getting killed and homeless in some wave if it weren't for the media either.
lazs
-
Funny how when a couple of news sources get it wrong you jump all over it..But when your pres gets it completely wrong you defend him over and over again.
:rolleyes:
-
seems to me I recall him invading his next door neighbor... seems to me I also recall that there were inspectors that he threw out of the country. He was warned like what? a dozen times? He laughed and blustered and threatened and generaly made himself out to be an unlikable and dishonest a hole. He did support terrorists and he did torture and kill countless thousands of his own people...
And... he liked Elvis on black velvet paintings and gold toilet seats. That should be enough for you liberals right there.
lazs
-
Funny how people say the war was about oil.
Everyone knows that Saddam would never be a threat to anyone once left alone.
Only a complete simpleton could believe the war was about the US getting control of Iraq's oil.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Anyone who doesn't think Saddam was a threat is just living in fairy-land.
No one said he wasnt a threat, but if a list was made of most dangerous threat at the time, he wouldnt have been in the top ten.
Rush to war my ass. 14 years of ignored UN resolutions.
LMAO he said resolutions.
We have the intelligence to calculate the distance to a 1/2 mile rock floating in space and land a module on it, but no better way to handle a rouge dictator than to spend billions of dollars and countless lives. Very nice use of assets if you ask me.
Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD. We did the right thing at the exact right time.
I wonder who worked dilligently to ensure that most people believed he had WMD's? "Patriotism should never be a blind faith".
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I wonder who worked dilligently to ensure that most people believed he had WMD's? "Patriotism should never be a blind faith".
Saddam himself. Saddam could have fully cooperated but decided not too. Saddam is the only reason the US sent forces to the area also. Saddam is the reason for BOTH gulf wars, no other reason.
Of course, some people like to completely ignore Iraq's role in both gulf wars and say it's all about oil :lol
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So unless you don't consider Alaska,San Francisco or pretty much most of the NW of the US as part of the USA. Then how about the Mighty USA do something about it! As actually you are closer! :lol
...-Gixer
What has North Korea done that needs to be delt with by the US?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why should I educate you on this Nuke, when you clearly have never even tried to educate yourself? Were you dropped on your head as a small child?
Now feel free to actually cite some evidence that actually contradicts anything I've posted, because all I'm getting from you is a waste of bandwidth so far.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
:rofl
Well we all know Americans aren't the best when it comes to geography but that comment is hilarious.
ZKPY is Pyongyang International. So think of a ICBM taking off instead of a 747.
ZKPY-NZAA (Auckland,NZ) 5320 nm
ZKPY-KLAX 5580 nm
ZKPY-KSFO 4985 nm
ZXPY-PANC 3380 nm
So unless you don't consider Alaska,San Francisco or pretty much most of the NW of the US as part of the USA. Then how about the Mighty USA do something about it! As actually you are closer! :lol
...-Gixer
~golf clap~ Nicely played!
Now go back to buggering sheep :)
culero
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Why should I educate you on this Nuke, when you clearly have never even tried to educate yourself? Were you dropped on your head as a small child?
Now feel free to actually cite some evidence that actually contradicts anything I've posted, because all I'm getting from you is a waste of bandwidth so far.
Why don't you give some examples that back up your crazy ideas that the US's main goal for the last 60 years was to control middle east oil? Can you name one time in US history that we have ever controled any middle east oil?
You head is full of chowder, you simpleton.
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
:lol :lol
-
Originally posted by Schaden
If you want sociopaths apparently the place to look is in America's armed forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1489001,00.html
So just explain to me what exactly the difference between you lot and Saddam Hussein actually is.....it's a little confusing....and no we're not jealous of you, we think of you as petulant, un - educated bullies.
American forces do not torture; they are just interrogating.
-
Originally posted by Schaden
So just explain to me what exactly the difference between you lot and Saddam Hussein actually is.....it's a little confusing....
Only a brainless, hate-filled simpleton like yourself could be confused about the difference between the US and Saddam. But then, that's expected from you.
-
Originally posted by Staga
American forces do not torture; they are just interrogating.
Exactly right! Congratulations on your enlightenment!
culero (now come here, we have some questions to ask.... ;))
-
Ok Nuke, If you say I'm wrong then fine, whatever you say. After all, why would a military-industrial superpower like the USA feel it needed to ensure the security of its oil supply during the cold war and beyond? It's just ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Ok Nuke, If you say I'm wrong then fine, whatever you say. After all, why would a military-industrial superpower like the USA feel it needed to ensure the security of its oil supply during the cold war and beyond? It's just ridiculous.
That's what I thought. You can't back up your claims that the number one US policy goal for the last 60 years was to control persian gulf oil. :lol
You can't name ONE time in US history that we have ever controled any persian gulf oil.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You can't name ONE time in US history that we have ever controled any persian gulf oil.
I think you just answered your own question 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.
Sorry, but this statement is a gem. :lol
What alternate universe is this cartoon humping simpleton from?
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Grenada, Afghanistan, and all of the wars we have been involved with have all been about Persian Gulf oil in this simpleton's mind.
Afterall, for the last 60 years the number one US goal was to control Persian Gulf oil. Why would the US go to war for any other reason? It's just ridiculous. :lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yes, but it appears he said that after he developed his 20/20 hindsight.
20/20 hindsight brought on after a crude character assassination attempt by the pentagon, and information that the demise of unscom was the cia's doing.
-
Nuke, you can't even differentiate between incidental outbreaks of fighting such as in Somali and an overarching strategic imperative, so how can you expect to understand the subject?
US oil production is expected to be massively outstripped by consumption within the next 20 years meaning your oil imports will mushroom. Can you even begin to comprehend how economically screwed you would be as a country if the major oil producers started asking for payment in yen or euros or roubles instead of dollars? Couple that with a massive increase in consumption from the rest of the planet driving prices up even further. Is it starting to sink in yet how closely tied your fortunes are to the stuff?
Here is an example of how the control of oil was employed at a strategic level during the cold war. During the 1980's, the Saudi Arabian authorities along with their US oil industry partners colluded with the Reagan government to drive down the price of oil. Because gulf oil is the cheapest to drill on the planet, they were able to push down the price so low that it dropped below the level at which the Soviet Union with massive oil reserves of its own was able to make a profit on its own production. As a result, the Soviet economy was starved of hard currency. This was a major contribution to the fiscal collapse that signalled the end of the USSR.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
Why did the US encourage Iraq to attack Iran in 1980? Because the Iranian revolution had threatened to expand Iran's influence across the oil rich nations of the persian gulf. Iran under Khomeni was pro-Russia. Carter initiated the assistance to the Afghan rebels for the same reason, to prevent Russian encroachment into the region and maintain the US strategic advantge.
Getting there yet? How about a picture?
(http://www.nogw.com/images/us_bases_gulf.jpg)
What are all those bases in the Gulf for? Are they guarding the sand and the goats?
-
Momus, why don't you give one example of the US controling persian gulf oil?
You claimed that the number one US goal for the last 60 years was to control persian gulf resources. You can't back that up, and thus have been dismissed as the simpleton you are.
-
Nuke, I already gave you 2 examples, one of the USA using the strategic relationship with the Saudis to up the pressure on the USSR, another of how concern for protecting that strategic advantage led to a particular course of action. There are other examples. Maybe you should go and look them up instead of gaying up this thread with your attention whoring.
-
Momus, you did not give even one example of US control over Persian Gulf oil.
Using a partnership with the Saudis to "pressure" the USSR is not controling Persian Gulf resources nor is it an example of US control over anybody's oil. You are indeed a simpleton
You claimed that for 60 years, the number one US goal was to control Persian Gulf resources. You have been shown to be a clueless dolt who cannot back up that claim.
-
Ok Nuke,
First up, please point to the place where I said that the USA actually *achieved* its goal of dominating persian gulf oil supplies.
Next, are you saying that being able to get your allies to drive down the price of the most important commodity on the planet doesn't represent an extraordinary degree of control over that resource?
Then, tell me exactly how you would expect to operate a modern military in action for any extended length of time without a guaranteed source of fuel. The 1st priority for any militarily active nation is to guarantee its fuel sources. Oil supplies were a deciding factor in WW1, with the allies control of gulf oil being one of the keys to final success. Why was one of Japan's first moves in 1941/2 to sieze the oil fields they needed to prosecute the rest of the war? Didn't shortages of fuel play a deciding part in the final defeat of Germany in 1945?
Are you really so obtuse as to dismiss the ultimate importance of oil as a strategic commodity? The statement I made that you seem to have such a problem with is just stating the obvious? Can you really not see that?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Ok Nuke,
First up, please point to the place where I said that the USA actually *achieved* its goal of dominating persian gulf oil supplies.
LOL!
We sure went about our "goals" in a strange way.:lol :lol
I don't think I will even respond to such ignorance anymore. You are in a class by yourself. Simpleton.
-
It's nice to see that the major controler of Oil production figures in the world is the US Department of State or Department of Defense and not that gang of criminals at OPEC...
Thanks for the great news Momus!
-
Don't put words in my mouth Grun; the example I gave dated from the 1980s.
But you knew that anyway.
Nuke, since you are unable to answer the points in any way at all I'll take derision from you as the compliment it obviously is.
Thank you, you're too kind.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Don't put words in my mouth Grun; the example I gave dated from the 1980s.
But you knew that anyway.
Nuke, since you are unable to answer the points in any way at all I'll take derision from you as the compliment it obviously is.
Thank you, you're too kind.
Since you are unable to back up your dumb-ass idea that the number one US goal for the last 60 years was to control Persian Gulf resources, I'll just assume you are a simpleton.
Silly me, I never knew that for 60 years the US's main goal was to control Persian Gulf resources. I guess I'm just a dipchit.
-
NUKE, your ability to not realise when your getting your bellybutton kicked in a debate is awesome.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Don't put words in my mouth Grun;
I'm sorry, somehow I got the impression that you were telling us how the US controlled pricing and output of the most dominant resurce on earth through its strategy of alliances and military bases in the middle east.
Apparently that was not the case and you were just posting your mom's favorite recepie for coffe cake...
My mistake...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
NUKE, your ability to not realise when your getting your bellybutton kicked in a debate is awesome.
You are awesome! You never enter a debate, just make drive-by comments.
You think I'm losing? LOL. Maybe you can tell Momus some insider information that will help him explain his idea that for the last 60 years, the number one goal of the US was to control Persian Gulf resources.
Thrawn, lets go..... jump right into the debate with your awesome intellect.
-
Why, so you can have two people refute your points? So you can tell more lies declare yourself teh winnar, and call someone else a simpleton.
Momus is doing a fine job holding up his end. And you are doing a fine job making yourself look like a fool, you don't need my help.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Why, so you can have two people refute your points? So you can tell more lies declare yourself teh winnar, and call someone else a simpleton.
Momus is doing a fine job holding up his end. And you are doing a fine job making yourself look like a fool, you don't need my help.
:aok
Momus is doing a fine job in your little brain. He has not backed up his claim that the US's number one goal for the past 60 years has been to control Persian Gulf resources. He had been shown to be a fool on that subject, and you are shown to be only a follower of a fool.
Do you ever debate anything with your own little brain?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Funny how when a couple of news sources get it wrong you jump all over it..But when your pres gets it completely wrong you defend him over and over again.
:rolleyes:
That is what the radical CULT of Bush has done to half of our voting citizens:(
It is very sad indeed.
Be assured that the other half of the voters havent succumbed to the CULT.
-
Originally posted by culero
Exactly right! Congratulations on your enlightenment!
culero (now come here, we have some questions to ask.... ;))
Cully your avatar is banned in Texas isnt it?:)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm sorry, somehow I got the impression that you were telling us how the US controlled pricing and output of the most dominant resurce on earth through its strategy of alliances and military bases in the middle east.
My mistake...
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.
-
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? :lol
What will the evil US do next?
-
Thank you you're too kind.
-
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?
-
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.
-
tag team now?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
Nash, you are not helping poor Momus. The number one priority is somehow diferent than the number one goal? :lol
Nash, if I recall, you have never explained why you believe the Iraq war was about oil.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Momus, the simpleton, stated that the number one priority of the US for the last 60 years was to control Persian Gulf resources.
Somehow you get confused by that. It's funny.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You can't even get this one quote right despite harping on it.
I argued that control of the resources of the persian gulf was the overriding strategic priority
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nash, strategic goal sand strastegic priortity are the same thing. You know that.
Huh?
YOU guys said "goal". HE never said goal. He said "strategic priority". Now you're saying "strategic goal?". As if by making up even more mutilations of his words that more closely resemble what he did in fact say will fool anyone?
-
You guys are hilarious. Like some kind of skit.
-
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.
Nash, here you go.
According to Momus, the " number one strategic priority" of the US for the last 60 years was to control persian gulf resources.
He can't back that up because it's not true. You are a simpleton as well.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you are not helping poor Momus. The number one priority is somehow diferent than the number one goal? :lol
A goal is an end in itself. You are trying to assign an arguement to Momus that he is not making and than argue it. It's called a straw man fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
But like Nash said, you aren't going to get away with it. :aok
-
Thanks Nuke, that's what I've been saying. That's why I quoted that exact thing only a few posts ago. Are kidding me here?
-
Again, there is no issue here. Momus has used both "goal" and "prioity" interchangably in this thread to describe his idea. So there is no issue.
With this fact in mid, Thrawn, tell me what lind of fallacy is commited by you and Nash bring upo this irrelevant point?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
A goal is an end in itself. You are trying to assign an arguement to Momus that he is not making and than argue it. It's called a straw man fallacy.
But like Nash said, you aren't going to get away with it. :aok
Momus is saying that the number one goal of the US for the past 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources. He is a simpleton, and so are you if you believe that.
-
Hey Nuke & Grun, if you disagree with Momus, can you enlighten us as to what YOU think the strategic priority has been as it pertains to the Persian Gulf?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Thanks Nuke, that's what I've been saying. That's why I quoted that exact thing only a few posts ago. Are kidding me here?
Nash, you can never argue your own points....you suck at it. Momus has said that the number one US goal for the last 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources.
Why don't you back up your hero with some facts? You have said that the Iraq war was about oil yourself. Why not give your reason for believing that? Are you afraid that you will be seen as a complete moron?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Momus is saying that the number one goal of the US for the past 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources.
Then you go right back to screwing it up.
Nuke - hows about every time you want to reference what Momus said, you use his exact words and not some distorted facsimile?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Nuke & Grun, if you disagree with Momus, can you enlighten us as to what YOU think the strategic priority has been as it pertains to the Persian Gulf?
I could easily do that. Can you?
-
I asked you first. What are we.... in grade three?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Again, there is no issue here. Momus has used both "goal" and "prioity" interchangably in this thread to describe his idea. So there is no issue.
You are wrong. I only used the word goal in response to Nuke's initial misrepresentation of my original argument. Other than that I was quite clear to distinguish between the two words
-
Originally posted by Nash
Then you go right back to screwing it up.
Nuke - hows about every time you want to reference what Momus said, you use his exact words and not some distorted facsimile?
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.
What part did I not get correctly? He said that for 60 years, the number one priority of the US was to control persian gulf resources.
-
Nuke, I'm sorry to have to break it to ya, but I think you suffer from some form of mental dyslexia. I really do.
-
Nuke, I'm a patriot.. but I'm not stupid... your contention is simply absurd.
It's about the oil & resources, it always was.
GWB just made it personal, that's all. As for Saddam having WMD; hell; George Herbert had the reciept.. he sold most of it to him and Saddam gleefuly used it on the Kurds, then sold the rest to Syria.
Now relax, get comfortable with the 'ugly american' concept. It's who we are, and folks the world over don't have to like us... fearing us is kewl enuff.
And, you can cheer up.. once the chinese get done buying out our economy and up the campaigin contributions we'll have the cheapest chinese food and best landscaped lawns anywhere on the planet.
God Bless America. (cause nobody else gives a sloppy phart)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Nuke & Grun, if you disagree with Momus, can you enlighten us as to what YOU think the strategic priority has been as it pertains to the Persian Gulf?
Nash, thats pretty damn pasthetic. Not sharp at all.
Momus said that oil was the main goal for us foregin policy for lat 60 years. That is an unqualifed stament, meaning for all global US foreign policy and not just in the gulf.
You trying now to spin it into just a question about the gulf is pathetic...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, I'm sorry to have to break it to ya, but I think you suffer from some form of mental dyslexia. I really do.
You think that the number one priority of the US for the last 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources?
Why not back that up? You cant.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, I'm sorry to have to break it to ya, but I think you suffer from some form of mental dyslexia. I really do.
I think you suffer from lack of logic and intelligence.
-
LOL.
"Momus said that oil was the main goal for us foregin policy for lat 60 years" - Grun.
He did, eh?
I will not respond further to any reference to Momus' words unless you quote them directly and use his exact words in place of your own mutations of them.
This is going from retarded to I don't even know what.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Again, there is no issue here. Momus has used both "goal" and "prioity" interchangably in this thread to describe his idea. So there is no issue.
Nuke was the first person to use the term "goal" in a totally different context than Momus was using ""strategic priority".
"Why don't you give ONE example of the US controling any middle east oil? You should have many examples, as you claim that is the number one US goal for 60 years."
"Why don't you give some examples that back up your crazy ideas that the US's main goal for the last 60 years was to control middle east oil? Can you name one time in US history that we have ever controled any middle east oil? "
Mispresenting Momus's arguement, and thus commiting a strawman fallacy.
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Momus's use of "strategic priorty" was in the context of meeting the goal of defeating the USSR, not in the context that it was the number one goal in and of itself.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuke was the first person to use the term "goal" in a totally different context than Momus was using ""strategic priority".
Yeah, the number one priority is way different than the number one goal.
No wonder why you never enter a debate Thrawn, you are not mentally equiped.
-
I'm half expecting Ashton Kusher to step into the room.
-
Originally posted by Nash
LOL.
"Momus said that oil was the main goal for us foregin policy for lat 60 years" - Grun.
He did, eh?
I will not respond further to any reference to Momus' words unless you quote them directly and use his exact words in place of your own mutations of them.
This is going from retarded to I don't even know what.
Are you that ignorant Nash? He said that the number one priority of the US for the past 60 years was to control persian gulf resources. I have quoted it at least 3 times. What part do you not understand?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, the number one priority is way different than the number one goal.
Only when you twist the context like you did.
No wonder why you never enter a debate Thrawn, you are not mentally equiped.
I enter into debate all the time...ya know like I just did. So why are you lying about it?
-
Hmm, yiou guys might be right, It seems i got nuke's and momus post mixed up, or was it nukes reststes of momus posts and nash bickering with nuke.
Anyway lets catch me up with ome direct answers from momus.
1) Do yiu think defeating commuimism was more important (goal, priority, etc) than gulf oil for US foreign policy post ww2?
2) Excepting israel, Do you think that the main reason the USA cares about the mid east is because of oil?
-
The number one priority of the Phoenix Suns is to win the NBA cahmpionship, but their number one goal is to lose.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"Are you that ignorant Nash? He said that the number one priority...."
NO HE FRICKEN DID NOT.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Only when you twist the context like you did.
I enter into debate all the time...ya know like I just did. So why are you lying about it?
Explain how I twisted the context.
He said the number one priority of the US for the last 60 years was to control persian gulf resources. Do you agree with his statement?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Anyway lets catch me up with ome direct answers from momus.
1) Do yiu think defeating commuimism was more important (goal, priority, etc) than gulf oil for US foreign policy post ww2?
2) Excepting israel, Do you think that the main reason the USA cares about the mid east is because of oil?
What's that?
You mutilate one sentence in his post, get bent out of shape about it, ignore everything else he said, and want to move on with your own questions - unrelated to anything he said?
How's about just backing up and responding to everything else he said?
-
Originally posted by Nash
NO HE FRICKEN DID NOT.
yes he did.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
He said the number one priority of the US for the last 60 years was to control persian gulf resources. Do you agree with his statement?
Again, he didn't say that, Nuke.
Use his exact quote if you want to talk about it.
-
Nash stop being a tard.
I think i may have mixed uop nukes and momus posts, so im asking momus to clear up some questions that may be at source of my misinterpretation.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
1) Do yiu think defeating commuimism was more important (goal, priority, etc) than gulf oil for US foreign policy post ww2?
I think that defeating communism was more important than control over middle-east oil. I think that the US government felt that control over middle-east oil was the most important way they could defeat communism.
Most important goal vs most important methodology of reaching that goal.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hmm, yiou guys might be right, It seems i got nuke's and momus post mixed up, or was it nukes reststes of momus posts and nash bickering with nuke.
Anyway lets catch me up with ome direct answers from momus.
1) Do yiu think defeating commuimism was more important (goal, priority, etc) than gulf oil for US foreign policy post ww2?
2) Excepting israel, Do you think that the main reason the USA cares about the mid east is because of oil?
Fer my part..
1. Yes. Oil didn't become a pressing cold war issue till the 70's. By then, both sides were entrenched, and the oil fields were a big board game piece.
2. Today; yup. No other reason to 'rescue ******* royalty' in Kuwait other than oil.. Israel has demonstrated it can take care of itself.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Again, he didn't say that, Nuke.
Use his exact quote if you want to talk about it.
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.
What part of number one strategic priority do you not understand?
I have quoted him at leat 4 times in this thread. Can you offer anything that backs up his simpleton comment?
I'd like to hear from you, Nash. Do you feel that the number one priority of the US for the last 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources?
-
So the source of your misinterpretation was really communism and Isreal, two things that he wasn't even talking about, and you want to ignore what he was saying in order to to discuss them?
I would think that fair play dictates that, after getting Momus' argument so mesed up, and upon realizing it, would rather want to discus what he really did say.
I know how much you love to talk about communism Grun, but really...
-
Momus made a stand. He said that the number one stategic priority of the US for the past 60 years has been to control the persian gulf's resources.
Since that is untrue, Nash, Momus, Thrawn and Torgue are all preoven to be simpleton followers, which is even worse than being a simpleton.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What part of number one strategic priority do you not understand?
"...number one priority..."
"...number one strategic priority..."
Do a word count if you still can't see the difference. As for my part? I'm satisfied with my understanding of what Momus said. I'm getting bored of this, frankly.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hmm, yiou guys might be right, It seems i got nuke's and momus post mixed up, or was it nukes reststes of momus posts and nash bickering with nuke.
Anyway lets catch me up with ome direct answers from momus.
1) Do yiu think defeating commuimism was more important (goal, priority, etc) than gulf oil for US foreign policy post ww2?
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.
2) Excepting israel, Do you think that the main reason the USA cares about the mid east is because of oil?
Yes, it's for the same reason that every other great power has taken an interest in the place.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"...number one priority..."
"...number one strategic priority..."
Do a word count if you still can't see the difference. As for my part? I'm satisfied with my understanding of what Momus said. I'm getting bored of this, frankly.
Why can't you explain your idea of what he said? He sure can't.
You have said you believed the Iraq war was about oil, yet can't even say why you feel that way. You are a simpleton who cannot express his own views.
-
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.
Look.. the statement is valid.. while we have not (untill recently) taken a front seat pistol pointing role over there, we've been very buzy behind the scenes for the last 60 years propping up regimes that would in turn make assurances regarding oil delivery and production... all under the guize of 'stabilty in the region'.
Cripes, what's so hard to understand.. some folks would like to disquise american motives in the region as 'just' or 'humanitarian'.. but that's just window dressing for the real deal.. "we'll keep you supplied with cash, arms, illegal chemical weapons, whatever.. just don't monkey with the oil deliveries to the west."
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Look.. the statement is valid.. while we have not (untill recently) taken a front seat pistol pointing role over there, we've been very buzy behind the scenes for the last 60 years propping up regimes that would in turn make assurances regarding oil delivery and production... all under the guize of 'stabilty in the region'.
Cripes, what's so hard to understand.. some folks would like to disquise american motives in the region as 'just' or 'humanitarian'.. but that's just window dressing for the real deal.. "we'll keep you supplied with cash, arms, illegal chemical weapons, whatever.. just don't monkey with the oil deliveries to the west."
Hangtime, you seem to be a simpleton as well.
Give some examples of the US controlling any middle east country or their resources.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hangtime, you seem to be a simpleton as well.
snip
Speaking of simpletons, here's a clue...he didn't say "control" anywhere in there.
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
Speaking of simpletons, here's a clue...he didn't say "control" anywhere in there.
culero
No, he just said that Momus's statement was valid.
Care to offer your opinion to this debate? Do you agree with Momus, that the number one priority of the US for the past 60 years was to control persian gulf resources?
Jump right in.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you agree with Momus, that the number one priority of the US for the past 60 years was to control persian gulf resources?
He didn't say that.
-
The Shah or Iran. Standard Oil and the Saudi Royal House. Oman. Jordan. The U.A.E.
That should get yah started. Do yer own cottin pickin homework; Prove me wrong!
-
Originally posted by Nash
He didn't say that.
Nash, thanks. Now I know that Momus doesn't think that the number one strategic goal of the US for the past 60 years was to control persian gulf resources. :lol
-
You mangle the quote yet again, I tell you he didn't say that, then you finally use his exact words in telling me that he did say that? Dyslexic.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Cully your avatar is banned in Texas isnt it?:)
Nah, these gals are professionals :)
culero
-
Originally posted by Nash
You mangle the quote yet again, I tell you he didn't say that, then you finally use his exact words in telling me that he did say that? Dyslexic.
You believe that the number one strategic priority of the US for the past 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources?
Are you that dumb?
-
Pssst.... Nuke:
"The Shah or Iran. Standard Oil and the Saudi Royal House. Oman. Jordan. The U.A.E." - Hangtime
Shouldn't you be doing your homework right now?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Pssst.... Nuke:
"The Shah or Iran. Standard Oil and the Saudi Royal House. Oman. Jordan. The U.A.E." - Hangtime
Shouldn't you be doing your homework right now?
That shows how dim whitted you are. The US has never controled any persian gulf resources.
Now, let's hear why you feel the Iraq war was about oil.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
snip
Care to offer your opinion to this debate?
Do you mean as to who the simpleton in it is?
culero (take a guess what I think ;))
-
Originally posted by culero
Do you mean as to who the simpleton in it is?
culero (take a guess what I think ;))
Just jump right in champ.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Just jump right in champ.
Yanno, I'va watched hogs wallow in **** before, but never had the urge to join 'em.
Go figger.
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
Yanno, I'va watched hogs wallow in **** before, but never had the urge to join 'em.
Go figger.
culero
Yeah, you just watch and never have the balls to join. Just like Thrawn.
At least Nash has balls.
-
Nuke.. lets shorten this up a bit.
Why do YOU think the US is involved in the middle east today instead of africa?
We ain't in the middle east protecting Kurds or ****es or Sunni's.
Were in the mideast protecting petro-bucks.
And if Africa should discover sufficent oil reserves, our politicians will develop humanitarin reasons to go 'stabilize' that region too.
Grow up, wake up and quit being such a freakin christian right republican tool.
Out!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Just jump right in champ.
Into this? I really don't recommend it.
Nuke, from Merriam-Webster:
Control:
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over.
You find it so ridiculous that this would have any relationship to ME-US history?
Give me a break.
Man... The real problem here is that you continually break every thread you enter down into little tiny peices, pick out the parts you don't like, and ram them repeatedly down everyone's throat.
Or just make the weirdest, most provocative statements out of nowhere.
It's sad because the discussions, which could be very interesting and informative, always come down to some simple rhetoric.
Why aren't we talking about, as Hang suggested, The Shah or Iran. Standard Oil and the Saudi Royal House. Oman. Jordan. The U.A.E.?
Because nobody can. Because the minute they do, some sentence will get dissassembled by you and like a pitbull latching onto it, will just never let the discussion evolve.
There are way smarter people than you and I, Nuke. Get used to it. Give them a bit of room, okay?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nuke.. lets shorten this up a bit.
Why do YOU think the US is involved in the middle east today instead of africa?
We ain't in the middle east protecting Kurds or ****es or Sunni's.
Were in the mideast protecting petro-bucks.
And if Africa should discover sufficent oil reserves, our politicians will develop humanitarin reasons to go 'stabilize' that region too.
Grow up, wake up and quit being such a freakin christian right republican tool.
Out!
Hangtime, why did we deploy in Bosnia, Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea and WWII? Oil?
-
Oh, and Skuzzy should put you on probation - the condition being that you only get to ask one question for every three factual, relevant, and informative statements you make in the service of the discussion. Just my opnion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Into this? I really don't recommend it.
Man... The real problem here is that you continually break every thread you enter down into little tiny peices, pick out the parts you don't like, and ram them repeatedly down everyone's throat.
I repeat statements that can't be supported, yet are defended by idiots. You have never said why you feel the Iraq war was about oil.
I have a pretty high IQ, I am not stupid. You seem stupid.
-
I've said this to you before every time you bring up your so-called IQ, and I'll say it again, for what it is worth. I have met many, many intelligent people and not once have they ever brought up their IQ. Conversely.....
Now....
"I take statements that can't be supported, yet are defended by idiots."
This is patently untrue. You just choose to ignore the support, mangle but a small element of one's post, then attack it.
Not that hard to see, Nuke.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I've said this to you before every time you bring up your so-called IQ, and I'll say it again, for what it is worth. I have met many, many intelligent people and not once have they ever brought up their IQ. Conversely.....
Now....
"I take statements that can't be supported, yet are defended by idiots."
This is patently untrue. You just choose to ignore the support, mangle but a small element of one's post, then attack it.
Not that hard to see, Nuke.
You seem to express views, then refuse to explain why you have those views.
For instance, you said that you believe that the Iraq war was about oil, then refuse to explain why you believe that.
And, I never have told anyone in person what my IQ was.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have a pretty high IQ, I am not stupid. You seem stupid.
:rofl
That's the funniest statement I've seen on this forum for quite some time. So good I've added it to my sig. WTG Nuke. :lol
Ah, if only Galloway was here to see this. :lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
:rofl
That's the funniest statement I've seen on this forum for quite some time. So good I've added it to my sig. WTG Nuke. :lol
Ah, if only Galloway was here to see this. :lol
...-Gixer
Have an orgasim Gixer. My Iq i probably a lot higher than yours.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
snip
At least Nash has balls.
LMAO! :lol
OK, 'fess up NUKE...you're just aching to lick 'em, ain't ya? :)
culero (balls! ROTF!)
-
Okay this is a perfect example.
You keep saying that I "believe that the Iraq war was about oil."
I don't remember saying that exactly. Maybe I did.
I know that I find it highly plausible, in light of the complete lack of substance shown for other possible reasons.
But if I did say that the war was about oil, and gave no explanation for it as you are suggesting, please point it out.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay this is a perfect example.
You keep saying that I "believe that the Iraq war was about oil."
I don't remember saying that exactly. Maybe I did.
I know that I find it highly plausible, in light of the complete lack of substance shown for other possible reasons.
But if I did say that the war was about oil, and gave no explanation for it as you are suggesting, please point it out.
Classic Nash. You did say that the war was about oil. I will post a quote if you like.
Even better Nash, do you think the war in Iraq was about oil? I'm asking you now, was the war against Iraq for oil?
-
Settle down a tad, Perry. By all means post what ya got.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Settle down a tad, Perry. By all means post what ya got.
I will post your quotes.
But for clarity, do you think the war against Iraq was for oil?
-
You know what?
Piss off.
You're saying that I've said that the war was about oil without ever explaning my position.
I don't know what the hell you think you're trying to prove here. Maybe I said that the war was about oil and didn't explain myself to you in a satisfactory way?
It's beyond confusing to me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You know what?
Piss off.
You're saying that I've said that the war was about oil without ever explaning my position.
I don't know what the hell you think you're trying to prove here. Maybe I said that the war was about oil and didn't explain myself to you in a satisfactory way?
It's beyond confusing to me.
I guess you don't remeber your position from day to day.
You really need me to post your views? How shallow are your views that you need to be reminded of them?
Hey, let's clear it all up. Do you think the Iraq war was about oil?
-
Heh.
You tell me you got something on me and threaten to post it. I say fine. Go ahead.
Then you say "You really need me to post your views? How shallow are your views that you need to be reminded of them?"
Retarded.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh.
You tell me you got something on me and threaten to post it. I say fine. Go ahead.
Then you say "You really need me to post your views? How shallow are your views that you need to be reminded of them?"
Retarded.
LOL!
Do you feel the Iraq war was about oil or not?
-
Nash, you need me to post a quote by you saying the Iraq war was about oil?
Maybe you could just state that you don't believe the war was about oil.
Take a stand for once.
-
Listen Nuke.
I might answer that if someone else asked.
But you are doing the usual jaw lock, repeat over and over dance with me and I'm getting a kick out of it. Why ruin a good thing? How many times have you asked it? Yet you know the answer because somewhere I've already said it, according to you.
Why would I respond to your questions if you ignore the answers and ask other ones?
I'm not your monkey. :D
But I'll make you a deal.
You quit asking questions, and instead respond to Hangtime's answer to yet another of your questions. Then I'll toss you an answer to whatever you're asking now.
So go ahead. Respond intelligently to Hangtime's post without asking a question. Just respond. Make it be a doozy. Make it be a shining example of your high IQ.
-
Ladies, ladies..you are both a couple of tards that most people take with a grain of salt and ignore...take it outside will ya?
-
And where would that be?
-
Nash thinks the Iraq war was about oil, he refuses to say otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And where would that be?
Somewhere most of the guys on this BBS haven't been since the intardnet was invented.
-
Nash thinks that the Iraq war is about oil.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash thinks that the Iraq war is about oil.
If that was the case, and we control the Iraqi oil then why are gas prices still high?:rolleyes:
Look now I'm off the subject now.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Have an orgasim Gixer. My Iq i probably a lot higher than yours.
LMAO
See what I mean. That's why people think that pic of you is current as you debate like a 6 year old. You suck,no you suck, you suck more,you suck more then more...
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash thinks the Iraq war was about oil, he refuses to say otherwise.
I refuse to say otherwise? Why would I say otherwise? To please you?
Can I ask YOU a question, for once? And can you give me an answer, for once?
Why is that so weird to you? Why is this idea so completely incomprehensible? What about it falls so outside the bounds of the realm of possibility?
Okay that might be a bit too much, seeing as it would be a fresh experience trying to answer something. So I'll just scratch the first two and leave you with one:
What about it falls so outside bounds of the realm of possibility?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LMAO
See what I mean. That's why people think that pic of you is current as you debate like a 6 year old. You suck,no you suck, you suck more,you suck more then more...
...-Gixer
Gixer, even though you can't spell and are an ignorant American heter, you still seem stupid.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I refuse to say otherwise? Why would I say otherwise? To please you?
Can I ask YOU a question, for once? And can you give me an answer, for once?
Why is that so weird to you? Why is this idea so completely incomprehensible? What about it falls so outside the bounds of the realm of possibility?
Okay that might be a bit too much, seeing as it would be a fresh experience trying to answer something. So I'll just scratch the first two and leave you with one:
What about it falls so outside bounds of the realm of possibility?
LOL simpleton, what are you asking me?
I am asking you if you believe the war on Iraq was for oil, like you said.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, even though you can't spell and are an ignorant American heter, you still seem stupid.
I refuse to believe that you spelled "hater" wrong in a sentence accusing someone else of spelling bad. No way.
You're playing a role. You have to be. When you get together with Steve do you laugh about how big of a moron you act as on the internets?
butterin' troll.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I refuse to believe that you spelled "hater" wrong in a sentence accusing someone else of spelling bad. No way.
You're playing a role. You have to be. When you get together with Steve do you laugh about how big of a moron you act as on the internets?
butterin' troll.
You cannot support any of your views without looking like a retard.
You have said that the Iraq war was about oil, then you forget that you ever took that stance?
Do you still think that the Iraq war was about oil?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
If that was the case, and we control the Iraqi oil then why are gas prices still high?:rolleyes:
Look now I'm off the subject now.
You are making the assumption that the Bush administration wanted control over Iraqi oil in order to have cheap gas for the end user.
I don't believe that the control over Iraqi oil was the only reason Iraq was invaded but it was the predominent one.
Many times people have argued that if the US wanted Iraqi oil all they had to do was leave Saddam in power and keep buying it. But what they don't recognise is the difference in the US buying Iraqi oil versus the US buying oil from anywhere else in the world. Specifically the currency used in Iraqi oil purchases.
Every country in the world used the USD as the method of exchange for oil, except Iraq. Iraq used the Euro. On Oct 30, 2000 the UN approved the Iraqi request to transfer the "Food for Oil" monies held in escrow from USDs to Euros.
So now the US can't print off more USDs to buy that oil, but must use it's reserves of Euros to do so. In order to get more Euros the US must sell of more USDs, adding more to the money markets and futher driving down the value of the USDs while at the same time increasing the value of the Euro. This also sets a bad president. If the Euro becomes that much more valuable than the USD, it makes sense for other countries to make the switch as well. Heck Russia has threated to do so in the resent past when they got pissed at Bush.
Combined with the massive trade deficit the US has it becomes a serious threat to (if not the entire US economy) the US's position of unquestion ecomonic surpremecy in the world.
One of the first thing the US government did after taking control of Iraq was to change those "Food for oil" escrow monies back to USDs and make Iraq start selling oil in USDs again.
-
You make a good point...but I don't think it was the predominate reason...just my opinion trhough
-
Someone hit Nuke on the back... he got stuck again.
My CD player does that... I usually just smack it pretty smartly and it starts working again.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Someone hit Nuke on the back... he got stuck again.
My CD player does that... I usually just smack it pretty smartly and it starts working again.
:lol
Never had a thread I've started provide so much entertainment.
...-Gixer
-
psssst.. hey Nukeling... I think our last two wars in Iraq were about oil.
When Saddam invaded Iran, we helped him.. in fact we financed his arms buildup and patted him on the head and pointed the way east. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, we did nothin'... hell; we'd sent him the chemicals and a cookbook. Saddam had already snuffed 2 million people by then.. we hadn't even bothered to send a tomahawk his way yet.
Yet when Saddam snatched the Kuwati Oil we moved mighty damn quick.. and when Saddam ordered a payback hit on George Herbert the Bush family made a special little note in the family payback book.
When George Walker got the top job he had motive and opportunity (9/11) to work on the family ledger and the energy lobby campaigin deficit.. and did the predictable thing.
And yah get an 'F' fer not doin the homework.
neeener, neeener, neeener.
Now, I happen to think that kickin saddams murderin bellybutton outta office and hammering the republican guards flat a second time was a good thing. Saddam needed an ass-whippin. Now I think it's way past time for our kids to come home and I want our boys 'n girls back to doin what they is supposed ta be doin in Afganistan and Pakistan.. finding the big 6'6" rat bastid leading a camel totin a dialisis machine that dropped the towers.
Now, once yah get done spewing yer christian right wing republican knee jerk indignant babble answer me this lil missive...
Why the mideast instead of africa?
Plenty of tinhorn pissant dirty dog dick lickin dictators and warlords runnin around murderin millions of innocents THERE.. but Nukiepookie, here's the dirty dawg dick deal; africans ain't got nothin rich american politicians or chinese funded american corporations want. There's no piece of pie, no fat commerical intrests and no cash cow royal families to grease our political and corporate backsides... so No US troops will be saving any huti's outside of hollywood anytime soon.
Welcome to the ugly truth to american foriegn policy.. and it's pretty much the same now as it was 50 years ago. Ask the Taiwanese. They'll tell yah. America is a 'fair weather friend'.
Now, I'm proud to be an American, love the Red White and Blue. I think this nation of ours has a lot goin for it and has a lot to offer for both it's citizens and for the citizens of a free democratic world. But reality and political pretensions and posturing will forever mar the ideal of the American Promise.. seen by the rest of the world (with good reason) to be one hand offered in friendship with the other holding covering a big gnarly club..
To the citizens of the world I lament.. the leaders of this nation were not mandated to do the things they've done by the american people, et al. The majority of the citizens of this nation deplore the hash Commisar Booosh has made of the middle east.
We apologise for the inconvienience, we'll endeavor next election to install a diffrent (not necessarily better) pinhead to screw up the planet. We sincerely apologize in advance for the upcoming indignant retoric of Nukiepukie the Brainwashed Crusader. In the meantime, send yer notes regarding your displeasure regarding recent events to 1600 Pensylvania Ave, Washington DC, USA.
Thanks. And Sleep Tight. Our Navy is watching our Airforce watch our Army support our Marines.
*sigh*
-
So true..nice piece of writing.
-
Sorry, off topic but,
ignored: Thrawn, Toad, Gscholz, Nash, Beetle, Steve, Skuzzy, all JB's, Laz, LePaul, Nilsen, all WOT, Frenchy, Naso, Lada, Staga, Ripsnort, Sandman, MidnightTarget, Torque, Chairboy, Greencloud, bigsky, Furball, Bodhi, Boroda, Siaf, Modas, Gixer, Tronski, Ripper, Moot, DREDIOK, Suntracker....and growing
[/SIZE]
What's the point of posting?
-
It's a joke. He thinks it's funny.
But it's basically just another troll, and fitting that it's in his sig line.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's a joke. He thinks it's funny.
But it's basically just another troll, and fitting that it's in his sig line.
actually I didn't think it was very funny at all.
-
*thunk, thunk, thunk*
"McFly, anybody home?"
-
I'm still waiting for Momus to explain how he thinks the number one strategic priority of the US for the past 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources.
Anyone who believes is not of this universe. Nash, still waiting for you to say why you believe the Iraq war was about oil.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's a joke. He thinks it's funny.
But it's basically just another troll, and fitting that it's in his sig line.
I don't think he was joking. If he were joking he'd say, "A horse walks into a bar, the bartender says...."
-
I'm still waiting for Momus to explain how he thinks the number one strategic priority of the US for the past 60 years has been to control persian gulf resources.
Anyone who believes is not of this universe. Nash, still waiting for you to say why you believe the Iraq war was about oil.
Oh. well, we're in confrence on the mother ship.
the consensus is "resistance is futile".
-
From a couple of pages ago,
Originally posted by Torque
20/20 hindsight brought on after a crude character assassination attempt by the pentagon, and information that the demise of unscom was the cia's doing.
Hey Torque, I hope you don't take all what Ritter says to the bank.
In a Frontline interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/butler.html) , Richard Butler, Ritter's boss in UNSCOM said, "I mean this, in all friendliness towards Scott--he really ought to sort out his thinking. In all objectivity, if you were to lay those materials out on the table and do a textural analysis and say, what is this guy saying? What caused what? The CIA? The U.S.A? Richard Butler? The wicked Security Council? You will find four or five different chains of reasoning, all of which are contradictory. He doesn't even know which one to choose, at any given time."
-
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, 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.
-
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 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/butler.html) , 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do you dispute that number?
What part of
I'm not disputing Gixer's bodycount
did you not understand?
-
. 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.
-
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!".
-
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.
-
And it is self-evident to me that your shame of your governments actions has driven you to make these unsupportable accusations regarding national jealousy.
...see were such arguements lead? ;)
-
My only question is, why is Steve jealous of Canada? Like, get over it Steve, or apply for citizenship. This constant foaming at the mouth only shows your jealousy for what it is.
-
My only question is, why is Steve jealous of Canada?
You kiddin? I love Canada. Don't have a bad thing to say about it.
Enjoyed each and every visit there. I guess if that's jealousy, you got me. :)
-
No amount of sweet talkin' is gonna get your citizenship papers processed faster, Steve. Nice try though! :)
My only question is, Steve, why do you hate America?
-
Sometimes, when I'm in Saskatchewan shooting from the pit at an endlessly incoming wave of geese, I think it'd be nice to be Canadian.
But other times, like when Sax and Beem tell me that they expect all the snow to be melted by the end of June I'm not so sure.
I think I'll just stay here and shoot endlessly incoming geese in the Dakotas from now on.
-
Originally posted by Steve
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.
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.
LMAO
So your now comparing civilian deaths under US rule to Sadam and that it's not quite as bad as during his role so the Iraqis must be better off.
What on earth gives you the idea that I'm jealous of the US? Just because you have a biggest miss-used military in the past 60 years? :lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So your now comparing civilian deaths under US rule to Sadam and that it's not quite as bad as during his role so the Iraqis must be better off.
So your thought is that a higher death count under Saddam is preferable?
-
What Gixer is saying is that he KNOWS the Iraqi people were happier and more content being killed by Saddam. The reason he KNOWS this is because he lives in New Zealand, where they get the "real" scoop about world events.
He also loves communism in China and Vietnam and KNOWS that people who live in those places are perfectly happy and content. Hey, he has been to China two times, he should know, right?
His girlfriend was born in China, that should be enough to assume Gixer is an expert on China.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What Gixer is saying is that he KNOWS the Iraqi people were happier and more content being killed by Saddam. The reason he KNOWS this is because he lives in New Zealand, where they get the "real" scoop about world events.
He also loves communism in China and Vietnam and KNOWS that people who live in those places are perfectly happy and content. Hey, he has been to China two times, he should know, right?
His girlfriend was born in China, that should be enough to assume Gixer is an expert on China.
Gee Nuke what happend to your earlier warm fuzzies about not making personal remarks about others or their countries. Didn't last long, you even manage to drag my girlfriend into your insults these days.
:lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So your thought is that a higher death count under Saddam is preferable?
No I think NO death count is preferable, but the death count under US admin is being compared as "not as bad" as when under Sadam. So that's kind of ironic.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Gee Nuke what happend to your earlier warm fuzzies about not making personal remarks about others or their countries. Didn't last long, you even manage to drag my girlfriend into your insults these days.
:lol
...-Gixer
I didn't attack your country, you or your girlfriend. Try again.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I didn't attack your country, you or your girlfriend. Try again.
Do you actually read your own posts?
Try sarcastic insults then. If you still don't read it that way then I suggest you shutup.
....-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
No I think NO death count is preferable, but the death count under US admin is being compared as "not as bad" as when under Sadam. So that's kind of ironic.
...-Gixer
What you are saying is that you would rather Saddam be in charge. You probably think the Iraqis were better off living under Saddam's rule.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Do you actually read your own posts?
Try sarcastic insults then. If you still don't read it that way then I suggest you shutup.
....-Gixer
Well, I write my own posts :lol
Who writes yours?
I didn't make any attack against you, your girlfriend or your country. I used your dumb-arse arguments against you though.
You claimed to know all about China because you went there two times and you have a girlfriend who was born there.
You claimed that Americans do not get "real" news, yet you somehow get the "real" news in New Zealand.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What you are saying is that you would rather Saddam be in charge. You probably think the Iraqis were better off living under Saddam's rule.
Well if you look at the situation Iraq is in today it's arguable that they wern't any worse off.
But to be honest Nuke, I really don't have any interest in discussions with you. They always just degenerate into mud slinging within a few posts.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well if you look at the situation Iraq is in today it's arguable that they wern't any worse off.
But to be honest Nuke, I really don't have any interest in discussions with you. They always just degenerate into mud slinging within a few posts.
...-Gixer
You have no interest in discussing anything with anyone. All you do is bash America whenever you can, then flee like a girl when you can't back up your whines.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You claimed to know all about China because you went there two times and you have a girlfriend who was born there.
Well Nuke you seem to have strong opinons on China and I doubt you've eaten Chinese Takeways more then twice let alone actually visit the people,study their culture,history and actually learn something.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You have no interest in discussing anything with anyone. All you do is bash America whenever you can, then flee like a girl when you can't back up your whines.
Where did I say anyone? Please try and read before replying.
..-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well Nuke you seem to have strong opinons on China and I doubt you've eaten Chinese Takeways more then twice let alone actually visit the people,study their culture,history and actually learn something.
...-Gixer
See, this is what I mean. You have ZERO clue about my knowledge of China.
You have been to China two times, and know you are an expert on China.
I think I'll travel to Russia two times so I can become an expert on the people and their history.
Gixer, you are a simpleton who thinks that the poeple of Iraq were better off under Saddam, that the Chinese and Vietnamese people are perfectly free under communism, and that the US is the main source of evil in the world.
That's you in a nutshell.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You have been to China two times, and know you are an expert on China.
An expert comapred to your short sighted views and opinions yes.
As for the rest of your nutshell you only got one part right. ;)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
No I think NO death count is preferable, but the death count under US admin is being compared as "not as bad" as when under Sadam. So that's kind of ironic.
...-Gixer
So the death toll is less than what it was. So the death toll is closer to the preferable level of zero. So people are alive today who would not have been otherwise.
If I came up with a treatment that compared to the present lowered the mortality rate for cancer I would call that progress, not irony.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
An expert comapred to your short sighted views and opinions yes.
As for the rest of your nutshell you only got one part right. ;)
...-Gixer
Gixer, you are the ultimate idealistic pathetic moron. I'd love it if you were made to live under the conditions you defend.
For instance, I'd love for you to have lived under Saddam, in Vietnam as the communists took over, or in your beloved China.
I find you to be of low intelligence.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, you are the ultimate idealistic pathetic moron.
I find you to be of low intelligence.
See, what happened to the warm fuzzies?? You can only handle a couple posts before you start resorting to insults. It's impossible to have a debate in any thread without insults.
I could be talking about flightsims and you'll still jump in whining about that argument over china,vietnam etc. Your like a stuck CD like someone else remarked so well.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
See, what happened to the warm fuzzies?? You can only handle a couple posts before you start resorting to insults. It's impossible to have a debate in any thread without insults.
I could be talking about flightsims and you'll still jump in whining about that argument over china,vietnam etc. Your like a stuck CD like someone else remarked so well.
...-Gixer
Gixer, I have never commented in your flight sim posts. Your problem is that you blindly hate America, you have no clue about the world outside of sheepland, and you are a dim-whitted fool.
That's what I honestly think of you. I think that you are a dim whitted fool who needs to grow up.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, I have never commented in your flight sim posts. Your problem is that you blindly hate America, you have no clue about the world outside of sheepland, and you are a dim-whitted fool.
That's what I honestly think of you. I think that you are a dim whitted fool who needs to grow up.
flighsim posts I was using that as a sarcastic example only. Duh.
As for the rest of your posts, you seem to be suffering from a very short memory, you can't even recall what you've said let alone anyone else. So what happend to the warm fuzzies? :lol
"Of all my posts since I have been around, I have really tried to be careful and not bash anyone's country or people themselves. I don't know of any time when I have bashed anyone's country."
Nuke.
...-Gixer
-
New Zealand is your country, yet you have to move to Australia to get a job. God bless you. Thank God you didn't have to live under Saddam, communist China or Vietnam.
-
About ten years ago I used to know a guy living in America, moved here from New Zealand. He was a nice guy, but always *****ed about how much he missed his horsey and house in New Zealand.
He never could explain why he did not just move back to the paradise he'd left.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
New Zealand is your country, yet you have to move to Australia to get a job. God bless you. Thank God you didn't have to live under Saddam, communist China or Vietnam.
Actually I'm moving to Australia as part of a promotion within the same company to work on new projects. And I'll continue with my second job while I'm there as well. :)
You seem obsessed with china and vietnam like some sort of child hissy fit. Like I said every thread, you can't help mention it.
How's being self employed, sold the bike yet?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Actually I'm moving to Australia as part of a promotion within the same company to work on new projects. And I'll continue with my second job while I'm there as well. :)
You seem obsessed with china and vietnam like some sort of child hissy fit. Like I said every thread, you can't help mention it.
How's being self employed, sold the bike yet?
...-Gixer
Self employed is the only way to go, and I didn't try to sell the bike.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
About ten years ago I used to know a guy living in America, moved here from New Zealand. He was a nice guy, but always *****ed about how much he missed his horsey and house in New Zealand.
He never could explain why he did not just move back to the paradise he'd left.
Funny story.
About 10 years ago our neighbours for 15 years were American. From Arizona. And I never heard them mention missing Arizona once let alone talking about their horse and house. :lol
C'mon Nuke we all have little stories about "a guy" we use to know.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Self employed is the only way to go, and I didn't try to sell the bike.
Not after you dropped it that is. :lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Funny story.
About 10 years ago our neighbours for 15 years were American. From Arizona. And I never heard them mention missing Arizona once let alone talking about their horse and house. :lol
C'mon Nuke we all have little stories about "a guy" we use to know.
...-Gixer
Only the guy I knew was a real person and still lives here. He told grand stories about how great NZ was, he had a horsey and everything. Everything was always great in NZ, yet he didn't go back and never attempted too.
Lot's of people live in America and will never go back to the chit-holes they left.
My brothers wife came from Sudan. She swore up and down that she had the best life there.....she refused to become a US citizen until 911 scared the crap out of her and she thought she could be deported.
Funny how people are attached to their countries, yet would never want to live in them.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Not after you dropped it that is. :lol
...-Gixer
I dropped it, but it only damaged the two left turn signals and scratched the left rear shock. I replaced all of those for about $350.00, and it's still like new.
I'll take a pic if you'd like. I ride it more often now as well.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Only the guy I knew was a real person and still lives here.
Nuke it's laughable.
The guy I knew was a real person too, and he'd still live here if hadn't of died of hepatitis.
Typically you think I'm just making it up and throw in a couple of insults for good measure..
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Nuke it's laughable.
The guy I knew was a real person too, and he'd still live here if hadn't of died of hepatitis.
Typically you think I'm just making it up and throw in a couple of insults for good measure..
...-Gixer
Maybe he'd still be alive if he hadn't moved to NZ and got hepatitus from you sheep fuggers.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Maybe he'd still be alive if he hadn't moved to NZ and got hepatitus from you sheep fuggers.
Actually he got it while in South America somewhere, I can't recall more as he never talked about it and I was overseas at the time.. So your attempt at humour isn't even close.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Actually he got it while in South America somewhere, I can't recall more as he never talked about it and I was overseas at the time.. So your attempt at humour isn't even close.
...-Gixer
The point is that he got hepatitus in some chit-hole country, more than likely.
-
Well like any disease can happen to anyone, anywhere.
How come your ignore list is just about half of those that post in the O Club on a regular basis? :lol
You'll only have yourself to talk to at that this rate. Though glad to see my name is on there too. :)
...-Gixer
-
No I think NO death count is preferable, but the death count under US admin is being compared as "not as bad" as when under Sadam. So that's kind of ironic.
Most people can agree that less is "not as bad" you're just so wrapped up in super power envy that you are unable to admit this.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Most people can agree that less is "not as bad" you're just so wrapped up in super power envy that you are unable to admit this.
Why are you so fixed on this "power envy" thing that's dosn't even make the slightest sense. I don'y envy anything about the US and it's power or no power.
...-Gixer
-
Steve,
Actually it's quite amusing I'm wondering whether it's an physcological assesment that you've researched and then come up with "power envy" to attach to anyone that disagrees with anything about the US.
Or whether it's a line you've read from a super hero comic and thought was pretty cool.
Personally I'd say it's the later. :lol
...-Gixer
-
Why are you so fixed on this "power envy" thing that's dosn't even make the slightest sense
It's not my problem if you can't make sense of simple English nor am I interested in explaining it to you. Suffice it to say you have it, big time.
-
Originally posted by Steve
It's not my problem if you can't make sense of simple English nor am I interested in explaining it to you. Suffice it to say you have it, big time.
I can understand your "catchy phrase" it just makes no sense on how it's implied.
I know it's tough Steve, your country is heading for a trillion dollar deficit and little New Zealand has a budget surplus. So I think your suffering from "surplus envy" and not big enough to admit it. :lol
...-Gixer
-
arpgh arpgh arpgh..says the wittel bwoys from that island where they sent all the retarded criminals who got caught...
Well if you look at the situation Iraq is in today it's arguable that they wern't any worse off.
gixer u are a first class maroon ^
Stalin was a great guy too..Hell With your logic North korean peopel are having a party!!
and for you to compare that little country you live in....If it all burned up and fell into a dark hole...would it matter...NO..
so comparing your "budget" to the ALMIGHTY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...................... ..hahahahhahaah...ya..
thats like comparing a ysr 50 to a 2005 Gxr 1000......ya they both have wheels...
but funny the more you type..the more ammo there is to bury you......LOLOLOLOOLO..better off..
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I can understand your "catchy phrase" it just makes no sense on how it's implied.
I know it's tough Steve, your country is heading for a trillion dollar deficit and little New Zealand has a budget surplus. So I think your suffering from "surplus envy" and not big enough to admit it. :lol
...-Gixer
Good shot! :)
culero (does envy the budget surplus)
-
So I think your suffering from "surplus envy" and not big enough to admit it.
Actually, I've heard from friends that have visited there that NZ is cool place to live and I'd like to visit it myself. I bet it's a great place to live.
As far as surplus envy well... A balanced budget being necessary to a healthy economy is a fallacy. I'm not saying a balanced budget is a bad thing but Jimmy Carter went for the whole balanced budget myth and caused our economy to tank.
Our economy is doing extremely well. Thanks for your concern, although it is greatly misplaced. I have never had more money and been less in debt in my adult life. Our economy continues to grow and improve to even better heights in spite of all you budget weenies and your bleating. Sadly for you haters out there, we are doing very well.
Conclusion: Like all fiscally savvy people, I realize that the budget deficit is hardly the ogre the unwashed masses(you among them) claim it to be. It is of little concern. If you want to try to take a stab at the dollar you might just get my attention. Here, let me get you started on the right track: I'm concerned that China has tied their currency to our and how it could devalue the dollar further. There, go from there about how stable your currency is.... you might be able to score points with that.
-
Good shot
A note from the unwashed masses... my point is proven. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Steve
A note from the unwashed masses... my point is proven. Thanks.
Oh, my. I feel so...defeated.
Really! :D
culero (clue: that one sailed over your head, dood)
-
Originally posted by Steve
Our economy is doing extremely well. Thanks for your concern, although it is greatly misplaced. I have never had more money and been less in debt in my adult life.
True Deficit is fine short term and within limits for the current generation e.g you. It's the next generation that has to pay for it. How much is the interest at the moment? 20 billion a year?
Deficit is one thing but growing to a trillion is another just for the interest payments alone. Even for an economy as big as the US. Maybe not today but somewhere down the line it's going to need paying and it's going to hurt.
....-Gixer
-
Deficit is one thing but growing to a trillion is another just for the interest payments alone. Even for an economy as big as the US. Maybe not today but somewhere down the line it's going to need paying and it's going to hurt.
How do you know? Maybe economy will continue to boom and tax revenue at current rates will take care of things. You simply don't know. You're an alarmist like so many others. We are in a big deficit yet the economy keeps on booming along. You have no experience w/ our deficit, no evidence to support your assumption.... you don't know.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
arpgh arpgh arpgh..says the wittel bwoys from that island where they sent all the retarded criminals who got caught...
gixer u are a first class maroon ^
Stalin was a great guy too..Hell With your logic North korean peopel are having a party!!
and for you to compare that little country you live in....If it all burned up and fell into a dark hole...would it matter...NO..
so comparing your "budget" to the ALMIGHTY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...................... ..hahahahhahaah...ya..
thats like comparing a ysr 50 to a 2005 Gxr 1000......ya they both have wheels...
but funny the more you type..the more ammo there is to bury you......LOLOLOLOOLO..better off..
Look how my favorite online translator translated this :
Pluviôse, irrité contre la ville entière,
De son urne à grands flots verse un froid ténébreux
Aux pâles habitants du voisin cimetière
Et la mortalité sur les faubourgs brumeux.
Mon chat sur le carreau cherchant une litière
Agite sans repos son corps maigre et galeux;
L'âme d'un vieux poète erre dans la gouttière
Avec la triste voix d'un fantôme frileux.
Le bourdon se lamente, et la bûche enfumée
Accompagne en fausset la pendule enrhumée,
Cependant qu'en un jeu plein de sales parfums,
Héritage fatal d'une vieille hydropique,
Le beau valet de cœur et la dame de pique
Causent sinistrement de leurs amours défunts.
strange no ?
:p
-
Originally posted by Steve
How do you know? Maybe economy will continue to boom and tax revenue at current rates will take care of things. You simply don't know. You're an alarmist like so many others. We are in a big deficit yet the economy keeps on booming along. You have no experience w/ our deficit, no evidence to support your assumption.... you don't know.
Tax revenue can't take care of the deficit alone, especially if you continue to spend more then is made through the economy no matter how big or long the boom. I don't have a crystal ball and I can only support my opinion on what I learnt from my Economics lectures but we did use the US economy as a comparison to others so I do have a little undestanding of how it works.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by straffo
Look how my favorite online translator translated this :
Pluviôse, irrité contre la ville entière,
De son urne à grands flots verse un froid ténébreux
Aux pâles habitants du voisin cimetière
Et la mortalité sur les faubourgs brumeux.
Mon chat sur le carreau cherchant une litière
Agite sans repos son corps maigre et galeux;
L'âme d'un vieux poète erre dans la gouttière
Avec la triste voix d'un fantôme frileux.
Le bourdon se lamente, et la bûche enfumée
Accompagne en fausset la pendule enrhumée,
Cependant qu'en un jeu plein de sales parfums,
Héritage fatal d'une vieille hydropique,
Le beau valet de cœur et la dame de pique
Causent sinistrement de leurs amours défunts.
strange no ?
:p
Not really.. I still cant read it.. :)